Koyaanisqatsi

Why do you feel it necessary to stop beating your wife?

_________
Walrus is just another semantics troll.

Mageth

I think a good term for the Ox's argument may be "the Tinkerbell Argument."

Koyaanisqatsi

And WJ's the only one clapping...

WJ

KoY!

"Why do you feel it necessary to stop beating your wife?'

How do you know I'm married?

Walrus
----------
Atheism is just another semantics game

Koyaanisqatsi

WJ--

You're a bit of a thicky...

Wild Ox?

Awaiting your conclusion.

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Pomp

WJ,

Mmmm, why do you feel it necessary to discuss in great detail some thing for which you have no belief?

Isn't it just a bit disengenuous to come here, ask us questions, and then chortle as though you've caught our hands in the cookie jar when we answer those questions?

PB
-------------
Up is just another down and white is just another black.

WJ

Pompus!

"Up is just another down and white is just another black."

Could that mean the [analogous opposites] concepts of love and reason are all mixed together in a formula of logical impossibility? Or maybe a more accurate analogy might be; all 'hate' is just the lack of 'love'.(?)

...just thought you might know.

Walrus

Koyaanisqatsi

Anyway, Wild Ox, I'm still awaiting anxiously your conclusion...

All other annoying sidetracks will, summarily, be ignored.

wild ox

Koy,

I truly wish YOU could provide some resolution to this issue. But, I honestly see a few minor problems here. So at risk of appearing recalcitrant and obtuse, I shall endeavor an amateur rebuttal. Your first argument is as follows:
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
P1: No evidence of the supernatural has ever been demonstrated to exist outside of human imagination.
P2: Personal experience is not sufficient evidence to establish the existence of the supernatural outside of human imagination
Therefore,
C: It is unreasonable for anyone, regardless of personal experience, to believe in the (factual existence of the) supernatural.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________

First, I do not know if P1 is a clearly established fact. Upon what EXACT basis does one determine what qualifies as evidence? You may be right. But many people might disagree on that point, so you better define the criteria for something to qualify as EVIDENCE.

Second, you seem to assume the conclusion in the P1, don’t you? You assume that the “personal experience” referred to in P2 is the same thing as “human imagination” in P1. Am I not right? Are you not trying to claim that “personal experiences” regarding the supernatural are limited to the “human imagination”? Did you try to sneak that one in, or was it an honest mistake? Before you claim P1, you must establish the fact that the personal experiences that millions of people have had are in fact the sole products of “human imagination”.

Third, I do not see how C follows from P1 and P2. It seems to me that you are actually skipping a step or two. Is this not what you are actually saying:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________
P1: No evidence of the supernatural has ever been demonstrated to exist outside of human imagination.
P2: Personal experience is not sufficient evidence to establish the existence of the supernatural outside of human imagination
P3: In order for a belief to be reasonable its existence must be established.
Therefore,
C: It is unreasonable for anyone, regardless of personal experience, to believe in the (factual existence of the) supernatural.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________

I cannot see how it is possible to derive the conclusion without P3. Are you willing to accept that premise. You implied it. That means all YOUR opinions that have not been “ESTABLISHED” are unreasonable.

I will not respond to your second argument yet. Lets focus on this one first. OK.

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: wild ox ]</p>

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wild ox:
Koy,

I truly wish YOU could provide some resolution to this issue. But, I honestly see a few minor problems here. So at risk of appearing recalcitrant and obtuse, I shall endeavor an amateur rebuttal. Your first argument is as follows:

You should not use lines, Ox. As you can see, the page no longer sizes correctly. Instead, use bold or italic fonts. You can bold by using {b} and {/b} (replace {} with [])....

This text is bold.

for italic, use {i} {/i} (replace {} with [])....

This text is italic.

If you want to see what this particular text looks like, hit the reply function and examine it carefully.

Vorkosigan