| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Skepticus" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 08:18:59 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The burden of proof |
Jeff Young wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message news:<PW_9c.126828$Cb.1457952@attbi_s51>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <OX_7c.77490$po.634024@attbi_s52>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Nobody has to prove the negation, sir.
Then nobody has to accept it either.
The null is the only reasonable default presumption in any case of
existential proposition, ...
I deny that the null is the only reasonable default presumption in any
case of existential proposition.
That's your bad, since the basic principles of valid argument (logic)
are not existential propositions, and there is definitely a basic
principle of valid argument (logic) that governs this situation. That is
why the null is the only reasonable default presumption in any case of
an existential proposition.
The null, "There is no X" (whatever X is imagined to be, but is not in
evidence) is the only reasonable presumption, sir. We cannot have a
default presumption that the hypothesis is true. That would be the
fallacy of begging the question and shifting the burden of proof to the
denial (the negation).
See the SETI (Search for ETI) web site
< http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm >
for an explanation of why the null is the only reasonable presumption.
That presumption stands forever, or until knocked down by some ETI spoor
pointed out, whichever occurs first. This is what is called the
systematic, logical, scientific method of investigation. Ever heard of it?
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
01 Apr 2004 02:22:01 PM |
|
|
In article <nxVac.54398$K91.132740@attbi_s02>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Jeff Young wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message
news:<PW_9c.126828$Cb.1457952@attbi_s51>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <OX_7c.77490$po.634024@attbi_s52>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Nobody has to prove the negation, sir.
Then nobody has to accept it either.
The null is the only reasonable default presumption in any case of
existential proposition, ...
A reasonable presumption is to presume the actual fact, namely, that the
truth is not known.
In any case, a presumption, being without proof should be rejected by
agnostics: agnostics shouldn't claim to believe or know what they cannot
prove.
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all
amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he
can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is
all that is essential to Agnosticism.
That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the
contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought
to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence."
-- Thomas Huxley in "Agnosticism and Christianity" 1899
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, says men ought to believe that gods are
impossible without logically satisfactory evidence.
Naughty,naughty, of Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
02 Apr 2004 10:49:13 PM |
|
|
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message news:<nxVac.54398$K91.132740@attbi_s02>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message news:<PW_9c.126828$Cb.1457952@attbi_s51>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <OX_7c.77490$po.634024@attbi_s52>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Nobody has to prove the negation, sir.
Then nobody has to accept it either.
The null is the only reasonable default presumption in any case of
existential proposition, ...
I deny that the null is the only reasonable default presumption in any
case of existential proposition.
That's your bad,
I deny that that's my bad. There. Once again. Denials incur _no_
burden of proof according to _you_, and the denial is the _required_
default presumption, again according to _you_.
<snip Septic's failure to meet his burden of proof in the face of my
denial>
Once again Septic is self-refuted.
And Septic Donny AllFried remains the completely self-refuting,
fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of
alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Skepticus" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
05 Apr 2004 10:53:33 AM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message news:<nxVac.54398$K91.132740@attbi_s02>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message news:<PW_9c.126828$Cb.1457952@attbi_s51>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <OX_7c.77490$po.634024@attbi_s52>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Nobody has to prove the negation, sir.
Then nobody has to accept it either.
The null is the only reasonable default presumption in any case of
existential proposition, ...
I deny that the null is the only reasonable default presumption in any
case of existential proposition.
That's your bad, since the basic principles of valid argument (logic) are not existential propositions, and there is definitely a basic principle of valid argument (logic) that governs this situation. That is why the null is the only reasonable default presumption in any case of an existential proposition.
The null, "There is no X" (whatever X is imagined to be, but is not in
evidence) is the only reasonable presumption, sir. We cannot have a
default presumption that the hypothesis is true. That would be the
fallacy of begging the question and shifting the burden of proof to the
denial (the negation).
See the SETI (Search for ETI) web site
< http://www.setileague.org/editor/null.htm >
for an explanation of why the null is the only reasonable presumption.
That presumption stands forever, or until knocked down by some ETI spoor
pointed out, whichever occurs first. This is what is called the
systematic, logical, scientific method of investigation. Ever heard of it?
I deny that that's my bad. There. Once again. Denials incur _no_
burden of proof according to _you_, and the denial is the _required_
default presumption, again according to _you_.
There is no denying the basic principles of valid argument (logic), sir.
Snipping the one pointed out to you above does not
make it disappear. You'll have to face up to it sooner or later. Is
there something about this basic principle of valid argument (logic) you
have trouble grasping?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
05 Apr 2004 01:07:46 PM |
|
|
In article <1ifcc.73544$gA5.893658@attbi_s03>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
There is no denying the basic principles of valid argument (logic), sir.
Then why does Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, keep denying them?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
06 Apr 2004 10:47:59 AM |
|
|
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message news:<1ifcc.73544$gA5.893658@attbi_s03>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message news:<nxVac.54398$K91.132740@attbi_s02>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message news:<PW_9c.126828$Cb.1457952@attbi_s51>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <OX_7c.77490$po.634024@attbi_s52>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Nobody has to prove the negation, sir.
Then nobody has to accept it either.
The null is the only reasonable default presumption in any case of
existential proposition, ...
I deny that the null is the only reasonable default presumption in any
case of existential proposition.
That's your bad,
I deny that that's my bad. There. Once again. Denials incur _no_
burden of proof according to _you_, and the denial is the _required_
default presumption, again according to _you_.
There is no denying
I deny that there is no denying.
the basic principles of valid argument
I deny that "that's your bad" and "the null is the only reasonable
default presumption in any case of existential proposition[sic]" are
basic principles of valid argument. I also deny that any meta-logical
proposition such as "X is a principle of logic" is a principle of
logic itself. So you're completely self-refuted, Septic.
OTOH, You, Septic, deny actual principles of valid argument on a daily
basis. (Shall I repost my demolition of your "If not A then not B"
double-negation "principle"?)
In short, you lose.
And Septic Donny AllFried remains the completely self-refuted,
fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of
alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
07 Apr 2004 03:20:14 PM |
|
|
On 4/6/04 8:47 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404060747.63dafca5@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message
news:<1ifcc.73544$gA5.893658@attbi_s03>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message
news:<nxVac.54398$K91.132740@attbi_s02>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message
news:<PW_9c.126828$Cb.1457952@attbi_s51>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <OX_7c.77490$po.634024@attbi_s52>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Nobody has to prove the negation, sir.
Then nobody has to accept it either.
The null is the only reasonable default presumption in any case of
existential proposition, ...
I deny that the null is the only reasonable default presumption in any
case of existential proposition.
That's your bad,
I deny that that's my bad. There. Once again. Denials incur _no_
burden of proof according to _you_, and the denial is the _required_
default presumption, again according to _you_.
There is no denying
I deny that there is no denying.
the basic principles of valid argument
I deny that "that's your bad" and "the null is the only reasonable
default presumption in any case of existential proposition[sic]" are
basic principles of valid argument. I also deny that any meta-logical
proposition such as "X is a principle of logic" is a principle of
logic itself.
Oh, but there definitely are principles of valid argument (logic), sir. Lots
of them. Go sit in on any Philosophy 101 (or maybe 102) class.
How could people ever successfully reason together as you and the atheist
do, and the atheist always show that your arguments are fallacious, without
the principles of valid argument (logic)?
Consider this example from Copi's logic textbook concerning this principle
that the only reasonable default presumption is the null, the denial, the
negation in any case where an existential proposition is stated, since
shifting the burden of proof from the proponents of the hypothetical thing
to Galileo (or any other non-believer) is logical fallacy (argument _ad
ignorantiam_), as Copi points out:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
08 Apr 2004 09:41:25 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BC99B08F.2DC6%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/6/04 8:47 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404060747.63dafca5@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message
news:<1ifcc.73544$gA5.893658@attbi_s03>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message
news:<nxVac.54398$K91.132740@attbi_s02>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote in message
news:<PW_9c.126828$Cb.1457952@attbi_s51>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <OX_7c.77490$po.634024@attbi_s52>,
Skepticus <skep@theatheism.web> wrote:
Nobody has to prove the negation, sir.
Then nobody has to accept it either.
The null is the only reasonable default presumption in any case of
existential proposition, ...
I deny that the null is the only reasonable default presumption in any
case of existential proposition.
That's your bad,
I deny that that's my bad. There. Once again. Denials incur _no_
burden of proof according to _you_, and the denial is the _required_
default presumption, again according to _you_.
There is no denying
I deny that there is no denying.
the basic principles of valid argument
I deny that "that's your bad" and "the null is the only reasonable
default presumption in any case of existential proposition[sic]" are
basic principles of valid argument. I also deny that any meta-logical
proposition such as "X is a principle of logic" is a principle of
logic itself.
Oh, but there definitely are principles of valid argument (logic),
Although true, that statement is not itself a principle of logic,
being a purely meta-logical statement, just as I said.
IOW, I deny that what you have just written is a principle of valid
argument or of logic. Try again.
I also deny that you have correctly understood several actual
principles of logic. You have yet to meet your burden in the face of
that denial, according to _your_own_ stated position: that denial is
the _required_ default position and incurs _no_ burden whatsoever.
IOW, your self-refutation is once again completely exposed.
<snip Fallacy of Strawman from Septic>
<snip Copi quote that completely fails to address, let alone rebut,
any of the issues above>
And Septic Donny AllFried thus remains the completely self-refuting,
fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of
alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always. Try again.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
08 Apr 2004 06:19:57 PM |
|
|
On 4/8/04 7:41 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404080641.306780da@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BC99B08F.2DC6%dix@nospam.com>...
Oh, but there definitely are principles of valid argument (logic),
Although true, that statement is not itself a principle of logic ...
So what? I didn't claim that statement is a principle of logic. It is just
another ordinary, run of the mill statement that is known to be true (known
to be in accord with the actual state of affairs in this particular case, as
you stipulate).
Nothing in this fallacious diversion of yours ...
["The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp]
.... Nothing in this fallacious diversion of yours alters the fact that there
is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is always on the
affirmative of any existential proposition of the form, "X might exist"
(where X is anything imaginable, but not evident).
Consider this example from Copi's logic textbook concerning this principle
that the only reasonable default presumption is the null, the denial, the
negation in any case where an existential proposition is stated, since
shifting the burden of proof from the proponents of the hypothetical thing
to Galileo (or any other non-believer) is logical fallacy (argument _ad
ignorantiam_), as Copi points out:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
09 Apr 2004 03:05:48 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BC9B2C2C.328E%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/8/04 7:41 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404080641.306780da@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BC99B08F.2DC6%dix@nospam.com>...
Oh, but there definitely are principles of valid argument (logic),
Although true, that statement is not itself a principle of logic ...
there
is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is always on the
affirmative of any existential proposition
I deny that there is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is
always on the affirmative of any existential proposition. There
exists no such principle of logic. There. Burden's all yours,
Septic, according to your own private principles. Now you have to
belly up and prove what you say. Hop to it. Or not.
<snip Fallacy of Diversion from Septic from the above point>
And Septic Donny AllFried remains the completely self-refuted,
fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of
alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
14 Apr 2004 10:58:44 AM |
|
|
(Jeff Young) wrote in message news:<6f553a4.0404091205.6c13152f@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BC9B2C2C.328E%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/8/04 7:41 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404080641.306780da@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
< > wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BC99B08F.2DC6%dix@nospam.com>...
Oh, but there definitely are principles of valid argument (logic),
Although true, that statement is not itself a principle of logic ...
there
is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is always on the
affirmative of any existential proposition
I deny that there is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is
always on the affirmative of any existential proposition. There
exists no such principle of logic. There. Burden's all yours,
Septic, according to your own private principles. Now you have to
belly up and prove what you say. Hop to it. Or not.
Evidently, it's "not". And Septic self-defeats yet again. Heh.
<snip Fallacy of Diversion from Septic from the above point>
And Septic Donny AllFried remains the completely self-refuted,
fallacious, mendacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of
alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
As always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
14 Apr 2004 12:19:31 PM |
|
|
On 4/14/04 8:58 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404140758.5017c0a1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message
news:<6f553a4.0404091205.6c13152f@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BC9B2C2C.328E%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/8/04 7:41 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404080641.306780da@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BC99B08F.2DC6%dix@nospam.com>...
Oh, but there definitely are principles of valid argument (logic),
Although true, that statement is not itself a principle of logic ...
there
is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is always on the
affirmative of any existential proposition
I deny that there is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is
always on the affirmative of any existential proposition.
Study up:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
Anything there to which you can find sound reason to take exception?
Peace out
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
15 Apr 2004 01:52:56 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCA2C0B3.C42%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/14/04 8:58 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404140758.5017c0a1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message
news:<6f553a4.0404091205.6c13152f@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BC9B2C2C.328E%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/8/04 7:41 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404080641.306780da@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BC99B08F.2DC6%dix@nospam.com>...
Oh, but there definitely are principles of valid argument (logic),
Although true, that statement is not itself a principle of logic ...
there
is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is always on the
affirmative of any existential proposition
I deny that there is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is
always on the affirmative of any existential proposition.
Study up:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Galileo himself did not prove that he and the astronomers were
actually seeing mountains and valleys.
<snip failure to demonstrate any logical principle regarding
existential propositions in particular>
I deny that you've demonstrated that there is a principle of logic
that the burden of proof is always on the affirmative of any
existential proposition. When do you plan to so demonstrate, if ever?
Septic Donny AllFried remains the completely self-refuted, fallacious,
mendacious, confused, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of
alt.atheism and Bellingham, Washington. As always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
15 Apr 2004 04:11:39 PM |
|
|
On 4/15/04 11:52 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404151052.575203b1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCA2C0B3.C42%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/14/04 8:58 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404140758.5017c0a1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message
news:<6f553a4.0404091205.6c13152f@posting.google.com>...
I deny that there is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is
always on the affirmative of any existential proposition.
Study up:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Galileo himself did not prove that he and the astronomers were
actually seeing mountains and valleys.
You have things bass ackwards again. The fact of the matter is that Copi
uses this as an example of theolog logical fallacy, since the theologs could
not prove that their hypothetical (speculative, 'might be') imaginings, God,
and God's magic invisible crystalline substance exist, all they could do is
argue from ignorance that their hypothesis Galileo could not prove false.
Study up:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
Anything there to which you can find sound reason to take exception?
Peace out
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
19 Apr 2004 09:37:56 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCA4489B.102D%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/15/04 11:52 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404151052.575203b1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCA2C0B3.C42%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/14/04 8:58 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404140758.5017c0a1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message
news:<6f553a4.0404091205.6c13152f@posting.google.com>...
I deny that there is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is
always on the affirmative of any existential proposition.
Study up:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Galileo himself did not prove that he and the astronomers were
actually seeing mountains and valleys.
You have things bass ackwards again.
I deny that I have anything "bass ackwards".
The fact of the matter is that Copi
uses this as an example of theolog logical fallacy,
Copi's intent is irrelevant to the fact that under _your_
interpretation, Galileo himself failed to prove the positive
existential proposition that there were "mountains and valleys" on the
moon. The _required_ default presumption at that time, according to
_you_, Septic, was: "there are no mountains and valleys on the moon".
After all, there are no canals on Mars even though canals were seen on
Mars when viewed through a telescope. This _proves_ that viewing
"mountains and valleys" on the moon through a telescope is
insufficient proof of their existence.
Since Galileo failed to bear his own burden, according to your
principles, the question of crystalline substance is moot. You've
thrown out the baby with the bath water so to speak, Septic.
And Septic Donny AllFried remains the completely refuted, mendacious,
and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism and
Bellingham, Washington, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
19 Apr 2004 02:45:09 PM |
|
|
Jeff Young wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCA4489B.102D%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/15/04 11:52 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404151052.575203b1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCA2C0B3.C42%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/14/04 8:58 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404140758.5017c0a1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message
news:<6f553a4.0404091205.6c13152f@posting.google.com>...
I deny that there is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is
always on the affirmative of any existential proposition.
Study up:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Galileo himself did not prove that he and the astronomers were
actually seeing mountains and valleys.
You have things bass ackwards again.
I deny that I have anything "bass ackwards".
That's no skin off my nose. You're just making yourself look silly for
not getting the facts straight here in this case.
The fact of the matter is that Copi
uses this as an example of theolog logical fallacy,
Copi's intent is irrelevant to the fact that under _your_
interpretation,
What 'interpretation'?? All I did was post the quote from _Introduction
to Logic_. See below.
Galileo himself failed to prove the positive
existential proposition that there were "mountains and valleys" on the
moon.
You still have it bass ackwards, genius. It isn't the existence of
mountains and valleys on the moon that is the hypothesis in question in
this case.
Mountains and valleys are the facts in evidence, observed by all. There
is nothing hypothetical (speculative, 'might be' imaginings)about them
at all, genius.
What is in question is the theolog hypothesis that there might be a
magic invisible God who installed a magic invisible crystalline
substance in all the valleys of the moon to make of it a perfect sphere,
and (the theologs argue _ad ignorantiam_) this hypothesis Galileo could
not prove false:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon
was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long
taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be
mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all
its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
20 Apr 2004 09:30:47 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<9%Vgc.28762$ru4.27010@attbi_s52>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCA4489B.102D%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/15/04 11:52 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404151052.575203b1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCA2C0B3.C42%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/14/04 8:58 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404140758.5017c0a1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message
news:<6f553a4.0404091205.6c13152f@posting.google.com>...
I deny that there is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is
always on the affirmative of any existential proposition.
Study up:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Galileo himself did not prove that he and the astronomers were
actually seeing mountains and valleys.
You have things bass ackwards again.
I deny that I have anything "bass ackwards".
That's no skin off my nose.
I deny that it's no skin off your nose. Because you insist that
denials carry no burden whatsoever. Therefore you do bear full burden
of proof in the face of my denials. Unless you're a complete
hypocrite. Either way, skin off your nose.
The fact of the matter is that Copi
uses this as an example of theolog logical fallacy,
Copi's intent is irrelevant to the fact that under _your_
interpretation,
What 'interpretation'?
Your interpretation of a bogus reason that the "theologs" bear the
only burden of proof in the scenario presented. Your bogus reason
applies equally to Galileo himself, as shown. Any more question on
this point?
Galileo himself failed to prove the positive
existential proposition that there were "mountains and valleys" on the
moon.
You still have it bass ackwards,
I already denied that I have anything "bass ackwards". Full burden
remains yours. Is this Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum all you've
got left?
Mountains and valleys are the facts in evidence,
Bzzzzzt. Not at the time they weren't. Fallacy of Anachronism from
Septic. And Fallacy of Petitio Principii from Septic.
<snip more Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum from Septic; again>
And Septic Donny AllFried remains the completely fallacious, impotent,
mendacious, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism
and Bellingham, Washington, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
20 Apr 2004 10:38:59 AM |
|
|
Jeff Wrong wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<9%Vgc.28762$ru4.27010@attbi_s52>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<BCA4489B.102D%dix@nospam.com>...
Mountains and valleys are the facts in evidence,
Bzzzzzt. Not at the time they weren't.
Yes they were, genius, as was discovered by anyone examining the moon
with Galileo's new instrument.
You still have it bass ackwards. It isn't the existence of mountains and
valleys on the moon that is the hypothesis in question in this case.
What is in question is the theolog hypothesis that there might be a
magic invisible God who installed a magic invisible crystalline
substance in all the valleys of the moon to make of it a perfect sphere,
and (the theologs argue _ad ignorantiam_) this hypothesis Galileo could
not prove false:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon
was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long
taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be
mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all
its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
20 Apr 2004 03:23:14 PM |
|
|
In article <nubhc.34142$yD1.99007@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Jeff Wrong wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<9%Vgc.28762$ru4.27010@attbi_s52>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BCA4489B.102D%dix@nospam.com>...
Mountains and valleys are the facts in evidence,
Bzzzzzt. Not at the time they weren't.
Yes they were, genius, as was discovered by anyone examining the moon
with Galileo's new instrument.
There were visual images shown by Galilee's telescope consistent with
mountains and valleys, but no way to verify what was actually there.
Since such visual deceptions as mirages were known then, the visual
images alone were not sufficient to prove beyond doubt that those visual
images were being correctly interpreted.
Since then, other evidence has become available.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
25 Apr 2004 11:20:49 AM |
|
|
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-7EF339.14231420042004@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <nubhc.34142$yD1.99007@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Jeff Wrong wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<9%Vgc.28762$ru4.27010@attbi_s52>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BCA4489B.102D%dix@nospam.com>...
Mountains and valleys are the facts in evidence,
Bzzzzzt. Not at the time they weren't.
Yes they were, genius, as was discovered by anyone examining the moon
with Galileo's new instrument.
There were visual images shown by Galilee's telescope consistent with
mountains and valleys, but no way to verify what was actually there.
Since such visual deceptions as mirages were known then, the visual
images alone were not sufficient to prove beyond doubt that those visual
images were being correctly interpreted.
Since then, other evidence has become available.
Very well put.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
26 Apr 2004 01:33:47 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message news:<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-7EF339.14231420042004@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <nubhc.34142$yD1.99007@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Jeff Wrong wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<9%Vgc.28762$ru4.27010@attbi_s52>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BCA4489B.102D%dix@nospam.com>...
Mountains and valleys are the facts in evidence,
Bzzzzzt. Not at the time they weren't.
Yes they were, genius, as was discovered by anyone examining the moon
with Galileo's new instrument.
There were visual images shown by Galilee's telescope consistent with
mountains and valleys, but no way to verify what was actually there.
The view of the moon through Galileo's new instrument must have been
exceedingly clear to all concerned in order to force the theologs to
come up with their sophistry of an ad hoc hypothetically invisible
crystalline substance filling all the valleys. (Clue: There wouldn't
have been any valleys for God to hypothetically fill if it weren't for
those clearly visible mountains, which even the theologs stipulate, "We
see what appear to be mountains.")
Since such visual deceptions as mirages were known then, the visual
images alone were not sufficient to prove beyond doubt that those visual
images were being correctly interpreted.
Was there any evidece of the theolog ad hoc hypothetically invisible
crystalline substance? That's the issue, not the clearly visible
mountains on the moon, knuckelhead.
Very well put.
Sure, very well put if you are agreeing with the theolog argument from
ignorance in this case, that there might be a magic invisible God who
installed a magic invisible crystalline substance in all the valleys of
the moon to make of it a perfect sphere, and this hypothesis
(speculative, 'might be' imagining) Galileo could not prove false!
But that kind of theolog argument _ad ignorantiam_ is logical fallacy,
as Copi points out, so you are on the wrong side, the irrational true
believers' side here:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon
was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long
taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear to be
mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all
its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible crystalline
substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
27 Apr 2004 12:09:08 AM |
|
|
In article <f32jc.37897$_L6.2209095@attbi_s53>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-7EF339.14231420042004@[63.218.45.211]>...
In article <nubhc.34142$yD1.99007@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Jeff Wrong wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<9%Vgc.28762$ru4.27010@attbi_s52>...
Jeff Young wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BCA4489B.102D%dix@nospam.com>...
Mountains and valleys are the facts in evidence,
Bzzzzzt. Not at the time they weren't.
Yes they were, genius, as was discovered by anyone examining the moon
with Galileo's new instrument.
There were visual images shown by Galilee's telescope consistent with
mountains and valleys, but no way to verify what was actually there.
The view of the moon through Galileo's new instrument must have been
exceedingly clear to all concerned in order to force the theologs to
come up with their sophistry of an ad hoc hypothetically invisible
crystalline substance filling all the valleys. (Clue: There wouldn't
have been any valleys for God to hypothetically fill if it weren't for
those clearly visible mountains, which even the theologs stipulate, "We
see what appear to be mountains.")
Since such visual deceptions as mirages were known then, the visual
images alone were not sufficient to prove beyond doubt that those visual
images were being correctly interpreted.
Was there any evidece of the theolog ad hoc hypothetically invisible
crystalline substance? That's the issue, not the clearly visible
mountains on the moon, knuckelhead.
The theologists were wrong, but I am claiming that Galileo only had
visual images as evidence, and visual images were known to be sometimes
misleading, so that Galileo's case was not ironclad.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
19 Apr 2004 05:49:56 PM |
|
|
In article <9%Vgc.28762$ru4.27010@attbi_s52>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Jeff Young wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BCA4489B.102D%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/15/04 11:52 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404151052.575203b1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BCA2C0B3.C42%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/14/04 8:58 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404140758.5017c0a1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message
news:<6f553a4.0404091205.6c13152f@posting.google.com>...
I deny that there is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is
always on the affirmative of any existential proposition.
Study up:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope.
Galileo himself did not prove that he and the astronomers were
actually seeing mountains and valleys.
You have things bass ackwards again.
I deny that I have anything "bass ackwards".
That's no skin off my nose. You're just making yourself look silly for
not getting the facts straight here in this case.
The fact of the matter is that Copi
uses this as an example of theolog logical fallacy,
Copi's intent is irrelevant to the fact that under _your_
interpretation,
What ? All I did. See.
Galileo himself failed to prove the positive
existential proposition that there were "mountains and valleys" on the
moon.
You still have it bass ackwards, genius. It isn't the existence of
mountains and valleys on the moon that is the hypothesis in question in
this case.
Mountains and valleys are the facts in evidence, observed by all. There
is nothing hypothetical (speculative, 'might be' imaginings)about them
at all, genius.
Except that what one sees but cannot touch can be, and has been,
deceiving, as in mirages. It was not until quite recently, that the that
what we see though telescopes of the heavens could be confirmed.
I have rounded up and snipped most of the usual suspect Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, claims.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
15 Apr 2004 05:42:03 PM |
|
|
In article <BCA4489B.102D%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/15/04 11:52 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404151052.575203b1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BCA2C0B3.C42%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/14/04 8:58 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404140758.5017c0a1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message
news:<6f553a4.0404091205.6c13152f@posting.google.com>...
I deny that there is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is
always on the affirmative of any existential proposition.
Study up:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope.
Galileo himself did not prove that he and the astronomers were
actually seeing mountains and valleys.
You have things bass ackwards again.
Actually, it is a good point. When "seeing" things through a telescope
(a new device at that time), things which cannot be verified in any
other way, how does one demonstrate that what is seen is real? Mirages
were know to exist
The first direct evidence, other that telescopic, that what was seen was
real did not come until post WWII.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
14 Apr 2004 04:37:17 PM |
|
|
In article <BCA2C0B3.C42%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
On 4/14/04 8:58 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404140758.5017c0a1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message
news:<6f553a4.0404091205.6c13152f@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BC9B2C2C.328E%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/8/04 7:41 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404080641.306780da@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BC99B08F.2DC6%dix@nospam.com>...
Oh, but there definitely are principles of valid argument (logic),
Although true, that statement is not itself a principle of logic ...
there
is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is always on the
affirmative of any existential proposition
I deny that there is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is
always on the affirmative.
Study up:
While the affirmation of an existential proposition bears a burden of
proof, and a mere rejection (as being not proven) bears no burden, the
negation (saying that the affirmative is false) bears an equal burden of
proof, and the rejection of an unproved negation bears no more burden of
proof than the rejection of an unproved affirmation. The affirmation and
negation are symmetric in this respect.
What Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is perverting is the very proper
PRESUMPTION that one need not give serious consideration to the
existence of anything for which there is no evidence of existence at all.
This does not constitute proof of non-existence, but merely avoids
wasting time and effort on possibilities with little probability.
It is a matter of practicality, not proof.
For example, one need not give serious consideration to the existence of
Santa Claus, but it has never been unequivocally proved, at least to my
knowledge, that no Santa Claus exists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
14 Apr 2004 06:34:29 PM |
|
|
On 4/14/04 2:37 PM, in article
ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-D97492.15371714042004@[63.218.45.211], "Virgil"
<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <BCA2C0B3.C42%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
On 4/14/04 8:58 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404140758.5017c0a1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message
news:<6f553a4.0404091205.6c13152f@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BC9B2C2C.328E%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/8/04 7:41 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404080641.306780da@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BC99B08F.2DC6%dix@nospam.com>...
Oh, but there definitely are principles of valid argument (logic),
Although true, that statement is not itself a principle of logic ...
there
is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is always on the
affirmative of any existential proposition
I deny that there is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is
always on the affirmative.
Study up:
While the affirmation of an existential proposition bears a burden of
proof, and a mere rejection (as being not proven) bears no burden, the
negation (saying that the affirmative is false) bears an equal burden of
proof...
You are still mistaken. Atheists have nothing (no thing) to demonstrate,
ever, only the theists do. The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the
denial (the negation) under any pretext, as you are still trying to get away
with. Study up:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the
moon is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities
are filled in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis,
which saves the perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove
false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
Anything there to which you can find sound reason to take exception?
Peace out
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
15 Apr 2004 12:29:28 AM |
|
|
In article <BCA31894.EC6%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
On 4/14/04 2:37 PM, in article
ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-D97492.15371714042004@[63.218.45.211], "Virgil"
<ITSnetNOTcom/virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote:
In article <BCA2C0B3.C42%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
On 4/14/04 8:58 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404140758.5017c0a1@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
jientho@aol.com (Jeff Young) wrote in message
news:<6f553a4.0404091205.6c13152f@posting.google.com>...
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BC9B2C2C.328E%dix@nospam.com>...
On 4/8/04 7:41 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404080641.306780da@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BC99B08F.2DC6%dix@nospam.com>...
Oh, but there definitely are principles of valid argument (logic),
Although true, that statement is not itself a principle of logic ...
there
is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is always on the
affirmative of any existential proposition
I deny that there is a principle of logic that the burden of proof is
always on the affirmative.
Study up:
While the affirmation of an existential proposition bears a burden of
proof, and a mere rejection (as being not proven) bears no burden, the
negation (saying that the affirmative is false) bears an equal burden of
proof...
You are still mistaken. Atheists have nothing (no thing) to demonstrate
Non-responsive. I have already said that simple atheists (who merely
reject the proposition that a god must exist) are under no burden. What
I said means that those who say that it is false that there is any god
bear the same burden as those who say it is true. Study up!
Anything there to which you can find sound reason to take exception?
Yes! Your failure to read what you criticize.
Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, has argued against free will, implying
that we all merely mechanically react, without choice, to various
stimuli. In his case it may be true, since he reacts to criticism
mechanically and with no evidence of thought.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
08 Apr 2004 07:56:40 PM |
|
|
In article <BC9B2C2C.328E%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/8/04 7:41 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404080641.306780da@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<BC99B08F.2DC6%dix@nospam.com>...
Oh, but there definitely are principles of valid argument (logic),
Although true, that statement is not itself a principle of logic ...
So what? I didn't claim that statement is a principle of logic. It is just
another ordinary, run of the mill statement that is known to be true (known
to be in accord with the actual state of affairs in this particular case, as
you stipulate).
But you imply, falsely, that it was relevant criticism of a statement
which did not deny it. That is the commission of a fallacy of diversion.
And Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, does it again by cutting off the
statement that he pretends to be responding to, to hide the irrelvancy
of that pretended response.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The burden of proof |
07 Apr 2004 03:51:48 PM |
|
|
In article <BC99B08F.2DC6%dix@nospam.com>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
On 4/6/04 8:47 AM, in article
6f553a4.0404060747.63dafca5@posting.google.com, "Jeff Young"
<jientho@aol.com> wrote:
I deny that "that's your bad" and "the null is the only reasonable
default presumption in any case of existential proposition[sic]" are
basic principles of valid argument. I also deny that any meta-logical
proposition such as "X is a principle of logic" is a principle of
logic itself.
Oh, but there definitely are principles of valid argument (logic), sir. Lots
of them. Go sit in on any Philosophy 101 (or maybe 102) class.
Non-responsive. Jeff did not deny the existence of principles of logic,
so arguments for their existence are irrelevant.
How could people ever successfully reason together as you and the atheist
do, and the atheist always show that your arguments are fallacious, without
the principles of valid argument (logic)?
Contrafactual. No one has shown his arguments to be fallacious. Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, has claimed they are, but produced no
evidence, so those claims must be rejected.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
