| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
02 Aug 2003 07:56:12 AM |
| Object: |
Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xq0Ta.103614$wk6.27697@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-7FEBA0.18510221072003@blade.randori.com...
In article <g1%Sa.103338$OZ2.20261@rwcrnsc54>,
Albert Briggs <briggs@briggs.com> wrote:
Since "may or may not exist" covers all possibilities ...
All possibilities??? Are you nuts? There is no possibility of magic
invisible pixies demonstrated at all. That is just part of some nutso
delusional disorder. Why are you lending credence to the delusions of
those with an impaired contact with reality?
Hey Septic, are you saying that there are some possibilities that
"may or may not exist" does NOT cover?
possible : having an indicated potential www.m-w.com
Are you still saying that it is possible that a magic invisible sky pixie,
just part of some true-believer's delusional disorder, exists? Please
demonstrate by indicating the potential of that.
(x)(Either X exists or X does not exist.)
(x)(If X exists, then X may or may not exist.)
(x)(If X does not exist, then X may or may not exist.)
(x)(Either X may or may not exist, or X may or may not exist.)
-----------------
(x)(X may or may not exist.)
Ie, for any X, the probability that "X may or may not exist" is 1.
To paraphrase Ross Perrot, I'm all ears.
(Ex)(X is all ears)
(y)(if Y is an ear, then Y is not a brain)
(x)(if X is all ears, then X has no brain)
------------------
(Ex)(X has no brain)
.
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
03 Aug 2003 09:40:43 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<f4PWa.32836$Oz4.9740@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020456.52cc3b96@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Xq0Ta.103614$wk6.27697@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-7FEBA0.18510221072003@blade.randori.com...
In article <g1%Sa.103338$OZ2.20261@rwcrnsc54>,
Albert Briggs <briggs@briggs.com> wrote:
Since "may or may not exist" covers all possibilities ...
All possibilities??? Are you nuts? There is no possibility of magic
invisible pixies demonstrated at all. That is just part of some
nutso
delusional disorder. Why are you lending credence to the delusions
of
those with an impaired contact with reality?
Hey Septic, are you saying that there are some possibilities that
"may or may not exist" does NOT cover?
possible : having an indicated potential www.m-w.com
Are you still saying that it is possible that a magic invisible sky
pixie,
just part of some true-believer's delusional disorder, exists? Please
demonstrate by indicating the potential of that.
(x)(Either X exists or X does not exist.)
You mean, "God exists" is either true or false, one or the other (law of the
excluded middle).
Actually, I meant what I said: "Either God exists or does not exist"
is valid, or always true (LEM). Though your inference follows from
that.
But the only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
true would be begging the question.
A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based on
nothing more than the presumption. So does a presumption of false.
Neither 'default presumption' has anything to do with truth, or how
reality actually is.
Any questions on this principle of valid argument (logic), knucklehead?
Why do you think that your use of the phrase 'principle of valid
argument (logic)', unsupported by any evidence that there is any such
principle, will be seen as anything more than question-begging of your
own?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
04 Aug 2003 12:41:36 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308031840.5cd0a118@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<f4PWa.32836$Oz4.9740@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020456.52cc3b96@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Xq0Ta.103614$wk6.27697@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-7FEBA0.18510221072003@blade.randori.com...
In article <g1%Sa.103338$OZ2.20261@rwcrnsc54>,
Albert Briggs <briggs@briggs.com> wrote:
Since "may or may not exist" covers all possibilities ...
All possibilities??? Are you nuts? There is no possibility of
magic
invisible pixies demonstrated at all. That is just part of some
nutso
delusional disorder. Why are you lending credence to the
delusions
of
those with an impaired contact with reality?
Hey Septic, are you saying that there are some possibilities that
"may or may not exist" does NOT cover?
possible : having an indicated potential www.m-w.com
Are you still saying that it is possible that a magic invisible sky
pixie,
just part of some true-believer's delusional disorder, exists?
Please
demonstrate by indicating the potential of that.
(x)(Either X exists or X does not exist.)
You mean, "God exists" is either true or false, one or the other (law of
the
excluded middle).
Actually, I meant what I said: "Either God exists or does not exist"
is valid, or always true (LEM). Though your inference follows from
that.
But the only reasonable default presumption is false, since a
presumption of
true would be begging the question.
A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based on
nothing more than the presumption.
But we can't be considering a conclusion yet. No evidence of a magic
invisible sky pixie has been presented.
We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
presumption adhering to the statement in question.
The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
05 Aug 2003 07:31:35 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<kVwXa.44493$Oz4.11848@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308031840.5cd0a118@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<f4PWa.32836$Oz4.9740@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020456.52cc3b96@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Xq0Ta.103614$wk6.27697@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Are you still saying that it is possible that a magic invisible sky
pixie,
just part of some true-believer's delusional disorder, exists?
Please
demonstrate by indicating the potential of that.
(x)(Either X exists or X does not exist.)
You mean, "God exists" is either true or false, one or the other (law of
the
excluded middle).
Actually, I meant what I said: "Either God exists or does not exist"
is valid, or always true (LEM). Though your inference follows from
that.
But the only reasonable default presumption is false, since a
presumption of
true would be begging the question.
A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based on
nothing more than the presumption.
But we can't be considering a conclusion yet.
All right. If there is no conclusion, then no question has been
begged.
No evidence of a magic
invisible sky pixie has been presented.
Maybe, maybe not. It's a large thread.
We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
presumption adhering to the statement in question.
I don't remember agreeing that we need any such thing as a 'beginning
presumption.' What's the point of having one?
The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
Only if anything is concluded from the 'default presumption' alone.
That would be the case whether the 'default presumption' were true or
false, correct?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
05 Aug 2003 08:07:32 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308051631.5acb0271@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<kVwXa.44493$Oz4.11848@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308031840.5cd0a118@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<f4PWa.32836$Oz4.9740@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020456.52cc3b96@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Xq0Ta.103614$wk6.27697@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Are you still saying that it is possible that a magic invisible
sky
pixie,
just part of some true-believer's delusional disorder, exists?
Please
demonstrate by indicating the potential of that.
(x)(Either X exists or X does not exist.)
You mean, "God exists" is either true or false, one or the other
(law of
the
excluded middle).
Actually, I meant what I said: "Either God exists or does not exist"
is valid, or always true (LEM). Though your inference follows from
that.
But the only reasonable default presumption is false, since a
presumption of
true would be begging the question.
A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based on
nothing more than the presumption.
But we can't be considering a conclusion yet.
[unsnip]
But we can't be considering a conclusion yet. No evidence of a magic
invisible sky pixie has been presented.
We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
presumption adhering to the statement in question.
The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
All right. If there is no conclusion, then no question has been
begged.
So, you are actually going to sit there and argue that you can take it as
your first premise that your assertion is true, when your proposition is
that your assertion is true?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 08:39:39 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<oxYXa.50503$cF.18572@rwcrnsc53>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308051631.5acb0271@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<kVwXa.44493$Oz4.11848@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308031840.5cd0a118@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<f4PWa.32836$Oz4.9740@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020456.52cc3b96@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Xq0Ta.103614$wk6.27697@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Are you still saying that it is possible that a magic invisible
sky
pixie,
just part of some true-believer's delusional disorder, exists?
Please
demonstrate by indicating the potential of that.
(x)(Either X exists or X does not exist.)
You mean, "God exists" is either true or false, one or the other
(law of
the
excluded middle).
Actually, I meant what I said: "Either God exists or does not exist"
is valid, or always true (LEM). Though your inference follows from
that.
But the only reasonable default presumption is false, since a
presumption of
true would be begging the question.
A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based on
nothing more than the presumption.
But we can't be considering a conclusion yet.
[unsnip]
Actually, when you snip someone else's comments, the word to use to
indicate that is 'snip.' 'Unsnip' is used when you restore comments
that were previously snipped - and you didn't in this case, as there
weren't any.
But we can't be considering a conclusion yet.
No evidence of a magic
invisible sky pixie has been presented.
We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
presumption adhering to the statement in question.
The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
But we can't be considering a conclusion yet.
All right. If there is no conclusion, then no question has been
begged.
No evidence of a magic
invisible sky pixie has been presented.
Maybe, maybe not. It's a large thread.
We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
presumption adhering to the statement in question.
I don't remember agreeing that we need any such thing as a 'beginning
presumption.' What's the point of having one?
The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
Only if anything is concluded from the 'default presumption' alone.
That would be the case whether the 'default presumption' were true or
false, correct?
So, you are actually going to sit there and argue that you can take it as
your first premise that your assertion is true, when your proposition is
that your assertion is true?
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean; maybe you can try
putting it into English. And, by the way, you could also try
answering the questions you snipped and ignored previously.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
05 Aug 2003 08:55:54 PM |
|
|
In article <oxYXa.50503$cF.18572@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308051631.5acb0271@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<kVwXa.44493$Oz4.11848@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308031840.5cd0a118@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<f4PWa.32836$Oz4.9740@rwcrnsc54>...
"George Dance" <georgedance@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6312c50b.0308020456.52cc3b96@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Xq0Ta.103614$wk6.27697@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...
Are you still saying that it is possible that a magic invisible
sky
pixie,
just part of some true-believer's delusional disorder, exists?
Please
demonstrate by indicating the potential of that.
(x)(Either X exists or X does not exist.)
You mean, "God exists" is either true or false, one or the other
(law of
the
excluded middle).
Actually, I meant what I said: "Either God exists or does not exist"
is valid, or always true (LEM). Though your inference follows from
that.
But the only reasonable default presumption is false, since a
presumption of
true would be begging the question.
A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based on
nothing more than the presumption.
But we can't be considering a conclusion yet.
[unsnip]
But we can't be considering a conclusion yet. No evidence of a magic
invisible sky pixie has been presented.
We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
presumption adhering to the statement in question.
The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
The only reasnable presumption is "don't know", since a presumption
of false begs the question equally with a peresumption of true.
At least Huxley and the agnostics regard Septic's position with as
much distaste as that of the most passionate Of the Christian
doctrinaires.
All right. If there is no conclusion, then no question has been
begged.
So, you are actually going to sit there and argue that you can take it as
your first premise that your assertion is true, when your proposition is
that your assertion is true?
Why not, since Septic does exactly that all the time. What's sauce
for the goose is sauce for the Capon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
04 Aug 2003 01:02:13 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based on
:> nothing more than the presumption.
;
:But we can't be considering a conclusion yet. No evidence of a magic
;invisible sky pixie has been presented.
:
;We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
:presumption adhering to the statement in question.
;
:The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
;true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
But of course it is unreasonable to assert either true or false,
whether they are reasonable presumptions or not, because there is no
evidences to support either, as clearly stated by Huxley:
"This principle [the agnostic 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. It was inevitable
that a conflict should arise between Agnosticism and Theology" --
Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic' in "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
04 Aug 2003 02:29:43 PM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bgm735$48t@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based on
:> nothing more than the presumption.
;
:But we can't be considering a conclusion yet. No evidence of a magic
;invisible sky pixie has been presented.
:
;We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
:presumption adhering to the statement in question.
;
:The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
;true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
But of course it is unreasonable to assert either true or false,
"False" is not an assertion, knucklehead, it is the DENIAL of the assertion
that it is true that an invisible magic sky pixie may in reality exist even
though there is no such thing in evidence. The burden of proof cannot be
shifted to the denial:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
No evidence of a magic
invisible sky pixie has been presented.
We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
presumption adhering to the statement in question.
The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
04 Aug 2003 02:48:58 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bgm735$48t@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;>
:> ;> A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based on
;> :> nothing more than the presumption.
:> ;
;> :But we can't be considering a conclusion yet. No evidence of a magic
:> ;invisible sky pixie has been presented.
;> :
:> ;We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
;> :presumption adhering to the statement in question.
:> ;
;> :The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
:> ;true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
;>
:> But of course it is unreasonable to assert either true or false,
;
:"False" is not an assertion, knucklehead,
But of course "there is no god" asserts to the effect that there is
no god.
;it is the DENIAL of the assertion
;that it is true that an invisible magic sky pixie may in reality exist even
:though there is no such thing in evidence.
Nope. A denial of a claim is a disclaim.
dis.claim
(dis-'kl{a-}m)
Etymology: AF i[disclaimer], fr. i[dis-] + i[claimer] to
claim, fr. OF i[clamer]
1) vi, to make a disclaimer
i[obs]
2) a) vi, to disavow all part or share
b) vi, to utter denial
1) vt, to renounce a legal claim to
2) vt, DENY, DISAVOW
;The burden of proof cannot be
;shifted to the denial:
No one is shifting the burden of the proof to the disclaim.
;"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
:the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
;fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
:the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
;true unless proven otherwise."
:http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Precisely the way I understand argumentum ad ignorantiam. Therefore
the only logically sound position for one to take in absence of
evidences is the null hypothesis of "god may exist". Neither "there
is god", or its negative "god does not exist" may stand without proof.
:No evidence of a magic
;invisible sky pixie has been presented.
Correct. Therefore, according to Huxley, we must not claim that
such thing does exist.
;We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
:presumption adhering to the statement in question.
;
:The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
;true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
But of course it is unreasonable to assert either true or false,
whether they are reasonable presumptions or not, because there is no
evidences to support either, as clearly stated by Huxley:
"This principle [the agnostic 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. It was inevitable
that a conflict should arise between Agnosticism and Theology" --
Thomas Huxley, who coined the term 'agnostic' in "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
05 Aug 2003 11:28:24 AM |
|
|
"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
news:bgmdba$6h7@neptune.myri-local.com...
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Wen-King Su" <wen-king@myri.com> wrote in message
;news:bgm735$48t@neptune.myri-local.com...
:> In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;>
:> ;> A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based
on
;> :> nothing more than the presumption.
:> ;
;> :But we can't be considering a conclusion yet. No evidence of a magic
:> ;invisible sky pixie has been presented.
;> :
:> ;We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable
beginning
;> :presumption adhering to the statement in question.
:> ;
;> :The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption
of
:> ;true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
;>
:> But of course it is unreasonable to assert either true or false,
;
:"False" is not an assertion, knucklehead,
But of course "there is no god" asserts to the effect that there is
no god.
No it does not, it is the denial of your assertion that there may be an
invisible magic god. Don't you know a denial when you see one? Don't they
have such a word in your country, Susie?
Take a close look at
2) b) vi, to utter denial
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
05 Aug 2003 02:23:57 PM |
|
|
In article <IWQXa.49547$Vt6.18719@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
But of course "there is no god" asserts to the effect that there is
no god.
No it does not, it is the denial of your assertion that there may be an
invisible magic god.
If Septic does not assert "there is no god", then we may regard that
statement as unstated, evanescent, and as one with the invisible sky
pixies that Septic has so often leid on us.
What no one asserts cannot be found true, since it has never been
presented for scientific testing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
05 Aug 2003 05:00:35 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-09B432.13235705082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <IWQXa.49547$Vt6.18719@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
But of course "there is no god" asserts to the effect that there is
no god.
No it does not, it is the denial of your assertion that there may be an
invisible magic god.
If Septic does not assert "there is no god", then we may regard that
statement as unstated ...
It is a statement stated, but it is not an assertion, it is the denial of
one, knucklehead. Can't you understand the distinction between assertion
("It is true that ...") and denial of that assertion ("False")? Is English
new to you?
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Notice the distinction here between assertion and denial or questioning of
that assertion, knucklehead?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
05 Aug 2003 07:13:08 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-09B432.13235705082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> In article <IWQXa.49547$Vt6.18719@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > > But of course "there is no god" asserts to the effect that there is
:> > > no god.
;> >
:> > No it does not, it is the denial of your assertion that there may be an
;> > invisible magic god.
:>
;> If Septic does not assert "there is no god", then we may regard that
:> statement as unstated ...
;
:It is a statement stated, but it is not an assertion, it is the denial of
;one, knucklehead. Can't you understand the distinction between assertion
:("It is true that ...") and denial of that assertion ("False")? Is English
;new to you?
Oh yes we understand very well that the denial of a claim (assertion)
is a dis-claim. We have seen the dictionary definition as many times
as you have asserted otherwise.
dis.claim
(dis-'kl{a-}m)
Etymology: AF i[disclaimer], fr. i[dis-] + i[claimer] to
claim, fr. OF i[clamer]
1) vi, to make a disclaimer
i[obs]
2) a) vi, to disavow all part or share
b) vi, to utter denial
1) vt, to renounce a legal claim to
2) vt, DENY, DISAVOW
;"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
:the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
;fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
:the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
;true unless proven otherwise."
:http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Yes, it agrees with us 100%. Both "god does exist" and "there is no
god" are claims that stand in need of proof. The disclaims, "not
saying god does exist", and "not saying there is no god", are the
denials of those claim. Shifting the burden of proof from either of
the two before to either of the latter two is a fallacy.
;Notice the distinction here between assertion and denial or questioning of
:that assertion, knucklehead?
Yes we noticed. Noticed you didn't question the assertion that there
is god, or for that matter, there may be god. And we question your
assertion that there is no god.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
05 Aug 2003 06:44:24 PM |
|
|
In article <7OVXa.50697$Vt6.18744@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-09B432.13235705082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <IWQXa.49547$Vt6.18719@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
But of course "there is no god" asserts to the effect that there is
no god.
No it does not, it is the denial of your assertion that there may be an
invisible magic god.
Then "It is false that there is no god" is the negation of your
negation, which, being a negation, requires no proof, until Septic
can prove the law of the excluded middle.
If Septic does not assert "there is no god", then we may regard that
statement as unstated ...
It is a statement stated, but it is not an assertion, it is the denial of
one, knucklehead.
But statements of this sort are propositions, according to Webster,
and the negation of any proposition is another proposition, as shown
in other posts, so "there is no god" is either not true or is is a
statement and a proposition. If is "there is no god" is not a
statement then it must not have been stated, as I said above, but if
it was stated, and is a statement, then it requires proof.
Can't you understand the distinction between assertion
("It is true that ...") and denial of that assertion ("False")? Is English
new to you?
Not as new, or foreign, as it seems to be to Septic.
I, and others, have often had to correct Septic on his English.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
If you state it, Septic, then the onus is on you, so either accept
that onus or unsay "there is no god". See below.
Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Notice the distinction here between assertion and denial or questioning of
that assertion, knucklehead?
As there is none, as far as the logic goes, no!
Logic is symmetric in that respect. Any statement, including
negations of other statements, is equally subject to proof or
disproof in logic. There is no preferred form.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
05 Aug 2003 08:01:35 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-602DAA.17442405082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <7OVXa.50697$Vt6.18744@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-09B432.13235705082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <IWQXa.49547$Vt6.18719@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
But of course "there is no god" asserts to the effect that there
is
no god.
No it does not, it is the denial of your assertion that there may be
an
invisible magic god.
Then "It is false that there is no god" is the negation of your
negation, which, being a negation, requires no proof, until Septic
can prove the law of the excluded middle.
If Septic does not assert "there is no god", then we may regard that
statement as unstated ...
It is a statement stated, but it is not an assertion, it is the denial
of
one, knucklehead.
But statements of this sort are propositions ...
No, they are DENIALS of propositions, knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 08:09:03 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-F43D1A.19585705082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <PrYXa.51127$Vt6.19199@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-602DAA.17442405082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <7OVXa.50697$Vt6.18744@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-09B432.13235705082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <IWQXa.49547$Vt6.18719@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
But of course "there is no god" asserts to the effect that
there
is
no god.
No it does not, it is the denial of your assertion that there
may be
an
invisible magic god.
Then "It is false that there is no god" is the negation of your
negation, which, being a negation, requires no proof, until Septic
can prove the law of the excluded middle.
If Septic does not assert "there is no god", then we may regard
that
statement as unstated ...
It is a statement stated, but it is not an assertion, it is the
denial
of
one, knucklehead.
But statements of this sort are propositions ...
No, they are DENIALS of propositions, knucklehead
Says who?
Says the principle of valid argument (logic) that the burden of proof cannot
be shifted to the denial of an assertion like, "An invisible something may
exist," knucklehead:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who DENIES or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
[emphasis added]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 01:29:40 PM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:
;
:"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;news:vmhjr2-F43D1A.19585705082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> In article <PrYXa.51127$Vt6.19199@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
;> "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>
;> > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
:> > news:vmhjr2-602DAA.17442405082003@[63.218.45.211]...
;> > > In article <7OVXa.50697$Vt6.18744@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
:> > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
;> > >
:> > > > "Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
;> > > > news:vmhjr2-09B432.13235705082003@[63.218.45.211]...
:> > > > > In article <IWQXa.49547$Vt6.18719@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
;> > > > > "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> > > > >
;> > > > > > > But of course "there is no god" asserts to the effect that
:there
;> > is
:> > > > > > > no god.
;> > > > > >
:> > > > > > No it does not, it is the denial of your assertion that there
;may be
:> > an
;> > > > > > invisible magic god.
:> > >
;> > > Then "It is false that there is no god" is the negation of your
:> > > negation, which, being a negation, requires no proof, until Septic
;> > > can prove the law of the excluded middle.
:> > > > >
;> > > > > If Septic does not assert "there is no god", then we may regard
:that
;> > > > > statement as unstated ...
:> > > >
;> > > > It is a statement stated, but it is not an assertion, it is the
:denial
;> > of
:> > > > one, knucklehead.
;> > >
:> > > But statements of this sort are propositions ...
;> >
:> > No, they are DENIALS of propositions, knucklehead
;>
:> Says who?
;
:
;Says the principle of valid argument (logic) that the burden of proof cannot
:be shifted to the denial of an assertion like, "An invisible something may
;exist," knucklehead:
:
;"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
:the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
;fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who DENIES or questions
:the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
;true unless proven otherwise."
:http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
It says no such thing. Claims (assertions) and disclaims are what it
talk about. And the dis-claim of "god exists" is "can't say god exists".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 12:17:46 PM |
|
|
In article <P57Ya.53127$cF.19221@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
But statements of this sort are propositions ...
No, they are DENIALS of propositions, knucklehead
Says who?
Says the principle of valid argument (logic) that the burden of proof cannot
be shifted to the denial of an assertion like, "An invisible something may
exist," knucklehead
Septic's argument abaove is entirely based on his claim that the
negation of a proposition is not a proposition, which is certainly
false outside of Septic's little delusionary world.
According to my Webster's Unabridged, the definition of a
proposition includes the following:
A declarative sentence; an expression in language, symbols
or signs of something capable of being believed, doubted or
denied; a verbal expression that is either true or false
-- also called a statement.
It is clear from this definition that the denial of one proposition
of the above type is another proposition of the same type,
regardless of how loudly or how often Septic denies it.
When anyone except Septic uses, or sees, the word "proposition" in
these discussions, the above Webster definition, or something
equivalent, is what they have in mind.
What Septic has in his hypothetical mind when he uses the word has
never been made clear, except that it conflicts with both the common
usage above and the more technical but compatible usage in logic, as
well as with common sense.
So far, Septic seems unable to find any authority to back him up in
his lies that the denial of a proposition is not a proposition.
One suspects that he cannot find any authority stupid enough to
agree with him in this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 07:30:25 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-1E4D84.11174606082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <P57Ya.53127$cF.19221@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
But statements of this sort are propositions ...
No, they are DENIALS of propositions, knucklehead
Says who?
Says the principle of valid argument (logic) that the burden of proof
cannot
be shifted to the denial of an assertion like, "An invisible something
may
exist," knucklehead
Septic's argument abaove is entirely based on his claim ...
No, it is not a 'claim', since I am not making any claim, knucklehead, I am
pointing out a principle of valid argument (logic) that governs this
situation.
It is a principle of valid argument (logic) that the burden of proof cannot
be shifted to the denial of an assertion like, "An invisible something may
exist," knucklehead.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who DENIES or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
[emphasis added]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 09:50:24 PM |
|
|
In article <B4hYa.56960$It4.31742@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-1E4D84.11174606082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <P57Ya.53127$cF.19221@rwcrnsc53>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
But statements of this sort are propositions ...
No, they are DENIALS of propositions, knucklehead
Says who?
Says the principle of valid argument (logic) that the burden of proof
cannot
be shifted to the denial of an assertion like, "An invisible something
may
exist," knucklehead
Septic's argument abaove is entirely based on his claim ...
No, it is not a 'claim', since I am not making any claim, knucklehead, I am
pointing out a principle of valid argument (logic) that governs this
situation.
By whose dictionary can you, Septic, make a statement about what is
true, with the expectation of haveing that statement accepted, and
not be making a claim?
That is what a claim, or an assertion, is.
None of the dictionaries or other references I have seen will allow
the sophistry of having one statement a claim and its denial, when
uttered by someone supporting that denial, not a claim.
They are competing claims of which at most one can be true.
So find your authority or shut the hell up about all these things
which you claim are not what they are.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
The one asserting, or claiming, something here is Septic. That
septic claims not to be is another (unproven and unprovable) claim
or assertion.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on
the person who DENIES or questions the assertion. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless
proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
[emphasis added]
Once the issue of where the original burden lies is settled,
shifting that burden is indeed a fallacy, but the original burden
lies on THE ONE TRYING TO CONVINCE, which is Septic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
04 Aug 2003 07:00:25 PM |
|
|
In article <HuyXa.44660$Oz4.12869@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
presumption adhering to the statement in question.
In this case "we" means Septic itself, since no one else is the
least interested in statements issuing only from Septic's
imagination.
This should be a private discussion open only to the schiziod
posting from
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.231.81.82
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
05 Aug 2003 11:42:26 PM |
|
|
On 4 Aug 2003 11:02:13 -0700, (Wen-King Su) wrote:
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based on
:> nothing more than the presumption.
;
:But we can't be considering a conclusion yet. No evidence of a magic
;invisible sky pixie has been presented.
:
;We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
:presumption adhering to the statement in question.
;
:The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
;true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
But of course it is unreasonable to assert either true or false,
whether they are reasonable presumptions or not, because there is no
evidences to support either, as clearly stated by Huxley:
Careful here Wen-King Su.
I would say that it may well be reasonable to presume something is not
there until shown to be there.
I disagree with Skeptic (aka Bob White) in that it is not a principle
of logic that everyone *must* so presume.
In fact I think that as a matter of simple pragmatic necessity one
starts from things not existing and then looks for evidence of the
existence of things - in general.
What I mean about pragmatic necessity:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The human brain is finite, and so you cannot start by presuming the
existence of an infinite number of logically possible things and then
reducing that infinite number one at a time by finding evidence
*against* the existence of each entity - this would require an
infinite brain and an infinite amount of time to arrive at a finite
set of things that you could fit in your finite mind - or the minds of
6 billion people plus all their libraries etc.
So from the point of view of an epistemic strategy - building up
knowledge - assuming the non existence of things unless and until you
have evidence or reason to believe is a reasonable stance to adopt.
Do you agree?
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 01:13:41 PM |
|
|
In a previous article Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> writes:
:
;On 4 Aug 2003 11:02:13 -0700, (Wen-King Su) wrote:
:
;>In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:>
;>;> A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based on
:>:> nothing more than the presumption.
;>;
:>:But we can't be considering a conclusion yet. No evidence of a magic
;>;invisible sky pixie has been presented.
:>:
;>;We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
:>:presumption adhering to the statement in question.
;>;
:>:The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
;>;true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
:>
;>But of course it is unreasonable to assert either true or false,
:>whether they are reasonable presumptions or not, because there is no
;>evidences to support either, as clearly stated by Huxley:
:>
;
:Careful here Wen-King Su.
;
:I would say that it may well be reasonable to presume something is not
;there until shown to be there.
What is reasonable depends on the ground for reasoning. Law, science,
each have their own biases. Here we are talking about logic, which
is to be free of any such biases.
;I disagree with Skeptic (aka Bob White) in that it is not a principle
:of logic that everyone *must* so presume.
;
:In fact I think that as a matter of simple pragmatic necessity one
;starts from things not existing and then looks for evidence of the
:existence of things - in general.
;
:What I mean about pragmatic necessity:
;-------------------------------------------------------------------
:The human brain is finite, and so you cannot start by presuming the
;existence of an infinite number of logically possible things and then
:reducing that infinite number one at a time by finding evidence
;*against* the existence of each entity - this would require an
:infinite brain and an infinite amount of time to arrive at a finite
;set of things that you could fit in your finite mind - or the minds of
:6 billion people plus all their libraries etc.
;
:So from the point of view of an epistemic strategy - building up
;knowledge - assuming the non existence of things unless and until you
:have evidence or reason to believe is a reasonable stance to adopt.
;
:Do you agree?
On that ground of reasoning, I agree.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 07:07:57 PM |
|
|
On 6 Aug 2003 11:13:41 -0700, (Wen-King Su) wrote:
In a previous article Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> writes:
:
<snip lead in argument>
:I would say that it may well be reasonable to presume something is not
;there until shown to be there.
What is reasonable depends on the ground for reasoning. Law, science,
each have their own biases. Here we are talking about logic, which
is to be free of any such biases.
Of course, I (and many others) have explained that to Skeptic a
incredibly large number of times.
;I disagree with Skeptic (aka Bob White) in that it is not a principle
:of logic that everyone *must* so presume.
<snip>
:So from the point of view of an epistemic strategy - building up
;knowledge - assuming the non existence of things unless and until you
:have evidence or reason to believe is a reasonable stance to adopt.
;
:Do you agree?
On that ground of reasoning, I agree.
Interestingly, I first explained to Skeptic about 3 or 4 years ago
what I just suggested to you, and said that perhaps that is really
what he *meant* to say - that he really should be talking about
epistemic strategy - not this nonsense about logic.
I was actually looking for a way that he could get the outcome I
presumed he sort without throwing out logic - and hence and end to
this endless "argument".
Obviously I was wrong.
What Skeptic wants is assurance that Atheism is logically necessary -
he is terrified by the idea that logic does not MANDATE atheism.
I, and most atheists, are quite happy that atheism does not CONFLICT
with logic.
But that will never satisfy Skeptic - hence his stance is utterly
dogmatic - its foundational to his worldview.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 01:02:23 PM |
|
|
In article <Ht5Ya.52648$Oz4.14270@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:1711jv8t2gbqhb0j40pks0lfaev5fsi0uh@4ax.com...
On 4 Aug 2003 11:02:13 -0700, (Wen-King Su) wrote:
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based on
:> nothing more than the presumption.
;
:But we can't be considering a conclusion yet. No evidence of a magic
;invisible sky pixie has been presented.
:
;We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
:presumption adhering to the statement in question.
;
:The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
;true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
But of course it is unreasonable to assert either true or false,
whether they are reasonable presumptions or not, because there is no
evidences to support either, as clearly stated by Huxley:
Careful here Wen-King Su.
I would say that it may well be reasonable to presume something is not
there until shown to be there.
I disagree with Skeptic (aka Bob White) in that it is not a principle
of logic that everyone *must* so presume.
Then how do you get around the following principle of valid argument (logic)
that the full burden of proof in the matter of any existential proposition
like "X exists" is always on the one making the assertion?
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
The above principle says that if *you* want something to be
believed, *you* have to provide the proof.
Septic, do you want "there is no god" to be believed?
Septic, you keep saying "there is no god".
If you do not want it to be believed, why do you keep saying it?
If you do want it to be believed why do you never offer any proof of
it?
AS usual, Septic will refuse to answer these, or any other
questions, that point out how foolish he is being.
Since it is fallacy to assume that something is true unless proven
otherwise, and any statement is either true or false, that leaves as the
only reasonable default presumption, "False."
One can also assume that one is ignorant the truth of some
statement. Ignorance is the natural state of all of us, we are born
with a lot of it, and never get rid of it all, so there is no shame
in admitting to some of it.
This is a basic principle of science, because it is a basic principle of
valid argument (logic):
"Argument _ad ignorantiam_ means 'argument from ignorance'. This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it
has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this
is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved
true, a basic scientific principle.)" --
http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/laign.htm
Septic is arguing that his claim is true because there is no proof
that it is false, whereas the agnostics argue that something is of
unknown truth or falsity because there is no proof in either
direction.
Which position , Septic's or the agnostics', avoids the above
fallacy?
Septic will, no doubt, find some convoluted way of trying to make
black look white and vice versa in ths issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 07:25:18 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-B037BD.12022206082003@[63.218.45.211]...
In article <Ht5Ya.52648$Oz4.14270@rwcrnsc54>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:1711jv8t2gbqhb0j40pks0lfaev5fsi0uh@4ax.com...
On 4 Aug 2003 11:02:13 -0700, (Wen-King Su) wrote:
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is
based on
:> nothing more than the presumption.
;
:But we can't be considering a conclusion yet. No evidence of a magic
;invisible sky pixie has been presented.
:
;We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable
beginning
:presumption adhering to the statement in question.
;
:The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a
presumption of
;true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
But of course it is unreasonable to assert either true or false,
whether they are reasonable presumptions or not, because there is no
evidences to support either, as clearly stated by Huxley:
Careful here Wen-King Su.
I would say that it may well be reasonable to presume something is not
there until shown to be there.
I disagree with Skeptic (aka Bob White) in that it is not a principle
of logic that everyone *must* so presume.
Then how do you get around the following principle of valid argument
(logic)
that the full burden of proof in the matter of any existential
proposition
like "X exists" is always on the one making the assertion?
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
The above principle says that if *you* want something to be
believed ...
Where do you see that, knucklehead?
It is not a matter of personal desire, knucklehead, it is a principle of
valid argument (logic), which applies to everybody, that the full burden of
proof in the matter is always on the one making any assertion like "An
invisible god may exist," because the burden of proof cannot be shifted to
the denial.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wen-King Su" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
07 Aug 2003 11:10:19 AM |
|
|
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
:It is not a matter of personal desire, knucklehead, it is a principle of
;valid argument (logic), which applies to everybody, that the full burden of
:proof in the matter is always on the one making any assertion like "An
;invisible god may exist," because the burden of proof cannot be shifted to
:the denial.
That is right. So stop asserting "there is no god", as the burden of
proof cannot be shifted to the denial "can't say there is no god".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 10:07:14 PM |
|
|
In article <O%gYa.56344$Vt6.20346@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
The above principle says that if *you* want something to be
believed ...
Where do you see that, knucklehead?
It is not a matter of personal desire, knucklehead, it is a principle of
valid argument (logic), which applies to everybody, that the full burden of
proof in the matter is always on the one making any assertion like "An
invisible god may exist,"
or like "there is no god"
because the burden of proof cannot be shifted to
the denial.
Septic is again in denial about denial.
The denial of a claim or proposition or a assertion is, according to
Webster's Unabridged, a sentence of the same type.
If you deny this, who agrees with you? No one? I thought so!
So Septic claims he is right and the rest of the world is all wrong.
Septic and James Harris should get along well. They both have a fine
disregard for facts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 06:52:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:18:00 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:1711jv8t2gbqhb0j40pks0lfaev5fsi0uh@4ax.com...
On 4 Aug 2003 11:02:13 -0700, (Wen-King Su) wrote:
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based on
:> nothing more than the presumption.
;
:But we can't be considering a conclusion yet. No evidence of a magic
;invisible sky pixie has been presented.
:
;We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable beginning
:presumption adhering to the statement in question.
;
:The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption of
;true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
But of course it is unreasonable to assert either true or false,
whether they are reasonable presumptions or not, because there is no
evidences to support either, as clearly stated by Huxley:
Careful here Wen-King Su.
I would say that it may well be reasonable to presume something is not
there until shown to be there.
I disagree with Skeptic (aka Bob White) in that it is not a principle
of logic that everyone *must* so presume.
Then how do you get around the following principle of valid argument (logic)
that the full burden of proof in the matter of any existential proposition
like "X exists" is always on the one making the assertion?
I don't get around it.
There is no such principle.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
That is the principle of SHIFTING the burden of proof
NOT
the principle of HAVING an intrinsic burden of proof.
I believe I may have mentioned that before.
This is a basic principle of science, because it is a basic principle of
valid argument (logic):
It is a basic strategy of science because of the reason I explained in
my post - a pragmatic rather than a logical reason.
Even then it is only true *in general* - but in many specific cases
science progresses by presuming the existence of something (a
hypothesis) and then finding evidence against that existence.
The history of science is full of examples that go against your
alleged principle.
The Luminiferous aether is an obvious example of something that was
presumed to exist and eventually abandoned due to the weight of
evidence against it.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theory
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: the god-boys keep trying to shift the burden of proof |
06 Aug 2003 07:09:43 PM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:3i43jvkcgq0846fe66v218lug0gqlkvu88@4ax.com...
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 11:18:00 GMT, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:1711jv8t2gbqhb0j40pks0lfaev5fsi0uh@4ax.com...
On 4 Aug 2003 11:02:13 -0700, (Wen-King Su) wrote:
In a previous article "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> writes:
;> A presumption of true begs the question iff the conclusion is based
on
:> nothing more than the presumption.
;
:But we can't be considering a conclusion yet. No evidence of a magic
;invisible sky pixie has been presented.
:
;We are still at the stage of discussing what is the reasonable
beginning
:presumption adhering to the statement in question.
;
:The only reasonable default presumption is false, since a presumption
of
;true would be begging the question, n'est pas?
But of course it is unreasonable to assert either true or false,
whether they are reasonable presumptions or not, because there is no
evidences to support either, as clearly stated by Huxley:
Careful here Wen-King Su.
I would say that it may well be reasonable to presume something is not
there until shown to be there.
I disagree with Skeptic (aka Bob White) in that it is not a principle
of logic that everyone *must* so presume.
Then how do you get around the following principle of valid argument
(logic)
that the full burden of proof in the matter of any existential
proposition
like "X exists" is always on the one making the assertion?
I don't get around it.
There is no such principle.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something
is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
That is the principle of SHIFTING the burden of proof
It is the principle that shifting the burden of proof is logical fallacy, so
the full burden of proof is always on the one making any assertion like "An
invisible god may exist."
NOT
the principle of HAVING an intrinsic burden of proof.
This is the principle that establishes that the full burden of proof in the
matter is always on the one making any assertion like, "An invisible god may
exist," knucklehead. Nobody else has anything (any thing) to prove.
This is a basic principle of science, because it is a basic principle of
valid argument (logic):
It is a basic strategy of science because of the reason I explained in
my post - a pragmatic rather than a logical reason.
It is a basic principle of science because it is a basic principle of valid
argument (logic). Scientists have to produce valid arguments about the
nature of things just like everyone else does, knucklehead.
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions
the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is
true unless proven otherwise."
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
Since it is fallacy to assume that something is true unless proven
otherwise, and any statement is either true or false, that leaves as the
only reasonable default presumption, "False."
This is a basic principle of science, because it is a basic principle of
valid argument (logic):
"Argument _ad ignorantiam_ means 'argument from ignorance'. This fallacy
occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it
has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that
something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this
is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved
true, a basic scientific principle.)" --
http://www.smouse.demon.co.uk/logargnew/laign.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
