FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page Clouseau on the possibility of miracles and other snarky digressions split fr Ridicul
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 10 of 12 « First 89 10 1112
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-24-2007, 12:33 PM   #91
Hex
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: www.rationalpagans.com
Posts: 445
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian View Post
I messed around a bit with the definition above to further distance it from potentially covering silly claims in the realm of the supernatural, AKA pseudo-science, AKA Feynman's Cargo Cult Science.
D'oh! I would have -thought- the 'testible' would have included 'falsifiable', but I suppose for some of the crowd out there, it -does- need to be explicit. Danke!
Hex is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 12:38 PM   #92
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,918
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
What alternative do you have? Russell relies, again, on argument from ridicule. Of course, he lived before space travel, and his trick argument does not work now, so sceptics have to invent a flying spaghetti monster instead.
Quote:
You really do miss the point, don't you? I suspect you must be doing that intentionally, but - giving you the benefit of the doubt here - I'll have a go at clearing things up for you.
Deliberately missing the point? Do people really do that? Well, well. Someone told me that some posters accuse others of what they do themselves, you know. Dreadful, don't you think.

Quote:
Russell's absurd version of X is the orbiting teapot:
But it isn't absurd, as I have already pointed out. Reductio ad absurdum is 'logic' that leads to the logically impossible.

Quote:
So, you see, if we accept your premiss - that we need to reserve judgment on any and all possibilities that are not formally ruled out - we arrive at the absurd conclusion that we have to reserve judgment on things that no sensible person reserves judgment on.
But in logic we do not recognise such a parameter as 'sensible'. We must reserve judgment on many things, and that includes the statement that there is no teapot in space. There may be one, and it cannot be proved that there is not one.
Clouseau is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 12:40 PM   #93
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,918
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hex View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
But the universe is not infinite, and has no infinite attributes.
You're sure about that? :Cheeky:
The point is that you can't deny it.
Clouseau is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 12:50 PM   #94
Hex
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: www.rationalpagans.com
Posts: 445
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hex View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
But the universe is not infinite, and has no infinite attributes.
You're sure about that? :Cheeky:
The point is that you can't deny it.
But you've made the statement, thus you have to back it up. You did seem quite definative on it.

Please now prove that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
the universe ... has no infinite attributes.
Thanks!
Hex is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 01:00 PM   #95
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,768
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
Deliberately missing the point? Do people really do that? Well, well. Someone told me that some posters accuse others of what they do themselves, you know. Dreadful, don't you think.


But it isn't absurd, as I have already pointed out. Reductio ad absurdum is 'logic' that leads to the logically impossible.
You failed to convince me that it's not absurd. I'm not really all that interested in the difference between "impossible" and "absurd to the point that it would be foolish to waste any time considering it". You may think this is some sort of formal logic exercise; I don't.

Quote:
Quote:
So, you see, if we accept your premiss - that we need to reserve judgment on any and all possibilities that are not formally ruled out - we arrive at the absurd conclusion that we have to reserve judgment on things that no sensible person reserves judgment on.
But in logic we do not recognise such a parameter as 'sensible'. We must reserve judgment on many things, and that includes the statement that there is no teapot in space. There may be one, and it cannot be proved that there is not one.
But - again, professor - this discussion is not about formal logic. In fact, it's the very difference between formal logic and sensible triage of silly ideas that Russell's argument addresses.

So if you want to claim that the "supernatural" is as likely as the (pre-Apollo) Celestial Teapot, you won't get any argument from me.
VoxRat is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 01:01 PM   #96
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,918
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Robots View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
The point is that you can't deny it.
Quote:
There can be only one substance with an identical attribute, and existence follows from its nature (Prop. vii.)
If you believe that, you'll believe anything.
Clouseau is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 01:05 PM   #97
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,918
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
Deliberately missing the point? Do people really do that? Well, well. Someone told me that some posters accuse others of what they do themselves, you know. Dreadful, don't you think.


But it isn't absurd, as I have already pointed out. Reductio ad absurdum is 'logic' that leads to the logically impossible.
Quote:
You failed to convince me that it's not absurd.
I don't think so. You tried to exclude the Apollo missions.

Quote:
You may think this is some sort of formal logic exercise; I don't.
You're the one who cited a (supposed) logician!
Clouseau is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 01:06 PM   #98
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,768
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Robots View Post
If you believe that, you'll believe anything.
You mean like Celestial Teapots, and Supernatural Shenanigans? Isn't that what you're recommending?

[DISCLAIMER - I'm not endorsing No Robots' argument; just questioning The Inspector's consistency]
VoxRat is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 01:09 PM   #99
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,918
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by VoxRat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
If you believe that, you'll believe anything.
You mean like Celestial Teapots, and Supernatural Shenanigans? Isn't that what you're recommending?

[DISCLAIMER - I'm not endorsing No Robots' argument; just questioning The Inspector's consistency]
Très drôle.
Clouseau is offline  
Old 09-24-2007, 01:10 PM   #100
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,768
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau View Post
I don't think so. You tried to exclude the Apollo missions.
Since it was Bertrand Russell's argument, at a time when there were no space missions, Apollo missions are completely beside the point. The fact that you keep bringing this up makes me suspect that you're either still missing the point, or that you're deliberately trying to distract from it.

Quote:
Quote:
You may think this is some sort of formal logic exercise; I don't.
You're the one who cited a (supposed) logician!
Call him what you will; the man made a point that you seem determined to ignore.
VoxRat is offline  
 
Page 10 of 12 « First 89 10 1112

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:19 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.