| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2003 03:04:21 PM |
| Object: |
'Science cannot provide all the answers' |
'Science cannot provide all the answers'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1034872,00.html
Why do so many scientists believe in God? Tim Radford reports
Thursday September 4, 2003
The Guardian
Colin Humphreys is a dyed-in-the-wool materialist. That is, he is
professor of materials science at Cambridge. He believes in the power
of science to explain the nature of matter. He believes that humans -
like all other living things - evolved through the action of natural
selection upon random mutation. He is also a Baptist. He believes in
the story of Moses, as recounted in the biblical book of Exodus. He
believes in it enough to have explored Egypt and the Holy Land in
search of natural or scientific explanations for the story of the
burning bush, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea and
the manna that fell in the wilderness -and then written a book about
it.
.
|
|
| User: "Kevin L. OBrien" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 05:55:31 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>...
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature of a 'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is definitely a self evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an absurd state of affairs.
Study up on that reductio ad absurdum method of reaching objective logical
conclusions.
Many societies and cultures have and still do believe that the right
to life is not unalienable, yet they do not exist in "an absurd state
of affairs". So reductio ad absurdum cannot be used to prove that the
right to life is unalienable.
And since you have not proven that the right to life is unalienable,
then you haven't proven that murder as unacceptable behavior is
objective.
Kevin L. O'Brien
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
10 Nov 2003 11:33:17 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an "absurd" state ...
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically absurd state of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding that it is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the world with the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and at the same time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life capriciously, without
justification, and without due process of law, would be objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic principles of valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal logical consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature of a 'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is definitely a self evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an absurd state of affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the category of 'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Study up on that reductio ad absurdum method of reaching objective logical
conclusions.
right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness,
that IS a logically contradictory state.
But the question remains: what constitutes murder?
Taking away any person's unalienable right to life, capriciously, with
malice aforethought, without justification, or without due process of law.
See http://dictionary.law.com/
The fact that what is considered justifiable homicide differs in different
states is just an irrelevant diversion.
"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
Murder is not a purely subjective matter, as Flunk and company assert
without reason, and contrary to the facts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 06:04:20 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an "absurd" state
.....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically absurd state of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding that it is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the world with the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and at the same time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law, would be objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic principles of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal logical consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is definitely a self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an absurd state of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the category of 'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly
valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions? You should study
up, if you don't want to keep making yourself look ignorant in public. See
below, at the end.
Study up on the reductio ad absurdum method of reaching objective logical
conclusions.
right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness,
that IS a logically contradictory state.
But the question remains: what constitutes murder?
Taking away any person's unalienable right to life, capriciously, with
malice aforethought, without justification, or without due process of
law.
See http://dictionary.law.com/
The fact that what is considered justifiable homicide differs in
different
states is just an irrelevant diversion.
"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
Murder is not a purely subjective matter, as Flunk and company assert
without reason, and contrary to the facts.
3 entries found for reductio ad absurdum.
re·duc·ti·o ad ab·sur·dum ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-dkt- d
b-sūrdm, -zūr-, -sh-)
n. pl. re·duc·ti·o·nes ad absurdum (-nz, -ns)
Disproof of a proposition by showing that it leads to absurd or
untenable conclusions.
[Medieval Latin reducti ad absurdum : Latin reducti, a bringing back,
reduction + Latin ad, to + Latin absurdum, absurdity, from neuter of
absurdus, absurd.]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
reductio ad absurdum
Demonstration \Dem`on*stra"tion\, n. [L. demonstratio: cf. F.
d['e]monstration.] 1. The act of demonstrating; an exhibition; proof;
especially, proof beyond the possibility of doubt; indubitable evidence, to
the senses or reason.
Those intervening ideas which serve to show the agreement of any two others
are called ``proofs;'' and where agreement or disagreement is by this means
plainly and clearly perceived, it is called demonstration. --Locke.
2. An expression, as of the feelings, by outward signs; a manifestation; a
show.
Did your letters pierce the queen to any demonstration of grief? --Shak.
Loyal demonstrations toward the prince. --Prescott.
3. (Anat.) The exhibition and explanation of a dissection or other
anatomical preparation.
4. (Mil.) a decisive exhibition of force, or a movement indicating an
attack.
5. (Logic) The act of proving by the syllogistic process, or the proof
itself.
6. (Math.) A course of reasoning showing that a certain result is a
necessary consequence of assumed premises; -- these premises being
definitions, axioms, and previously established propositions.
Direct, or Positive, demonstration (Logic & Math.), one in which the correct
conclusion is the immediate sequence of reasoning from axiomatic or
established premises; -- opposed to
Indirect, or Negative, demonstration (called also reductio ad absurdum), in
which the correct conclusion is an inference from the demonstration that any
other hypothesis must be incorrect.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
reductio ad absurdum
n 1: a logical proof of a proposition by showing that its negation leads to
a contradiction 2: (reduction to the absurd) a disproof by showing that the
consequences of the proposition are absurd
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 08:42:49 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<qqQrb.162618$Tr4.435064@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an "absurd" state
....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically absurd state of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding that it is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the world with the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and at the same time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law, would be objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic principles of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal logical consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is definitely a self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an absurd state of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the category of 'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly
valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions?
I understand that it is worthless if the initial conditions are invalid.
[snip defense of reductio ad absurdum which doesn't answer the objection
I repeatedly make]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 11:47:11 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t6t1rv0g4p39hpd8g1oc5qtjfs2anpvg6u@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<qqQrb.162618$Tr4.435064@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an "absurd"
state
....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically absurd state of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding that it
is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the world with
the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and at the same
time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law, would be
objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic principles of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal logical consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is definitely a self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an absurd state of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the category of 'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly
valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions?
I understand that it is worthless if the initial conditions are invalid.
Please explain what you mean by "invalid initial conditions." What's invalid
about arriving at an objective logical conclusion through reductio that not
having a law prohibiting murder would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs
among us mortals?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 01:25:14 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Yf9sb.172884$Tr4.462520@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t6t1rv0g4p39hpd8g1oc5qtjfs2anpvg6u@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<qqQrb.162618$Tr4.435064@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an "absurd"
state
....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically absurd state of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding that it
is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the world with
the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and at the same
time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law, would be
objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic principles of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal logical consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is definitely a self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an absurd state of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the category of 'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly
valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions?
I understand that it is worthless if the initial conditions are invalid.
Please explain what you mean by "invalid initial conditions." What's invalid
about arriving at an objective logical conclusion through reductio that not
having a law prohibiting murder would be an absurd barbaric state of affairs
among us mortals?
That's your conclusion. Can you tell beginning from end?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 01:55:57 PM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:crd2rv4r90s3mh3o6jiqt3eta6an5vfm9f@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Yf9sb.172884$Tr4.462520@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t6t1rv0g4p39hpd8g1oc5qtjfs2anpvg6u@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<qqQrb.162618$Tr4.435064@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an "absurd"
state
....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically absurd state
of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding that
it
is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the world
with
the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and at the same
time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law, would be
objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic principles
of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal logical
consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is definitely a
self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an absurd state of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the category of 'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reductio ad absurdum is a
perfectly
valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions?
I understand that it is worthless if the initial conditions are
invalid.
Please explain what you mean by "invalid initial conditions." What's
invalid
about arriving at an objective logical conclusion through reductio that
not
having a law prohibiting murder would be an absurd barbaric state of
affairs
among us mortals?
That's your conclusion.
No, the point here is that your argument does not hold water, that a law
prohibiting murder is not a subjective matter, depending on personal
subjective conviction, as you and Flank and company argue, because that
argument does not hold water.
So where are these alleged "invalid initial conditions" you allege? In your
imagination?
Don't you agree that it is self-evidently true that we all come into the
world endowed with an unalienable right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of
the perfect pair of socks, since the opposite would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs among us mortals?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 11:34:57 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Y8bsb.173469$Tr4.464484@attbi_s03>:
....
No, the point here is that your argument does not hold water, that a law
prohibiting murder is not a subjective matter, depending on personal
subjective conviction, as you and Flank and company argue, because that
argument does not hold water.
You keep asserting this, but you never respond to specific objections to
your assertions. Until you learn what objective and subjective are, this
isn't worth pursuing any further.
So where are these alleged "invalid initial conditions" you allege? In your
imagination?
Don't you agree that it is self-evidently true that we all come into the
world endowed with an unalienable right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of
the perfect pair of socks, since the opposite would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs among us mortals?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jon Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
11 Nov 2003 03:17:50 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:55:57 +0000 (UTC), "Bob White"
<threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:crd2rv4r90s3mh3o6jiqt3eta6an5vfm9f@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Yf9sb.172884$Tr4.462520@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t6t1rv0g4p39hpd8g1oc5qtjfs2anpvg6u@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<qqQrb.162618$Tr4.435064@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an "absurd"
state
....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically absurd state
of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding that
it
is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the world
with
the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and at the same
time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law, would be
objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic principles
of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal logical
consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is definitely a
self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an absurd state of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the category of 'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reductio ad absurdum is a
perfectly
valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions?
I understand that it is worthless if the initial conditions are
invalid.
Please explain what you mean by "invalid initial conditions." What's
invalid
about arriving at an objective logical conclusion through reductio that
not
having a law prohibiting murder would be an absurd barbaric state of
affairs
among us mortals?
That's your conclusion.
No, the point here is that your argument does not hold water, that a law
prohibiting murder is not a subjective matter, depending on personal
subjective conviction, as you and Flank and company argue, because that
argument does not hold water.
So where are these alleged "invalid initial conditions" you allege? In your
imagination?
Don't you agree that it is self-evidently true that we all come into the
world endowed with an unalienable right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of
the perfect pair of socks,
No.
since the opposite would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs among us mortals?
Whether or not it would be an absurd barbaric state among us mortals
is irrelevant to whether or not it is true. No principle or law says
that absurd barbaric states are impossible.
I might point out that many have sid in the past that we _were_ in an
absurd barbaric state, and that some still say so today.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
12 Nov 2003 01:38:17 AM |
|
|
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:k5k2rvsrc0ocq3a57ejtpr88vji1v6dliq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:55:57 +0000 (UTC), "Bob White"
<threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:crd2rv4r90s3mh3o6jiqt3eta6an5vfm9f@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Yf9sb.172884$Tr4.462520@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t6t1rv0g4p39hpd8g1oc5qtjfs2anpvg6u@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<qqQrb.162618$Tr4.435064@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an
"absurd"
state
....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically absurd
state
of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding
that
it
is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the world
with
the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and at the
same
time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life
capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law, would be
objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic
principles
of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal logical
consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is definitely a
self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an absurd state
of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the category of
'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reductio ad absurdum is a
perfectly
valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions?
I understand that it is worthless if the initial conditions are
invalid.
Please explain what you mean by "invalid initial conditions." What's
invalid
about arriving at an objective logical conclusion through reductio
that
not
having a law prohibiting murder would be an absurd barbaric state of
affairs
among us mortals?
That's your conclusion.
No, the point here is that your argument does not hold water, that a law
prohibiting murder is not a subjective matter, depending on personal
subjective conviction, as you and Flank and company argue, because that
argument does not hold water.
So where are these alleged "invalid initial conditions" you allege? In
your
imagination?
Don't you agree that it is self-evidently true that we all come into the
world endowed with an unalienable right to live, liberty, and the pursuit
of
the perfect pair of socks,
No.
since the opposite would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs among us mortals?
Whether or not it would be an absurd barbaric state among us mortals
is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.
Then you don't understand reductio ad absurdum? If it leads to an absurd
barbaric situation, then it is disproved. What is there about reductio ad
absurdum as a perfectly valid means of arriving at objective logical
conclusions, perceptible to any observer, that you find difficult to grasp?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
12 Nov 2003 09:29:47 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<prlsb.178786$Fm2.163413@attbi_s04>...
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:k5k2rvsrc0ocq3a57ejtpr88vji1v6dliq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:55:57 +0000 (UTC), "Bob White"
<threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:crd2rv4r90s3mh3o6jiqt3eta6an5vfm9f@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Yf9sb.172884$Tr4.462520@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t6t1rv0g4p39hpd8g1oc5qtjfs2anpvg6u@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<qqQrb.162618$Tr4.435064@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an
"absurd"
state
....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically absurd
state
of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding
that
it
is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the world
with
the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and at the
same
time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life
capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law, would be
objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic
principles
of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal logical
consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is definitely a
self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an absurd state
of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the category of
'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reductio ad absurdum is a
perfectly
valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions?
I understand that it is worthless if the initial conditions are
invalid.
Please explain what you mean by "invalid initial conditions." What's
invalid
about arriving at an objective logical conclusion through reductio
that
not
having a law prohibiting murder would be an absurd barbaric state of
affairs
among us mortals?
That's your conclusion.
No, the point here is that your argument does not hold water, that a law
prohibiting murder is not a subjective matter, depending on personal
subjective conviction, as you and Flank and company argue, because that
argument does not hold water.
So where are these alleged "invalid initial conditions" you allege? In
your
imagination?
Don't you agree that it is self-evidently true that we all come into the
world endowed with an unalienable right to live, liberty, and the pursuit
of
the perfect pair of socks,
No.
since the opposite would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs among us mortals?
Whether or not it would be an absurd barbaric state among us mortals
is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.
If it leads to an absurd barbaric situation, then it is disproved.
Fallacy of Equivocation from Septic on "absurd". It has a precise
meaning in "reductio ad absurdum" which Septic simply disregards.
(Namely, contradiction.) Barbaric and logically contradictory have
nothing to do with each other.
Septic remains the completely fallacious, refuted, mendacious, and
discredited slippery old idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
12 Nov 2003 09:41:53 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0311120729.32a4a7a4@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<prlsb.178786$Fm2.163413@attbi_s04>...
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:k5k2rvsrc0ocq3a57ejtpr88vji1v6dliq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:55:57 +0000 (UTC), "Bob White"
<threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:crd2rv4r90s3mh3o6jiqt3eta6an5vfm9f@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Yf9sb.172884$Tr4.462520@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t6t1rv0g4p39hpd8g1oc5qtjfs2anpvg6u@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<qqQrb.162618$Tr4.435064@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an
"absurd"
state
....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically
absurd
state
of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding
that
it
is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the
world
with
the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and at
the
same
time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life
capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law, would be
objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us
mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic
principles
of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal logical
consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is
definitely a
self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an absurd
state
of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the category of
'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reductio ad absurdum is a
perfectly
valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions?
I understand that it is worthless if the initial conditions are
invalid.
Please explain what you mean by "invalid initial conditions."
What's
invalid
about arriving at an objective logical conclusion through reductio
that
not
having a law prohibiting murder would be an absurd barbaric state
of
affairs
among us mortals?
That's your conclusion.
No, the point here is that your argument does not hold water, that a
law
prohibiting murder is not a subjective matter, depending on personal
subjective conviction, as you and Flank and company argue, because
that
argument does not hold water.
So where are these alleged "invalid initial conditions" you allege?
In
your
imagination?
Don't you agree that it is self-evidently true that we all come into
the
world endowed with an unalienable right to live, liberty, and the
pursuit
of
the perfect pair of socks,
No.
since the opposite would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs among us mortals?
Whether or not it would be an absurd barbaric state among us mortals
is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.
If it leads to an absurd barbaric situation, then it is disproved.
Fallacy of Equivocation from Septic on "absurd". It has a precise
meaning in "reductio ad absurdum" which Septic simply disregards.
(Namely, contradiction.) Barbaric and logically contradictory have
nothing to do with each other.
Yes they do, knucklehead. It would not be logically consistent to hold both,
one, that each person is born with an unalienable right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, and at the same time to hold
two, that murder is acceptable behavior. That would not be logically
consistent throughout, therefore it would be an absurd barbaric state of
affairs, knucklehead.
This all started with Flank's assertion, "The law itself is
based on subjective opinion." -- Lenny Flank
You rose to champion his assertion.
The assertion you are championing is rejected as logically absurd,
knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
13 Nov 2003 09:40:56 AM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Vwssb.133668$ao4.422050@attbi_s51>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0311120729.32a4a7a4@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<prlsb.178786$Fm2.163413@attbi_s04>...
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:k5k2rvsrc0ocq3a57ejtpr88vji1v6dliq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:55:57 +0000 (UTC), "Bob White"
<threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:crd2rv4r90s3mh3o6jiqt3eta6an5vfm9f@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Yf9sb.172884$Tr4.462520@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t6t1rv0g4p39hpd8g1oc5qtjfs2anpvg6u@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<qqQrb.162618$Tr4.435064@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be an
"absurd"
state
....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically
absurd
state
of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory; holding
that
it
is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into the
world
with
the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and at
the
same
time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life
capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law, would be
objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us
mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic
principles
of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal logical
consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is
definitely a
self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an absurd
state
of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the category of
'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reductio ad absurdum is a
perfectly
valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions?
I understand that it is worthless if the initial conditions are
invalid.
Please explain what you mean by "invalid initial conditions."
What's
invalid
about arriving at an objective logical conclusion through reductio
that
not
having a law prohibiting murder would be an absurd barbaric state
of
affairs
among us mortals?
That's your conclusion.
No, the point here is that your argument does not hold water, that a
law
prohibiting murder is not a subjective matter, depending on personal
subjective conviction, as you and Flank and company argue, because
that
argument does not hold water.
So where are these alleged "invalid initial conditions" you allege?
In
your
imagination?
Don't you agree that it is self-evidently true that we all come into
the
world endowed with an unalienable right to live, liberty, and the
pursuit
of
the perfect pair of socks,
No.
since the opposite would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs among us mortals?
Whether or not it would be an absurd barbaric state among us mortals
is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.
If it leads to an absurd barbaric situation, then it is disproved.
Fallacy of Equivocation from Septic on "absurd". It has a precise
meaning in "reductio ad absurdum" which Septic simply disregards.
(Namely, contradiction.) Barbaric and logically contradictory have
nothing to do with each other.
It would not be logically consistent to hold both,
one, that each person is born with an unalienable right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, and at the same time to hold
two,
You said that the opposite of (1) is absurd, with equivocation on
"absurd" (between "barbaric" and "contradictory"). There is no (2).
You're simply squirming again because you've been caught in fallacy.
Which is yet another fallacy, Bait and Switch. You just keep piling
them on. Proving yet again that:
Septic remains the completely fallacious, mendacious, and discredited
old idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism. Fun to watch though.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
13 Nov 2003 12:20:10 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0311130739.6fa9602b@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Vwssb.133668$ao4.422050@attbi_s51>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0311120729.32a4a7a4@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<prlsb.178786$Fm2.163413@attbi_s04>...
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:k5k2rvsrc0ocq3a57ejtpr88vji1v6dliq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:55:57 +0000 (UTC), "Bob White"
<threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:crd2rv4r90s3mh3o6jiqt3eta6an5vfm9f@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Yf9sb.172884$Tr4.462520@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t6t1rv0g4p39hpd8g1oc5qtjfs2anpvg6u@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote
in
<qqQrb.162618$Tr4.435064@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be
an
"absurd"
state
....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically
absurd
state
of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory;
holding
that
it
is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into
the
world
with
the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and
at
the
same
time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life
capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law, would
be
objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us
mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic
principles
of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal
logical
consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature
of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is
definitely a
self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an
absurd
state
of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the category
of
'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reductio ad absurdum
is a
perfectly
valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions?
I understand that it is worthless if the initial conditions
are
invalid.
Please explain what you mean by "invalid initial conditions."
What's
invalid
about arriving at an objective logical conclusion through
reductio
that
not
having a law prohibiting murder would be an absurd barbaric
state
of
affairs
among us mortals?
That's your conclusion.
No, the point here is that your argument does not hold water,
that a
law
prohibiting murder is not a subjective matter, depending on
personal
subjective conviction, as you and Flank and company argue,
because
that
argument does not hold water.
So where are these alleged "invalid initial conditions" you
allege?
In
your
imagination?
Don't you agree that it is self-evidently true that we all come
into
the
world endowed with an unalienable right to live, liberty, and the
pursuit
of
the perfect pair of socks,
No.
since the opposite would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs among us mortals?
Whether or not it would be an absurd barbaric state among us
mortals
is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.
If it leads to an absurd barbaric situation, then it is disproved.
Fallacy of Equivocation from Septic on "absurd". It has a precise
meaning in "reductio ad absurdum" which Septic simply disregards.
(Namely, contradiction.) Barbaric and logically contradictory have
nothing to do with each other.
It would not be logically consistent to hold both,
one, that each person is born with an unalienable right to life,
liberty,
and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, and at the same time to
hold
two,
You said that the opposite of (1) is absurd ...
I didn't make it up, knucklehead. It's in the US Declaration of
Independence, and it is also in the United Nations Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm
What's up with your cavil? Are you not a member of the human family?
It would not be logically consistent to hold both,
one, that each person is born with an unalienable right to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, and at the same time to hold
two, that murder is acceptable behavior. That would not be logically
consistent throughout, therefore it would be an absurd barbaric state of
affairs, knucklehead.
This all started with Flank's assertion, "The law itself is
based on subjective opinion." -- Lenny Flank
You rose to champion his assertion.
The assertion you are championing is rejected as logically absurd,
knucklehead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
17 Nov 2003 03:00:37 PM |
|
|
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<kXPsb.138460$mZ5.954028@attbi_s54>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0311130739.6fa9602b@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Vwssb.133668$ao4.422050@attbi_s51>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0311120729.32a4a7a4@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<prlsb.178786$Fm2.163413@attbi_s04>...
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:k5k2rvsrc0ocq3a57ejtpr88vji1v6dliq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:55:57 +0000 (UTC), "Bob White"
<threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:crd2rv4r90s3mh3o6jiqt3eta6an5vfm9f@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in
<Yf9sb.172884$Tr4.462520@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:t6t1rv0g4p39hpd8g1oc5qtjfs2anpvg6u@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote
in
<qqQrb.162618$Tr4.435064@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT be
an
"absurd"
state
....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a logically
absurd
state
of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory;
holding
that
it
is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes into
the
world
with
the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and
at
the
same
time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life
capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law, would
be
objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us
mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most basic
principles
of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal
logical
consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the nature
of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is
definitely a
self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an
absurd
state
of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the category
of
'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reductio ad absurdum
is a
perfectly
valid means of arriving at objective logical conclusions?
I understand that it is worthless if the initial conditions
are
invalid.
Please explain what you mean by "invalid initial conditions."
What's
invalid
about arriving at an objective logical conclusion through
reductio
that
not
having a law prohibiting murder would be an absurd barbaric
state
of
affairs
among us mortals?
That's your conclusion.
No, the point here is that your argument does not hold water,
that a
law
prohibiting murder is not a subjective matter, depending on
personal
subjective conviction, as you and Flank and company argue,
because
that
argument does not hold water.
So where are these alleged "invalid initial conditions" you
allege?
In
your
imagination?
Don't you agree that it is self-evidently true that we all come
into
the
world endowed with an unalienable right to live, liberty, and the
pursuit
of
the perfect pair of socks,
No.
since the opposite would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs among us mortals?
Whether or not it would be an absurd barbaric state among us
mortals
is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.
If it leads to an absurd barbaric situation, then it is disproved.
Fallacy of Equivocation from Septic on "absurd". It has a precise
meaning in "reductio ad absurdum" which Septic simply disregards.
(Namely, contradiction.) Barbaric and logically contradictory have
nothing to do with each other.
It would not be logically consistent to hold both,
one, that each person is born with an unalienable right to life,
liberty,
and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, and at the same time to
hold
two,
You said that the opposite of (1) is absurd ...
I didn't make it up, knucklehead.
Yes, you did.
It's in the US Declaration of
Independence, and it is also in the United Nations Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
Those documents may contain (1) (less the socks part), but they
certainly don't state that the opposite of (1) is logically
contradictory.
So we see that you are simply Equivocating (Fallacy) now between "(1)"
by itself and "the opposite of (1) is absurd". Your purpose in doing
so is now also clear -- you wish to simply beg the question of whether
(1) has been proved by RaA; that's the Petitio Principii Fallacy from
Septic.
Septic hereby remains the completely refuted, mendacious, fallacious,
squirming, and discredited old idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism.
Demonstrated as fact daily.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Slim" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
17 Nov 2003 06:33:37 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0311171300.77132d4a@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<kXPsb.138460$mZ5.954028@attbi_s54>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0311130739.6fa9602b@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Vwssb.133668$ao4.422050@attbi_s51>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0311120729.32a4a7a4@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<prlsb.178786$Fm2.163413@attbi_s04>...
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:k5k2rvsrc0ocq3a57ejtpr88vji1v6dliq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:55:57 +0000 (UTC), "Bob White"
<threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:crd2rv4r90s3mh3o6jiqt3eta6an5vfm9f@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote
in
<Yf9sb.172884$Tr4.462520@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
message
news:t6t1rv0g4p39hpd8g1oc5qtjfs2anpvg6u@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote
in
<qqQrb.162618$Tr4.435064@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in
message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT
be
an
"absurd"
state
....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a
logically
absurd
state
of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory;
holding
that
it
is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes
into
the
world
with
the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
and
at
the
same
time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life
capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law,
would
be
objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us
mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most
basic
principles
of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal
logical
consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the
nature
of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is
definitely a
self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an
absurd
state
of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the
category
of
'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reductio ad
absurdum
is a
perfectly
valid means of arriving at objective logical
conclusions?
I understand that it is worthless if the initial
conditions
are
invalid.
Please explain what you mean by "invalid initial
conditions."
What's
invalid
about arriving at an objective logical conclusion through
reductio
that
not
having a law prohibiting murder would be an absurd
barbaric
state
of
affairs
among us mortals?
That's your conclusion.
No, the point here is that your argument does not hold water,
that a
law
prohibiting murder is not a subjective matter, depending on
personal
subjective conviction, as you and Flank and company argue,
because
that
argument does not hold water.
So where are these alleged "invalid initial conditions" you
allege?
In
your
imagination?
Don't you agree that it is self-evidently true that we all
come
into
the
world endowed with an unalienable right to live, liberty, and
the
pursuit
of
the perfect pair of socks,
No.
since the opposite would be an absurd barbaric
state of affairs among us mortals?
Whether or not it would be an absurd barbaric state among us
mortals
is irrelevant to whether or not it is true.
If it leads to an absurd barbaric situation, then it is
disproved.
Fallacy of Equivocation from Septic on "absurd". It has a precise
meaning in "reductio ad absurdum" which Septic simply disregards.
(Namely, contradiction.) Barbaric and logically contradictory
have
nothing to do with each other.
It would not be logically consistent to hold both,
one, that each person is born with an unalienable right to life,
liberty,
and the pursuit of the perfect pair of socks, and at the same time
to
hold
two,
You said that the opposite of (1) is absurd ...
I didn't make it up, knucklehead.
Yes, you did.
It's in the US Declaration of
Independence, and it is also in the United Nations Universal Declaration
of
Human Rights.
Those documents may contain (1) (less the socks part), but they
certainly don't state that the opposite of (1) is logically
contradictory.
'Absurd' is not limited to the formally logically contradictory. 'Absurd'
can mean inconsistent with the principles of valid argument (logic) OR
inconsistent with common sense:
absurd
adj 1: inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense; "the absurd
predicament of seeming to argue that virtue is highly desirable but
intensely unpleasant"- Walter Lippman [syn: incongruous, unreasonable] 2: so
devoid of wisdom or good sense as to be laughable; "the absurd excuse that
the dog ate his homework"; "ask a nonsensical question and get a nonsensical
answer"; "a contribution so small as to be derisory"; "it is ludicrous to
call a cottage a mansion"; "a preposterous attempt to turn back the pages of
history"; "her conceited assumption of universal interest in her rather
dull children was ridiculous" [syn: derisory, ludicrous, nonsensical,
preposterous, ridiculous]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
It would certainly be inconsistent with common sense to have an absurd
barbaric situation in which anyone were free to become a murderous
psychopath and be perfectly free to take your life, or anything else you
have an unalienable right to, away from you, purly on a whim, capriciously,
without due process of law. That would be an absurd state of affairs,
inconsistent with common sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: The scientific method of investigation |
18 Nov 2003 09:33:04 AM |
|
|
"Slim" <slimshady@mnm.com> wrote in message news:<BNdub.229592$Fm2.229964@attbi_s04>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0311171300.77132d4a@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<kXPsb.138460$mZ5.954028@attbi_s54>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0311130739.6fa9602b@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<Vwssb.133668$ao4.422050@attbi_s51>...
"Jeff Young" <jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6f553a4.0311120729.32a4a7a4@posting.google.com...
"Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<prlsb.178786$Fm2.163413@attbi_s04>...
"Jon Fleming" <jonf@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:k5k2rvsrc0ocq3a57ejtpr88vji1v6dliq@4ax.com...
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:55:57 +0000 (UTC), "Bob White"
<threeball@hotmail.com> wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:crd2rv4r90s3mh3o6jiqt3eta6an5vfm9f@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com> wrote
in
<Yf9sb.172884$Tr4.462520@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
message
news:t6t1rv0g4p39hpd8g1oc5qtjfs2anpvg6u@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote
in
<qqQrb.162618$Tr4.435064@attbi_s03>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
message
news:lsivqvonl00skj15a5a7v0gfkn780d5b6r@4ax.com...
In talk.origins, "Bob White" <threeball@hotmail.com>
wrote in
<pkPrb.161901$Tr4.434199@attbi_s03>:
"George Schaertl" <gschaertl@msn.com> wrote in
message
news:teNrb.85335$ZC4.45997@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
...
Not having a law prohibiting murder would NOT
be
an
"absurd"
state
....
Are you kidding?
Yes it definitely would be objectively a
logically
absurd
state
of
affairs,
knucklehead, and I mean logically contradictory;
holding
that
it
is a
self-evident truth that each individual comes
into
the
world
with
the
right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
and
at
the
same
time
holding
that murder, the taking of another person's life
capriciously,
without
justification, and without due process of law,
would
be
objectively
considered a logically absurd situation among us
mortals.
That situation would violate one of the most
basic
principles
of
valid
argument (logic): the requirement for internal
logical
consistency
throughout one's argument.
Google reductio ad absurdum.
Mea culpa.
If you also presuppose the inalienable
It is spelled unalienable, and it is not in the
nature
of a
'presupposition
just for the sake of argument', knucklehead, it is
definitely a
self
evident
truth due to the fact that the opposite would be an
absurd
state
of
affairs.
All history shows that this claim fit into the
category
of
'wishful
thinking' at the time it was made.
Then you really don't understand how reducti | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
