Dave's equivocation trap

Michael Fisher (mwfisher@CTS.COM)
Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:27:31 -0700

Here's a little exchange which illustrates how Dave uses equivocation to
keep the debate waters muddied and the issues confused:

First, Dave asserts;
(Dave 4/15) Yes, it can be discussed. However, the "ultimate" error of
the Bible would be that God does not exist, a fact no one can show.

Then Ian responds;
(Ian 4/15) That's true. No one can prove that god does exist and no one
can prove that god does not exist.

But note--even though Ian omits the capitalization, he uses precisely
the same _word_ that Dave uses, so it appears on the surface as if there
is some kind of actual dialog taking place---but if we substitute with
more accurate, more descriptive phrases - - -

Dave-Yes, it can be discussed. However, the "ultimate" error of the
Bible would be that <Yahweh> does not exist. . .

Ian-No one can prove that <a conscious causative agent for the universe>
does exist and no one can prove that <a conscious causative agent for
the universe> does not exist . . .

It becomes immediately obvious that each is talking right past
the other, thus when Dave's next comment---

(Dave 4/15) So to argue it as knowing he doesn't exist, would be a false
premise. That is all.

Is treated with the appropriate modification,

Dave-So to argue it as knowing <Yahweh> doesn't exist . . .

It also becomes clear that Dave has succeeded in confusing Ian
enough to elicit the comment - - -

(Ian 4/15) I don't necessarily agree with you.

Let me say, BULLSHIT. Ian doesn't agree with Dave's ACTUAL
assertion AT ALL. He has been confused by the equivocal manner of Dave's
use of "God".

What I recommend for everyone is that in any attempted responses
to Dave, that you go through and change any references, direct OR
indirect to "God" to Yahweh. That's what Dave really means.

And that anywhere you wish to refer to a possible supernatural
"Creator" you use some other term, "The Tao", or "Allah", or even
"independent conscious agent".

It will take a little time to rewrite Dave's posts, and feel a
little unnatural making the substitution where you are accustomed to
just tossing off "God"---but you will find that much of Dave's
"argument" suddenly vanishes into thin air, leaving Dave in the
unenviable position of ole Wiley Coyote--way off the end of the
precipice with no means of support.

Take away Dave's equivocations, and you'll find him a much more
docile beast.

He may quite trying to tangle with YOU too!!

Ciao.

-- 
	Michael Fisher, ET1/SS USN ret., law student	


	http://home.aol.com/Mfish6994


	*		*		*     
	
     He that would make his own liberty secure, 
     must guard even his enemy from oppression; 
     for if he violates this duty, 
     he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
		
                                             Thomas Paine