[QUOTE=only_human;390540]We have H = M + W and are trying to solve for G[/QUOTE]

G isn't in the equation.

[QUOTE=davar55;390541]G isn't in the equation.[/QUOTE]That is what an agnostic is saying. He is saying that if you give him more equations, at least one of which contains G, then he might be able to solve for the value of G.

[QUOTE=only_human;390542]That is what an agnostic is saying.[/QUOTE]

G isn't in the equation, i.e. G doesn't apply, G doesn't resolve, G doesn't exist.

[QUOTE=davar55;390544]G isn't in the equation, i.e. G doesn't apply, G doesn't resolve, G doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]G can not established from the equation(s) that the agnostic has. The agnostic does not have all equations that exist/could exist.

[QUOTE=only_human;390545]G can not established from the equation(s) that the agnostic has.[/QUOTE]

Correct. But ~G can be concluded by lack of relevance.

[QUOTE=davar55;390546]Correct. But ~G can be concluded by lack of relevance.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies[/url]
[QUOTE]Informal fallacies

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.[/QUOTE]

I don't know what you're getting at with these two.

[QUOTE=davar55;390548]I don't know what you're getting at with these two.[/QUOTE]With that comment I am going to put you down as being deliberately obtuse. Not even my dimmest minion would fail to understand he has been beaten at this point.

[QUOTE=retina;390550]With that comment I am going to put you down as being deliberately obtuse. Not even my dimmest minion would fail to understand he has been beaten at this point.[/QUOTE]

Nonsense, unless you've also beaten Aristotle and millions of others.

[QUOTE=only_human;390540]We have H = M + W and are trying to solve for G[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;390541]G isn't in the equation.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;390542]That is what an agnostic is saying. He is saying that if you give him more equations, at least one of which contains G, then he might be able to solve for the value of G.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;390544]G isn't in the equation, i.e. G doesn't apply, G doesn't resolve, G doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;390545]G can not established from the equation(s) that the agnostic has. The agnostic does not have all equations that exist/could exist.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;390546]Correct. But ~G can be concluded by lack of relevance.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;390547][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Informal fallacies

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=davar55;390548]I don't know what you're getting at with these two.[/QUOTE]Nothing about G can be determined from the equations that the agnostic possesses. An agnostic is acknowledging that.

[QUOTE=davar55;389954]
Proof ... well, so far, all semi-atheists haven't bothered to ask
the right question(s).

[/QUOTE]Well, if an atheist holds fast to the belief that there is no God, does a semi-athiest hold half-fast to the belief that there is no God?[QUOTE=davar55;377887]Why must we continue to put up with the ridiculous.

No, that was too pedantic.

Why doesn't a [COLOR="red"]true[/COLOR], rational [COLOR="red"]atheist[/color] just prove the obvious
for once.

No, stil too pedantic.

Umm, how would the proof that there is no god begin?[/QUOTE]Red emphasis added.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman[/url]
[QUOTE]No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").

A simple rendition of the fallacy:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."[/QUOTE]