| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Atheistagnostic" |
| Date: |
07 Mar 2005 04:06:49 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Physics and metaphysics |
wrote:
Zachriel wrote:
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:54WdnYybqbTMZrTfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
<snipped>
I admit to not having followed the whole discussion, but this caught
my eye.
It's a Red Herring
No it isn't. See
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/11859ccee5ad099c
You insist you are "defending against" something. You are not, you are a
proponent of God. Evidence: Your lame if/then argument that if there are
atheists then there might be a God.
P1. Atheism is lack of belief in all gods (including God).
That is a common and acceptable definition.
P2. Assertions with equal amounts of empirical evidence must be
treated equally as regards their truth.
Empiricism and "truth" are not actually comparable in this manner.
I tend to agree; there are alt.atheists who actually equate the two,
however, thus my use of this premise. (One purpose of a Reductio ad
Absurdum argument like this one is to force a re-examination of
premises.)
You need to force yourself to re-examine your lame premise that atheism is an
assertion. It is not an assertion at all, "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods to
unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the existence
of gods:
"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, who coined the term 'agnostic', in
his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence."
-- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
07 Mar 2005 06:23:52 PM |
|
|
In article <ZpydnWNl1aPkTbHfRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
Zachriel wrote:
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:54WdnYybqbTMZrTfRVn-vA@comcast.com...
<snipped>
I admit to not having followed the whole discussion, but this caught
my eye.
It's a Red Herring
No it isn't. See
You insist you are "defending against" something. You are not, you are a
proponent of God. Evidence: Your lame if/then argument that if there are
atheists then there might be a God.
While the argument is lame, it is deliberately so, as a parody of the
phony arguments of Simple Septic (AKA Atheistagnostic, though actually
anti-theist ans anti-agnostic).
And it is the conclusion, not the argument, which says that there if
there are atheist then there e is a God.
The fault in the assumptions preceding that conclusion is not in the
conclusion which, given the assumptions, is valid.
But Simple Septic is apparently to dim to discover where the the fault
actually is.
Reprise of the entire argument:
Premises:
P1. Atheism is lack of belief in all gods (including God).
P2. Assertions with equal amounts of empirical evidence must be
treated equally as regards their truth.
P3. There is no empirical evidence that God exists.
Lemma:
L1. There can be no empirical evidence that anyone lacks any given
belief. (Argued conclusively by Sinister et al.)
Conclusion:
C. The assertion "God exists" must be treated equally with
"I am atheist" as regards their truth.
Or, less formally, if you're atheist, then God exists.
Anyone who, like Simple Septic for example, treats this as a serious
argument that any god actually exists is remarkably dim.
Simple indeed!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
08 Mar 2005 12:33:27 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
And it is the conclusion, not the argument, which says that there if
there are atheist then there e is a God.
"If there are atheists, then there might be a God" is an if - then argument (a
conditional syllogistic argument) for God, moron. See
http://www.studentservices.canterbury.ac.nz/awc/Paragraph/D_Files/Argument/If-ThenArgument.htm
http://tinylink.com/?wrcj9UOQHM
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
08 Mar 2005 01:48:13 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
"If there are atheists, then there might be a God" is an if - then
argument (a
conditional syllogistic argument) for God, moron. See
http://www.studentservices.canterbury.ac.nz/awc/Paragraph/D_Files/Argument/If-ThenArgument.htm
Wrong.
The consequent itself is conditional: "there might be a God."
Therefore the complete statement is a conditional syllogistic argument
for the *possibility* of God.
BTW, your 'nym is an oxymoron: it asserts that you are simultaneously
certain and uncertain regarding the existence of God.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
08 Mar 2005 05:00:56 PM |
|
|
In article <1110311293.629533.33630@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
"If there are atheists, then there might be a God" is an if - then
argument (a
conditional syllogistic argument) for God, moron. See
http://www.studentservices.canterbury.ac.nz/awc/Paragraph/D_Files/Argument/If-
ThenArgument.htm
Wrong.
The consequent itself is conditional: "there might be a God."
Therefore the complete statement is a conditional syllogistic argument
for the *possibility* of God.
BTW, your 'nym is an oxymoron: it asserts that you are simultaneously
certain and uncertain regarding the existence of God.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Well, Simple Septic may not be oxy, but ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 10:32:12 AM |
|
|
I was responding to "Atheistagnostic", as my post should have made
clear.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 11:59:35 AM |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
Atheistagnostic wrote:
"If there are atheists, then there might be a God" is an if - then
argument (a
conditional syllogistic argument) for God, moron. See
http://www.studentservices.canterbury.ac.nz/awc/Paragraph/D_Files/Argument/If-ThenArgument.htm
The consequent itself is conditional: "there might be a God."
Yes, it is made conditional, by Jeff's if - then argument, on there being
atheists, which makes it a conditional syllogistic argument that there
might be a magically invisible God anyway, even though there is no
logically satisfactory evidence of any such thing you theists can point to
and say, 'there, that's what I'm talking about', all you can do is try to
keep creating these little diversions.
"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 theists and atheists is this
irrational religious belief theists have that there might be a magically
invisible space pixie anyway, even though there is no evidence of any such
thing theists can point out so that others can check their observations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tadchem" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 12:58:08 PM |
|
|
Atheistagnostic wrote:
<snip>
Yes, it is made conditional, by Jeff's if - then argument, on there
being
atheists, which makes it a conditional syllogistic argument that
there
might be a magically invisible God anyway,
"Magically invisible" is irrelevant. Do not try to alter the specifics
of the statemnts - you risk betraying yourself.
My conclusion was "Therefore the complete statement is a conditional
syllogistic argument
for the *possibility* of God. "
I will stand by that, even though I did not claim that it is a valid or
even *persuasive* argument. In fact, the consequent "there might be a
God" is not dependent at all on the conditional proposition "there are
atheists."
even though there is no
logically satisfactory evidence of any such thing you theists
You have made an erroneous assumption.
Nothing in my arguments or anything else I have posted in this thread
indicates that I am a member of that set. You have *assumed* such.
Incorrectly, as it turns out...
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 05:13:14 PM |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
"Magically invisible" is irrelevant.
When it comes to this ad hoc hypothetically invisible God thingy you and
Jeff and company are championing? How do you figure that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 09:34:52 PM |
|
|
In article <UJGdnd1BDoWXHrLfRVn-1w@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
tadchem wrote:
"Magically invisible" is irrelevant.
When it comes to this ad hoc hypothetically invisible God thingy you and
Jeff and company are championing? How do you figure that?
Because "magic" and 'invisible" are no part of Jeff and company's
hypotheses, they are the irrelevancies inserted by Simple Septic himself.
Because saying that we do not know that a thing cannot be is not
"championing" it.
Because the Jews, Christians and Mohammedans together have about a 3000
year history with this "thingy", so it is hardly ad hoc by Jeff & Co. to
consider it.
Among other reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 11:08:15 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B29084.20345209032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Because saying that we do not know that a thing cannot be is not
"championing" it.
Yes it is. You are arguing _ad ignorantiam_ that your ad hoc hypothetically
invisible God is an hypothesis even a genius like Galileo could not prove
false, aren't you, just like these other theologs from 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.]
Tell the truth now, Virgil, is there anything in evidence you can point to
and say, 'That's what I'm talking about, there is God¨'?
No sir, you cannot, all you can do is argue that there might be a God¨
anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence you can point to.
Then you try to shift the burden of proof to the non-believers by arguing
that there is no proof your hypothesis is false. That is a textbook case of
logical fallacy, sir. See Copi.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
10 Mar 2005 12:17:30 AM |
|
|
In article <homdnf6okuugS7LfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B29084.20345209032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Because saying that we do not know that a thing cannot be is not
"championing" it.
Yes it is.
Championing the existence of a god means saying that one actually
exists. We merely deny that "gods are impossible" is known to be true.
Y
Tell the truth now, Virgil, is there anything in evidence you can point to
and say, 'That's what I'm talking about, there is God¨'?
But I am talking only about the existence, or rather the lack of
existence, of evidence. How does one point to an absence of evidence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
10 Mar 2005 11:20:06 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <homdnf6okuugS7LfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B29084.20345209032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Because saying that we do not know that a thing cannot be is not
"championing" it.
Yes it is.
Championing the existence of a god means saying that one actually
exists.
Your argument _ad ignorantiam_ for God is that there might be a magic
invisible God anyway, even though you cannot produce any logically
satisfactory evidence of any such thing, and this hypothesis (this
speculative, 'might be' imagining) even a genius like Galileo could not
prove false! It's right out of the textbook:
<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.]
Tell the truth now, Virgil, is there anything in evidence you can point to
and say, 'That's what I'm talking about, there is GodŽ'?
No sir, you cannot, all you can do is argue that there might be a GodŽ
anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence you can point to.
Then you try to shift the burden of proof to the non-believers by arguing
that there is no proof your hypothesis is false. That is a textbook case of
logical fallacy, sir. See Copi.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
10 Mar 2005 01:12:01 PM |
|
|
In article <OI-dnWagE_VVHK3fRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <homdnf6okuugS7LfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B29084.20345209032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Because saying that we do not know that a thing cannot be is not
"championing" it.
Yes it is.
Championing the existence of a god means saying that one actually
exists.
Your argument _ad ignorantiam_ for God is that there might be a magic
invisible God anyway
I have never made any such argument. Simple Septic has. So any fallacy,
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam or otherwise, is of his making, and is
entirely his responsibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
11 Mar 2005 11:37:14 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <OI-dnWagE_VVHK3fRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <homdnf6okuugS7LfRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B29084.20345209032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Because saying that we do not know that a thing cannot be is not
"championing" it.
Yes it is.
Championing the existence of a god means saying that one actually
exists.
Your argument _ad ignorantiam_ for God is that there might be a magic
invisible God anyway
I have never made any such argument.
Now you are just flat out lying.
Your argument _ad ignorantiam_ for God is that there might be a magic
invisible God anyway, even though you cannot produce any logically
satisfactory evidence of any such thing, and this hypothesis (this
speculative, 'might be' imagining) even a genius like Galileo could not
prove false! It's right out of the textbook:
<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.]
Tell the truth now, Virgil, is there anything in evidence you can point to
and say, 'That's what I'm talking about, there is GodŽ'?
No sir, you cannot, all you can do is argue that there might be a GodŽ
anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence you can point to.
Then you try to shift the burden of proof to the non-believers by arguing
that there is no proof your hypothesis is false. That is a textbook case of
logical fallacy, sir. See Copi.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
11 Mar 2005 01:49:50 PM |
|
|
In article <k-GdneEpYZzWSqzfRVn-hA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <OI-dnWagE_VVHK3fRVn-3A@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Championing the existence of a god means saying that one actually
exists.
Your argument _ad ignorantiam_ for God is that there might be a magic
invisible God anyway
I have never made any such argument.
And if I had, it would not be "championing" the existence of a god but
merely rejecting knowledge of its impossibility.
Now you are just flat out lying.
Find a citation where I "championed" either magic or invisibility as
characterictics of any god, or quit lying yourself, Sumboron Simple
Septic ,old Sod.
Your argument _ad ignorantiam_ for God is that there might be a magic
invisible God anyway
Find a citation where I "championed" either magic or invisibility as
characterictics of any god, or quit lying yourself, Sumboron Simple
Septic ,old Sod.
And explain how saying that there MIGHT BE something that is not proven
impossible constitutes an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. The readers really
want to know.
Actually, making that claim is a form of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam in
itself, as it is arguing that something is false because it has not been
proved true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 03:19:52 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
And explain how saying that there MIGHT BE something that is not proven
impossible constitutes an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Copi explains it thoroughly, moron:
<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.]
Tell the truth now, Virgil, is there anything in evidence you can point to
and say, 'That's what I'm talking about, there is GodŽ'?
No sir, you cannot, all you can do is argue that there might be a GodŽ
anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence you can point to.
Then you try to shift the burden of proof to the non-believers by arguing
that there is no proof your hypothesis is false. That is a textbook case of
logical fallacy, sir. See Copi.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 12:44:55 PM |
|
|
In article <scWdnYm5UuqlKa_fRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
And explain how saying that there MIGHT BE something that is not proven
impossible constitutes an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Copi explains it thoroughly, moron:
If Simple Septic says that then Simple Septic is submoronic, because
that is not what Copi says.
Where in Copi's "expalanation" does it say 'the moon's apparent
irregularities "MIGHT BE" filled in' with anything?
Simple Septic is again conflating "MIGHT BE" with "MUST BE" or "IS".
To say that something "MIGHT BE" does not require that it "IS", only
that it is not known to be impossible, and gods are not known to be
impossible
<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)
Note that Copi misleads in the above, since the scholars alluded to,
though they were wrong, did not commit the wrongness of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, because their argument was not of that form.
Those scholars based their arguments on theology and Aristotle. To have
argued Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, they would specifically have had to
argue that their theory was true because it could not have been prove
false. There is no implicatin in Copi, nor any in the historical record
that the Church Scholars argued any such thing.
There is evidence that some lay scientists may have committed that
error, but none that anyone connected to the Church did.
So Copi is, at best, misleading in this example, if he is understood to
imply that the Church committed any Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
So Simple Septic's ignorance again demonstrates itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 01:46:00 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <scWdnYm5UuqlKa_fRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
And explain how saying that there MIGHT BE something that is not proven
impossible constitutes an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Copi explains it thoroughly, moron:
If Simple Septic says that then Simple Septic is submoronic, because
that is not what Copi says.
Where in Copi's "expalanation" does it say 'the moon's apparent
irregularities "MIGHT BE" filled in' with anything?
As I pointed out, in this case 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact, moron.
<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 |
12 Mar 2005 04:42:04 PM |
|
|
In article <e6-dnU9xGKxl267fRVn-sw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <scWdnYm5UuqlKa_fRVn-vA@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
And explain how saying that there MIGHT BE something that is not proven
impossible constitutes an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
Copi explains it thoroughly, moron:
If Simple Septic says that then Simple Septic is submoronic, because
that is not what Copi says.
Where in Copi's "explanation" does it say 'the moon's apparent
irregularities "MIGHT BE" filled in' with anything?
As I pointed out, in this case 'hypothesis' means a speculative, 'might be'
imagining with no basis in fact, moron.
The only "MIGHT BE" is in the truth of the hypothesis. Hypothetical
statements themselves do not say "might be" when they mean "must be".
So Simple Septic eqivocates again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 07:54:31 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... Hypothetical
statements themselves do not say "might be" ...
In this case that's what 'hypothesis' means, moron, the theists'
speculative, 'might be' imagining with no basis in fact:
<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.]
Tell the truth now, Virgil, is there anything in evidence you can point to
and say, 'That's what I'm talking about, there is GodŽ'?
No sir, you cannot, all you can do is argue that there might be a GodŽ
anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence you can point to.
Then you try to shift the burden of proof to the non-believers by arguing
that there is no proof your hypothesis is false. That is a textbook case of
logical fallacy, sir. See Copi.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
12 Mar 2005 09:23:30 PM |
|
|
In article <UrudnUUwd_rEAK7fRVn-tw@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
... Hypothetical
statements themselves do not say "might be" ...
In this case that's what 'hypothesis' means, moron
Then it must be Simple Septic's unproven and unprovable hypothesis that
there MIGHT BE no gods, since according to Simple Septic all speculative
(unproven) hypotheses are "must be" statements.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jake" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
13 Mar 2005 03:18:00 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
... according to Simple Septic all speculative
(unproven) hypotheses are "must be" statements.
Are you just going to keep pulling nonsense out of your *****? What I posted was
the following:
<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: "StevenV" |
|
| Title: Pulling nonsense out of Septic's ***** |
13 Mar 2005 12:36:00 PM |
|
|
Jake (aka Skeptic, aka Atheistagnostic, aka
Yoda, aka Rooster, aka Muddy Boggs, aka Hum,
aka Dr. Sister, aka The Theenker, aka *****
Dragon, aka Tom Wetsuit, aka T. Jefferson,
aka Bill Gates, aka X, aka Puzzling Evidence),
bent over & squirted out his ignorant *****:
... according to Simple Septic all speculative
(unproven) hypotheses are "must be" statements.
Are you just going to keep pulling nonsense out of your *****?
Speaking of pulling nonsense out the *****,
first Septic claims an agnostic is really
a theist:
:...whether or not the agnostics believe that
:any gods are real, the agnostic statement that
:the answer to the question "Is god real" is
:unknowable, takes it for granted that some god
:exists to be unknowable, and thus unknown.
:
:A true agnostic simply says that GodŽ is
:unknowable by its very nature, and is thus
:unknown, which is of course a tacit admission
:of the reality of its existence. - Skeptic
Then, after realizing what an imbecile he
was, he does a flip flop, claiming that an
agnostic is actually a strong atheist:
:Agnostics are those atheists who go beyond
:simple atheism to actively deny and repudiate,
:on principle, religious belief that an invisible
:God might exist." - Atheistagnostic (as Skeptic)
But then, pulling things out his ***** in an
art for Septic, who uttered this little gem:
:We know that "dog" is a very meaningful
:proposition. - Skeptic (aka Jake)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 10:48:48 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B29084.20345209032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <UJGdnd1BDoWXHrLfRVn-1w@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
tadchem wrote:
"Magically invisible" is irrelevant.
When it comes to this ad hoc hypothetically invisible God thingy you and
Jeff and company are championing? How do you figure that?
Because "magic" and 'invisible" are no part of Jeff and company's
hypotheses ...
Oh really? This God proposition you all are championing is visible for all
to see?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
10 Mar 2005 12:10:48 AM |
|
|
In article <kZ6dnTwCSNYzTLLfRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"Atheistagnostic" <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
"Virgil" <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-B29084.20345209032005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
In article <UJGdnd1BDoWXHrLfRVn-1w@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
tadchem wrote:
"Magically invisible" is irrelevant.
When it comes to this ad hoc hypothetically invisible God thingy you and
Jeff and company are championing? How do you figure that?
Because "magic" and 'invisible" are no part of Jeff and company's
hypotheses ...
Oh really? This God proposition you all are championing is visible for all
to see?
This "god proposition" that Simple Septic is championing may be magic or
invisible for all anybody except Simple Septic cares. but our
propositions, when we make them, are neither magic not invisible but
mere strings of mundane visible words.
Whether a god, should one exist, happen to be magic or invisible is a
different matter and one of complete indifference to us. We do not
require as an attribute of this potentiality of a god, as Simple Septic
seems to, either magic or its lack nor invisibility or its lack.
What we are concerned with is whether gods are KNOWN to be impossible.
We feel that only incontrovertible proofs can establish that gods are
KNOWN to be impossible and that no such incontrovertible proofs have
been forthcoming from Simple Septic or anyone else.
And in the present absence of any proofs that "gods are impossible" is
true, we do not rule out that "gods are impossible" may be false. To do
so would be to commit the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam as
Simple Septic so regularly does.
Simple Septic claims, but cannot validate his claim, that we can rule
out that "gods are impossible" is false because we have not proved that
"a god exists" is true. Classic Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
10 Mar 2005 11:31:37 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
What we are concerned with is whether gods are KNOWN to be impossible.
That's the logical fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof, moron.
"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]
<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.]
Tell the truth now, Virgil, is there anything in evidence you can point to
and say, 'That's what I'm talking about, there is GodŽ'?
No sir, you cannot, all you can do is argue that there might be a GodŽ
anyway, even though there is no such thing in evidence you can point to.
Then you try to shift the burden of proof to the non-believers by arguing
that there is no proof your hypothesis is false. That is a textbook case of
logical fallacy, sir. See Copi.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
10 Mar 2005 01:29:35 PM |
|
|
In article <Qd6dnSFgKIXnGa3fRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
What we are concerned with is whether gods are KNOWN to be impossible.
That's the logical fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof, moron.
"We" merely means everyone except Simple Septic himself. What Simple
Septic himself wishes to concern himself with in his private delusional
world is of no consequence in the real world.
There are two questions of interest to us (exclusive of Simple Septic):
(1) "Is any god known to be possible?"
and
(2) "Are all gods known to be impossible?"
Agnostics answer both of these in the negative.
Thus as far as agnostics are concerned, either of the underlying issues
(1) "there is a god"
or
(2) "there are no gods"
could be, as far as anyone knows, true
or
could be , as far as anyone knows, false.
Until there is evidence sufficient to settle the issue one way or the
other, agnostics will cling to their not knowing.
Why Simple Septic, who falsely has claimed to be an agnostic on many
occasions, should object to this clearly agnostic point of view Simple
Septic has not yet been willing to make clear.
So now I challenge Simple Septic to answer these two questions:
(1) Is there anything about the position stated here that is not fully
in accord with agnostic principles?
(2) Do you argee with the position stated here, and if not, why not?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
11 Mar 2005 04:26:13 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <Qd6dnSFgKIXnGa3fRVn-1Q@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
What we are concerned with is whether gods are KNOWN to be impossible.
That's the logical fallacy of trying to shift the burden of proof, moron.
"We" merely means everyone except Simple Septic himself. What Simple
Septic himself wishes to concern himself with in his private delusional
world is of no consequence in the real world.
There are two questions of interest to us (exclusive of Simple Septic):
(1) "Is any god known to be possible?"
and
(2) "Are all gods known to be impossible?"
Agnostics answer both of these in the negative.
Thus as far as agnostics are concerned, either of the underlying issues
(1) "there is a god"
or
(2) "there are no gods"
could be, as far as anyone knows, true
or
could be , as far as anyone knows, false.
Until there is evidence sufficient to settle the issue one way or the
other, agnostics will cling to their not knowing.
Why Simple Septic, who falsely has claimed to be an agnostic on many
occasions, should object to this clearly agnostic point of view Simple
Septic has not yet been willing to make clear.
So now I challenge Simple Septic to answer these two questions:
(1) Is there anything about the position stated here that is not fully
in accord with agnostic principles?
(2) Do you argee with the position stated here, and if not, why not?
1. Gods can be disproven and have been, throwing agnosticism
onto the trash heap of pseudoscience with astrology and tart
card reading.
2. You are still dishonest and stupid.
3. Even though I repeatedly call yopu on it, you value
honesty and your reputation so little you do not reply nor
shut up.
**************************************************
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)
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Atheistagnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 05:15:41 PM |
|
|
tadchem wrote:
... argument
for the *possibility* of God. ...
That's all theists have, isn't it, the lame argument that there might
actually be a magically invisible God anyway, even though they cannot
produce any logically satisfactory evidence of any such thing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and metaphysics |
09 Mar 2005 08:28:40 PM |
|
|
In article <UJGdndxBDoUBHrLfRVn-1w@comcast.com>,
Atheistagnostic <atheistagnostic@nospam.net> wrote:
tadchem wrote:
... argument
for the *possibility* of God. ...
That's all theists have, isn't it
That is not at all what theists have.
And only half do what agnostics have.
Theists have the necessity of god, not the mere possibility.
Agnostics also have the possibility of no gods too.
So Simple Septic, the Troll and Craven Capon, is WRONG! AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
