Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (35047)	4/17/1999 4:17:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

This kind of argument seems so unnecessary.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (35047)	4/17/1999 4:18:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

Possibly it is necessary.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (35047)	4/17/1999 4:19:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

When the only object.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (35047)	4/17/1999 4:19:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

is a

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (35047)	4/17/1999 4:21:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

Palindrome

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (35047)	4/17/1999 4:21:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

Grub.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (35047)	4/17/1999 10:32:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Chuzzlewit, you sophist, you...<gg> (Sophist, of course, defined in the modern sense, as "weasel".) Not guilty of any fallacy? Then why did you bring up Ockham's razor in the first place? Let me return you to Sidney's original post: ..Because we don't know so many things we cannot say with assurance that God does not exist. So any assertion to the negative is more likely to be just prejudice while assertions to the positive are more likely to be true. The reason being that the believer is basing their belief on the knowledge of their experience on a personal level with God while the disbeliever is basing their assumption on a lack of knowledge about God. We have agreed (haven't we?)that Sidney committed a logical fallacy here, by shifting the burden of proof to you. But where, oh where, in the above post, did he "invoke a supernatural explanation" for anything? What hypothesis did he advance that inspired you to invoke Ockham's razor? I quote: It [Ockham's razor] states that given a choice between two equally plausible explanations of a phenomenon one chooses the simpler. By invoking a supernatural explanation for the phenomena you are simply shifting the answer upstream... Well? In your response, please cite chapter and verse from Sidney's post. And if you still plead not guilty, we will have to bring you up on charges of bad writing, which is an even more serious charge than faulty logic...(hee, hee!) Joan