| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Atheistagnostic" |
| Date: |
07 Mar 2005 12:31:09 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Physics and metaphysics |
Virgil wrote:
... has proposed that gods are impossible ...
That's a lie. Your side makes the proposition in question, that there might be
X (whatever you imagine X is) anyway, even though there is nothing in evidence
you can point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about', all you can
do is keep trying to shift the burden of proof to anyone who questions your
lame ideas.
Your argument _ad ignorantiam_ is is no better disguised than that of these
theologs of Galileo's time:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon
is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled
in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the
perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be' imagining
with no basis in fact.]
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
07 Mar 2005 01:59:57 PM |
|
|
In article <ksadnWSCGuGzaLbfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... has proposed that gods are impossible ...
That's a lie.
Actually, Simple Septic, under several aliases, has often claimed (in
response to suggestions that there might be a god or that gods are not
known to be impossible) "False, there are no such things", and similar
statements, as can be verified on Google Groups.
So I leave it to posterity to judge who is the liar here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
07 Mar 2005 06:08:19 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <ksadnWSCGuGzaLbfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... has proposed that gods are impossible ...
That's a lie. Your side makes the proposition in question, that there might be
X (whatever you imagine X is) anyway, even though there is nothing in evidence
you can point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about', all you can
do is keep trying to shift the burden of proof to anyone who questions your
lame ideas.
Your argument _ad ignorantiam_ is is no better disguised than that of these
theologs of Galileo's time:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon
is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled
in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the
perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be' imagining
with no basis in fact.]
Actually, Simple Septic, under several aliases, has often claimed (in
response to suggestions that there might be a god or that gods are not
known to be impossible) "False, there are no such things"
That's not an assertion, moron, it's the denial of one, and you can't shift the
burden of proof to the denial, so the denial is the only reasonable
pressumption. Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
07 Mar 2005 09:39:46 PM |
|
|
In article <APednW0ujOhocbHfRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ksadnWSCGuGzaLbfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... has proposed that gods are impossible ...
That's a lie.
Actually, Simple Septic, under several aliases, has often claimed (in
response to suggestions that there might be a god or that gods are not
known to be impossible) "False, there are no such things"
That's not an assertion...
Then let us by all means ignore it as it should be ignored.
But note that Simple Septic did not deny saying what Google can easily
confirm he said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 05:46:27 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <APednW0ujOhocbHfRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ksadnWSCGuGzaLbfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... has proposed that gods are impossible ...
That's a lie.
Actually, Simple Septic, under several aliases, has often claimed (in
response to suggestions that there might be a god or that gods are not
known to be impossible) "False, there are no such things"
That's not an assertion...
Then let us by all means ignore it ...
We cannot ignore the only reasonable default presumption, moron; just as
the only reasonable default presumption in criminal court is "No guilt,"
the only reasonable default presumption here is "No God."
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 09:45:04 PM |
|
|
In article <XPadndj42sROF7LfRVn-2w@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <APednW0ujOhocbHfRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ksadnWSCGuGzaLbfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... has proposed that gods are impossible ...
That's a lie.
Actually, Simple Septic, under several aliases, has often claimed (in
response to suggestions that there might be a god or that gods are not
known to be impossible) "False, there are no such things"
That's not an assertion...
Then let us by all means ignore it ...
We cannot ignore
We can ignore anything as unreasonalbe as Simple Septic's perpetual
false claims that anything can be known to be true without proof.
negation
(logic) a proposition that is true if and only if another proposition
is false
Source: WordNet 2.0, 2003 Princeton University
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
10 Mar 2005 01:07:47 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... Simple Septic's perpetual
false claims that anything can be known to be true without proof.
That's a lie. We are not discussing what is known to be true, we are
discussing what is the reasonable default PRESUMPTION in any case, like the
reasonable default presumption in criminal court, 'No guilt'.
Didn't your daddy teach you the basics, moron?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
10 Mar 2005 03:51:01 PM |
|
|
In article <LMednaSLB4mZBq3fRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... Simple Septic's perpetual
false claims that anything can be known to be true without proof.
That's a lie. We are not discussing what is known to be true, we are
discussing what is the reasonable default PRESUMPTION
Simple Septic presumes too much.
But he has specifically claimed "False" to suggestions that any gods
might exist.
"False" is not mere presumption, it is a claim of absolute certainty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 02:02:10 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <LMednaSLB4mZBq3fRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... Simple Septic's perpetual
false claims that anything can be known to be true without proof.
That's a lie. We are not discussing what is known to be true, we are
discussing what is the reasonable default PRESUMPTION
Simple Septic presumes too much.
But he has specifically claimed "False" to suggestions that any gods
might exist.
"False" is not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof), moron, it
is the denial (the negation) of your assertion it is true there might be a
God, and you cannot get away with shifting the burden of proof to the
denail (the negation):
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 04:55:07 PM |
|
|
In article <7aSdnTmO4Zxe167fRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <LMednaSLB4mZBq3fRVn-gg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... Simple Septic's perpetual
false claims that anything can be known to be true without proof.
That's a lie. We are not discussing what is known to be true, we are
discussing what is the reasonable default PRESUMPTION
Simple Septic presumes too much.
But he has specifically claimed "False" to suggestions that any gods
might exist.
"False" is not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof), moron, it
is the denial (the negation) of your assertion it is true there might be a
God, and you cannot get away with shifting the burden of proof to the
denail (the negation):
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Note Simple Septic's equivocation here.
In the first (false) instance, Simple Septic equates denial with
negation (claim of certain falsehood).
In the second instance, the actual principle of logic equates denial
with questioning (expressing doubt of truth).
These are not the same in logic, and anyone who equivocates on them, as
Simple Septic does here and has done repeatedly, is trying to carry off
a swindle.
Note that Simple Septic would have you assume that the assertion is
FALSE unless proved otherwise, which is the same fallacy as assuming it
true unless proved otherwise, namely, the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
From "the Skeptic's Dictionary, http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
The argument to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one
claims that something is true only because it hasn't
been proved false, OR THAT SOMETHING IS FALSE ONLY
BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVED TRUE. A claim's truth or
falsity depends upon supporting or refuting evidence
to the claim, not the lack of support for a contrary or
contradictory claim...
The fact that it cannot be proved that the universe is
not designed by an Intelligent Creator does not prove
that it is. Nor does the fact that it cannot be proved
that the universe is designed by an Intelligent Creator
prove that it isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 07:34:46 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <7aSdnTmO4Zxe167fRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"False" is not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof), moron, it
is the denial (the negation) of your assertion it is true there might be a
God, and you cannot get away with shifting the burden of proof to the
denail (the negation):
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
... the actual principle of logic equates denial
with questioning (expressing doubt of truth).
It says denies OR questions, meaning your can't shift the burden of proof
to either one, moron. Didn't your daddy teach you to read either?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 09:19:30 PM |
|
|
In article <INWdnW8uaOQqBa7fRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <7aSdnTmO4Zxe167fRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"False" is not a claim (a statement standing in need of proof), moron, it
is the denial (the negation) of your assertion it is true there might be a
God, and you cannot get away with shifting the burden of proof to the
denail (the negation):
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
... the actual principle of logic equates denial
with questioning (expressing doubt of truth).
It says denies OR questions, meaning your can't shift the burden of proof
to either one, moron. Didn't your daddy teach you to read either?
Better than Simple Septic's daddy taught him, at all events.
Denial of a statement has two meanings which Simple Septic deliberately
equivocates upon.
One meaning is to deny that a statement have been proved true, and the
other is to deny that a statement is true.
To deny that a statement hac been proved true does not require that the
statement be false, but to deny that it IS true, DOES require that it
be false, as it must be one or the other.
One is allowed to do the former (questioning knowledge of truth) but not
the latter (asserting falsehood) without incurring any burden of proof.
That Simple Septic is so unwilling to recognize this valid distinction
is evidence that he has no valid arguments either to support his own
claims or to invalidate anyone else's statements.
Note that Simple Septic's claim that the negation of a statement must be
accepted because the statement has not been proved is a classic form of
the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
==========================================================
From
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy
occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it
hasn't been proved false. OR, EQUIVALENTLY, WHEN IT IS ARGUED THAT
SOMETHING MUST BE FALSE BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN PROVED TRUE.
This is precisely what Simple Septic keeps trying to do, argue that
something is false because it has not been proved true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
08 Mar 2005 11:15:51 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <APednW0ujOhocbHfRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ksadnWSCGuGzaLbfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... has proposed that gods are impossible ...
That's a lie. Your side makes the proposition in question, that there might be
X (whatever you imagine X is) anyway, even though there is nothing in evidence
you can point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking about', all you can
do is keep trying to shift the burden of proof to anyone who questions your
lame ideas.
Your argument _ad ignorantiam_ is is no better disguised than that of these
theologs of Galileo's time:
<quote>
Famous in the history of science is the argument _ad ignorantiam_ given in
criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time the
mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his telescope.
Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the moon was a perfect
sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had long taught, argued against
Galileo that, although we see what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon
is in fact a perfect sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled
in by an invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the
perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
</quote>
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
[In this case the term, 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be' imagining
with no basis in fact.]
Actually, Simple Septic, under several aliases, has often claimed (in
response to suggestions that there might be a god or that gods are not
known to be impossible) "False, there are no such things"
That's not an assertion, moron, it's the denial of one, and you can't shift the
burden of proof to the denial, so the denial is the only reasonable
pressumption. Didn't your daddy teach you the basics?
Then let us by all means ignore it as it should be ignored.
So you want the denials (the negations, like, "Not guilty," for example)
ignored, and default acceptance of every assertion ("Guilty" for example) as
true by default? Well, that certainly shows where you are coming from. Now, if
you are true to your principles, then you will put me in your blocked sender
list and ignore me for the rest of your life. Do you have the courage of your
convictions? We'll see. 8^)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
08 Mar 2005 02:45:47 PM |
|
|
In article <KN-dnZp94PdUQLDfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <APednW0ujOhocbHfRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <ksadnWSCGuGzaLbfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... Simple Septic has proposed that gods are impossible ...
That's a lie.
Actually, Simple Septic, under several aliases, has often claimed (in
response to suggestions that there might be a god or that gods are not
known to be impossible) "False, there are no such things"
That's not an assertion
Then let us by all means ignore it as it should be ignored.
So you want the denials
ignored
No. I want things that do not claim to be true ignored.
Either claim that "False, there are no such things" is true or withdraw
it from consideration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 02:34:41 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
Either claim that "False, there are no such things" is true or withdraw
it from consideration.
It's not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron, it is the
DENIAL of one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, so
the null, "No such thing" is the only reasonable default presumption, like
the default presumption of "No guilt" in criminal court, as you have been
informed repeatedly:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 03:07:01 PM |
|
|
In article <k7adnfslm79_wLLfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Either claim that "False, there are no such things" is true or withdraw
it from consideration.
It's not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron
I did not here say it was.
But if Simple Septic is not willing to claim it is true, why does he
keep on presenting it as if he thought it was true?
So why does Simple Septic neither claim that "False, there are no such
things" is true nor withdraw it from consideration.
Because he is trying to sneak it past without letting it be judged on
its merits.
And judging "False, there are no such things" on its merits shows that
there is no evidence to support it.
Thomas Huxley disapproves of such tactics:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all
amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he
can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is
all that is essential to Agnosticism.
That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the
contrary doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought
to believe, without logically satisfactory evidence."
-- Thomas Huxley in "Agnosticism and Christianity" 1899
I chose not to believe "False, there are no such things" until there is
logically satisfactory evidence for it, which is not now the case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 05:38:25 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <k7adnfslm79_wLLfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Either claim that "False, there are no such things" is true or withdraw
it from consideration.
It's not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron
I did not here say it was.
Liar. "Any statement which one expects to have accepted as true is an
assertion of that truth." -- Virgil
It's not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron, it is the
DENIAL of one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, so
the null, "No such thing" is the only reasonable default presumption, like
the default presumption of "No guilt" in criminal court, as you have been
informed repeatedly:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 09:42:41 PM |
|
|
In article <5c2dnRooMYFtFbLfRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <k7adnfslm79_wLLfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Either claim that "False, there are no such things" is true or withdraw
it from consideration.
It's not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron
I did not here say it was.
Liar. "Any statement which one expects to have accepted as true is an
assertion of that truth." -- Virgil
I thought you would be too stupid to read what I said, moron.
"Here" means here. I did not say it in that posting.
How do you negate an assertion without asserting the negation?
To negate an assertion is to say that the assertion is false, but any
statement asserting the truth or falsehood of any statement is an
assertion of truth or falsehood.
It's not an assertion (statement standing in need of proof), [fallacy
deleted], it is the [equivocation deleted] negation of one, and the
burden of proof cannot be shifted to the [equivocation deleted]
questioning of the proof of one...
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of
argument _ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of
proof on the person who questions [equivocation deleted] the
assertion in question. The source of the fallacy is the assumption
that the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. See
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
With the equivocations deleted, the fallacy of Simple Septic's argument
stands revealed:
Declaring a statement false (negation) is not the same as
questioning whether that statement is has been adequately proved
true (questioning).
One says a statement is false, the other merely that while the
statement
may be true it has been less than adequately proved true.
But Simple Septic's equivocations ad nauseam try to pretend that they
are the identical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
10 Mar 2005 01:20:36 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <5c2dnRooMYFtFbLfRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <k7adnfslm79_wLLfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Either claim that "False, there are no such things" is true or withdraw
it from consideration.
It's not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron
I did not here say it was.
Liar. "Any statement which one expects to have accepted as true is an
assertion of that truth." -- Virgil
I thought you would be too stupid to read what I said, moron.
"Here" means here. I did not say it in that posting.
So the world begins anew, _tabula raza_, at the beginning of each new
message from Virgil? How do you plan to sell that idea, old boy?
If you demand that I claim it, then you must be convinced that it is a
claim (a statement standing in need of proof), right, moron?
The problem for your side is that it's not a claim (statement standing in
need of proof), moron, it is the
DENIAL of one, and the burden of proof cannot be shifted to the denial, so
the null, "No such thing" is the only reasonable default presumption, like
the default presumption of "No guilt" in criminal court, as you have been
informed repeatedly:
"The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting
the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the
fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or
questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that
the assertion is true unless proven otherwise. " --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
10 Mar 2005 04:08:28 PM |
|
|
In article <yradnSuufpmZA63fRVn-2A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <5c2dnRooMYFtFbLfRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <k7adnfslm79_wLLfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Either claim that "False, there are no such things" is true or withdraw
it from consideration.
It's not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron
I did not here say it was.
Liar. "Any statement which one expects to have accepted as true is an
assertion of that truth." -- Virgil
I thought you would be too stupid to read what I said, moron.
"Here" means here. I did not say it in that posting.
So the world begins anew, _tabula raza_, at the beginning of each new
message from Virgil? How do you plan to sell that idea, old boy?
If I say "here", it means "here". Simple Septic is not free deliberately
to misinterprete my statements and then hold me to his
misinterpretations.
If you demand that I claim it, then you must be convinced that it is a
claim (a statement standing in need of proof), right?
The problem for your side is that it's not a claim (statement standing in
need of proof), moron, it is the
DENIAL
There Simple Septic goes with that same equovocations again. "Denial"
has two senses.
One sense means negation. To deny in that sense is to declare that
something is known to be false.
Another sense means to question. To deny in that sense means merely that
one is not convinced that the something is true.
Conviction that something is false is not the same as lack of conviction
that it is true. For example, in the matter of existence of a god, the
former is anti-theism (strong atheism), the latter mere (weak) atheism.
While any statement not supported by logically convincing evidence may
be questioned in the sense above, as most atheists and agnostics
question the existence of gods, negation of such a statement without
logically convincing evidence fits the classic pattern of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam.
So that Simple Septic's equivocation on "DENIAL" is a fallacy in itself,
but as he does it, it is also the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
10 Mar 2005 06:48:12 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <k7adnfslm79_wLLfRVn-sA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Either claim that "False, there are no such things" is true or withdraw
it from consideration.
It's not a claim (statement standing in need of proof), moron
I did not here say it was.
But if Simple Septic is not willing to claim it is true, why does he
keep on presenting it as if he thought it was true?
So why does Simple Septic neither claim that "False, there are no such
things" is true nor withdraw it from consideration.
Because he is trying to sneak it past without letting it be judged on
its merits.
And judging "False, there are no such things" on its merits shows that
there is no evidence to support it.
Thomas Huxley disapproves of such tactics:
"This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all
amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say that he is
certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he
can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.
This is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is
all that is essential to Agnosticism.
And if proof is presented to debunk a claim, is it wrong to fail to
acknowledge that and keep repeating the same old line nothing has been
disproven?
Like you do, Virgil? What are we to do with dishonest liars
like you who have so little shame repeat exposure does not move
you to honesty?
**************************************************
God disproven #1 Short Version
W.C. Barwell 3-9-05
**************************************************
By god here, I mean the Grand God of Grand Theology,
the god that is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent. The god that is defined as the most
powerful thing that can be imagined, the creator of
all. This god is defined as being intelligent, having
conciousness, and will. I mean this in the general
overall sense that the word god means dogmatically to
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
1. Can god do the impossible, create a square circle or
a 4 sided triangle?
2. That really asks the question, does god create the
rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe at large?
And thus can change them at a whim, or for a reason?
3. Since god is supposedly omnipotent, let us try
answering yes.
4. If yes, god could easily create a world where man has
free will yet freely chooses only to do moral good.
5. But in this world we see that man often does moral
evil.
6. If god could create such a word since he creates the
Universe's rules, and does not do so, god is effectively
the creator of all evil, past, present and future.
Evil exists only because god allows it to when he could
easily end all evil by creating a Universe where indeed
man has free will and yet freely chooses only to do
moral good.
7. Thus god is the author and sustaining cause of all
evil and is himself evil, that is omni-malevolent,
rather than as claimed, omni-benevolent.
8. Since dogmatically, god is supposedly omni-benevolent
rather than omni-malevolent, this is obviously not
acceptable. Allowing god to make the rules makes
him overtly evil.
9. God therefore does not make the rules, the laws or
the logic of the Universe.
10. God is said to be the most powerful thing that can
be imagined, the greatest thing that can exist.
But if god does not make the laws and rules and logic
of the Universe, and cannot change them at whim,
then the Universe with its rules and laws and logic
are more powerful than god, and this dogmatic claim
is obviously not true.
11. This claim is used as a basis of ontological claims
such as Anselm's ontological proof and these type of
ontological proofs are all thus falsified.
12. God is supposedly omnipotent. But if he is limited
by the Universe with its rules and laws and logic,
obviously he is not omnipotent at all. This dogmatic
claim cannot be saved unless you accept a god that
is omni-malevolent as a basic dogma.
13. God is dogmatically claimed to have been the creator
of the Universe, of all that is. But if god does not
make the laws and rules and logic of the Universe,
they must be beyond him, outside him, and must either
preceed him or parallel god's existance, he cannot
have created it thusly, so the dogma that god created
all is false also.
14. One dodge here might be to claim god created the
Universe in the manner that limits him, but god,
being omniscient, superintelligent and omnibenevolent
would have known that by creating such a Universe, he
was creating a Universe tht contained evil only because
he chose to create a limited Universe, so we are back
to claiming god is omni-malevolent. Thus such a dodge
fails.
15. The idea of a perfect omni-everything god preceeds
Christianity, Epicurus noted the pronblem of evil
in 250 BCE. If the gods are omnibenevolent and omnipotent,
yet evil exists. The gods either cannot or will not end
evil thus must be either not omnibenevolent or
omnipotent or possible neither.
16. Yet over 2,500 years, the theological methodolgy
used to erect the hypothetical Grand God of Grand
Theology which is now dogmatic in all major religous
traditions has failed to see this god as shown above,
cannot exist as claimed.
17. Thus not only is god as so defined an impossible
and failed hypothesis, the theology methodology
used to create such a hypothetical god is a failed
methodology and its basic method, making overarching
assertions without evidence is a failed methodology.
18. What are the laws and the rules and the logic of
the Universe? And what can we say about them?
19. As far as can be noted, we do have good, basic
understandings of the laws of the Universe. Things
are made up of matter and energy, operating in a
framework of time, and dimensions, with rules known
by science, phsycs, chemistry, astronomy and other
sciences.
20. There is no room in these laws and rules of
the Universe for disembodied gods or entities
that have will and who act. Thinking beings
are made of matter and energy and subject to rules
of chemistry and physics.
21. If theology wishes to claim otherwise, theology
bears the burden of demonstrating with hard evidence
that a god or other supernatural entity can exist.
And very much has a burden to prove that the Grand
God of theological tradition has actual and real
existance.
23. The failed theological methodology of making
unsupported assertions and deriving subclaims
is not an acceptable method for doing theology,
since as demonstrated above, that has proven to
be a total failure as a methodology.
(END)
*************************************************
God disproven #2 - Free will disproof of God
*************************************************
1. Standard theology makes several very basic
dogmatic claims about god.
2. A. God is omnipotent
B. God is omniscient
C. God is omnibenevolent
D. God created the entire world
3. If god creates a world and everthing in it,
And he is omniscient, he knows everything that
is or will be in that Universe and its future actions.
4. He knows what a concious being will do in any possible
world he would create. If he created a world that
at a future date has a man named John Smith, god
would know that there will indeed be a John Smith.
5. Being omniscient, he knows what Smith will do.
He will know in any possible world is Smith is good,
a believer and saved, or is evil and damned.
6. He would then have a choice. Create the contemplated
world with an evil Smith or not. He could easily
change his mind and create a world with a good Smith
instead.
7. Smith has no choice in the matter He has no say in
being created, or being created as a good Smith or
an evil Smith. All choice is god's alone.
8. Thus Smith has no free will. If he is evil it is
solely becausegod made the concious decision to
create an evil Smith who does moral evil. His actions
are pretedermined by god.
9. Nobody has free will. All decisions to create any man
or woman that are good or evil are made by god,
knowingly. If any man or womando moral evil it issolely
and only because god decided to create a world where they
exist and do evil and are damned.
10 But god is alledegly omnibenevolent. That is all
good. If he creates men and women who do moral
evil, moral evil exists solely because god creates
morally evil sentient beings.
11. Since a god who allows morally evil sentient beings
to exist, he is the creator of all moral evil in the
Universe, and he could just as easily created men who
do moral good.
12. Since free will is not possible for man, not even
in principle, there is o way to blame evil on man.
Smith if he is evil is evil because god created him
knowingly as a morally evil man.
13. An omnibenevolent god cannot, because he is indeed
omnibenevolent, create moral evil, by definition.
14. Morally evil men and women exist.
15. Therefore a god who is omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent, and creator of all as claimed,
cannot exist. A god so defined collapses under
its own internal contradictions.
(End)
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
