Re: common logical fallacy

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Newsgroups	alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, alt.talk.creationism, sci.skeptic, alt.philosophy
Subject	Re: common logical fallacy
Date	2016-06-01 12:01 +1000
Message-ID	<dr6tviFf5l0U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <qlbnkbtgfpin9201juponavsghc0mk93id@4ax.com> <dr1rasFe37uU1@mid.individual.net> <fkookb9dshnrj4igeihbbeosib8ru0fndr@4ax.com> <dr48n6FtaniU1@mid.individual.net> <qufrkbd9i6peogmvsco990vhbkk7fcft4p@4ax.com>

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/06/2016 2:48 AM, Dale wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 11:46:14 +1000, Sylvia Else
> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>> On 31/05/2016 1:56 AM, Dale wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 May 2016 13:45:30 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30/05/2016 1:14 PM, Dale wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:12:50 +1000, Sylvia Else
>>>>> <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/05/2016 3:34 AM, Dale wrote:
>>>>>>> Affirming the consequent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if an atheistic cosmos then some atheistic parts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> some atheistic parts
>>>>>>> an atheistic cosmos
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> applies to a recent discussion where a poster said abiogenesis (life
>>>>>>> from non-life) "had" to happen, whereas we have never observed it and
>>>>>>> observe biogenesis (life from life)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or you simply misconstrued the posting. If you'd give specifics, we
>>>>>> could form a judgement. At the moment, you're asking us to take your
>>>>>> conclusion on trust.
>>>>>
>>>>> (if atheistic cosmos therefore abiogenesis) therefore (if abiogenesis
>>>>> therefore atheistic cosmos)
>>>>>
>>>>> see the thread on talk.origins
>>>>> Subject: ID after the Bait and Switch
>>>>> original post Message-ID: <nh7aak$1tr$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now there's a familiar feeling - what does it
>>>>>> remind me of?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> apologies, I did a copy/paste without consideration
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dale
>>>>> http://www.dalekelly.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, this post then:
>>>>
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/jApN-D227rY/R4EdsCaCCAAJ>
>>>>
>>>> Now, how does that support your claim?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>
>>> you kind of have to read the parts of the thread I was in
>>
>> That really doesn't work. Your claim was a strong one. You should be
>> able to cite specifics. If all you have is a gut feeling from an
>> extended discussion, then you should not have made the claim in the form
>> that you did.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> the particulars were just an example
>
> there is a bad habit in the mainstream type science to assume there
> must be a whole atheistic explanation, I don't know how far up or down
> this goes, I don't whether this is propaganda, but it is frustrating
> --
> Dale
> http://www.dalekelly.org
>

That's a far cry from your original posting which related to flawed 
reasoning.

Yes, atheists assume that God does not figure in the working of the 
universe. That not fundamentally different from your assumption that God 
does, except that the absence of actual evidence of God's existence (as 
distinct from evidence that some people believe in God's existence) 
seems to support the atheist assumption better than it does yours.

Were concrete evidence of God's existence to appear, atheists would have 
to rethink their position. As yet, that hasn't happened, with the 
religious movement's position being little more than an assertion that 
some things are beyond comprehension and have to be explained by the 
existence of God.

Of course, even if the existence of God were formally demonstrated, 
science would simply proceed with the task of explaining God.

Sylvia.

Thread

common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 13:34 -0400
  Re: common logical fallacy Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-29 12:46 -0500
    Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 14:55 -0400
      Re: common logical fallacy Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-29 14:19 -0500
        Re: common logical fallacy mur@. - 2016-05-30 23:45 -0400
        Re: common logical fallacy JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 21:51 -0700
    Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-29 22:35 +0100
    Re: common logical fallacy Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-05-29 17:10 -0700
      Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 23:05 -0400
        Re: common logical fallacy Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-29 23:34 -0500
    Re: common logical fallacy JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 21:49 -0700
  Re: common logical fallacy Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-29 10:56 -0700
    Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 14:53 -0400
      Re: common logical fallacy Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:48 -0700
    Re: common logical fallacy Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-29 14:13 -0500
  Re: common logical fallacy Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-05-29 18:14 +0000
    Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 14:51 -0400
      Re: common logical fallacy Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-05-29 21:06 +0000
        Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 23:07 -0400
          Re: common logical fallacy Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-05-29 23:35 -0500
  Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-29 22:26 +0100
    Re: common logical fallacy mur@. - 2016-05-30 23:46 -0400
  Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-29 22:44 +0100
    Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-29 22:59 +0100
      Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-29 23:26 +0100
        Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-29 23:51 +0100
          Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-30 00:02 +0100
            Re: common logical fallacy The BORG <borg@future.com> - 2016-05-30 00:05 +0100
              Re: common logical fallacy Prince Michael <t2judgment@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 16:16 -0700
                Re: common logical fallacy hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-05-29 17:30 -0700
  Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-30 12:12 +1000
    Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 23:14 -0400
      Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-30 13:45 +1000
        Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-30 11:56 -0400
          Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-31 11:46 +1000
            Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-31 12:48 -0400
              Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-01 12:01 +1000
                Re: common logical fallacy mur@. - 2016-06-03 22:28 -0400
                Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-04 17:12 +1000
      Re: common logical fallacy Dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2016-05-29 23:46 -0400
    Re: common logical fallacy mur@. - 2016-05-30 23:45 -0400
      Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-05-31 13:53 +1000
        Re: common logical fallacy mur@. - 2016-06-03 22:29 -0400
          Re: common logical fallacy Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-06-04 17:13 +1000
  Re: common logical fallacy mur@. - 2016-05-30 23:45 -0400

csiph-web