RE: Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..
November 25, 2011 at 5:12 am
(This post was last modified: November 25, 2011 at 5:13 am by mayor of simpleton.)
Perhaps I just don't have the words to explain this well, but I do fear that in many cases we are working here under a false analogy. (That is when addressing the god/deity issue once more and not life on other planets and such.)
How is it appropriate to draw an analogy of one physical entity being substanciated via the evidence presented by another physical entity; then use this analogy to grant credence to the substanciation of a metaphysical entity via evidence presented by another physical entity?
How can physics be utilized to substanciate anything metaphysical?
There is a terms called Non-Sequitur:
In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
Could this assumption of a metaphysical property being substanciated via a physical one be such a violation of logical discourse?
Meow!
GREG
btw... I need to pop out to go to the Chemists, perhaps an "Alchemist" would be just as appropriate?
How is it appropriate to draw an analogy of one physical entity being substanciated via the evidence presented by another physical entity; then use this analogy to grant credence to the substanciation of a metaphysical entity via evidence presented by another physical entity?
How can physics be utilized to substanciate anything metaphysical?
There is a terms called Non-Sequitur:
In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow". This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical connection is implied where none exists.
Could this assumption of a metaphysical property being substanciated via a physical one be such a violation of logical discourse?
Meow!
GREG
btw... I need to pop out to go to the Chemists, perhaps an "Alchemist" would be just as appropriate?
Moral is as moral does and as moral wishes it all too be. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
