| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
16 Dec 2005 04:18:38 AM |
| Object: |
You cannot disprove God |
It cannot be done.
Paul
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
16 Dec 2005 06:17:57 AM |
|
|
On 16 Dec 2005 02:18:38 -0800 in alt.atheism,
() said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
It cannot be done.
Depends. If your definition of God is self-contradictory, then yes it
can. If your claims about God flatly contradict reality then yes it
can. On the other hand if your definition of God is in principle
unverifiable, then while it can't be disproved, it remains a one mere
conjecture amongst many and not worth more than a "Hummm....".
If you'd care to define what you feel God to be, then we'll see if it
can be dis proven, or not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
16 Dec 2005 10:19:14 AM |
|
|
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Paul
Nobody ever has to prove the negative, moron. The burden of proof cannot
be shifted.
Bertrand Russell showed why the idea there might be a God is summarily
rejected decades ago. Where have you been?
The theist idea of GodŽ, the hypothetical Creator, the hypothetical
First Cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special pleading for GodŽ)
so it is summarily rejected as logical fallacy and a waste of time, as
Bertrand Russell points out:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
a God/Creator/First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an
argument for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem
(special pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points
out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
16 Dec 2005 11:06:01 AM |
|
|
In article <pq6dneIEuopydT_eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Paul
Nobody ever has to prove the negative, moron. The burden of proof cannot
be shifted.
Bertrand Russell showed why the idea there might be a God is summarily
rejected decades ago. Where have you been?
Russell showed why the claim that there MUST be a god is rejectable, but
explicitly said that he could not prove that there could not be one.
Thus Septic LIES AGAIN! AS USUAL!
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
18 Dec 2005 11:39:10 AM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-AC4F8E.10060016122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <pq6dneIEuopydT_eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Paul
Nobody ever has to prove the negative, moron. The burden of proof
cannot
be shifted.
Bertrand Russell showed why the idea there might be a God is
summarily
rejected decades ago. Where have you been?
Russell showed why the claim that there MUST be a god
That is the theist hypothesis (the 'might be' theist conjecture), and it
is summarily rejected due to the inherent logical fallacy (special
pleading). Where have you been?
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be
a First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument
for First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special
pleading) inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
18 Dec 2005 12:49:55 PM |
|
|
In article <dKKdnavOiN41AzjeRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-AC4F8E.10060016122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <pq6dneIEuopydT_eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Paul
Nobody ever has to prove the negative, moron. The burden of proof
cannot
be shifted.
Bertrand Russell showed why the idea there might be a God is
summarily
rejected decades ago. Where have you been?
Russell showed why the claim that there MUST be a god
That is the theist hypothesis
For a person's statement to be hypothetical(see below), that person must
be uncertain of its truth (not believe that it must be true).
So that Septic must be claiming that theists do not actually believe in
their god(s).
From which it follows that all theists are really atheists, according to
Septic's own definition that atheists are these who do not believe in
god(s).
Septic never really thinks about the inevitable consequences of his wild
claims. If he ever did, he would not make them.
(the 'might be' theist conjecture), and it
is summarily rejected due to the inherent logical fallacy (special
pleading). Where have you been?
Learning all that logic that Septic cannot deal with.
Proximity/Merriam-Webster U.S. English Thesaurus
2 meaning(s) for hypothetical
1. (adj) having conceptual rather than concrete existence
(synonym) abstract, ideal, theoretical, transcendent, transcendental
(related) academic, impractical, utopian, visionary, speculative,
undemonstrable, conceptual, notional, inconcrete
(contrast) corporeal, material, objective, phenomenal, physical,
actual, factual, real
(antonym) concrete
2. (adj) accepted or advanced as true or real on the basis of less than
conclusive evidence
(synonym) supposed, conjectural, putative, reputed, suppositional,
suppositious, supposititious, suppositive, suppository
(see also) alleged
(related) assumed, postulated, postulatory, presumed, presupposed,
provisional, tentative, academic, speculative, theoretical, alleged
(contrast) sure, known, proved, proven, ascertained, demonstrated,
observed, recognized
(antonym) certain
Proximity/Franklin U.S. English Thesaurus
3 meaning(s) for hypothetical
1. (adj) (of a linguistic form) posited to exist ancestrally
(synonym) reconstructed, starred
(antonym) attested
2. (adj) (of a study or project) not ready for practical implementation
(synonym) speculative, theoretical, academic
(related) theoretic
(antonym) practical
3. (adj) presumed but not proven to exist
(synonym) postulated, supposititious, theoretical
(related) theoretic
(antonym) empirical
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 12:29:40 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3F023.11495518122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <dKKdnavOiN41AzjeRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-AC4F8E.10060016122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <pq6dneIEuopydT_eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Paul
Nobody ever has to prove the negative, moron. The burden of proof
cannot
be shifted.
Bertrand Russell showed why the idea there might be a God is
summarily
rejected decades ago. Where have you been?
Russell showed why the claim that there MUST be a god
That is the theist hypothesis
For a person's statement to be hypothetical ...
'Hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture, moron. See
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 03:55:45 PM |
|
|
In article <2Y6dnQq4QdaDYDveRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3F023.11495518122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <dKKdnavOiN41AzjeRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-AC4F8E.10060016122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <pq6dneIEuopydT_eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Paul
Nobody ever has to prove the negative, moron. The burden of proof
cannot
be shifted.
Bertrand Russell showed why the idea there might be a God is
summarily
rejected decades ago. Where have you been?
Russell showed why the claim that there MUST be a god
That is the theist hypothesis
For a person's statement to be hypothetical ...
'Hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture, moron. See
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Septic reveals himself imbecilic to decalre that whether a person
beleives something is merely a hypothetical issue.
When a theists says he BELIEVES in something, it is his belief that he
is claiming. The validity of his belief is irrelevant, only whether he
actually believes it counts.
On what grounds will Septic declare that whether someone believes
something is a hypothetical issue?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 10:02:52 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-745C9E.14554519122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <2Y6dnQq4QdaDYDveRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3F023.11495518122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <dKKdnavOiN41AzjeRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-AC4F8E.10060016122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <pq6dneIEuopydT_eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Paul
Nobody ever has to prove the negative, moron. The burden of
proof
cannot
be shifted.
Bertrand Russell showed why the idea there might be a God is
summarily
rejected decades ago. Where have you been?
Russell showed why the claim that there MUST be a god
That is the theist hypothesis
For a person's statement to be hypothetical ...
'Hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture, moron. See
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Septic reveals himself imbecilic to decalre that whether a person
beleives something is merely a hypothetical issue.
Straw man. I did not say that people believing various statements is a
hypothetical issue, I said that God is hypothetical ('might be' theist
conjecture). Got it straight now, sonny?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 11:28:55 PM |
|
|
In article <A_udnYX0ZP8EHzrenZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-745C9E.14554519122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <2Y6dnQq4QdaDYDveRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3F023.11495518122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <dKKdnavOiN41AzjeRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-AC4F8E.10060016122005@comcast.dca.giganews.co
m..
.
In article <pq6dneIEuopydT_eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Paul
Nobody ever has to prove the negative, moron. The burden of
proof
cannot
be shifted.
Bertrand Russell showed why the idea there might be a God is
summarily
rejected decades ago. Where have you been?
Russell showed why the claim that there MUST be a god
That is the theist hypothesis
For a person's statement to be hypothetical ...
'Hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture, moron. See
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Septic reveals himself imbecilic to declare that whether a person
believes something is merely a hypothetical issue.
Straw man. I did not say that people believing various statements is a
hypothetical issue, I said that God is hypothetical ('might be' theist
conjecture). Got it straight now, sonny?
The point is that to theists, their god(s) are not the least bit
hypothetical, but a world/universe without their god(s) is no more than
hypothetical to them.
What one regards as hypothetical depends on what one believes or does
not believe, particularly in areas, like religion in which the facts
have not or cannot be established on any common basis of understanding.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
20 Dec 2005 08:15:54 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-745C9E.14554519122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <2Y6dnQq4QdaDYDveRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B3F023.11495518122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <dKKdnavOiN41AzjeRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-AC4F8E.10060016122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com..
.
In article <pq6dneIEuopydT_eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Paul
Nobody ever has to prove the negative, moron. The burden of
proof
cannot
be shifted.
Bertrand Russell showed why the idea there might be a God is
summarily
rejected decades ago. Where have you been?
Russell showed why the claim that there MUST be a god
That is the theist hypothesis
For a person's statement to be hypothetical ...
'Hypothesis' means 'might be' conjecture, moron. See
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=conjecture
Septic reveals himself imbecilic to decalre that whether a person
beleives something is merely a hypothetical issue.
God is hypothetical
I deny your positive statement, Septic. Denials incur no burden,
right? Your turn.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
18 Dec 2005 12:23:03 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-AC4F8E.10060016122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <pq6dneIEuopydT_eRVn-pQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Paul
Nobody ever has to prove the negative, moron. The burden of proof
cannot
be shifted.
Bertrand Russell showed why the idea there might be a God is
summarily
rejected decades ago. Where have you been?
Russell showed why the claim that there MUST be a god
That is the theist hypothesis (the 'might be'
False, sir. One bag full, Septic. (Obvious Fallacy of Equivocation
from Septic between 'must be' and 'might be'.)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
16 Dec 2005 01:04:35 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
<dunric@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134728318.228980.145810@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It cannot be done.
Paul
Nobody ever has to prove the negative, moron.
Goofball here has been kicked off of Wikipedia for
trying to promote this stupidity there. Watch as he
deletes the following:
"Whoever puts forward an assertion, announces a position,
or takes a stand must be prepared to support it with reasons
and evidence. The person who fathers a claim is the one
responsible for its defense, and the 'burden of proof' is his
and his alone. --Munson, Ronald. The Way of Words. 1st ed.,
Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin, 1976. p 299 -300
Notice no exception for "negative" claims.
This dumbass thinks that someone can make a "negative"
claim and has no responsibility for supporting it.
Now he will try to turn this thread into his hobby
horse too. Don't let him. Filter this mental case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 10:12:21 PM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> was kicked out of college for being too
stupid to learn the basic principles of valid argument. Just ignore the
little rascal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
19 Dec 2005 11:40:37 PM |
|
|
In article <zLudnftFq7FDGTrenZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Del" was kicked out of college for being too
stupid to learn the basic principles of valid argument. Just ignore the
little rascal.
Since Septic, aka "OS XI" is at least as stupid/ignorant about the basic
principles of logic as anyone in this thread, he is hardly in a postion
to carp at anyone else on this point.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
20 Dec 2005 08:08:56 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> was kicked out of college for being too
stupid to learn the basic principles of valid argument. Just ignore the
little rascal.
Isn't this a Fallacy of ad hominem, Septic? Is that allowed in valid
argument?
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
20 Dec 2005 11:10:29 AM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1135087736.319659.272260@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> was kicked out of college for being too
stupid to learn the basic principles of valid argument. Just ignore
the
little rascal.
Isn't this a Fallacy of ad hominem, Septic? Is that allowed in valid
argument?
Jeff
Aren't you the nutcase who's idea of valid argument is to argue that
there might be a magic invisible God/Creator/First Cause anyway, even
though there is no such thing in evidence you can point to and say,
'There, that's what I'm talking about', because there are people who do
not believe you and they might be wrong?? <snicker>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
20 Dec 2005 12:31:31 PM |
|
|
In article <qIidnTPuH-CZpjXeRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1135087736.319659.272260@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> was kicked out of college for being too
stupid to learn the basic principles of valid argument. Just ignore
the
little rascal.
Isn't this a Fallacy of ad hominem, Septic? Is that allowed in valid
argument?
Jeff
Aren't you the nutcase
ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM again! Septic just cannot keep himself from
fallacying all over the place.
who's idea of valid argument is to argue that
there might be a magic invisible God/Creator/First Cause anyway
That is Septic's false idea of what we agnostics actually consider
valid, i.e., that we should not reject any possibility without logically
convincing evidence that it is wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
20 Dec 2005 01:09:02 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... we should not reject any possibility without logically
convincing evidence that it is wrong.
Accept the theist hypothesis that there might be a god or gods because
there is no proof that hypothesis is false?
That is argument _ad ignorantiam_, logical fallacy for which you theists
have been famous for hundreds of years, as Copi explains:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the
moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had
long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear
to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere,
because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible
crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the perfection
of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
Galileo, to expose the argument _ad ignorantium_, offered another of
the same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rearing up from the
invisible crystalline envelope on the moon, even greater mountain
peaks -- but made of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis
his critics could not prove false.
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means theist conjecture, a
speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact.]
As Chris Lee points out, there is no reason to even consider the
hypothesis there might be a god:
http://tinylink.com/?6664ZqVskh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
20 Dec 2005 10:18:59 PM |
|
|
In article <-tednbOyPL1QyzXenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... we should not reject any possibility without logically
convincing evidence that it is wrong.
Accept the theist hypothesis that there might be a god or gods because
there is no proof that hypothesis is false?
There is a difference, at least among agnostics like me, between
accepting a statement and not rejecting it. The latter does not mean
that one has taken any position on the truth or falsehood of the
statement, but is consistent with withholding judgement.
That Septic is unfamiliar with the possibility of withholding judgement
on an issue may easily be seeem from the nature of his postings.
Since I equally refuse to reject the possibility of there being no gods
and the possibility of there being gods, until one or the other has
logically compelling evidence to spport it, I am, unlike Septic, an
honest agnostic on that issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 12:32:36 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
I equally refuse to reject the possibility of there being no gods
and the possibility of there being gods ...
The possibility of there being what?
Possibility = probability.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=probability
What is the algorithm for computing the probability of a god?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 01:10:20 PM |
|
|
In article <r5CdnW-z3q9dAjTe4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
I equally refuse to reject the possibility of there being no gods
and the possibility of there being gods ...
The possibility of there being what?
Which word does Septiic not understand?
To the best of my knowledge neither the presence not the absence of
god(s) has ever been proved satisfactorily, so one need not accept that
either of them in particular is the case, though one must be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 03:21:04 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-8FF7B5.12102021122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <r5CdnW-z3q9dAjTe4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
I equally refuse to reject the possibility of there being no gods
and the possibility of there being gods ...
The possibility of there being what?
Which term does Daddy not understand?
'probability of a god'
What's the allgorithm for computing that probability? (Sixteenth
request)
To the best of my knowledge neither the presence not the absence of
god(s) has ever been proved satisfactorily, so one need not accept
that
either of them in particular is the case, though one must be.
"The absence of god(s) has ever been proved satisfactorily"?? There you
go again, trying to have it taken for granted that atheists have
something (some thing) to prove. The fact is that we don't, only you
theists do, your hypothetical god thingy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 07:31:50 PM |
|
|
In article <lsadnWb-g8-hWjTeRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
'probability of a god'
What's the allgorithm for computing that probability? (Sixteenth
request)
All that is known about that "probability" at present is that neither
0 nor 1 have been eliminated as values for it. If Septic wants more,
he will have to work it out for himself.
To the best of my knowledge neither the presence not the absence of
god(s) has ever been proved satisfactorily, so one need not accept
that either of them in particular is the case, though one must be.
"The absence of god(s) has ever been proved satisfactorily"??
Septic's attention span seems unable to hold more than 9 words all in
his mind at once. Read the WHOLE sentence SEptic!
Agnostics like me do not claim certainty without evidence more
logically compelling than any for the impossibility of god(s).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
22 Dec 2005 09:29:18 AM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-8FF7B5.12102021122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <r5CdnW-z3q9dAjTe4p2dnA@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
I equally refuse to reject the possibility of there being no gods
and the possibility of there being gods ...
The possibility of there being what?
Which word does Septic not understand?
'probability of a god'
Which _word_ does Septic not understand?
'non-zero'
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 03:14:18 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
I equally refuse to reject the possibility of there being no gods
and the possibility of there being gods ...
The possibility of there being what?
Possibility = probability.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=probability
In Texas Hold'em, a small pair will improve to beat a pair of aces
twenty percent of the time. Therefore, if you start with a small pair,
it is possible that you will beat somebody who starts with a pair of aces.
If DotSix believes he can substitute "probable" for "possible" in the
above, I'd like for him to come and sit at my table...
What is the algorithm for computing the probability of a god?
.
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 04:07:46 PM |
|
|
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:KAjqf.1771$pk4.552@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
I equally refuse to reject the possibility of there being no gods
and the possibility of there being gods ...
The possibility of there being what?
Possibility = probability.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=probability
In Texas Hold'em, a small pair will improve to beat a pair of aces
twenty percent of the time.
Got proof? What is the algorithm for computing that probability?
And please explain what Texas Hold'em has to do with my question:
What is the algorithm for computing the probability of a god?
Are you just trying to change the subject again?
"The Fallacies of Diversion : The fallacies in this family share the
characteristic that they distract attention away from the issue that is
genuinely under discussion." --
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/diversion.asp
The issue genuinely under discussion between you theists and us atheist
agnostics is this irrational religious belief you theists have that
there might be a magically invisible space pixie anyway, even though
there is no evidence of any such thing you theists can point to and say,
'There, that's what I'm talking about'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 08:09:44 PM |
|
|
In article <AaqdnXE8AfyzTzTeRVn-sg@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:KAjqf.1771$pk4.552@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
In Texas Hold'em, a small pair will improve to beat a pair of aces
twenty percent of the time.
Got proof? What is the algorithm for computing that probability?
If Septic is too stupid/ignorant to work out the probabilities himself,
let him wallow in his sty of stupidiy and ignorance.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Malibu Skipper" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 05:08:32 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Malibu Skipper" <mad@my.mama> wrote in message
news:KAjqf.1771$pk4.552@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
I equally refuse to reject the possibility of there being no gods
and the possibility of there being gods ...
The possibility of there being what?
Possibility = probability.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=probability
In Texas Hold'em, a small pair will improve to beat a pair of aces
twenty percent of the time.
Got proof? What is the algorithm for computing that probability?
Well, the math is complicated, but basically the small pair has five
chances at two cards which could make a set, with 48 unknown cards
remaining:
(2/48) + (46/48) * [(2/47) + (45/47) * [(2/46) + (44/46) * [(2/45) +
(43/45) * (2/44)]]]
You would adjust this for the chance that the ace would also hit:
(2/48) + (44/48) * [(2/47) + (43/47) * [(2/46) + (42/46) * [(2/45) +
(41/45) * (2/44)]]]
The actual chance of the small pair improving while the ace doesn't is
about 18.3 percent, if I've done the math right.
And please explain what Texas Hold'em has to do with my question:
You'd understand that, if you hadn't deleted the relevant portion of the
post:
'In Texas Hold'em, a small pair will improve to beat a pair of aces
twenty percent of the time. Therefore, if you start with a small pair,
it is possible that you will beat somebody who starts with a pair of aces.
If DotSix believes he can substitute "probable" for "possible" in the
above, I'd like for him to come and sit at my table...'
But, of course, you always delete the relevant portion of any post you
can't respond to, don't you, DotSix?
What is the algorithm for computing the probability of a god?
So far as I know, there is no such algorithm. The possibility of any
statement which has not been disproved being true, however, is non-zero.
Are you just trying to change the subject again?
"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
The issue genuinely under discussion between you theists and us atheist
agnostics is this irrational religious belief you theists have that
there might be a magically invisible space pixie anyway, even though
there is no evidence of any such thing you theists can point to and say,
'There, that's what I'm talking about'.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 12:49:28 PM |
|
|
OS XI wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
I equally refuse to reject the possibility of there being no gods
and the possibility of there being gods ...
The possibility of there being what?
Gods.
Possibility = probability.
False, sir. Argument by Thesaurus won't work, Septic. And you only
make yourself look even more stupid to argue so.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "OS XI" |
|
| Title: Re: You cannot disprove God |
21 Dec 2005 12:12:49 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-02C856.21185920122005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <-tednbOyPL1QyzXenZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"OS XI" <oessxi@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote
... we should not reject any possibility without logically
convincing evidence that it is wrong.
Accept the theist hypothesis that there might be a god or gods
because
there is no proof that hypothesis is false?
There is a difference, at least among agnostics like me, between
accepting a statement and not rejecting it.
There is no difference; 'not accept' means the opposite of accept, it
means 'reject'. Is English not your first language, old son?
Your argument (that there is no proof the hypothesis is false) for
accepting it is logical fallacy (argument _ad ignorantiam_). Any
questions on this point?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
