-
God versus Leprechauns.
Who wins?
Unfair contest?
Is God a leprechaun?
Are Leprechauns divine?
Richard Dawkins passed over on Leprechaunology. Was that the biggest mistake of his career???
It's time to settle things.
THIS is THAT thread. For all things Leprechaun.
LEPRECHAUNODAMMERUNG-TWILIGHT OF THE LITTLE CHAPS
-
They are equivalent, in that in that they are myths and unevidenced assertions.
They can both be treated in the same way.
The default position is not to believe either of them at the moment.
-
God versus Leprechauns.
Who wins?
Unfair contest?
Is God a leprechaun?
Are Leprechauns divine?
Richard Dawkins passed over on Leprechaunology. Was that the biggest mistake of his career???
It's time to settle things.
THIS is THAT thread. For all things Leprechaun.
LEPRECHAUNODAMMERUNG-TWILIGHT OF THE LITTLE CHAPS
The Leprechaun wins every time. I am sure Dawkins will get around to Leprechaunology when he realises how studying that important topic will enhance humanity. ;D
-
The Leprechaun wins every time.
With that dress sense?
-
They are equivalent, in that in that they are myths and unevidenced assertions.
They can both be treated in the same way.
The default position is not to believe either of them at the moment.
What does the word mean to you then?
-
What does the word mean to you then?
What word?
-
What does the word mean to you then?
Depends on the word of course: have you a specific one in mind?
-
Vlad,
God versus Leprechauns.
Who wins?
Neither - they're epistemically equivalent claims.
Unfair contest?
No: even-stevens.
Is God a leprechaun?
The last two words are unnecessary.
Are Leprechauns divine?
No idea.
Richard Dawkins passed over on Leprechaunology. Was that the biggest mistake of his career???
No. If leprechaunology ever presumed a position in society akin to that of theology though, doubtless he'd turn his attention to it.
It's time to settle things.
They already are.
THIS is THAT thread. For all things Leprechaun.
There's only one "thing leprechaun" you need to grasp: that an argument for "God" that works equally for leprechauns is probably a bad argument. The characteristics of either claim are irrelevant for that purpose.
-
What word?
Myth
-
Vlad,
Neither - they're epistemically equivalent claims.
Positive assertion. Be my Guest.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
-
Vlad,
Positive assertion. Be my Guest.
When the argument for each has only the word "leprechaun" substituted for the word "God" then they're epistemically identical arguments. Worrying about the different characteristics painted on to each conjecture is just putting lipstick on the pig so as to avoid the problem, which is presumably why you do it.
Coda:
Your Reply 10 - thanks for confirming the point for me.
-
Vlad,
When the argument for each has only the word "leprechaun" substituted for the word "God" then they're epistemically identical arguments.
Yes, you've already said that....go ahead and demonstrate it.
Fulfil your burden.
I take issue because leprechauns are falsifiable.
-
Vlad,
Yes, you've already said that....go ahead and demonstrate it.
Fulfil your burden.
I don't have a "burden", and I already have in any case. Take the NPF as an example: "You can't disprove God, therefore God"/"You can't disprove leprechauns, therefore leprechauns" is the same argument.
It's simple enough I'd have thought, so why keep avoiding it?
I take issue because leprechauns are falsifiable.
Really?
How?
-
I take issue because leprechauns are falsifiable.
Do tell.
-
Gordon,
Do tell.
He never will. Or can.
-
Vlad,
I don't have a "burden", and I already have in any case. Take the NPF as an example: "You can't disprove God, therefore God"/"You can't disprove leprechauns, therefore leprechauns" is the same argument.
It's simple enough I'd have thought, so why keep avoiding it?
Really?
How?
This is pretty thin stuff particularly as nobody has NPF'd around here.....only knocked on the door thereof.
-
Listen everybody,everybody,everybody
Oooooooh Leprechaun's are falsiable
wooaaah On account of being Little Irish Chaps
found at the end of rainbows in Ireland.
Don't let them tell you any different wo wo wo
or lay some shit about induction oh oh oh
(Apologies to Chubby Checker.).................................Goodness that felt Good.
-
Vlad,
This is pretty thin stuff particularly as nobody has NPF'd around here.....only knocked on the door thereof.
How did I know that you'd miss the point entirely? Uncanny eh?
For the hard of understanding: it doesn't matter which argument is used equally for "God" and for leprechauns, just that it is the same argument. You can attempt as many distractions from that as you like, but it remains the basic point nonetheless.
-
Vlad,
Listen everybody,everybody,everybody
Oooooooh Leprechaun's are falsiable
wooaaah On account of being Little Irish Chaps
found at the end of rainbows in Ireland.
Don't let them tell you any different wo wo wo
or lay some shit about induction oh oh oh
(Apologies to Chubby Checker.).................................Goodness that felt Good.
Then, having made the claim, why not at least try to demonstrate it?
-
Listen everybody,everybody,everybody
Oooooooh Leprechaun's are falsiable
wooaaah On account of being Little Irish Chaps
found at the end of rainbows in Ireland.
Don't let them tell you any different wo wo wo
or lay some shit about induction oh oh oh
(Apologies to Chubby Checker.).................................Goodness that felt Good.
Twas you who said they were old chap - so evading again: have you no shame?
-
Vlad,
Then, having made the claim, why not at least try to demonstrate it?
Hillside you are confusing falsifiable with falsified.
All that remains to say is that maybe one day science will actually falsify Leprechauns. Ha Ha Ha
Alas poor Hillside. I knew his reputation well.
-
Vlad,
Hillside you are confusing falsifiable with falsified.
Wrong again. It was your claim that they are falsifiable - all you're being asked for is the method of falsifiability.
All that remains to say is that maybe one day science will actually falsify Leprechauns. Ha Ha Ha
?
Alas poor Hillside. I knew his reputation well.
As you seem determined to wreck what's little is left of yours with every post you attempt, I'll leave you to your private grief here.
Should you ever finally grasp the point of the leprechauns analogy though, by all means report back.
-
Hillside you are confusing falsifiable with falsified.
All that remains to say is that maybe one day science will actually falsify Leprechauns. Ha Ha Ha
Alas poor Hillside. I knew his reputation well.
Here's the confirmation: you have no shame.
-
Gordon,
Here's the confirmation: you have no shame.
Possibly the least newsworthy post ever to be made on this mb?
-
Vlad,
Wrong again. It was your claim that they are falsifiable - all you're being asked for is the method of falsifiability.
?
As you seem determined to wreck what's little is left of yours with every post you attempt, I'll leave you to your private grief here.
Should you ever finally grasp the point of the leprechauns analogy though, by all means report back.
Oh I think we all know the point of the Leprechauns analogy all right.
-
Vlad,
Oh I think we all know the point of the Leprechauns analogy all right.
Then you've just condemned yourself with your own words, If you really do know the point of the analogy, why then have you never once engaged with that point and instead indulged in endless diversions and distractions about the different characteristic of each, the ridiculousness of one (but not in your mind apparently the other) etc?
-
Vlad,
Then you've just condemned yourself with your own words, If you really do know the point of the analogy, why then have you never once engaged with that point and instead indulged in endless diversions and distractions about the different characteristic of each?
I put forward a Global survey of rainbows with the object of observing the little fellers several
months ago on this forum. So far this project is in it's informal stages but non observation seems likely. Of course that leads to a second epistemiological difference. leprechauns are definitionally empirically observable whereas God isn't.
-
Vlad,
I put forward a Global survey of rainbows with the object of observing the little fellers several
months ago on this forum. So far this project is in it's informal stages but non observation seems likely.
That's the black swan fallacy.
Try again.
Of course that leads to a second epistemiological difference.
You haven't found a first one yet
leprechauns are definitionally empirically observable whereas God isn't.
Says who? If you want to claim to have "experienced" a supernatural god, someone else can claim to have experienced a supernatural leprechaun.
Why should anyone else take either claim more seriously than the other?
Try again.
Again.
-
Vlad,
That's the black swan fallacy.
Try again.
You haven't found a first one yet
Says who? If you want to claim to have "experienced" a supernatural god, someone else can claim to have experienced a supernatural leprechaun.
Why should anyone else take either claim more seriously than the other?
Try again.
Again.
Back to life Back to the fallacies
Oh, so there are off world Leprechauns are there?
It's probabilistic anyway Hillside, Don't you agree. The Drake equation might be invoked I suppose and Leprechauns then swing into the epistemiological category of Extraterrestrial life which is a different category to the divine.
You cannot whitewash the epistemiological difference between the empirically observable and that which isn't. SO we are back where we started.
Leprechaunodammerung.
-
Vlad,
Back to life Back to the fallacies
Oh, so there are off world Leprechauns are there?
It's probabilistic anyway Hillside, Don't you agree. The Drake equation might be invoked I suppose and Leprechauns then swing into the epistemiological category of Extraterrestrial life which is a different category to the divine.
Ooof. Much as I enjoy the smell of cordite in the evening, as you'll be on the way now to A&E to have the hole in your foot patched up perhaps you'll have the time to work out on the way where you went off the rails there.
You posit a supernatural god able to flit in and out of the material at will; I posit supernatural leprechauns able at will to flit in and out of the material. Each of us knows these things because that's our "faith". The point you keep evading though is that when each of us attempt a validating argument that leads to either one equally, then it's probably a bad argument.
Why not finally at least try to engage with that?
You cannot whitewash the epistemiological difference between the empirically observable and that which isn't. SO we are back where we started.
I don't need to "whitewash"anything because it's just another one of your lies. The epistemology of using the same argument to argue equally for either is your problem, however much you keep running away from it.
Incidentally, should we now take your claim that leprechauns are falsifiability to be yet another busted flush?
-
SO we are back where we started.
Not really: your enthusiastic wumming never gets you anywhere worthwhile (argument-wise) in the first place.
-
Vlad,
Ooof. Much as I enjoy the smell of cordite in the evening, as you'll be on the way now to A&E to have the hole in your foot patched up perhaps you'll have the time to work out on the way where you went off the rails there.
You posit a supernatural god able to flit in and out of the material at will; I posit supernatural leprechauns able at will to flit in and out of the material. Each of us knows these things because that's our "faith". The point you keep evading though is that when each of us attempt a validating argument that leads to either one equally, then it's probably a bad argument.
Why not finally at least try to engage with that?
I don't need to "whitewash"anything because it's just another one of your lies. The epistemology of using the same argument to argue equally for either is your problem, however much you keep running away from it.
Incidentally, should we now take your claim that leprechauns are falsifiability to be yet another busted flush?
Yes but observe what's going on here. If your two things in question look as though they might be epistemiological different. Change the definitions to make them the same category.......Lines five and six. Sorry to rumble you.
I am only rumbled on falsification if it is impossible to survey every rainbow in Ireland or even the world. All that seems to be lacking here is the will.
As far as extra terrestrial leprechauns are concerned. They are unlikely to be humanoid or irish.
Top of the morning to you.
-
Vlad the Irrelevantist,
Yes but observe what's going on here. If your two things in question look as though they might be epistemiological different. Change the definitions to make them the same category.......Lines five and six. Sorry to rumble you.
I am only rumbled on falsification if it is impossible to survey every rainbow in Ireland or even the world. All that seems to be lacking here is the will.
As far as extra terrestrial leprechauns are concerned. They are unlikely to be humanoid or irish.
Top of the morning to you.
As you’ll have some more time today on your way to A&E again to get the hole in your other foot fixed (is that what you meant when you claimed to be "holistic" perhaps?), let’s have one final go at explaining to you where you keep crashing and burning here.
Fundamentally, you don’t know what the word “analogy” means. An analogy is a comparison between different objects in order to explain or clarify an argument. “It was a roller-coaster of a film” for example doesn’t mean that the cinema threw you around the place, but rather that your emotional response was analogous to the experience of a fairground ride.
Your mistake responding with the equivalent to “but one is a room with soft seats and a screen, the other is an outdoor ride so they’re not analogous at all”, thereby entirely missing the point.
You can talk all you like about whether leprechauns are natural, supernatural or anything else just as you can talk about the differences between a cinema and a fairground ride. In each case though the effort is utterly, entirely, unequivocally, categorically, irredeemably irrelevant.
What is relevant though – and this is the bit you never get around to dealing with – is that “God” and leprechauns are epistemically the same when the same argument produces either outcome with equal facility. What that argument is doesn’t matter at all: “You can’t disprove god/leprechauns, therefore god/leprechauns (the NPF); “Other people agree with me about god/leprechauns” (argumentum ad populum); “I don’t like the idea of no god/leprechauns (argumentum ad consequentiam); “I prayed to god/leprechauns for a promotion and got the job, therefore god/leprechauns” (post hoc ergo propter hoc); “I know god/leprechauns exist because it says so in a book, god/leprechauns wrote the book (circular reasoning) and, wearily, on and on they go.
You’ll notice that none of these bad arguments are bad because of any of the characteristics of their outcomes – you can claim anything, assert any behaviours, describe any features and characteristics about god/leprechauns that take your fancy – none of that though makes one jot of a smidgin of an iota of a snippet of a difference to the point of the argument which, yet again, is:
WHEN AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD WORKS JUST AS WELL FOR LEPRECHAUNS, THEN IT’S PROBABLY A BAD ARGUMENT.
Your choice here is either to continue your relentless dishonesty with a, “but god is X, whereas leprechauns are Y” irrelevance or – finally – you could at least try to engage with the argument that’s actually been made.
Up to you really.
-
Vlad the Irrelevantist,
As you’ll have some more time today on your way to A&E again to get the hole in your other foot fixed (is that what you meant when you claimed to be "holistic" perhaps?), let’s have one final go at explaining to you where you keep crashing and burning here.
Fundamentally, you don’t know what the word “analogy” means. An analogy is a comparison between different objects in order to explain or clarify an argument. “It was a roller-coaster of a film” for example doesn’t mean that the cinema threw you around the place, but rather that your emotional response was analogous to the experience of a fairground ride.
Your mistake responding with the equivalent to “but one is a room with soft seats and a screen, the other is an outdoor ride so they’re not analogous at all”, thereby entirely missing the point.
You can talk all you like about whether leprechauns are natural, supernatural or anything else just as you can talk about the differences between a cinema and a fairground ride. In each case though the effort is utterly, entirely, unequivocally, categorically, irredeemably irrelevant.
What is relevant though – and this is the bit you never get around to dealing with – is that “God” and leprechauns are epistemically the same when the same argument produces either outcome with equal facility. What that argument is doesn’t matter at all: “You can’t disprove god/leprechauns, therefore god/leprechauns (the NPF); “Other people agree with me about god/leprechauns” (argumentum ad populum); “I don’t like the idea of no god/leprechauns (argumentum ad consequentiam); “I prayed to god/leprechauns for a promotion and got the job, therefore god/leprechauns” (post hoc ergo propter hoc); “I know god/leprechauns exist because it says so in a book, god/leprechauns wrote the book (circular reasoning) and, wearily, on and on they go.
You’ll notice that none of these bad arguments are bad because of any of the characteristics of their outcomes – you can claim anything, assert any behaviours, describe any features and characteristics about god/leprechauns that take your fancy – none of that though makes one jot of a smidgin of an iota of a snippet of a difference to the point of the argument which, yet again, is:
WHEN AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD WORKS JUST AS WELL FOR LEPRECHAUNS, THEN IT’S PROBABLY A BAD ARGUMENT.
Your choice here is either to continue your relentless dishonesty with a, “but god is X, whereas leprechauns are Y” irrelevance or – finally – you could at least try to engage with the argument that’s actually been made.
Up to you really.
Hillside this may be an argument for Gods works for leprechauns for you.
But this is Leprechaunodammerung. All things God vs Leprechauns.
Why because there is the tricky issue of whether all arguments for God are the same for Leprechauns and that spins on CATEGORY.
I have already exposed your tactic of ''change definitions''.
......And because this is all things Leprechaun we have to check whether argumentum ad ridiculum/horses laugh is being employed here.(it is)
Let us remind ourselves of Horses laugh which is the primary New Atheist strategy going right back to Bertrand Russell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
In terms of falsifiability.
When scientists searched for Higgs boson they knew where they were looking and had a method by which they could observe or otherwise.
Because Leprechauns are small irish gentlemen associated with pots of Gold(atomic number. Whatever) and rainbows(scientific phenomena. Leprechauns come into the same category.
The same alas is not true for Christ who came as a man but once.
Categoric differences, mah friend, Categoric differences.
-
bluehillside #33
Super ppost! :)
Sis
-
bluehillside #33
Super ppost! :)
Sis
You are just making yourself party, as Trentvoyager, has to the fallacy of appeal to ridicule.
-
Vlad,
Then you've just condemned yourself with your own words, If you really do know the point of the analogy, why then have you never once engaged with that point
I have frequently told you about your use of appeal to ridicule in this matter.
-
Vlad the Irrelevantist,
As you’ll have some more time today on your way to A&E again to get the hole in your other foot fixed (is that what you meant when you claimed to be "holistic" perhaps?), let’s have one final go at explaining to you where you keep crashing and burning here.
Fundamentally, you don’t know what the word “analogy” means. An analogy is a comparison between different objects in order to explain or clarify an argument. “It was a roller-coaster of a film” for example doesn’t mean that the cinema threw you around the place, but rather that your emotional response was analogous to the experience of a fairground ride.
Your mistake responding with the equivalent to “but one is a room with soft seats and a screen, the other is an outdoor ride so they’re not analogous at all”, thereby entirely missing the point.
You can talk all you like about whether leprechauns are natural, supernatural or anything else just as you can talk about the differences between a cinema and a fairground ride. In each case though the effort is utterly, entirely, unequivocally, categorically, irredeemably irrelevant.
What is relevant though – and this is the bit you never get around to dealing with – is that “God” and leprechauns are epistemically the same when the same argument produces either outcome with equal facility. What that argument is doesn’t matter at all: “You can’t disprove god/leprechauns, therefore god/leprechauns (the NPF); “Other people agree with me about god/leprechauns” (argumentum ad populum); “I don’t like the idea of no god/leprechauns (argumentum ad consequentiam); “I prayed to god/leprechauns for a promotion and got the job, therefore god/leprechauns” (post hoc ergo propter hoc); “I know god/leprechauns exist because it says so in a book, god/leprechauns wrote the book (circular reasoning) and, wearily, on and on they go.
You’ll notice that none of these bad arguments are bad because of any of the characteristics of their outcomes – you can claim anything, assert any behaviours, describe any features and characteristics about god/leprechauns that take your fancy – none of that though makes one jot of a smidgin of an iota of a snippet of a difference to the point of the argument which, yet again, is:
WHEN AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD WORKS JUST AS WELL FOR LEPRECHAUNS, THEN IT’S PROBABLY A BAD ARGUMENT.
Your choice here is either to continue your relentless dishonesty with a, “but god is X, whereas leprechauns are Y” irrelevance or – finally – you could at least try to engage with the argument that’s actually been made.
Up to you really.
Oh dear....you had to put it onto analogies didn't you.
One phrase
Leprechauns and Multiverse.
-
Myth
It means story, perhaps based on some event, but not actually true.
Robin Hood.
King Arthur.
Leprechauns.
Jesus.
-
And another, Hillside..........
Leprechauns and science being able to observe before a moment of creation.
And another
Leprechauns and science being able to stand outside of time and space to analyse an eternal universe.
-
Vlad the Irrelevantist,
Hillside this may be an argument for Gods works for leprechauns for you.
But this is Leprechaunodammerung. All things God vs Leprechauns.
Why because there is the tricky issue of whether all arguments for God are the same for Leprechauns and that spins on CATEGORY.
I have already exposed your tactic of ''change definitions''.
......And because this is all things Leprechaun we have to check whether argumentum ad ridiculum/horses laugh is being employed here.(it is)
Let us remind ourselves of Horses laugh which is the primary New Atheist strategy going right back to Bertrand Russell.
You couldn’t do it could you. Just for once, after all that lying, even now you couldn’t be honest even one time.
Not once.
Definitions, categories, ridicule or any other sand you want to throw in the face of the argument have absolutely no relevance whatever to the force of that argument. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.
You can have any definition, any category, any amount of inferred ridicule you like. Really, knock yourself out – anything at all. None of those things though somehow reach back into a false argument that leads to them somehow to make it into a good one. A false argument is a false argument is a false argument whether it happens to lead to a god, to leprechauns, or to anything else.
Until and unless you finally stop ignoring or lying about that there’s nothing more to say – it’s a dialogue with the deaf or the mendacious. Take your pick.
In terms of falsifiability.
When scientists searched for Higgs boson they knew where they were looking and had a method by which they could observe or otherwise.
Because Leprechauns are small irish gentlemen associated with pots of Gold(atomic number. Whatever) and rainbows(scientific phenomena. Leprechauns come into the same category.
The same alas is not true for Christ who came as a man but once.
Another fuck up. If the people at CERN hadn’t found the Higgs-Boson, that wouldn’t have falsified the conjecture “Higgs-Boson”. Your claim on the other hand was that you could falsify leprechauns – something not finding them wouldn’t do.
Categoric differences, mah friend, Categoric differences.
It’s “category” and you just fell into a category error, while previously screwing up the same charge against me because the categories “god” and leprechauns are irrelevant to the point that an argument that leads equally to either is probably a bad argument.
I think we’re done here. If ever you feel like unscrambling your thinking and trying again though, by all means give it a go.
-
Vlad the Irrelevantist,
You are just making yourself party, as Trentvoyager, has to the fallacy of appeal to ridicule.
Wrong again. However ridiculous you happen to find one of the two analogous conjectures to be has no relevance at all to the force of the analogy.
-
Susan,
Super ppost! :)
Thank you.
-
Susan,
Thank you.
I don't know how you have the patience!
-
Vlad the Irrelvantist,
I have frequently told you about your use of appeal to ridicule in this matter.
And I have just as frequently told you why it's irrelevant.
-
BR,
I don't know how you have the patience!
I haven't. If he keeps evading and lying I have nothing more to say to him - the argument rests. If he finally want to attempt at least to engage with it though, we'll see what he has to say.
Probably not a good idea to hold your breath though.
-
Vlad the Irrelvantist,
And I have just as frequently told you why it's irrelevant.
Stop dodging the phrase that flags up your appeal to ridicule Hillside.......
Leprechauns vs Multiverse.
Oh....Do you have a dilemma here, having told all and sundry that differences are irrelevant?
Leprechauns and Dark Matter.
leprechauns and Dark energy.
Leprechauns and The universe appearing from Nothing.
Leprechauns and an eternal universe.
leprechauns and the Aristotelian God.
Leprechauns and string theory.
leprechauns and what Sean Carroll does for a living.
-
You are just making yourself party, as Trentvoyager, has to the fallacy of appeal to ridicule.
In the face of overwhelming stupidity sometimes ridicule is all one has left.
-
In the face of overwhelming stupidity sometimes ridicule is all one has left.
But in your case you have start with ridicule.
-
Vlad the Irrelevantist,
Stop dodging the phrase that flags up your appeal to ridicule Hillside.......
Leprechauns vs Multiverse.
Oh....Do you have a dilemma here, having told all and sundry that differences are irrelevant?
Leprechauns and Dark Matter.
leprechauns and Dark energy.
Leprechauns and The universe appearing from Nothing.
Leprechauns and an eternal universe.
leprechauns and the Aristotelian God.
Leprechauns and string theory.
leprechauns and what Sean Carroll does for a living.
You were asked to engage with the argument that undoes you. You blew it.
What your latest eructation is even trying to argue moreover is unfathomable - presumably it seemed relevant in your head at least though?
-
Vlad the Mendacious,
But in your case you have start with ridicule.
Stop lying. The point starts with the argument. That one outcome is more commonly held to be ridiculous than the other comes later.
-
But in your case you have start with ridicule.
Evidence for that unfounded assertion would be?
-
Trent,
Evidence for that unfounded assertion would be?
Evidence? Vlad?
I admire your optimism at least.
-
Evidence for that unfounded assertion would be?
Support of the whole New Atheist Leprechaun and God schtick of course. Which is
appeal to ridicule.
What other ridicule are you involved with?
-
Support of the whole New Atheist Leprechaun and God schtick of course. Which is
appeal to ridicule.
What other ridicule are you involved with?
Again I'm not involved in ridicule in this instance. You have defined it as ridicule. What other ridicule I am involved in need not bother you.
I thought the explanation BHS put forward was clear and reasonable. Clearly you don't. I don't understand why you don't and I suspect I never will.
-
Again I'm not involved in ridicule in this instance. You have defined it as ridicule. What other ridicule I am involved in need not bother you.
I thought the explanation BHS put forward was clear and reasonable. Clearly you don't. I don't understand why you don't and I suspect I never will.
Even a statement such as an argument for God which could fit Leprechauns is IMHO knocking on the door of the fallacy of appeal to emotion. Particularly it's continual use.
Can we agree that instead of Leprechauns we use the phrase ''String theory''?
-
Vlad the Irrelevantist,
Support of the whole New Atheist Leprechaun and God schtick of course. Which is appeal to ridicule.
No it isn't for the reasons that have been explained to you at length, but that you just ignore. The primary point is that when an argument leads equally to different faith-based conjectures you have no choice but to accept the same argument for all of them or to reject it for all of them. There's no magic formula after the fact that validates the argument for one conjecture but not for another. That you happen to find one of them more ridiculous than the other is helpful to the point but a secondary matter.
Even a statement such as an argument for God which could fit Leprechauns is IMHO knocking on the door of the fallacy of appeal to emotion. Particularly it's continual use.
Wrong again - it's just simple logic, albeit logic with which you fail to engage in favour of various diversionary tactics.
Can we agree that instead of Leprechauns we use the phrase ''String theory''?
No we can't, because string theory isn't a faith-based claim of fact. String theory has supporting logic that isn't fallacious, albeit is that the full theory does not have a satisfactory definition in all circumstances. "God", leprechauns and the like on the other hand are faith-based conjectures. That's why, when the same argument is attempted and "works" for each, the analogy works.
-
Vlad the Irrelevantist,
No it isn't for the reasons that have been explained to you at length, but that you just ignore. The primary point is that when an argument leads equally to different faith-based conjectures you have no choice but to accept the same argument for all of them or to reject it for all of them. There's no magic formula after the fact that validates the argument for one conjecture but not for another. That you happen to find one of them more ridiculous than the other is helpful to the point but a secondary matter.
Wrong again - it's just simple logic, albeit logic with which you fail to engage in favour of various diversionary tactics.
No we can't, because string theory isn't a faith-based claim of fact.
The sound of barrels being scraped. And neither does God have to be, or Leprechauns for that matter. So you have fallen flat again.
No it looks a lot like appeal to emotion Hillside.......Leprechauns and snigger......Dark matter, or multiverse, or string theory does not have the same emotive appeal.
You spent this morning talking about irrelevences only to introduce one yourself ,which through magical thinking becomes relevant. You seem to be all over the shop.
At the end of the day you are really specially pleading Leprechauns.....I think you hate them.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
The sound of barrels being scraped.
By the bullets as they head for both your feet presumably?
And neither does God have to be, or Leprechauns for that matter. So you have fallen flat again.
Well, they’re words all right. Yup, definitely words.
Now all you have to do is to work out how to string them into a coherent sentence. Good luck with it though.
No it looks a lot like appeal to emotion Hillside.......Leprechauns and snigger......Dark matter, or multiverse, or string theory does not have the same emotive appeal.
Presumably because you cannot or will not grasp the simple logic that’s actually involved. I’ve explained it to you several times now – if it’s too hard for you or your pathological dishonesty means you can’t engage with it though, then so be it.
You spent this morning talking about irrelevences only to introduce one yourself ,which through magical thinking becomes relevant. You seem to be all over the shop.
So all you have to do now is tell us what you think that irrelevance to be. It’s trivially easy to do with all your references to the different characteristics of gods and leprechauns, but your usual tactic of asserting with nothing to support your assertions lets you down again here.
At the end of the day you are really specially pleading Leprechauns.....I think you hate them.
Why do you think lying again helps you here?
-
Trent,
I thought the explanation BHS put forward was clear and reasonable. Clearly you don't. I don't understand why you don't and I suspect I never will.
If it's any consolation, nor does he.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
By the bullets as they head for both your feet presumably?
Well, they’re words all right. Yup, definitely words.
Now all you have to do is to work out how to string them into a coherent sentence. Good luck with it though.
Presumably because you cannot or will not grasp the simple logic that’s actually involved. I’ve explained it to you several times now – if it’s too hard for you or your pathological dishonesty means you can’t engage with it though, then so be it.
So all you have to do now is tell us what you think that irrelevance to be. It’s trivially easy to do with all your references to the different characteristics of gods and leprechauns, but your usual tactic of asserting with nothing to support your assertions lets you down again here.
Why do you think lying again helps you here?
Hillside when are you going to acknowledge that if an argument for the multiverse works equally for Leprechauns then it is a bad argument?
-
Vlad the Irrelevantist,
Hillside when are you going to acknowledge that if an argument for the multiverse works equally for Leprechauns then it is a bad argument?
If an argument for anything works equally for leprechauns then it's probably a bad argument.
When are you finally going to engage with the argument that I've set out several times here that undoes you?
-
Vlad the Irrelevantist,
If an argument for anything works equally for leprechauns then it's probably a bad argument.
When are you finally going to engage with the argument that I've set out several times here that undoes you?
Which argument is that?
-
Vlad the Disingenuinist,
Which argument is that?
I listed several of them back in Reply 33. That you ignored them in favour of a further diversionary tactic is your problem, not mine.
Look, as ever what's happened here is that you've crashed and burned in a welter of insult, irrelevance and incomprehensibility. Game over.
In the vanishingly unlikely event though that you do want to attempt at least finally to engage with the argument that undoes you, then by all means give it a go. If not, there's little point in responding to more of your white noise.
-
Vlad the Disingenuinist,
I listed several of them back in Reply 33.
Oh these .......
“You can’t disprove god/leprechauns, therefore god/leprechauns (the NPF);.....I'm not making that argument and never have conclusively.
“Other people agree with me about god/leprechauns” (argumentum ad populum) I'm more Other people claim to have encountered God. I don't know anyone seriously claiming an encounter with Leprechauns.
; “I don’t like the idea of no god/leprechauns (argumentum ad consequentiam);Not true for Augustine, St Paul, John Bunyan, HAV Williams or me at various times.
What's different between that and I don't like the idea of God which is going around these parts.
“I prayed to god/leprechauns for a promotion and got the job, therefore god/leprechauns” (post hoc ergo propter hoc); Whodundat?
“I know god/leprechauns exist because it says so in a book, god/leprechauns wrote the book (circular reasoning) Never argued that Pal.
Looks like a lot of straw men to me Hillside.
-
Vlad the Solipsist,
Oh these .......
“You can’t disprove god/leprechauns, therefore god/leprechauns (the NPF);.....I'm not making that argument and never have conclusively.
“Other people agree with me about god/leprechauns” (argumentum ad populum) I'm more Other people claim to have encountered God. I don't know anyone seriously claiming an encounter with Leprechauns.
; “I don’t like the idea of no god/leprechauns (argumentum ad consequentiam);Not true for Augustine, St Paul, John Bunyan, HAV Williams or me at various times.
What's different between that and I don't like the idea of God which is going around these parts.
“I prayed to god/leprechauns for a promotion and got the job, therefore god/leprechauns” (post hoc ergo propter hoc); Whodundat?
“I know god/leprechauns exist because it says so in a book, god/leprechauns wrote the book (circular reasoning) Never argued that Pal.
Looks like a lot of straw men to me Hillside.
You do know that not everything is about you right?
Here it is again: WHEN AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD WORKS JUST AS WELL FOR LEPRECHAUNS, THEN IT’S PROBABLY A BAD ARGUMENT.
If you've now shifted ground to, "OK I agree with that after all but it's not what I do" that's a second order issue and at least we'll have agreed the basic principle.
As to the subsidiary issue of the extent to which you personally have attempted these arguments, while it's true that you have no others (which is why you always run away when asked for some) for the most part your preference is to lie and dissemble rather than rely on logical fallacies, though over the years you've attempted most of them with varying degrees of conviction (plus a few more all of your own invention). If you seriously think though that you do have a cogent argument for a "true for you too" god that you've kept secret up to now, by all means give it a go.
Why so coy?
-
Here it is again: WHEN AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD WORKS JUST AS WELL FOR LEPRECHAUNS, THEN IT’S PROBABLY A BAD ARGUMENT.
Only where God and leprechauns are equivalent.
You have demonstrated a list of bad arguments and I have given opinion. Generally....no one is making them and if they did they would probably be suspect even without comparison with Leprechauns.
Leprechauns are therefore being used by you superfluously.
That is tremendous refutation of your argument.
I expect praise from Trentvoyager and will check for his inevitable great review in Forum Best Bits.
-
Only where God and leprechauns are equivalent.
You have demonstrated a list of bad arguments and I have given opinion. Generally....no one is making them and if they did they would probably be suspect even without comparison with Leprechauns.
Leprechauns are therefore being used by you superfluously.
That is tremendous refutation of your argument.
I expect praise from Trentvoyager and will check for his inevitable great review in Forum Best Bits.
You may have a wait. I have urgent knitting to do before I get round to that.
-
Vlad the Delusionist,
Only where God and leprechauns are equivalent.
Flat wrong again, for the reasons I set out in Reply 33 that you just ignored.
The conclusions don’t have to be equivalent at all – just the argument that produces them with equal facility. That’s why a film can be “a roller-coaster ride” without chucking you around the place and filling you with candy floss.
You’re ether desperately confused or desperately dishonest here. You choose.
You have demonstrated a list of bad arguments and I have given opinion. Generally....no one is making them and if they did they would probably be suspect even without comparison with Leprechauns.
The extent to which you and others attempt them is debatable (they appear frequently on this mb for example), but either way it’s irrelevant. The point rather remains: When an argument for “God” work equally for leprechauns, then it’s probably a bad argument. How often people try such an argument is a secondary matter.
Leprechauns are therefore being used by you superfluously.
That’s called a non sequitur (correct meaning, rather than your usage of, "I don't like that but have no rebuttal") – the “therefore” fails because the maxim is a perfectly coherent and useful means of saving the hassle of disassembling an argument to see where it’s gone wrong. I’d suggest to anyone hearing an argument for “god” to ask herself, “Does this work just as well for leprechauns?” and, when it does, to treat the argument accordingly.
That is tremendous refutation of your argument.
Possibly the funniest thing you’ve ever said here, albeit unintentionally so. You’re using “tremendous” here presumably in the Trumpian sense of, “abject failure”.
I expect praise from Trentvoyager and will check for his inevitable great review in Forum Best Bits.
Only if he’s lost control of his critical faculties. That said, that area is also home to examples of some of the most incoherent, egregious and ludicrous efforts on this mb (hence your appearances there) so you never know – you could be in with a shout after all.
-
Here it is again: WHEN AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD WORKS JUST AS WELL FOR LEPRECHAUNS, THEN IT’S PROBABLY A BAD ARGUMENT.
You need to demonstrate and illustrate this with a justification.
What you have done so far is to give bad arguments for, well, anything....and then merely illustrating them using the idea of God and Leprechauns.
So without repeating that favoured approach you now actually have to make sense of the statement:-
WHEN AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD WORKS JUST AS WELL FOR LEPRECHAUNS, THEN IT’S PROBABLY A BAD ARGUMENT.
In other words WHY is it a bad argument.
Another point is your claim of IRRELEVANT differences. You need to demonstrate a rationale for dismissing some differences between God and the little chaps and not others.
Finally the claim of faith based statements of fact. You need to demonstrate that people have faith in Leprechauns. You need to produce a Leprechaun worshipper and not a population of people who regard them as fairy tail or truly mythological. Both God and Leprechauns need not be posited as ''faith based statements of fact'' and can be stated as provisional as multiverse, dark matter etc.
-
Hillside.......
Why are Leprechauns ridiculous?
-
Vlad the Divertonist,
You need to demonstrate and illustrate this with a justification.
I set out clearly in Reply 33 where you went wrong, and I set out clearly in Reply 69 where your attempt at a response went wrong.
Why have you just ignored both in favour of more mistakes and irrelevance?
Try again. Or don’t. It’s up to you. If you keep avoiding though you’re just exiting yourself from the discussion.
What you have done so far is to give bad arguments for, well, anything....and then merely illustrating them using the idea of God and Leprechauns.
Wrong again. Those bad arguments were used merely to illustrate the point, but any other bad arguments would do as well.
So without repeating that favoured approach you now actually have to make sense of the statement:-
WHEN AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD WORKS JUST AS WELL FOR LEPRECHAUNS, THEN IT’S PROBABLY A BAD ARGUMENT.
In other words WHY is it a bad argument.
It’s a bad argument because it leads to ridiculous outcomes with the same facility that it leads to outcomes you happen to think not to be ridiculous.
You’re really struggling here aren’t you.
Another point…
You can’t have an “another’ when you haven’t made a first one yet.
…is your claim of IRRELEVANT differences. You need to demonstrate a rationale for dismissing some differences between God and the little chaps and not others.
I have – several times in fact. That you just ignore them is your problem, not mine.
Finally…
You can’t have a “finally when you haven’t managed a “firstly” yet.
..the claim of faith based statements of fact. You need to demonstrate that people have faith in Leprechauns. You need to produce a Leprechaun worshipper and not a population of people who regard them as fairy tail or truly mythological. Both God and Leprechauns need not be posited as ''faith based statements of fact'' and can be stated as provisional as multiverse, dark matter etc.
Of course I don’t. Whether anyone actually believes in lerprechauns is entirely irrelevant (except in the narrow sense that someone may be attempting an argumentum ad populum specifically).
You’ve shifted ground all over the place here (from the nonsense of “the objects of the analogy can’t be different” via the irrelevance of, “not many people use those arguments anyway” to the bizarreness of, “you have to find someone who believes in leprechauns”). Why?
Here it is again then:
WHEN AN ARGUMENT LEADS EQUALLY TO “GOD” AND TO LEPRECHAUNS, IT’S PROBABLY A BAD ARGUMENT.
Finally engage with it rather that endlessly throw sand at it or don’t – it’s up to you.
-
Vlad the Disingenuist,
Why are Leprechauns ridiculous?
For the same reason "God" is - the arguments used to validate both claims are crap.
-
Vlad the Disingenuist,
For the same reason "God" is - the arguments used to validate both claims are crap.
So leprechauns are ridiculous because they are like God who is ridiculous because God is like Leprechauns who are ridiculous?
-
Vlad the Disingenuist,
For the same reason "God" is - the arguments used to validate both claims are crap.
But the arguments in reply 33 are just bad arguments for, well, anything..........You are merely using the words God and leprechauns to illustrate that. That is 'Badness' by association not a proof of crapness.
Also I believe that ''leprechauns are ridiculous because they are like God who is ridiculous because they are like Leprechauns'' is a circular argument n'est pas?
-
Vlad,
So leprechauns are ridiculous because they are like God who is ridiculous because God is like Leprechauns who are ridiculous?
A fiver to anyone who can find a logical path from what I said ("For the same reason "God" is - the arguments used to validate both claims are crap") to Vlad's misrepresentation of it.
-
Vlad the Confusonist,
But the arguments in reply 33 are just bad arguments for, well, anything..........You are merely using the words God and leprechauns to illustrate that.
By George, could it be that you're finally grasping the point?
That is 'Badness' by association not a proof of crapness.
Er, the "badness" (or ridiculousness) of the outcome is a pretty good indication that the argument that leads to it is false.
Also...
Again you have no "also" when your first effort has collapsed.
...I believe that ''leprechauns are ridiculous because they are like God who is ridiculous because they are like Leprechauns'' is a circular argument n'est pas?
Yes it would be, which is why no-one has made it.
-
Even as an incurable optimist, I think it is unlikely that Vlad has finally understood the argument!
-
To date we have a list of bad arguments.
Then we have a statement from Bluehillside
Any argument that fits both God and leprechauns is a bad argument.
His list of bad arguments is,er, a list if bad arguments.....for anything, since the words God and Leprechauns could be substituted by any other two.
Then when asked, after years of saying that God is as ridiculous as Leprechauns, why leprechauns are ridiculous he says it's because they are like God.
-
Vlad the Misrepresentationist,
To date we have a list of bad arguments.
Then we have a statement from Bluehillside
Any argument that fits both God and leprechauns is a bad argument.
It’s “leads to” rather than “fits”, and the argument precedes the examples you asked for to illustrate it but OK.
His list of bad arguments is,er, a list if bad arguments.....for anything, since the words God and Leprechauns could be substituted by any other two.
True, albeit irrelevantly so. That the claim "leprechauns" is more commonly held to be ridiculous than the claim "God" adds weight to the point though.
Then when asked, after years of saying that God is as ridiculous as Leprechauns, why leprechauns are ridiculous he says it's because they are like God.
And he finishes with one of his favourite misrepresentations. I have NOT said that “leprechauns are ridiculous…because they are like God” at all. What I have said is that, when ARGUMENTS LEAD EQUALLY TO “God” and to leprechauns, that’s a good indication that they are bad arguments.
Not sure why you keep lying about that, but that’s a matter for you.
-
I have NOT said that “leprechauns are ridiculous…because they are like God” at all. What I have said is that, when ARGUMENTS LEAD EQUALLY TO “God” and to leprechauns, that’s a good indication that they are bad arguments.
.
So what then is ridiculous here God, Leprechauns or the arguments (which we know to be bad without the invocation of God or Leprechauns)?
-
Vlad the Disingenuist,
So what then is ridiculous here God, Leprechauns or the arguments (which we know to be bad without the invocation of God or Leprechauns)?
Why are you doing this to yourself?
Veeeery slowly now:
1. Some (you included) make a claim "God" that you think to be not ridiculous.
2. We (presumably) agree that the claim "leprechauns" on the other hand is ridiculous.
3. Sometimes people people attempt arguments in logic to validate claim 1.
4. Sometimes too however those argument function equally whether they're used to validate conjecture 1. or conjecture 2.
5. Unless you're prepared to think that those arguments actually do validate both conjectures (ie, neither are ridiculous), your only option is to determine that the arguments themselves must therefore be wrong.
6. Thus the maxim: "When an argument leads equally to "God" and to leprechauns it's probably a bad argument" it's useful because it saves the trouble of deconstructing the argument to work out why it's wrong.
Do you get it now?
-
Yes it's about Bad arguments and a restatement that Leprechauns are ridiculous with no attendant justification.
-
Yes it's about Bad arguments and a restatement that Leprechauns are ridiculous with no attendant justification.
They are apparently real.
There are people who genuinly believe in them.
They are protected under EU Law.
www.irishcentral.com/travel/leprechauns-are-now-protected-under-new-european-law-see-videos-117791804-237763791
-
Vlad the Confused or Mendacious? You Choose,
Me:
Why are you doing this to yourself?
Veeeery slowly now:
1. Some (you included) make a claim "God" that you think to be not ridiculous.
2. We (presumably) agree that the claim "leprechauns" on the other hand is ridiculous.
3. Sometimes people people attempt arguments in logic to validate claim 1.
4. Sometimes too however those argument function equally whether they're used to validate conjecture 1. or conjecture 2.
5. Unless you're prepared to think that those arguments actually do validate both conjectures (ie, neither are ridiculous), your only option is to determine that the arguments themselves must therefore be wrong.
6. Thus the maxim: "When an argument leads equally to "God" and to leprechauns it's probably a bad argument" it's useful because it saves the trouble of deconstructing the argument to work out why it's wrong.
Do you get it now?
VtCoM?YC:
Yes it's about Bad arguments and a restatement that Leprechauns are ridiculous with no attendant justification.
That'll be a "no" then.
Let me know if it ever sinks in though won't you?
-
They are apparently real.
There are people who genuinly believe in them.
They are protected under EU Law.
www.irishcentral.com/travel/leprechauns-are-now-protected-under-new-european-law-see-videos-117791804-237763791
Thanks Seb
I intended this thread to be all things Leprechaun
For people who think Leprechauns are real but can't explain why as much as for people who think they are ridiculous and won't explain why.
-
Vlad the Disingenuist,
For people who think Leprechauns are real but can't explain why as much as for people who think they are ridiculous and won't explain why.
Why would anyone else need to do that latter as I've already done it for you?
As you seem to be suffering from short term memory loss, here it is again: The conjecture "leprechauns" is ridiculous because the arguments used to validate it are crap, and they remain crap when they're used to validate "God".
Suggest you write this on a Post-it note and stick to your screen to help you the next time your memory fails.
You're welcome.
-
Vlad the Disingenuist,
Why would anyone else need to do that latter as I've already done it for you?
As you seem to be suffering from short term memory loss, here it is again: The conjecture "leprechauns" is ridiculous because the arguments used to validate it are crap, and they remain crap when they're used to validate "God".
Suggest you write this on a Post-it note and stick to your screen to help you the next time your memory fails.
You're welcome.
Keep Calm Hillside...And Enjoy Leprechauns
-
But the arguments in reply 33 are just bad arguments for, well, anything
Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Halleeeee-lujah
Haaaaaaallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Halleeeee-lujah
-
Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Halleeeee-lujah
Haaaaaaallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Halleeeee-lujah
Perhaps Vlad, at long last, has got a Handel on something.
-
Perhaps Vlad, at long last, has got a Handel on something.
Only that I think you lot are Bach-ing up the wrong tree.
Top of the morning to you.
-
Only that I think you lot are Bach-ing up the wrong tree.
Top of the morning to you.
Don't know if you noticed Vlad: but when you posted this it is definitely evening-time, it is dark outside and bedtime is looming large.
-
Don't know if you noticed Vlad: but when you posted this it is definitely evening-time, it is dark outside and bedtime is looming large.
Top of the Evening to you.
-
Top of the Evening to you.
Kudos to Vlad.
-
Vlad the Disingenuist,
Why would anyone else need to do that latter as I've already done it for you?
As you seem to be suffering from short term memory loss, here it is again: The conjecture "leprechauns" is ridiculous because the arguments used to validate it are crap, and they remain crap when they're used to validate "God".
Suggest you write this on a Post-it note and stick to your screen to help you the next time your memory fails.
You're welcome.
Hillside
I'm not having a cow over this and suggest you don't either.
I'm taking it that List/reply number 33 are the arguments.
firstly they are bad arguments for anything....
Secondly it is debateable whether they are used.
Thirdly they are not an exhaustive list of arguments.
They don't actually tell us anything about ridiculousness(or God or Leprechauns for that matter) which is to do with emotion....after all mention Leprechauns and you get almost unanimous smiles. Mention God and you might get titters from a small part of the survey, some scuffles in another, mature handled emotion among the sensible.
A sense of ridicule is after all a subjective thing.
-
Vlad the Irrelevantist,
I'm not having a cow over this and suggest you don't either.
I'm taking it that List/reply number 33 are the arguments.
Then, as so often, you (or your cow) “take it” wrongly. The actual argument is that, when arguments can be used equally to validate “God” and leprechauns, then those arguments are probably bad ones. The list in Reply 33 is merely illustrative of the types of argument that can do that.
firstly they are bad arguments for anything....
True but irrelevant. See above.
Secondly it is debateable whether they are used.
Actually it isn’t, but it’s irrelevant in any case. See above.
Thirdly they are not an exhaustive list of arguments.
That’s not what illustrative lists are for (perhaps you missed the: "...and, wearily, on and on they go" at the end of the list?), and it’s irrelevant in any case. See above.
They don't actually tell us anything about ridiculousness(or God or Leprechauns for that matter) which is to do with emotion....after all mention Leprechauns and you get almost unanimous smiles. Mention God and you might get titters from a small part of the survey, some scuffles in another, mature handled emotion among the sensible.
Highly debatable, but irrelevant in any case. The only relevant point here is that, when arguments validate with equal facility “God” and conjectures everyone already thinks to be ridiculous, then those arguments are probably bad ones.
A sense of ridicule is after all a subjective thing.
As is your conjecture “God”, but irrelevant in any case. The only relevant point here is that, when an argument validates a conjecture that everyone already thinks to be relevant (leprechauns being but one of many possible examples) and “God” equally, then it’s probably a bad argument.
Why you keep ducking and diving in response to this with your list of irrelevances is anyone’s guess, but there it is nonetheless. While your preferred modus operandi is lying and dissembling rather than attempting arguments of any kind, whenever you do feel like doing the latter if you ask yourself, “does this argument work just as well for leprechauns?” you’ll save yourself and others time by not bothering with it.
You’re welcome.
-
#33
What is relevant though – and this is the bit you never get around to dealing with – is that “God” and leprechauns are epistemically the same when the same argument produces either outcome with equal facility. What that argument is doesn’t matter at all: “You can’t disprove god/leprechauns, therefore god/leprechauns (the NPF); “Other people agree with me about god/leprechauns” (argumentum ad populum); “I don’t like the idea of no god/leprechauns (argumentum ad consequentiam); “I prayed to god/leprechauns for a promotion and got the job, therefore god/leprechauns” (post hoc ergo propter hoc); “I know god/leprechauns exist because it says so in a book, god/leprechauns wrote the book (circular reasoning) and, wearily, on and on they go.
This has to go down as arguably the most ignorant lack of understanding of religious belief ever.
bluehillshite of the highest order!
-
And rebuttal of bhs's entirely logical points came there none.
-
#33
This has to go down as arguably the most ignorant lack of understanding of religious belief ever.
bluehillshite of the highest order!
This has to go down as arguably the most ignorant lack of understanding of fallacious arguments, ever.
WordoftheSprout more like!
-
Sword,
This has to go down as arguably the most ignorant lack of understanding of religious belief ever.
bluehillshite of the highest order!
Assertion noted. And your argument for it would be what exactly?
-
#33
This has to go down as arguably the most ignorant lack of understanding of religious belief ever.
Explain why.
-
Leprechaunyawn.....
-
There is a Jesus of History, but where are the Leprechauns of History?
-
There is a Jesus of History
That's a matter of opinion, I think.
Majority opinion, I'll grant you that much, but unless you're in a kamikaze mood and feel in need of a spanking over the ad populum/numerum fallacy, you'll be aware that that means nowt.
-
That's a matter of opinion, I think.
Majority opinion, I'll grant you that much, but unless you're in a kamikaze mood and feel in need of a spanking over the ad populum/numerum fallacy, you'll be aware that that means nowt.
As Hillside would say at this stage everything is probabilistic and I think the probability of the historicity of Jesus is quite high. Of course you might feel in kamikaze mood and try a special plead.
-
As Hillside would say at this stage everything is probabilistic and I think the probability of the historicity of Jesus is quite high. Of course you might feel in kamikaze mood and try a special plead.
But by the same measure the probability of a divine Jesus is N/A so I am missing your argument here.
-
But by the same measure the probability of a divine Jesus is N/A so I am missing your argument here.
Historical Jesus versus historical leprechauns Nearly
Historical Jesus highly highly probable Historical leprechauns improbable.
Jesus claims he is the son of God. We are down to mad, bad or son of God.
-
Historical Jesus versus historical leprechauns Nearly
Historical Jesus highly highly probable Historical leprechauns improbable.
Jesus claims he is the son of God. We are down to mad, bad or son of God.
Those are the only options available to consider, are they? ::)
-
Those are the only options available to consider, are they? ::)
No.
Historical Jesus vs Mythical Jesus, Jesus as described in the bible vs Jesus as spun in revisionisms front room and then we are into the trilemma.
-
No.
Historical Jesus vs Mythical Jesus, Jesus as described in the bible vs Jesus as spun in revisionisms front room and then we are into the trilemma.
And historical Jesus using the historical method that you wanted earlier isn't divine. So again you are arguing against yourself.
-
And historical Jesus using the historical method that you wanted earlier isn't divine. So again you are arguing against yourself.
I'm sorry I don't understand what you are getting at.
If we have a historical Jesus then one of the things this man is supposed to have claimed is that he is the son of God. That takes us into the trilemma.
-
I'm sorry I don't understand what you are getting at.
If we have a historical Jesus then one of the things this man is supposed to have claimed is that he is the son of God. That takes us into the trilemma.
First of all having an historical Jesus dies not mean that you can then then claim what he's reported as saying as true. But worse than that for you, the probability methods used in historical studies are based on methodological naturalism, so you cannot then use them to evaluate any non naturalustic claim.
-
I'm sorry I don't understand what you are getting at.
If we have a historical Jesus then one of the things this man is supposed to have claimed is that he is the son of God. That takes us into the trilemma.
No. The trilemma is a very, very, bad argument, superficially attractive only to those who don't seem to have thought about it in any depth.
-
No. The trilemma is a very, very, bad argument, superficially attractive only to those who don't seem to have thought about it in any depth.
Be my guest and justify that statement.
-
Be my guest and justify that statement.
Others have done so, so I needn't waste my fingers. That's why, on the other thread where you're muckspreading this slurry, I suggested you use the forum's search function and see the 'argument' elegantly dismantled.
-
First of all having an historical Jesus dies not mean that you can then then claim what he's reported as saying as true. But worse than that for you, the probability methods used in historical studies are based on methodological naturalism, so you cannot then use them to evaluate any non naturalustic claim.
Of course not that's why I have only talked about getting to the trilemma. If you want to offer an alternative history where he never claimed this then be my guest, let's have it now.
-
Others have done so, so I needn't waste my fingers. That's why, on the other thread where you're muckspreading this slurry, I suggested you use the forum's search function and see the 'argument' elegantly dismantled.
Ok so if you won't analyse it I will
Man claims to be son of God. He believes it and is deluded in a big way, He is mistaken, he is still deluded, he was told to say it and comes to believe it he is deluded. he is told to say it even though he doesn't believe it he is a liar. He doesn't believe but it's his idea then he's lying and is using it to manipulate others or he's the sun of God.
There you go Shaker a trilemma Mad, Bad or son of God.
-
Seems to be you who's reluctant to do any analysing.
Fearful of doing so, perhaps, I've no idea.
-
Of course not that's why I have only talked about getting to the trilemma. If you want to offer an alternative history where he never claimed this then be my guest, let's have it now.
But you haven't got to him claiming that, and then you have thrown out the method. You are being illogical.
-
But you haven't got to him claiming that, and then you have thrown out the method. You are being illogical.
I'm not getting it Sane and until you actually come clean and write a bit more than cryptic little soundbites I don't think I can help You.
-
I'm not getting it Sane and until you actually come clean and write a bit more than cryptic little soundbites I don't think I can help You.
Having a probability of an historic Jesus does not mean that there is a probability that what is claimed he said is high.
Having used the historical method to claim a probability of an historic Jesus, you then can't make any claims since it is naturalistic as a method on that basis for a divine Jesus
-
Having a probability of an historic Jesus does not mean that there is a probability that what is claimed he said is high.
Having used the historical method to claim a probability of an historic Jesus, you then can't make any claims since it is naturalistic as a method on that basis for a divine Jesus
I am merely saying what Jesus claims were. I don't know where you get the idea i'm trying to use methodological naturalism to prove divinity.
-
We are down to mad, bad or son of God.
Well most messiah figures throughout history were demonstrably either mad or bad. e.g. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Joseph Smith, Mohammed.
Any reason to believe Jesus was any different?
-
Vlad,
I'm sorry I don't understand what you are getting at.
If we have a historical Jesus then one of the things this man is supposed to have claimed is that he is the son of God. That takes us into the trilemma.
What strange little backwater are you trying to distract us down now? If you want to argue for a ”historical” Jesus (ie, a man who had some interesting things to say) that’s fine – the usual rules of historicity apply to test the claim but frankly it wouldn’t matter much whether he existed or not, any more than it would matter whether Shakespeare or someone else actually wrote the plays. The surviving work is the primary issue, not the authorship.
And none of this would have anything to do with leprechauns either.
If on the other hand you want to argue for a divine Jesus then the usual, naturalistic rules of historicity are out of the window and you need to come up with something else. This is where leprechauns have something to tell us – whatever arguments you do want to attempt, just apply the leprechaun test (ie, does the same argument demonstrate leprechauns with the same facility that it demonstrates a divine Jesus?) and, if it does, that tells you that it’s probably a bad argument.
As you now finally understand that this has nothing to do with “comparing god with leprechauns” as you previously thought but rather it’s to do with comparing the arguments used to demonstrate god with leprechauns, you’ll find this a handy short cut to identifying and thus discounting bad arguments.
You’re welcome.
-
If on the other hand you want to argue for a divine Jesus then the usual, naturalistic rules of historicity are out of the window and you need to come up with something else
I believe I have already acknowledged that.
And I have duly come up with something else.
And now it seems you believe that the following could be a reasonable non science hypothesis: The universe could have an intelligent designer who is not part of the universe, who is not dependent on the universe and is outside it.
-
Vlad,
I believe I have already acknowledged that.
Acknowledging something is not the same as a doing it.
And I have duly come up with something else.
Whaaaaat?
Well, on the black swan principle I suppose that just because you’ve never done it in all the thousands of posts I’ve seen doesn’t necessarily mean that you haven’t done it somewhere I suppose. Could you just post a reference then please to where you made a cogent argument for the fact of the god of every possible universe who’s necessarily supernatural, who’s still around, and who intervenes in human affairs when it suits. Ta.
And now it seems you believe that the following could be a reasonable non science hypothesis: The universe could have an intelligent designer who is not part of the universe, who is not dependent on the universe and is outside it.
Don’t be daft – see above.
-
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rainbow-lasting-nine-hours-breaks-world-record-in-taiwan-chinese-culture-university/
Nine hours.......Nine hours!!! and not a mention of a leprechaun.
That must about wrap it up for the little chaps.
-
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rainbow-lasting-nine-hours-breaks-world-record-in-taiwan-chinese-culture-university/
Nine hours.......Nine hours!!! and not a mention of a leprechaun.
That must about wrap it up for the little chaps.
But ther was no mention of anbody going to the end of that one.
So the we chaps would not have been spotted!
D'oh!
-
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rainbow-lasting-nine-hours-breaks-world-record-in-taiwan-chinese-culture-university/
Nine hours.......Nine hours!!! and not a mention of a leprechaun.
That must about wrap it up for the little chaps.
O ye of little faith: I feel sure the wee chaps were just demonstrating their powers, and by not appearing themselves it adds to the mysteriousness-ness-ness of it all - provided you interpret it properly and join up all the invisible dots into the one true correct pattern (which you won't see of course, but you'll feel when you've got it right and, of course, nobody can prove that you haven't).
-
Leprechauns can be female too, my pet one is called Padeen. :D
-
Leprechauns can be female too, my pet one is called Padeen. :D
Floo, can leprechauns be trans-gender too? It's a thought.
Kind regards ippy
-
Floo, can leprechauns be trans-gender too? It's a thought.
Kind regards ippy
Of course. ;D