What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Hector Plasmic on 1 Apr 2005 17:44 >> Did a historical Jesus exist? > Probably, since that is the simplest explanation for things I'd have to disagree with your reasoning here. The simplest explanation is that some folks started telling a story. It's not necessarily simpler to tell a story with a historical personage at its heart. In fact, with a story incorporating supernatural elements, it could be argued that it's simpler *not* to have a historical personage in the middle of things.
From: Hector Plasmic on 1 Apr 2005 17:51 > I seem to recall Simple Septic claiming repeatedly > and vociferously that he has no belief in any gods. Ahem. In civilized discourse, we generally accept what a man says about what he believes or does not believe, where life and property are not involved, unless other indicators contradict it. Do you really expect us to prove that we do not believe in gods? Fine -- right after we get your proof that other minds actually exist, that the universe didn't begin last Friday, and that induction's validity in the future is ironclad. If you cannot engage in discourse, discussion is futile.
From: bob young on 29 Mar 2005 00:10 "Desertphile, American Patriot" wrote: > On 28 Mar 2005 05:47:55 -0800, "Hector Plasmic" > <hec(a)hectorplasmic.com> wrote: > > > > What is wrong with saying that God > > > works in Mysterious ways? > > > It's equivalent to saying "I don't know if God works at > > all." After all, fairies work in mysterious ways. > > Women work in mysterious ways, and they exist (I've been told they > exist, any how). I saw a woman yesterday, well I think it was a women, couldn't tell for sure, wearing clothes an all! > > > --- > http://lastliberal.org > Free random & sequential signature changer http://holysmoke.org/sig > > "In the Soviet Union, government controls industry. In the United > States, industry controls government. That is the principal > structural difference between the two great oligarchies of our time." > -- Edward Abbey
From: bob young on 29 Mar 2005 00:12 Acme Diagnostics wrote: > "George Dance" <georgedance04(a)yahoo.ca> wrote: > >The great philosopher-criminologist wrote: > > > >> What is wrong with saying that God works in Mysterious ways? > > > >Usually, what's wrong with it is that it's used as an ad hoc hypothesis > >to make statements about God unfalsifiable. For example: > > > >C - "God loves people and is concerned for their welfare." > >A - "He does? Then why did he let so many die in the tsunami?" > >C - "He has His reasons. You and I wouldn't understand them. But all > >the same, He loves people and is concerned for their welfare." > >A - "Well, maybe he did have some reason for the tsunami. But he lets > >little babies die every day, and there's no reason for that." > >C - "Oh, He wouldn't let that happen without a reason, either. Again, > >I couldn't possibly try to explain what those reasons are. But all the > >same, He loves people and is concerned for their welfare." > > > >I hope you get the drift - all the evidence that there isn't a god that > >loves people and cares for their welfare can be dismissed with the > >'Mysterious Ways' argument; "There's a God that loves people and cares > >for their welfare" is saved from being disproved, but at the cost of it > >actually meaning or implying anything (as it's being true is compatible > >with anything at all happening). > > > >As I see it, that's the point of the 'Mysterious Ways' argument, and > >probably why a version of it is attributed to God Himself in Job 38-40. > > Agree, and would like to add that it's a really neat one > because it is already inherent in an established belief, to wit: > that there is a creator god as described in Chapt. 1 of the > bible. That god logically and necessarily must work in > mysterious ways some of the time on days when not being > logically contradictory as required elsewhere. > > Then, any time you want to add a belief that He is concerned with > people's welfare, the "mysterious ways" unfalsifiability device > already exists. It's beautiful in its sheer simplicity! (quoting > a recent rec.humor joke about some other equally nonsensical > logic.) > > Larry a stock answer for use by religionsts whenever they are asked a question about their imaginary god that they cannot answer. They are very used to it
From: Incubus on 1 Apr 2005 18:52
Hector Plasmic wrote: Virgil: >>I seem to recall Simple Septic claiming repeatedly >>and vociferously that he has no belief in any gods. > > > Ahem. In civilized discourse, we generally accept what a man says > about what he believes or does not believe, where life and property are > not involved, unless other indicators contradict it. Do you really > expect us to prove that we do not believe in gods? Fine -- right after > we get your proof that other minds actually exist, that the universe > didn't begin last Friday, and that induction's validity in the future > is ironclad. If you cannot engage in discourse, discussion is futile. > Virgil and Jeff Wrong seem to suffer under the delusion that anyone telling them, "I do not believe you when you insist there might be an invisible God, I am not theist like you, I am atheist" is making a claim (a statement standing in need of proof). Go figure. I think he is just another knucklehead who has been suckered in by Dr Sinusturd's diverson. "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. |