Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sassy on September 29, 2015, 01:02:56 PM
-
I asked that because it is clear from some of the things thrown out on this forum that some believers have changed the truth and substituted others.
As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.
-
Is this where we find out if there is a wrong kind of 'saved'?
-
;D ;D ;D
Grow up, Floo. If you don't want to take part in the discussion, go and play elsewhere.
-
I asked that because it is clear from some of the things thrown out on this forum that some believers have changed the truth and substituted others.
As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.
Fundamentally, a recognition by that person that the person is a sinner who deserves God's judgement and wants to turn back to God's way (repentance). They ask God to forgive them (Jesus having died on the cross for them to make it possible), relying on him for forgiveness (rather than trying to earn their way into God's favour).
How would you put it, Sassy?
Would this not be better in the faith-sharing area?
-
I asked that because it is clear from some of the things thrown out on this forum that some believers have changed the truth and substituted others.
As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.
Fundamentally, a recognition by that person that the person is a sinner who deserves God's judgement and wants to turn back to God's way (repentance). They ask God to forgive them (Jesus having died on the cross for them to make it possible), relying on him for forgiveness (rather than trying to earn their way into God's favour).
How would you put it, Sassy?
No one, not even the worst of us, deserves any judgement on the part of the Biblical deity as its evil deeds are worse than anything any human has achieved!
-
;D ;D ;D
Grow up, Floo. If you don't want to take part in the discussion, go and play elsewhere.
Take part in a discussion with Sassy!
Don't be silly!
Sassy deesn't "discuss" anything!
All she does is to make categorical statements that are expected to be accepted without question as being the one and only truth and dismisses everybody else's beliefs as rubbish and twists history and facts into a double-helix to prove her point of view.
-
I asked that because it is clear from some of the things thrown out on this forum that some believers have changed the truth and substituted others.
As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.
Fundamentally, a recognition by that person that the person is a sinner who deserves God's judgement and wants to turn back to God's way (repentance). They ask God to forgive them (Jesus having died on the cross for them to make it possible), relying on him for forgiveness (rather than trying to earn their way into God's favour).
How would you put it, Sassy?
No one, not even the worst of us, deserves any judgement on the part of the Biblical deity as its evil deeds are worse than anything any human has achieved!
That wasn't what I asked and you are not Sassy.
-
I asked that because it is clear from some of the things thrown out on this forum that some believers have changed the truth and substituted others.
As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.
Fundamentally, a recognition by that person that the person is a sinner who deserves God's judgement and wants to turn back to God's way (repentance). They ask God to forgive them (Jesus having died on the cross for them to make it possible), relying on him for forgiveness (rather than trying to earn their way into God's favour).
How would you put it, Sassy?
No one, not even the worst of us, deserves any judgement on the part of the Biblical deity as its evil deeds are worse than anything any human has achieved!
That wasn't what I asked and you are not Sassy.
I never thought I was Sassy, otherwise I would be jumping off the nearest cliff in terror! ;D ;D ;D
-
No one, not even the worst of us, deserves any judgement on the part of the Biblical deity as its evil deeds are worse than anything any human has achieved!
Yet another completely unsubstantiated assertion from Floo. How many is that this year, now?
-
No one, not even the worst of us, deserves any judgement on the part of the Biblical deity as its evil deeds are worse than anything any human has achieved!
Yet another completely unsubstantiated assertion from Floo. How many is that this year, now?
You obviously have never read the Bible! ::) Anyway that a good one coming from you who makes unsubstantiated assertions most of the time where your belief system is concerned!
-
That wasn't what I asked and you are not Sassy.
I'm beginning to wonder whether they are two sides of the same coin, though, Alien. ;) :P ::)
-
You obviously have never read the Bible! ::)
It's precisely because I have read the Bible that I've questioned your assertion, Floo.
-
That wasn't what I asked and you are not Sassy.
I'm beginning to wonder whether they are two sides of the same coin, though, Alien. ;) :P ::)
You mean like the deity and Satan? Satan being the goody and the deity the baddy! ;D
-
You obviously have never read the Bible! ::)
It's precisely because I have read the Bible that I've questioned your assertion, Floo.
I notice that you have not replied to the OP though.
Not as brave as Alien?
-
You obviously have never read the Bible! ::)
It's precisely because I have read the Bible that I've questioned your assertion, Floo.
I notice that you have not replied to the OP though.
Not as brave as Alien?
Why would Hope need to be brave to reply. He might express it slightly differently or even pick up on something I have missed, but I don't think bravery comes into it any more than the colour of his eyes.
How about you replying to the OP, old fruit?
-
I asked that because it is clear from some of the things thrown out on this forum that some believers have changed the truth and substituted others.
As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.
Grace.
-
I asked that because it is clear from some of the things thrown out on this forum that some believers have changed the truth and substituted others.
As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.
Grace.
Yes, that is fundamentally what it is.
-
Yep, by grace through faith.
What burdens Sass?
-
I asked that because it is clear from some of the things thrown out on this forum that some believers have changed the truth and substituted others.
As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.
Grace.
Yep.
Amazing!
-
I notice that you have not replied to the OP though.
This isn't the first thread on this topic, Seb; I've given my tuppenceworth in the past. Alien and the others have summed up the Christian understanding very well, and whilst I might have used slightly different vocabulary, I essentially wouldn't have been saying anything different.
-
You obviously have never read the Bible! ::)
It's precisely because I have read the Bible that I've questioned your assertion, Floo.
I notice that you have not replied to the OP though.
Not as brave as Alien?
Why would Hope need to be brave to reply. He might express it slightly differently or even pick up on something I have missed, but I don't think bravery comes into it any more than the colour of his eyes.
Well I thought that he might not wish to incur a scriptural master class from Sass as to how wrong he (and you) might be.
Only time will tell!
How about you replying to the OP, old fruit?
What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me? :o
-
I notice that you have not replied to the OP though.
This isn't the first thread on this topic, Seb; I've given my tuppenceworth in the past. Alien and the others have summed up the Christian understanding very well, and whilst I might have used slightly different vocabulary, I essentially wouldn't have been saying anything different.
The 'Christian understanding' is as long as a piece of string depending on which Christian is telling it! ::)
-
...
What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me? :o
The thread title is "WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?" That is what this thread is about, yet you and Floo have come in and waffled off-topic.
-
I notice that you have not replied to the OP though.
This isn't the first thread on this topic, Seb; I've given my tuppenceworth in the past. Alien and the others have summed up the Christian understanding very well, and whilst I might have used slightly different vocabulary, I essentially wouldn't have been saying anything different.
The 'Christian understanding' is as long as a piece of string depending on which Christian is telling it! ::)
Go away then and do something useful rather than wreck this thread.
-
The 'Christian understanding' is as long as a piece of string depending on which Christian is telling it! ::)
The 'Christian understanding' may be 'as long as a piece of string' if you are referring to the vocabulary used, Floo but, as your daughter will no doubt tell you, the mainstream understanding is pretty consistent.
-
The 'Christian understanding' is as long as a piece of string depending on which Christian is telling it! ::)
The 'Christian understanding' may be 'as long as a piece of string' if you are referring to the vocabulary used, Floo but, as your daughter will no doubt tell you, the mainstream understanding is pretty consistent.
Why do you keep bringing my daughter into this, please don't! My thoughts are my own, I don't need people to tell me how to think about matters of religion. Anyway the thoughts among those claiming to be Christians on this forum certainly aren't consistent.
-
Presumably Hope brought your daughter into 'it' because she's Christian - not because of any vocation.
I know many Christians who belong to many denomination.
Every one of them, if they have even a rudimentary grasp of the Gospel, will give the same answer as Alien, Hope and I.
Some might use theology gobbledegook, others churchy lingo - still others try to put it into plain English, but in essence, the answer is the same.
Can you show evidence to the contrary, please?
-
Regarding the OP I just have to agree with Alien, Hope, Corrie, Anchorman and ad_orientum
-
Presumably Hope brought your daughter into 'it' because she's Christian - not because of any vocation.
I know many Christians who belong to many denomination.
Every one of them, if they have even a rudimentary grasp of the Gospel, will give the same answer as Alien, Hope and I.
Some might use theology gobbledegook, others churchy lingo - still others try to put it into plain English, but in essence, the answer is the same.
Can you show evidence to the contrary, please?
We are talking about what I think about matters of faith, not what my children think, besides which religion is never discussed in our home.
-
So, that'll be a 'no' then.
You can't show any examples to the contrary, then.
I didn't think so.
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10929.0
Have started a new thread as this was disrupted and someone asked me to renew it on another section. Would the mods lock or remove this thread here, please.
Sass.
-
Why?
The Faith Sharing Area is not a place for open debate. This board is.
-
Presumably Hope brought your daughter into 'it' because she's Christian - not because of any vocation.
I know many Christians who belong to many denomination.
Every one of them, if they have even a rudimentary grasp of the Gospel, will give the same answer as Alien, Hope and I.
Some might use theology gobbledegook, others churchy lingo - still others try to put it into plain English, but in essence, the answer is the same.
Can you show evidence to the contrary, please?
Universalist Christians would give a different answer, there are a few more, Calvinists maybe?
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10929.0
Have started a new thread as this was disrupted and someone asked me to renew it on another section. Would the mods lock or remove this thread here, please.
Sass.
Dear, dear aren't things going your way? ;D ;D ;D
-
Why?
The Faith Sharing Area is not a place for open debate. This board is.
It was my suggestion. ST and Floo are messing it up. Sassy asked, "WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?"
The restriction on the Faith-Sharing Board means that anyone can take part, but it does not require us to demonstrate the existence of God each time we post, as sometimes occurs on this board. Sassy, in her OP, was aiming her question at those who consider themselves believers as she seems concerned that we have misunderstood God, e.g. misunderstood the Scriptures. It seems to me to be better suited to the FS board.
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10929.0
Have started a new thread as this was disrupted and someone asked me to renew it on another section. Would the mods lock or remove this thread here, please.
Sass.
Dear, dear aren't things going your way? ;D ;D ;D
See what I mean, AM? Sassy hasn't even put her position, yet Floo is making such claims. If people like Floo were to act like adults, it might be different.
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10929.0
Have started a new thread as this was disrupted and someone asked me to renew it on another section. Would the mods lock or remove this thread here, please.
Sass.
Dear, dear aren't things going your way? ;D ;D ;D
See what I mean, AM? Sassy hasn't even put her position, yet Floo is making such claims. If people like Floo were to act like adults, it might be different.
I hadn't seen much evidence of your adult behaviour, my dear! ;D ;D ;D
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10929.0
Have started a new thread as this was disrupted and someone asked me to renew it on another section. Would the mods lock or remove this thread here, please.
Sass.
Moderator:
I think it would be better to leave this thread open since removing it, or locking it, impacts on those who have already posted here or may yet wish to.
It may be that some/most who are interested in this topic elect to switch to the alternative thread on FSA but others, in view of the different ethos on FSA, may wish to continue here - and if not then this thread will quickly drop down the listings.
Gordon
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10929.0
Have started a new thread as this was disrupted and someone asked me to renew it on another section. Would the mods lock or remove this thread here, please.
Sass.
Dear, dear aren't things going your way? ;D ;D ;D
See what I mean, AM? Sassy hasn't even put her position, yet Floo is making such claims. If people like Floo were to act like adults, it might be different.
OIC!
(and, unlike SOME, you posted evidence.....)
-
...
What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me? :o
The thread title is "WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?"
Correct ,the thread title is as you state, however Sass specifically asks in the opening post...
I thought I would ask what the believers actually believe saves them.
What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me, old fruit?
-
...
What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me? :o
The thread title is "WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?"
Correct ,the thread title is as you state, however Sass specifically asks in the opening post...
I thought I would ask what the believers actually believe saves them.
What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me, old fruit?
I plead insanity.
What on earth gives you the impression that you should be taking part in a thread for believers (on the wrong board)?
-
Universalist Christians would give a different answer, there are a few more, Calvinists maybe?
-
Maybe 'universalist' Christians might.
You'd have to ask one.
-
Universalist Christians would give a different answer, there are a few more, Calvinists maybe?
-
Maybe 'universalist' Christians might.
You'd have to ask one.
Evasion noted, you remain refuted.
-
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10929.0
Have started a new thread as this was disrupted and someone asked me to renew it on another section. Would the mods lock or remove this thread here, please.
Sass.
Moderator:
I think it would be better to leave this thread open since removing it, or locking it, impacts on those who have already posted here or may yet wish to.
It may be that some/most who are interested in this topic elect to switch to the alternative thread on FSA but others, in view of the different ethos on FSA, may wish to continue here - and if not then this thread will quickly drop down the listings.
Gordon
I'm out of here. If anyone wants to follow anything up, I'll be on the other thread.
-
Universalist Christians would give a different answer, there are a few more, Calvinists maybe?
-
Maybe 'universalist' Christians might.
You'd have to ask one.
Evasion noted, you remain refuted.
-
Eh?
Where exactly is my refutation?
I'm not a universalist, so I can't answer for them.
-
Universalist Christians would give a different answer, there are a few more, Calvinists maybe?
-
Maybe 'universalist' Christians might.
You'd have to ask one.
Evasion noted, you remain refuted.
-
Eh?
Where exactly is my refutation?
I'm not a universalist, so I can't answer for them.
Aliens says salvation comes from a few different points, you claim all Christians would say the same thing, universalists don't, this refutes your claim.
-
... universalists don't, this refutes your claim.
But are Universalists Christians, jakswan? In other words do any of the ideas that characterise Universalism match what Jesus taught in the Bible?
-
... universalists don't, this refutes your claim.
But are Universalists Christians, jakswan? In other words do any of the ideas that characterise Universalism match what Jesus taught in the Bible?
If a Christian is someone who has recognised their need to be saved, then that would surely count universalists out, I would suggest.
-
...
Aliens says salvation comes from a few different points...
Eh?
-
Universalist Christians would give a different answer, there are a few more, Calvinists maybe?
-
Maybe 'universalist' Christians might.
You'd have to ask one.
Evasion noted, you remain refuted.
-
Eh?
Where exactly is my refutation?
I'm not a universalist, so I can't answer for them.
Aliens says salvation comes from a few different points, you claim all Christians would say the same thing, universalists don't, this refutes your claim.
-
I'd have serious doubts about Christian universalism.
-
No true Scotsman bingo bumper payout.
-
No true Scotsman bingo bumper payout.
Silly post.
-
No true Scotsman bingo bumper payout.
Silly post.
Nope, tell me how this thread isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy.
-
No true Scotsman bingo bumper payout.
Silly post.
Nope, tell me how this thread isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy.
You want to disprove something you have asserted without evidence? Really?
-
No true Scotsman bingo bumper payout.
Silly post.
Nope, tell me how this thread isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy.
You want to disprove something you have asserted without evidence? Really?
I'm out of here. If anyone wants to follow anything up, I'll be on the other thread.
::) ::) ::) ::)
-
...
What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me? :o
The thread title is "WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?"
Correct ,the thread title is as you state, however Sass specifically asks in the opening post...
I thought I would ask what the believers actually believe saves them.
What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me, old fruit?
I plead insanity.
What on earth gives you the impression that you should be taking part in a thread for believers (on the wrong board)?
???
Who made you the thread policeman?
-
...
What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me? :o
The thread title is "WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?"
Correct ,the thread title is as you state, however Sass specifically asks in the opening post...
I thought I would ask what the believers actually believe saves them.
What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me, old fruit?
I plead insanity.
What on earth gives you the impression that you should be taking part in a thread for believers (on the wrong board)?
???
Who made you the thread policeman?
The same person who tells him everything else in this life - God!
-
Why?
The Faith Sharing Area is not a place for open debate. This board is.
Because another member of the board asked me to.
-
Why?
The Faith Sharing Area is not a place for open debate. This board is.
Because another member of the board asked me to.
Oh Sassy, will you do anything that other members of the borad ask you to do?
If so, will you please . . . no, no, no, I'll get modded if I complete this request regardless of how much I really, really want you to do it!
-
No true Scotsman bingo bumper payout.
Silly post.
Nope, tell me how this thread isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy.
You want to disprove something you have asserted without evidence? Really?
If you don't get it then no do not bother. Obtuse much?
-
Another potty thread.
Ippy
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
-
This reminds me of the famous discussion in Matthew 25, 'For I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink ...', which has the pay-off line, 'when you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me'.
Here belief is not mentioned, but acts of charity towards those who are needy.
So here there seems to be a sense of salvation flowing not from belief, but from loving acts towards the needy, which are interpreted as towards Christ himself.
Of course, this can be reconciled with more belief-oriented ideas, but it still stands out as a different kind of theology.
-
Hi Wiggs,
This reminds me of the famous discussion in Matthew 25, 'For I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink ...', which has the pay-off line, 'when you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me'.
Here belief is not mentioned, but acts of charity towards those who are needy.
So here there seems to be a sense of salvation flowing not from belief, but from loving acts towards the needy, which are interpreted as towards Christ himself.
Of course, this can be reconciled with more belief-oriented ideas, but it still stands out as a different kind of theology.
That's interesting. We know that altruistic behaviours are rewarded with a dopamine kick - maybe there's something of that behind the theistic stories of being rewarded in an afterlife for behaving as the faith requires?
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
-
Hi Wiggs,
This reminds me of the famous discussion in Matthew 25, 'For I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink ...', which has the pay-off line, 'when you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me'.
Here belief is not mentioned, but acts of charity towards those who are needy.
So here there seems to be a sense of salvation flowing not from belief, but from loving acts towards the needy, which are interpreted as towards Christ himself.
Of course, this can be reconciled with more belief-oriented ideas, but it still stands out as a different kind of theology.
That's interesting. We know that altruistic behaviours are rewarded with a dopamine kick - maybe there's something of that behind the theistic stories of being rewarded in an afterlife for behaving as the faith requires?
Possibly. And it has been cited as a possible authentic Jesus saying, since it's not particularly Christian. In other words, if later writers were fabricating stuff to put in his mouth, they would not fabricate this, as it could apply to anybody, of any religion or none. So it's doctrinally minimalist. But of course, you can interpret it everywhichaway.
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
And yet your god allows evil to exist and fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.
You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.
In what way then is your god moral?
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
It's quite clear I was talking within the realms of what is possible, so I don't know why you felt the need to say neither are possible.
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
Ok, then under whatever criteria you think it takes in order to be saved, who is getting saved?
-
Alien,
No-one is morally perfect...
Speak for yerself mate 8)
-
Alien,
No-one is morally perfect...
Speak for yerself mate 8)
Two of us?
ippy
-
Wiggs,
Possibly. And it has been cited as a possible authentic Jesus saying, since it's not particularly Christian. In other words, if later writers were fabricating stuff to put in his mouth, they would not fabricate this, as it could apply to anybody, of any religion or none. So it's doctrinally minimalist. But of course, you can interpret it everywhichaway.
Well, the extent to which anything is an "authentic Jesus saying" is moot I'd have though, but the theistic codification and encouragement of altruism is very common isn't it? Most seem to have rules about helping your neighbour, honouring your parents etc at least somewhere built in to the fabric of their dogmas. That's the genius of religious belief I think - there's just enough to kind of make sense before they overreach into claims that don't. "Be nice and you'll be rewarded for it" for example seems reasonable enough - after all, I do tend to feel pretty good when I've brought in the shopping for my aged neighbour. Then comes the overreach - "and so by extension you'll get to go to heaven, enjoy the pleasures of 72 virgins etc if you behave virtuously".
The sleight of hand is to elide from just enough real world experience to the fantastical claims, whereas without at least some kind of experiential footing the fantastical claims alone would have no traction.
Something like that anyway.
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
And yet your god allows evil to exist and fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.
You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.
In what way then is your god moral?
Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
It's quite clear I was talking within the realms of what is possible, so I don't know why you felt the need to say neither are possible.
OK, please help me here. Please give me an example of someone who is or has been as "morally perfect as can possibly be".
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
Ok, then under whatever criteria you think it takes in order to be saved, who is getting saved?
Having recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness, the person asks for it and resolves to live God's way (the equivalent of getting into a lifeboat).
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
And yet your god allows evil to exist and fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.
You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.
In what way then is your god moral?
Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.
But you also think it is morally wrong to NOT stop these things happening when you could easily stop them.
Your god does not stop them, therefore he is immoral.
If you think otherwise, explain how it is moral.
If you cannot do that then you are just hoping that your god is good, and you are just guessing.
-
Wiggs,
Possibly. And it has been cited as a possible authentic Jesus saying, since it's not particularly Christian. In other words, if later writers were fabricating stuff to put in his mouth, they would not fabricate this, as it could apply to anybody, of any religion or none. So it's doctrinally minimalist. But of course, you can interpret it everywhichaway.
Well, the extent to which anything is an "authentic Jesus saying" is moot I'd have though, but the theistic codification and encouragement of altruism is very common isn't it? Most seem to have rules about helping your neighbour, honouring your parents etc at least somewhere built in to the fabric of their dogmas. That's the genius of religious belief I think - there's just enough to kind of make sense before they overreach into claims that don't. "Be nice and you'll be rewarded for it" for example seems reasonable enough - after all, I do tend to feel pretty good when I've brought in the shopping for my aged neighbour. Then comes the overreach - "and so by extension you'll get to go to heaven, enjoy the pleasures of 72 virgins etc if you behave virtuously".
The sleight of hand is to elide from just enough real world experience to the fantastical claims, whereas without at least some kind of experiential footing the fantastical claims alone would have no traction.
Something like that anyway.
Some here get a bit confused about the difference between Islam and Christianity. In case that happens here, the 72 virgins bit is an Islamic idea, not a Christian one.
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
And yet your god allows evil to exist and fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.
You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.
In what way then is your god moral?
Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.
Now I have heard it all. ::) The evil b*stard created evil in the first place, if it was responsible for creation, so it would do us all a favour if it committed suicide for the greater good!
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
And yet your god allows evil to exist and fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.
You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.
In what way then is your god moral?
Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.
But you also think it is morally wrong to NOT stop these things happening when you could easily stop them.
Your god does not stop them, therefore he is immoral.
If you think otherwise, explain how it is moral.
If you cannot do that then you are just hoping that your god is good, and you are just guessing.
I explained earlier in the thread. #Sorry, that was another thread. I have explained it elsewhere though and this thread is about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus. If you want to discuss theodicy, I'll see you on another thread (a new one?).
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
And yet your god allows evil to exist and fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.
You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.
In what way then is your god moral?
Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.
But you also think it is morally wrong to NOT stop these things happening when you could easily stop them.
Your god does not stop them, therefore he is immoral.
If you think otherwise, explain how it is moral.
If you cannot do that then you are just hoping that your god is good, and you are just guessing.
I explained earlier in the thread.
Please note this thread is about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus.
This thread is about an unpleasant fantasy scenario!
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
It's quite clear I was talking within the realms of what is possible, so I don't know why you felt the need to say neither are possible.
OK, please help me here. Please give me an example of someone who is or has been as "morally perfect as can possibly be".
So you're not prepared to run with the hypothetical and you want the name of an actual person who is as close to being morally perfect as possible?
Having recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness, the person asks for it and resolves to live God's way (the equivalent of getting into a lifeboat).
So who, A or B?
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
And yet your god allows evil to exist and fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.
You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.
In what way then is your god moral?
Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.
But you also think it is morally wrong to NOT stop these things happening when you could easily stop them.
Your god does not stop them, therefore he is immoral.
If you think otherwise, explain how it is moral.
If you cannot do that then you are just hoping that your god is good, and you are just guessing.
I explained earlier in the thread.
Please note this thread is about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus.
So you can explain how it is morally good to allow a 9 year old to be raped, or a child to be tortured to death for fun?
This must be some explanation, and would then invalidate your earlier claim that it is ALWAYS wrong.
Are you saying it is sometimes right to allow these things to happen?
-
Alien,
Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do.
How would this god know whether something is "objectively morally good" exactly?
The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose".
No, that's not "the one" at all - ie, an objective moral truth. It's just something lots of people (though not all) happen currently to agree on is all. Remember?
If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.
Aw, the "it's a mystery" get out clause of theists through the ages when confronted with the uncomfortable fact that observably things happen that contradict their claims of an omnibenevolent god.
Fantastic casuistry and special pleading, just fantastic.
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
It's quite clear I was talking within the realms of what is possible, so I don't know why you felt the need to say neither are possible.
OK, please help me here. Please give me an example of someone who is or has been as "morally perfect as can possibly be".
So you're not prepared to run with the hypothetical and you want the name of an actual person who is as close to being morally perfect as possible?
It would make it easier to discuss.
Having recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness, the person asks for it and resolves to live God's way (the equivalent of getting into a lifeboat).
So who, A or B?
As I said, neither is possible. I thought you were taking about someone, in general, who is a sinner and had "recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness".
-
Surely we are back at of omni god this is the best of all possible worlds, therefore as Alan Burns stated the holocaust is a miracle.
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
And yet your god allows evil to exist and fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.
You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.
In what way then is your god moral?
Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.
But you also think it is morally wrong to NOT stop these things happening when you could easily stop them.
Your god does not stop them, therefore he is immoral.
If you think otherwise, explain how it is moral.
If you cannot do that then you are just hoping that your god is good, and you are just guessing.
I explained earlier in the thread.
Please note this thread is about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus.
So you can explain how it is morally good to allow a 9 year old to be raped, or a child to be tortured to death for fun?
This must be some explanation, and would then invalidate your earlier claim that it is ALWAYS wrong.
Are you saying it is sometimes right to allow these things to happen?
It could be if the price to be paid for stopping one 9 year old being raped was that two 9 year olds got raped.
Anyway, as I said above, this is meant to be about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus.
-
Alien,
Some here get a bit confused about the difference between Islam and Christianity. In case that happens here, the 72 virgins bit is an Islamic idea, not a Christian one.
And some here get a bit confused when the conversation has moved on to the phenomenology of religious faiths generally rather than of just one of them.
-
Alien
It could be if the price to be paid for stopping one 9 year old being raped was that two 9 year olds got raped.
Anyway, as I said above, this is meant to be about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus.
So you now say that it might be morally okay to allow a child to be tortured just for fun even if you could stop it happening?
How can you tell if something is right or wrong then, as you cannot know everything?
How do you know Hitler did not have some idea of ultimate long term well being for all?
How do you judge any action wrong?
-
NS,
Surely we are back at of omni god this is the best of all possible worlds, therefore as Alan Burns stated the holocaust is a miracle.
Quite so. Apparently this omniscient god wasn't smart enough to figure out a plan for the greater good that didn't involve the deaths of six million jews.
-
So you're not prepared to run with the hypothetical and you want the name of an actual person who is as close to being morally perfect as possible?
It would make it easier to discuss.
You're the one who is being difficult. If you run with the hypothetical it will make it easier
As I said, neither is possible. I thought you were taking about someone, in general, who is a sinner and had "recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness".
You've asserted neither is possible even when I included in the statements that it's within the confines of what is possible. A or B, Alan?
-
All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
And yet your god allows evil to exist and fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.
You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.
In what way then is your god moral?
Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.
So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.
-
All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.
This would also apply to allowing a child to be tortured to death for fun as well.
So Aliens earlier statement about objective moral values have come unstuck.
-
Alien,
It could be if the price to be paid for stopping one 9 year old being raped was that two 9 year olds got raped.
So not only would this omniscient god not be bright enough to work out a solution in which no-one got raped, but he's a moral consequentialist too?
Wow!
Do you have any idea how far out of your depth you are Alien, let alone of how morally screwed you've become?
An inkling maybe?
Anything at all?
No?
-
All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.
I disagree. God didn't choose it because he can only do what is good.
-
Alien,
Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?
-
All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.
I disagree. God didn't choose it because he can only do what is good.
Stopping it happening would be good or bad?
-
All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.
I disagree. God didn't choose it because he can only do what is good.
Stopping it happening would be good or bad?
Neither as they've lost their meaning.
-
BR,
So Aliens earlier statement about objective moral values have come unstuck.
Sorry to be picky here, but they were never "stuck" in the first place. He spent a lot of time sharing his personal opinion (and the opinions of lots of others) on TACTDJFF, but so far as I know he never troubled himself with an argument to bridge the gap from that to an objective moral truth.
-
All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.
I disagree. God didn't choose it because he can only do what is good.
Stopping it happening would be good or bad?
Neither as they've lost their meaning.
I do not know what that means.
Had you been in a concentration camp, one option would have looked much better than another.
-
BR,
So Aliens earlier statement about objective moral values have come unstuck.
Sorry to be picky here, but they were never "stuck" in the first place. He spent a lot of time sharing his personal opinion (and the opinions of lots of others) on TACTDJFF, but so far as I know he never troubled himself with an argument to bridge the gap from that to an objective moral truth.
I take your point.
But I now wonder if this make Alien question his earlier statement and will modify it to say it might sometimes be okay.
-
Neither as they've lost their meaning.
I do not know what that means.
Had you been in a concentration camp, one option would have looked much better than another.
If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless.
-
Andy,
If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless.
Though Alien would presumably claim that some things are objectively morally bad on their own terms, only they're less bad than the alternative when set against a supposedly bigger moral picture that his god (but we're told only his god) knows about.
It requires an incompetent god (otherwise presumably he'd just have figured out an answer in which no-one got hurt) who's also a moral consequentialist, and it's the basic "it's a mystery" cop out when the logic becomes too difficult, but that seems to be where he's pitched his tent nonetheless.
-
All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.
I disagree. God didn't choose it because he can only do what is good.
Yep, Fair point, there is no choice with an omni, everything is the only way it could be
Call me Pangloss!
-
Andy,
If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless.
Though Alien would presumably claim that some things are objectively morally bad on their own terms, only they're less bad than the alternative when set against a supposedly bigger moral picture that his god (but we're told only his god) knows about.
It requires an incompetent god (otherwise presumably he'd just have figured out an answer in which no-one got hurt) who's also a moral consequentialist, and it's the basic "it's a mystery" cop out when the logic becomes too difficult, but that seems to be where he's pitched his tent nonetheless.
To be bad (I prefer to use not good) on it's own terms, it would therefore have to be something that doesn't rely on god for existence.
-
Andy,
To be bad (I prefer to use not good) on it's own terms, it would therefore have to be something that doesn't rely on god for existence.
I'm reluctant to fall into the hall of mirrors logic of Alien, but as I understand it he'd say that, say, raping the nine-year-old was morally bad, but as his god ordered or allowed it it must have entailed less net moral badness than any alternative this god was capable of thinking up. In other words it's still morally bad even with his god calling the shots, only even greater net moral badness would have ensued if "He" hadn't.
-
Andy,
To be bad (I prefer to use not good) on it's own terms, it would therefore have to be something that doesn't rely on god for existence.
I'm reluctant to fall into the hall of mirrors logic of Alien, but as I understand it he'd say that, say, raping the nine-year-old was morally bad, but as his god ordered or allowed it it must have entailed less net moral badness than any alternative this god was capable of thinking up. In other words it's still morally bad even with his god calling the shots, only even greater net moral badness would have ensued if "He" hadn't.
Which would be to completely miss dealing with the point.
-
Andy,
Which would be to completely miss dealing with the point.
You do know it's Alien we're talking about here right?
-
I'm reluctant to fall into the hall of mirrors logic of Alien, but as I understand it he'd say that, say, raping the nine-year-old was morally bad, but as his god ordered or allowed it it must have entailed less net moral badness than any alternative this god was capable of thinking up. In other words it's still morally bad even with his god calling the shots, only even greater net moral badness would have ensued if "He" hadn't.
Which suggests, using Alan's approach, that in allowing the Holocaust his omni-God didn't act because to do so would have resulted in something morally worse in this divine big picture scenario - such as? This also implies that any disasters you can ever cite: Aberfan, various natural disasters throughout history, Hillsborough, Ebola - the list is endless - were all less bad that would have happened otherwise if the omni-God had intervened.
When you get right down to it this type of thinking is primitive nonsense, and burying this nonsense in the fallacious arguments, such a those involving authority, tradition and incredulity on which the dogma of organised religion is built, doesn't make the omni-God idea any less nonsensical.
Stephen Laws once described the Problem of Evil as perhaps the strongest argument against religious dogma involving an all-loving God, and I think he is right.
-
Neither as they've lost their meaning.
I do not know what that means.
Had you been in a concentration camp, one option would have looked much better than another.
If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless.
Formidable! I suppose you could say that some things are superficially bad, but go back to a good source, or a good reason, or a good cause. Hence the holocaust is all for the best, and could not be improved upon. Must go and check out Leibniz, who talks about the best of all possible worlds, but in a different way?
I think L. argued that God produces the best combination of things in the world - as others have said, there is actually no choice here, since he is the best and his world is the best. Hence, the existence of some evil and suffering must be part of that combination, hence the holocaust is all for the best (not Leibniz's argument, obviously). I think Bertrand Russell had a crack at this, but I'm getting sleepy now.
-
Andy,
Which would be to completely miss dealing with the point.
You do know it's Alien we're talking about here right?
Well, to be fair, it's your caricature of him.
-
Wiggs,
Formidable! I suppose you could say that some things are superficially bad...
You could say that, but the badness would be anything but superficial for the nine-year-old.
...but go back to a good source, or a good reason, or a good cause. Hence the holocaust is all for the best, and could not be improved upon.
Yes, that's the argument. The omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god couldn't work out a way to prevent six million and one jews from dying, so he opted instead for the Holocaust so that "only" six million jews would die instead.
Must go and check out Leibniz, who talks about the best of all possible worlds, but in a different way?
No, I think he talks about it in the same way. Alien is a Leibnizian - to get around the problem of bad things happening to good people ("the problem of evil") he has to conclude that god knows best, it's all a mystery, and "never mind nine-year-old, your sacrifice has helped others". It's morally corrosive stuff - you can post-rationalise anything that way, however foul but it gets less thinking theists off the hook. Several other moral philosophers took Leibniz apart on this I think.
-
Andy,
Well, to be fair, it's your caricature of him.
Actually I'm pretty sure it's not a caricature - that's what he really thinks. No doubt in due course he'll tell us though.
-
Neither as they've lost their meaning.
I do not know what that means.
Had you been in a concentration camp, one option would have looked much better than another.
If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless.
Formidable! I suppose you could say that some things are superficially bad, but go back to a good source, or a good reason, or a good cause. Hence the holocaust is all for the best, and could not be improved upon. Must go and check out Leibniz, who talks about the best of all possible worlds, but in a different way?
There is no improving on or getting worse. Things are the way they are because god only does things how god is constrained to do them. You can't even blame him (or praise him) for anything. Morality is dead.
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
And yet your god allows evil to exist and fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.
You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.
In what way then is your god moral?
Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.
For whose "greater good"?
Evil - Islamic State - for whose "greater good" does your god allow this?
Evil - Childhood Cancers - for whose "greater good" does you god allow these?
Evils - Drought and famine - for whose "greater good" does your god allow these?
The only reason that he allows these evils, as far as I can see, is to teach non-believers that the only way to avoid these evils is to do precisesly and exactly what he says!
On a smaller scale the same can be said of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and every other dictator that your goid has allowed to flourish. And it has been men of ALL religious persuasions who have rid the world of these evils NOT your god.
-
Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Who is getting saved?
Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.
Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.
And yet your god allows evil to exist and fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.
You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.
In what way then is your god moral?
Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.
But you also think it is morally wrong to NOT stop these things happening when you could easily stop them.
Your god does not stop them, therefore he is immoral.
If you think otherwise, explain how it is moral.
If you cannot do that then you are just hoping that your god is good, and you are just guessing.
I explained earlier in the thread. #Sorry, that was another thread. I have explained it elsewhere though and this thread is about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus. If you want to discuss theodicy, I'll see you on another thread (a new one?).
SUPER COP OUT!
-
Neither as they've lost their meaning.
I do not know what that means.
Had you been in a concentration camp, one option would have looked much better than another.
If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless.
Formidable! I suppose you could say that some things are superficially bad, but go back to a good source, or a good reason, or a good cause. Hence the holocaust is all for the best, and could not be improved upon. Must go and check out Leibniz, who talks about the best of all possible worlds, but in a different way?
There is no improving on or getting worse. Things are the way they are because god only does things how god is constrained to do them. You can't even blame him (or praise him) for anything. Morality is dead.
I was thinking that Leibniz's 'the best' is meaningless. Even the notion of 'possible worlds' becomes redundant, since there is only this world, and there could be no other.
Remarkable stuff really, when you draw it out to its conclusions.
I remembered that one of the traditional counter-arguments is about free will, so God will not frustrate our free will, e.g. by stopping the rapist, since free will is more important. Hence, again, the holocaust is all for the best, except there is no best.
-
. . . Things are the way they are because god only does things how god is constrained to do them.
According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.
-
. . . Things are the way they are because god only does things how god is constrained to do them.
According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.
Power without constraint makes a tyrant out of a human or a god!
-
To the tune of Galveston
Calvinism, oh Calvinism
I can hear your cold heart praying
Predestination's saying
No free will in Calvinism'
-
. . . Things are the way they are because god only does things how god is constrained to do them.
According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.
Except the point here is he acts in his nature. He may have power but it cannot be used in any other way.
-
. . . Things are the way they are because god only does things how god is constrained to do them.
According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.
And according to others, god cannot do something that is not good. Shall we come back when they can all get their stories straight with one another first? ;)
-
I'm dredging up various traditional arguments here, and as well as the free will one, there is the magic one, that if God kept intervening, that would disrupt nature, and produce a magical universe. This would be unintelligible for humans, and too inconsistent for animals, possibly. In other words, nature would become irregular.
A problem here is that this is indistinguishable from a universe with no God at all, as many atheists have commented. If there are no interventions, there is in effect, no God. This is how many people see it! If there are small interventions, as some Christians argue (somebody's ankle is healed, or God whispers in your ear), why not bigger ones, e.g. stop the holocaust?
-
I'm dredging up various traditional arguments here, and as well as the free will one, there is the magic one, that if God kept intervening, that would disrupt nature, and produce a magical universe. This would be unintelligible for humans, and too inconsistent for animals, possibly. In other words, nature would become irregular.
This implies that god needs to create non-god in order for us to make sense of anything, meaning god alone is unintelligible.
Anyway, the opposite works the same, though. You could just as easily argue that god does keep intervening to keep it intelligible.
-
According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.
Yet power without constraint doesn't mean that said God can't choose not to exercise that power at any given point in time.
-
According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.
Yet power without constraint doesn't mean that said God can't choose not to exercise that power at any given point in time.
And when he does not intervene to stop a 9 year old being raped, we can say that your god is immoral.
-
According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.
Yet power without constraint doesn't mean that said God can't choose not to exercise that power at any given point in time.
But if your god acts in the best way possible, he can't
-
I'm dredging up various traditional arguments here, and as well as the free will one, there is the magic one, that if God kept intervening, that would disrupt nature, and produce a magical universe. This would be unintelligible for humans, and too inconsistent for animals, possibly. In other words, nature would become irregular.
This implies that god needs to create non-god in order for us to make sense of anything, meaning god alone is unintelligible.
Anyway, the opposite works the same, though. You could just as easily argue that god does keep intervening to keep it intelligible.
It's possible then that God intervenes continuously to produce the world we have; or doesn't intervene at all; or 50% of the time, or 25%. The interesting thing is that we have no way of telling, well, it seemed interesting five minutes ago, but now I'm not so sure. I suggest that we ask Alan B., as he seems to have some insights into it, thus, gravity is not maintained by God, apparently, too tiring.
-
I'm dredging up various traditional arguments here, and as well as the free will one, there is the magic one, that if God kept intervening, that would disrupt nature, and produce a magical universe. This would be unintelligible for humans, and too inconsistent for animals, possibly. In other words, nature would become irregular.
This implies that god needs to create non-god in order for us to make sense of anything, meaning god alone is unintelligible.
Anyway, the opposite works the same, though. You could just as easily argue that god does keep intervening to keep it intelligible.
It's possible then that God intervenes continuously to produce the world we have; or doesn't intervene at all; or 50% of the time, or 25%. The interesting thing is that we have no way of telling, well, it seemed interesting five minutes ago, but now I'm not so sure. I suggest that we ask Alan B., as he seems to have some insights into it, thus, gravity is not maintained by God, apparently, too tiring.
I have it on good authority that god intervenes to keep people dead and only when he lets go of the reins and lets things run their course do people start springing back to life...
-
...and only when he lets go of the reigns and lets things run their course ...
??? ;)
-
. . . Things are the way they are because god only does things how god is constrained to do them.
According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.
And according to others, god cannot do something that is not good. Shall we come back when they can all get their stories straight with one another first? ;)
Do not - repeat - DO NOT hold your breath!
-
Er, my computer is having a very bad day (Windows 10 system restores not working, Office 2016 re-installed twice with SnagIt gone wrong, WinZip gone wrong and the printer not printing). I will reply to people's points here when I can. I've still got a home group to prepare before 8pm.
Are you lot aware that this is the Faith-Sharing Board?
-
Er, my computer is having a very bad day (Windows 10 system restores not working, Office 2016 re-installed twice with SnagIt gone wrong, WinZip gone wrong and the printer not printing). I will reply to people's points here when I can. I've still got a home group to prepare before 8pm.
That is convenient. :)
Are you lot aware that this is the Faith-Sharing Board?
Are you sure?
-
Are you lot aware that this is the Faith-Sharing Board?
I'm aware that it's not.
-
Are you lot aware that this is the Faith-Sharing Board?
It isn't, Alan.
-
Are you lot aware that this is the Faith-Sharing Board?
It isn't, Alan.
I told you I was having a bad day (yes, I know I said my computer was but my computer and I are, well, like one). :)
-
Are you lot aware that this is the Faith-Sharing Board?
It isn't, Alan.
I told you I was having a bad day (yes, I know I said my computer was but my computer and I are, well, like one). :)
From the robotic parroting of Christian belief, that is blindingly obvious!
-
... universalists don't, this refutes your claim.
But are Universalists Christians, jakswan? In other words do any of the ideas that characterise Universalism match what Jesus taught in the Bible?
If a Christian is someone who has recognised their need to be saved, then that would surely count universalists out, I would suggest.
That is not the definition of a Christian.
-
That is not the definition of a Christian.
What s your defnition of 'Christian', jaks?
-
That is not the definition of a Christian.
What s your defnition of 'Christian', jaks?
Someone who claims to follow the teachings of Christ. What he actually taught depends on the Christian.
-
Jesus taught 'repent and believe the Gospel' do you think a person who did not recognise their need to be saved would do that Jak?
-
Jesus taught 'repent and believe the Gospel' do you think a person who did not recognise their need to be saved would do that Jak?
Depends on the Christian.
-
Someone who claims to follow the teachings of Christ. What he actually taught depends on the Christian.
I think that highlights the problem. Let me give you a different example: if I claim to follow the 'teachings' of Karl Marx, does that necessarily mean that I'm a Marxist? No. Jesus taught that simply claiming to follow his teachings isn't enough; the real test is living them.
The problem with a site like this is that we only see a segment of people's behaviour, and even then that is skewed by the lack of non-linguistic language to put our posts into the larger context that we would usually have when communication face-to-face.
There are some here who appear through their posting style to be extremely brusque and even rude; I suspect that if we were to meet each other F2F we would see very different aspects of each other.
-
I think that highlights the problem. Let me give you a different example: if I claim to follow the 'teachings' of Karl Marx, does that necessarily mean that I'm a Marxist? No. Yes.
FIFY. Let me help you with the point you are trying to make. If you claimed to be a Marxist AND thought capitalism was brilliant AND we agreed that Karl Marx didn't teach that then you would not be a Marxist.
I'm agnostic as to exactly what Jesus taught, it very much depends on which Christian you listen to.
-
I think that highlights the problem. Let me give you a different example: if I claim to follow the 'teachings' of Karl Marx, does that necessarily mean that I'm a Marxist? No. Yes.
FIFY. Let me help you with the point you are trying to make. If you claimed to be a Marxist AND thought capitalism was brilliant AND we agreed that Karl Marx didn't teach that then you would not be a Marxist.
I'm agnostic as to exactly what Jesus taught, it very much depends on which Christian you listen to.
I've fixed the original post so that it actually makes the point I wanted to make, jaks.
Whether or not YOU are 'agnostic as to exactly what Jesus taught', it doesn't depend on what a particular Christian you listen to says. It depends on what Jesus taught, and as with many such teaching issues, one needs to understand the context and language that teaching was first given in. For instance I do not believe that some of the doctines that the RC or Orthodox Churches hold to relate, in any way, to Jesus' teachings (nor, for that matter, to the writings of Paul, which they often claim their ideas to be based on - such as the idea of compulsory priestly celibacy). Jesus also pointed out that there will be some who claim to be his followers who he will simply not recognise. It is for God to decide who are his true followers.
-
..
So you can explain how it is morally good to allow a 9 year old to be raped, or a child to be tortured to death for fun?
This must be some explanation, and would then invalidate your earlier claim that it is ALWAYS wrong.
Are you saying it is sometimes right to allow these things to happen?
For you and me to allow it? There are times, yes. For example if stopping it happen would allow it to happen to two nine year olds. What would you do in that situation?
As for God allowing it to happen, he has the complete picture, which you and I don't, so may have a morally sufficient reason to allow it. If you think that is a logical problem then you will need to show that God, if he exists, cannot have a morally sufficient reason.
-
Alien,
Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do.
How would this god know whether something is "objectively morally good" exactly?
It is his nature to only do what is good.
The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose".
No, that's not "the one" at all - ie, an objective moral truth. It's just something lots of people (though not all) happen currently to agree on is all. Remember?
And?
If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.
Aw, the "it's a mystery" get out clause of theists through the ages when confronted with the uncomfortable fact that observably things happen that contradict their claims of an omnibenevolent god.
Fantastic casuistry and special pleading, just fantastic.
No, it is not "mystery". If you think there is a logical problem with it, please explain it (rather than use the common approach here among atheists of not engaging with the argument).
-
Surely we are back at of omni god this is the best of all possible worlds, therefore as Alan Burns stated the holocaust is a miracle.
I thoroughly disagree with AB on that.
-
Surely we are back at of omni god this is the best of all possible worlds, therefore as Alan Burns stated the holocaust is a miracle.
I thoroughly disagree with AB on that.
As any decent person would!
-
Alien,
Some here get a bit confused about the difference between Islam and Christianity. In case that happens here, the 72 virgins bit is an Islamic idea, not a Christian one.
And some here get a bit confused when the conversation has moved on to the phenomenology of religious faiths generally rather than of just one of them.
The trouble is that you then start tarring Christianity with an Islamic brush. Unless you can demonstrate that a problem with Islam has an equivalent problem in Christianity it is just sloppy argument on your part and some here will not notice. You start to sound rather like Dawkins and (this is a genuine statement, not me taking the mick) you are better than that.
-
Alien
It could be if the price to be paid for stopping one 9 year old being raped was that two 9 year olds got raped.
Anyway, as I said above, this is meant to be about what makes a person saved in Christ Jesus.
So you now say that it might be morally okay to allow a child to be tortured just for fun even if you could stop it happening?
Yes. Note the word "might".
How can you tell if something is right or wrong then, as you cannot know everything?
The general principles, at least, are laid down in Scripture.
How do you know Hitler did not have some idea of ultimate long term well being for all?
Can I be 100% certain? I can't, but I am 99.9999% certain. There would surely have been some hint somewhere, but there isn't so it seems almost certainly that he didn't.
Do you think Hitler had "some idea of ultimate long term well being for all"? Please make sure you answer the question because, though you are very good at asking them, you rarely answer any.
How do you judge any action wrong?
See above.
-
It is his nature to only do what is good.
How you know raping a nine year is objectively morally good or not. Don't ask me I can only give my subjective view.
-
NS,
Surely we are back at of omni god this is the best of all possible worlds, therefore as Alan Burns stated the holocaust is a miracle.
Quite so. Apparently this omniscient god wasn't smart enough to figure out a plan for the greater good that didn't involve the deaths of six million jews.
Was there a plan which would fit that bill? If you can't come up with one, then I suggest the need for greater humility.
-
So you're not prepared to run with the hypothetical and you want the name of an actual person who is as close to being morally perfect as possible?
It would make it easier to discuss.
You're the one who is being difficult. If you run with the hypothetical it will make it easier.
Only if you can actually define what you mean. How morally perfect is "as morally perfect as possible"? Give some examples rather than just make vague statements.
As I said, neither is possible. I thought you were taking about someone, in general, who is a sinner and had "recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness".
You've asserted neither is possible even when I included in the statements that it's within the confines of what is possible. A or B, Alan?
Example needed to show that it is possible in the first place.
-
...
So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.
No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.
-
Whether or not YOU are 'agnostic as to exactly what Jesus taught', it doesn't depend on what a particular Christian you listen to says. It depends on what Jesus taught, and as with many such teaching issues, one needs to understand the context and language that teaching was first given in. For instance I do not believe that some of the doctines that the RC or Orthodox Churches hold to relate, in any way, to Jesus' teachings (nor, for that matter, to the writings of Paul, which they often claim their ideas to be based on - such as the idea of compulsory priestly celibacy). Jesus also pointed out that there will be some who claim to be his followers who he will simply not recognise. It is for God to decide who are his true followers.
I can't know what Jesus taught since we do not have enough evidence to decide. Whilst you, a Christian, might assert X another will assert not X, the term is broad which is why we have different types of Christian.
-
All actions are right in this position with omni god. Everything can only happen as it does. The holocaust was a miracle, it was meant to happen, there was no way it could be avoided. The omni god chose it.
This would also apply to allowing a child to be tortured to death for fun as well.
So Aliens earlier statement about objective moral values have come unstuck.
Ignoring for a moment the errors in NS's statement, why do you think your claim is correct?
-
Alien,
It could be if the price to be paid for stopping one 9 year old being raped was that two 9 year olds got raped.
So not only would this omniscient god not be bright enough to work out a solution in which no-one got raped, but he's a moral consequentialist too?
Wow!
Do you have any idea how far out of your depth you are Alien, let alone of how morally screwed you've become?
An inkling maybe?
Anything at all?
No?
Incorrect. You seem assume that all possible worlds are feasible. That may be incorrect.
-
Alien,
Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?
If that was all that was going on then yes, but the world is a far more complicated place that what happens to 2 children. It is too complicated for you and me to work everything out, but not for God.
-
BR,
So Aliens earlier statement about objective moral values have come unstuck.
Sorry to be picky here, but they were never "stuck" in the first place. He spent a lot of time sharing his personal opinion (and the opinions of lots of others) on TACTDJFF, but so far as I know he never troubled himself with an argument to bridge the gap from that to an objective moral truth.
In your opinion.
-
...
So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.
No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.
According to you, god would not allow a child to be tortured just for the fun of the torturer, you are describing an event that you define as impossible.
-
I'm reluctant to fall into the hall of mirrors logic of Alien, but as I understand it he'd say that, say, raping the nine-year-old was morally bad, but as his god ordered or allowed it it must have entailed less net moral badness than any alternative this god was capable of thinking up. In other words it's still morally bad even with his god calling the shots, only even greater net moral badness would have ensued if "He" hadn't.
Which suggests, using Alan's approach, that in allowing the Holocaust his omni-God didn't act because to do so would have resulted in something morally worse in this divine big picture scenario - such as? This also implies that any disasters you can ever cite: Aberfan, various natural disasters throughout history, Hillsborough, Ebola - the list is endless - were all less bad that would have happened otherwise if the omni-God had intervened.
OK so far.
When you get right down to it this type of thinking is primitive nonsense, and burying this nonsense in the fallacious arguments, such a those involving authority, tradition and incredulity on which the dogma of organised religion is built, doesn't make the omni-God idea any less nonsensical.
Stephen Laws once described the Problem of Evil as perhaps the strongest argument against religious dogma involving an all-loving God, and I think he is right.
And the logical reason it is that is what? That sounds like a typical atheist rant totally lacking in reason. Of course proposing such a God does not demonstrate that God actually exists, but it does show that the existence of evil is not a defeater for the existence of God. Until you lot can see that this conversation is going to be fairly pointless.
-
...
No, I think he talks about it in the same way. Alien is a Leibnizian - to get around the problem of bad things happening to good people ("the problem of evil") he has to conclude that god knows best, it's all a mystery, and "never mind nine-year-old, your sacrifice has helped others". It's morally corrosive stuff - you can post-rationalise anything that way, however foul but it gets less thinking theists off the hook. Several other moral philosophers took Leibniz apart on this I think.
You'll be able to quote them and demonstrate this to be true then?
-
...
For whose "greater good"?
Evil - Islamic State - for whose "greater good" does your god allow this?
Evil - Childhood Cancers - for whose "greater good" does you god allow these?
Evils - Drought and famine - for whose "greater good" does your god allow these?
The only reason that he allows these evils, as far as I can see, is to teach non-believers that the only way to avoid these evils is to do precisesly and exactly what he says!
On a smaller scale the same can be said of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and every other dictator that your goid has allowed to flourish. And it has been men of ALL religious persuasions who have rid the world of these evils NOT your god.
If the Christian God exists then he knows everything there is to know. You and I don't. He knows how individuals would choose to act in whatever situation they are put in. You and I don't. He knows what the overall best world would be. You and I don't.
It all comes down to whether the Christian God exists. If he does then there must be a morally sufficient reason why he allows the crap that goes on in this world. If he doesn't then there is no point to all the crap, all the suffering, all the evil, all the disease, all the hardship (unless there is some other God who is loving and wants the best for mankind, etc.),
-
...
SUPER COP OUT!
See post above.
-
I'm dredging up various traditional arguments here, and as well as the free will one, there is the magic one, that if God kept intervening, that would disrupt nature, and produce a magical universe. This would be unintelligible for humans, and too inconsistent for animals, possibly. In other words, nature would become irregular.
A problem here is that this is indistinguishable from a universe with no God at all, as many atheists have commented. If there are no interventions, there is in effect, no God. This is how many people see it! If there are small interventions, as some Christians argue (somebody's ankle is healed, or God whispers in your ear), why not bigger ones, e.g. stop the holocaust?
wigginhall, are you a Christian? If so, how would you explain the points put forward by our non-Christian friends here?
I ask because I have not seen you argue for anything positive about Christianity for months. Perhaps I have missed those posts, in which case please accept my apologies.
-
According to Hope, Sassy et al their god is all powerful! He has power without contraint.
Yet power without constraint doesn't mean that said God can't choose not to exercise that power at any given point in time.
And when he does not intervene to stop a 9 year old being raped, we can say that your god is immoral.
Not with good reason though.
-
Er, my computer is having a very bad day (Windows 10 system restores not working, Office 2016 re-installed twice with SnagIt gone wrong, WinZip gone wrong and the printer not printing). I will reply to people's points here when I can. I've still got a home group to prepare before 8pm.
That is convenient. :)
Stupid statement, even with a :) on the end. It was not convenient at all. It is almost as stupid as saying this is the Faith-Sharing Board
-
Are you lot aware that this is the Faith-Sharing Board?
I'm aware that it's not.
Am looking for a large hole to jump into and hide.
-
Jesus taught 'repent and believe the Gospel' do you think a person who did not recognise their need to be saved would do that Jak?
Depends on the Christian.
This is from the man who says he doesn't understand what Jesus taught.
-
It is his nature to only do what is good.
How you know raping a nine year is objectively morally good or not. Don't ask me I can only give my subjective view.
I shan't then.
-
...
So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.
No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.
According to you, god would not allow a child to be tortured just for the fun of the torturer,
No, I am not saying that. Please read my posts. you are describing an event that you define as impossible.
Time for church.
-
wigginhall, are you a Christian? If so, how would you explain the points put forward by our non-Christian friends here?
I ask because I have not seen you argue for anything positive about Christianity for months. Perhaps I have missed those posts, in which case please accept my apologies.
Wiggy isn't, AFAIK. He doesn't like laziness of mind and sloppy thinking. You haven't seen the posts you're referring to not because you missed them but because they weren't written.
Of course, you could always have used the 'search' function.
-
So you're not prepared to run with the hypothetical and you want the name of an actual person who is as close to being morally perfect as possible?
It would make it easier to discuss.
You're the one who is being difficult. If you run with the hypothetical it will make it easier.
Only if you can actually define what you mean. How morally perfect is "as morally perfect as possible"? Give some examples rather than just make vague statements.
As I said, neither is possible. I thought you were taking about someone, in general, who is a sinner and had "recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness".
You've asserted neither is possible even when I included in the statements that it's within the confines of what is possible. A or B, Alan?
Example needed to show that it is possible in the first place.
I'm not bothered with this anymore. I think it's redundant.
-
And the logical reason it is that is what? That sounds like a typical atheist rant totally lacking in reason. Of course proposing such a God does not demonstrate that God actually exists, but it does show that the existence of evil is not a defeater for the existence of God. Until you lot can see that this conversation is going to be fairly pointless.
Evil isn't the problem. Not being evil is.
And I would suggest daft sweeping statements like yours here are a good demonstration of being unreasonable.
-
...
So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.
No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.
I recall that you'd agreed to drop the "just".
-
When the argument about the "witches" operating as the Devil's servants on Earth was in full spate during the Burning Times it was stated, by the Christian Church, that the Devil was only able to operate in the world by the permission of the Christian god.
Thus all the evil in the world only exists by permission of the Christian god - ergo - the Christian god IS evil considering the suffering he allows in this world and no amount of biblical quotes and verbal gymnastics is going to change that.
Take this to its logical conclusion and the IS exists and operates by the permission of the Christian god - according to some on here - for the greater good!
Greater good - CRAP - considering the number of Christians who have died at the hands of the IS!
-
No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.
You claim there exists an objective moral value; the action 'torturing a child to death just for fun', no evidence to support that, its a position you assert, we tried to get you to come up with a method to establish this in another thread (which ran for a year) and you failed to come up with anything.
Lets hypothetically assume that this OMV exists... this OMV creates a moral obligation on every moral agent to stop this action taking place.
So we than ask why doesn't a good omni god intervene and you claim your god wouldn't allow a child to be tortured to death just for fun.
Now I see what rabbit holes are coming up you will claim 'just for fun' is the motive for the torturer.
So what you are really saying is its wrong for the torturer to allow himself to TACTDJFF but its morally good that your god allows it to happen because gods motive is a good one. However you have previously agreed:-
If morals change according to the moral agent morality is subjective / not objective.
If morals change according to circumstance then the morality is relative / not absolute.
So in all this time using TACTDJFF as an example of objective is categorically wrong because the 'just for fun' part is subjective.
-
Alien,
Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?
If that was all that was going on then yes, but the world is a far more complicated place that what happens to 2 children. It is too complicated for you and me to work everything out, but not for God.
Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds! ::)
-
Alien,
Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?
If that was all that was going on then yes, but the world is a far more complicated place that what happens to 2 children. It is too complicated for you and me to work everything out, but not for God.
Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds! ::)
OK I have my own beliefs and deities, but Alien's answer is an example of all that I find to be abhorent in Christian belief - the God moves in mysterious ways and we are not permitted to know why god does what he does and it is presumptuous of us, mere mortals, to questioin his motives.
All things bright and beautiful - the lord god made them all - yeah - ignore the nasties - poisonous spiders, cancer, rape, and all the other abonimations that cause death and/or onging pain.
The Christian god is, in my belief a Right Royal Bastard.
Yes, I have my own gods and goddesses but my view is best vocalised by Stpehen Fry in his interview with Gay Burn - my deities admit to their failings and shortcomings - the same failings and shortcomings that exist in man.
-
Alien,
Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?
If that was all that was going on then yes, but the world is a far more complicated place that what happens to 2 children. It is too complicated for you and me to work everything out, but not for God.
Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds! ::)
OK I have my own beliefs and deities, but Alien's answer is an example of all that I find to be abhorent in Christian belief - the God moves in mysterious ways and we are not permitted to know why god does what he does and it is presumptuous of us, mere mortals, to questioin his motives.
All things bright and beautiful - the lord god made them all - yeah - ignore the nasties - poisonous spiders, cancer, rape, and all the other abonimations that cause death and/or onging pain.
The Christian god is, in my belief a Right Royal Bastard.
Yes, I have my own gods and goddesses but my view is best vocalised by Stpehen Fry in his interview with Gay Burn - my deities admit to their failings and shortcomings - the same failings and shortcomings that exist in man.
It is definitely abhorrent to make excuses for the deity! >:(
-
The thing is, if the workings of God are so mysterious and we cannot understand them, how can anyone say that God is good?
Surely they would have to understand God to come to that conclusion, unless they are just guessing and using confirmations bias.
If they do not understand God then they can not know he is good.
-
wigginhall, are you a Christian? If so, how would you explain the points put forward by our non-Christian friends here?
I ask because I have not seen you argue for anything positive about Christianity for months. Perhaps I have missed those posts, in which case please accept my apologies.
Wiggy isn't, AFAIK. He doesn't like laziness of mind and sloppy thinking. You haven't seen the posts you're referring to not because you missed them but because they weren't written.
Of course, you could always have used the 'search' function.
Congratulations. I also missed you being appointed his spokesperson.
-
So you're not prepared to run with the hypothetical and you want the name of an actual person who is as close to being morally perfect as possible?
It would make it easier to discuss.
You're the one who is being difficult. If you run with the hypothetical it will make it easier.
Only if you can actually define what you mean. How morally perfect is "as morally perfect as possible"? Give some examples rather than just make vague statements.
As I said, neither is possible. I thought you were taking about someone, in general, who is a sinner and had "recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness".
You've asserted neither is possible even when I included in the statements that it's within the confines of what is possible. A or B, Alan?
Example needed to show that it is possible in the first place.
I'm not bothered with this anymore. I think it's redundant.
Suits me.
-
And the logical reason it is that is what? That sounds like a typical atheist rant totally lacking in reason. Of course proposing such a God does not demonstrate that God actually exists, but it does show that the existence of evil is not a defeater for the existence of God. Until you lot can see that this conversation is going to be fairly pointless.
Evil isn't the problem. Not being evil is.
And I would suggest daft sweeping statements like yours here are a good demonstration of being unreasonable.
Why?
-
...
So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.
No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.
I recall that you'd agreed to drop the "just".
I would say it is not strictly necessary, but helps make it clearer. Happy either way.
-
When the argument about the "witches" operating as the Devil's servants on Earth was in full spate during the Burning Times it was stated, by the Christian Church, that the Devil was only able to operate in the world by the permission of the Christian god.
Thus all the evil in the world only exists by permission of the Christian god - ergo - the Christian god IS evil considering the suffering he allows in this world and no amount of biblical quotes and verbal gymnastics is going to change that.
Take this to its logical conclusion and the IS exists and operates by the permission of the Christian god - according to some on here - for the greater good!
Greater good - CRAP - considering the number of Christians who have died at the hands of the IS!
Is that meant to be a logical argument against God being good? You seem to write it as if it is something new you have brought to the discussion. It has already been said that, yes, God allows some evil in order that a greater good will occur.
-
And the logical reason it is that is what? That sounds like a typical atheist rant totally lacking in reason. Of course proposing such a God does not demonstrate that God actually exists, but it does show that the existence of evil is not a defeater for the existence of God. Until you lot can see that this conversation is going to be fairly pointless.
Evil isn't the problem. Not being evil is.
And I would suggest daft sweeping statements like yours here are a good demonstration of being unreasonable.
Why?
See #102.
-
...
So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.
No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.
I recall that you'd agreed to drop the "just".
I would say it is not strictly necessary, but helps make it clearer. Happy either way.
If it's not necessary then we can drop it. That seems clear enough.
-
No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.
You claim there exists an objective moral value; the action 'torturing a child to death just for fun', no evidence to support that, its a position you assert, we tried to get you to come up with a method to establish this in another thread (which ran for a year) and you failed to come up with anything.
That is a misrepresentation of my position. Since you are a nice chap, perhaps it is because you have forgotten.
I have said on a number of occasions that there are various ways of working out what is morally right or wrong, though some situations are very difficult indeed. Stuff like the overall wellbeing of humans might be one way of helping determine it. As I have also said on a number of occasions I have said I am probably happy to go with whatever method you use to work out whether something is morally right or wrong (since most methods come up with the same result most of the time). The "objective" bit of objective morality as used in the particular argument for God's existence is that something is objectively morally wrong independent of how many people think it so. TATCTJFF was chosen as it is clear, whatever method of determining the morality of action, that this is morally wrong and that even if all the world thought it morally OK, it would still be morally wrong.
Lets hypothetically assume that this OMV exists... this OMV creates a moral obligation on every moral agent to stop this action taking place.
Why? That does not necessarily follow. If you think it does, please demonstrate why. If OM (objective morality) exists, e.g. that it is morally wrong for a person (in fact, anyone) to torture a child to death just for fun. It does not say anything about us having to stop it. We might not know that it is happening, for example, and might not be reasonably expected to know it is happening and it might be happening in the middle of the Amazon in a tribe as yet unknown to the rest of us (reduction ad absurdum). How would there be a moral obligation on us to stop it?
So we than ask why doesn't a good omni god intervene and you claim your god wouldn't allow a child to be tortured to death just for fun.
Now I see what rabbit holes are coming up you will claim 'just for fun' is the motive for the torturer.
So what you are really saying is its wrong for the torturer to allow himself to TACTDJFF but its morally good that your god allows it to happen because gods motive is a good one. However you have previously agreed:-
If morals change according to the moral agent morality is subjective / not objective.
If morals change according to circumstance then the morality is relative / not absolute.
No, I have not previously agreed this. You seem to be muddling up people's morals (what they think is right, and which may well change) and objective morality.
So in all this time using TACTDJFF as an example of objective is categorically wrong because the 'just for fun' part is subjective.
N/A.
-
Alien,
Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?
If that was all that was going on then yes, but the world is a far more complicated place that what happens to 2 children. It is too complicated for you and me to work everything out, but not for God.
Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds! ::)
Would it be too much for you to give a logical argument as to why you think this is the case?
-
Alien,
Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?
If that was all that was going on then yes, but the world is a far more complicated place that what happens to 2 children. It is too complicated for you and me to work everything out, but not for God.
Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds! ::)
OK I have my own beliefs and deities, but Alien's answer is an example of all that I find to be abhorent in Christian belief - the God moves in mysterious ways and we are not permitted to know why god does what he does and it is presumptuous of us, mere mortals, to questioin his motives.
All things bright and beautiful - the lord god made them all - yeah - ignore the nasties - poisonous spiders, cancer, rape, and all the other abonimations that cause death and/or onging pain.
The Christian god is, in my belief a Right Royal Bastard.
Any chance of a logical argument rather than a rant?
Yes, I have my own gods and goddesses but my view is best vocalised by Stpehen Fry in his interview with Gay Burn - my deities admit to their failings and shortcomings - the same failings and shortcomings that exist in man.
What's the point of them then? What makes them gods? Do they exist? Why do you think they exist?
-
Alien,
Surely your god can just as easily stop 2 or 99999999999999999999999 the power 999999999999999999 children being raped.
So why would he need to let 1 be raped?
If that was all that was going on then yes, but the world is a far more complicated place that what happens to 2 children. It is too complicated for you and me to work everything out, but not for God.
Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds! ::)
OK I have my own beliefs and deities, but Alien's answer is an example of all that I find to be abhorent in Christian belief - the God moves in mysterious ways and we are not permitted to know why god does what he does and it is presumptuous of us, mere mortals, to questioin his motives.
All things bright and beautiful - the lord god made them all - yeah - ignore the nasties - poisonous spiders, cancer, rape, and all the other abonimations that cause death and/or onging pain.
The Christian god is, in my belief a Right Royal Bastard.
Yes, I have my own gods and goddesses but my view is best vocalised by Stpehen Fry in his interview with Gay Burn - my deities admit to their failings and shortcomings - the same failings and shortcomings that exist in man.
It is definitely abhorrent to make excuses for the deity! >:(
Any chance of a logical argument, Floo?
-
The thing is, if the workings of God are so mysterious and we cannot understand them, how can anyone say that God is good?
Surely they would have to understand God to come to that conclusion, unless they are just guessing and using confirmations bias.
If they do not understand God then they can not know he is good.
That is a misrepresentation of the Christian position, or at least it is a misrepresentation of the position I take. Do you know why?
-
And the logical reason it is that is what? That sounds like a typical atheist rant totally lacking in reason. Of course proposing such a God does not demonstrate that God actually exists, but it does show that the existence of evil is not a defeater for the existence of God. Until you lot can see that this conversation is going to be fairly pointless.
Evil isn't the problem. Not being evil is.
And I would suggest daft sweeping statements like yours here are a good demonstration of being unreasonable.
Why?
See #102.
As in "If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless."?
"If god (sic) only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good." Why do you think that follows?
-
...
So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.
No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.
I recall that you'd agreed to drop the "just".
I would say it is not strictly necessary, but helps make it clearer. Happy either way.
If it's not necessary then we can drop it. That seems clear enough.
Unless it helps make things clearer.
-
And the logical reason it is that is what? That sounds like a typical atheist rant totally lacking in reason. Of course proposing such a God does not demonstrate that God actually exists, but it does show that the existence of evil is not a defeater for the existence of God. Until you lot can see that this conversation is going to be fairly pointless.
Evil isn't the problem. Not being evil is.
And I would suggest daft sweeping statements like yours here are a good demonstration of being unreasonable.
Why?
See #102.
As in "If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless."?
"If god (sic) only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good." Why do you think that follows?
Through simple logic.
-
...
So its impossible to torture a child to death just for fun, because it must be 'for fun & gods version of greater good'.
No, you misunderstand again. The motive of the torturer is "just for fun." It says nothing about God's motives or knowledge.
I recall that you'd agreed to drop the "just".
I would say it is not strictly necessary, but helps make it clearer. Happy either way.
If it's not necessary then we can drop it. That seems clear enough.
Unless it helps make things clearer.
Well no, it doesn't. In fact, as has been discussed before, it makes no sense. You can't talk about "just for fun" being always wrong because you are applying it to all possible situations, which therefore negates the "just" as each situation has other differing factors.
-
The thing is, if the workings of God are so mysterious and we cannot understand them, how can anyone say that God is good?
Surely they would have to understand God to come to that conclusion, unless they are just guessing and using confirmations bias.
If they do not understand God then they can not know he is good.
That is a misrepresentation of the Christian position, or at least it is a misrepresentation of the position I take. Do you know why?
So how can you be sure God is good when he does stuff that seems bad?
-
Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds! ::)
Would it be too much for you to give a logical argument as to why you think this is the case?
Well, you keep saying there is some unspecified greater good to come. Has God told you what it is? Do you think it would be a comfort to all those innocents tortured and murdered to know that it was all in the cause of God's alleged nebulous greater good?
When you analyse it, in the context of the World we live in, the idea that its creator is the embodiment of Good is really an insult to our intelligence.
-
Alien,
TATCTJFF was chosen as it is clear, whatever method of determining the morality of action, that this is morally wrong and that even if all the world thought it morally OK, it would still be morally wrong.
Try to work out where that sentence goes off the rails. How could "all the world" think it to be right if the only methods available them them lead to the opposite conclusion?
Just to add by the way that you never did manage even to suggest an argument that took you from your opinion (and the opinions of lots of other people) about TACTDJFF and that opinion somehow also being an objective fact.
-
When the argument about the "witches" operating as the Devil's servants on Earth was in full spate during the Burning Times it was stated, by the Christian Church, that the Devil was only able to operate in the world by the permission of the Christian god.
Thus all the evil in the world only exists by permission of the Christian god - ergo - the Christian god IS evil considering the suffering he allows in this world and no amount of biblical quotes and verbal gymnastics is going to change that.
Take this to its logical conclusion and the IS exists and operates by the permission of the Christian god - according to some on here - for the greater good!
Greater good - CRAP - considering the number of Christians who have died at the hands of the IS!
Is that meant to be a logical argument against God being good? You seem to write it as if it is something new you have brought to the discussion. It has already been said that, yes, God allows some evil in order that a greater good will occur.
YOU WHAT!
What "greater good" csan there possibly be in the existence of the IS! I cannot see it, or see how there can be any possible "greater good" in the IS!
As far as having any humanity in you, I would consider that this answer shows that you are way out on the terminaly deluded, totally inhiman, wing of Christianity!
-
Always an excuse for the deity and its misdeeds! ::)
Would it be too much for you to give a logical argument as to why you think this is the case?
Well, you keep saying there is some unspecified greater good to come. Has God told you what it is? Do you think it would be a comfort to all those innocents tortured and murdered to know that it was all in the cause of God's alleged nebulous greater good?
When you analyse it, in the context of the World we live in, the idea that its creator is the embodiment of Good is really an insult to our intelligence.
Alien - A suitable case for treatment (British Lion 1966!)
-
And the logical reason it is that is what? That sounds like a typical atheist rant totally lacking in reason. Of course proposing such a God does not demonstrate that God actually exists, but it does show that the existence of evil is not a defeater for the existence of God. Until you lot can see that this conversation is going to be fairly pointless.
Evil isn't the problem. Not being evil is.
And I would suggest daft sweeping statements like yours here are a good demonstration of being unreasonable.
Why?
See #102.
As in "If god only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good. This means there is nothing in existence that is not good, which removes all contrast and any frame of reference. It's a bit like if everything was the same temperature, hot and cold would be meaningless."?
"If god (sic) only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good." Why do you think that follows?
Through simple logic.
OK. Please demonstrate it.
-
That is a misrepresentation of my position. Since you are a nice chap, perhaps it is because you have forgotten.
I have said on a number of occasions that there are various ways of working out what is morally right or wrong, though some situations are very difficult indeed. Stuff like the overall wellbeing of humans might be one way of helping determine it. As I have also said on a number of occasions I have said I am probably happy to go with whatever method you use to work out whether something is morally right or wrong (since most methods come up with the same result most of the time). The "objective" bit of objective morality as used in the particular argument for God's existence is that something is objectively morally wrong independent of how many people think it so. TATCTJFF was chosen as it is clear, whatever method of determining the morality of action, that this is morally wrong and that even if all the world thought it morally OK, it would still be morally wrong.
Again, how do you know TACTDJFF is objectively morally wrong, lots of subjective opinions does not make something objective.
Again to remind you of your previously stated position.
I could be wrong (with regard to TACTDJFF), because I am fallible. I don't think I am in this case though.
Why? That does not necessarily follow. If you think it does, please demonstrate why. If OM (objective morality) exists, e.g. that it is morally wrong for a person (in fact, anyone) to torture a child to death just for fun. It does not say anything about us having to stop it. We might not know that it is happening, for example, and might not be reasonably expected to know it is happening and it might be happening in the middle of the Amazon in a tribe as yet unknown to the rest of us (reduction ad absurdum). How would there be a moral obligation on us to stop it?
I forgot how obtuse you can be, I'll change my statement thus; OMV creates a moral obligation on every moral agent who is able to stop this action taking place. Your god is always able according to you.
No, I have not previously agreed this. You seem to be muddling up people's morals (what they think is right, and which may well change) and objective morality.
No I think you misunderstand.
-
When the argument about the "witches" operating as the Devil's servants on Earth was in full spate during the Burning Times it was stated, by the Christian Church, that the Devil was only able to operate in the world by the permission of the Christian god.
Thus all the evil in the world only exists by permission of the Christian god - ergo - the Christian god IS evil considering the suffering he allows in this world and no amount of biblical quotes and verbal gymnastics is going to change that.
Take this to its logical conclusion and the IS exists and operates by the permission of the Christian god - according to some on here - for the greater good!
Greater good - CRAP - considering the number of Christians who have died at the hands of the IS!
Is that meant to be a logical argument against God being good? You seem to write it as if it is something new you have brought to the discussion. It has already been said that, yes, God allows some evil in order that a greater good will occur.
What if your god allows some good in order that a greater evil will occur.
-
If God were to put an end to all evil tonight, do you think any of us would still be here in the morning?
-
Why not?
-
"If god (sic) only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good." Why do you think that follows?
Through simple logic.
OK. Please demonstrate it.
I'll put it alongside another argument that uses the same valid form:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Everything god does is good.
The universe began to exist.
Everything exists because of god.
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.
Everything that exists is good.
Like I said - simple.
-
If God were to put an end to all evil tonight, do you think any of us would still be here in the morning?
Doesn't it manage to sustain only good in heaven?
-
I'm dredging up various traditional arguments here, and as well as the free will one, there is the magic one, that if God kept intervening, that would disrupt nature, and produce a magical universe. This would be unintelligible for humans, and too inconsistent for animals, possibly. In other words, nature would become irregular.
A problem here is that this is indistinguishable from a universe with no God at all, as many atheists have commented. If there are no interventions, there is in effect, no God. This is how many people see it! If there are small interventions, as some Christians argue (somebody's ankle is healed, or God whispers in your ear), why not bigger ones, e.g. stop the holocaust?
wigginhall, are you a Christian? If so, how would you explain the points put forward by our non-Christian friends here?
I ask because I have not seen you argue for anything positive about Christianity for months. Perhaps I have missed those posts, in which case please accept my apologies.
For some reason, you are always trying to define me. Only the other week, you asked if I'm a Buddhist. I'm not sure why you want to act as gendarme in this way, it's quite peculiar.
-
Boxes, ticky tacky little boxes*. It suits some people, apparently.
* An internet fiver for the first one old enough to identify the reference.
-
Oh come now wigginhall, you must realise that we have to know what side every one is on for the Last Battle! The labels are the only important thing.
-
Boxes, ticky tacky little boxes*. It suits some people, apparently.
* An internet fiver for the first one old enough to identify the reference.
Malvina Reynolds & Pete Seeger - Little Boxes
-
Jesus never stood a chance ???
Not the Jewish one anyway. ;)
But surely he did stand a chance, Rose. He was responsible for the rebooting of the message that the Jews had failed to impart to the world - that God loves all of us.
-
Tell that to Muslims who are using the same weak argument of saying THEIR prophet is carrying one from Jesus etc etc....
-
Tell that to Muslims who are using the same weak argument of saying THEIR prophet is carrying one from Jesus etc etc....
Except that Muslims don't and never have argued that they carry a message from Jesus - any more than Christians argue that they carry a message from Amos or Jeremiah.
-
Carrying on FROM is not the same as carrying a message.
-
Carrying on FROM is not the same as carrying a message.
Nick, you used the 'from', so I simply followed your pattern.
-
Carrying on FROM is not the same as carrying a message.
Nick, you used the 'from', so I simply followed your pattern.
No, you didn't. Nick used carrying on from - you changed that to carrying a message (hence, Nick's post)
-
"If god (sic) only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good." Why do you think that follows?
Through simple logic.
OK. Please demonstrate it.
I'll put it alongside another argument that uses the same valid form:
1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2 Everything god does is good.
3 The universe began to exist.
4 Everything exists because of god.
Therefore:
5 The universe has a cause.
6 Everything that exists is good.
Like I said - simple.
Good question. BTW, your premises and conclusions don't follow necessarily. I've numbered them for easy reference. 1, 2, 3, and 5 look OK to me. 4 should be "Everything in the universe exists because of God." Let's make that 4'
4' Everything in the universe exists because of God.
6 therefore becomes
6' Everything that exists in the universe is good.
Now there is a difference between physical stuff existing and sin. Sin is a concept, an attitude of mind. You can't point to it and say, "There's some sin. I'll have a couple of kilos, please?"
Therefore, I don't think your conclusion holds.
A more fundamental question is, I would suggest, whether an all-powerful God can actually give creatures any independence, e.g. free will in any meaningful sense. We could argue that an all-powerful/omnipotent God can do anything, which means a creature is totally stuck with what God wants to happen. Alternatively, if God is all-powerful/omnipotent it would mean he, by definition, can give independence to a creature.
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
-
I'm dredging up various traditional arguments here, and as well as the free will one, there is the magic one, that if God kept intervening, that would disrupt nature, and produce a magical universe. This would be unintelligible for humans, and too inconsistent for animals, possibly. In other words, nature would become irregular.
A problem here is that this is indistinguishable from a universe with no God at all, as many atheists have commented. If there are no interventions, there is in effect, no God. This is how many people see it! If there are small interventions, as some Christians argue (somebody's ankle is healed, or God whispers in your ear), why not bigger ones, e.g. stop the holocaust?
wigginhall, are you a Christian? If so, how would you explain the points put forward by our non-Christian friends here?
I ask because I have not seen you argue for anything positive about Christianity for months. Perhaps I have missed those posts, in which case please accept my apologies.
For some reason, you are always trying to define me. Only the other week, you asked if I'm a Buddhist. I'm not sure why you want to act as gendarme in this way, it's quite peculiar.
OK, are you a follower of Jesus then?
I'm not sure why you find it peculiar that I should ask such a question. I'm not a gendarme, but rather curious as your tone seems to have changed on these boards over the last few months. It might be me misunderstanding you though.
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
Assuming you are not a universalist and some don't make it to heaven, they are left in deficit of good. Lets assume Islam is true and you are sent to the fire for turning away from Allah's last prophet, would that make Allah evil in your eyes?
-
Carrying on FROM is not the same as carrying a message.
Nick, you used the 'from', so I simply followed your pattern.
No, you didn't. Nick used carrying on from - you changed that to carrying a message (hence, Nick's post)
To be fair, he actually wrote "carrying one from". If you were Hope, you might read "one" as a message although it is a bit of a stretch.
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
Assuming you are not a universalist and some don't make it to heaven, they are left in deficit of good. Lets assume Islam is true and you are sent to the fire for turning away from Allah's last prophet, would that make Allah evil in your eyes?
Sorry, would you please explain "left in deficit of good" first, then I'll definitely try to answer your question.
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
When are you going to tell all those who have asked you just what the "good that is to come from evil" is?
You have used the woirds at least a dozen times on this thread and at least a similar number of times yoiu have been asked the above question yet you have spectacularly failed to answer.
Why?
Because there is no answer! Only the most gullible of Christians believe that good can come from evil.
-
Good question. BTW, your premises and conclusions don't follow necessarily. I've numbered them for easy reference. 1, 2, 3, and 5 look OK to me. 4 should be "Everything in the universe exists because of God." Let's make that 4'
4' Everything in the universe exists because of God.
6 therefore becomes
6' Everything that exists in the universe is good.
Now there is a difference between physical stuff existing and sin. Sin is a concept, an attitude of mind. You can't point to it and say, "There's some sin. I'll have a couple of kilos, please?"
Therefore, I don't think your conclusion holds.
A more fundamental question is, I would suggest, whether an all-powerful God can actually give creatures any independence, e.g. free will in any meaningful sense. We could argue that an all-powerful/omnipotent God can do anything, which means a creature is totally stuck with what God wants to happen. Alternatively, if God is all-powerful/omnipotent it would mean he, by definition, can give independence to a creature.
Yes, evil exists
Great, so by 4' evil was created by God (unless you are going to claim there is no evil in the Universe) and therefore by 6' evil is good.
Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil.
How do you know? Has God told you what the good is that will come from evil? I think we deserve to know, especially the concentration camp survivors.
-
When are you going to tell all those who have asked you just what the "good that is to come from evil" is?
He's never going to tell us. It's just something he keeps telling himself so that he can deny the obvious evidence of his own eyes that either there is no god, or if there is, it is not the embodiment of good.
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
Assuming you are not a universalist and some don't make it to heaven, they are left in deficit of good. Lets assume Islam is true and you are sent to the fire for turning away from Allah's last prophet, would that make Allah evil in your eyes?
Sorry, would you please explain "left in deficit of good" first, then I'll definitely try to answer your question.
You will be tortured in hell forever, you will experience more bad than good.
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
When are you going to tell all those who have asked you just what the "good that is to come from evil" is?
You have used the woirds at least a dozen times on this thtreda and atr least a similar number of times yoiu have been asked the above question yet you have spectaculary failed to anser.
Why?
Because there is no answer! Only the most gullible of Christians belive that good can come from evil.
Good can come from evil. India got its railways from the British taking over India, my old boss married someone who comforted him when his girlfriend was killed, the Germans turned into a nation very much against Nazism, etc., etc., etc.
-
"If god (sic) only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good." Why do you think that follows?
Through simple logic.
OK. Please demonstrate it.
I'll put it alongside another argument that uses the same valid form:
1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2 Everything god does is good.
3 The universe began to exist.
4 Everything exists because of god.
Therefore:
5 The universe has a cause.
6 Everything that exists is good.
Like I said - simple.
Good question. BTW, your premises and conclusions don't follow necessarily. I've numbered them for easy reference. 1, 2, 3, and 5 look OK to me. 4 should be "Everything in the universe exists because of God." Let's make that 4'
4' Everything in the universe exists because of God.
6 therefore becomes
6' Everything that exists in the universe is good.
No, the premises and conclusion are fine as they are.
Now there is a difference between physical stuff existing and sin. Sin is a concept, an attitude of mind. You can't point to it and say, "There's some sin. I'll have a couple of kilos, please?"
Therefore, I don't think your conclusion holds.
I have not introduced physical stuff, only you have here, so this is a red herring. It doesn't matter that sin is a concept/attitude of mind because it still can't exist without god in the first place.
A more fundamental question is, I would suggest, whether an all-powerful God can actually give creatures any independence, e.g. free will in any meaningful sense. We could argue that an all-powerful/omnipotent God can do anything, which means a creature is totally stuck with what God wants to happen. Alternatively, if God is all-powerful/omnipotent it would mean he, by definition, can give independence to a creature.
No, a god can't if it can only do good because this means god himself has no free will. He has no choice but to do "good".
Ignoring that, if god is where we get our free will then free will is good, whatever actions we take are good and whatever we act upon is good. You can't introduce a green thing into existence if you are red and everything else in existence is red. All you do is transform red things into other red things. Same with good.
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
No, evil doesn't exist because god creating creatures is good. Whether he knew or not is irrelevant. No, the good coming from evil is meaningless because there never was evil. There is no evil in the world because everything exists because of god, so no, the good is meaningless.
-
I'm dredging up various traditional arguments here, and as well as the free will one, there is the magic one, that if God kept intervening, that would disrupt nature, and produce a magical universe. This would be unintelligible for humans, and too inconsistent for animals, possibly. In other words, nature would become irregular.
A problem here is that this is indistinguishable from a universe with no God at all, as many atheists have commented. If there are no interventions, there is in effect, no God. This is how many people see it! If there are small interventions, as some Christians argue (somebody's ankle is healed, or God whispers in your ear), why not bigger ones, e.g. stop the holocaust?
wigginhall, are you a Christian? If so, how would you explain the points put forward by our non-Christian friends here?
I ask because I have not seen you argue for anything positive about Christianity for months. Perhaps I have missed those posts, in which case please accept my apologies.
For some reason, you are always trying to define me. Only the other week, you asked if I'm a Buddhist. I'm not sure why you want to act as gendarme in this way, it's quite peculiar.
OK, are you a follower of Jesus then?
I'm not sure why you find it peculiar that I should ask such a question. I'm not a gendarme, but rather curious as your tone seems to have changed on these boards over the last few months. It might be me misunderstanding you though.
Well, I am still being polite, so please stop asking me questions like this, as it verges on harassment.
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
When are you going to tell all those who have asked you just what the "good that is to come from evil" is?
You have used the woirds at least a dozen times on this thtreda and atr least a similar number of times yoiu have been asked the above question yet you have spectaculary failed to anser.
Why?
Because there is no answer! Only the most gullible of Christians belive that good can come from evil.
Good can come from evil. India got its railways from the British taking over India, my old boss married someone who comforted him when his girlfriend was killed, the Germans turned into a nation very much against Nazism, etc., etc., etc.
Fine examples - now tell us what good comes from the torture by the church of single mothers in its care, the rape of young boys serving in church choirs, feral children in South America because their families cannot afford them but the church refuses to allow them contraception!
If you can see good coming out of evil in this I cannot!
Jeremy was right -It's just something [you keep] telling [yourself] so that [you] can deny the obvious evidence of [your] own eyes that either there is no god, or if there is, it is not the embodiment of good.
-
If ALL is within God then it'd be correct to assume God will suffer exactly as I would suffer if I went to eternal Hell Fire, no ?!?!??
Or is God limited ????
Nick
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
Here is one possible example (others are available);
'evil' = Mediaeval Arab 'marries and has sex with 9yo girl'
' Yes, the good coming from it...'
= part of the foundation of the one true faith i.e. Islam
'... is worth the evil. '
'There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.'
...God's plan comes together.
Looking forward to your conversion? :)
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
Assuming you are not a universalist and some don't make it to heaven, they are left in deficit of good. Lets assume Islam is true and you are sent to the fire for turning away from Allah's last prophet, would that make Allah evil in your eyes?
Sorry, would you please explain "left in deficit of good" first, then I'll definitely try to answer your question.
You will be tortured in hell forever, you will experience more bad than good.
Did we get an answer?
-
Oh come now wigginhall, you must realise that we have to know what side every one is on for the Last Battle! The labels are the only important thing.
But is also essential to determine whether there is any intrinsic difference between "He who is not for us is against us" and "He who is not against us is for us". Can they be reconciled?
-
Jesus never stood a chance ???
Not the Jewish one anyway. ;)
But surely he did stand a chance, Rose. He was responsible for the rebooting of the message that the Jews had failed to impart to the world - that God loves all of us.
IMO.
He brought a message from Judaism to the world at large, what that message is, is arguable.
I'd say it was a caring and ethical one, intended originally just for Jews. I think the Jews regarded him as a sort of cult leader, which is why they rejected him.
Most of his ideas are taken from Judaism and there were other teachers that were teaching the same sort of things about the same time.
I think the reason Jesus appears to take notice of non Jews is because some of them obviously followed Judaism, I think they were known as God fearers.
Some of them might have been potential converts.
The pity is somewhere along the line the ideas of Jesus became corrupted with things like "original sin", "eternal torment"and the emphasis on "eternal life"and " being saved" , which was never in Judaism in the first place, and it became a way of avoiding death and became a bit peculiar.
All those things are add on's.
I agree with all this. The origin of the 'eternal torment' thing is interesting. There seem to have been some ideas on these lines that arose in inter-testamental times in Jewish thought. A number of areas of Christian thought try to minimise the 'Gehenna' idea, claiming it was just a Jewish rubbish dump. I understand that the rubbish dump idea has been seriously questioned, though.
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
Assuming you are not a universalist and some don't make it to heaven, they are left in deficit of good. Lets assume Islam is true and you are sent to the fire for turning away from Allah's last prophet, would that make Allah evil in your eyes?
Sorry, would you please explain "left in deficit of good" first, then I'll definitely try to answer your question.
You will be tortured in hell forever, you will experience more bad than good.
Blimey Alien's PC must be totally buggered this time. :)
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
Assuming you are not a universalist and some don't make it to heaven, they are left in deficit of good. Lets assume Islam is true and you are sent to the fire for turning away from Allah's last prophet, would that make Allah evil in your eyes?
Sorry, would you please explain "left in deficit of good" first, then I'll definitely try to answer your question.
You will be tortured in hell forever, you will experience more bad than good.
Is Alien going to help us out?
-
Jesus never stood a chance ???
Not the Jewish one anyway. ;)
But surely he did stand a chance, Rose. He was responsible for the rebooting of the message that the Jews had failed to impart to the world - that God loves all of us.
IMO.
He brought a message from Judaism to the world at large, what that message is, is arguable.
I'd say it was a caring and ethical one, intended originally just for Jews. I think the Jews regarded him as a sort of cult leader, which is why they rejected him.
Most of his ideas are taken from Judaism and there were other teachers that were teaching the same sort of things about the same time.
I think the reason Jesus appears to take notice of non Jews is because some of them obviously followed Judaism, I think they were known as God fearers.
Some of them might have been potential converts.
The pity is somewhere along the line the ideas of Jesus became corrupted with things like "original sin", "eternal torment"and the emphasis on "eternal life"and " being saved" , which was never in Judaism in the first place, and it became a way of avoiding death and became a bit peculiar.
All those things are add on's.
I agree with all this. The origin of the 'eternal torment' thing is interesting. There seem to have been some ideas on these lines that arose in inter-testamental times in Jewish thought. A number of areas of Christian thought try to minimise the 'Gehenna' idea, claiming it was just a Jewish rubbish dump. I understand that the rubbish dump idea has been seriously questioned, though.
There are quite a number of sick people who seem to get off on the idea of folk suffering eternal torture because they don't see matters of faith their way! >:(
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
Assuming you are not a universalist and some don't make it to heaven, they are left in deficit of good. Lets assume Islam is true and you are sent to the fire for turning away from Allah's last prophet, would that make Allah evil in your eyes?
Sorry, would you please explain "left in deficit of good" first, then I'll definitely try to answer your question.
You will be tortured in hell forever, you will experience more bad than good.
Is Alien going to help us out?
You must be ****** joking! Alien help the unbelieving? No way!
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
Assuming you are not a universalist and some don't make it to heaven, they are left in deficit of good. Lets assume Islam is true and you are sent to the fire for turning away from Allah's last prophet, would that make Allah evil in your eyes?
Sorry, would you please explain "left in deficit of good" first, then I'll definitely try to answer your question.
You will be tortured in hell forever, you will experience more bad than good.
Is Alien going to help us out?
So, if Islam is true, then it would mean, I think, that I had deliberately suppressed the truth, in which case it would be tough. Alternately, if Islam is true, then it might be that Allah is all-powerful, but not all good. Cue question about applicability of that statement to the Christian God. Perhaps Floo would like to start it off.
There might be other explanations as well, but I can't think of any off hand as I wait for my customer, who is allegedly in a real hurry, to ring me back.
-
Quite so. Apparently this omniscient god wasn't smart enough to figure out a plan for the greater good that didn't involve the deaths of six million jews.
I woud suggest that this omniscient God had a plan for the greater good, basically that all should love each other, but a number of human beings believed that they knew better and chose to go down a different route. I realise that there are some here who would have preferred that humanity had been made to act robotically in adherence to sets of rules set out by the creator - but reality is that we weren't.
-
Quite so. Apparently this omniscient god wasn't smart enough to figure out a plan for the greater good that didn't involve the deaths of six million jews.
I woud suggest that this omniscient God had a plan for the greater good, basically that all should love each other, but a number of human beings believed that they knew better and chose to go down a different route. I realise that there are some here who would have preferred that humanity had been made to act robotically in adherence to sets of rules set out by the creator - but reality is that we weren't.
Humans, even the worst, are better than the Biblical portrayal of the deity, but then it is a very human production, imo!
-
If ALL is within God then it'd be correct to assume God will suffer exactly as I would suffer if I went to eternal Hell Fire, no ?!?!??
Or is God limited ????
Nick
Nick, Hell is separation from God; if you think about it, Jesus suffered separation from God through his death. I think you will therefore find that he has suffered "exactly as (you) would suffer if (you) went to eternal Hell Fire"
-
Humans, even the worst, are better than the Biblical portrayal of the deity, but then it is a very human production, imo!
Evidence, please, Floo. It's all very well stating an opinion once or twice, but to repeat that opinion on a weekly basis without providing any supporting evidence over a 5 or 6 year period simply makes you sound stupid.
-
Fine examples - now tell us what good comes from the torture by the church of single mothers in its care, the rape of young boys serving in church choirs, feral children in South America because their families cannot afford them but the church refuses to allow them contraception!
If you can see good coming out of evil in this I cannot!
Jeremy was right -It's just something [you keep] telling [yourself] so that [you] can deny the obvious evidence of [your] own eyes that either there is no god, or if there is, it is not the embodiment of good.
Matt, if you are going to challenge a statement, make sure you challenge the statement not your (slight) rewording of it. Alan referred to a belief that good can come out of evil. That doesn't mean that it always does, though when we look at the various instances of evil that have occurred over the centuries, I think that youy would agree that it is a society reacting to the evil of its time that moves society forwards. That may not take place instantly; it may take many years (as with, for example, slavery in the 18th century). Regarding your specific examples, perhaps we are now beginning to see a Pope who wants to see the church modernise and come closer to what Jesus taught.
Regarding the issue of feral children, is this a purely religious issue, or is it also something to do with the acknowledged fact that societies tend to choose not to use contraceptives until their average lifespan is over 50 years of age?
-
Fine examples - now tell us what good comes from the torture by the church of single mothers in its care, the rape of young boys serving in church choirs, feral children in South America because their families cannot afford them but the church refuses to allow them contraception!
If you can see good coming out of evil in this I cannot!
Jeremy was right -It's just something [you keep] telling [yourself] so that [you] can deny the obvious evidence of [your] own eyes that either there is no god, or if there is, it is not the embodiment of good.
Matt, if you are going to challenge a statement, make sure you challenge the statement not your (slight) rewording of it. Alan referred to a belief that good can come out of evil. That doesn't mean that it always does, though when we look at the various instances of evil that have occurred over the centuries, I think that youy would agree that it is a society reacting to the evil of its time that moves society forwards. That may not take place instantly; it may take many years (as with, for example, slavery in the 18th century). Regarding your specific examples, perhaps we are now beginning to see a Pope who wants to see the church modernise and come closer to what Jesus taught.
My rewording, however slight, is on the basis that I disgree with his statement regardless of any spin put on it. Alien stated, and I quote "God allows some evil in order that a greater good will occur.". Some evil to accrue a greater good . . . but according to historical records no evil can occur in the world without your god's aquiescence.
The new Pope is trying to move in the right direction, yes, but I will lay bets that, like Obama an gun control the Ope will find himself battling a Curia that will put every possible obstacle in his way in order that they are not brought to bvook for furiously covering up the misdeeds, the evils committed by their clergy.
Regarding the issue of feral children, is this a purely religious issue, or is it also something to do with the acknowledged fact that societies tend to choose not to use contraceptives until their average lifespan is over 50 years of age?
the problem of the feral children is most noticable in Christian (Roman Catholic) South America - the Catholic bans condoms in any and every Cathoilic dominated country. Even, as Stephen Fry pointed out, as a means of preventing AIDS, even going to the length of the ouright lie that condoms spread AIDS.
Don't lie for the Church Hope, it lies perfectly well for itself.
And don't say "Oh, but is that the Catholics"; you are all Christians, you all follow the same god and in matters like this you are all equally despicable.
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
Assuming you are not a universalist and some don't make it to heaven, they are left in deficit of good. Lets assume Islam is true and you are sent to the fire for turning away from Allah's last prophet, would that make Allah evil in your eyes?
Sorry, would you please explain "left in deficit of good" first, then I'll definitely try to answer your question.
You will be tortured in hell forever, you will experience more bad than good.
Still no reply....
-
Yes, evil exists because God gave creatures the ability to do evil. Yes, he knew what would happen. Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
Assuming you are not a universalist and some don't make it to heaven, they are left in deficit of good. Lets assume Islam is true and you are sent to the fire for turning away from Allah's last prophet, would that make Allah evil in your eyes?
Sorry, would you please explain "left in deficit of good" first, then I'll definitely try to answer your question.
You will be tortured in hell forever, you will experience more bad than good.
Still no reply....
I replied in #247.
-
Humans, even the worst, are better than the Biblical portrayal of the deity, but then it is a very human production, imo!
Evidence, please, Floo. It's all very well stating an opinion once or twice, but to repeat that opinion on a weekly basis without providing any supporting evidence over a 5 or 6 year period simply makes you sound stupid.
I have often give examples of the nastiness attributed to the deity, like setting Adam and Eve up, knowing they would fail the test, the flood, getting a young girl pregnant, so her son could die in a terrible way, to name but a few. No entity, unless it had a psychopathic nature, would be that wicked! >:(
-
So, if Islam is true, then it would mean, I think, that I had deliberately suppressed the truth, in which case it would be tough.
Alternately, if Islam is true, then it might be that Allah is all-powerful, but not all good. Cue question about applicability of that statement to the Christian God.
Either way you are left in a deficit of good.
Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
You were right, if Christianity is true, then it might be that the Christian god is all-powerful, but not all good.
-
So, if Islam is true, then it would mean, I think, that I had deliberately suppressed the truth, in which case it would be tough.
Alternately, if Islam is true, then it might be that Allah is all-powerful, but not all good. Cue question about applicability of that statement to the Christian God.
Either way you are left in a deficit of good.
Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
You were right, if Christianity is true, then it might be that the Christian god is all-powerful, but not all good.
If it exists and that is the case we should seek to exterminate it!
-
So, if Islam is true, then it would mean, I think, that I had deliberately suppressed the truth, in which case it would be tough.
Alternately, if Islam is true, then it might be that Allah is all-powerful, but not all good. Cue question about applicability of that statement to the Christian God.
Either way you are left in a deficit of good.
Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
You were right, if Christianity is true, then it might be that the Christian god is all-powerful, but not all good.
If it exists and that is the case we should seek to exterminate it!
You've said that before.
Floo the human Dalek ;)
Not so much of the human! ;D
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!
-
So, if Islam is true, then it would mean, I think, that I had deliberately suppressed the truth, in which case it would be tough.
Alternately, if Islam is true, then it might be that Allah is all-powerful, but not all good. Cue question about applicability of that statement to the Christian God.
Either way you are left in a deficit of good.
Why?
Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
You were right, if Christianity is true, then it might be that the Christian god is all-powerful, but not all good.
If Christianity is true then the Christian God is all-powerful and all-good. That is part of Christianity.
-
So, if Islam is true, then it would mean, I think, that I had deliberately suppressed the truth, in which case it would be tough.
Alternately, if Islam is true, then it might be that Allah is all-powerful, but not all good. Cue question about applicability of that statement to the Christian God.
Either way you are left in a deficit of good.
Why?
Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
You were right, if Christianity is true, then it might be that the Christian god is all-powerful, but not all good.
If Christianity is true then the Christian God is all-powerful and all-good. That is part of Christianity.
But you have said that he allows evil. How can he be all good?
-
So, if Islam is true, then it would mean, I think, that I had deliberately suppressed the truth, in which case it would be tough.
Alternately, if Islam is true, then it might be that Allah is all-powerful, but not all good. Cue question about applicability of that statement to the Christian God.
Either way you are left in a deficit of good.
Why?
Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
You were right, if Christianity is true, then it might be that the Christian god is all-powerful, but not all good.
If Christianity is true then the Christian God is all-powerful and all-good. That is part of Christianity.
But you have said that he allows evil. How can he be all good?
If he has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.
-
So, if Islam is true, then it would mean, I think, that I had deliberately suppressed the truth, in which case it would be tough.
Alternately, if Islam is true, then it might be that Allah is all-powerful, but not all good. Cue question about applicability of that statement to the Christian God.
Either way you are left in a deficit of good.
Why?
Yes, the good coming from it is worth the evil. There is a heck of a lot of evil in the world, so, yes, the good to come from it is going to be absolutely wonderful.
You were right, if Christianity is true, then it might be that the Christian god is all-powerful, but not all good.
If Christianity is true then the Christian God is all-powerful and all-good. That is part of Christianity.
But you have said that he allows evil. How can he be all good?
If he has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.
Then, as far as I am concerned, he is evil - as it is he who determines what is moral for his adherents - he should follow the same rules.
-
Why?
If Islam is true you are off to the fire forever.
If Christianity is true then the Christian God is all-powerful and all-good. That is part of Christianity.
I'm not seeing that, your words 'if Islam is true, then it might be that Allah is all-powerful, but not all good', don't see why it doesn't apply to the Christian god.
I'm not seeing why the Christian god can't be evil, if say 2corrie's version is true then god allows people to suffer an infinite amount of evil. Its make torturing a child to death just for fun as insignificant as a parking offence.
-
Bump.
-
...
But you have said that he allows evil. How can he be all good?
If he has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil.
Then, as far as I am concerned, he is evil - as it is he who determines what is moral for his adherents - he should follow the same rules.
He does. However, his knowledge is far, far, far greater than our. We are greatly limited by what we know the results of our actions will be; he is not
-
Isaiah 45.7
I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil: I am the LORD that does all this.
NET© I am the one who forms light and creates darkness; the one who brings about peace and creates calamity. I am the Lord, who accomplishes all these things.
NIV© I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.
NASB© The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.
ESV© I form light and create darkness,I make well-being and create calamity,I am the Lord, who does all these things.
NLT© I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the Lord, am the one who does these things.
BBE© I am the giver of light and the maker of the dark; causing blessing, and sending troubles; I am the Lord, who does all these things.
NKJV© I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things .’
NRSV© I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the LORD do all these things.
KJV© I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].
I don't think this is saying that God created an actual thing, which we have assigned the name of "evil" (as a noun).
-
Why?
If Islam is true you are off to the fire forever.
What has that got to do with an overall deficit of good (do you mean for me or overall?)?
If Christianity is true then the Christian God is all-powerful and all-good. That is part of Christianity.
I'm not seeing that,
Er, an important part of Christianity is that God is all-powerful and all-good so if Christianity is true then God must be all-powerful and all-good.
What's the problem with that? Why don't you see the logical conclusion?
If P then Q.
P.
Therefore Q.
Modus Ponens.
your words 'if Islam is true, then it might be that Allah is all-powerful, but not all good', don't see why it doesn't apply to the Christian god.
I'm not seeing why the Christian god can't be evil, if say 2corrie's version is true then god allows people to suffer an infinite amount of evil. Its make torturing a child to death just for fun as insignificant as a parking offence.
If God is evil then he is not the Christian God.
However, I do see your point about what would be the case if Islam is true. Would the Islamic God's nature be the basis of what is good? Maybe not because to be truly God, he would have to be the greatest conceivable being.
Not sure....
-
However, I do see your point about what would be the case if Islam is true. Would the Islamic God's nature be the basis of what is good? Maybe not because to be truly God, he would have to be the greatest conceivable being.
Not sure....
Which brings you to the idea that there may not be a singular, definitive 'good', that may be a cultural judgment. To those raised in an Muslim culture, Islam is the epitome of good, and Allah is the embodiment of that.
That's not the same idea of good as the majority of Christians would accept, but then we see huge variation through Christianity (and, no doubt, through Islam as well).
It's almost as though 'right' and 'wrong' were cultural attributes dependent upon fundamental precepts...
O.
-
"If god (sic) only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good." Why do you think that follows?
Through simple logic.
OK. Please demonstrate it.
I'll put it alongside another argument that uses the same valid form:
1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2 Everything god does is good.
3 The universe began to exist.
4 Everything exists because of god.
Therefore:
5 The universe has a cause.
6 Everything that exists is good.
Like I said - simple.
Good question. BTW, your premises and conclusions don't follow necessarily. I've numbered them for easy reference. 1, 2, 3, and 5 look OK to me. 4 should be "Everything in the universe exists because of God." Let's make that 4'
4' Everything in the universe exists because of God.
6 therefore becomes
6' Everything that exists in the universe is good.
No, the premises and conclusion are fine as they are.
No, they are not and I have explained why. You need to show that sin is tied in with the universe existing/that sin began to exist.
Please get your premises and conclusions sorted out then we can talk.
-
"If god (sic) only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good." Why do you think that follows?
Through simple logic.
OK. Please demonstrate it.
I'll put it alongside another argument that uses the same valid form:
1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2 Everything god does is good.
3 The universe began to exist.
4 Everything exists because of god.
Therefore:
5 The universe has a cause.
6 Everything that exists is good.
Like I said - simple.
Good question. BTW, your premises and conclusions don't follow necessarily. I've numbered them for easy reference. 1, 2, 3, and 5 look OK to me. 4 should be "Everything in the universe exists because of God." Let's make that 4'
4' Everything in the universe exists because of God.
6 therefore becomes
6' Everything that exists in the universe is good.
No, the premises and conclusion are fine as they are.
No, they are not and I have explained why. You need to show that sin is tied in with the universe existing/that sin began to exist.
Please get your premises and conclusions sorted out then we can talk.
Would sin (not good) exist without God? Yes or no?
-
However, I do see your point about what would be the case if Islam is true. Would the Islamic God's nature be the basis of what is good? Maybe not because to be truly God, he would have to be the greatest conceivable being.
Not sure....
Which brings you to the idea that there may not be a singular, definitive 'good', that may be a cultural judgment. To those raised in an Muslim culture, Islam is the epitome of good, and Allah is the embodiment of that.
That's not the same idea of good as the majority of Christians would accept, but then we see huge variation through Christianity (and, no doubt, through Islam as well).
It's almost as though 'right' and 'wrong' were cultural attributes dependent upon fundamental precepts...
O.
OK, point taken. Let's go back to jakswan's argument. If the Islamic God does exist then his nature must be the ground of what is good. How does that affect what jakswan termed a "deficit of good"?
-
...
Would sin (not good) exist without God? Yes or no?
No. Without God there would be nothing which could act in an evil manner.
My point is that evil is not "stuff"; evil is what people do or are. It is a description of actions (good or evil) or a person's character. I don't see how it could be said that it came into being.
The question which is the important one is whether God has a morally sufficient reason to allow evil things to happen. If he doesn't then I would say that means he himself is evil; if he does have a morally sufficient reason then that totally changes things.
-
"If god (sic) only does good and god is the reason why everything exists, then the existence of everything is good." Why do you think that follows?
Through simple logic.
OK. Please demonstrate it.
I'll put it alongside another argument that uses the same valid form:
1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2 Everything god does is good.
3 The universe began to exist.
4 Everything exists because of god.
Therefore:
5 The universe has a cause.
6 Everything that exists is good.
Like I said - simple.
Good question. BTW, your premises and conclusions don't follow necessarily. I've numbered them for easy reference. 1, 2, 3, and 5 look OK to me. 4 should be "Everything in the universe exists because of God." Let's make that 4'
4' Everything in the universe exists because of God.
6 therefore becomes
6' Everything that exists in the universe is good.
No, the premises and conclusion are fine as they are.
No, they are not and I have explained why. You need to show that sin is tied in with the universe existing/that sin began to exist.
Please get your premises and conclusions sorted out then we can talk.
Would sin (not good) exist without God? Yes or no?
No. Without God there would be nothing which could act in an evil manner.
My point is that evil is not "stuff"; evil is what people do or are.
So what? If it exists then it is included in everything and therefore must be good. How can people do evil if they exist because of good and every single tool they use to do stuff exists because of good? You can't add green to a painting if all the colours available on the palette are red.
And as a side note, you saying it's what people do is inconsistent with the idea that it's what motivates people to do it. If what people did was evil then it wouldn't happen because God would've stopped it as it contravenes the greater good.
-
No. Without God there would be nothing which could act in an evil manner.
My point is that evil is not "stuff"; evil is what people do or are. It is a description of actions (good or evil) or a person's character. I don't see how it could be said that it came into being.
Doesn't that call into question the fundamental underpinning of Christianity? Why did Jesus need to be sacrificed for mankind bringing sin into the world?
The question which is the important one is whether God has a morally sufficient reason to allow evil things to happen. If he doesn't then I would say that means he himself is evil; if he does have a morally sufficient reason then that totally changes things.
Can there be a morally sufficient reason for doing evil? Or, to put it another way, is something evil if it has a morally justifiable outcome? What you're saying here, as I read it, is that some of the things that we think are evil might actually not be when seen as part of the bigger picture?
What I'd ask is 'If God is all powerful, why are his actions limited such that at any scale they appear evil?'
O.
-
Presumably God isn't responsible for love or goodness then either?
-
What has that got to do with an overall deficit of good (do you mean for me or overall?)?
For you, if you end up being tortured forever then you end up experiencing more bad than good.
Er, an important part of Christianity is that God is all-powerful and all-good so if Christianity is true then God must be all-powerful and all-good.
What's the problem with that? Why don't you see the logical conclusion?
If P then Q.
P.
Therefore Q.
Modus Ponens.
No the Christian god could exist and be evil, it only allows a certain amount of good for a greatest amount of evil.
If God is evil then he is not the Christian God.
Dismissed (asserted without evidence dismissed without evidence).
However, I do see your point about what would be the case if Islam is true. Would the Islamic God's nature be the basis of what is good? Maybe not because to be truly God, he would have to be the greatest conceivable being.
Not sure....
Ahh 'truly' again what does 'truly god' mean as opposed to 'god'.
-
...
Would sin (not good) exist without God? Yes or no?
No. Without God there would be nothing which could act in an evil manner.
My point is that evil is not "stuff"; evil is what people do or are.
So what? If it exists then it is included in everything and therefore must be good. How can people do evil if they exist because of good and every single tool they use to do stuff exists because of good? You can't add green to a painting if all the colours available on the palette are red.
And as a side note, you saying it's what people do is inconsistent with the idea that it's what motivates people to do it. If what people did was evil then it wouldn't happen because God would've stopped it as it contravenes the greater good.
But my point is that evil does not exist as a "thing", as an entity. Therefore, I can't see that it makes sense to speak of it coming into being. When a person, say, disobeys God's command to not murder and goes and murders someone, there is no such entity called "evil" which has come into being. He is going against God's command (and causing distress, pain, etc.) and we describe his action as "evil". Nothing got created here. When we say something like "there is great evil in the world", there isn't some entity called "evil", but a bunch of people doing wrong things. Nothing comes into being.
-
...
Would sin (not good) exist without God? Yes or no?
No. Without God there would be nothing which could act in an evil manner.
My point is that evil is not "stuff"; evil is what people do or are.
So what? If it exists then it is included in everything and therefore must be good. How can people do evil if they exist because of good and every single tool they use to do stuff exists because of good? You can't add green to a painting if all the colours available on the palette are red.
And as a side note, you saying it's what people do is inconsistent with the idea that it's what motivates people to do it. If what people did was evil then it wouldn't happen because God would've stopped it as it contravenes the greater good.
But my point is that evil does not exist as a "thing", as an entity. Therefore, I can't see that it makes sense to speak of it coming into being. When a person, say, disobeys God's command to not murder and goes and murders someone, there is no such entity called "evil" which has come into being. He is going against God's command (and causing distress, pain, etc.) and we describe his action as "evil". Nothing got created here. When we say something like "there is great evil in the world", there isn't some entity called "evil", but a bunch of people doing wrong things. Nothing comes into being.
Have beings always existed that can do evil and whose existence isn't dependent on God?
-
No. Without God there would be nothing which could act in an evil manner.
My point is that evil is not "stuff"; evil is what people do or are. It is a description of actions (good or evil) or a person's character. I don't see how it could be said that it came into being.
Doesn't that call into question the fundamental underpinning of Christianity? Why did Jesus need to be sacrificed for mankind bringing sin into the world?
No, for two reasons. There are evil actions, evil thoughts, and so on. Jesus died for our sins. He died for what you and I do/have done/will do.
As for him "need(ing) to be sacrificed for mankind bringing sin into the world" it is not bringing sin into the world per se, it is for us sinning.
The question which is the important one is whether God has a morally sufficient reason to allow evil things to happen. If he doesn't then I would say that means he himself is evil; if he does have a morally sufficient reason then that totally changes things.
Can there be a morally sufficient reason for doing evil? Or, to put it another way, is something evil if it has a morally justifiable outcome? What you're saying here, as I read it, is that some of the things that we think are evil might actually not be when seen as part of the bigger picture?
No, I'm not. God tells you and me to not murder. That is our duty. We are not omnipotent and cannot see the full results of our actions, so though God may allow such an act since he does know the full results of our actions and everyone else's, we don't and should stick with what he tells us (and which is usually what others, even non-Christians believe to be wrong though coming to that conclusion from a different angle). Thus me murdering someone is an evil action by me, but God may have a morally sufficient reason to allow me to do it. My action is going against what God tells me how to act, it is going against his commands. That is evil (though, such prohibitions usually are prohibitions which yer average atheist would agree with as well).
What I'd ask is 'If God is all powerful, why are his actions limited such that at any scale they appear evil?'
O.
Please demonstrate that his action "at any scale... appear evil".
-
...
Would sin (not good) exist without God? Yes or no?
No. Without God there would be nothing which could act in an evil manner.
My point is that evil is not "stuff"; evil is what people do or are.
So what? If it exists then it is included in everything and therefore must be good. How can people do evil if they exist because of good and every single tool they use to do stuff exists because of good? You can't add green to a painting if all the colours available on the palette are red.
And as a side note, you saying it's what people do is inconsistent with the idea that it's what motivates people to do it. If what people did was evil then it wouldn't happen because God would've stopped it as it contravenes the greater good.
But my point is that evil does not exist as a "thing", as an entity. Therefore, I can't see that it makes sense to speak of it coming into being. When a person, say, disobeys God's command to not murder and goes and murders someone, there is no such entity called "evil" which has come into being. He is going against God's command (and causing distress, pain, etc.) and we describe his action as "evil". Nothing got created here. When we say something like "there is great evil in the world", there isn't some entity called "evil", but a bunch of people doing wrong things. Nothing comes into being.
Have beings always existed that can do evil and whose existence isn't dependent on God?
No, but you miss my point again. I am saying that God created beings (however he did it) which, at some point, start to sin. So yes, creatures sin, God having created them. However, you point was that God created evil and, since God created everything which begins to exist, God created evil. I am saying that evil is not created (and neither is "good"). They are not created entities. They are descriptions of how people act and the effect those people have.
Must do some work...
-
...
Would sin (not good) exist without God? Yes or no?
No. Without God there would be nothing which could act in an evil manner.
My point is that evil is not "stuff"; evil is what people do or are.
So what? If it exists then it is included in everything and therefore must be good. How can people do evil if they exist because of good and every single tool they use to do stuff exists because of good? You can't add green to a painting if all the colours available on the palette are red.
And as a side note, you saying it's what people do is inconsistent with the idea that it's what motivates people to do it. If what people did was evil then it wouldn't happen because God would've stopped it as it contravenes the greater good.
But my point is that evil does not exist as a "thing", as an entity. Therefore, I can't see that it makes sense to speak of it coming into being. When a person, say, disobeys God's command to not murder and goes and murders someone, there is no such entity called "evil" which has come into being. He is going against God's command (and causing distress, pain, etc.) and we describe his action as "evil". Nothing got created here. When we say something like "there is great evil in the world", there isn't some entity called "evil", but a bunch of people doing wrong things. Nothing comes into being.
Have beings always existed that can do evil and whose existence isn't dependent on God?
No, but you miss my point again. I am saying that God created beings (however he did it) which, at some point, start to sin. So yes, creatures sin, God having created them. However, you point was that God created evil and, since God created everything which begins to exist, God created evil. I am saying that evil is not created (and neither is "good"). They are not created entities. They are descriptions of how people act and the effect those people have.
Must do some work...
It's you missing my point actually, because I'm saying there is no evil (not good). If God creates everything which begins to exist then the existence of everything is good. This means our existence is good, the existence of our "free will" is good and the existence of anything we use to act is good. There is nothing we can do that can be considered not good because not good doesn't exist.
-
No, for two reasons. There are evil actions, evil thoughts, and so on. Jesus died for our sins. He died for what you and I do/have done/will do.
However, we were created free of evil, and sin entered mankind from outside - otherwise God created us 'flawed' and we'd have nothing to atone for, we'd be as we were made. If that's the case, evil is 'something' external to humanity, which presumably means it's something that god made. Even if it's not a physical thing, as a concept it's part of God's creation - if it's not, then he's no more responsible for, nor an embodiment of, good.
As for him "need(ing) to be sacrificed for mankind bringing sin into the world" it is not bringing sin into the world per se, it is for us sinning.
Which is either part of our nature - and hence not something for which we need to atone - or it's something external which would justify something more significant than just seeking forgiveness (such as the blood sacrifice of Jesus) but would imply that evil is independent of our actions.
No, I'm not. God tells you and me to not murder. That is our duty. We are not omnipotent and cannot see the full results of our actions, so though God may allow such an act since he does know the full results of our actions and everyone else's, we don't and should stick with what he tells us (and which is usually what others, even non-Christians believe to be wrong though coming to that conclusion from a different angle). Thus me murdering someone is an evil action by me, but God may have a morally sufficient reason to allow me to do it. My action is going against what God tells me how to act, it is going against his commands. That is evil (though, such prohibitions usually are prohibitions which yer average atheist would agree with as well).
So, to your mind, the evil is not the murder, it's the disobedience? You don't know whether any given incident of murder is good or evil, you're simply obeying a directive and are therefore good.
What I'd ask is 'If God is all powerful, why are his actions limited such that at any scale they appear evil?'
Please demonstrate that his action "at any scale... appear evil".
Bone cancer in children.
O.
-
Alien,
No, but you miss my point again. I am saying that God created beings (however he did it)…
We’ve not had the reification fallacy for while, so well done. Once you’ve pouffed into existence “God” you can ascribe to it any CV, rules, characteristics etc you wish I suppose but that doesn’t get you over the pouffing bit in the first place.
Did you know that leprechauns disapprove of people who step on the cracks in the pavement?
Easy to do this fallacy innit?
…which, at some point, start to sin.
Presumably you define “sin” as that which contravenes the rules this “God” you think exists has you think set down in a book that you also thinks has been accurately recorded and reproduced (but not the rules in the same book you think suit you less well)?
Well OK, but what then of the behaviours most would think to be immoral about which this god of yours was silent (or about which he positively approved) – child abuse for example?
So yes, creatures sin, God having created them. However, you point was that God created evil and, since God created everything which begins to exist, God created evil. I am saying that evil is not created (and neither is "good"). They are not created entities. They are descriptions of how people act and the effect those people have.
But if this god is the god of the omnis in what sense is he not his “creatures” anyway? Is there some special part of us that does the “sinning” to which “He” does not have access or something?
Must do some work...
You’re not kidding…watching you tie yourself into more knots than a boy scout convention is fun and all, but it’s not doing you any favours at all I’m afraid.
-
Reading all these denunciations yet again today, I'm obliged to say that if I was an atheist and I read about God and the Bible and didn't accept it, I might argue the point with any interested theists, for a while; but I'm sure that after a very short while I would walk away and be done. I certainly wouldn't go on about it week in and week out, almost daily, for years. That is not only obsessive, it's weird, spooky! And lest anyone should ponder why I am here, it is merely to stand up for my beliefs. If the atheists all, finally, decided to call a halt. then I would gladly be off.
-
Andy wrote:
It's you missing my point actually, because I'm saying there is no evil (not good). If God creates everything which begins to exist then the existence of everything is good. This means our existence is good, the existence of our "free will" is good and the existence of anything we use to act is good. There is nothing we can do that can be considered not good because not good doesn't exist.
Another terrific post. This idea was in fact discussed in early Christianity - Augustine for example - and became known as privatio boni - absence of good. It seems to mean that evil has no substance in itself. I don't know to what extent this was developed in later Christian thought, but it is certainly still around.
In some ways, it seems quite sensible, since evil is rather hard to pin down - is it a force, a substance, a psychological drive? As you say, it also presents problems with a God who is purely good, and creates everything - whence then comes a non-good substance? It's impossible that humans actually create it, since then they have become creators of a new kind of substance, and also you are in a dualistic system, like Zoroastrianism.
In some Eastern religions, I think that the whole opposition of good/evil itself starts to collapse, which is quite post-modern in a way.
Another strange point - if not-good does not exist, then does good?
-
Andy wrote:
It's you missing my point actually, because I'm saying there is no evil (not good). If God creates everything which begins to exist then the existence of everything is good. This means our existence is good, the existence of our "free will" is good and the existence of anything we use to act is good. There is nothing we can do that can be considered not good because not good doesn't exist.
Another terrific post. This idea was in fact discussed in early Christianity - Augustine for example - and became known as privatio boni - absence of good. It seems to mean that evil has no substance in itself. I don't know to what extent this was developed in later Christian thought, but it is certainly still around.
In some ways, it seems quite sensible, since evil is rather hard to pin down - is it a force, a substance, a psychological drive? As you say, it also presents problems with a God who is purely good, and creates everything - whence then comes a non-good substance? It's impossible that humans actually create it, since then they have become creators of a new kind of substance, and also you are in a dualistic system, like Zoroastrianism.
In some Eastern religions, I think that the whole opposition of good/evil itself starts to collapse, which is quite post-modern in a way.
Another strange point - if not-good does not exist, then does good?
Good/bad can't exist outside of the human psyche imo.
-
Reading all these denunciations yet again today, I'm obliged to say that if I was an atheist and I read about God and the Bible and didn't accept it, I might argue the point with any interested theists, for a while; but I'm sure that after a very short while I would walk away and be done. I certainly wouldn't go on about it week in and week out, almost daily, for years. That is not only obsessive, it's weird, spooky! And lest anyone should ponder why I am here, it is merely to stand up for my beliefs. If the atheists all, finally, decided to call a halt. then I would gladly be off.
Some of us are here because it's fun, some of us are here to stand up for reason, some of us are here because the truth needs to be said to ensure that people who follow after know that there's another side to the story - that's as true of the believers as it is of the non-believers.
Personally, I come here because I enjoy debate, because I'm genuinely confounded by the idea that in the 21st century people can still believe in fairy tales, and because religion genuinely scares me, and the more arguments I have in my arsenal against it, the more chance I can do something useful about it should the opportunity ever arise.
O.
-
Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.
"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."
-
Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.
"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."
Even if we were to accept that concept - evil is the descriptor for 'a lack of good' rather than an active opposite of good - that doesn't remove the burden from God. God still creates a reality in which there is the capacity for 'not good'...
O.
-
Reading all these denunciations yet again today, I'm obliged to say that if I was an atheist and I read about God and the Bible and didn't accept it, I might argue the point with any interested theists, for a while; but I'm sure that after a very short while I would walk away and be done. I certainly wouldn't go on about it week in and week out, almost daily, for years. That is not only obsessive, it's weird, spooky! And lest anyone should ponder why I am here, it is merely to stand up for my beliefs. If the atheists all, finally, decided to call a halt. then I would gladly be off.
Some of us are here because it's fun, some of us are here to stand up for reason, some of us are here because the truth needs to be said to ensure that people who follow after know that there's another side to the story - that's as true of the believers as it is of the non-believers.
Personally, I come here because I enjoy debate, because I'm genuinely confounded by the idea that in the 21st century people can still believe in fairy tales, and because religion genuinely scares me, and the more arguments I have in my arsenal against it, the more chance I can do something useful about it should the opportunity ever arise.
O.
I take on board what you say. But it still doesn't really answer my main point: why keep up your "crusade," If I may call it that, after so long? Surely there is nothing new to say here. On here, you are either talking to the converted (to your views), or to a small handful of theists, who by now, you must realise, are not going to be persuaded by you. Why not seek a wider audience, and perhaps make some headway, or at least find what may be a different set of arguments to contend with.
May I say, that it is not much of an argument to sink to the level of the "fairy tales" approach. You should be prepared to discuss at a higher intellectual level, if you seriously hope to persuade people of your views.
-
Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.
"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."
Even if we were to accept that concept - evil is the descriptor for 'a lack of good' rather than an active opposite of good - that doesn't remove the burden from God. God still creates a reality in which there is the capacity for 'not good'...
O.
You are right.
-
Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.
"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."
Even if we were to accept that concept - evil is the descriptor for 'a lack of good' rather than an active opposite of good - that doesn't remove the burden from God. God still creates a reality in which there is the capacity for 'not good'...
O.
Perhaps, but then I don't have a problem with it (or more accurately I merely accept it). God does indeed allow evil to happen, at least for the time being, which is why we give thanks to God for all things (which to the unbeliever is a great scandal but to the believer not so for we know it is only a temporary state of affairs).
-
Hi Wiggs,
Another terrific post. This idea was in fact discussed in early Christianity - Augustine for example - and became known as privatio boni - absence of good. It seems to mean that evil has no substance in itself. I don't know to what extent this was developed in later Christian thought, but it is certainly still around.
In some ways, it seems quite sensible, since evil is rather hard to pin down - is it a force, a substance, a psychological drive? As you say, it also presents problems with a God who is purely good, and creates everything - whence then comes a non-good substance? It's impossible that humans actually create it, since then they have become creators of a new kind of substance, and also you are in a dualistic system, like Zoroastrianism.
In some Eastern religions, I think that the whole opposition of good/evil itself starts to collapse, which is quite post-modern in a way.
Another strange point - if not-good does not exist, then does good?
Nice post. Aren't "good" and "bad" though merely labels for different value judgements we apply partly innately and partly for cultural reasons to the events we happen to observe or to cause - a bit like we find some paintings to be "beautiful" and others to be "ugly", also partly innately and partly for cultural reasons?
Alien makes sense of it by first asserting into existence objective morality (by using an extreme example of a moral question, but not troubling with any argument to take him from his opinion on that matter to objectivity) as a rationale for "God" and then ascribes various rules and preferences to that god, but that seems to me to be akin to building a house of cards on foundations of sand and topping it out with a roof of Scotch mist.
Concluding that "good" and "bad" are what we intuit/decide them to be seems to me to require so many fewer assumptions than thinking that they're some kind of "stuff" out there that's somehow discoverable with the right holy books that the answer is evident.
-
Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.
"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."
Even if we were to accept that concept - evil is the descriptor for 'a lack of good' rather than an active opposite of good - that doesn't remove the burden from God. God still creates a reality in which there is the capacity for 'not good'...
O.
Perhaps, but then I don't have a problem with it (or more accurately I merely accept it). God does indeed allow evil to happen, at least for the time being, which is why we give thanks to God for all things (which to the unbeliever is a great scandal but to the believer not so for we know it is only a temporary state of affairs).
Why on earth would you give thanks to a deity, which created evil? ::)
-
Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.
"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."
Even if we were to accept that concept - evil is the descriptor for 'a lack of good' rather than an active opposite of good - that doesn't remove the burden from God. God still creates a reality in which there is the capacity for 'not good'...
O.
Perhaps, but then I don't have a problem with it (or more accurately I merely accept it). God does indeed allow evil to happen, at least for the time being, which is why we give thanks to God for all things (which to the unbeliever is a great scandal but to the believer not so for we know it is only a temporary state of affairs).
So what about my friend that died an atheist at the age of 16 from leukaemia? Was that all OK? What will happen to them when this temporary phase is over?
-
Traditionally in Christianity evil is seen merely as an absence of good. Blessed Augustine makes such an argument in City of God.
"Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect. For defection from that which supremely is, to that which has less of being—this is to begin to have an evil will. Now, to seek to discover the causes of these defections,— causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us, and the former by means only of the eye, the latter only by the ear; but not by their positive actuality, but by their want of it."
Even if we were to accept that concept - evil is the descriptor for 'a lack of good' rather than an active opposite of good - that doesn't remove the burden from God. God still creates a reality in which there is the capacity for 'not good'...
O.
Perhaps, but then I don't have a problem with it (or more accurately I merely accept it). God does indeed allow evil to happen, at least for the time being, which is why we give thanks to God for all things (which to the unbeliever is a great scandal but to the believer not so for we know it is only a temporary state of affairs).
So what about my friend that died an atheist at the age of 16 from leukaemia? Was that all OK? What will happen to them when this temporary phase is over?
I'm not saying that it is good that someones dies, only that the Christian accepts such things with faith, giving thanks to God for all things in hope of something better to come. As for what will happen to your friend, I simply do not know.
-
AO,
I'm not saying that it is good that someones dies, only that the Christian accepts such things with faith, giving thanks to God for all things in hope of something better to come. As for what will happen to your friend, I simply do not know.
But how then would that world of "some things good and some things bad" be any different from a world in which there was no god?
-
AO,
I'm not saying that it is good that someones dies, only that the Christian accepts such things with faith, giving thanks to God for all things in hope of something better to come. As for what will happen to your friend, I simply do not know.
But how then would that world of "some things good and some things bad" be any different from a world in which there was no god?
I'm not sure that I quite understand you. As I said, our hope is in things yet to come.
-
I'm not saying that it is good that someones dies, only that the Christian accepts such things with faith, giving thanks to God for all things in hope of something better to come. As for what will happen to your friend, I simply do not know.
If you thank god for all things and god only does good, which would by definition mean allowing someone to die, then you must conclude that that someone dying is good.
-
Actually as covered previously you are saying that death is good. God created the universe as good as it can be surely? In which case my friend dying is part of that plan?
As to not knowing what will happen, fine. But what do the precepts of your religion say will happen? Will an atheist be off to fluffy marshmallow land? Dating you don't know is simply a way of ignoring the depravity ofof the deity you worship.
-
I'm not saying that it is good that someones dies, only that the Christian accepts such things with faith, giving thanks to God for all things in hope of something better to come. As for what will happen to your friend, I simply do not know.
If you thank god for all things and god only does good, which would by definition mean allowing someone to die, then you must conclude that that someone dying is good.
No, I don't think that follows.
-
Alien, where does part of my signature:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Eph 6:12
.... come into your thinking?
-
I'm not saying that it is good that someones dies, only that the Christian accepts such things with faith, giving thanks to God for all things in hope of something better to come. As for what will happen to your friend, I simply do not know.
If you thank god for all things and god only does good, which would by definition mean allowing someone to die, then you must conclude that that someone dying is good.
No, I don't think that follows.
Well if that's all you've got without explanation...
-
Actually as covered previously you are saying that death is good. God created the universe as good as it can be surely? In which case my friend dying is part of that plan?
As to not knowing what will happen, fine. But what do the precepts of your religion say will happen? Will an atheist be off to fluffy marshmallow land? Dating you don't know is simply a way of ignoring the depravity ofof the deity you worship.
The scriptures say that creation was very good. Death entered creation through the sin of Adam, something which we all inherit.
I say I do not know because I do not know, although I might say that anyone outside the visible confines of the Church is certainly in danger of damnation.
-
Actually as covered previously you are saying that death is good. God created the universe as good as it can be surely? In which case my friend dying is part of that plan?
As to not knowing what will happen, fine. But what do the precepts of your religion say will happen? Will an atheist be off to fluffy marshmallow land? Dating you don't know is simply a way of ignoring the depravity ofof the deity you worship.
Yes but Ado will be ok.
-
Actually as covered previously you are saying that death is good. God created the universe as good as it can be surely? In which case my friend dying is part of that plan?
As to not knowing what will happen, fine. But what do the precepts of your religion say will happen? Will an atheist be off to fluffy marshmallow land? Dating you don't know is simply a way of ignoring the depravity ofof the deity you worship.
This is the real killer in Christian philosophy. This must be the best of all possible worlds, because if there was a better one, God would have created it. Well, I can't see any way round that one. Christians tend to say that the evil produces good in the long run, but then the evil is for the best. Well, we've been here before, but it still surprises me in black and white.
-
Actually as covered previously you are saying that death is good. God created the universe as good as it can be surely? In which case my friend dying is part of that plan?
As to not knowing what will happen, fine. But what do the precepts of your religion say will happen? Will an atheist be off to fluffy marshmallow land? Dating you don't know is simply a way of ignoring the depravity ofof the deity you worship.
This is the real killer in Christian philosophy. This must be the best of all possible worlds, because if there was a better one, God would have created it. Well, I can't see any way round that one. Christians tend to say that the evil produces good in the long run, but then the evil is for the best. Well, we've been here before, but it still surprises me in black and white.
And when you analyse it further, it ceases to have any meaning to say that it's the best because it is the only one possible world god could create.
-
Actually as covered previously you are saying that death is good. God created the universe as good as it can be surely? In which case my friend dying is part of that plan?
As to not knowing what will happen, fine. But what do the precepts of your religion say will happen? Will an atheist be off to fluffy marshmallow land? Dating you don't know is simply a way of ignoring the depravity ofof the deity you worship.
The scriptures say that creation was very good. Death entered creation through the sin of Adam, something which we all inherit.
I say I do not know because I do not know, although I might say that anyone outside the visible confines of the Church is certainly in danger of damnation.
exactly, your religion tells you that eternal damnation follows from not following your little psychotic god. At least stand up for what you worship, as puny and mind-blowingly thuggish as it might be, than hide behind this mask of not knowing.
-
Actually as covered previously you are saying that death is good. God created the universe as good as it can be surely? In which case my friend dying is part of that plan?
As to not knowing what will happen, fine. But what do the precepts of your religion say will happen? Will an atheist be off to fluffy marshmallow land? Dating you don't know is simply a way of ignoring the depravity ofof the deity you worship.
Yes but Ado will be ok.
I don't say so with any certainty. It is merely my hope through faith.
-
Actually as covered previously you are saying that death is good. God created the universe as good as it can be surely? In which case my friend dying is part of that plan?
As to not knowing what will happen, fine. But what do the precepts of your religion say will happen? Will an atheist be off to fluffy marshmallow land? Dating you don't know is simply a way of ignoring the depravity ofof the deity you worship.
The scriptures say that creation was very good. Death entered creation through the sin of Adam, something which we all inherit.
I say I do not know because I do not know, although I might say that anyone outside the visible confines of the Church is certainly in danger of damnation.
exactly, your religion tells you that eternal damnation follows from not following your little psychotic god. At least stand up for what you worship, as puny and mind-blowingly thuggish as it might be, than hide behind this mask of not knowing.
Then you do not understand what I said. I cannot say with any certainty, only that there is a danger, for God is the judge not me.
-
And your pusillanimous little god eternally condemns people and you worship it.
-
And your
little god eternally condemns people and you worship it.
Have you any Biblical knowledge at all?
The New Testament abounds with examples of God's love for us: here are some typical ones, out of dozens:
John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Romans 8:37-39 - No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Ephesians 2:4-5 - But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved.
Romans 5:8 - but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
1 Peter 5:6-7 - Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.
http://www.christianpost.com/buzzvine/7-inspiring-bible-verses-about-gods-love-for-us-
http://www.christianpost.com/buzzvine/7-inspiring-bible-verses-about-gods-love-for-us-
By the way: the adjective, "pusillanimous," is hardly appropriate.
-
But ad-o's god that I am talking about condemns people for eternity, so your post BA is a non sequitur
-
BA,
Have you any Biblical knowledge at all?
The New Testament abounds with examples of God's love for us: here are some typical ones, out of dozens:...
No doubt. How then would you explain the discrepancy between those words and the observable fact that the distribution of events we call "good" and "bad" is just as you'd expect it to be if there was instead a god who didn't give a tinker's cuss either way?
Or for that matter if there was no god at all?
-
BA,
Have you any Biblical knowledge at all?
The New Testament abounds with examples of God's love for us: here are some typical ones, out of dozens:...
No doubt. How then would you explain the discrepancy between those words and the observable fact that the distribution of events we call "good" and "bad" is just as you'd expect it to be if there was instead a god who didn't give a tinker's cuss either way?
Or for that matter if there was no god at all?
How is that comment relevant to God's love? Loving does not necessarily mean He protects you from all ills. You love your children/parents, etc, but that does not mean you protect them from all ills, throughout their lives.
Jesus was sent to enable us to inherit eternal life, by His sacrifice, despite our earthly transgressions. What love is greater than that?
-
BA,
Have you any Biblical knowledge at all?
The New Testament abounds with examples of God's love for us: here are some typical ones, out of dozens:...
No doubt. How then would you explain the discrepancy between those words and the observable fact that the distribution of events we call "good" and "bad" is just as you'd expect it to be if there was instead a god who didn't give a tinker's cuss either way?
Or for that matter if there was no god at all?
How is that comment relevant to God's love? Loving does not necessarily mean He protects you from all ills. You love your children/parents, etc, but that does not mean you protect them from all ills, throughout their lives.
That would be because we are human. God is not, however; God is omnipotent, so they say.
-
But ad-o's god that I am talking about condemns people for eternity, so your post BA is a non sequitur
Not the God that Jesus teaches us about.
-
BA,
How is that comment relevant to God's love? Loving does not necessarily mean He protects you from all ills. You love your children/parents, etc, but that does not mean you protect them from all ills, throughout their lives.
It's relevant because this "loving" god would be able to prevent harm but would be sitting on his hands instead. To use your analogy, if you could give your child a pill to cure her cancer but just decided not to do so would you really be a loving parent?
It's not that "He" doesn't protect us from "all" ills; it's that he doesn't protect us from any ills at all. Why for example do you not see fewer babies with brain cancer in Christian families than in non-Christian families?
-
Take it up with ad_o.
-
BA,
Jesus was sent to enable us to inherit eternal life, by His sacrifice, despite our earthly transgressions. What love is greater than that?
Yes, I know that that's the claim (and that many other fine claims are available from other religions too) but the point is that these words bear no relation to the observable facts. Quote a book all you like, but there's no evidence whatever of this supposed love in the world as it appears to be.
-
BA,
How is that comment relevant to God's love? Loving does not necessarily mean He protects you from all ills. You love your children/parents, etc, but that does not mean you protect them from all ills, throughout their lives.
It's relevant because this "loving" god would be able to prevent harm but would be sitting on his hands instead. To use your analogy, if you could give your child a pill to cure her cancer but just decided not to do so would you really be a loving parent?
It's not that "He" doesn't protect us from "all" ills; it's that he doesn't protect us from any ills at all. Why for example would you not see fewer babies with brain cancer in Christian families than in non-Christian families?
The world was given to us, to live in it as we might. It is up to us to cope. God is not a sort of Father Christmas figure, there to protect us from all ill. If that was the case, we would be no more than His toy-things: robots, without the freedom to do as we will, for better or worse. As to such things as curing disease and illness: if we applied our full energy, talents and money into it, we could solve our problems, in time. We could cope on this Earth, with the will to help and be positive. How much time and energy, money and talent go into fighting wars and funding the development of ever more appalling weaponry, as one example of our failure to care for our own needs, when we could do so? Don't blame God, blame Man.
-
BA,
The world was given to us, to live in it as we might. It is up to us to cope. God is not a sort of Father Christmas figure, there to protect us from all ill. If that was the case, we would be no more than His toy-things: robots, without the freedom to do as we will, for better or worse. As to such things as curing disease and illness: if we applied our full energy, talents and money into it, we could solve our problems, in time. We could cope on this Earth, with the will to help and be positive. How much time and energy, money and talent go into fighting wars and funding the development of ever more appalling weaponry, as one example of our failure to care for our own needs, when we could do so? Don't blame God, blame Man.
You're still not getting it. You claim a god who's "loving", yet there's no difference between the way the world obsevably is and either a god who's not loving at all or no god in the first place.
Your answer then is to blame people - presumably the baby with brain cancer has no-one to blame but himself? - but that's missing the bigger picture: why bother with this god at all when there's no detectable sign at all of him actually exercising this supposed love?
At least Wigg's restatement of the old argument - this must be the best of all worlds, so we must lack the judgement or knowledge to realise that the things we think to be bad are in fact good - has a rationale to it, but yours is just hopeless special pleading.
-
But ad-o's god that I am talking about condemns people for eternity, so your post BA is a non sequitur
Not the God that Jesus teaches us about.
Clearly some will be. Christ himself speaks of this.
-
BA,
The world was given to us, to live in it as we might. It is up to us to cope. God is not a sort of Father Christmas figure, there to protect us from all ill. If that was the case, we would be no more than His toy-things: robots, without the freedom to do as we will, for better or worse. As to such things as curing disease and illness: if we applied our full energy, talents and money into it, we could solve our problems, in time. We could cope on this Earth, with the will to help and be positive. How much time and energy, money and talent go into fighting wars and funding the development of ever more appalling weaponry, as one example of our failure to care for our own needs, when we could do so? Don't blame God, blame Man.
You're still not getting it. You claim a god who's "loving", yet there's no difference between the way the world obsevably is and either a god who's not loving at all or no god in the first place.
Your answer then is to blame people - presumably the baby with brain cancer has no-one to blame but himself? - but that's missing the bigger picture: why bother with this god at all when there's no detectable sign at all of him actually exercising this supposed love?
At least Wigg's restatement of the old argument - this must be the best of all worlds, so we must lack the judgement or knowledge to realise that the things we think to be bad are in fact good - has a rationale to it, but yours is just hopeless special pleading.
Don't insult me by telling me 'I don't get it." I get it perfectly well: I have had a life-time to "get it." It's your sad lack of insight and inability to look beyond your prejudices that is what's lacking. If we spent our time, energy, talent, and money on the right things, we could eliminate such scourges as cancer. We could cure our own ills, without the need for divine intervention.
-
I take on board what you say. But it still doesn't really answer my main point: why keep up your "crusade," If I may call it that, after so long? Surely there is nothing new to say here.
But there might be new people to hear it. Even if there aren't, I enjoy the mental exercise of framing the arguments, identifying fallacies, spotting my own presumptions and assumptions at times.
On here, you are either talking to the converted (to your views), or to a small handful of theists, who by now, you must realise, are not going to be persuaded by you. Why not seek a wider audience, and perhaps make some headway, or at least find what may be a different set of arguments to contend with.
This isn't the only place I comment :) It's a good place to practice, though.
May I say, that it is not much of an argument to sink to the level of the "fairy tales" approach. You should be prepared to discuss at a higher intellectual level, if you seriously hope to persuade people of your views.
Except that there isn't a 'higher intellectual level' to religion. There's a wealth of historical evidence for the in depth analysis and navel-gazing intensity of religious study, and nothing new has been produced from it. There's still no evidence for a god, still no defence against theodicy, still no rationale by which any of the religions make sense. That's not intellectual, that's academic - a genuine intellectual would review the history of Theology and say "Hang on, we haven't gone anywhere in hundreds of years... let's jack this in and do something useful".
People believe these tales of magic and mighty heroes, whereas they no longer believe, say, the Norse or Greek tales of magic and mighty heroes: that's not a validation of the Big Boy's Book of Jewish Bedtime Stories, it's an indictment of the people that pretend there's a qualitative rather than quantitative difference.
You say, effectively, that it's rude to accuse Christianity of believing in fairy tales, and that may well be the case, but being rude isn't necessarily being wrong. This is a debate, and wording is chosen for the impact it has, both on the opposition and on the audience: describing religious claims as unevidence, unsubstantiated, unprovable or untestable is all entirely true, but lacks a certain impact.
"Christianity is a fairy-tale, and Jesus is just a hippy wizard", that's a phrase that's going to stick in the mind.
O.
-
Perhaps, but then I don't have a problem with it (or more accurately I merely accept it). God does indeed allow evil to happen, at least for the time being, which is why we give thanks to God for all things (which to the unbeliever is a great scandal but to the believer not so for we know it is only a temporary state of affairs).
Except that, if God is all-powerful, why do we have to go through those periods of 'not-good'? God already knows who is good or bad, who deserves eternal life and happiness in heaven or cutting off/annihilation. Why torture people in the meantime? Why do we have to suffer?
That problem of evil, regardless of how you define the evil, still makes no sense. In fact, if you pitch the system as 'evil is not a thing in and of itself' then it makes less sense: if you need it to balance good there might be a necessity, if it's just that there's not enough good then... that's a systems issue.
O.
-
The scriptures say that creation was very good. Death entered creation through the sin of Adam, something which we all inherit.
Adam is a myth. In the absence of an actual Adam, in the absence of that 'original sin' event, what's the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice? What's the nature of sin? Is it intrinsically part of humanity, and therefore part of God's plan? Even if it's not intrinsically part of humanity, it's part of the creation that God made - surely he must have foreseen the possibility that it could 'get into' humanity? How is his design error my fault? Why can I be punished - temporally or eternally - for it?
Even if Adam weren't a myth, why does God hold me responsible for what Adam did? Even if my 'sinfulness' is genuine, the capacity for it was something I had no control over, why am I liable for damnation?
This entire concept makes no sense, whichever way you cut it.
O.
-
Except that there isn't a 'higher intellectual level' to religion.
Because it is the same genre as fairy tales, imo.
-
Except that there isn't a 'higher intellectual level' to religion.
Because it is the same genre as fairy tales, imo.
What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.
-
BA,
Don't insult me by telling me 'I don't get it." I get it perfectly well: I have had a life-time to "get it."
Then I fear that you've wasted your time as clearly you don't get it at all. I merely asked how you would propose to bridge the gap between the observable fact of no evidence at all for a loving god (or indeed any god at all) and your claims to the contrary.
Imagine for example that I insisted that people could fly at will on broomsticks. You might reply to the effect that there's no evidence for it, and then I'd hit you with, "Do you even know any Rowlingology? Here for examples are abundant examples of broomstick flying from the Harry Potter books" etc.
Presumably you'd say something like, "yes I know some books make that claim, but there's no correlation between the claim and the observable facts. QED."
Do you see the problem now?
Anything?
It's your sad lack of insight and inability to look beyond your prejudices that is what's lacking.
Perhaps. On the other hand, as there's no evidence of this supposed god's supposed love - babies in christian families get cancer just as frequently as babies in non-christian families do after all - maybe instead it's your own "sad lack of insight and inability to look beyond your prejudices" that's the problem after all.
If we spent our time, energy, talent, and money on the right things, we could eliminate such scourges as cancer. We could cure our own ills, without the need for divine intervention.
That could be true - but then why bother with believing in a loving god when these outcomes would be nothing to do with "Him"?
-
BA,
What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.
Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?
-
BA,
What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.
Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?
The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.
-
BA,
What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.
Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?
The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.
If I had an imagination, I'd imagine that constituted an ad hominem, which I'd then conclude from exhaustive learning was a logical fallacy.
Good thing someone's already used up all the imagination...
O.
-
BA,
What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.
Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?
The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.
If I had an imagination, I'd imagine that constituted an ad hominem, which I'd then conclude from exhaustive learning was a logical fallacy.
Good thing someone's already used up all the imagination...
O.
Usual off the peg comments - no substance. Read what Einstein said about imagination (and he's as far above you in intellect and perception as you are from the ants.)
-
Having a good imagination I have created stories, which kids seem to enjoy, so I am pretty good at spotting fairy tales like those in the Bible!
-
BA,
What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.
Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?
The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.
If I had an imagination, I'd imagine that constituted an ad hominem, which I'd then conclude from exhaustive learning was a logical fallacy.
Good thing someone's already used up all the imagination...
O.
Usual off the peg comments - no substance. Read what Einstein said about imagination (and he's as far above you in intellect and perception as you are from the ants.)
So your rebuttal to my point that you employed an ad hominem in place of actually having an argument is to deploy a further ad hominem (carefully secreted within an appeal to authority). Genius. Remind me again of what this 'imagination' thing is?
O.
-
BA,
What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.
Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?
The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.
If I had an imagination, I'd imagine that constituted an ad hominem, which I'd then conclude from exhaustive learning was a logical fallacy.
Good thing someone's already used up all the imagination...
O.
Usual off the peg comments - no substance. Read what Einstein said about imagination (and he's as far above you in intellect and perception as you are from the ants.)
So your rebuttal to my point that you employed an ad hominem in place of actually having an argument is to deploy a further ad hominem (carefully secreted within an appeal to authority). Genius. Remind me again of what this 'imagination' thing is?
O.
Read what Einstein said of imagination. He expressed it far more eloquently than I. Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.
-
BA,
What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.
Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?
The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.
If I had an imagination, I'd imagine that constituted an ad hominem, which I'd then conclude from exhaustive learning was a logical fallacy.
Good thing someone's already used up all the imagination...
O.
Usual off the peg comments - no substance. Read what Einstein said about imagination (and he's as far above you in intellect and perception as you are from the ants.)
So your rebuttal to my point that you employed an ad hominem in place of actually having an argument is to deploy a further ad hominem (carefully secreted within an appeal to authority). Genius. Remind me again of what this 'imagination' thing is?
O.
Read what Einstein said of imagination. He expressed it far more eloquently than I. Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.
Einstein was brilliant and moved us on in terms of physics.
Of course you do realize he also made mistakes?
Newtons theory of gravity was brilliant, but not quite right.
Einstein moved us on, but again he was not quite right either.
-
BA,
What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.
Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?
The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.
If I had an imagination, I'd imagine that constituted an ad hominem, which I'd then conclude from exhaustive learning was a logical fallacy.
Good thing someone's already used up all the imagination...
O.
Usual off the peg comments - no substance. Read what Einstein said about imagination (and he's as far above you in intellect and perception as you are from the ants.)
So your rebuttal to my point that you employed an ad hominem in place of actually having an argument is to deploy a further ad hominem (carefully secreted within an appeal to authority). Genius. Remind me again of what this 'imagination' thing is?
O.
Read what Einstein said of imagination. He expressed it far more eloquently than I. Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.
Einstein was brilliant and moved us on in terms of physics.
Of course you do realize he also made mistakes?
Newtons theory of gravity was brilliant, but not quite right.
Einstein moved us on, but again he was not quite right either.
I am not talking of his achievements, but of his philosophy. However, he certainly moved us on in our understanding in physics.
-
Read what Einstein said of imagination. He expressed it far more eloquently than I. Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.
I can comprehend it, I suspect you've missed an important implication.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."
Knowledge is still important, you realise. He knew that, he said that, I suspect you've missed it. My imagination's fine, I can comprehend the idea of billions of years of universal expansion, millions of years of evolutionary change leading to you and I discussing those things over the internet.
I have a good balance between imagination and knowledge, because I base my imagination on what we do know, I don't let myself be limited by it. You don't, you base your imagination on what you want to be true.
O.
-
BA
I am not talking of his achievements, but of his philosophy. However, he certainly moved us on in our understanding in physics.
He certainly did.
But his theories are not quite right, and he did not like quantum mechanics, but he was wrong.
-
BA,
The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.
But what I asked you was what the qualitiative difference is between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies. Your reply is just an ad hominem - much as a four-year-old would lash out at something he didn't like but couldn't rebut either.
-
BA,
Read what Einstein said of imagination. He expressed it far more eloquently than I. Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.
Of course he can comprehend it - for what it's worth I'd suggest too that the imagination needed to conceive of the unfathomably vast majesty of the universe is greater than that needed to settle for the tawdry, unambitious folk tales of bible myths about blood sacrifices, suicidal pigs etc but hey ho.
The point though is that imagination is fine so far as it goes - it opens our minds to possibilities we can explore and test, just as Einstein suggested. Your problem however is that you blithely substitute your imaginative fancies about a god for supposed objective facts about that god with no intervening argument in between.
-
BA,
Read what Einstein said of imagination. He expressed it far more eloquently than I. Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.
Of course he can comprehend it - for what it's worth I'd suggest too that the imagination needed to conceive of the unfathomably vast majesty of the universe is greater than that needed to settle for the tawdry, unambitious folk tales of bible myths about blood sacrifices, suicidal pigs etc but hey ho.
The point though is that imagination is fine so far as it goes - it opens our minds to possibilities we can explore and test, just as Einstein suggested. Your problem however is that you blithely substitute your imaginative fancies about a god for supposed objective facts about that god with no intervening argument in between.
You do me, and other theists, a disservice. I do not for a moment accept that it is any less of a leap of imagination to accept the existence of God, than any other concept, in science, or anything else. Certainly not tawdry - and why "tawdry" anyway? My belief in God, however, is based on the teaching and life of Jesus, and His early followers.
When we consider the advancements in technology over the last century, when we are doing things now that weren't dreamt of a hundred years ago, how can any person with an iota of imagination, rule anything out - "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-
BA,
Read what Einstein said of imagination. He expressed it far more eloquently than I. Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.
Of course he can comprehend it - for what it's worth I'd suggest too that the imagination needed to conceive of the unfathomably vast majesty of the universe is greater than that needed to settle for the tawdry, unambitious folk tales of bible myths about blood sacrifices, suicidal pigs etc but hey ho.
The point though is that imagination is fine so far as it goes - it opens our minds to possibilities we can explore and test, just as Einstein suggested. Your problem however is that you blithely substitute your imaginative fancies about a god for supposed objective facts about that god with no intervening argument in between.
You do me, and other theists, a disservice. I do not for a moment accept that it is any less of a leap of imagination to accept the existence of God, than any other concept, in science, or anything else. Certainly not tawdry - and why "tawdry" anyway? My belief in God, however, is based on the teaching and life of Jesus, and His early followers.
When we consider the advancements in technology over the last century, when we are doing things now that weren't dreamt of a hundred years ago, how can any person with an iota of imagination, rule anything out - "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
We can rule out the Sun orbiting the Earth.
There are lots of things we can rule out, as in think they are extremely unlikely given our present understanding of how the universe works.
Stuff like dead people coming back the life. This can be safely ruled out until someone explains how all our current understanding is wrong and this can happen.
I get the impression that truth is low on your list, whilst being happy is high on your list of things for your beliefs.
So science does allow us to consider things that are more likely than others.
The only way to change that is not just assume it might happen (as you do), but to demonstrate where the current understanding is wrong.
-
BA,
You do me, and other theists, a disservice. I do not for a moment accept that it is any less of a leap of imagination to accept the existence of God, than any other concept, in science, or anything else. Certainly not tawdry - and why "tawdry" anyway? My belief in God, however, is based on the teaching and life of Jesus, and His early followers.
Tawdry because they're delineated by the limitations of their tribal authors - local rivalries, the keeping of slaves, killing livestock or cheeky children etc might have seemed important at the time, but now they just seem cheap, unambitious, trivial. I don't doubt that your belief in "God" is based on the "teachings" of Jesus, just as the beliefs of others in broomstick flying might be based on the "teachings" of JK Rowling but neither would have any basis whatever to claim those beliefs as objective facts for the rest of us too.
And that's your problem.
When we consider the advancements in technology over the last century, when we are doing things now that weren't dreamt of a hundred years ago, how can any person with an iota of imagination, rule anything out - "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
No-one is "ruling anything out". Your problem though is that you then overreach - not ruling out something and insisting that it's actually true lands you with the burden of proof problem. Confine yourself just to not ruling out "God" (whatever you mean by it) and no-one cares, any more than you would care if I didn't rule out fairies. The moment though either of us claims that not ruling out our beliefs has anything to say to whether they're more likely to be true than not then we each have a problem - God and fairies alike.
-
BA,
You do me, and other theists, a disservice. I do not for a moment accept that it is any less of a leap of imagination to accept the existence of God, than any other concept, in science, or anything else. Certainly not tawdry - and why "tawdry" anyway? My belief in God, however, is based on the teaching and life of Jesus, and His early followers.
Tawdry because they're delineated by the limitations of their tribal authors - local rivalries, the keeping of slaves, killing livestock or cheeky children etc might have seemed important at the time, but now they just seem cheap, unambitious, trivial. I don't doubt that your belief in "God" is based on the "teachings" of Jesus, just as the beliefs of others in broomstick flying might be based on the "teachings" of JK Rowling but neither would have any basis whatever to claim those beliefs as objective facts for the rest of us too.
And that's your problem.
When we consider the advancements in technology over the last century, when we are doing things now that weren't dreamt of a hundred years ago, how can any person with an iota of imagination, rule anything out - "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
No-one is "ruling anything out". Your problem though is that you then overreach - not ruling out something and insisting that it's actually true lands you with the burden of proof problem. Confine yourself just to not ruling out "God" (whatever you mean by it) and no-one cares, any more than you would care if I didn't rule out fairies. The moment though either of us claims that not ruling out our beliefs has anything to say to whether they're more likely to be true than not then we each have a problem - God and fairies alike.
I simply will not respond to an infantile person who talks in terms of "fairies." Grow up! Anyway, for you and that other guy to suggest that you have imagination in the sense that Einstein was suggesting is both laughable, and absurdly arrogant.
-
BA
I think it's pretty obvious who needs to grow up because he cannot defend his ridiculous position, and simply resorts to insult.
If fairies are different to god, then explain why.
-
BA
I think it's pretty obvious who needs to grow up because he cannot defend his ridiculous position, and simply resorts to insult.
If fairies are different to god, then explain why.
I said I wouldn't respond, but just finally: you use the playground vocabulary, you say why it equates with intelligent discussion.
-
BA
I think it's pretty obvious who needs to grow up because he cannot defend his ridiculous position, and simply resorts to insult.
If fairies are different to god, then explain why.
I said I wouldn't respond, but just finally: you use the playground vocabulary, you say why it equates with intelligent discussion.
You respond, but you never answer.
In what way is believing in fairies,unicorns,loch ness monster any different to believing in any god?
The fact you never answer this SIMPLE question, and instead pretend you are insulted by the question, shows that you cannot answer the question, and you do not like it.
-
BA
I think it's pretty obvious who needs to grow up because he cannot defend his ridiculous position, and simply resorts to insult.
If fairies are different to god, then explain why.
I said I wouldn't respond, but just finally: you use the playground vocabulary, you say why it equates with intelligent discussion.
You respond, but you never answer.
In what way is believing in fairies,unicorns,loch ness monster any different to believing in any god?
The fact you never answer this SIMPLE question, and instead pretend you are insulted by the question, shows that you cannot answer the question, and you do not like it.
I'll answer it as I would any child-like query. "Got io bed now, dear, and we'll read about some little fairies that live at the bottom of the garden, tomorrow. Night."
-
BA
I think it's pretty obvious who needs to grow up because he cannot defend his ridiculous position, and simply resorts to insult.
If fairies are different to god, then explain why.
I said I wouldn't respond, but just finally: you use the playground vocabulary, you say why it equates with intelligent discussion.
You respond, but you never answer.
In what way is believing in fairies,unicorns,loch ness monster any different to believing in any god?
The fact you never answer this SIMPLE question, and instead pretend you are insulted by the question, shows that you cannot answer the question, and you do not like it.
I'll answer it as I would any child-like query. "Got io bed now, dear, and we'll read about some little fairies that live at the bottom of the garden, tomorrow. Night."
And I would say do not debate with adults until you are sufficiently educated to do so.
At the moment your logic is child-like.
-
BA
I think it's pretty obvious who needs to grow up because he cannot defend his ridiculous position, and simply resorts to insult.
If fairies are different to god, then explain why.
I said I wouldn't respond, but just finally: you use the playground vocabulary, you say why it equates with intelligent discussion.
You respond, but you never answer.
In what way is believing in fairies,unicorns,loch ness monster any different to believing in any god?
The fact you never answer this SIMPLE question, and instead pretend you are insulted by the question, shows that you cannot answer the question, and you do not like it.
I'll answer it as I would any child-like query. "Got io bed now, dear, and we'll read about some little fairies that live at the bottom of the garden, tomorrow. Night."
And I would say do not debate with adults until you are sufficiently educated to do so.
At the moment your logic is child-like.
Poor response! It leaves you with nothing new to say if you rule out your "fairies" and "magic" vocabulary.
-
BA
Perfectly good response, for which you have no answer.
You are beaten, you position is logically defeated.
You offer nothing but insult.
-
BA
Perfectly good response, for which you have no answer.
You are beaten, you position is logically defeated.
You offer nothing but insult.
What position? If you think I have no answer, then why keep asking me? Doesn't seem logical to me. ;)
-
BA
Perfectly good response, for which you have no answer.
You are beaten, you position is logically defeated.
You offer nothing but insult.
What position? If you think I have no answer, then why keep asking me? Doesn't seem logical to me. ;)
So that it finally sinks in to you the hard of learning, that your position is logically flawed.
You are not very quick on the uptake so it has to be repeated many times.
-
BA
Perfectly good response, for which you have no answer.
You are beaten, you position is logically defeated.
You offer nothing but insult.
What position? If you think I have no answer, then why keep asking me? Doesn't seem logical to me. ;)
So that it finally sinks in to you the hard of learning, that your position is logically flawed.
You are not very quick on the uptake so it has to be repeated many times.
Please don't insult me, then accuse me of being insulting. Can't you see the fault in that?
-
BA
Perfectly good response, for which you have no answer.
You are beaten, you position is logically defeated.
You offer nothing but insult.
What position? If you think I have no answer, then why keep asking me? Doesn't seem logical to me. ;)
So that it finally sinks in to you the hard of learning, that your position is logically flawed.
You are not very quick on the uptake so it has to be repeated many times.
Please don't insult me, then accuse me of being insulting. Can't you see the fault in that?
More evasion.
Can you answer the question or not.
I bet you like to keep doing this so that the questions just get lost in all this nonsense that you post.
If you cannot answer a direct question, just keep posting that you are insulted.
-
BA
Perfectly good response, for which you have no answer.
You are beaten, you position is logically defeated.
You offer nothing but insult.
What position? If you think I have no answer, then why keep asking me? Doesn't seem logical to me. ;)
So that it finally sinks in to you the hard of learning, that your position is logically flawed.
You are not very quick on the uptake so it has to be repeated many times.
Please don't insult me, then accuse me of being insulting. Can't you see the fault in that?
More evasion.
Can you answer the question or not.
I bet you like to keep doing this so that the questions just get lost in all this nonsense that you post.
If you cannot answer a direct question, just keep posting that you are insulted.
Do you realise what a hectoring manner you have? if I choose to engage with you to answer a question, I will, but not on demand. And if I choose not to, then leave me, and you can put whatever slant on that to suit yourself.
-
BA,
I simply will not respond to an infantile person who talks in terms of "fairies."
Again you miss the point entirely. The outcome of the argument - god, fairies, whatever - isn't the issue. Rather the point of the analogy is to show that when the arguments you attempt for god work equally well for fairies then your arguments are probably bad ones.
It's a simple enough point I'd have though so why consistently aim your fire a the wrong target?
Now for all I know you do have one or more arguments for your god that don’t work just as well for fairies, but what the analogy does is to allow us to dismiss at a stroke the various arguments that you and others attempt (“but that’s my faith”, “there are claims about the object of my belief written in a book”, “anything’s possible/you can’t disprove it”, “my belief gives my life meaning”, “my belief fills the explanatory gap in areas for which I have no better explanation” etc etc) without endlessly having to explain why they’re bad arguments.
So there’s the filter for you – if ever you do feel like attempting an argument for an objectively true god just run it past the fairy test first and junk it if it fails and bring it to the table if it doesn’t.
Just a warning by the way though – I’ve yet to hear a theological argument for a god that doesn’t work for fairies, but you never know – you could surprise us yet!
Grow up!
See above.
Anyway, for you and that other guy to suggest that you have imagination in the sense that Einstein was suggesting is both laughable, and absurdly arrogant.
Yes it would be. Fortunately though, neither of us have done any such thing. What we have done though is to show that you misunderstood Einstein's point - imagination is essential all right, but it's no substitute for verification.
-
BA,
I simply will not respond to an infantile person who talks in terms of "fairies."
Again you miss the point entirely. The outcome of the argument - god, fairies, whatever - isn't the issue. Rather the point of the analogy is to show that when the arguments you attempt for god work equally well for fairies then your arguments are probably bad ones.
Let's hope your faereology isn't as dire as your Leprechology....
-
I simply will not respond to an infantile person who talks in terms of "fairies." Grow up! Anyway, for you and that other guy to suggest that you have imagination in the sense that Einstein was suggesting is both laughable, and absurdly arrogant.
But if he said 'angels' would it make a difference? Flying winged people with magical powers from old books. As a non-believer, what can you show me that is the difference, qualitatively?
O.
-
Angels and fairies both have wings, don't they? ;D
-
BA will probably not answer that question, will consider it 'infantile', but will not realise that by calling others', particularly atheists' views, infantile, he projects on to others his own failings.
-
BA,
Let's hope your faereology isn't as dire as your Leprechology....
If it's any comfort to you BA, you're not the only one fundamentally to miss the point of the analogy (see above).
-
BA,
Let's hope your faereology isn't as dire as your Leprechology....
If it's any comfort to you BA, you're not the only one fundamentally to miss the point of the analogy (see above).
Really Hillside and what actually is your point?
-
Vlunderingaboutlikeabullinachinashop,
Really Hillside and what actually is your point?
Which part of Reply 361 is confusing you?
-
Vlunderingaboutlikeabullinachinashop,
Really Hillside and what actually is your point?
Which part of Reply 361 is confusing you?
OK....So you seem to be assuming that having the same argument as a fairy is a bad thing.
Firstly, why is it a bad thing?
Secondly, who is making the same arguments?
Thirdly, what IS the actual argument you are talking about?
-
Vlunderingaboutlikeabullinachinashop,
Really Hillside and what actually is your point?
Which part of Reply 361 is confusing you?
OK....So you seem to be assuming that having the same argument as a fairy is a bad thing.
Firstly, why is it a bad thing?
Secondly, who is making the same arguments?
Thirdly, what IS the actual argument you are talking about?
I guess its only a bad thing if you do not also believe in fairies.
Do you believe in fairies?
If not, then you should not believe in your god either. That is the point.
-
Vlunderingaboutlikeabullinachinashop,
Really Hillside and what actually is your point?
Which part of Reply 361 is confusing you?
OK....So you seem to be assuming that having the same argument as a fairy is a bad thing.
Firstly, why is it a bad thing?
Secondly, who is making the same arguments?
Thirdly, what IS the actual argument you are talking about?
I guess its only a bad thing if you do not also believe in fairies.
Do you believe in fairies?
If not, then you should not believe in your god either. That is the point.
Be Negative......
Firstly, You haven't actually addressed the questions.
Secondly, I was intending that the Organ Grinder fielded the question......not the monkey.
-
Vlunderingaboutlikeabullinachinashop,
Really Hillside and what actually is your point?
Which part of Reply 361 is confusing you?
OK....So you seem to be assuming that having the same argument as a fairy is a bad thing.
Firstly, why is it a bad thing?
Secondly, who is making the same arguments?
Thirdly, what IS the actual argument you are talking about?
I guess its only a bad thing if you do not also believe in fairies.
Do you believe in fairies?
If not, then you should not believe in your god either. That is the point.
Be Negative......
Firstly, You haven't actually addressed the questions.
Secondly, I was intending that the Organ Grinder fielded the question......not the monkey.
It answers the question as to why the argument is bad if it also works for fairies.
Do you understand this, or do you need further explanation.
-
Vlunderingaboutlikeabullinachinashop,
Really Hillside and what actually is your point?
Which part of Reply 361 is confusing you?
OK....So you seem to be assuming that having the same argument as a fairy is a bad thing.
Firstly, why is it a bad thing?
Secondly, who is making the same arguments?
Thirdly, what IS the actual argument you are talking about?
I guess its only a bad thing if you do not also believe in fairies.
Do you believe in fairies?
If not, then you should not believe in your god either. That is the point.
Be Negative......
Firstly, You haven't actually addressed the questions.
Secondly, I was intending that the Organ Grinder fielded the question......not the monkey.
It answers the question as to why the argument is bad if it also works for fairies.
Do you understand this, or do you need further explanation.
No it doesn't address anything.......You and indeed Hillside are merely stating that any argument made for God which is also suitable for fairies is a bad argument.
That is a positive assertion....or maybe even more than one.
It is therefore incumbent on you to answer three things:
Firstly, why is it a bad thing?
Secondly, who is making the same arguments?
Thirdly, what IS the actual argument you are talking about?
-
Vlunderingaboutlikeabullinachinashop,
Really Hillside and what actually is your point?
Which part of Reply 361 is confusing you?
OK....So you seem to be assuming that having the same argument as a fairy is a bad thing.
Firstly, why is it a bad thing?
Secondly, who is making the same arguments?
Thirdly, what IS the actual argument you are talking about?
I guess its only a bad thing if you do not also believe in fairies.
Do you believe in fairies?
If not, then you should not believe in your god either. That is the point.
Be Negative......
Firstly, You haven't actually addressed the questions.
Secondly, I was intending that the Organ Grinder fielded the question......not the monkey.
It answers the question as to why the argument is bad if it also works for fairies.
Do you understand this, or do you need further explanation.
No it doesn't address anything.......You and indeed Hillside are merely stating that any argument made for God which is also suitable for fairies is a bad argument.
That is a positive assertion....or maybe even more than one.
It is therefore incumbent on you to answer three things:
Firstly, why is it a bad thing?
Secondly, who is making the same arguments?
Thirdly, what IS the actual argument you are talking about?
Take one thing at a time.
I repeat, it's ONLY a bad thing if you believe in god AND NOT fairies.
Given that the arguments are the same you should react the same way to both.
Do you understand now?
-
Vlunderingaboutlikeabullinachinashop,
Really Hillside and what actually is your point?
Which part of Reply 361 is confusing you?
OK....So you seem to be assuming that having the same argument as a fairy is a bad thing.
Firstly, why is it a bad thing?
Secondly, who is making the same arguments?
Thirdly, what IS the actual argument you are talking about?
I guess its only a bad thing if you do not also believe in fairies.
Do you believe in fairies?
If not, then you should not believe in your god either. That is the point.
Be Negative......
Firstly, You haven't actually addressed the questions.
Secondly, I was intending that the Organ Grinder fielded the question......not the monkey.
It answers the question as to why the argument is bad if it also works for fairies.
Do you understand this, or do you need further explanation.
No it doesn't address anything.......You and indeed Hillside are merely stating that any argument made for God which is also suitable for fairies is a bad argument.
That is a positive assertion....or maybe even more than one.
It is therefore incumbent on you to answer three things:
Firstly, why is it a bad thing?
Secondly, who is making the same arguments?
Thirdly, what IS the actual argument you are talking about?
Take one thing at a time.
I repeat, it's ONLY a bad thing if you believe in god AND NOT fairies.
Given that the arguments are the same you should react the same way to both.
Do you understand now?
No you are still merely saying that the arguments are the same without saying what they are.
Is this because you are dishonest or stupid?
Now, let's try this once more.
What is the argument?
Who is making it?
To which one has to add why, just because you think the argument is the same, that there cannot be arguments that are not the same?
-
Vlad,
I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.
The point I am making is that:
If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.
Can you agree with that?
Note I have not said what the arguments are, just that if they are equivalent, then your reaction to them MUST be the same, otherwise you are not logical.
-
Vlad,
I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.
The point I am making is that:
If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.
And again....What is this argument?
And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?
-
Vlunderingabouttheplace,
OK....So you seem to be assuming that having the same argument as a fairy is a bad thing.
It's a bad thing for the conclusion "god" if the argument works equally well for the conclusion "fairy", yes.
Firstly, why is it a bad thing?
It's a bad thing because it leads to the relativism of "anything I assert to be true because of these arguments is necessarily true for you too", and worse yet many of those claims deny the possibility of the others - a logical impossibility.
Secondly, who is making the same arguments?
You do - often in fact, and so do many others here. "It gives my life meaning", "you can't disprove it", "I intuit it" etc etc all qualify as bad arguments for an objectively true god.
Thirdly, what IS the actual argument you are talking about?
There are many of them - quite a few of which you cling to (or used to cling to) as a man clings to a plutonium parachute in the hope that it'll prevent him from crashing to the ground.
-
Vlad,
I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.
The point I am making is that:
If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.
And again....What is this argument?
And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?
For now forget the argument, they can come later.
What you need to understand is the concept that if works for both then you HAVE to ACCEPT both.
Simple example (not the real argument)
People have believed in god for hundreds of years, therefore god exists.
People have believed in fairies for hundreds of years, therefore fairies exist.
IF you think that people believing stuff is a good argument, then it works for god AND fairies.
All you need to understand for now is the concept.
Later of course, you supply the arguments for god, and we see if they also work for fairies.
-
Vlad,
I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.
The point I am making is that:
If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.
And again....What is this argument?
And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?
For now forget the argument
LOL.
-
Vlad,
I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.
The point I am making is that:
If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.
And again....What is this argument?
And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?
For now forget the argument
LOL.
Do you understand the concept though?
It really is simple, so simple a child could understand it.
What are you finding so difficult?
-
Vlad,
I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.
The point I am making is that:
If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.
And again....What is this argument?
And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?
For now forget the argument
LOL.
Do you understand the concept though?
So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.
-
Vlunderbus,
LOL.
Why? He's merely trying to get you to grasp the concept for now. If you manage to do that, it's a simple enough matter to populate the "bad argument" set with examples - blimey, you of all people should know that!
-
Vlunderingallovertheplace,
So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.
Why the gratuitous scumminess?
Either way you know full well the arguments that work just as well for both, and I've listed some of them already.
Your problem for now though is that even conceptually you don't seem to be able to grasp the principle that arguments for a god that work just as well for any other object of a personal belief must allow either all of them or none of them under the objectively true wire.
Why is this difficult for you?
-
Vlad,
I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.
The point I am making is that:
If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.
And again....What is this argument?
And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?
For now forget the argument
LOL.
Do you understand the concept though?
So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.
The argument that is the same for god (your god or my gods), to an atheist, is the same as that for fairies to someone who does not believe in fairies - the existence of your god is about as likely as the existence of fairies, and as equally impossible to prove beyond any doubt, regardless of who steadfastly you believe in one or the other!
Does this finally get through the six inches of concrete that form your skull?
-
Vlunderingallovertheplace,
So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.
Why the gratuitous scumminess?
Either way you know full well the arguments that work just as well for both, and I've listed some of them already.
Your problem for now though is that even conceptually you don't seem to be able to grasp the principle that arguments for a god that work just as well for any other object of a personal belief must allow either all of them or none of them under the objectively true wire.
Why is this difficult for you?
See the last line of #385
-
Vlunderbus,
LOL.
Why? He's merely trying to get you to grasp the concept for now. If you manage to do that, it's a simple enough matter to populate the "bad argument" set with examples - blimey, you of all people should know that!
No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.
Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.
I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.
So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.
Give an argument which is the same for God as it is for a fairy and while your at it why God or fairies should not be believed even if one is found.
-
Vlunderouslydense,
No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.
No - your "question or two" fundamentally misses the point of the argument. He's trying to get you to grasp the point in principle at least before worrying too much about providing examples for god/fairy arguments.
Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.
Your total refusal to engage with the point in principle suggests strongly that you don't get it at all, as does your insistence on asking irrelevant questions to try to derail the point under discussion.
I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.
Does not the irony that I've answered - what - a 1,000 plus of your questions maybe whereas you've never managed to answer any of mine strike at all you here?
You can ask all you like and have answers too, but not when the attempt is so obviously an avoidance tactic.
Do you even understand conceptually that an argument for an objective god that works equally for an objective fairy is a bad argument?
So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.
Wrong. Here's your chance to engage Vlunderbus or to be seen forever to be ducking the actual question under discussion.
If you're determined to pursue your derail nonetheless, start a thread on it.
Give an argument which is the same for God as it is for a fairy...
How would that be relevant to the principle you keep dodging?
... and while your at it why God or fairies should not be believed even if one is found.
Again? Because you'd then have to treat whatever popped into anyones' heads - essentially your argument for your god - as necessarily objectively true too for everyone else, which is logically impossible.
-
Vlunderouslydense,
No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.
No - your "question or two" fundamentally misses the point of the argument. He's trying to get you to grasp the point in principle at least before worrying too much about providing examples for god/fairy arguments.
Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.
Your total refusal to engage with the point in principle suggests strongly that you don't get it at all, as does your insistence on asking irrelevant questions to try to derail the point under discussion.
I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.
Does not the irony that I've answered - what - a 1,000 plus of your questions maybe whereas you've never managed to answer any of mine strike at all you here?
You can ask all you like and have answers too, but not when the attempt is so obviously an avoidance tactic.
Do you even understand conceptually that an argument for an objective god that works equally for an objective fairy is a bad argument?
So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.
Wrong. Here's your chance to engage Vlunderbus or to be seen forever to be ducking the actual question under discussion.
If you're determined to pursue your derail nonetheless, start a thread on it.
Give an argument which is the same for God as it is for a fairy...
How would that be relevant to the principle you keep dodging?
You assert much, state that it has been justified in past posts but are unable to repeat the purported justification.
The organ therefore has no grinder.............only two monkeys.
So to answer YOUR questions in language You will understand:
Eeee Eeee Eeeeeeeeeee Eeeeeeeeeeeee Ee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee!
-
Is there an argument for God which does not apply to fairies, or angels, or water-sprites? I'm off for my dinner, so will try to think of one.
-
Vlunderouslydense,
No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.
No - your "question or two" fundamentally misses the point of the argument. He's trying to get you to grasp the point in principle at least before worrying too much about providing examples for god/fairy arguments.
Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.
Your total refusal to engage with the point in principle suggests strongly that you don't get it at all, as does your insistence on asking irrelevant questions to try to derail the point under discussion.
I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.
Does not the irony that I've answered - what - a 1,000 plus of your questions maybe whereas you've never managed to answer any of mine strike at all you here?
You can ask all you like and have answers too, but not when the attempt is so obviously an avoidance tactic.
Do you even understand conceptually that an argument for an objective god that works equally for an objective fairy is a bad argument?
So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.
Wrong. Here's your chance to engage Vlunderbus or to be seen forever to be ducking the actual question under discussion.
If you're determined to pursue your derail nonetheless, start a thread on it.
Give an argument which is the same for God as it is for a fairy...
How would that be relevant to the principle you keep dodging?
You assert much, state that it has been justified in past posts but are unable to repeat the purported justification.
The organ therefore has no grinder.............only two monkeys.
So to answer YOUR questions in language You will understand:
Eeee Eeee Eeeeeeeeeee Eeeeeeeeeeeee Ee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee!
Two pages of terminally boring evasion of the question and of a posted answer to your question -
Repeat of post #385
The argument that is the same for god (your god or my gods), to an atheist, is the same as that for fairies to someone who does not believe in fairies - the existence of your god is about as likely as the existence of fairies, and as equally impossible to prove beyond any doubt, regardless of how steadfastly you believe in one or the other!
You can ignore this all you like - it will not change the fact that you have no answer to this statement that will validate your belief in your god and invalidate someone else's belief in fairies!
May I suggest a brain transplant from a snail in order to double you rather dubious intelligence?
Vlad - posting since 2004 without answering a single question put to him that will validate the Christain god.
-
Vlad the Librarian,
Eeee Eeee Eeeeeeeeeee Eeeeeeeeeeeee Ee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee!
Your further evasion is noted. As you have nothing to contribute here other than your usual cocktail of dull incomprehension, thuggish nihilism and clunking derail attempts I shall leave you to your personal grief. Cock-eyed optimist that I am, I do though retain some hope that BA will at least grasp the principle under discussion.
Let’s see…
-
Hi Wiggs,
Is there an argument for God which does not apply to fairies, or angels, or water-sprites? I'm off for my dinner, so will try to think of one.
Well, if anyone can think of one you’re the man for the job. One approach is the “my Dad is bigger than your Dad” of simply claiming that, whatever the different belief, yours outranks and nullifies it but that doesn’t seem to lead very far.
Actually I’m not too scorched earth about this – the “fairy test” seems like a handy way of clearing away the brushwood if “it gives meaning to my life”, “you can’t disprove it”, “I intuited it” etc to me but no more. I genuinely would like to hear some arguments for an objective god that pass the test if there are any so I look forward to hearing from you!
-
Vlunderouslydense,
No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.
No - your "question or two" fundamentally misses the point of the argument. He's trying to get you to grasp the point in principle at least before worrying too much about providing examples for god/fairy arguments.
Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.
Your total refusal to engage with the point in principle suggests strongly that you don't get it at all, as does your insistence on asking irrelevant questions to try to derail the point under discussion.
I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.
Does not the irony that I've answered - what - a 1,000 plus of your questions maybe whereas you've never managed to answer any of mine strike at all you here?
You can ask all you like and have answers too, but not when the attempt is so obviously an avoidance tactic.
Do you even understand conceptually that an argument for an objective god that works equally for an objective fairy is a bad argument?
So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.
Wrong. Here's your chance to engage Vlunderbus or to be seen forever to be ducking the actual question under discussion.
If you're determined to pursue your derail nonetheless, start a thread on it.
Give an argument which is the same for God as it is for a fairy...
How would that be relevant to the principle you keep dodging?
You assert much, state that it has been justified in past posts but are unable to repeat the purported justification.
The organ therefore has no grinder.............only two monkeys.
So to answer YOUR questions in language You will understand:
Eeee Eeee Eeeeeeeeeee Eeeeeeeeeeeee Ee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee!
Two pages of terminally boring evasion of the question and of a posted answer to your question -
Repeat of post #385
The argument that is the same for god (your god or my gods), to an atheist, is the same as that for fairies to someone who does not believe in fairies - the existence of your god is about as likely as the existence of fairies.
At last....the old probability of God schtick.
That's a bit dubious since no actual figure for the probability is ever provided by it's proponent and yet here you are announcing it is equal to that for fairies.
Fairies are little chaps with wings who are able to transmute stuff using some kind of dust. So there is a probability attached to this. God is completely in a different category.
if there is equal probability then it is highly improbable that they are not the same thing and yet here you are arguing they are different things.
So you see, the atheist position is based on deliberate category confusion and a vague probabilism.
Before he was seduced by the dark side Wigginhall would have explained all of this to you but I think I saw him slink off stage left a bit earlier.
-
Vlunderouslydense,
No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.
No - your "question or two" fundamentally misses the point of the argument. He's trying to get you to grasp the point in principle at least before worrying too much about providing examples for god/fairy arguments.
Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.
Your total refusal to engage with the point in principle suggests strongly that you don't get it at all, as does your insistence on asking irrelevant questions to try to derail the point under discussion.
I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.
Does not the irony that I've answered - what - a 1,000 plus of your questions maybe whereas you've never managed to answer any of mine strike at all you here?
You can ask all you like and have answers too, but not when the attempt is so obviously an avoidance tactic.
Do you even understand conceptually that an argument for an objective god that works equally for an objective fairy is a bad argument?
So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.
Wrong. Here's your chance to engage Vlunderbus or to be seen forever to be ducking the actual question under discussion.
If you're determined to pursue your derail nonetheless, start a thread on it.
Give an argument which is the same for God as it is for a fairy...
How would that be relevant to the principle you keep dodging?
You assert much, state that it has been justified in past posts but are unable to repeat the purported justification.
The organ therefore has no grinder.............only two monkeys.
So to answer YOUR questions in language You will understand:
Eeee Eeee Eeeeeeeeeee Eeeeeeeeeeeee Ee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee!
Two pages of terminally boring evasion of the question and of a posted answer to your question -
Repeat of post #385
The argument that is the same for god (your god or my gods), to an atheist, is the same as that for fairies to someone who does not believe in fairies - the existence of your god is about as likely as the existence of fairies.
At last....the old probability of God schtick.
That's a bit dubious since no actual figure for the probability is ever provided by it's proponent and yet here you are announcing it is equal to that for fairies.
Fairies are little chaps with wings who are able to transmute stuff using some kind of dust. So there is a probability attached to this. God is completely in a different category.
if there is equal probability then it is highly improbable that they are not the same thing and yet here you are arguing they are different things.
So you see, the atheist position is based on deliberate category confusion and a vague probabilism.
Before he was seduced by the dark side Wigginhall would have explained all of this to you but I think I saw him slink off stage left a bit earlier.
You really are a bloody fool, an idoit, and an illiterate imbecile!
I am not and nver have been an athieist!
You belief in your god is a matter of FAITH!
My belief in my Gods and Goddesses is a matter of FAITH!
Someone, anyone, elses belief in Fairies is a matter of FAITH.
END OF!
Now for the love of whatever god you believe in superglue all you fingers together and then to your VDU screen and SHUT THE FUCK UP about belief in any god or fairies being different - they are NOT! They both a matter of faith.
-
I'll answer it as I would any child-like query. "Got io bed now, dear, and we'll read about some little fairies that live at the bottom of the garden, tomorrow. Night."
I would never treat a child's question with that level of contempt.
-
No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.
And we all know who has the patent on that tactic, don't we?
Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.
Nobody knows where you stand on any issue - you fail to make any actual points and only pop up occasionally to ask questions ranging from the puerile to the inane or to dribble the contents of a thesaurus pretentiously across a thread.
I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.
Et voila.
So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.
Bonjour Monsieur Kettle, et vous noir?
O.
-
Fairies are little chaps with wings who are able to transmute stuff using some kind of dust. So there is a probability attached to this. God is completely in a different category.
I'll take 'Unsubstantiated Assertions' for 100 please... Or, no, I'll take 'Mythical Creatures' for 200... actually, thinking about it, I'll take 'Unevidenced Claims' for 300.
So you see, the atheist position is based on deliberate category confusion and a vague probabilism.
If you are correct - which isn't demonstrable here - you'd perhaps call into question AN atheist position, there are many.
Before he was seduced by the dark side Wigginhall would have explained all of this to you but I think I saw him slink off stage left a bit earlier.
How dare he have better things to do at a particular moment in time! What a sense of entitlement, doesn't he realise Vlad is spouting!!!
O.
-
Vlad,
I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.
The point I am making is that:
If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.
And again....What is this argument?
And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?
For now forget the argument
LOL.
Do you understand the concept though?
So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.
Can you provide a credible argument that gives more credence to the existence of a deity than fairies?
-
Vlad,
I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.
The point I am making is that:
If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.
And again....What is this argument?
And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?
For now forget the argument
LOL.
Do you understand the concept though?
So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.
Can you provide a credible argument that gives more credence to the existence of a deity than fairies?
Fairies are little chaps with wings....therefore we should expect them at least to be stalked by Attenborough, Naturewatch or have an appearance in the Observers Book of winged thingies.
God is in philosophy as the platonic one, the root of morality, the unity of knowledge, universal consciousness etc. etc.
-
Vlud the Vulgarian,
Dammit man, it’s only October and now we’ll have to close the stupidest post of 2015 competition early.
At last....the old probability of God schtick.
That's a bit dubious since no actual figure for the probability is ever provided by it's proponent and yet here you are announcing it is equal to that for fairies.
It’s not dubious at all. There’s no means of calculating the probability of one conjecture against another because none of them are probability apt. The primary problem is that none of them – gods, fairies, whatever – have any sort of meaningful definitions so comparisons between them would be like comparing y7(*&^54fg76r with 7uy67546wF86t. It’s all just white noise.
Nonetheless, even if you take the bewildering variety of claims about these things at face value, the secondary problem is that by using exactly the same arguments for all of them they become equally (im)probable. That’s the point: pick any of the hopeless arguments (”you can’t disprove it”, “it gives meaning to my life”, I intuit it” etc) and you have no choice but to conclude that they are all either equally likely or equally unlikely.
Fairies are little chaps with wings who are able to transmute stuff using some kind of dust. So there is a probability attached to this. God is completely in a different category.
Deep, deep stupidity.
First, you continually miss the basic point here: regardless of the characteristics you attach to your belief, if the argument that gets you to its existence in the first place is exactly the same as the arguments that get you to different belief objects with different characteristics then your arguments are wrong.
Second, you cannot retrofit the characteristics you happen to approve of (eg those of your god over those of fairies) and somehow work back from that as if in some way those characteristics had anything to do with the quality of the arguments that got you there to start with.
if there is equal probability then it is highly improbable that they are not the same thing and yet here you are arguing they are different things.
Non sequitur. There’s no reason for equally improbable things not to be different from each other.
So you see, the atheist position is based on deliberate category confusion and a vague probabilism.
So you see that any “category confusion” is in fact all yours.
Before he was seduced by the dark side Wigginhall would have explained all of this to you but I think I saw him slink off stage left a bit earlier.
Wiggs hasn’t been seduced by anything (well, not here anyway) and he hasn’t “explained” is because he’s more than intelligent enough to grasp the crock you’ve attempted here.
-
Vlud the Vulgarian,
Dammit man, it’s only October and now we’ll have to close the stupidest post of 2015 competition early.
You said that and then proceeded to type the rest of your interminable post!
-
Dear Forum,
In the midst of this ever changing world it's nice to read the familiar.
Gonnagle.
-
Including Vlad's complete ignorance of what fairies are.
-
Including Vlad's complete ignorance of what fairies are.
Careful now.....if you come up with something new it may undermine Hillsides 'argumentum ad ridiculum' and one should never undermine Hillside.
For you also the claim that I am ignorant of what fairies are, a positive assertion, requires you for once to explain your beliefs.............Oh dear looks like you are in a cleft stick.
-
Vlad,
I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.
The point I am making is that:
If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.
And again....What is this argument?
And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?
For now forget the argument
LOL.
Do you understand the concept though?
So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.
Can you provide a credible argument that gives more credence to the existence of a deity than fairies?
Fairies are little chaps with wings....therefore we should expect them at least to be stalked by Attenborough, Naturewatch or have an appearance in the Observers Book of winged thingies.
God is in philosophy as the platonic one, the root of morality, the unity of knowledge, universal consciousness etc. etc.
The deity and morality is an oxymoron! ::)
-
Vlad,
I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.
The point I am making is that:
If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.
And again....What is this argument?
And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?
For now forget the argument
LOL.
Do you understand the concept though?
So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.
Can you provide a credible argument that gives more credence to the existence of a deity than fairies?
Fairies are little chaps with wings....therefore we should expect them at least to be stalked by Attenborough, Naturewatch or have an appearance in the Observers Book of winged thingies.
God is in philosophy as the platonic one, the root of morality, the unity of knowledge, universal consciousness etc. etc.
The deity and morality is an oxymoron! ::)
Glad to see you've come over to moral absolutism.
-
Including Vlad's complete ignorance of what fairies are.
Careful now.....if you come up with something new it may undermine Hillsides 'argumentum ad ridiculum' and one should never undermine Hillside.
For you also the claim that I am ignorant of what fairies are, a positive assertion, requires you for once to explain your beliefs.............Oh dear looks like you are in a cleft stick.
Explain Pagan belief to a pig-ignorant twisted unpleasant arse like you purely so you can take the piss?
Don't be so bloody stupid.
-
Vlad,
I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.
The point I am making is that:
If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.
And again....What is this argument?
And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?
For now forget the argument
LOL.
Do you understand the concept though?
So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.
Can you provide a credible argument that gives more credence to the existence of a deity than fairies?
Fairies are little chaps with wings....therefore we should expect them at least to be stalked by Attenborough, Naturewatch or have an appearance in the Observers Book of winged thingies.
God is in philosophy as the platonic one, the root of morality, the unity of knowledge, universal consciousness etc. etc.
The deity and morality is an oxymoron! ::)
Glad to see you've come over to moral absolutism.
Again with the -ism's!
-
Including Vlad's complete ignorance of what fairies are.
Careful now.....if you come up with something new it may undermine Hillsides 'argumentum ad ridiculum' and one should never undermine Hillside.
For you also the claim that I am ignorant of what fairies are, a positive assertion, requires you for once to explain your beliefs.............Oh dear looks like you are in a cleft stick.
Explain Pagan belief to a pig-ignorant twisted unpleasant arse like you purely so you can take the piss?
Don't be so bloody stupid.
My, we are an angry pagan today, aren't we?
-
Including Vlad's complete ignorance of what fairies are.
Careful now.....if you come up with something new it may undermine Hillsides 'argumentum ad ridiculum' and one should never undermine Hillside.
For you also the claim that I am ignorant of what fairies are, a positive assertion, requires you for once to explain your beliefs.............Oh dear looks like you are in a cleft stick.
Explain Pagan belief to a pig-ignorant twisted unpleasant arse like you purely so you can take the piss?
Don't be so bloody stupid.
My, we are an angry pagan today, aren't we?
No, not angry. I do not waste anger on such as you.
-
Including Vlad's complete ignorance of what fairies are.
Careful now.....if you come up with something new it may undermine Hillsides 'argumentum ad ridiculum' and one should never undermine Hillside.
For you also the claim that I am ignorant of what fairies are, a positive assertion, requires you for once to explain your beliefs.............Oh dear looks like you are in a cleft stick.
'Fairies are little chaps with wings' - is this how folklore describes fairies? at least have an accurate description to hand. Note, this isn't about belief, but about how a fairy is described in myth and folktales. No belief required.
-
Including Vlad's complete ignorance of what fairies are.
Careful now.....if you come up with something new it may undermine Hillsides 'argumentum ad ridiculum' and one should never undermine Hillside.
For you also the claim that I am ignorant of what fairies are, a positive assertion, requires you for once to explain your beliefs.............Oh dear looks like you are in a cleft stick.
'Fairies are little chaps with wings' - is this how folklore describes fairies? at least have an accurate description to hand. Note, this isn't about belief, but about how a fairy is described in myth and folktales. No belief required.
Again no positive statement or information released here merely a negative treatment of mine. Whatever else Paganism does for you it hasn't released you from the prevailing critical culture redolent from our secular humanist cultural context.
-
Vlad
I'm just wondering if you are fairy-dodging.
-
Vlad
I'm just wondering if you are fairy-dodging.
Maybe he IS a fairy?
-
Vlad
I'm just wondering if you are fairy-dodging.
No need.....they do not present any existential challenge for the ego or self....Why else do you think
God dodgers are forever equating God with them?
-
Vlad
I'm just wondering if you are fairy-dodging.
No need.....they do not present any existential challenge for the ego or self.
Just like 'God' then.
-
Vlad
I'm just wondering if you are fairy-dodging.
No need.....they do not present any existential challenge for the ego or self....Why else do you think
God dodgers are forever equating God with them?
-
Including Vlad's complete ignorance of what fairies are.
Careful now.....if you come up with something new it may undermine Hillsides 'argumentum ad ridiculum' and one should never undermine Hillside.
For you also the claim that I am ignorant of what fairies are, a positive assertion, requires you for once to explain your beliefs.............Oh dear looks like you are in a cleft stick.
'Fairies are little chaps with wings' - is this how folklore describes fairies? at least have an accurate description to hand. Note, this isn't about belief, but about how a fairy is described in myth and folktales. No belief required.
Again no positive statement or information released here merely a negative treatment of mine. Whatever else Paganism does for you it hasn't released you from the prevailing critical culture redolent from our secular humanist cultural context.
So you don't know then. Fairy nuff.
(Sorry)
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
You said that and then proceeded to type the rest of your interminable post!
Yeah, that's the problem with rebutting stupidities - they take only a sentence or two to blurt out, but troubling to explain why they're stupidities necessarily takes a little longer.
Still, now you grasp that your "argument" is akin to pointing out that Atlantis has wide canals but Xanadu is completely different because it has purple roof tiles so - um - bad arguments for the existence of one should be treated differently from the same bad arguments for the existence of the other, perhaps you can abandon that stupidity and attempt instead an argument for your god that doesn't work equally well for fairies.
You do have such an argument don't you?
Don't you?
Something?
Anything at all?
Vladdy - don't run away again - really - come baaaaaaaaack!
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
You said that and then proceeded to type the rest of your interminable post!
Yeah, that's the problem with rebutting stupidities - they take only a sentence or two to blurt out, but troubling to explain why they're stupidities necessarily takes a little longer.
Still, now you grasp that your "argument" is akin to pointing out that Atlantis has wide canals but Xanadu is completely different because it has purple roof tiles so - um -
May I ask what you are smoking these days?
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
May I ask what you are smoking these days?
I know that you struggle even with the idea of analogies, but could you at least try to grasp something other than the literal just for once? It's simple enough: you cannot just pick the characteristics of a belief that suit you and retro-fit them to a bad argument but not accept the same arguments for a different belief when its characteristics don't suit you.
That's just backwards thinking.
How can I put it any more plainly for you?
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
May I ask what you are smoking these days?
I know that you struggle even with the idea of analogies,
But not as badly as you as your guff about Atlantis and Xanadu demonstrates.
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
But not as badly as you as your guff about Atlantis and Xanadu demonstrates.
Which part of the analogy is too complicated for you?
Oh, and having explained your mistake to you again in literal terms you can grasp why have you just ignored it again?
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
But not as badly as you as your guff about Atlantis and Xanadu demonstrates.
Which part of the analogy is too complicated for you?
The part which says it isn't a shit analogy.
As far as I understand Xanadu is a UNESCO world heritage site ( Like the last decent post you composed ) and Atlantis has yet to be, if ever, located.
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
The part which says it isn't a shit analogy.
Ah, I see - a standard Vlad, "I don't like this but I can't argue against it so I'll just throw an unqualified insult at it and hope no-one notices" response
Fair enough.
As far as I understand Xanadu is a UNESCO world heritage site ( Like the last decent post you composed ) and Atlantis has yet to be, if ever, located.
Way to miss the point.
Again.
See, here's the thing: you can attach any characteristics to any personal belief you like: challenging you, curing the lame, fluttering around on wings, wish-fulfilling, whatever, to your heart's content. What you cannot do though is wave your hands and suddenly claim those characteristics that happen to suit you have anything whatever to say to the arguments you rely on to assert the personal belief to be an objectively true one too.
If you seriously think otherwise, take any one of the hopeless arguments you've attempted here ("I intuit it" for example) that actually "work" for anything at all - gods and fairies alike - and then explain how you would propose to retro-fit the characteristics you happen to like to the arguments that got you to the belief in the first place.
And when this piece of Vladdish dullardry finally dawns on you, perhaps you'd be so good as finally to attempt an argument for your objectively true god that does not work just as well for my objectively true fairies.
Ta.
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
But not as badly as you as your guff about Atlantis and Xanadu demonstrates.
Which part of the analogy is too complicated for you?
The part which says it isn't a shit analogy.
As far as I understand Xanadu is a UNESCO world heritage site ( Like the last decent post you composed ) and Atlantis has yet to be, if ever, located.
Be careful you know he is a little boy posting in an adult world. His speciality is winding people up by talking rubbish about subjects he knows nothing about.
-
Sassy,
Be careful you know he is a little boy posting in an adult world. His speciality is winding people up by talking rubbish about subjects he knows nothing about.
Another Christian poster incapable of argument so relying on insult instead.
Do you think Jesus would be proud of you?
-
Be careful you know he is a little boy posting in an adult world. His speciality is winding people up by talking rubbish about subjects he knows nothing about.
Hehe, that's rich from someone who still believes the Moon landings were faked. You are a hoot Sass.
-
Sassy,
Be careful you know he is a little boy posting in an adult world. His speciality is winding people up by talking rubbish about subjects he knows nothing about.
Another Christian poster incapable of argument so relying on insult instead.
Truth is not an insult. And as for Jesus... you don't know him. Just as you are incapable of establishing any real argument.
You have to copy what people have said about you. I told you that you were unable to bring any arguments and rely on insult and moving goal posts.
Do you think Jesus would be proud of you?
Well, if you knew anything about Jesus, you would know what you do leaves no possibility for anyone to be proud of you. Pride has no part in Christianity. But what would you a teenager know about Christianity. You just had your BACKSIDE spanked and your face is as red as you bum.
Ignorance isn't bliss in your case it is the blind falling in your own ditch,.
-
Be careful you know he is a little boy posting in an adult world. His speciality is winding people up by talking rubbish about subjects he knows nothing about.
Hehe, that's rich from someone who still believes the Moon landings were faked. You are a hoot Sass.
Is that all you have.
Well your a dead hoot....aren't you.
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
The part which says it isn't a shit analogy.
Ah, I see - a standard Vlad, "I don't like this but I can't argue against it so I'll just throw an unqualified insult at it and hope no-one notices" response
Fair enough.
As far as I understand Xanadu is a UNESCO world heritage site ( Like the last decent post you composed ) and Atlantis has yet to be, if ever, located.
Way to miss the point.
Again.
See, here's the thing: you can attach any characteristics to any personal belief you like: challenging you, curing the lame, fluttering around on wings, wish-fulfilling, whatever, to your heart's content. What you cannot do though is wave your hands and suddenly claim those characteristics that happen to suit you have anything whatever to say to the arguments you rely on to assert the personal belief to be an objectively true one too.
If you seriously think otherwise, take any one of the hopeless arguments you've attempted here ("I intuit it" for example) that actually "work" for anything at all - gods and fairies alike - and then explain how you would propose to retro-fit the characteristics you happen to like to the arguments that got you to the belief in the first place.
And when this piece of Vladdish dullardry finally dawns on you, perhaps you'd be so good as finally to attempt an argument for your objectively true god that does not work just as well for my objectively true fairies.
Ta.
Hillside I don't think I have ever said I can prove God or provide evidence that would satisfy an old philosophical materialist like yersel'
However as I keep saying neither can ye yersel' provide that kind of evidence for philosophical materialism itself.
I'm talking about standard definitions of PM of course not the implied notion of yours that unless you are on the inside you can't really understand what philosophical materialism is. That is mystical and certainly not appropriate in the type of ''front'' you wish to put up.
Until philosophical materialism is established then I am afraid that even for you God may be true.
As a believer no who wasn't a believer before, my experience would lead me to tell you that the only way to miss God is to be running in the other direction from him.
I am not here to win some kind of argument with you proving God. It is up to him to reveal himself to you and for you to make response.
-
Be careful you know he is a little boy posting in an adult world. His speciality is winding people up by talking rubbish about subjects he knows nothing about.
Hehe, that's rich from someone who still believes the Moon landings were faked. You are a hoot Sass.
Is that all you have.
Well your a dead hoot....aren't you.
Aw, come on give us a kiss Sass
-
I asked that because it is clear from some of the things thrown out on this forum that some believers have changed the truth and substituted others.
As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.
"WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus"?
Nothing, because it's never happened or is it very likely to happen.
Next question?
ippy
-
Personally, I'd quite like to read an explanation of what exactly the topic title means!
-
Sassy,
Truth is not an insult. And as for Jesus... you don't know him. Just as you are incapable of establishing any real argument.
You have to copy what people have said about you. I told you that you were unable to bring any arguments and rely on insult and moving goal posts.
Well, if you knew anything about Jesus, you would know what you do leaves no possibility for anyone to be proud of you. Pride has no part in Christianity. But what would you a teenager know about Christianity. You just had your BACKSIDE spanked and your face is as red as you bum.
Ignorance isn't bliss in your case it is the blind falling in your own ditch,.
Of course Sassy, of course. Stay warm this winter, and do be careful around sharp objects won't you.
-
Be careful you know he is a little boy posting in an adult world. His speciality is winding people up by talking rubbish about subjects he knows nothing about.
Hehe, that's rich from someone who still believes the Moon landings were faked. You are a hoot Sass.
Is that all you have.
Well your a dead hoot....aren't you.
Aw, come on give us a kiss Sass
Ok... where is the real Torridon? What have the other members or those at his home done with him... ;D
-
I asked that because it is clear from some of the things thrown out on this forum that some believers have changed the truth and substituted others.
As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.
"WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus"?
Nothing, because it's never happened or is it very likely to happen.
Next question?
ippy
Could you believe that because you cherry pick the things you take in when reading?
As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.
Yes, Ippy you are free to ask but not qualified to answer.
If you have evidence to support what you say that would be very nice.
But if you haven't wouldn't it be best to learn why others believe then try and disprove the words of Christ.
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
Hillside I don't think I have ever said I can prove God…
But you have claimed that “God” is an objective fact, only non-believers in “Him” haven’t had the house call or can’t grasp your knock down reasoning for it. If though you’re now retrenching to where you should have been all along – “God” is a personal faith belief for you rather than an objective fact, no more or less true for the rest of us than any other personal faith belief anyone else may happen to have in anything else (fairies included) then fair enough.
I’ve always said that personal faith beliefs of this kind are no-one’s business but those who happen to hold them. I merely raise a “now hang on a minute” when they overreach by insisting that their truth should be my truth too. Roll back the churches to private members clubs, defenestrate from the classroom clerics teaching their fancies as facts to children, eject bishops from the House of Lords etc though and I’ll find something more productive to discuss – gardening maybe.
… or provide evidence that would satisfy an old philosophical materialist like yersel'
However as I keep saying neither can ye yersel' provide that kind of evidence for philosophical materialism itself.
I thought you’d stopped saying that now I’ve shown it to be a crock?
(Wearily) I don’t believe your god to be real for exactly the same reason that you don’t think storks to deliver babies. Neither of us need recourse either to the actual or to your re-invented version of PM for our positions – we merely need assess the arguments and evidence to reach our probability-based conclusions. If either of us expects to persuade the other of his belief, then each of us has the burden of proof to show that his belief is more probably true than not – and again PM (either the real one or your misunderstanding of it) has anything to do with that.
I'm talking about standard definitions of PM of course not the implied notion of yours that unless you are on the inside you can't really understand what philosophical materialism is. That is mystical and certainly not appropriate in the type of ''front'' you wish to put up.
No you’re not talking about the “standard definition” at all, and that’s a complete straw man to boot. Your wrongheaded definition involves people claiming that the material is all there is or could be; the proper definition is that claims of the supernatural offer nothing that can be examined by the tools of materialism or by anything else so the only rational response is to ignore them until a method – any method that’s cogent and coherent – is finally produced to distinguish those claims from white noise.
And no, “I intuit it” doesn’t even get its trousers off for that purpose.
Until philosophical materialism is established then I am afraid that even for you God may be true.
It’s got bugger all to do with PM, and I’ve never said that “God” may not be true – just as you have no argument that fairies or baby-delivering storks may not be true. I know this burden of proof thing has got you foxed, but anything – literally, anything – could be. It’s for the claimant though to explain how they propose to get from “could be” to “more probably is than is not” – something no theist (or fairyist) has ever managed to do.
As a believer no who wasn't a believer before, my experience would lead me to tell you that the only way to miss God is to be running in the other direction from him.
That’s called the reification fallacy. That you happen to be a “believer” says nothing to whether that belief is correct, and nor therefore to whether there’s anything to run away from.
If you seriously think otherwise, why do you keep running away from my belief in Stan the Stork?
I am not here to win some kind of argument with you proving God. It is up to him to reveal himself to you and for you to make response.
And having committed the reification fallacy, you do it again. Good effort!
No doubt that’s your personal, entirely subjective belief and you’re welcome to it. I could of course say the same about you for Stan the Stork – but simply assuming our beliefs to be true for each other and then building claims on those assumptions is a pretty fruitless approach I’d have thought.
So, once we’ve cleared away all your brushwood of logical fallacies, false assumptions, misuse of philosophical terms, avoidance of the burden of proof problem and the serried ranks of straw men what you’re left with is an entirely personal faith belief.
And that’s fine and dandy – it’s none of my business after all – but it would serve you well I think finally to grasp that that’s all you have.
And if you can do that by the way, it will have the notable side-benefit of saving you a fortune in new trousers.
-
Personally, I'd quite like to read an explanation of what exactly the topic title means!
Personally, I'd quite like to read an explanation of what exactly the topic title means!
I guess it's what is "the thing you need to do or believe" that pleases Jesus and makes him want to keep people for eternity.
🌹
When you were a Christian what did you believe it was, Susan?
I find it interesting that Susan, you believed once but had to ask what if means when asked " What makes a person saved in Christ Jesus."
Rose comes and asks you the question what you believed the answer to be when you professed to be a Christian.
I am interested to know why you had to ask?
-
Sassy,
Truth is not an insult. And as for Jesus... you don't know him. Just as you are incapable of establishing any real argument.
You have to copy what people have said about you. I told you that you were unable to bring any arguments and rely on insult and moving goal posts.
Well, if you knew anything about Jesus, you would know what you do leaves no possibility for anyone to be proud of you. Pride has no part in Christianity. But what would you a teenager know about Christianity. You just had your BACKSIDE spanked and your face is as red as you bum.
Ignorance isn't bliss in your case it is the blind falling in your own ditch,.
Of course Sassy, of course. Stay warm this winter, and do be careful around sharp objects won't you.
My son is about your age and I hope I have raised him well enough so he never stoops to such a low condescending attitude as you have. I am sure he won't because he tends only to discuss the things he knows about. He listens and learns about the subjects he doesn't. Who knows... is there any hope for you.
What is amazingly plain is you incapability to admit you know nothing about Christ or Christianity. Yet you engage in discussion to attack and dismiss others who do.
I feel sad for you because you are oblivious to the facts or simply don't care. I am not sure that is a good combination for any young mind.
-
Personally, I'd quite like to read an explanation of what exactly the topic title means!
I guess it's what is "the thing you need to do or believe" that pleases Jesus and makes him want to keep people for eternity.
Thank you for your answer. However, since there is no proof of the person of Jesus in the first place, and since any such person has been dead for about 2,000 years, the idea that one can do or believe something to please him is a non-starter. Ditto for being kept in something called eternity.When you were a Christian what did you believe it was, Susan?
I don't think the idea came up in saying one's prayers, attending Sunday School etc. I always knew that virgin birth, resurrection, miracles, etc were good stories intended to teach right and wrong behaviour, but the only thing I actually believed was that there was a God. I went along with the Creed etc because that was the way things were - one did not question it, but the question, 'Is this true?' cropped up quite often.
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
But not as badly as you as your guff about Atlantis and Xanadu demonstrates.
Which part of the analogy is too complicated for you?
The part which says it isn't a shit analogy.
As far as I understand Xanadu is a UNESCO world heritage site ( Like the last decent post you composed ) and Atlantis has yet to be, if ever, located.
Be careful you know he is a little boy posting in an adult world. His speciality is winding people up by talking rubbish about subjects he knows nothing about.
Sass that is funny coming from you, who appears to have higher degrees in spouting nonsense! ;D ;D ;D
-
Sassy,
My son is about your age and I hope I have raised him well enough so he never stoops to such a low condescending attitude as you have. I am sure he won't because he tends only to discuss the things he knows about. He listens and learns about the subjects he doesn't. Who knows... is there any hope for you.
What is amazingly plain is you incapability to admit you know nothing about Christ or Christianity. Yet you engage in discussion to attack and dismiss others who do.
I feel sad for you because you are oblivious to the facts or simply don't care. I am not sure that is a good combination for any young mind.
I really don't know how to engage with you - you seem to be entirely incapable of constructing an argument of any kind, and entirely incapable too of recognising arguments when other people do make them. Instead your posts consist of cut and pasted chunks of bible passages and petty insults, and that's it.
Here for example you accuse me of knowing nothing about Christ etc. I readily accept that you have memorised much more of your "holy" text than I ever have or would want to. That though has nothing whatever to do with discussions about whether there's any reason at all to think that the claims of divinity are actually true.
And that's why by and large I ignore your posts - you have nothing of interest to say because proselytising and insulting offers nothing with which I can engage.
-
Sassy,
Truth is not an insult. And as for Jesus... you don't know him. Just as you are incapable of establishing any real argument.
You have to copy what people have said about you. I told you that you were unable to bring any arguments and rely on insult and moving goal posts.
Well, if you knew anything about Jesus, you would know what you do leaves no possibility for anyone to be proud of you. Pride has no part in Christianity. But what would you a teenager know about Christianity. You just had your BACKSIDE spanked and your face is as red as you bum.
Ignorance isn't bliss in your case it is the blind falling in your own ditch,.
Of course Sassy, of course. Stay warm this winter, and do be careful around sharp objects won't you.
My son is about your age and I hope I have raised him well enough so he never stoops to such a low condescending attitude as you have. I am sure he won't because he tends only to discuss the things he knows about. He listens and learns about the subjects he doesn't. Who knows... is there any hope for you.
What is amazingly plain is you incapability to admit you know nothing about Christ or Christianity. Yet you engage in discussion to attack and dismiss others who do.
I feel sad for you because you are oblivious to the facts or simply don't care. I am not sure that is a good combination for any young mind.
Here is your problem - you are oblivious to the facts or simply don't care - they are NOT facts!
They never have been and never will be until there is verifiable proof positive that the god upon which you base all your belief exists.
Until then it is the same as mine, to a believer a matter of faith - to a non-believer it is nothing but conjecture and, until you can accept that the attacks upon you and you belief will continue and as long as you denigrate and dismiss the beliefs of others you will find yours denigrated and dismissed in the language that each of your opponents finds best illustrates their position on the matter!
-
Sassy,
My son is about your age and I hope I have raised him well enough so he never stoops to such a low condescending attitude as you have. I am sure he won't because he tends only to discuss the things he knows about. He listens and learns about the subjects he doesn't. Who knows... is there any hope for you.
What is amazingly plain is you incapability to admit you know nothing about Christ or Christianity. Yet you engage in discussion to attack and dismiss others who do.
I feel sad for you because you are oblivious to the facts or simply don't care. I am not sure that is a good combination for any young mind.
I really don't know how to engage with you - you seem to be entirely incapable of constructing an argument of any kind, and entirely incapable too of recognising arguments when other people do make them. Instead your posts consist of cut and pasted chunks of bible passages and petty insults, and that's it.
If that was the case you would not be responding to my post, would you?
My post is clear you know nothing about Christ or Christianity. Seems clear enough to myself and others reading. Because you lack that knowledge you descend into attack and writing such rubbish as above. Oh, I KNOW you think repeating your rubbish will somehow annoy or irritate believers like myself.
But the truth is you are incapable of addressing anything that is being discussed and your childish and impoverished behaviour and answers make the adults feel so sorry for you. I guess with age comes wisdom. But you have long way to go.
Here for example you accuse me of knowing nothing about Christ etc. I readily accept that you have memorised much more of your "holy" text than I ever have or would want to. That though has nothing whatever to do with discussions about whether there's any reason at all to think that the claims of divinity are actually true.
Had you any knowledge of the bible contents then you would not make such ignorant statements. I know and understand what it means for Christ to be divine on all levels of thinking. However you can show us that you do. Post them without googling and see what all the possibilities are and then we can correct you.
And that's why by and large I ignore your posts - you have nothing of interest to say because proselytising and insulting offers nothing with which I can engage.
You ignore my posts... really... yet here you are constantly replying.
The truth is you have NO education about Christ and the bible to reply. You fail to understand how the bible is relevant to arguments or how believers express belief using their support. WHY?
Because you know NOTHING about Christ in relation to scriptures or the things of God. Now truth is a greater weapon than you hiding behind a false argument.
-
What do believers believe makes a person saved in Christ.
Bluehillside need not bother posting he hasn't a clue and he isn't a believer.
Have to point the obvious out as he could not understand the original post asked believers....
-
Another giggle from Sass, who doesn't seem to realise how ludicrous her posts are. She accuses others of not knowing anything about the Bible, but what she really means is not knowing about her particular creation of that book! ;D A number of Christians on this forum don't see it her way!
-
Another giggle from Sass, who doesn't seem to realise how ludicrous her posts are. She accuses others of not knowing anything about the Bible, but what she really means is not knowing about her particular creation of that book! ;D A number of Christians on this forum don't see it her way!
Thank F for that!
Amen!
-
Sassy,
Me:
I really don't know how to engage with you - you seem to be entirely incapable of constructing an argument of any kind, and entirely incapable too of recognising arguments when other people do make them. Instead your posts consist of cut and pasted chunks of bible passages and petty insults, and that's it.
Here for example you accuse me of knowing nothing about Christ etc. I readily accept that you have memorised much more of your "holy" text than I ever have or would want to. That though has nothing whatever to do with discussions about whether there's any reason at all to think that the claims of divinity are actually true.
And that's why by and large I ignore your posts - you have nothing of interest to say because proselytising and insulting offers nothing with which I can engage.
You:
If that was the case you would not be responding to my post, would you?
My post is clear you know nothing about Christ or Christianity. Seems clear enough to myself and others reading. Because you lack that knowledge you descend into attack and writing such rubbish as above. Oh, I KNOW you think repeating your rubbish will somehow annoy or irritate believers like myself.
But the truth is you are incapable of addressing anything that is being discussed and your childish and impoverished behaviour and answers make the adults feel so sorry for you. I guess with age comes wisdom. But you have long way to go.
Had you any knowledge of the bible contents then you would not make such ignorant statements. I know and understand what it means for Christ to be divine on all levels of thinking. However you can show us that you do. Post them without googling and see what all the possibilities are and then we can correct you.
You ignore my posts... really... yet here you are constantly replying.
The truth is you have NO education about Christ and the bible to reply. You fail to understand how the bible is relevant to arguments or how believers express belief using their support. WHY?
Because you know NOTHING about Christ in relation to scriptures or the things of God. Now truth is a greater weapon than you hiding behind a false argument.
QED
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
Hillside I don't think I have ever said I can prove God…
But you have claimed that “God” is an objective fact, only non-believers in “Him” haven’t had the house call or can’t grasp your knock down reasoning for it.
I have suggested that yes but with the qualifier that I cannot prove it within the demand materialistic evidence. God as I suggest is bigger than that.
It looks like you have therefore a strawman argument.
What you are worried about is that people have the temerity to suggest alternatives to the culturally received ''wisdom'' that the world is indeed only a material entity.
We even had that JeremyP character suggesting that unless God could be established as a fact we weren't even allowed to make ''If God exists.....'' statements. An amazingly stupid, intellectually fascist statement which shuts down thinking. Such censorship is what allows people to legitimately ask why are you frightened? What is it you want to suppress so badly?
Whatever you call your crusade Hillside, what it actually is, is a faith commitment to an unestablished belief.
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
I have suggested that yes but with the qualifier that I cannot prove it within the demand materialistic evidence. God as I suggest is bigger than that.
It looks like you have therefore a strawman argument.
No, you cannot "prove" it or even show it to be more probably likely than not within any definition of reason or evidence - materialistic or not. "I intuit it" is not a method - it's just a claim.
As ever, the straw man is all yours.
What you are worried about is that people have the temerity to suggest alternatives to the culturally received ''wisdom'' that the world is indeed only a material entity.
Bullshit. You can "suggest" anything you like, no-one does say that the world necessarily is "only" material (that's another of your straw men), and you're still stuck with the problem that your arguments "work" just as well for fairies, Stan the Stork or any other conjecture anyone else may happen to dream up.
We even had that JeremyP character suggesting that unless God could be established as a fact we weren't even allowed to make ''If God exists.....'' statements. An amazingly stupid, intellectually fascist statement which shuts down thinking.
Given your track history of straw men and misrepresentation and the absence of a citation I'd be very surprised if JeremyP has said that, but he can answer for himself. "If God exists..." statements are though a very long way from "God is" statement and you cannot just elide one into the other.
Such censorship is what allows people to legitimately ask why are you frightened? What is it you want to suppress so badly?
No-one is frightened, and no-one wants to suppress anything - what some of us object to though is the deep irrationality and dishonesty on which your claims rest when you overreach and insist that those claims are objectively true.
Whatever you call your crusade Hillside, what it actually is, is a faith commitment to an unestablished belief.
There is no crusade.
I note by the way that you've just avoided my dismantling of your last effort. 'Twas ever thus I guess.
-
No-one is frightened, and no-one wants to suppress anything -
The evidence in behaviours suggests otherwise. However if not fear the behaviour certainly suggest focus obsession.
As for your claims of being the defender of rationality....there is too much evidence that you are mistaking that for the defence of philosophical naturalism as espoused by your saints like Sean Carroll and the rest of the antitheist posse.
-
what some of us object to though is the deep irrationality and dishonesty on which your claims rest when you overreach and insist that those claims are objectively true.
Two things here
1) The generic fallacy that religious claims are ''lies''.
2) You completely ignore the fact that I merely state in an intellectual argument from the may be position and it looks as though you did that to maintain your much beloved fantasy of religious people being bad.
3) The intellectual fascist accusation for you is your wish to remove religious people from public forums unless they pretend to be secular humanists or do the antitheist equivalent of taking of shoes or wearing a hat when entering public forums and not talk from or about religion.
-
Vlad the Vulgarian,
The evidence in behaviours suggests otherwise.
Claiming that JeremyP said something he’s very unlikely to have said is not “evidence”.
However if not fear the behaviour certainly suggest focus obsession.
Only in your head Vlad, only in your head.
As for your claims of being the defender of rationality....
Another straw man. I make no claim to “defend” anything. I do though demonstrate by arguments that you cannot or refuse to rebut that your position is irrational.
…there is too much evidence that you are mistaking that for the defence of philosophical naturalism as espoused by your saints like Sean Carroll and the rest of the antitheist posse.
Another straw man. Again, no-one “defends” PM (let alone your misunderstanding of it) – all we do say though is that claims of the supernatural cannot be examined or tested with the tools of materialism, and nor in the absence of any other method can they be examined or tested by anything else.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
Two things here
1) The generic fallacy that religious claims are ''lies''.
Another straw man. You can be wrong without lying.
2) You completely ignore the fact that I merely state in an intellectual argument from the may be position and it looks as though you did that to maintain your much beloved fantasy of religious people being bad.
Another straw man. You can be wrong without being bad.
You can argue anything you like from a “may be” – about gods or fairies – but that says nothing to your overreaching from a “may be” to an “is”.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
3) The intellectual fascist accusation for you is your wish to remove religious people from public forums unless they pretend to be secular humanists or do the antitheist equivalent of taking of shoes or wearing a hat when entering public forums and not talk from or about religion.
Another straw man. I have no wish to remove anyone from anything. To the contrary, I very much people to prefer people to have their say so their ideas can be examined and tested.
That you refuse ever to engage with the arguments against you preferring instead just to avoid or to misrepresent them goes to your deep dishonesty, but it doesn’t mean that I want to stop you from crashing and burning every time you post.
Why would I?
-
1) The generic fallacy that religious claims are ''lies''.
Another straw man. You can be wrong without lying.
[/quote]
You claimed that religious claims were based on dishonesty.
Let me state this for you clearly Hillside. Neither you nor I can ''prove'' our core beliefs. That is why we have the word belief.
-
Vlunderingabouttheplace,
You claimed that religious claims were based on dishonesty.
Another straw man - I claimed no such thing. What I do "claim" though is that your behaviour here is deeply dishonest - you just ignore arguments you don't like but can't rebut; you endlessly misrepresent your interlocutors; you cling to your misunderstandings as a man clings to a plutonium parachute no matter how often those misunderstandings are explained to you.
And that's a very different thing.
That's not to say that some religious claims are not dishonest of course - look at the Chaucerian frauds who masquerade as TV evangelists in the US to demand money from the frightened and the gullible for example - but that's a different matter.
Let me state this for you clearly Hillside. Neither you nor I can ''prove'' our core beliefs. That is why we have the word belief.
Oh dear. It's back to Epistemology 101 for you I'm afraid. Of course we all rely ultimately on axioms for our beliefs, but once you accept them - that you exist at all for example - then you have a model to contextualise the way the Universe at least appears to be. Within that context we can for example assign a high probability to light travelling at 186,000 miles per second and so we call that a "fact". We cannot though assign a high probability to Stan the Stork delivering babies, so we call that a "conjecture" or a "guess".
And your claims about a god are in the second category, not the first. And if you insist otherwise on the basis of your various broken arguments ("I intuit it" for example) then you have no choice but to let Stan under the wire too.
Apart from that though...
-
Vlunderingabouttheplace,
You claimed that religious claims were based on dishonesty.
Another straw man - I claimed no such thing.
Let's see.
Quote from: bluehillside on Today at 09:39:57 AM
''what some of us object to though is the deep irrationality and dishonesty on which your claims rest................''
-
Vlunderingabout,
Let's see.
Quote from: bluehillside on Today at 09:39:57 AM
''what some of us object to though is the deep irrationality and dishonesty on which your claims rest................''
Quite. Which bit of the word "your" is confusing you?
-
Vlunderingabout,
Let's see.
Quote from: bluehillside on Today at 09:39:57 AM
''what some of us object to though is the deep irrationality and dishonesty on which your claims rest................''
Quite. Which bit of the word "your" is confusing you?
Yes, but how are my claims different from orthodox mainstream Christianity?
You see you have made a generic fallacy.
-
Vlunderingabout,
Yes, but how are my claims different from orthodox mainstream Christianity?
No idea - I've yet to see any two Christians agree on all the particulars about their beliefs, but for all I know your beliefs may well be in line with the broad consensus. That though has nothing to do with the point - namely that you use deep dishonesty of the types I've described on which to rest your claims.
Now for all I know not all Christians do that - maybe some of them are just honestly mistaken for example, and maybe even some of them have arguments that aren't full of holes. Who can say, but my comment was very clearly centred on the deep dishonesty on which you - Vlad - rest your claims.
You see you have made a generic fallacy.
You see, I haven't. You have though posted yet another straw man.
Coda: for what it's worth, I don't think that you're lying when you tell us that you believe in your god. So far as I can tell you actually mean it, however wrongheaded others may think you to be about that. Your dishonesty though is all about how you conduct yourself when others ask you questions, rebut your arguments etc. Ignoring them, misrepresenting them with straw men, throwing abuse and insult around are all forms of dishonesty - and that's all that's being said here. Alan Burns for example I also think to be truthful in his beliefs, albeit that he's lost in a hopeless whirl of irrationality and factual mistake to get him there, but he doesn't also indulge in dishonest behaviours of this type.
-
This forum is a good example of Christian believers having very different takes on their faith; they certainly don't all sing from the same hymn sheet by any means.
If having a faith does it for a person that is fine always providing it is measured, questioning, and not a cause of harm to that person or others.
-
Vlunderingabout,
Yes, but how are my claims different from orthodox mainstream Christianity?
No idea - I've yet to see any two Christians agree on all the particulars about their beliefs, but for all I know your beliefs may well be in line with the broad consensus. That though has nothing to do with the point - namely that you use deep dishonesty of the types I've described on which to rest your claims.
Now for all I know not all Christians do that - maybe some of them are just honestly mistaken for example, and maybe even some of them have arguments that aren't full of holes. Who can say, but my comment was very clearly centred on the deep dishonesty on which you - Vlad - rest your claims.
You see you have made a generic fallacy.
You see, I haven't. You have though posted yet another straw man.
Coda: for what it's worth, I don't think that you're lying when you tell us that you believe in your god. So far as I can tell you actually mean it, however wrongheaded others may think you to be about that. Your dishonesty though is all about how you conduct yourself when others ask you questions, rebut your arguments etc. Ignoring them, misrepresenting them with straw men, throwing abuse and insult around are all forms of dishonesty - and that's all that's being said here. Alan Burns for example I also think to be truthful in his beliefs, albeit that he's lost in a hopeless whirl of irrationality and factual mistake to get him there, but he doesn't also indulge in dishonest behaviours of this type.
If people were not philosophical materialist or naturalist around here I might be misrepresenting them.....but they are.
Calling me ''Vlunderingabout'' doesn't help you in any appeal against throwing abuse and insult. Neither does hyperbolic, patronising and blanket dismissal like that you have thrown at Alan Burns ''he's lost in a hopeless whirl of irrationality and factual mistake''.
-
I asked that because it is clear from some of the things thrown out on this forum that some believers have changed the truth and substituted others.
As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.
"WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus"?
Nothing, because it's never happened or is it very likely to happen.
Next question?
ippy
Could you believe that because you cherry pick the things you take in when reading?
As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.
Yes, Ippy you are free to ask but not qualified to answer.
If you have evidence to support what you say that would be very nice.
But if you haven't wouldn't it be best to learn why others believe then try and disprove the words of Christ.
Thank you for the suggestions but isn't asking non-believers to prove a negative, the equivalent of, "shut up" and that's not very nice of you.
You are totally unable to accept that there is not a single piece of credible evidence that would support the superstitious, mythical or magical parts your manual that without them the whole of the book falls apart.
Every time these facts are put to you you either don't answer or start quoting reams of text from the very book that you are unable to verify as factual in the first place.
ippy
-
Vlunderingaboutlikeaproverbialbullinachinashop,
If people were not philosophical materialist or naturalist around here I might be misrepresenting them.....but they are.
No they're not. When will you finally realise what a crock this PM bullshit is? Yet again - some of us find your claims about "God" to be more probably not true than true for exactly the same reason that you find stork theory to be more probably not true than true. Neither of us need rely on PM for our conclusions, each of us accept that theoretically at least the other could be correct, but each of us conclude too both that the complete absence definitions gives us nothing with which to engage and, even even if we took the others' claimed characteristics about our beliefs at face value for definitional purposes, the total absence of a method of any kind to distinguish our claims from just guessing about stuff means that we can safely discount each others' beliefs.
I have no hope whatever that you'll finally grasp this, but there it is nonetheless. After all your countless straw men, stupidities, misunderstood terms, evasions and abuse you are STILL left with your ludicrous PM schtick all over the floor.
Calling me ''Vlunderingabout'' doesn't help you in any appeal against throwing abuse and insult.
Yes it does. Stop just ignoring arguments you can't rebut, misrepresenting every argument you think you do comprehend, and throwing abuse at anyone who disagrees with you and I'll stop using the term.
Seems fair enough to me.
Neither does hyperbolic, patronising and blanket dismissal like that you have thrown at Alan Burns ''he's lost in a hopeless whirl of irrationality and factual mistake''.
A fair point if he wasn't lost in a hopeless whirl of irrationality and factual mistake, but unfortunately...
...have you even seen his responses to the people who trouble to explain evolution theory to him for example?
-
Vlunderingaboutlikeaproverbialbullinachinashop,
If people were not philosophical materialist or naturalist around here I might be misrepresenting them.....but they are.
No they're not. When will you finally realise what a crock this PM bullshit is?
At last.......an admission from Bluehillside that his core belief is bullshit......My work here is done.
-
I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.
What stands out is the words from God:-
Psalm 14:1 (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.
Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.
Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.
-
I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.
What stands out is the words from God:-
Psalm 14:1 (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.
Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.
Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.
And your posts have credibility do they Sass? You have no more knowledge of the elusive, 'TRUTH' than us heathen. To claim you have in an untruth! ::)
-
I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.
What stands out is the words from God:-
Psalm 14:1 (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.
Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.
Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.
Sassy
Really!
You are spouting, in my particular case, the same venom that led to the murders of tens of thousands as witches in the 14th to 17th centuries.
You are entitled to what you perceive as the truth ot the Truth, others are equally entitled to reject it. You accept your Truth because you are too terrified of the consequences of rejecting it - I can reject your truth because I have no fear whatsoever of punishment for doing so.
Your god, to you, is a loving entity of total perfection, to me he is a vicious sadistic mysogynistic tyrant; my deities, male and female, hence no mysogyny, are not perfect as they have the same emotions as us mere mortals, they are, therefore, far more understnding of our little peccadiloes.
I have stated before that, as I am concerned, you can believe just what you like, I do not have to agree with it and, unsurprisingly, I do not agree with it.
You, and others like you, I regret to say, and here is where we diverge, you do not and will not allow me the same freedom of thought and continue to condemn my beliefs and railing against me when I do the same to yours!
Unless and until someone known to an trusted by me, provable to be that someone to the nth degree, returns from the dead and tells me that my beliefs are wrong I will continue in them. I wish that I could believe that if you had the same experience you would acknowledge your error but I have no doubt whatsoever that you would reject even that!
-
Oh good grief here we have floo writing about credibility and Matty wailing about the witch hunts in the days of yore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2SvBBckJik
-
I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.
What stands out is the words from God:-
Psalm 14:1 (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.
Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.
Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.
Sassy
Really!
You are spouting, in my particular case, the same venom that led to the murders of tens of thousands as witches in the 14th to 17th centuries.
You are entitled to what you perceive as the truth ot the Truth, others are equally entitled to reject it. You accept your Truth because you are too terrified of the consequences of rejecting it - I can reject your truth because I have no fear whatsoever of punishment for doing so.
Your god, to you, is a loving entity of total perfection, to me he is a vicious sadistic mysogynistic tyrant; my deities, male and female, hence no mysogyny, are not perfect as they have the same emotions as us mere mortals, they are, therefore, far more understnding of our little peccadiloes.
I have stated before that, as I am concerned, you can believe just what you like, I do not have to agree with it and, unsurprisingly, I do not agree with it.
You, and others like you, I regret to say, and here is where we diverge, you do not and will not allow me the same freedom of thought and continue to condemn my beliefs and railing against me when I do the same to yours!
Unless and until someone known to an trusted by me, provable to be that someone to the nth degree, returns from the dead and tells me that my beliefs are wrong I will continue in them. I wish that I could believe that if you had the same experience you would acknowledge your error but I have no doubt whatsoever that you would reject even that!
Good post. As you say unsubstantiated beliefs can lead to appalling crimes like the burning of witches, and other dastardly deeds.
BTW I bought a new witch's broomstick yesterday and personalised it with a glitter it looks really nice! ;D
-
Vlunderingabout,
Wow! I wrote: “Stop just ignoring arguments you can't rebut, misrepresenting every argument you think you do comprehend...” and you replied with:
At last.......an admission from Bluehillside that his core belief is bullshit......My work here is done.
When we both knew that I meant your PM bullshit argument. I even took the trouble to tell you in the next sentence why your argument about PM is bullshit!
Uncanny eh? Do you think I might have the power of prophecy or something? Look, I’ll set it out even more plainly for you:
"No they're not. When will you finally realise what a crock YOUR PM bullshit ARGUMENT is? Yet again - some of us find your claims about "God" to be more probably not true than true for exactly the same reason that you find stork theory to be more probably not true than true. Neither of us need rely on PM for our conclusions, each of us accept that theoretically at least the other could be correct, but each of us conclude too both that the complete absence definitions gives us nothing with which to engage and, even if we took the other’s claimed characteristics about our beliefs at face value for definitional purposes, the total absence of a method of any kind to distinguish our claims from just guessing about stuff means that we can safely discount each others' beliefs.
I have no hope whatever that you'll finally grasp this, but there it is nonetheless. After all your countless straw men, stupidities, misunderstood terms, evasions and abuse you are STILL left with your ludicrous PM schtick all over the floor.”
You're welcome.
Oh hang on – I feel another prophecy coming on…
...yup, here it comes: I hereby predict that yet again Vlad the Blunderer will either just ignore this rebuttal to his argument or will so hopelessly misrepresent it that his straw man version will need a postcode of its own.
Let’s see shall we?
Why exactly do you reject my stork belief?
-
I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.
What stands out is the words from God:-
Psalm 14:1 (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.
Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.
Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.
Sassy
Really!
You are spouting, in my particular case, the same venom that led to the murders of tens of thousands as witches in the 14th to 17th centuries.
You are entitled to what you perceive as the truth ot the Truth, others are equally entitled to reject it. You accept your Truth because you are too terrified of the consequences of rejecting it - I can reject your truth because I have no fear whatsoever of punishment for doing so.
Your god, to you, is a loving entity of total perfection, to me he is a vicious sadistic mysogynistic tyrant; my deities, male and female, hence no mysogyny, are not perfect as they have the same emotions as us mere mortals, they are, therefore, far more understnding of our little peccadiloes.
I have stated before that, as I am concerned, you can believe just what you like, I do not have to agree with it and, unsurprisingly, I do not agree with it.
You, and others like you, I regret to say, and here is where we diverge, you do not and will not allow me the same freedom of thought and continue to condemn my beliefs and railing against me when I do the same to yours!
Unless and until someone known to an trusted by me, provable to be that someone to the nth degree, returns from the dead and tells me that my beliefs are wrong I will continue in them. I wish that I could believe that if you had the same experience you would acknowledge your error but I have no doubt whatsoever that you would reject even that!
Good post. As you say unsubstantiated beliefs can lead to appalling crimes like the burning of witches, and other dastardly deeds.
BTW I bought a new witch's broomstick yesterday and personalised it with a glitter it looks really nice! ;D
But Owlswings gods and goddesses do not exist. Owlswing has said as much and atheists are happy that that, as far as pagans are concerned, is the case.
The only God Owlswing treats as though he exists is the God of Christianity.
-
Vlunderingabout,
But Owlswings gods and goddesses do not exist.
How would you - or anyone else - know that?
-
Vlunderingabout,
Wow! I wrote: “Stop just ignoring arguments you can't rebut, misrepresenting every argument you think you do comprehend...” and you replied with:
At last.......an admission from Bluehillside that his core belief is bullshit......My work here is done.
When we both knew that I meant your PM bullshit argument. I even took the trouble to tell you in the next sentence why your argument about PM is bullshit!
Uncanny eh? Do you think I might have the power of prophecy or something? Look, I’ll set it out even more plainly for you:
"No they're not. When will you finally realise what a crock YOUR PM bullshit ARGUMENT is? Yet again - some of us find your claims about "God" to be more probably not true than true for exactly the same reason that you find stork theory to be more probably not true than true. Neither of us need rely on PM for our conclusions, each of us accept that theoretically at least the other could be correct, but each of us conclude too both that the complete absence definitions gives us nothing with which to engage and, even if we took the other’s claimed characteristics about our beliefs at face value for definitional purposes, the total absence of a method of any kind to distinguish our claims from just guessing about stuff means that we can safely discount each others' beliefs.
I have no hope whatever that you'll finally grasp this, but there it is nonetheless. After all your countless straw men, stupidities, misunderstood terms, evasions and abuse you are STILL left with your ludicrous PM schtick all over the floor.”
You're welcome.
Oh hang on – I feel another prophecy coming on…
...yup, here it comes: I hereby predict that yet again Vlad the Blunderer will either just ignore this rebuttal to his argument or will so hopelessly misrepresent it that his straw man version will need a postcode of its own.
Let’s see shall we?
Why exactly do you reject my stork belief?
What arguments cannot be rebutted?
As far as yours are concerned my greatest joy is when Nearly Sane pulls you up whenever you claim that methodological materialism backs up your core beliefs.
Then there is the matter of you trying to avoid categorisation of your core beliefs.''I'm not a philosophical materialist'' and then you are because '' Vlad cannot possibly understand my philosophical materialism.
All that means is that you want the inquisitorial role.
Here are our objections to you Hillside.
Your definitions -Non standard, self generated and fluid.
Your categorisation-wrong in many cases.
Your moral philosophy- a mere act of labelling.
Your Zeitgeist hypotheses- debateable and wooly.
Your Ad hominems.
Your appeal to science as the basis of your core beliefs-it isn't- and from which we can draw your adherence to the science vs religion schtick.
-
. . . I bought a new witch's broomstick yesterday and personalised it with a glitter it looks really nice! ;D
Hmm. Question - is it all plastic? If "yes" - it is NOT a witch's broomstick - it is what a toy manufacturer thinks that a witch's broomstick looks like.
If it is not ythe the handle cannot be made of bamboo cane. It must be made of a solid length of wood, a branch or even a broomstick. The bristles should be made of springy twigs.
The broom has a couple of uses.
The first is the one that gave rise to the fallacy that witches rode on a broomstick. What actually happened was that, as part of a ritual to encourage the growth of crops, a witch would sit astride her broomstick and leap into the air - the level the broomstick reached indicating, in a form of sympathetic magic, to the crop how high it was required to grow.
Fallacy two comes into play when it was used in a fertility ritual.
Witches were perfectly aware that it took two to make a baby, male and female. In fertility rituals the broom was "ridden" with the bristles forward. The reason for this was (is, the ritual can still be performed if requested - and it is) the requirement for both sexes; the witch representing the female and the broomstick the male. How? Simple! Any real witches broomstick handle has the end that is buried within the twigs of the broom carved into the shape of the male penis. Thus in a fertility ritual the witch was able to bring both sexes to the ritual.
-
But Owlswings gods and goddesses do not exist. Owlswing has said as much and atheists are happy that that, as far as pagans are concerned, is the case.
The only God Owlswing treats as though he exists is the God of Christianity.
My deities, male and female do exist, in exactly the same way as your god exists.
IN YOUR BELIEF, YOUR FAITH. IN MY BELIEF, IN MY FAITH.
You can no more provide solid verifiable proof that your deity exists andwhere outside your faith than I can do the same for mine!
-
Vlunderingabout,
But Owlswings gods and goddesses do not exist.
How would you - or anyone else - know that?
Owlswing doesn't believe they do otherwise he would be stating it. In any case You have taken what I have said out of context. You must be getting desperate.
My position on other gods is this.
I believe there is one God of whom Jesus is the incarnation.
I believe this God is the unity widely sought by people everywhere.
I believe other monotheist faiths to be an expression of the search for this unity.
I believe any faith based on the experience of the numen to be an expression of the search for that unity.
I am ignorant of pagan beliefs and what they mean by the word god or goddess because they are reluctant to provide information on the grounds that it would constitute somehow proselysation.
I believe that the Hindi pantheon is easier to understand because Hindu scholars have on the whole been non secretive and more explicit.
I do not disbelieve the existence of gods as entities of other religions or the religious experiences within as often touted by BLUEHILLSIDE and HIS FOLLOWERS (because that fits in with Hillside's argument or he 's not reading what I am saying.)
-
. . . I bought a new witch's broomstick yesterday and personalised it with a glitter it looks really nice! ;D
Hmm. Question - is it all plastic? If "yes" - it is NOT a witch's broomstick - it is what a toy manufacturer thinks that a witch's broomstick looks like.
If it is not ythe the handle cannot be made of bamboo cane. It must be made of a solid length of wood, a branch or even a broomstick. The bristles should be made of springy twigs.
The broom has a couple of uses.
The first is the one that gave rise to the fallacy that witches rode on a broomstick. What actually happened was that, as part of a ritual to encourage the growth of crops, a witch would sit astride her broomstick and leap into the air - the level the broomstick reached indicating, in a form of sympathetic magic, to the crop how high it was required to grow.
Fallacy two comes into play when it was used in a fertility ritual.
Witches were perfectly aware that it took two to make a baby, male and female. In fertility rituals the broom was "ridden" with the bristles forward. The reason for this was (is, the ritual can still be performed if requested - and it is) the requirement for both sexes; the witch representing the female and the broomstick the male. How? Simple! Any real witches broomstick handle has the end that is buried within the twigs of the broom carved into the shape of the male penis. Thus in a fertility ritual the witch was able to bring both sexes to the ritual.
I would have you know my broomstick is a REAL one, not a plastic toy, which would not support my weight when flying!
-
. . . I bought a new witch's broomstick yesterday and personalised it with a glitter it looks really nice! ;D
Hmm. Question - is it all plastic? If "yes" - it is NOT a witch's broomstick - it is what a toy manufacturer thinks that a witch's broomstick looks like.
If it is not ythe the handle cannot be made of bamboo cane. It must be made of a solid length of wood, a branch or even a broomstick. The bristles should be made of springy twigs.
The broom has a couple of uses.
The first is the one that gave rise to the fallacy that witches rode on a broomstick. What actually happened was that, as part of a ritual to encourage the growth of crops, a witch would sit astride her broomstick and leap into the air - the level the broomstick reached indicating, in a form of sympathetic magic, to the crop how high it was required to grow.
Fallacy two comes into play when it was used in a fertility ritual.
Witches were perfectly aware that it took two to make a baby, male and female. In fertility rituals the broom was "ridden" with the bristles forward. The reason for this was (is, the ritual can still be performed if requested - and it is) the requirement for both sexes; the witch representing the female and the broomstick the male. How? Simple! Any real witches broomstick handle has the end that is buried within the twigs of the broom carved into the shape of the male penis. Thus in a fertility ritual the witch was able to bring both sexes to the ritual.
I would have you know my broomstick is a REAL one, not a plastic toy, which would not support my weight when flying!
. . . and the carving?
-
. . . I bought a new witch's broomstick yesterday and personalised it with a glitter it looks really nice! ;D
Hmm. Question - is it all plastic? If "yes" - it is NOT a witch's broomstick - it is what a toy manufacturer thinks that a witch's broomstick looks like.
If it is not ythe the handle cannot be made of bamboo cane. It must be made of a solid length of wood, a branch or even a broomstick. The bristles should be made of springy twigs.
The broom has a couple of uses.
The first is the one that gave rise to the fallacy that witches rode on a broomstick. What actually happened was that, as part of a ritual to encourage the growth of crops, a witch would sit astride her broomstick and leap into the air - the level the broomstick reached indicating, in a form of sympathetic magic, to the crop how high it was required to grow.
Fallacy two comes into play when it was used in a fertility ritual.
Witches were perfectly aware that it took two to make a baby, male and female. In fertility rituals the broom was "ridden" with the bristles forward. The reason for this was (is, the ritual can still be performed if requested - and it is) the requirement for both sexes; the witch representing the female and the broomstick the male. How? Simple! Any real witches broomstick handle has the end that is buried within the twigs of the broom carved into the shape of the male penis. Thus in a fertility ritual the witch was able to bring both sexes to the ritual.
I would have you know my broomstick is a REAL one, not a plastic toy, which would not support my weight when flying!
. . . and the carving?
Carving?
Anyway we better get back on topic pdq, or we will incur the wrath of the MODs! :o
-
But Owlswings gods and goddesses do not exist. Owlswing has said as much and atheists are happy that that, as far as pagans are concerned, is the case.
The only God Owlswing treats as though he exists is the God of Christianity.
My deities, male and female do exist, in exactly the same way as your god exists.
IN YOUR BELIEF, YOUR FAITH. IN MY BELIEF, IN MY FAITH.
What does that mean? Because you are assuming that we are believing in the same way or on the same level. Your definitions can only be understood if you were to state them.
-
Vlunderingaboutlikeabullinachinashop,
What arguments cannot be rebutted?
All of them. Whenever your efforts are dismantled you just ignore or misrepresent the rebuttals. So far as I recall you've never once had the decency to say either "OK, fair enough" or, "I think you're wrong for the following reasons".
QED.
As far as yours are concerned my greatest joy is when Nearly Sane pulls you up whenever you claim that methodological materialism backs up your core beliefs.
He doesn't, and it only "backs up my core beliefs" inasmuch as it provides a method to sort the more probably true from the more probably not true - and thus to avoid the arbitrary guesswork of your core beliefs.
Then there is the matter of you trying to avoid categorisation of your core beliefs.''I'm not a philosophical materialist'' and then you are because '' Vlad cannot possibly understand my philosophical materialism.
Whether you ever can is moot, but that you don't is obvious.
All that means is that you want the inquisitorial role.
Funny innit - you ask questions; I'm an inquisitor. Worse, I answer question; you never do.
What does that say about you do you think?
Here are our objections to you Hillside.
Who's "our"?
Your definitions -Non standard, self generated and fluid.
Wrong - you could look them up too if you could be bothered.
Your categorisation-wrong in many cases.
Wrong - you never have understood category error, and having an unironic and entirely literal mind means you often mistake analogy for a category mistake. As you just ignore me every time I correct you on this though I guess it'll never sink in.
Your moral philosophy- a mere act of labelling.
It's not "labelling" but, even if it was, what's so "mere" about it? To be otherwise - absolute for example - you'd have all your work ahead of you both to establish the principle and to suggest a method to identify it. As you just run away whenever this is pointed out to you, neither will ever happen though.
Your Zeitgeist hypotheses- debateable and wooly.
It's neither, as even a cursory reading or the literature would tell you if you could be bothered.
Your Ad hominems.
This from the king of the ad hominem? Good grief! As my replies to you are characterised by arguments whereas your to me consist entirely of evasions, distortions and abuse do you not think that you're on awfully thin ice here?
Your appeal to science as the basis of your core beliefs...
Oh, and I forgot your relentless use of the straw man of course...
-it isn't- and from which we can draw your adherence to the science vs religion schtick.
...which you've just made up.
Oh, and it looks as though I really am the master of prophecy - rather then misrepresent the dismantling of your hopeless PM argument I see you've just ignored it again.
I guess we never will know why you reject my stork theory then will we?
Will we?
Look, as you have nothing to contribute to these exchanges except for your deep dishonesty and misunderstandings do you mind if I leave you to your personal grief and delusions? I will though reply in the vanishingly unlikely event that you do ever a least to attempt an answer to a question that's been put to you.
Ta.
-
Vlunderingaboutlikeabullinachinashop,
What arguments cannot be rebutted?
All of them. Whenever your efforts are dismantled you just ignore or misrepresent the rebuttals.
Yes I did ask where they had been rebutted and you have merely repeated that they have been rebutted!!!!!!!
Really Hillside you need to do better than this.
Please add ''merely asserting'' to that list of objections to what you do around here to the list.
Other than that this is just becoming a personal exchange with no content. I think people would enjoy things more if you didn't get personal everytime I get a handle on your.....E-jaculations.
-
Vlunderingallovertheplace,
Owlswing doesn't believe they do otherwise he would be stating it. In any case You have taken what I have said out of context. You must be getting desperate.
Whether or not he believes them to be real says nothing to whether they are real. That's why I asked how you or anyone else would know them not to be real.
This reading for comprehension thing really has got you foxed hasn't it.
My position on other gods is this.
I believe there is one God of whom Jesus is the incarnation.
I believe this God is the unity widely sought by people everywhere.
I believe other monotheist faiths to be an expression of the search for this unity.
I believe any faith based on the experience of the numen to be an expression of the search for that unity.
I am ignorant of pagan beliefs and what they mean by the word god or goddess because they are reluctant to provide information on the grounds that it would constitute somehow proselysation.
I believe that the Hindi pantheon is easier to understand because Hindu scholars have on the whole been non secretive and more explicit.
I do not disbelieve the existence of gods as entities of other religions or the religious experiences within as often touted by BLUEHILLSIDE and HIS FOLLOWERS (because that fits in with Hillside's argument or he 's not reading what I am saying.)
First, "BLUEHILLSIDE" neither "touts" any such thing and nor do I have "followers".
Second, thanks for this statement of your personal beliefs. I believe that storks fly babies into maternity wards and dupe us into thinking they come from Mums' tummies.
Can you suggest even one reason for me to take your belief any more seriously as an objective truth than you take mine?
Something?
Anything?
Mind the door as you disappear though it.
Again.
-
Vlunderingalloverthefloor,
Yes I did ask where they had been rebutted and you have merely repeated that they have been rebutted!!!!!!!
Really Hillside you need to do better than this.
Please add ''merely asserting'' to that list of objections to what you do around here to the list.
Other than that this is just becoming a personal exchange with no content. I think people would enjoy things more if you didn't get personal everytime I get a handle on your.....E-jaculations.
That you cannot grasp the arguments that rebut your dullardry says nothing to whether they do rebut your dullardry.
I'll leave you to your evasions, straw men and insults of that's ok.
-
Second, thanks for this statement of your personal beliefs. I believe that storks fly babies into maternity wards and dupe us into thinking they come from Mums' tummies.
Bzzzzzzzzzz.
Add Hillside's use of argumentum ad ridiculum( The fallacy ) to the list.
Really, there should be a law against it.
-
Vlunderingalloverthefloor,
Yes I did ask where they had been rebutted and you have merely repeated that they have been rebutted!!!!!!!
Really Hillside you need to do better than this.
Please add ''merely asserting'' to that list of objections to what you do around here to the list.
Other than that this is just becoming a personal exchange with no content. I think people would enjoy things more if you didn't get personal everytime I get a handle on your.....E-jaculations.
That you cannot grasp the arguments that rebut your dullardry says nothing to whether they do rebut your dullardry.
That's not the point. I asked what they were. This is the third time today you have refused to say.
-
Vlunderingabout,
But Owlswings gods and goddesses do not exist.
How would you - or anyone else - know that?
Yes, that is the point, isn't it? Well, one of them. How can anyone cite their own beliefs as gold standard, and others' beliefs as fools' gold? What is the difference?
-
Vlunderingfittotbustthechina,
Bzzzzzzzzzz.
Add Hillside's use of argumentum ad ridiculum( The fallacy ) to the list.
Really, there should be a law against it.
By way of a sign off, this'll be way above your intellectual pay grade but...
...your position here supposes that your personal belief should be afforded some kind of special privilege a priori to distinguish it from claims you think to be ridiculous. Why?
That's the point - some of us do find your beliefs to be every bit as ridiculous as you find stork theory to be, especially as we can use precisely the same arguments ("I intuit it", "It gives my life meaning", "You can't disprove it" etc and wearingly etc) to reach the conclusion "stork" as you use the reach the conclusion "god".
If you really don't like stork theory, pick any other conclusion you like that could also be reached with the "arguments" you use for god - it doesn't really matter much which one.
Yeah there ought to be a law - one that outlaws your dull-witted obtuseness on this.
I live in hope...
-
Vlunderingaroundstill,
That's not the point. I asked what they were. This is the third time today you have refused to say.
BULLSHIT! TRY EVERY SINGLE EFFING REBUTTAL ARGUMENT I'VE POSTED ON THIS THREAD AND ELSEWHERE THAT YOU'VE SYSTEMATICALLY IGNORED, DISTORTED, MISREPRESENTED AND THROWN ABUSE AT!
Well really...
-
Hi Wiggs,
Yes, that is the point, isn't it? Well, one of them. How can anyone cite their own beliefs as gold standard, and others' beliefs as fools' gold? What is the difference?
Quite so. When those beliefs rely on the same arguments to get you there ("I intuit it" etc) I cannot for the life of me see why one outcome should be privileged above the other. We'll never get an answer from Vlud as to why his intuition about a god is a better guide to an objective truth than my intuition about storks, but there it is nonetheless.
(And then he has the front to accuse me of avoiding questions! Ah well.)
-
Vlunderingfittotbustthechina,
Bzzzzzzzzzz.
Add Hillside's use of argumentum ad ridiculum( The fallacy ) to the list.
Really, there should be a law against it.
By way of a sign off, this'll be way above your intellectual pay grade but...
...your position here supposes that your personal belief should be afforded some kind of special privilege a priori to distinguish it from claims you think to be ridiculous. Why?
That's the point - some of us do find your beliefs to be every bit as ridiculous as you find stork theory to be, especially as we can use precisely the same arguments ("I intuit it", "It gives my life meaning", "You can't disprove it" etc and wearingly etc) to reach the conclusion "stork" as you use the reach the conclusion "god".
If you really don't like stork theory, pick any other conclusion you like that could also be reached with the "arguments" you use for god - it doesn't really matter much which one.
Yeah there ought to be a law - one that outlaws your dull-witted obtuseness on this.
I live in hope...
No....You are peddling the myth again that I am dismissing Owlswings faith and experience. You are the man for that kind of dismissal not me.
If anyone is giving their beliefs privilege it is you, partly through your insistence at being in the inquisitorial seat and in presenting your position as axiomatically the unalloyed truth.
Read the posts Owlswing says his gods are real but only real in his faith. He diminishes the status of his god to impress and keep in with the likes of you.
In terms of your argument appealing to ridiculousness. They all do.
If not to storks then Leprechauns.
If you were put on trial for lying about these so called ''convictions'' about storks and Leprechauns you would be pronounced guilty of taking the piss based on the evidence of everything else you write.
It also confirms your assumed position of special privilege.
in short Hillside cut the hypocritical humbug about special privilege.
Now back to where you think I have been debunked.
The sensible money is on not making category fuck ups like you make them. maybe that is why you languish here like a Budget Christopher Hitchens. Sad considering that niche is already occupied by.....er, Christopher Hitchens.
-
Read the posts Owlswing says his gods are real but only real in his faith. He diminishes the status of his god to impress and keep in with the likes of you.
My gods are real in my faith - you ignore, as per usual, that the same applies to your god, he is only real in YOUR faith.
I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.
-
Read the posts Owlswing says his gods are real but only real in his faith. He diminishes the status of his god to impress and keep in with the likes of you.
My gods are real in my faith - you ignore, as per usual, that the same applies to your god, he is only real in YOUR faith.
I don't ignore it, I just disagree with it.
-
I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.
How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.
-
I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.
How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.
Their influence is rather more subtle that your god's "hit 'em with a flood - that'll teach 'em"
They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.
They then allow us to use the intellect and free-will that we have been given to choose the path we follow; following it in the certain knowledge that if it is the wrong one we will reach a fork (an indeterminate number of possible alternative paths) in our path that will allow us decide how we attempt to correct the error. What they do not tell us is which paths correct the problem and which make it worse.
Our, my, deities are more human than yours. They have the same emotions, etc as we, the same capriciousness, the same failings. They are not, just becasue they are deities, perfect.
Let's face it, the last supposedly perfect person who came ot earth got nailed to a cross and thus created a religion that has murdered billions over the centuries since its founder died.
-
I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.
How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.
They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.
And how do they do that?
-
Hi diddly de a posters life for me. :P :P
Budget Christopher Hitchens ;D ;D come on that was funny ;)
Gonnagle.
-
I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.
How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.
They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.
And how do they do that?
They have given us a world that works - by watching it in operation we can see how climate works, how humans interact for the better or worse and leave us to decide if we are going to act for the improvement of the world we live in or not.
-
I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.
How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.
They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.
And how do they do that?
They have given us a world that works - by watching it in operation we can see how climate works, how humans interact for the better or worse and leave us to decide if we are going to act for the improvement of the world we live in or not.
How do you know it was a they and not a singular reality?
-
I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.
How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.
They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.
And how do they do that?
They have given us a world that works - by watching it in operation we can see how climate works, how humans interact for the better or worse and leave us to decide if we are going to act for the improvement of the world we live in or not.
How do you know it was a they and not a singular reality?
Becasue I am a staunch believer that no-one - not even a god/goddess - can know or do everything!
-
I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.
How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.
They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.
And how do they do that?
They have given us a world that works - by watching it in operation we can see how climate works, how humans interact for the better or worse and leave us to decide if we are going to act for the improvement of the world we live in or not.
How do you know it was a they and not a singular reality?
Becasue I am a staunch believer that no-one - not even a god/goddess - can know or do everything!
And what is that based on?
-
Can't answer for Owlswing but the problem of omniscience is that it means there can only be what there is. It means no choice for the deity and makes everything a mere parade of time. That's fair enough as a view but unless you want to shout out HI Ho Silver Calvin, it makes other generalised Christian theologies logically ridiculous.
-
I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.
What stands out is the words from God:-
Psalm 14:1 (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.
Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.
Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.
The point is Sass, I'm sure the part of the bible you have quoted is word for word correct, trouble is it's only something you believe to be true.
To date not one single person has come up with any viable evidence that would support any of the mystic, magical or superstitious parts of your bible, so you are unable to prove any of the mystic, magical or superstitious parts of your bible have any truth in them.
Because there is no credible proof of these mystic, magical or superstitious parts of your bible, there never has been, this automatically makes it to be a work of fiction until such a time it can be proved otherwise and in turn whatever point you try to make, using quotes from the bible can also be ruled out as you're trying to use a fiction in support of your arguments; I don't know why but you seem to be totally unable to grasp this?
I wouldn't have thought it was that difficult.
ippy
-
I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.
How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.
They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.
And how do they do that?
They have given us a world that works - by watching it in operation we can see how climate works, how humans interact for the better or worse and leave us to decide if we are going to act for the improvement of the world we live in or not.
How do you know it was a they and not a singular reality?
Becasue I am a staunch believer that no-one - not even a god/goddess - can know or do everything!
And what is that based on?
You are supposed to be intelligent - work this one out for yourself it ain't that hard!
-
Can't answer for Owlswing but the problem of omniscience is that it means there can only be what there is. It means no choice for the deity and makes everything a mere parade of time. That's fair enough as a view but unless you want to shout out HI Ho Silver Calvin, it makes other generalised Christian theologies logically ridiculous.
Not sure what you are getting at here.
We do have though the philosophical attraction of ''the one'', ''the ultimate'', ''the final'', ''the ground'' within monotheism. Even polytheisms have a gaffer God or operate within a heavenly context or elevated state which satisfies this ultimate philosophical goal.
I'm thinking that a trinity might offset some of your objections.
Am I reading you right?
-
Owlswing,
You are supposed to be intelligent...
Pardon?
-
I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.
How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.
They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.
And how do they do that?
They have given us a world that works - by watching it in operation we can see how climate works, how humans interact for the better or worse and leave us to decide if we are going to act for the improvement of the world we live in or not.
How do you know it was a they and not a singular reality?
Becasue I am a staunch believer that no-one - not even a god/goddess - can know or do everything!
And what is that based on?
You are supposed to be intelligent - work this one out for yourself it ain't that hard!
I had the feeling with you that what was a promising dialogue would rapidly descend on your part into abuse......I have experienced such from pagans before which would suggest that you might have something but you cannot really express what it is while rubbishing other's beliefs..........Ah well.
-
Can't answer for Owlswing but the problem of omniscience is that it means there can only be what there is. It means no choice for the deity and makes everything a mere parade of time. That's fair enough as a view but unless you want to shout out HI Ho Silver Calvin, it makes other generalised Christian theologies logically ridiculous.
Not sure what you are getting at here.
We do have though the philosophical attraction of ''the one'', ''the ultimate'', ''the final'', ''the ground'' within monotheism. Even polytheisms have a gaffer God or operate within a heavenly context or elevated state which satisfies this ultimate philosophical goal.
I'm thinking that a trinity might offset some of your objections.
Am I reading you right?
No - because at the time of the creation there was only the Father - the son and holy ghost came later! Lots later!
-
Owlswing,
You are supposed to be intelligent...
Pardon?
Oh Look, The Argos version of AC Grayling has shown up.
-
Can't answer for Owlswing but the problem of omniscience is that it means there can only be what there is. It means no choice for the deity and makes everything a mere parade of time. That's fair enough as a view but unless you want to shout out HI Ho Silver Calvin, it makes other generalised Christian theologies logically ridiculous.
Not sure what you are getting at here.
We do have though the philosophical attraction of ''the one'', ''the ultimate'', ''the final'', ''the ground'' within monotheism. Even polytheisms have a gaffer God or operate within a heavenly context or elevated state which satisfies this ultimate philosophical goal.
I'm thinking that a trinity might offset some of your objections.
Am I reading you right?
No. If a there is anything omniscient, then this is the only way things can be.
-
I diminish my gods (please note the plural) or my godesses (please note the feminine AND the plural) for no-one - you or bluehillside.
How could you diminish them given what you say about them? If you are asserting they have influence then I would have thought that points to a reality which you are denying in your presentation.
They influence us by showing in the way that the natural world works how we should live within that world to the best advantage of all living things.
And how do they do that?
They have given us a world that works - by watching it in operation we can see how climate works, how humans interact for the better or worse and leave us to decide if we are going to act for the improvement of the world we live in or not.
How do you know it was a they and not a singular reality?
Becasue I am a staunch believer that no-one - not even a god/goddess - can know or do everything!
And what is that based on?
You are supposed to be intelligent - work this one out for yourself it ain't that hard!
I had the feeling with you that what was a promising dialogue would rapidly descend on your part into abuse......I have experienced such from pagans before which would suggest that you might have something but you cannot really express what it is while rubbishing other's beliefs..........Ah well.
You are a real case - your response is rubbish - what you were hoping was that i was going to post somethimng that you could make fun of, rubbish, or otherwise diss.
I didn't play fair - I played to your rules and you don't like it!
-
Can't answer for Owlswing but the problem of omniscience is that it means there can only be what there is. It means no choice for the deity and makes everything a mere parade of time. That's fair enough as a view but unless you want to shout out HI Ho Silver Calvin, it makes other generalised Christian theologies logically ridiculous.
Not sure what you are getting at here.
We do have though the philosophical attraction of ''the one'', ''the ultimate'', ''the final'', ''the ground'' within monotheism. Even polytheisms have a gaffer God or operate within a heavenly context or elevated state which satisfies this ultimate philosophical goal.
I'm thinking that a trinity might offset some of your objections.
Am I reading you right?
No - because at the time of the creation there was only the Father - the son and holy ghost came later! Lots later!
You don't understand the Bible or the trinity then.
''In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God...........'' and all that.
-
Can't answer for Owlswing but the problem of omniscience is that it means there can only be what there is. It means no choice for the deity and makes everything a mere parade of time. That's fair enough as a view but unless you want to shout out HI Ho Silver Calvin, it makes other generalised Christian theologies logically ridiculous.
Not sure what you are getting at here.
We do have though the philosophical attraction of ''the one'', ''the ultimate'', ''the final'', ''the ground'' within monotheism. Even polytheisms have a gaffer God or operate within a heavenly context or elevated state which satisfies this ultimate philosophical goal.
I'm thinking that a trinity might offset some of your objections.
Am I reading you right?
No. If a there is anything omniscient, then this is the only way things can be.
Really, how?.......and aren't you confusing omniscience with omnipotence in the way ...er, people do?
-
No, nothing to do with omnipotence. If there is an 'entity' that has omniscience then everything must only happen one way.
-
No, nothing to do with omnipotence. If there is an 'entity' that has omniscience then everything must only happen one way.
Have happened....surely.
-
No, nothing to do with omnipotence. If there is an 'entity' that has omniscience then everything must only happen one way.
Have happened....surely.
omniscience abolishes tense
-
No, nothing to do with omnipotence. If there is an 'entity' that has omniscience then everything must only happen one way.
Have happened....surely.
omniscience abolishes tense
How, since it is only possible to know things which have happened.
-
Then you are redefining omniscience and agreeing with Owlswing.
-
StillVlunderingaboutlikeabladderedbadger,
No....You are peddling the myth again that I am dismissing Owlswings faith and experience. You are the man for that kind of dismissal not me.
How is it even possible that you get every damn thing so fantastically ass-backwards wrong every single time? That’s NOT what I did at all – what I actually did was to ask how you or he or anyone else would know whether these things are real. I made no comment whatever on what he believes, you believe or anyone else believes.
If anyone is giving their beliefs privilege it is you, partly through your insistence at being in the inquisitorial seat and in presenting your position as axiomatically the unalloyed truth.
I guess this just making shit up and then throwing it at your interlocutor approach makes you happy in some odd way, but can you really not see how foolish it makes you? Really?
Read the posts Owlswing says his gods are real but only real in his faith. He diminishes the status of his god to impress and keep in with the likes of you.
No, he’s just smarter than you so he realises that he cannot overreach by claiming that his personal belief is by some entirely unknown process also somehow an objective truth for me too. You would learn a lot from him if you could grasp this.
In terms of your argument appealing to ridiculousness. They all do.
If not to storks then Leprechauns.
Exactly – they ALL do – storks, leprechauns, your god, whatever. It’s STILL your problem to show how the method you use of “intuiting” your way to your god cannot be also be used by others to “intuit” their way to different beliefs entirely.
You can duck and dive all you want, but it’s still your problem nonetheless.
If you were put on trial for lying about these so called ''convictions'' about storks and Leprechauns you would be pronounced guilty of taking the piss based on the evidence of everything else you write.
You of all people are accusing someone ELSE of lying!!!???!!! Good grief.
Either way, as ever you miss the point – it’s not that I seriously believe in stork theory, it’s that you have no defence against it when you insist that the rest of us accept an evidence bar set so low for your god too. It's either all of them or none of them, until and unless you FINALLY manage to suggest a reason to privilege your god belief above my stork belief.
It also confirms your assumed position of special privilege.
The only one claiming special privilege for his belief here is you remember? Remember that you dismiss the rest as “ridiculous” but for some reason you cannot explain you also expect us to exclude your personal belief from that set.
That’s what “privilege” means FFS!
in short Hillside cut the hypocritical humbug about special privilege.
A hypocrisy you’ve yet to demonstrate, but as empty assertion seems to be your stock in trade that’s all we’ll get I guess.
Now back to where you think I have been debunked.
How long have you got - it’s happened hundreds of times, only you’ve just ignored or misrepresented it when it has. You could always start by finally telling us why you dismiss my belief in stork theory though.
Couldn’t you?
The sensible money is on not making category fuck ups like you make them.
It’s possible that I do of course, but it’s also the case that you’ve never managed to identify one. By all means finally figure out what it means and then have another try though.
..maybe that is why you languish here like a Budget Christopher Hitchens.
I’ll take that over a budget Ray Comfort any day thanks.
Sad considering that niche is already occupied by.....er, Christopher Hitchens.
What’s sadder I think is how entirely oblivious you are to your limitations and dishonesty. Just for once why not try actually to think about what’s actually being said and actually try to answer that rather than ignore it or answer your straw man version of it?
Would it really kill you just to try for Pete’s sake?
-
Then you are redefining omniscience and agreeing with Owlswing.
Not really seeing God is at the end of time.
-
Now back to where you think I have been debunked.
How long have you got - it’s happened hundreds of times, only you’ve just ignored or misrepresented it when it has. You could always start by finally telling us why you dismiss my belief in stork theory though.
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
-
Now back to where you think I have been debunked.
How long have you got - it’s happened hundreds of times, only you’ve just ignored or misrepresented it when it has. You could always start by finally telling us why you dismiss my belief in stork theory though.
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
You still have not answered the question I posed about understanding the concept of comparing two or more arguments that are the same?
I cannot believe you cannot understand the simple concept, but you appear not to.
-
Now back to where you think I have been debunked.
How long have you got - it’s happened hundreds of times, only you’ve just ignored or misrepresented it when it has. You could always start by finally telling us why you dismiss my belief in stork theory though.
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
You still have not answered the question I posed about understanding the concept of comparing two or more arguments that are the same?
I cannot believe you cannot understand the simple concept, but you appear not to.
It was a red herring which I was not prepared to entertain as I recall.
-
Now back to where you think I have been debunked.
How long have you got - it’s happened hundreds of times, only you’ve just ignored or misrepresented it when it has. You could always start by finally telling us why you dismiss my belief in stork theory though.
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
You still have not answered the question I posed about understanding the concept of comparing two or more arguments that are the same?
I cannot believe you cannot understand the simple concept, but you appear not to.
It was a red herring which I was not prepared to entertain as I recall.
It's not a red herring. It's absolutely gets to the heart of the matter.
Perhaps that's why you do not like it, as it shows your beliefs for what they are?
-
Now back to where you think I have been debunked.
How long have you got - it’s happened hundreds of times, only you’ve just ignored or misrepresented it when it has. You could always start by finally telling us why you dismiss my belief in stork theory though.
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
You still have not answered the question I posed about understanding the concept of comparing two or more arguments that are the same?
I cannot believe you cannot understand the simple concept, but you appear not to.
It was a red herring which I was not prepared to entertain as I recall.
It's not a red herring. It's absolutely gets to the heart of the matter.
Perhaps that's why you do not like it, as it shows your beliefs for what they are?
I am within my rights not to entertain your red herring as it constitutes what I see as sneaky antitheist practice.
-
Now back to where you think I have been debunked.
How long have you got - it’s happened hundreds of times, only you’ve just ignored or misrepresented it when it has. You could always start by finally telling us why you dismiss my belief in stork theory though.
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
You still have not answered the question I posed about understanding the concept of comparing two or more arguments that are the same?
I cannot believe you cannot understand the simple concept, but you appear not to.
It was a red herring which I was not prepared to entertain as I recall.
It's not a red herring. It's absolutely gets to the heart of the matter.
Perhaps that's why you do not like it, as it shows your beliefs for what they are?
I am within my rights not to entertain your red herring as it constitutes what I see as sneaky antitheist practice.
It's not a red herring just a logical approach to analysis of competing claims.
You can dismiss it, but it just makes you wrong.
-
Vlunderingabout,
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
Please stop lying, it's getting dull.
Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well, which is presumably why you refuse point blank even to attempt an answer. You seem to be just smart enough enough to know what it does to your PM argument and just dishonest enough to keep ignoring it in the hope no-one notices.
-
Now back to where you think I have been debunked.
How long have you got - it’s happened hundreds of times, only you’ve just ignored or misrepresented it when it has. You could always start by finally telling us why you dismiss my belief in stork theory though.
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
You still have not answered the question I posed about understanding the concept of comparing two or more arguments that are the same?
I cannot believe you cannot understand the simple concept, but you appear not to.
It was a red herring which I was not prepared to entertain as I recall.
It's not a red herring. It's absolutely gets to the heart of the matter.
Perhaps that's why you do not like it, as it shows your beliefs for what they are?
I am within my rights not to entertain your red herring as it constitutes what I see as sneaky antitheist practice.
It's not a red herring just a logical approach to analysis of competing claims.
You can dismiss it, but it just makes you wrong.
No it was an attempt to establish that something was ridiculous and then merely assert that God was like it. You never actually established a categorical equality between God and the thing you were saying. I believe it was the fallacy of argumentum ad ridiculum.
Try again.
-
Vluderingallovertheshop,
I am within my rights not to entertain your red herring as it constitutes what I see as sneaky antitheist practice.
You're perfectly entitled to ignore anything you find too uncomfortable to respond to - after all, you're the past master at it.
It takes quite some brass neck though for you to complain that others don't reply to you don't you think?
-
Now back to where you think I have been debunked.
How long have you got - it’s happened hundreds of times, only you’ve just ignored or misrepresented it when it has. You could always start by finally telling us why you dismiss my belief in stork theory though.
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
You still have not answered the question I posed about understanding the concept of comparing two or more arguments that are the same?
I cannot believe you cannot understand the simple concept, but you appear not to.
It was a red herring which I was not prepared to entertain as I recall.
It's not a red herring. It's absolutely gets to the heart of the matter.
Perhaps that's why you do not like it, as it shows your beliefs for what they are?
I am within my rights not to entertain your red herring as it constitutes what I see as sneaky antitheist practice.
It's not a red herring just a logical approach to analysis of competing claims.
You can dismiss it, but it just makes you wrong.
No it was an attempt to establish that something was ridiculous and then merely assert that God was like it. You never actually established a categorical equality between God and the thing you were saying. I believe it was the fallacy of argumentum ad ridiculum.
Try again.
No that's not the case.
The concept allows you to posit any argument you like.
The problem you have is to create an argument that ONLY works for you god, and not something else that I can also plug into the argument.
If it does, then you have to believe neither or both, but not one.
If you do, then you are illogical.
-
Vlunderingabout,
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
Please stop lying, it's getting dull.
Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.
How?
-
Vlunderingoverthecliff,
No it was an attempt to establish that something was ridiculous and then merely assert that God was like it. You never actually established a categorical equality between God and the thing you were saying. I believe it was the fallacy of argumentum ad ridiculum.
Try again.
See, you've had that stupidity taken apart in front of your eyes more than once and just ignored the rebuttals, and now you return to your original mistake.
Can you see why some of us get so frustrated by your behaviour here?
Yet again: if the precisely the same arguments ("I intuit it", "it gives meaning to my life", "you can't disprove it" etc) support the conclusions of gods and leprechauns alike, then either both of them are ridiculous or neither of them are.
Your only way out of that - and finally to earn the special privilege for one of those that you just assert to be there - is to find a different argument (or arguments) that does not support both conclusions, and to abandon those that do.
It's simple enough isn't it?
Try again indeed.
-
Vlunderingabout,
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
Please stop lying, it's getting dull.
Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.
How?
Try to make the argument for your god, and we can see if it also in principle works for something that is not your god.
You then get to refine your argument to improve it and we test again.
-
Now back to where you think I have been debunked.
How long have you got - it’s happened hundreds of times, only you’ve just ignored or misrepresented it when it has. You could always start by finally telling us why you dismiss my belief in stork theory though.
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
You still have not answered the question I posed about understanding the concept of comparing two or more arguments that are the same?
I cannot believe you cannot understand the simple concept, but you appear not to.
It was a red herring which I was not prepared to entertain as I recall.
It's not a red herring. It's absolutely gets to the heart of the matter.
Perhaps that's why you do not like it, as it shows your beliefs for what they are?
I am within my rights not to entertain your red herring as it constitutes what I see as sneaky antitheist practice.
It's not a red herring just a logical approach to analysis of competing claims.
You can dismiss it, but it just makes you wrong.
No it was an attempt to establish that something was ridiculous and then merely assert that God was like it. You never actually established a categorical equality between God and the thing you were saying. I believe it was the fallacy of argumentum ad ridiculum.
Try again.
No that's not the case.
The concept allows you to posit any argument you like.
The problem you have is to create an argument that ONLY works for you god, and not something else that I can also plug into the argument.
Does that include your plonker?
Do you have an argument for your god that can be tested or not?
I assume not.
-
Vlunderingunderthebus,
How?
Try it and you'll find out.
Again: why should I take your intuited claims about a god any more seriously than you take my intuited claims about storks?
-
Vlunderingabout,
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
Please stop lying, it's getting dull.
Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.
How?
Try to make the argument for your god, and we can see if it also in principle works for something that is not your god.
You then get to refine your argument to improve it and we test again.
How do fairies fit into the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for God?
-
Vlunderingunderthebus,
How?
Try it and you'll find out.
......and, again!
-
Vlunderingabout,
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
Please stop lying, it's getting dull.
Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.
How?
Try to make the argument for your god, and we can see if it also in principle works for something that is not your god.
You then get to refine your argument to improve it and we test again.
How do fairies fit into the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for God?
Not sure.
You make your argument for your god, and we will see if your argument also works for them or something else.
Until you have an argument for your god, there is nothing to look at.
-
Vlunderingabout,
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
Please stop lying, it's getting dull.
Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.
How?
Try to make the argument for your god, and we can see if it also in principle works for something that is not your god.
You then get to refine your argument to improve it and we test again.
How do fairies fit into the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for God?
Not sure.
You make your argument for your god, and we will see if your argument also works for them or something else.
Until you have an argument for your god, there is nothing to look at.
I have...the teleological argument, cosmological argument, moral argument and ontological argument........Now fit fairies in thank you.
-
Then you are redefining omniscience and agreeing with Owlswing.
Not really seeing God is at the end of time.
That makes my point again. Thank you
-
Then you are redefining omniscience and agreeing with Owlswing.
Not really seeing God is at the end of time.
That makes my point again. Thank you
what point is that?
-
Vlunderingabout,
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
Please stop lying, it's getting dull.
Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.
How?
Try to make the argument for your god, and we can see if it also in principle works for something that is not your god.
You then get to refine your argument to improve it and we test again.
How do fairies fit into the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for God?
Not sure.
You make your argument for your god, and we will see if your argument also works for them or something else.
Until you have an argument for your god, there is nothing to look at.
I have...the teleological argument, cosmological argument, moral argument and ontological argument........Now fit fairies in thank you.
These are just titles.
How do you get from the Cosmological argument to YOUR god, and not say to ZEUS?
-
Then you are redefining omniscience and agreeing with Owlswing.
Not really seeing God is at the end of time.
That makes my point again. Thank you
what point is that?
That Vlad shouldn't drink at lunchtime.
-
Vlunderingntoabrickwall,
......and, again!
With the avoidance?
Here it is again then: why should I take your intuited claims about a god any more seriously than you take my intuited claims about storks?
Why the endless avoidance Vladdyboy?
-
Some aspects of the Cosmological arguments:-
• Something exists
• You don't get something from nothing
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal 'something' must exist
I do not accept that something cannot come from nothing.
Demonstrate that something CANNOT come from nothing.
The eternal something could be anything and not your god.
-
Vlunderingabout,
My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What class?
Please stop lying, it's getting dull.
Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.
How?
Try to make the argument for your god, and we can see if it also in principle works for something that is not your god.
You then get to refine your argument to improve it and we test again.
How do fairies fit into the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for God?
Not sure.
You make your argument for your god, and we will see if your argument also works for them or something else.
Until you have an argument for your god, there is nothing to look at.
I have...the teleological argument, cosmological argument, moral argument and ontological argument........Now fit fairies in thank you.
These are just titles.
How do you get from the Cosmological argument to YOUR god, and not say to ZEUS?
Does zeus fit the cosmological argument or do we have to make him more like MY god?
-
Some aspects of the Cosmological arguments:-
• Something exists
• You don't get something from nothing
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal 'something' must exist
I do not accept that something cannot come from nothing.
Demonstrate that something CANNOT come from nothing.
The eternal something could be anything and not your god.
How could it be anything? Could it be something which is not eternal?
-
Vluderingintothevoidofhisownincomprehension,
I have...the teleological argument, cosmological argument, moral argument and ontological argument........Now fit fairies in thank you.
Some of which do work for fairies, and all of which are logically hopeless but we can get to that in a bit.
Are we now agreed then that the arguments you've attempted that do work just as well for fairies ("I intuit it", "you can't disprove it", "it gives meaning to my life", "lots of people agree with me", "how do you explain X then?" etc) are off the table from now on because they can lead just as well to answers we both find to be ridiculous?
And if we are (phew!) would you be so kind as to use the fairy test filter the next time you feel like essaying an argument of this kind?
Ta.
-
Some aspects of the Cosmological arguments:-
• Something exists
• You don't get something from nothing
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal 'something' must exist
I do not accept that something cannot come from nothing.
Demonstrate that something CANNOT come from nothing.
The eternal something could be anything and not your god.
How could it be anything? Could it be something which is not eternal?
It could be an eternal universe.
Why would it be a god?
Can you demonstrate that something cannot come from nothing?
-
Vlunderingntoabrickwall,
......and, again!
With the avoidance?
Here it is again then: why should I take your intuited claims about a god any more seriously than you take my intuited claims about storks?
Why the endless avoidance Vladdyboy?
I am not asking you to treat intuition any grander than necessary......where do you get the idea that I am?
That said someone whose intuitions prove correct many times is taken more seriously than someone who intuits at that very moment that he is ''Belle of the ball and Homecoming Queen'',
God unfortunately crops up in philosophy, morality etc, etc, etc,
-
BR,
Some aspects of the Cosmological arguments:-
• Something exists
• You don't get something from nothing
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal 'something' must exist
I do not accept that something cannot come from nothing.
Demonstrate that something CANNOT come from nothing.
The eternal something could be anything and not your god.
It's actually an argument for deism rather than for theism - for a disinterested clockmaker god rather than for one that intervenes in human affairs - and it's problematic for several reasons:
First it assumes that the universe did have a beginning.
Second, it assumes both that time is linear and that "before time" is a meaningful space in which this god could have operated.
Third, it requires all sorts of special pleading for this god so as to be exempt from its own premises.
I thought the more thinking theists had given up on this one as a busted flush now, though doubtless someone here more attuned to current theology could tell us.
-
Vlunderingntoavatof hotcustard,
I am not asking you to treat intuition any grander than necessary......where do you get the idea that I am?
I get it from you - for example when you overreach by accusing others of the "argumentum ad ridiculum" without first troubling to establish why your belief is any less ridiculous than any other belief arrived at by the same means - intuition for example.
It's not that "grander than necessary" is the test; it's that "grander than stork theory" is the test.
That said someone whose intuitions prove correct many times is taken more seriously than someone who intuits at that very moment that he is ''Belle of the ball and Homecoming Queen'',
You're just kicking the problem down the road a bit here. How would you propose to show that your intuition about a god has been any more "proven correct" than had been someone else's intuition about fairies?
God unfortunately crops up in philosophy, morality etc, etc, etc,
No, ideas about god(s) do.
So what?
-
BR,
Some aspects of the Cosmological arguments:-
• Something exists
• You don't get something from nothing
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal 'something' must exist
I do not accept that something cannot come from nothing.
Demonstrate that something CANNOT come from nothing.
The eternal something could be anything and not your god.
It's actually an argument for deism rather than for theism - for a disinterested clockmaker god rather than for one that intervenes in human affairs - and it's problematic for several reasons:
First it assumes that the universe did have a beginning.
Second, it assumes both that time is linear and that "before time" is a meaningful space in which this god could have operated.
Third, it requires all sorts of special pleading for this god so as to be exempt from its own premises.
I thought the more thinking theists had given up on this one as a busted flush now, though doubtless someone here more attuned to current theology could tell us.
That's fine Hillside but the challenge was that if the cosmological argument is, as Russell would have put it, ''sound''......... would anything other than God fit it.......say, a leprechaun?
-
Vlunderingntoavatof hotcustard,
I am not asking you to treat intuition any grander than necessary......where do you get the idea that I am?
I get it from you - for example when you overreach by accusing others of the "argumentum ad ridiculum" without first troubling to establish why your belief is any less ridiculous than any other belief arrived at by the same means
Since everything you ever come out with Hillside is ridiculous. Your examples are in high probability.......ridiculous.
My establishing them is ridiculous is a red herring. What the issue is is you picking examples which are commonly held to be ridiculous.
I just outline your numerous category fucks and that's what gets your goat.
-
Vluderingodiocy,
That's fine Hillside but the challenge was that if the cosmological argument is, as Russell would have put it, ''sound''......... would anything other than God fit it.......say, a leprechaun?
First, the discussion was about the inadequacy of arguments for a god that do also "fit" leprechauns - several of which you've attempted here in the past. If you can grasp that there are such arguments then you have no choice but to accept either all of their conclusions (gods and leprechauns included) or none of them.
And when you do grasp that, then you have a test to apply before attempting arguments again so as to avoid further embarrassment when you post on a public forum like this one.
Second, no-one has suggested that all arguments for god(s) do also work for anything else. The cosmological argument for example is a busted flush for various reasons, but its potential support for leprechaunism isn't one of them (unless you want to conclude that the universe-creator was a leprechaun - ie, the same CV but different characteristics).
-
Vlunderingstraightintothequicksand,
Since everything you ever come out with Hillside is ridiculous. Your examples are in high probability.......ridiculous.
Still not getting it then I see. I find the idea of leprechauns to be ridiculous too, but the point is that when you try arguments for a god that work equally well for leprechauns then you have no means to defend your claim from being treated as equally ridiculous.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
My establishing them is ridiculous is a red herring. What the issue is is you picking examples which are commonly held to be ridiculous.
Yes they are "commonly held" as ridiculous. What you keep running away from though is an explanation for why your god belief is any less ridiculous when it relies for its force on arguments that work just as well for each conclusion.
Is this ever going to sink in, or will you keep avoiding it?
I just outline your numerous category fucks and that's what gets your goat.
It would take someone with much bigger intellectual shoes than yours to get my goat, and once again you fail to understand what a category error entails. When different conclusions result from the same arguments that's not a category error at all. To make it so, you'd (finally) need to show why, say, "I intuited it, therefore it's objectively true" works for one but not for the other and so they are in different categories. Until then, they remain in the same category of "beliefs about objective facts that have been intuited".
As we both know that you'll never do that though, then in precisely the same category they must remain.
Suck it up old son, suck it up.
-
I have...the teleological argument
Quite apart from the fundamental errors in the teleological argument:
1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose.
2. The universe resembles these human artifacts.
3. Therefore: It is probable that the universe is a product of intelligent design, and has a purpose.
4. However, the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact is.
5. Therefore: There is probably a powerful and vastly intelligent designer fairy who created the universe.
cosmological argument
Quite apart from the fundamental flaws in the cosmological argument:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause which is a fairy
moral argument
Quite apart from the fact that the moral argument is unadulterated nonsense:
1. If God Oberon, King of the Fairies, does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God Oberon, King of the Fairies, exists.
ontological argument
It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, exists.
If your argument can be unravelled by the simple use of cut and paste, you probably didn't have much of an argument. If you're reliant on the moral, cosmological, teleological or ontological argument you're so far beyond clutching at straws it's no longer funny.
O.
-
I have...the teleological argument
Quite apart from the fundamental errors in the teleological argument:
1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose.
2. The universe resembles these human artifacts.
3. Therefore: It is probable that the universe is a product of intelligent design, and has a purpose.
4. However, the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact is.
5. Therefore: There is probably a powerful and vastly intelligent designer fairy who created the universe.
cosmological argument
Quite apart from the fundamental flaws in the cosmological argument:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause which is a fairy
moral argument
Quite apart from the fact that the moral argument is unadulterated nonsense:
1. If God Oberon, King of the Fairies, does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God Oberon, King of the Fairies, exists.
ontological argument
It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, exists.
If your argument can be unravelled by the simple use of cut and paste, you probably didn't have much of an argument. If you're reliant on the moral, cosmological, teleological or ontological argument you're so far beyond clutching at straws it's no longer funny.
O.
How ridiculous. Since notice what happens to your argument when you substitute the words Fairy,.... Oberon , King of the Fairies...and
Oberon, lord of the silidh.....with the words Winston Churchill, Penis and Rubber Duck.
You see all you are doing is changing letters.
Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.
-
I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.
What stands out is the words from God:-
Psalm 14:1 (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.
Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.
Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.
And your posts have credibility do they Sass? You have no more knowledge of the elusive, 'TRUTH' than us heathen. To claim you have in an untruth! ::)
Heathen??? More knowledge of the 'TRUTH'. I think my post was incredibly clear.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.
Do you have an argument which proves me wrong about the points I established and made?
No you don't you somehow want to make it about myself when I am talking about what you do concerning God.
Which establishes the next part of my previous post and shows it is also true.
Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.
Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.
It stands and remains as true... cannot produce an intelligent argument against the word of God.
I guess the simplest of truth eludes you, Floo. :)
-
Vlad,
The problem is that you cannot understand that substituting those other entities actually destroy your argument.
Of course they seem ridiculous, just as you god is also ridiculous.
The only reason your god does not seem ridiculous to you is that you are deluded into thinking it is sensible.
You are not thinking sensibly about them, and simply apply confirmation bias to your favoured option.
-
Vlad,
The problem is that you cannot understand that substituting those other entities actually destroy your argument.
Of course they seem ridiculous, just as you god is also ridiculous.
The only reason your god does not seem ridiculous to you is that you are deluded into thinking it is sensible.
You are not thinking sensibly about them, and simply apply confirmation bias to your favoured option.
As I shown substituting entities does not destroy the argument as I demonstrated in my reply to Outrider.
Your post is nothing more than assertion that letter substitution, referred to you as entity substitution destroy my argument and assertion that all entities mentioned by you and outrider including God are ridiculous.
I have no time for mere assertion and you shouldn't tolerate them either....so go away and....not tolerate yourself...thank you.
-
Vlad,
The problem is that you cannot understand that substituting those other entities actually destroy your argument.
Of course they seem ridiculous, just as you god is also ridiculous.
The only reason your god does not seem ridiculous to you is that you are deluded into thinking it is sensible.
You are not thinking sensibly about them, and simply apply confirmation bias to your favoured option.
As I shown substituting entities does not destroy the argument as I demonstrated in my reply to Outrider.
Your post is nothing more than assertion that letter substitution, referred to you as entity substitution destroy my argument and assertion that all entities mentioned by you and outrider including God are ridiculous.
I have no time for mere assertion and you shouldn't tolerate them either....so go away and....not tolerate yourself...thank you.
You assert your god exists!
Your argument works just as well for fairies, but you cannot see it it seems.
I think you do see it, and do not like it, and that's why you react with insult when it is pointed out.
All you have to do is rebut the argument and explain why it ONLY works for YOUR god. Simply asserting though, as you say, is worthless.
-
How ridiculous. Since notice what happens to your argument when you substitute the words Fairy,.... Oberon , King of the Fairies...and
Oberon, lord of the silidh.....with the words Winston Churchill, Penis and Rubber Duck.
You see all you are doing is changing letters.
Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.
The point was to show that your arguments are entirely indistinguishable from arguments for fairies. If I wanted to undermine the arguments I'd attack them, but that wasn't the point of the exercise.
If you'd like me to eviscerate the ridiculous assertions of the cosmological argument or the inherent failures of the teleological argument then by all means start a thread for it.
The point made was that one of the weaknesses of arguments for God was that they were equally applicable as arguments for fairies.
Your own point here not only concedes that, but also makes the point that it works for bath toys, bodily organs and ex-Prime Ministers (which, actually, it doesn't, given that we have evidence for those which can be assessed, but never mind, at least you tried...)
O.
-
I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.
What stands out is the words from God:-
Psalm 14:1 (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.
Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.
Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.
And your posts have credibility do they Sass? You have no more knowledge of the elusive, 'TRUTH' than us heathen. To claim you have in an untruth! ::)
Heathen??? More knowledge of the 'TRUTH'. I think my post was incredibly clear.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.
Do you have an argument which proves me wrong about the points I established and made?
No you don't you somehow want to make it about myself when I am talking about what you do concerning God.
Which establishes the next part of my previous post and shows it is also true.
Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.
Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.
It stands and remains as true... cannot produce an intelligent argument against the word of God.
I guess the simplest of truth eludes you, Floo. :)
You cannot argue that the Bible is the word of the deity and you have the truth. There is no evidence to prove it exists let alone what its thoughts are.
If the deity does exist and wanted to communicate with humans surely it would do so in a better way than that. The Bible is open to so many interpretations, some more ludicrous than others, as this forum makes only too clear. ::)
-
I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.
What stands out is the words from God:-
Psalm 14:1 (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.
Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.
Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.
Sassy
Really!
You are spouting, in my particular case, the same venom that led to the murders of tens of thousands as witches in the 14th to 17th centuries.
That proves my point:-
You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.
You are entitled to what you perceive as the truth ot the Truth, others are equally entitled to reject it. You accept your Truth because you are too terrified of the consequences of rejecting it - I can reject your truth because I have no fear whatsoever of punishment for doing so.
I think even there you are incapable of seeing the truth of your own words to put it in an educated way.
You are acknowledging my faith is real. But you lack the ability to reason how I would believe for fear of consequences.
There is no condemnation for those in Christ. You acknowledge my faith to be real but all for the wrong reasons.
Seems you cannot reason why a person may have faith in Christ without it being for fear.
Three things remain, Faith, Hope and Love, and the greatest of these is Love.
Love has not been made perfect where there is fear.
You need to establish the truth about Christ and why it isn't fear that bring faith, but truth and love.
Your god, to you, is a loving entity of total perfection, to me he is a vicious sadistic mysogynistic tyrant; my deities, male and female, hence no mysogyny, are not perfect as they have the same emotions as us mere mortals, they are, therefore, far more understnding of our little peccadiloes.
I see God as all-knowing and righteous but also Just.
None of these things can the things you believe in, lay claim to because we both know they do not exist.
God punished wrong doers to save the right doers. My God is just and is therefore entitled to judge that which his hands have made saving the good and being rid of the bad. Didn't the Pagans do that with their beliefs. Got rid of the things which reflected the bad side of the faith steeped in witchcraft and child sacrifices to make it a better belief system?
You cannot hide that your faith/beliefs were the ones that caused child sacrifices etc. Something my God abhorred and something he stopped.
Whatever you do and say, history shows that your beliefs in history caused man to do the worst evils to their own than anything God of the bible did in the OT. You also can add selective truths of your own beliefs to that list.
I have stated before that, as I am concerned, you can believe just what you like, I do not have to agree with it and, unsurprisingly, I do not agree with it.
Because you believe in something you know to be false something you CONTROL and yet ignore the evil that what you believe in has done through history. Stick and stones and you live in a glass house be careful.
You, and others like you, I regret to say, and here is where we diverge, you do not and will not allow me the same freedom of thought and continue to condemn my beliefs and railing against me when I do the same to yours!
How would we stop you believing... What we do not allow is your attack as above on Christians and Christianity when your faith has the biggest glass house ever. You don't have a real belief. We both know they don't exist. But the evil man has done because of those beliefs will forever follow you. You cannot shake the evil that paganism has done through history.
But what is worse is that you want to believe in something that caused nothing but untold pain and suffering to so many innocent children for the sake superstition. You can be superstitious all you like. But you have no right to attack God or his word given your beliefs history.
Unless and until someone known to an trusted by me, provable to be that someone to the nth degree, returns from the dead and tells me that my beliefs are wrong I will continue in them. I wish that I could believe that if you had the same experience you would acknowledge your error but I have no doubt whatsoever that you would reject even that!
Given you believe in what you do and know it is false.... How would you recognise the true thing?
If my error as you call it, is not believing in things to be false and believing in the things I believe to be truth.
Should you not be accepting Gods truth, at least till you can accept your own are false and have done more evil to man worldwide than faith in God ever did.
-
Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.
Which in a way is, of course, the point O was making (as was BHS) that you seem resistant to recognising: that if you substitute terms to replace 'God' in these arguments then they are exposed as being fallacious nonsense, since they must stand or fail together.
To say that they work only for the Christian God just adds to the fallacious reasoning since this brings in special pleading, arguments from tradition/authority, personal incredulity and the old stand-by relativist (its true for me) fallacy.
I'd suggest, Vlad, its time you climbed out of the barrel.
-
Vlad,
The problem is that you cannot understand that substituting those other entities actually destroy your argument.
Of course they seem ridiculous, just as you god is also ridiculous.
The only reason your god does not seem ridiculous to you is that you are deluded into thinking it is sensible.
You are not thinking sensibly about them, and simply apply confirmation bias to your favoured option.
As I shown substituting entities does not destroy the argument as I demonstrated in my reply to Outrider.
Your post is nothing more than assertion that letter substitution, referred to you as entity substitution destroy my argument and assertion that all entities mentioned by you and outrider including God are ridiculous.
I have no time for mere assertion and you shouldn't tolerate them either....so go away and....not tolerate yourself...thank you.
You assert your god exists!
Your argument works just as well for fairies, but you cannot see it it seems.
I think you do see it, and do not like it, and that's why you react with insult when it is pointed out.
All you have to do is rebut the argument and explain why it ONLY works for YOUR god. Simply asserting though, as you say, is worthless.
I assert that I believe God to exist for a number of reasons.
You merely at the moment assert everything.
The point you missed was that the reason the argument for God does not work for Winston Churchill, Penis or Rubberduck is that we know their properties......just like we know the properties of Fairies, and Oberon.
I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.
So there you go then Be Sensible.....Your argument has been well and truly blown.
By the way you accused me of confirmation bias so you have to proof both confirmation and bias.
........Like shooting fish in a barrel.
-
I assert that I believe God to exist for a number of reasons.
If the arguments you listed above are your 'reasons' then, no, you're just asserting God.
The point you missed was that the reason the argument for God does not work for Winston Churchill, Penis or Rubberduck is that we know their properties......just like we know the properties of Fairies, and Oberon.
No, we neither 'know' the properties of Oberon, nor fairies nor your hypothesised deity. We do have a reasonable assurance of at least some of the properties of Churchill, peni and bath toys, because we have examples of those which can be studied.
I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.
Which is the case, yes, but fails to acknowledge that in the absence of any evidence you arbitrarily assign those properties to your particular conception of a god as well. That's why the argument is equally as valid.
O.
-
Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.
Which in a way is, of course, the point O was making (as was BHS) that you seem resistant to recognising: that if you substitute terms to replace 'God' in these arguments then they are exposed as being fallacious nonsense, since they must stand or fail together.
To say that they work only for the Christian God just adds to the fallacious reasoning since this brings in special pleading, arguments from tradition/authority, personal incredulity and the old stand-by relativist (its true for me) fallacy.
I'd suggest, Vlad, its time you climbed out of the barrel.
Have you finshed trying to shoot fish in the corner of a barrell?
If, you believe that Vlad is substituting the :-
that if you substitute terms to replace 'God' in these arguments then they are exposed as being fallacious nonsense, since they must stand or fail together.
USING the original term 'God' and the 'substitute term' show us why it stands and falls.
If using the term 'God' the argument stands but fails with a substitute then show us the points.
If you are saying the Word of God fails then bring the evidence.
Isn't this a play about an argument based on words rather than the truth of God.
Come on Gordon, you started it... make good your argument bring the evidence and explain the rudimentary elements of those arguments...
-
Vlad,
The problem is that you cannot understand that substituting those other entities actually destroy your argument.
Of course they seem ridiculous, just as you god is also ridiculous.
The only reason your god does not seem ridiculous to you is that you are deluded into thinking it is sensible.
You are not thinking sensibly about them, and simply apply confirmation bias to your favoured option.
As I shown substituting entities does not destroy the argument as I demonstrated in my reply to Outrider.
Your post is nothing more than assertion that letter substitution, referred to you as entity substitution destroy my argument and assertion that all entities mentioned by you and outrider including God are ridiculous.
I have no time for mere assertion and you shouldn't tolerate them either....so go away and....not tolerate yourself...thank you.
You assert your god exists!
Your argument works just as well for fairies, but you cannot see it it seems.
I think you do see it, and do not like it, and that's why you react with insult when it is pointed out.
All you have to do is rebut the argument and explain why it ONLY works for YOUR god. Simply asserting though, as you say, is worthless.
I assert that I believe God to exist for a number of reasons.
You merely at the moment assert everything.
The point you missed was that the reason the argument for God does not work for Winston Churchill, Penis or Rubberduck is that we know their properties......just like we know the properties of Fairies, and Oberon.
I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.
So there you go then Be Sensible.....Your argument has been well and truly blown.
By the way you accused me of confirmation bias so you have to proof both confirmation and bias.
........Like shooting fish in a barrel.
But we do not know the properties of fairies or leprechauns or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You can substitute all of these for you god, and they still work.
The fact you cannot see this, shows that you are biased to the one version you are surrounded by and feel comfortable with.
These are no indicators of truth.
If you care about truth, you have to make the argument ONLY work for god.
The moment it is shown it works for fairies etc, your argument fails.
At the moment, the arguments you have offered, have all been refuted.
-
Isn't this a play about an argument based on words rather than the truth of God.
To an extent, yes, because to those of us who don't believe it seems that 'god' is just a word invented to account for a vague concept that some people want to be true but lack any evidence for.
Any property can be artificially assigned to a a god because there is nothing that can be tested - and, therefore, that can equally be done for any conceptual entity for which we have no direct evidence: fairies, devils, Zeus, Ghanesh, Ameratsu, the great spirit of the mountain, Gandalf...
O.
-
I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.
Vlad
1. So what are the properties of God then?
2. How do you know fairies don't just have these same properties? After all, and to borrow your own point of view as regularly expressed by your good self, perhaps you are guilty of fairy-dodging to the extent that you are underestimating the wee folk.
-
How ridiculous. Since notice what happens to your argument when you substitute the words Fairy,.... Oberon , King of the Fairies...and
Oberon, lord of the silidh.....with the words Winston Churchill, Penis and Rubber Duck.
You see all you are doing is changing letters.
Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.
The point was to show that your arguments are entirely indistinguishable from arguments for fairies. If I wanted to undermine the arguments I'd attack them, but that wasn't the point of the exercise.
If you'd like me to eviscerate the ridiculous assertions of the cosmological argument or the inherent failures of the teleological argument then by all means start a thread for it.
The point made was that one of the weaknesses of arguments for God was that they were equally applicable as arguments for fairies.
Your own point here not only concedes that, but also makes the point that it works for bath toys, bodily organs and ex-Prime Ministers (which, actually, it doesn't, given that we have evidence for those which can be assessed, but never mind, at least you tried...)
O.
They are only OK for fairies if fairies have ceased to be little chaps with wings or even little local deities and have become God.
Even then if they are fairies in the plural how are they a divine unity. Now if you are deliberately changing the definition of fairies to be the same as that of God then what word you use God or fairies is irrelevant.
In other words the arguments only fit Outrider as you have been dishonest.
Go away, have a cup of tea, reflect on your fall and come back a better person.
-
I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.
Vlad
1. So what are the properties of God then?
2. How do you know fairies don't just have these same properties? After all, and to borrow your own point of view as regularly expressed by your good self, perhaps you are guilty of fairy-dodging to the extent that you are underestimating the wee folk.
1: Different from fairies.
2: If they had the same properties of God...which they can't have being plural at least.....They would effectively be what we call God and not be what we effectively call fairies. There would be no reason to have the giggle factor which is vital for this low form of antitheist ''argument'' (If it even merits the term)
-
VlunderingoverNiagrawithoutabarrel,
How ridiculous. Since notice what happens to your argument when you substitute the words Fairy,.... Oberon , King of the Fairies...and Oberon, lord of the silidh.....with the words Winston Churchill, Penis and Rubber Duck.
You see all you are doing is changing letters.
Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.
Actually it’s more nuanced than that I think. Of course the “flakey five” arguments essayed by WLC and beloved of Alien are hopelessly broken on their own terms, but even if they weren’t then as Outrider notes they’d point to a “something” but not necessarily to your “something”.
At best they’d be arguments for deism – a disinterested clockmaker god about whom nothing more could be said - but could never say anything about a theistic god, let alone the one to which you just happen to be most enculturated.
That is, you’d need something other than the flakey five to show that it was your god at play rather than a different supernatural entity entirely. Substituting “fairy” for “god” isn’t in other words just changing letters, it’s changing one faith belief object for another albeit that each would be in the universe-creating business.
-
Vlad,
The problem is that you cannot understand that substituting those other entities actually destroy your argument.
Of course they seem ridiculous, just as you god is also ridiculous.
The only reason your god does not seem ridiculous to you is that you are deluded into thinking it is sensible.
You are not thinking sensibly about them, and simply apply confirmation bias to your favoured option.
As I shown substituting entities does not destroy the argument as I demonstrated in my reply to Outrider.
Your post is nothing more than assertion that letter substitution, referred to you as entity substitution destroy my argument and assertion that all entities mentioned by you and outrider including God are ridiculous.
I have no time for mere assertion and you shouldn't tolerate them either....so go away and....not tolerate yourself...thank you.
You assert your god exists!
Your argument works just as well for fairies, but you cannot see it it seems.
I think you do see it, and do not like it, and that's why you react with insult when it is pointed out.
All you have to do is rebut the argument and explain why it ONLY works for YOUR god. Simply asserting though, as you say, is worthless.
I assert that I believe God to exist for a number of reasons.
You merely at the moment assert everything.
The point you missed was that the reason the argument for God does not work for Winston Churchill, Penis or Rubberduck is that we know their properties......just like we know the properties of Fairies, and Oberon.
I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.
So there you go then Be Sensible.....Your argument has been well and truly blown.
By the way you accused me of confirmation bias so you have to proof both confirmation and bias.
........Like shooting fish in a barrel.
But we do not know the properties of fairies or leprechauns or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
You can substitute all of these for you god, and they still work.
The fact you cannot see this, shows that you are biased to the one version you are surrounded by and feel comfortable with.
These are no indicators of truth.
If you care about truth, you have to make the argument ONLY work for god.
The moment it is shown it works for fairies etc, your argument fails.
At the moment, the arguments you have offered, have all been refuted.
Er we don't know the properties of Flying Spaghetti, Leprechauns and fairies.....what rot!
The whole dishonest enterprise of this kind of ''Flying Spaghetti monster'' works like this.
1: Come up with something ridiculous, the more ridiculous the better.
2: In argument, promote it to God. In fact make it so like God it is indistinguishable from God
3: Keep the ridiculous handle and hope that mugs maintain the association.
4: Celebrate what a smart ''bright'' you have been by having a bumper sticker!!!
Great...Disneyland for Antitheists!
-
If using the term 'God' the argument stands but fails with a substitute then show us the points.
Outrider already did in reply #557 which exposes the fallacious reasoning inherent in these arguments.
If you are saying the Word of God fails then bring the evidence.
Shifting the burden of proof doesn't wash, Sass, it is for you who promote this 'Word' to demonstrate why others shouldn't regard this 'Word' as just another set of ancient myths.
Isn't this a play about an argument based on words rather than the truth of God.
In a sense, the point being that replacing the terms (say with a god that once once taken seriously) shows the weaknesses in these arguments.
Come on Gordon, you started it... make good your argument bring the evidence and explain the rudimentary elements of those arguments...
Not really Sass, challenges to these arguments pre-date me, and Outrider has set them out nicely in post #557. You are again trying to shift the burden of proof - it isn't for me to produce evidence that you are wrong, it is for you to produce arguments or evidence that cannot be rebutted.
-
Vlunderingintothealligatorpool,
Er we don't know the properties of Flying Spaghetti, Leprechauns and fairies.....what rot!
The whole dishonest enterprise of this kind of ''Flying Spaghetti monster'' works like this.
1: Come up with something ridiculous, the more ridiculous the better.
2: In argument, promote it to God. In fact make it so like God it is indistinguishable from God
3: Keep the ridiculous handle and hope that mugs maintain the association.
4: Celebrate what a smart ''bright'' you have been by having a bumper sticker!!!
Great...Disneyland for Antitheists!
No it doesn't. How it works is to take various of the arguments theists make for "god" to see whether they work just as well for plainly ridiculous outcomes.
And guess what? Lots of them do!
Anyway, as fusilli pasta is EXACTLY THE SAME SHAPE AS DNA what more proof positive for the FSM do you want exactly?
-
VlunderingoverNiagrawithoutabarrel,
How ridiculous. Since notice what happens to your argument when you substitute the words Fairy,.... Oberon , King of the Fairies...and Oberon, lord of the silidh.....with the words Winston Churchill, Penis and Rubber Duck.
You see all you are doing is changing letters.
Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.
Actually it’s more nuanced than that I think. Of course the “flakey five” arguments essayed by WLC and beloved of Alien are hopelessly broken on their own terms, but even if they weren’t then as Outrider notes they’d point to a “something” but not necessarily to your “something”.
At best they’d be arguments for deism – a disinterested clockmaker god about whom nothing more could be said - but could never say anything about a theistic god, let alone the one to which you just happen to be most enculturated.
That is, you’d need something other than the flakey five to show that it was your god at play rather than a different supernatural entity entirely. Substituting “fairy” for “god” isn’t in other words just changing letters, it’s changing one faith belief object for another albeit that each would be in the universe-creating business.
As moderate as this looks Hillside compared to Outrider's and Be Rational's defence of a bad argument (flaws listed in posts recently passim), it doesn't escape being a warmed over argumentum ad ridiculum.
An important and necessary modification needs to be made to the definition of fairy. There would need to be one fairy.
Secondly...and I don't think you ever owned up to this.......This fairy would therefore no longer legitimately have the same ''giggle'' factor....and that would be fatal to any argument for which ridicule was a factor.
-
I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.
Vlad
1. So what are the properties of God then?
2. How do you know fairies don't just have these same properties? After all, and to borrow your own point of view as regularly expressed by your good self, perhaps you are guilty of fairy-dodging to the extent that you are underestimating the wee folk.
1: Different from fairies.
2: If they had the same properties of God...which they can't have being plural at least.....They would effectively be what we call God and not be what we effectively call fairies. There would be no reason to have the giggle factor which is vital for this low form of antitheist ''argument'' (If it even merits the term)
1. To know that you'd have to know the properties of both God and fairies - care to elaborate?
2. Bearing in mind that we are told that the Christian God involves three elements (the so-called Trinity), about which we seem to have been told by Christians, iirc, is mysterious and not possible to explain with precision, then perhaps your assessment of fairies involves dodging their mysterious and ineffable characteristics on exactly the same basis that you have accused others of God-dodging'.
Seems to me that you are jumping straight into the barrel marked 'special pleading'.
-
They are only OK for fairies if fairies have ceased to be little chaps with wings or even little local deities and have become God.
Who know what misinformation the nefarious Ninja Turtles have spread about the Silidh court, over the centuries...
Even then if they are fairies in the plural how are they a divine unity. Now if you are deliberately changing the definition of fairies to be the same as that of God then what word you use God or fairies is irrelevant.
Which is, to an extent, the point - the idea of 'God' in these (already flawed) arguments is so vague as to be meaningless. You'd be as well saying 'something'.
In other words the arguments only fit Outrider as you have been dishonest.
I'd say it's as dishonest as your use of 'God' rather than 'a god' to pretend that your flawed arguments aren't deist but specifically Christian.
To my mind your use of 'God' is as meaningless as anyone else's use of 'fairy' or 'tribble' - these are concepts without clear definitions or mechanisms for determining their properties.
Go away, have a cup of tea, reflect on your fall and come back a better person.
I'm more of a coffee man, this time of day, but from where I stand it seems I'm doing fine, so you crack on with demonstrating why this hasn't demonstrated that one unevidenced assertion of an hypothetical concept isn't interchangable with an equally unevidenced assertion of an equally hypothetical concept.
Yes, it's showing that the particular word you use is irrelevant, that's an important point: the point being that, stripped of culturally appropriated gravitas, God is a meaningless term.
O.
-
1: Different from fairies.
.. he asserted.
2: If they had the same properties of God...which they can't have being plural at least.....
I didn't figure you for a non-Trinitarian... who'd a thunk?
They would effectively be what we call God and not be what we effectively call fairies.
Be effectively what you call god, perhaps.
O.
-
1: Different from fairies.
.. he asserted.
2: If they had the same properties of God...which they can't have being plural at least.....
I didn't figure you for a non-Trinitarian... who'd a thunk?
They would effectively be what we call God and not be what we effectively call fairies.
Be effectively what you call god, perhaps.
O.
Haven't you heard of three in one oil.
Please read my previous posts. None of what you've said actually helps the argument you originally wanted to make.
-
Haven't you heard of three in one oil.
Yes. Have you not heard of the Silidh Court?
Please read my previous posts. None of what you've said actually helps the argument you originally wanted to make.
I did read them. The argument I originally made doesn't need any help, you've not yet demonstrated that there's any problem with it. It adequately shows that 'God' (and the associated 'god') are so insufficiently defined and vague as to be meaningless, and can therefore be replaced with 'fairies' or 'something' in the (flawed) formulations you mentioned.
If you'd like to suggest another argument where perhaps that isn't the case then, by all means, I'll review.
O.
-
Haven't you heard of three in one oil.
So you have a lubrication argument to hand, Vlad - hope it isn't a slippery one!
-
Vlunderingjehosivat!,
As moderate as this looks Hillside compared to Outrider's and Be Rational's defence of a bad argument (flaws listed in posts recently passim), it doesn't escape being a warmed over argumentum ad ridiculum.
The argument is fine – your “flaws” were no such thing, but ok.
An important and necessary modification needs to be made to the definition of fairy. There would need to be one fairy.
Only if you wanted to make a like-for-like swap with “god”. There’s no reason not to think that there were two of them (or a million of them) all either eternal or all pouffed into existence at the same time jointly making the universe
Secondly...and I don't think you ever owned up to this.......This fairy would therefore no longer legitimately have the same ''giggle'' factor....and that would be fatal to any argument for which ridicule was a factor.
The reason your “argumentum ad ridiculum" schtick fails so badly is that it just assumes that “god” should be afforded a special privilege not afforded to fairies etc. Some of us find whatever you think you intuit to be just as ridiculous as fairies though – and that’s the point.
-
If you are saying the Word of God fails then bring the evidence.
Of course the concept fails, if it worked everyone would believe in it. Besides which the deity's so called 'word' can be interpreted in so many different ways by believers, so it fails on that score as well!
-
I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.
Vlad
1. So what are the properties of God then?
2. How do you know fairies don't just have these same properties? After all, and to borrow your own point of view as regularly expressed by your good self, perhaps you are guilty of fairy-dodging to the extent that you are underestimating the wee folk.
1: Different from fairies.
2: If they had the same properties of God...which they can't have being plural at least.....They would effectively be what we call God and not be what we effectively call fairies. There would be no reason to have the giggle factor which is vital for this low form of antitheist ''argument'' (If it even merits the term)
1. To know that you'd have to know the properties of both God and fairies - care to elaborate?
2. Bearing in mind that we are told that the Christian God involves three elements (the so-called Trinity), about which we seem to have been told by Christians, iirc, is mysterious and not possible to explain with precision, then perhaps your assessment of fairies involves dodging their mysterious and ineffable characteristics on exactly the same basis that you have accused others of God-dodging'.
Seems to me that you are jumping straight into the barrel marked 'special pleading'.
Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.
What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.
That reveals all.
Things are what their properties are. If you are not convinced that we know the properties and definitions of God, or spaghetti, or monster or fairy or unicorn I suggest you use both a dictionary and thesaurus.
Also read my post on how dishonest the FSM argument is.
-
Vlunderingjehosivats!,
As moderate as this looks Hillside compared to Outrider's and Be Rational's defence of a bad argument (flaws listed in posts recently passim), it doesn't escape being a warmed over argumentum ad ridiculum.
The argument is fine – your “flaws” were no such thing, but ok.
An important and necessary modification needs to be made to the definition of fairy. There would need to be one fairy.
Only if you wanted to make a like-for-like swap with “god”. There’s no reason not to think that there were two of them (or a million of them) all either eternal or all pouffed into existence at the same time jointly making the universe
Secondly...and I don't think you ever owned up to this.......This fairy would therefore no longer legitimately have the same ''giggle'' factor....and that would be fatal to any argument for which ridicule was a factor.
The reason your “argumentum ad ridiculum: schtick fails so badly is that it just assumes that “god” should be afforded a special privilege not afforded to fairies etc. Some of find whatever you think you intuit to ne just as ridiculous as fairies though – that’s the point.
If the argument is find it should stand substitution of the ridiculous beings with the words Penis, Winston Churchill and Rubber Duck.
-
Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.
All you have to do then is explain how your idea of a god is qualitatively different - you have this expectation of cultural acceptance of the concept, but you haven't given any reason why we should think that 'god' is different to 'fairy'.
What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.
Penises are really things, they have properties that can be assessed, measured and determined so that particular claims about them can be justified. Gods and fairies are not in this class of claims.
Things are what their properties are. If you are not convinced that we know the properties and definitions of God, or spaghetti, or monster or fairy or unicorn I suggest you use both a dictionary and thesaurus.
If you think we know the properties and definitions of God I suggest you refer to the thousands upon thousands of competing religious sects with different concepts and absolutely no reliable evidence upon which to base their claims.
Also read my post on how dishonest the FSM argument is.
1: Come up with something ridiculous, the more ridiculous the better
Like the classical Christian conception of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god, or does it not have to be as ridiculous as that? Ridiculous is a subjective understanding.
2: In argument, promote it to God. In fact make it so like God it is indistinguishable from God
As indistinguishable as the Catholic, Orthodox, Orthodox Jewish, Hassidic Jewish, Shi'ite and Mormon conceptions of the Abrahamic Deity? As indistinguishable as the classical Greek, Christian and Norse depictions of gods?
3: Keep the ridiculous handle and hope that mugs maintain the association.
Or just fail to realise that two identical arguments that result in two different reactions highlights a logical failing in the person with the different reactions... one of the two.
4: Celebrate what a smart ''bright'' you have been by having a bumper sticker!!!
I think the last stage is actually despair that seemingly intelligent people cling to the primitive tribal superstitions of the Big Boy's Jewish Book of Bed-Time Stories and therefore justify philosophies that result in genital mutilation, homophobia, misogyny, censorship, terrorism and enviromentally harmful reality-denial.
I'm not in this just for the shits and giggles, and I certainly don't rate how smart I am by pointing out that gaping flaws in the special pleading of differences between religious arguments.
O.
-
Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.
All you have to do then is explain how your idea of a god is qualitatively different - you have this expectation of cultural acceptance of the concept, but you haven't given any reason why we should think that 'god' is different to 'fairy'.
What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.
Penises are really things, they have properties that can be assessed, measured and determined so that particular claims about them can be justified. Gods and fairies are not in this class of claims.
Things are what their properties are. If you are not convinced that we know the properties and definitions of God, or spaghetti, or monster or fairy or unicorn I suggest you use both a dictionary and thesaurus.
If you think we know the properties and definitions of God I suggest you refer to the thousands upon thousands of competing religious sects with different concepts and absolutely no reliable evidence upon which to base their claims.
Also read my post on how dishonest the FSM argument is.
1: Come up with something ridiculous, the more ridiculous the better
Like the classical Christian conception of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god, or does it not have to be as ridiculous as that? Ridiculous is a subjective understanding.
2: In argument, promote it to God. In fact make it so like God it is indistinguishable from God
As indistinguishable as the Catholic, Orthodox, Orthodox Jewish, Hassidic Jewish, Shi'ite and Mormon conceptions of the Abrahamic Deity? As indistinguishable as the classical Greek, Christian and Norse depictions of gods?
3: Keep the ridiculous handle and hope that mugs maintain the association.
Or just fail to realise that two identical arguments that result in two different reactions highlights a logical failing in the person with the different reactions... one of the two.
4: Celebrate what a smart ''bright'' you have been by having a bumper sticker!!!
I think the last stage is actually despair that seemingly intelligent people cling to the primitive tribal superstitions of the Big Boy's Jewish Book of Bed-Time Stories and therefore justify philosophies that result in genital mutilation, homophobia, misogyny, censorship, terrorism and enviromentally harmful reality-denial.
I'm not in this just for the shits and giggles, and I certainly don't rate how smart I am by pointing out that gaping flaws in the special pleading of differences between religious arguments.
O.
Two things here
1: The properties of God are those which fit the four ''Arguments for God'' and those outlined in scripture....to which we could add ''in a dictionary''.
2: To say we don't understand the definitions of fairies, Flying spaghetti, Leprechauns etc. is not credible since there are sources.
3: making their properties more like God's so that they fit is also dishonest.
This line of enquiry.....argumentum ad ridiculum is not profiting you and you need the others.
By bringing in censorship, homophobia you seem to be suggesting that the ends.....the elimination of religion...justifies the means....dishonest argument.
I think you'll find censorship and homophobia would exist without religion.
-
Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.
Not really, it is the argument that is ridiculous, and this is what is highlighted when the argument is applied beyond the special case that you hold so dear.
What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.
That reveals all.
All it reveals, Vlad, is the peril of hanging a case for God on an argument that, as used by you, is fallacious since you have to immediately indulge in special pleading in favour of your choice of target as being the only possible target that the argument can be used for.
Things are what their properties are.
An utterly meaningless statement, Vlad, unless you go on the identify these 'things' with a degree of precision as opposed to just vacuously asserting that there are 'things'.
-
Dear Outrider,
Penises are really things, they have properties that can be assessed, measured and determined so that particular claims about them can be justified.
My God is bigger than your god. 8)
Yes I know!! go straight to hell Gonnagle, do not pass go, do not collect £200. ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
1: The properties of God are those which fit the four ''Arguments for God'' and those outlined in scripture....to which we could add ''in a dictionary''.
And yet, even within the faiths that hold to that scripture (which is an unreliable indicator, but that's a different argument) that interpretation is questioned. That dictionary definition is going to be strongly culturally influenced: the definition of 'god' in, say, an Indian dictionary is going to be vastly different to that in an English dictionary.
In the absence of any reliable evidence, there is no way to determine if the 'commonly held' understanding of the putative comparative properties of 'fairies' and 'gods' are correctly assigned: by contrast, and this is why I've made the point that it's different, we can determine things about rubber ducks and penises, so they aren't interchangable in your argument.
2: To say we don't understand the definitions of fairies, Flying spaghetti, Leprechauns etc. is not credible since there are sources.
There are opinions, but nothing more than that.
3: making their properties more like God's so that they fit is also dishonest.
No, it isn't, because you've no basis beyond desire to assign those properties to god in the first place. You've inherited a tradition of accepting that claim, but it's an unsubstantiated claim; the fact that my claim on behalf of fairies might be newer doesn't change the fact that they're both unsubstantiated.
This line of enquiry.....argumentum ad ridiculum is not profiting you and you need the others.
Except that I'm not making the ridiculous argument - I'm simply highlighting that the argument you make is ridiculous, by pointing out that it's equally valid for the sentient, sex-addled spirit of the gasses within a ping-pong ball.
Properties
Yes? All assertions for fairies, Oberon, gods, God and nymphomaniacal gas spirits.
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
Penises are really things, they have properties that can be assessed, measured and determined so that particular claims about them can be justified.
My God is bigger than your god. 8)
Yes I know!! go straight to hell Gonnagle, do not pass go, do not collect £200. ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
I've been reliably informed that it's not what you've got, it's what you do with it... but no charges were pressed, so it's probably fine.
It does put a different complexion on the benediction 'touched by his noodly appendage', though!
O.
-
Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.
Not really, it is the argument that is ridiculous, and this is what is highlighted when the argument is applied beyond the special case that you hold so dear.
What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.
That reveals all.
All it reveals, Vlad, is the peril of hanging a case for God on an argument that, as used by you, is fallacious since you have to immediately indulge in special pleading in favour of your choice of target as being the only possible target that the argument can be used for.
Things are what their properties are.
An utterly meaningless statement, Vlad, unless you go on the identify these 'things' with a degree of precision as opposed to just vacuously asserting that there are 'things'.
I have arguments for God and you have arguments against.....it happens that this argument against is transparently duff.
Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.
As your argument in this case has proved to be ''un Turd exemplere'' I think you and the posse need to be addressing those arguments instead of dressing this turkey.
-
Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.
Not really, it is the argument that is ridiculous, and this is what is highlighted when the argument is applied beyond the special case that you hold so dear.
What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.
That reveals all.
All it reveals, Vlad, is the peril of hanging a case for God on an argument that, as used by you, is fallacious since you have to immediately indulge in special pleading in favour of your choice of target as being the only possible target that the argument can be used for.
Things are what their properties are.
An utterly meaningless statement, Vlad, unless you go on the identify these 'things' with a degree of precision as opposed to just vacuously asserting that there are 'things'.
I have arguments for God and you have arguments against.....it happens that this argument against is transparently duff.
Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.
As your argument in this case has proved to be ''un Turd exemplere'' I think you and the posse need to be addressing those arguments instead of dressing this turkey.
You have arguments that work for more than your god, and that is the problem.
You like the answer god, and reject fairy, but both work equally well with the argument.
You have to either accept BOTH or NEITHER.
You cannot logically accept one and not the other.
This is where you are illogical.
-
Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.
Not really, it is the argument that is ridiculous, and this is what is highlighted when the argument is applied beyond the special case that you hold so dear.
What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.
That reveals all.
All it reveals, Vlad, is the peril of hanging a case for God on an argument that, as used by you, is fallacious since you have to immediately indulge in special pleading in favour of your choice of target as being the only possible target that the argument can be used for.
Things are what their properties are.
An utterly meaningless statement, Vlad, unless you go on the identify these 'things' with a degree of precision as opposed to just vacuously asserting that there are 'things'.
I have arguments for God and you have arguments against.....it happens that this argument against is transparently duff.
Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.
As your argument in this case has proved to be ''un Turd exemplere'' I think you and the posse need to be addressing those arguments instead of dressing this turkey.
You have arguments that work for more than your god, and that is the problem.
You like the answer god, and reject fairy, but both work equally well with the argument.
You have to either accept BOTH or NEITHER.
You cannot logically accept one and not the other.
This is where you are illogical.
I agree.
-
Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.
Not really, it is the argument that is ridiculous, and this is what is highlighted when the argument is applied beyond the special case that you hold so dear.
What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.
That reveals all.
All it reveals, Vlad, is the peril of hanging a case for God on an argument that, as used by you, is fallacious since you have to immediately indulge in special pleading in favour of your choice of target as being the only possible target that the argument can be used for.
Things are what their properties are.
An utterly meaningless statement, Vlad, unless you go on the identify these 'things' with a degree of precision as opposed to just vacuously asserting that there are 'things'.
I have arguments for God and you have arguments against.....it happens that this argument against is transparently duff.
Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.
As your argument in this case has proved to be ''un Turd exemplere'' I think you and the posse need to be addressing those arguments instead of dressing this turkey.
You have arguments that work for more than your god, and that is the problem.
You like the answer god, and reject fairy, but both work equally well with the argument.
You have to either accept BOTH or NEITHER.
You cannot logically accept one and not the other.
This is where you are illogical.
That might be true for arguments where the arguments establish that both God and the other thing are unfalsifiable. But outside that I just forsee the troubles you have experienced this morning with what is frankly a turd of an argument on your parts.
By promoting your supposed entities to God you have acknowledged that the argument does not work for them! It's as clear as that.....You have disproved your own argument!
This time I'm afraid you've all pissed on your own bonfires.
Smackdown!
-
That might be true for arguments where the arguments establish that both God and the other thing are unfalsifiable.
Those exist, but this does not require that.
But outside that I just forsee the troubles you have experienced this morning with what is frankly a turd of an argument on your parts.
If it were such a turd you'd be showing us why rather than merely asserting that it is.
By promoting your supposed entities to God you have acknowledged that the argument does not work for them!
No.
It's as clear as that.....You have disproved your own argument!
No.
This time I'm afraid you've all pissed on your own bonfires.
And no.
Smackdown!
... he asserted.
O.
-
Vlunderingintothestrawmandiscountwarehouse,
Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.
No, "Hillside" is merely restating bluehillside's fourth maxim: If an argument for "God" works just as well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument.
Why is this so difficult for you?
-
That might be true for arguments where the arguments establish that both God and the other thing are unfalsifiable.
Those exist, but this does not require that.
But outside that I just forsee the troubles you have experienced this morning with what is frankly a turd of an argument on your parts.
If it were such a turd you'd be showing us why rather than merely asserting that it is.
By promoting your supposed entities to God you have acknowledged that the argument does not work for them!
No.
It's as clear as that.....You have disproved your own argument!
No.
This time I'm afraid you've all pissed on your own bonfires.
And no.
Smackdown!
... he asserted.
O.
Poor Outrider
He started out with high hopes that this was a mere assertion that his argument was a Turd.
Then the explanation came and all could do was assert ''No''.
-
Vlunderingintothestrawmandiscountwarehouse,
Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.
No, "Hillside" is merely restating bluehillside's fourth maxim: If an argument for "God" works just as well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument.
Why is this so difficult for you?
Do the Vlad test Hillside. For any argument involving Leprechauns, substitute the word Penis for the word Leprechaun ;)
-
Vlunderingintothestrawmandiscountwarehouse,
Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.
No, "Hillside" is merely restating bluehillside's fourth maxim: If an argument for "God" works just as well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument.
Why is this so difficult for you?
Do the Vlad test Hillside. For any argument involving Leprechauns, substitute the word Penis for the word Leprechaun ;)
That fails.
Perhaps you just need more help to show were you are going wrong.
Do you feel that you are answering the points put to you.
To me, and perhaps others you cannot resist posting replies, but the replies never address the points ranged against you.
It's tantamount to shouting LALALALALA.
Your arguments so far have been defeated, but it appears you do not understand that?
-
Vlunderingeverdeeperintohisownwellofcontradictions,
Do the Vlad test Hillside. For any argument involving Leprechauns, substitute the word Penis for the word Leprechaun ;)
As Outy has already explained to you, the "Vlad test" is a category error.
To put it another way, your penis analogy would never stand up in court... 8)
-
Vlunderingeverdeeperintohisownwellofcontradictions,
Do the Vlad test Hillside. For any argument involving Leprechauns, substitute the word Penis for the word Leprechaun ;)
As Outy has already explained to you, the "Vlad test" is a category error.
To put it another way, your penis analogy would never stand up in court... 8)
Yes! By George he's got it and that's the point fairies, leprechauns etc are in the wrong category.
That's why the full version of the Vlad test as mentioned numerous times includes the words penis, Winston Churchill and rubberduck......take your pick.
Saying you can't use non ridiculous entities Hillside is just special pleading.
-
Vlunderingevendeeperintothepitofhisownirrationality,
Yes! By George he's got it and that's the point fairies, leprechauns etc are in the wrong category.
That's why the full version of the Vlad test as mentioned numerous times includes the words penis, Winston Churchill and rubberduck......take your pick.
Saying you can't use non ridiculous entities Hillside is just special pleading.
Is the penis ridiculous? I haven't seen mine for ages so couldn't solicit an opinion.
How about you? You seem to be in constant contact with yours.
Oh dear. Fairies, leprechauns and gods alike are in the category "supernatural somethings".
Penises, rubber ducks and Winston Churchill are in the category "natural somethings".
That's why the "Vlad test" is a category error.
If you think there to be sub-sets of the set "supernatural somethings" that would make fairy/god comparisons erroneous then by all means attempt an argument for it, but for now when the arguments for each are identical ("I intuit it" etc) then they are in the same category.
-
Dear Vlad, Blue, Outrider, Berational, old tom cobbly and all,
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/06/god-gods-and-fairies
Anybody read anything from this man, he mentions philosophical naturalism and black swans. :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
Vlunderingevendeeperintothepitofhisownirrationality,
Yes! By George he's got it and that's the point fairies, leprechauns etc are in the wrong category.
That's why the full version of the Vlad test as mentioned numerous times includes the words penis, Winston Churchill and rubberduck......take your pick.
Saying you can't use non ridiculous entities Hillside is just special pleading.
Is the penis ridiculous? I haven't seen mine for ages so couldn't solicit an opinion.
How about you? You seem to be in constant contact with yours.
Oh dear. Fairies, leprechauns and gods alike are in the category "supernatural somethings".
Penises, rubber ducks and Winston Churchill are in the category "natural somethings".
That's why the "Vlad test" is a category error.
If you think there to be sub-sets of the set "supernatural somethings" that would make fairy/god comparisons erroneous then by all means attempt an argument for it, but for now when the arguments for each are identical ("I intuit it" etc) then they are in the same category.
Supernatural? What is supernatural about being physically small, being Irish, Having wings, being noodly, physically representing a horse and the colour pink?
Which is why I have said the only safe argument in which you can put other things in with God is unfalsifiability.....Is having wings falsifiable?, whoops I think it is.
This is all down to your dicey categorisations. unfalsifiability is a sounder categorisation than ''supernatural'' which as I have demonstrated to you....again...
is prey to falsifiability.
-
Supernatural? What is supernatural about being physically small, being Irish, Having wings, being noodly, physically representing a horse and the colour pink?
The magic bits.
Which is why I have said the only safe argument in which you can put other things in with God is unfalsifiability.....Is having wings falsifiable?, whoops I think it is.
Yes, but the fairies all appear to have intangible, invisible wings - unless you can point me in the direction of a natural history museum with an example? Of course, you have depictions of fairies with wings, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster with beef meatballs, but then you have depictions of God with a long, flowing Zeus-like beard.
This is all down to your dicey categorisations. unfalsifiability is a sounder categorisation than ''supernatural'' which as I have demonstrated to you....again... is prey to falsifiability.
If you choose the label 'unfalsifiable' because you can't adequately define supernatural then fine - penises, rubber ducks and Winston Churchill are all falsifiable, and leprechauns, fairies, unicorns and gods aren't.
O.
-
Supernatural? What is supernatural about being physically small, being Irish, Having wings, being noodly, physically representing a horse and the colour pink?
The magic bits.
Which is why I have said the only safe argument in which you can put other things in with God is unfalsifiability.....Is having wings falsifiable?, whoops I think it is.
Yes, but the fairies all appear to have intangible, invisible wings - unless you can point me in the direction of a natural history museum with an example? Of course, you have depictions of fairies with wings, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster with beef meatballs, but then you have depictions of God with a long, flowing Zeus-like beard.
This is all down to your dicey categorisations. unfalsifiability is a sounder categorisation than ''supernatural'' which as I have demonstrated to you....again... is prey to falsifiability.
If you choose the label 'unfalsifiable' because you can't adequately define supernatural then fine - penises, rubber ducks and Winston Churchill are all falsifiable, and leprechauns, fairies, unicorns and gods aren't.
O.
No. If a Leprechaun is small, irish, dressed in green and hangs around with pots of Gold a Leprechaun is by dint of that falsifiable since you have already accepted that only the magic bits aren't. Similarly small fairies with wings are falsifiable.
so...big fail on your part.
Sorry Rider. The smart money is on sensible, uncontroversial, defineable categories such as unfalsifiable , contingent etc.
-
Yes, but the fairies all appear to have intangible, invisible wings - unless you can point me in the direction of a natural history museum with an example? Of course, you have depictions of fairies with wings, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster with beef meatballs, but then you have depictions of God with a long, flowing Zeus-like beard............
.......And that could be why we don't believe in Zeus....Also, Don't you understand art.
I'm afraid the above objections are easily countered with questions like
''If they are invisible......How do we know that they are pink?''
Sorry to piss on your bonfire.
-
No. If a Leprechaun is small, irish, dressed in green and hangs around with pots of Gold a Leprechaun is by dint of that falsifiable since you have already accepted that only the magic bits aren't.
If it is - do you have anything to substantiate that claim?
Similarly small fairies with wings are falsifiable.
How? How do you know that fairies have wings? How do you know that all fairies have wings?
so...big fail on your part.
Not so that you'd... not so that someone paying attention would notice.
Sorry Rider. The smart money is on sensible, uncontroversial, defineable categories such as unfalsifiable , contingent etc.
Right. So we have an unfalsifiable category that includes God, fairies, leprechauns etc., and a falsifiable category that includes penises, Winston Churchill and rubber ducks. We've been here before...
O.
-
.......And that could be why we don't believe in Zeus....
That's your reason?
Also, Don't you understand art.
Often, I confess, this is the truth. In this instance, though, I note that there are depictions of God which include beards, so I can therefore disprove at least some contentions of God in exactly the same way that I can disprove some contentions of fairies, but that does not equate to a comprehensive proof of non-existence.
I'm afraid the above objections are easily countered with questions like. ''If they are invisible......How do we know that they are pink?''
Oh, that's easy. I have a copy of this old, old book...
Sorry to piss on your bonfire.
Not nearly as sorry as I am that your aim is so poor. I have, it would appear, wet shoes but a servicable bonfire.
O.
-
No. If a Leprechaun is small, irish, dressed in green and hangs around with pots of Gold a Leprechaun is by dint of that falsifiable since you have already accepted that only the magic bits aren't.
If it is - do you have anything to substantiate that claim?
Similarly small fairies with wings are falsifiable.
How? How do you know that fairies have wings? How do you know that all fairies have wings?
so...big fail on your part.
Not so that you'd... not so that someone paying attention would notice.
Sorry Rider. The smart money is on sensible, uncontroversial, defineable categories such as unfalsifiable , contingent etc.
Right. So we have an unfalsifiable category that includes God, fairies, leprechauns etc., and a falsifiable category that includes penises, Winston Churchill and rubber ducks. We've been here before...
O.
I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.
And.....that's it really.............
-
Vluderingstraightintothewarmvatofcustardagain,
I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.
And.....that's it really.............
It would be if you didn't claim a god able at will to intervene in the material world. What in principle is the difference between a god who answers prayers and intervenes to heal the lame, and a fairy who answers prayers and leaves teeth under children's pillows?
I can see that you would dearly love there to be a category difference so as to put (your particular) god in a set of his own, but there isn't.
-
No. If a Leprechaun is small, irish, dressed in green and hangs around with pots of Gold a Leprechaun is by dint of that falsifiable since you have already accepted that only the magic bits aren't.
If it is - do you have anything to substantiate that claim?
Similarly small fairies with wings are falsifiable.
How? How do you know that fairies have wings? How do you know that all fairies have wings?
so...big fail on your part.
Not so that you'd... not so that someone paying attention would notice.
Sorry Rider. The smart money is on sensible, uncontroversial, defineable categories such as unfalsifiable , contingent etc.
Right. So we have an unfalsifiable category that includes God, fairies, leprechauns etc., and a falsifiable category that includes penises, Winston Churchill and rubber ducks. We've been here before...
O.
I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.
And.....that's it really.............
What it all boils down to in the end is that the stories in the Bible, which some people believe to be literally true, have no more credibility than Grimm's fairy tales, for instance, which were intended to be fanciful.
-
I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.
And.....that's it really.............
So if God doesn't have a beard, we've falsified god?
We don't have any actual fairies, we have depictions of fairies - those depictions have wings, but that doesn't mean that fairies necessarily do.
We don't have any actual leprechauns, we have depictions of leprechauns - those depictions have rainbows and pots of gold, but that doesn't mean that leprechauns necessarily do.
We don't have any actual gods, we have depictions of God... you see where this is going?
O.
-
Vluderingstraightintothewarmvatofcustardagain,
I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.
And.....that's it really.............
It would be if you didn't claim a god able at will to intervene in the material world. What in principle is the difference between a god who answers prayers and intervenes to heal the lame, and a fairy who answers prayers and leaves teeth under children's pillows?
I can see that you would dearly love there to be a category difference so as to put (your particular) god in a set of his own, but there isn't.
It doesn't matter whether I claim it or not.
Divine intervention is not falsifiable.
-
Vluderingstraightintothewarmvatofcustardagain,
I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.
And.....that's it really.............
It would be if you didn't claim a god able at will to intervene in the material world. What in principle is the difference between a god who answers prayers and intervenes to heal the lame, and a fairy who answers prayers and leaves teeth under children's pillows?
I can see that you would dearly love there to be a category difference so as to put (your particular) god in a set of his own, but there isn't.
It doesn't matter whether I claim it or not.
Divine intervention is not falsifiable.
What does that mean? You can't prove any sort of divine intervention, so people who say, 'it was god wot did it', are telling an untruth as they can't substantiate the statement.
-
I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.
And.....that's it really.............
So if God doesn't have a beard, we've falsified god?
We don't have any actual fairies, we have depictions of fairies - those depictions have wings, but that doesn't mean that fairies necessarily do.
We don't have any actual leprechauns, we have depictions of leprechauns - those depictions have rainbows and pots of gold, but that doesn't mean that leprechauns necessarily do.
We don't have any actual gods, we have depictions of God... you see where this is going?
O.
Yes. The arbitrary redefinition of these things to make them fit your argument.
-
Vlunderingintothewrongendofthecementmixeragain,
It doesn't matter whether I claim it or not.
Divine intervention is not falsifiable.
Nor is fairyist intervention.
How does that help you?
-
What does that mean? You can't prove any sort of divine intervention, so people who say, 'it was god wot did it', are telling an untruth as they can't substantiate the statement.
Not an untruth because (a) it might be true, and (b) even if it isn't they might genuinely believe it.
They can't support their statement adequately, so it is ultimately an opinion, but that's not lying by any stretch.
O.
-
I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.
And.....that's it really.............
So if God doesn't have a beard, we've falsified god?
We don't have any actual fairies, we have depictions of fairies - those depictions have wings, but that doesn't mean that fairies necessarily do.
We don't have any actual leprechauns, we have depictions of leprechauns - those depictions have rainbows and pots of gold, but that doesn't mean that leprechauns necessarily do.
We don't have any actual gods, we have depictions of God... you see where this is going?
O.
Yes. The arbitrary redefinition of these things to make them fit your argument.
Which differs in that your argument runs from the abitrary definition of your conception of God in what way?
Is it the order that you think makes a difference, because there were conceptions of gods around before the Christians decided their definition.
O.
-
Vluderingstraightintothewarmvatofcustardagain,
I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.
And.....that's it really.............
It would be if you didn't claim a god able at will to intervene in the material world. What in principle is the difference between a god who answers prayers and intervenes to heal the lame, and a fairy who answers prayers and leaves teeth under children's pillows?
I can see that you would dearly love there to be a category difference so as to put (your particular) god in a set of his own, but there isn't.
It doesn't matter whether I claim it or not.
Divine intervention is not falsifiable.
What does that mean? You can't prove any sort of divine intervention, so people who say, 'it was god wot did it', are telling an untruth as they can't substantiate the statement.
We can't say they are telling an untruth because we cannot falsify it. This misunderstanding of the term untruth is what you have laboured under Floo.
-
Vlunderingflatonhisfaceagain,
Yes. The arbitrary redefinition of these things to make them fit your argument.
You're getting really desperate now. Why are these any more or less "arbitrary redefinitions" of fairies than your "arbitrary redefinition" of a god?
-
I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.
And.....that's it really.............
So if God doesn't have a beard, we've falsified god?
We don't have any actual fairies, we have depictions of fairies - those depictions have wings, but that doesn't mean that fairies necessarily do.
We don't have any actual leprechauns, we have depictions of leprechauns - those depictions have rainbows and pots of gold, but that doesn't mean that leprechauns necessarily do.
We don't have any actual gods, we have depictions of God... you see where this is going?
O.
Yes. The arbitrary redefinition of these things to make them fit your argument.
Which differs in that your argument runs from the abitrary definition of your conception of God in what way?
Is it the order that you think makes a difference, because there were conceptions of gods around before the Christians decided their definition.
O.
I feel the time has come for you to make up your mind Outrider.......do these mythical beasts have the ''ridiculous'' characteristics which make comparison to God a bad thing. Or do they not have them and they all including God become respectable suggestions?
-
What does that mean? You can't prove any sort of divine intervention, so people who say, 'it was god wot did it', are telling an untruth as they can't substantiate the statement.
Not an untruth because (a) it might be true, and (b) even if it isn't they might genuinely believe it.
They can't support their statement adequately, so it is ultimately an opinion, but that's not lying by any stretch.
O.
It is an untruth if they state it as a fact and true, when it is only a belief.
-
I feel the time has come for you to make up your mind Outrider.......do these mythical beasts have the ''ridiculous'' characteristics which make comparison to God a bad thing. Or do they not have them and they all including God become respectable suggestions?
Who knows? Are invisible unicorns pink before they become invisible? Do fairies have intangible wings? Are leprechauns living in 'spiritual' pots of gold? Does god count as having a beard because his avatar (which is him) does?
We have no way of knowing any of these, so for you to arbitrarily decide that we'll hold fairies to a depiction of being physical winged things but not hold god to the depiction of being a physical bearded man is unjustified.
I don't need to classify them at all, because I don't think any of them are real. You're the one suggesting there's a category difference between them, it's incumbent upon you to suggest why the classifications are different.
O.
-
Vlunderingflatonhisfaceagain,
Yes. The arbitrary redefinition of these things to make them fit your argument.
You're getting really desperate now. Why are these any more or less "arbitrary redefinitions" of fairies than your "arbitrary redefinition" of a god?
Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.
Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.
Another category fuck on your part.
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.
If Leprechauns are bad news and you redefine them into God then what warrant do you have to say that God is bad news. Or even that Leprechauns are bad news?
Redefining terms in mid argument is never Good Hillside.........Perhaps that is what Leprechauns really are?
-
I feel the time has come for you to make up your mind Outrider.......do these mythical beasts have the ''ridiculous'' characteristics which make comparison to God a bad thing. Or do they not have them and they all including God become respectable suggestions?
Who knows? Are invisible unicorns pink before they become invisible? Do fairies have intangible wings? Are leprechauns living in 'spiritual' pots of gold? Does god count as having a beard because his avatar (which is him) does?
Yes but Outrider if unicorns are ever visible that renders them falsifiable since visibility is measurable.
If they are intangible how do we know they are wings?
Why is a spiritual pot of Gold ''ridiculous''?.
Unfortunately the divinity of Jesus is unfalsifiable.
-
What does that mean? You can't prove any sort of divine intervention, so people who say, 'it was god wot did it', are telling an untruth as they can't substantiate the statement.
Not an untruth because (a) it might be true, and (b) even if it isn't they might genuinely believe it.
They can't support their statement adequately, so it is ultimately an opinion, but that's not lying by any stretch.
O.
It is an untruth if they state it as a fact and true, when it is only a belief.
But we can only really claim that something unfalsiable maybe untrue, You are claiming that it IS an untruth.
-
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
How do you know your arbitrary definition is correct in the first place? In addition, how do you know that what you think of as being 'the' arbitrary definition isn't a redefinition?
-
Vlunderingflatonhisfaceagain,
Yes. The arbitrary redefinition of these things to make them fit your argument.
You're getting really desperate now. Why are these any more or less "arbitrary redefinitions" of fairies than your "arbitrary redefinition" of a god?
I've no need to be desperate at all since an arbitrary redefinition is the white flag being run up........so not desperate Hillside, the word is victorious.
-
Yes but Outrider if unicorns are ever visible that renders them falsifiable since visibility is measurable.
Unless their pinkness is 'spiritual'.
If they are intangible how do we know they are wings?
It's one of the mysteries of fae-ology.
Why is a spiritual pot of Gold ''ridiculous''?.
Unfortunately the divinity of Jesus is unfalsifiable.
The purported divinity of Jesus is as unfalsifiable as the spiritual pinkness of the Invisible Pink Unicorns (not unicorns in general, they're white), or the mysterious intangible wings of fairies.
O.
-
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
How do you know your arbitrary definition is correct in the first place? In addition, how do you know that what you think of as being 'the' arbitrary definition isn't a redefinition?
That's the point Gordon since the redefinition is from the original definition of the mythical beasts which made them falsifiable to a redefinition to make them unfalsifiable. That is an admission of defeat.
-
Yes but Outrider if unicorns are ever visible that renders them falsifiable since visibility is measurable.
Unless their pinkness is 'spiritual'.
Sounds wonderful.........how is it ridiculous?
-
Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.
And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?
Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.
No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?
Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.
How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?
If Leprechauns are bad news and you redefine them into God then what warrant do you have to say that God is bad news. Or even that Leprechauns are bad news?
We aren't judging the asserted qualities of the subject of the argument, we're judging the lack of quality of the argument itself.
Redefining terms in mid argument is never Good Hillside.........Perhaps that is what Leprechauns really are?
It's not good when those terms have meaning, when they're just made up stuff, though, it's not really a problem, it's just making up more stuff.
O.
-
Yes but Outrider if unicorns are ever visible that renders them falsifiable since visibility is measurable.
Unless their pinkness is 'spiritual'.
Sounds wonderful.........how is it ridiculous?
Pink? Really? With golden hooves? In autumn, with the russets and fawns of the falling leaves?
You'll be suggesting she'd wear pearls next!
O.
-
What does that mean? You can't prove any sort of divine intervention, so people who say, 'it was god wot did it', are telling an untruth as they can't substantiate the statement.
Not an untruth because (a) it might be true, and (b) even if it isn't they might genuinely believe it.
They can't support their statement adequately, so it is ultimately an opinion, but that's not lying by any stretch.
O.
It is an untruth if they state it as a fact and true, when it is only a belief.
But we can only really claim that something unfalsiable maybe untrue, You are claiming that it IS an untruth.
But surely if someone claims something to be true when they it is only matter of belief, they are telling an untruth because they don't know for a fact it is true, even if it did turn out to be so in the end.
-
But surely if someone claims something to be true when they it is only matter of belief, they are telling an untruth because they don't know for a fact it is true, even if it did turn out to be so in the end.
It's only an untruth if they know that it's not true. If they accept that it might be untrue, but they believe it is true then they're stating an opinion. It might be considered slightly disengenuous, depending on the circumstances, but unless it's demonstrably untrue, and they know that, then it's not lying.
O.
-
Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.
And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?
Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.
No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?
Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.
How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?
Prove fairies don't exist.
-
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
How do you know your arbitrary definition is correct in the first place? In addition, how do you know that what you think of as being 'the' arbitrary definition isn't a redefinition?
That's the point Gordon since the redefinition is from the original definition of the mythical beasts which made them falsifiable to a redefinition to make them unfalsifiable. That is an admission of defeat.
No it isn't - it is a suggestion that you are making it up as you are going along since, in reality, your assertions about the God you imagine are no sounder than mine about the fairy who I imagine lives in my garden and keeps my motorcycle clean.
-
Yes but Outrider if unicorns are ever visible that renders them falsifiable since visibility is measurable.
Unless their pinkness is 'spiritual'.
Sounds wonderful.........how is it ridiculous?
Pink? Really? With golden hooves? In autumn, with the russets and fawns of the falling leaves?
You'll be suggesting she'd wear pearls next!
O.
Sorry did it suddenly change from being spiritual to being physical?.....just to try to make me look silly. It must be a slimy, antitheist unicorn.
-
Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.
And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?
Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.
No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?
Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.
How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?
Prove fairies don't exist.
You can't, they're unfalsifiable, just like your god.
-
Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.
And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?
Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.
No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?
Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.
How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?
Prove fairies don't exist.
I don't need to, my argument isn't reliant on them being real.
O.
-
Vlunderingstraightbackintothebearpit,
Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.
You can “accuse” all you like, but you’re still wrong about that. There are various depictions of leprechauns, of fairies and of gods alike – they may be wholly correct, partly correct or wholly wrong. No-one is “changing” anything – all that is being said is that the descriptions of these members of the set “supernatural somethings able at will to intervene with the material whenever they wish” may or may not be reliably described.
Secondly.
“Secondly”? Do you not think you should establish a “firstly” first?
You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.
Why “arbitrary”? If you believe in this “god”, why not tell us how you define the term as accurately as you think you are able?
Another category fuck on your part.
There’s no “another” and no it isn’t for reasons that have been explained you but you fail to grasp. And the only category “fuck” here has been your blundering attempt to compare the supernatural (fairies, gods etc) with the natural (penises, rubber ducks etc).
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
Presumably that meant something in your head when you wrote it? There’s no “re-defining” going on at all – there are some definitions of the inhabitants of the set “supernatural somethings able at will to intervene with the material whenever they wish” that may or not be accurate is all.
Your straw man is noted though.
Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.
Except there is no re-defining, so your “point” – whatever it is – fails.
If Leprechauns are bad news and you redefine them into God then what warrant do you have to say that God is bad news. Or even that Leprechauns are bad news?
You’re just using words randomly now. Who says that leprechauns are “bad news” exactly, and why on earth would you think that they have been “re-defined into god”?
Redefining terms in mid argument is never Good Hillside.........Perhaps that is what Leprechauns really are?
It probably wouldn’t be, no. As no-one has done though, we’ll let the straw man pass.
So anyway, back to where we were before you crashed off the rails again: do you now understand why an argument for a god that works equally well for a fairy is probably a bad argument?
Something?
Anything?
-
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
How do you know your arbitrary definition is correct in the first place? In addition, how do you know that what you think of as being 'the' arbitrary definition isn't a redefinition?
That's the point Gordon since the redefinition is from the original definition of the mythical beasts which made them falsifiable to a redefinition to make them unfalsifiable. That is an admission of defeat.
No it isn't - it is a suggestion that you are making it up as you are going along since, in reality, your assertions about the God you imagine are no sounder than mine about the fairy who I imagine lives in my garden and keeps my motorcycle clean.
Nope, it is members of your hominid offshoot who are making it up as they go along. They lose the argument because their definitions are material so they make them ''spiritual features'' the argument then collapses because they have run up the white flag...................
I bet You keep your machine clean with windolene applied on an old semmit.
-
Sorry did it suddenly change from being spiritual to being physical?
It's both, don't worry, it's 'theology'.
.....just to try to make me look silly.
Oh, come now, no need to be modest. You don't need my help.
It must be a slimy, antitheist unicorn.
Heretic!!! It's just a moist anti-theist unicorn, it's not slimy, that's a degenerate idea held by just a few billion cultists.
O.
-
Vluderingintohisownridiculousness,
I've no need to be desperate at all since an arbitrary redefinition is the white flag being run up........so not desperate Hillside, the word is victorious.
You genuinely are that delusional aren't you.
Wow!
Naturally you'll be along any time now to demonstrate this "arbitrary redefinition" then won't you?
Won't you?
-
Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.
And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?
Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.
No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?
Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.
How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?
Prove fairies don't exist.
You can't, they're unfalsifiable, just like your god.
er....which fairies are we talking about. The little chaps with wings or the one which isn't at all like that and is identical to God?.....Because the first type is falsifiable and the second type isn't a fairy.
-
er....which fairies are we talking about. The little chaps with wings or the one which isn't at all like that and is identical to God?.....Because the first type is falsifiable and the second type isn't a fairy.
See, now you're just making it sound like people made all this shit up to cover up the fact that they made up a load of more simplistic shit in the first place...
O.
-
Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.
And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?
Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.
No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?
Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.
How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?
Prove fairies don't exist.
You can't, they're unfalsifiable, just like your god.
er....which fairies are we talking about. The little chaps with wings or the one which isn't at all like that and is identical to God?.....Because the first type is falsifiable and the second type isn't a fairy.
How do you disprove the first kind?
Who says the second type isn't a fairy?
Just because you do not understand the deep mystery of what it is to be fairy, how can you declare them false.
Look, you are looking increasingly desperate and foolish. You cannot falsify lots of things, your god included.
You have no argument that works for your god, that does not just as easily work for things like fairies, leprechauns etc.
Why do you keep going when you have lost this?
-
I bet You keep your machine clean with windolene applied on an old semmit.
Not me - tell you what though: every now and then, when I open the garage door, I notice that the bucket and sponge seems to have been moved - but not by me!
-
For what it's worth my sense is the The Vlunderer is telling the truth to the best of his ability about his god - he really believes this stuff - even though his behaviour here (avoidance, distortion, misrepresentations, abuse, false claims etc) is deeply dishonest.
It's an odd tactic - lying your way to (your) truth - but there it is nonetheless.
-
Vluderingintohisownridiculousness,
I've no need to be desperate at all since an arbitrary redefinition is the white flag being run up........so not desperate Hillside, the word is victorious.
You genuinely are that delusional aren't you.
Wow!
Naturally you'll be along any time now to demonstrate this "arbitrary redefinition" then won't you?
Won't you?
Certainly it's your old favourite Hillside.
Let's come up with something really ridiculous.
Compare it with God
Get told that the thing is ridiculous because of it's status in the world of the falsifiable,Tiny little green man with ginger beard.
Change it's properties so that it is the same as God (admit failure of original argument)
Hope people haven't forgot the ridiculousness of the original dropped concept.
-
For what it's worth my sense is the The Vlunderer is telling the truth to the best of his ability about his god - he really believes this stuff - even though his behaviour here (avoidance, distortion, misrepresentations, abuse, false claims etc) is deeply dishonest.
It's an odd tactic - lying your way to (your) truth - but there it is nonetheless.
Yes it's very odd.
If I had a belief that relied on arguments that had been undone, I would stop believing them. I would not run around in circles defending the indefensible.
I think the difference is, that I have no cherished beliefs.
I do not care if any or all of my beliefs are wrong.
I do not think the same can be said of Vlad.
-
Vluderingintohisownridiculousness,
I've no need to be desperate at all since an arbitrary redefinition is the white flag being run up........so not desperate Hillside, the word is victorious.
You genuinely are that delusional aren't you.
Wow!
Naturally you'll be along any time now to demonstrate this "arbitrary redefinition" then won't you?
Won't you?
Certainly it's your old favourite Hillside.
Let's come up with something really ridiculous.
Compare it with God
Get told that the thing is ridiculous because of it's status in the world of the falsifiable,Tiny little green man with ginger beard.
Change it's properties so that it is the same as God (admit failure of original argument)
Hope people haven't forgot the ridiculousness of the original dropped concept.
You cant get much more ridiculous than the things attributed to the Biblical deity! ::)
-
For what it's worth my sense is the The Vlunderer is telling the truth to the best of his ability about his god - he really believes this stuff - even though his behaviour here (avoidance, distortion, misrepresentations, abuse, false claims etc) is deeply dishonest.
It's an odd tactic - lying your way to (your) truth - but there it is nonetheless.
I don't doubt that he genuinely believes that God is in a different category from fairies, leprechauns and the Invisible Pink Unicorn - he thinks that God is real and the others aren't.
What I can't understand is how someone who has at least the basic grasp of epistomology can't appreciate the difference between what they believe and what they can demonstrate.
O.
-
Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.
And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?
Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.
No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?
Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.
How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?
Prove fairies don't exist.
You can't, they're unfalsifiable, just like your god.
er....which fairies are we talking about. The little chaps with wings or the one which isn't at all like that and is identical to God?.....Because the first type is falsifiable and the second type isn't a fairy.
How do you disprove the first kind?
Who says the second type isn't a fairy?
Just because you do not understand the deep mystery of what it is to be fairy, how can you declare them false.
I'm just saying they are falsifiable. When was the last unknown species of man discovered living in Ireland?
Also if they were discovered it wouldn't be the first time would it.
-
For what it's worth my sense is the The Vlunderer is telling the truth to the best of his ability about his god - he really believes this stuff - even though his behaviour here (avoidance, distortion, misrepresentations, abuse, false claims etc) is deeply dishonest.
It's an odd tactic - lying your way to (your) truth - but there it is nonetheless.
I don't doubt that he genuinely believes that God is in a different category from fairies, leprechauns and the Invisible Pink Unicorn - he thinks that God is real and the others aren't.
No I'm very favourable to the entity you lot call a fairy but is in fact identical to God.
-
Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.
And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?
Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.
No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?
Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.
How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?
Prove fairies don't exist.
You can't, they're unfalsifiable, just like your god.
er....which fairies are we talking about. The little chaps with wings or the one which isn't at all like that and is identical to God?.....Because the first type is falsifiable and the second type isn't a fairy.
How do you disprove the first kind?
Who says the second type isn't a fairy?
Just because you do not understand the deep mystery of what it is to be fairy, how can you declare them false.
I'm just saying they are falsifiable. When was the last unknown species of man discovered living in Ireland?
Also if they were discovered it wouldn't be the first time would it.
But just because it has not been found (and may never be found) it does not mean it does not exist.
Perhaps they live in a different dimension (outside of time, you get my drift) and pop in now and again.
Your god does miracles, so we can test them. It's just that when we do like prayers, the answer is the same as no god existing.
So no god then?
-
What I can't understand is how someone who has at least the basic grasp of epistomology can't appreciate the difference between what they believe and what they can demonstrate.
Then you've ignored every post I've made where I've said God is unfalsifiable.
-
I'm just saying they are falsifiable.
How do you disprove intangible fairies?
When was the last unknown species of man discovered living in Ireland?
When did the absence of evidence become evidence of absence? When was the last species of god discovered anywhere?
Also if they were discovered it wouldn't be the first time would it.
Uh... yes.
O.
-
What I can't understand is how someone who has at least the basic grasp of epistomology can't appreciate the difference between what they believe and what they can demonstrate.
Then you've ignored every post I've made where I've said God is unfalsifiable.
And you must have missed every post where other things have been shown to be unfalsifiable!
-
What I can't understand is how someone who has at least the basic grasp of epistomology can't appreciate the difference between what they believe and what they can demonstrate.
Then you've ignored every post I've made where I've said God is unfalsifiable.
No, I've seen you write that, but then I've seen you contradict it by suggestion that it's a categorically different sort of unfalsifiable than that of fairies.
O.
-
Not really since I have accused you guys all along of changing your definitions to fit your argument.
And that's not theology in a nutshell because...?
Secondly. You've been complaining that I never define God and now I'm supposed to making an arbitrary definition.
No, I didn't accuse you of an arbitrary definition. I accused you of uncritically accepting a previously determined arbitrary definition.
An arbitrary redefinition implies change to fit an argument, an arbitrary definition does not.
And if they're both arbitrary how does that make a difference?
Also if you change the definition of something to that of something else you have no warrant to claim that an argument is bad. An argument for God which also fits Leprechauns can no longer exist because you have redefined Leprechauns out of existence.
How can you define out of existence something that doesn't exist in the first place?
Prove fairies don't exist.
You can't, they're unfalsifiable, just like your god.
er....which fairies are we talking about. The little chaps with wings or the one which isn't at all like that and is identical to God?.....Because the first type is falsifiable and the second type isn't a fairy.
How do you disprove the first kind?
Who says the second type isn't a fairy?
Just because you do not understand the deep mystery of what it is to be fairy, how can you declare them false.
I'm just saying they are falsifiable. When was the last unknown species of man discovered living in Ireland?
Also if they were discovered it wouldn't be the first time would it.
But just because it has not been found (and may never be found) it does not mean it does not exist.
I'm not arguing against that...........but it is still falsifiable.............i.e. subject to being scientifically discovered. I propose Topothemorningus Bluehillsidiensis.
-
I'm not arguing against that...........but it is still falsifiable.............i.e. subject to being scientifically discovered. I propose Topothemorningus Bluehillsidiensis.
If you were to find a small, winged, humanoid-shaped species (say a intriguingly shaped butterfly) you might have an explanation for why the particular stories of fairies emerged, but it wouldn't be proof or disproof of the magical spirit-creatures that are the fairies of myth.
Similarly when we discovered meteorology we realised that thunder wasn't actually caused by gods, but this didn't stop the idea of gods, just one depiction of them.
The concept of fairies is unfalsifiable because they are not a naturalistic phenomenon, they are a supernatural claim.
The concept of gods is unfalsifiable because they are not a naturlistic phenomenon, they are a supernatural claim.
O.
-
What I can't understand is how someone who has at least the basic grasp of epistomology can't appreciate the difference between what they believe and what they can demonstrate.
Then you've ignored every post I've made where I've said God is unfalsifiable.
And you must have missed every post where other things have been shown to be unfalsifiable!
er , That would be because there weren't any. How can my list of physical leprechaun and fairy features be defined as unfalsifiable?
-
I'm not arguing against that...........but it is still falsifiable.............i.e. subject to being scientifically discovered. I propose Topothemorningus Bluehillsidiensis.
If you were to find a small, winged, humanoid-shaped species (say a intriguingly shaped butterfly) you might have an explanation for why the particular stories of fairies emerged, but it wouldn't be proof or disproof of the magical spirit-creatures that are the fairies of myth.
Similarly when we discovered meteorology we realised that thunder wasn't actually caused by gods, but this didn't stop the idea of gods, just one depiction of them.
The concept of fairies is unfalsifiable because they are not a naturalistic phenomenon,
The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.
-
I'm not arguing against that...........but it is still falsifiable.............i.e. subject to being scientifically discovered. I propose Topothemorningus Bluehillsidiensis.
If you were to find a small, winged, humanoid-shaped species (say a intriguingly shaped butterfly) you might have an explanation for why the particular stories of fairies emerged, but it wouldn't be proof or disproof of the magical spirit-creatures that are the fairies of myth.
Similarly when we discovered meteorology we realised that thunder wasn't actually caused by gods, but this didn't stop the idea of gods, just one depiction of them.
The concept of fairies is unfalsifiable because they are not a naturalistic phenomenon,
The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.
Your god has a beard and a son.
-
er , That would be because there weren't any. How can my list of physical leprechaun and fairy features be defined as unfalsifiable?
Because these are 'magical' creatures, and if you capture one then, by definition, it isn't one... fairies, when captured, wither away to dust, which is convenient if your peddling the idea of fairies, but unhelpful if you're attempting a scholarly work on fairy physiology.
Leprechauns live at the end of the rainbow, but we know from physics that there isn't an end to the rainbow - nobody's bothered updating that myth, so who knows where the leprechauns are these days, probably sleeping rough on the streets, trading their gold for crack.
God used to live in the sky where he let the rain in through windows and created world-spanning floods and then we realised that world-spanning floods were nonsense and the sky was not a shell on which the stars were painted, and so the myth was updated and updated as all the actual falsifiable claims were abandoned until just the meaningless nonsense was left.
Fairies are no more nor less unfalsifiable than God, it's just no-one's bothered updating the fairy stories because we all grew out of them.
O.
-
The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.
Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!
Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...
So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.
O.
-
Vlunderingflatonhisfaceagain,
Certainly it's your old favourite Hillside.
Let's come up with something really ridiculous.
Compare it with God
How many freaking times? The point is that, if an argument works equally for “god” and for leprechauns, it’s probably a bad argument. Your “intuition” about a god is precisely as valuable guide to the truth for others as is my “intuition” about leprechauns.
Is this really so difficult for you to grasp?
Really?
Get told that the thing is ridiculous because of it's status in the world of the falsifiable,Tiny little green man with ginger beard.
The “ridiculousness” you’re getting hung up on is neither here nor there. As it happens lots of people do find your god belief to be as ridiculous as you find the belief in leprechauns to be (and for the same reasons), but that’s a secondary matter. Substitute for leprechauns any other member of the set “supernatural somethings that are able at will to intervene in the material” if you like and you’ll get the same answer.
Angels maybe? A devil perhaps?
Change it's properties so that it is the same as God (admit failure of original argument)
Ah, there’s your straw man again. No-one has changed anything. All that’s being said is that human descriptions of gods and leprechauns alike may or may not be accurate. Even if you want to rely on the hopelessly broken flakey five for your belief in a universe-creating something, there’s no reason whatever to think that it’s your pick of the gods rather than any other member of the set “supernatural somethings able at will to intervene in the natural”.
Your relentless use of the straw man doesn’t mean that you’ve won the argument – it just means that you’re a relentless user of straw men.
Hope people haven't forgot the ridiculousness of the original dropped concept.
It’s not ridiculous and it hasn’t been dropped. Again: any argument for a god that works just as well for leprechauns is probably a bad argument.
Have you finally got it now?
-
The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.
Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!
Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...
So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.
O.
Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine.
So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.
-
The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.
Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!
Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...
So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.
O.
Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine.
So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.
Jesus is falsifiable.
It could be shown that he never existed.
-
Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine. So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.
And fairies, it turns out, are both entirely physical and spiritualists. Fae-ologists have got round a limited understanding of the dual-nature of fairies pulled that out of their collective arses and made it canon.
O.
-
The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.
Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!
Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...
So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.
O.
Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine.
So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.
Jesus is falsifiable.
It could be shown that he never existed.
1;Yes Jesus is falsifiable in the sense that we all would be if records were lost or doubted I suppose
2: Go ahead
-
Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine. So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.
And fairies, it turns out, are both entirely physical and spiritualists. Fae-ologists have got round a limited understanding of the dual-nature of fairies pulled that out of their collective arses and made it canon.
O.
Yep, but their physical features alone would establish them as fairies.
-
understanding of the dual-nature of fairies[/s] pulled that out of their collective arses and made it canon.
O.
What............. you mean like how a moral subjectivist must get their morality?
-
The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.
Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!
Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...
So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.
O.
Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine.
So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.
Jesus is falsifiable.
It could be shown that he never existed.
1;Yes Jesus is falsifiable in the sense that we all would be if records were lost or doubted I suppose
2: Go ahead
So Jesus is falsifiable then?
-
The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.
Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!
Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...
So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.
O.
Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine.
So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.
Jesus is falsifiable.
It could be shown that he never existed.
1;Yes Jesus is falsifiable in the sense that we all would be if records were lost or doubted I suppose
2: Go ahead
So Jesus is falsifiable then?
In the sense that anybody else's humanity is.
His divinity? No.
-
Dear Vlad, Blue, Outrider, Berational, old tom cobbly and all,
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/06/god-gods-and-fairies
Anybody read anything from this man, he mentions philosophical naturalism and black swans. :o :o
Gonnagle.
Thanks for that. All should read this.
-
The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.
Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!
Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...
So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.
O.
Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine.
So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.
Jesus is falsifiable.
It could be shown that he never existed.
1;Yes Jesus is falsifiable in the sense that we all would be if records were lost or doubted I suppose
2: Go ahead
So Jesus is falsifiable then?
In the sense that anybody else's humanity is.
His divinity? No.
But if it could be shown that he never existed, then the divinity would never enter into the argument.
So your god is in fact falsifiable
-
The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.
Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!
Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...
So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.
O.
Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine.
So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.
Jesus is falsifiable.
It could be shown that he never existed.
1;Yes Jesus is falsifiable in the sense that we all would be if records were lost or doubted I suppose
2: Go ahead
So Jesus is falsifiable then?
In the sense that anybody else's humanity is.
His divinity? No.
But if it could be shown that he never existed, then the divinity would never enter into the argument.
So your god is in fact falsifiable
Unfortunately, for you, the unfalsifiability is a feature of the divine and the divine crops up in many religions.
-
The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.
Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!
Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...
So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.
O.
Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine.
So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.
Jesus is falsifiable.
It could be shown that he never existed.
1;Yes Jesus is falsifiable in the sense that we all would be if records were lost or doubted I suppose
2: Go ahead
So Jesus is falsifiable then?
In the sense that anybody else's humanity is.
His divinity? No.
But if it could be shown that he never existed, then the divinity would never enter into the argument.
So your god is in fact falsifiable
Unfortunately, for you, the unfalsifiability is a feature of the divine and the divine crops up in many religions.
Not if it can be shown that Jesus never existed.
If that can be shown he never existed, then he had no attributes at all including any supposed divinity.
-
Unfortunately, for you, the unfalsifiability is a feature of the divine and the divine crops up in many religions.
If so, Vlad, would you say that, for instance, Thor and Apollo are as equally unfalsifiable as you consider the Christian God to be?
-
The only trouble is and I'm sure you'll agree with me is when the concept of anything includes measurable and physical features, then they are falsifiable and sadly, not in the same category as God.
Except that your God manifested an avatar, and so had measurable physical features, but then the body conveniently disappeared!!!
Well fairies manifest for a while as an embodiment of the Silidh Court, but then they disappear again, and if they're captured they turn to dust and disappear...
So no, they're exactly as falsifiable as God.
O.
Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine.
So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.
Jesus is falsifiable.
It could be shown that he never existed.
1;Yes Jesus is falsifiable in the sense that we all would be if records were lost or doubted I suppose
2: Go ahead
So Jesus is falsifiable then?
In the sense that anybody else's humanity is.
His divinity? No.
But if it could be shown that he never existed, then the divinity would never enter into the argument.
So your god is in fact falsifiable
Unfortunately, for you, the unfalsifiability is a feature of the divine and the divine crops up in many religions.
Not if it can be shown that Jesus never existed.
If that can be shown he never existed, then he had no attributes at all including any supposed divinity.
Not really it would merely show that a man called Jesus never existed leaving the question of the unfalsifiability of the divine intact.
-
Unfortunately, for you, the unfalsifiability is a feature of the divine and the divine crops up in many religions.
If so, Vlad, would you say that, for instance, Thor and Apollo are as equally unfalsifiable as you consider the Christian God to be?
If they are unfalsifiable they are unfalsifiable. Their existence in a sense is then not determined in anyway by science.
Are you saying unfalsifiability equals ridiculousness now? What is it you find ridiculous about Thor and Appollo?
-
UndergroundovergroundVlunderingfree,
Unfortunately, for you, the unfalsifiability is a feature of the divine and the divine crops up in many religions.
Unfortunately for you unfalsifiability is a feature of any conjecture that's set up that way - gods, fairies, orbiting teapots, whatever. That your theology entails an unfalsifiable supernatural god that also happens to do material things from time-to-time just puts it on all fours with the fairyology that entails different supernatural somethings that also happen to do material things from time-to-time.
Just to note too by the way that you've shifted ground here. You claimed to have access to an objective fact ("God") because you'd "intuited" it. There was no mention of you then checking your intuition agains a falsifiability test - intuition was enough according to you. Now it happens that the extra piece you've added is a busted flush in any case as I've just explained, but it's a significant qualifier to your original claim nonetheless.
-
UndergroundovergroundVlunderingfree,
Unfortunately, for you, the unfalsifiability is a feature of the divine and the divine crops up in many religions.
Unfortunately for you unfalsifiability is a feature of any conjecture that's set up that way - gods, fairies, orbiting teapots, whatever. That your theology entails an unfalsifiable supernatural god that also happens to do material things from time-to-time just puts it on all fours with the fairyology that entails different supernatural somethings that also happen to do material things from time-to-time.
Just to note too by the way that you've shifted ground here. You claimed to have access to an objective fact ("God") because you'd "intuited" it. There was no mention of you then checking your intuition agains a falsifiability test - intuition was enough according to you. Now it happens that the extra piece you've added is a busted flush in any case as I've just explained, but it's a significant qualifier to your original claim nonetheless.
I think we'd rather covered the fact that any physical property manifested at any time renders that thing falsifiable because at that moment it is rendered falsifiable because I suppose it could be sneakily caught by CCTV camera.
-
Vlundertheboardwalk,
I think we'd rather covered the fact that any physical property manifested at any time renders that thing falsifiable because at that moment it is rendered falsifiable because I suppose it could be sneakily caught by CCTV camera.
Are you seriously suggesting that fairies need to make themselves any more visible than your god does to do their various deeds, or that they're not as smart as your god is at avoiding recording apparatus?
Why the special pleading?
-
Vlundertheboardwalk,
I think we'd rather covered the fact that any physical property manifested at any time renders that thing falsifiable because at that moment it is rendered falsifiable because I suppose it could be sneakily caught by CCTV camera.
Are you seriously suggesting that fairies need to make themselves any more visible than your god
Yep if they have occassional physicality.
-
Vlunderbus,
Yep if they have occassional physicality.
Really?
So all those who think they have witnessed physical manifestations of your god are wrong then?
And if you're so relaxed about the mistakes they've made on the basis of their physical senses, whence your complacency about how accurate your sense of intuition must be (albeit that you've now bolted a falsifiability test onto it)?
Of course, that's before we even get to how your god cures little Timmy when the doctors have given up on him without a physicial presence...
...yeah, don't tell me: "It's magic" eh?
-
Vlunderbus,
Yep if they have occassional physicality.
Really?
So all those who think they have witnessed physical manifestations of your god are wrong then?
Jesus is both human and divine
Fairies are fairy and er, fairy.....................Don't you think you have scraped the barrel enough Hillside?
-
Vlunderbus,
Yep if they have occassional physicality.
Really?
So all those who think they have witnessed physical manifestations of your god are wrong then?
Jesus is both human and divine
Fairies are fairy and er, fairy.....................Don't you think you have scraped the barrel enough Hillside?
But if it can be shown he never existed, he would be neither.
He would be falsified, and therefore WRONG.
-
Yep if they have occassional physicality.
Like Jesus.
-
understanding of the dual-nature of fairies[/s] pulled that out of their collective arses and made it canon.
O.
What............. you mean like how a moral subjectivist must get their morality?
Yes, like how moral objectivist get the objective source of their morals.
O.
-
Unfortunately those pesky theologians have got round a limited understanding of the possibilities inherent in the avatar thing. Jesus they say is both human and divine. So yes a historical Jesus and an unfalsifiable eternally begotten son.
And fairies, it turns out, are both entirely physical and spiritualists. Fae-ologists have got round a limited understanding of the dual-nature of fairies pulled that out of their collective arses and made it canon.
O.
Yep, but their physical features alone would establish them as fairies.
No, because if you capture them in order to try and demonstrate their physical features they'd disappear into dust, remember.
O.
-
Vlunderbus,
Yep if they have occassional physicality.
Really?
So all those who think they have witnessed physical manifestations of your god are wrong then?
Jesus is both human and divine
Fairies are fairy and er, fairy.....................Don't you think you have scraped the barrel enough Hillside?
So, to paraphrase: Jesus is both human and magic (of a sort that I like), but fairies are both fairy and magic (of a sort that I don't like). Therefore God.
Hmmm... there might be a flaw of the special pleading variety hiding in there somewhere, if only I could highlight it...
O.
-
but fairies are both fairy and magic (of a sort that I don't like).
O.
[/quote]
Haven't you been to Disneyland? Who doesn't like fairy magic?.......
It all just goes to show how far from reality you antitheist ''thinkers'' are.
-
Jesus is both human and divine.
If divinity is unfalsifiable, then what you say about Jesus here can be said about anyone.
-
but fairies are both fairy and magic (of a sort that I don't like).
O.
Haven't you been to Disneyland? Who doesn't like fairy magic?.......
It all just goes to show how far from reality you antitheist ''thinkers'' are.
[/quote]
That sort of response just shows how far from a 'thinker' you are - address the point or concede it, but this puerile attempt at a misdirection isn't fooling anyone.
O.
-
Jesus is both human and divine.
If divinity is unfalsifiable, then what you say about Jesus here can be said about anyone.
Pantheism caters for that. The alternative argument though would start with the idea that just because things are unfalsifiable it doesn't mean they are the same. Just like you are falsifiable and so are rubberducks.
I cannot fault your assertion. A Christian would use other arguments to say why Christ is unique.
-
but fairies are both fairy and magic (of a sort that I don't like).
O.
Haven't you been to Disneyland? Who doesn't like fairy magic?.......
It all just goes to show how far from reality you antitheist ''thinkers'' are.
That sort of response just shows how far from a 'thinker' you are - address the point or concede it, but this puerile attempt at a misdirection isn't fooling anyone.
O.
[/quote]
which point are we on though? You conceded that arguments do not work for fairies by moving onto magic. To be honest I can't sort out the convoluted mess you are in trying to save the God=leprechaun/fairy equation.
Let's try and unravel your efforts by establishing whether fairy magic is a ridiculous thing. Is ridicule your starting point?
Is magic falsifiable? As a whole probably not.
Is fairy magic bad? Only in the sense that fairies themselves are falsifiable.
-
Jesus is both human and divine.
If divinity is unfalsifiable, then what you say about Jesus here can be said about anyone.
Pantheism caters for that. The alternative argument though would start with the idea that just because things are unfalsifiable it doesn't mean they are the same. Just like you are falsifiable and so are rubberducks.
I cannot fault your assertion. A Christian would use other arguments to say why Christ is unique.
It's not my assertion, it's a conclusion drawn from yours.
Are any two people the same? Aren't we all unique? If you're to state that Jesus' divinity is an attribute that makes him unique (which I thought the whole son of God schtick was about), then you have no way of making that determination.
-
IfIthrowenoughVludatthewallsomeofitmuststickmustn’tit?,
Jesus is both human and divine
Fairies are fairy and er, fairy....................
No, fairies are both material and immaterial as they please. Just like your god.
Are you beginning to realise now how hopeless are the endless convolutions you end up with when you start with a nonsense and then have to defend it with further and further irrationalities as each one throws up a fresh problem?
Anything at all?
You start with the remarkable assertion that your “intuition” about a god means that this god is thereby a factual truth for me too.
When asked how you would propose to distinguish your intuited "fact" from mistake, confusion, delusion etc you just disappeared over the nearest hill.
OK, that was up to you I guess provided you accept that your intuition about a god should no more or less be taken seriously by me than my intuition about fairies should be taken seriously by you.
You then decide that you can get out of this difficulty by claiming your god to be unfalsifiable, apparently oblivious to the burden of proof problem it leaves you given that many other conjectures are unfalsifiable too.
When I point this out to you – ie, that fairies are also unfalsifiable so are on the same footing as your god – you then make the further remarkable claim that your god is wholly immaterial, despite apparently being able to cause material effects – curing little Timmy of his rickets for example.
And when I asked you how you came by this ever-more remarkable knowledge given the number of people who think they have physically experienced your god you just ignored the question and decided arbitrarily that fairies are only material, and so are in a different category to your god.
Yet my intuition (remember that?) tells me otherwise. I know – really know mark you – that fairies are immaterial but able to flit in and out of the material as they please. While occasionally they’ve let their guards down and some folks think they really have seen then, until now at least they’ve managed to avoid being capture by recording equipment.
Now naturally you wouldn’t be daft enough to try the special pleading for your god that only “He” can occupy the set called “immaterial somethings that some people intuit to be real and that can nip in and out of the material from time-to-time their various deeds to perform” would you, so we’re back to even-stevens again.
That is, why on earth then should I think your claim about an intuited god is even one jot less ridiculous than my intuited claim about fairies?
Don't you think you have scraped the barrel enough Hillside?
Not while you’re still hiding under it, no.
-
IfIthrowenoughVludatthewallsomeofitmuststickmustn’tit?,
Jesus is both human and divine
Fairies are fairy and er, fairy....................
No, fairies are both material and immaterial as they please. Just like your god.
.
just like all of us Hillside. We are body, mind and spirit.
Now can anyone tell me why an argument for leprechauns which also fits anything else is necessarily ''a bad thing''?
-
Vluddinganddivinglikeagood'un,
just like all of us Hillside. We are body, mind and spirit.
No, we are "body".
If you think "mind" to be separate from body then make an argument for it - I'll alert the medical press.
If you think there to be something called "spirit" then make an argument for it - I'll alert the philosophical press.
Now can anyone tell me why an argument for leprechauns which also fits anything else is necessarily ''a bad thing''?
It's only a "bad thing" for your intuited god schtick - if any other unfalsifiable conjecture that pops into anyone's head is equally a factual truth for the rest of us you have both the nihilism of absolute relativism and the logical impossibility of some truths that deny the possibility of some other truths.
Now, can you tell me whether you just intend to ignore my last dismantling of your position?
-
Vluddinganddivinglikeagood'un,
just like all of us Hillside. We are body, mind and spirit.
No, we are "body".
If you think "mind" to be separate from body then make an argument for it - I'll alert the medical press.
If you think there to be something called "spirit" then make an argument for it - I'll alert the philosophical press.
Now can anyone tell me why an argument for leprechauns which also fits anything else is necessarily ''a bad thing''?
It's only a "bad thing" for your intuited god schtick - if any other unfalsifiable conjecture that pops into anyone's head is equally a factual truth for the rest of us you have both the nihilism of absolute relativism and the logical impossibility of some truths that deny the possibility of some other truths.
Now, can you tell me whether you just intend to ignore my last dismantling of your position?
I have to give argument for my positive assertions and you have to give argument for the assertion that there is only body(material).
Mind I will probably concede but what is consciousness? How much does it weigh? Is it measurable etc. what are it's SI units?
You assert it's ''made of matter'', It's ''body''.........jump to it and measure it.
-
Vlunningawayagain,
I have to give argument for my positive assertions and you have to give argument for the assertion that there is only body(material).
Mind I will probably concede but what is consciousness? How much does it weigh? Is it measurable etc. what are it's SI units?
You assert it's ''made of matter'', It's ''body''.........jump to it and measure it.
Possibly you missed my question? I'll ask it again then:
Now, can you tell me whether you just intend to ignore my last dismantling of your position?
Bit rich don't you think telling someone else to "jump to it" given your unrelenting record of ducking and diving every question thats put to you?
Oh, and given your confusion about consciousness you might want to start by looking up "emergent properties".
-
Vlunningawayagain,
I have to give argument for my positive assertions and you have to give argument for the assertion that there is only body(material).
Mind I will probably concede but what is consciousness? How much does it weigh? Is it measurable etc. what are it's SI units?
You assert it's ''made of matter'', It's ''body''.........jump to it and measure it.
Possibly you missed my question? I'll ask it again then:
Now, can you tell me whether you just intend to ignore my last dismantling of your position?
What dismantling was that?
-
Jesus is both human and divine.
If divinity is unfalsifiable, then what you say about Jesus here can be said about anyone.
Pantheism caters for that. The alternative argument though would start with the idea that just because things are unfalsifiable it doesn't mean they are the same. Just like you are falsifiable and so are rubberducks.
I cannot fault your assertion. A Christian would use other arguments to say why Christ is unique.
Ah, those mysterious 'other arguments'...
O.
-
which point are we on though?
In your instance, we're still waiting for the first one...
You conceded that arguments do not work for fairies by moving onto magic.
I didn't 'move' fairies into magic, they've always been reported as magical, just as your deity has.
To be honest I can't sort out the convoluted mess you are in trying to save the God=leprechaun/fairy equation.
That's not really my problem, it's simple enough. You can make any assertions you like about supernatural claims, because they're untestable; in that sense, any claims put down to fairies' innate magic is as useless as any claims put down to God's innate magic.
Let's try and unravel your efforts by establishing whether fairy magic is a ridiculous thing. Is ridicule your starting point?
It's exactly as ridiculous as Jesus' magic.
Is magic falsifiable? As a whole probably not.
Not that I'm aware of - I think someone has suggested they have a methodology for verifying supernatural claims, but I've not actually seen it spelt out.
Is fairy magic bad? Only in the sense that fairies themselves are falsifiable.
How is the 'goodness' or 'badness' of it relevant, given that you can't establish an absolute 'good' or 'bad' in the first place.
O.
-
I have to give argument for my positive assertions and you have to give argument for the assertion that there is only body(material)....
I don't think that is right. We don't have to justify why we don't believe in things for which there is no evidence. Rather, we start with the evidence, and argue about that.
-
I have to give argument for my positive assertions and you have to give argument for the assertion that there is only body(material).
Yes, and no. You have to give evidence for your claims, or they are merely assertions.
We have to give evidence, if it's called for, that we have 'body'. In the absence of any evidence for an independent entity 'mind' or 'spirit', we don't have to accept those claims, we can just say 'that's an assertion' and carry on.
Mind I will probably concede but what is consciousness? How much does it weigh? Is it measurable etc. what are it's SI units?
Why would consciousness have an SI unit? Humour doesn't, justice doesn't, love doesn't - these are all abstract concepts.
You assert it's ''made of matter'', It's ''body''.........jump to it and measure it.
I did, it's six feet long (roughly) and all the activity it reports has measurable physical correlates - what reason do I have to suppose the hypothesise 'human existence is essentially physical' isn't right?
O.