Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on April 26, 2021, 06:45:45 PM
-
Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster absurd and ridiculous or just absurd. To which one could ask the same of Leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns etc.
Are we to take absurd as meaning impossible .......or absurd as meaning ridiculous.
-
Vlad,
Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster absurd and ridiculous or just absurd. To which one could ask the same of Leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns etc.
Both - the terms are synonymous.
Are we to take absurd as meaning impossible .......or absurd as meaning ridiculous.
Depends on which meaning of "impossible" you're attempting - colloquial or strict epistemic.
You should know this by now given the many times it's been explained to you.
-
Vlad,
Both - the terms are synonymous.
So basically any argument that involves absurbidity involves ridicule.
Ha ha.
-
So basically any argument that involves absurbidity involves ridicule.
Are you still struggling to get your head round reductio ad absurdum? The answer to your question is no, it involves a concept that is ridiculous (https://www.lexico.com/definition/ridiculous) ("Deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd."). It does not involve the ridicule of anything, let alone some other concept or person. It's just of the form "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory. In your case it's mostly "if I accept your argument for god, then I can use the same to deduce the existence leprechauns, the FSM, or whatever".
Jeez, why don't you stop playing silly word games and just read and try to understand one of the many descriptions of reductio ad absurdum? It's even used in mathematical proofs, where the absurdity is generally a contradiction.
This really isn't rocket science.
-
Vlad,
So basically any argument that involves absurbidity involves ridicule.
Ha ha.
Not at all. You're confusing the adjective with the verb. Adjectives are descriptive words, so "ridiculous" (which is what you asked about) simply describes the status of the object to which it's attached.
Verbs on the other hand are "doing" words - they indicate an action or an activity. An example would be "to ridicule" (which you didn't ask about).
Thus the adjectives "absurd" and "ridiculous" are synonymous, but need not entail the act of ridiculing (verb) something.
Ha ha indeed.
-
Are you still struggling to get your head round reductio ad absurdum? The answer to your question is no, it involves a concept that is ridiculous (https://www.lexico.com/definition/ridiculous) ("Deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd."). It does not involve the ridicule of anything, let alone some other concept or person. It's just of the form "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory. In your case it's mostly "if I accept your argument for god, then I can use the same to deduce the existence leprechauns, the FSM, or whatever".
Yes but Hillside takes this forward by suggesting that this is a bad thing. How does he possibly deduce this. He assumes that Leprechauns are absurd and proceeds as if we know this. This is horses laugh. In what way are though they absurd. Hillside replies they are magical. Here he is equating Leprechauns with magic which is a category error. Then he tells us he cannot accept Leprechauns as hyper diminutive irishmen. Effectively denying that there is anything about a Leprechaun other than magic. So why doesn't he use the word magic rather than Leprechaun. Answer, he knows he won't get the same horses laugh.
Secondly of course Hillside ridicules God. He comes from the same batch as Dawkins.
Thirdly, what the fuck is this: "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory. Why is Y absurd?
Let's exercise your statement.
If I accept God, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd(ridiculous)
So how am I not saying God is ridiculous. and if I am saying he is I am somehow not ridiculing God or whoever?
If I accept Winston Churchill, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd.(ridiculous)
How am I deducing Leprechauns from God anyway?
-
Vlad,
Not at all. You're confusing the adjective with the verb. Adjectives are descriptive words, so "ridiculous" (which is what you asked about) simply describes the status of the object to which it's attached.
Verbs on the other hand are "doing" words - they indicate an action or an activity. An example would be "to ridicule" (which you didn't ask about).
Thus the adjectives "absurd" and "ridiculous" are synonymous, but need not entail the act of ridiculing (verb) something.
Ha ha indeed.
Hillside, if you are saying and you have that anything is possible then you contradict yourself everytime you claim you are making an argumentum ad absurdum.
So Leprechauns and God are anything therefore they are possible so they cannot be part of an argumentum ad absurdum.
So When you make an argument involving Leprechauns you cannot be making an argumentum ad absurdum.
So you must be making a Horses Laugh argument.
Because saying anything is possible and Gods and Leprechauns are impossible is contradictory.....It is absurd.
You may now collect your arse in a sling, as they say.
-
Yes but Hillside takes this forward by suggesting that this is a bad thing.
Of course it's 'bad' (invalid or unsound) if it leads to a contradiction or absurdity.
How does he possibly deduce this. He assumes that Leprechauns are absurd and proceeds as if we know this.
Do you know anybody who takes them seriously?
This is horses laugh. In what way are though they absurd. Hillside replies they are magical. Here he is equating Leprechauns with magic which is a category error. Then he tells us he cannot accept Leprechauns as hyper diminutive irishmen. Effectively denying that there is anything about a Leprechaun other than magic. So why doesn't he use the word magic rather than Leprechaun. Answer, he knows he won't get the same horses laugh.
What a stream of unmitigated, ignorant drivel. Why don't you use google and read up on all these fallacies and terms you clearly haven't got a clue about? There is no horse laugh fallacy, calling leprechauns magical is not equating them with magic, so there is no category error. The rest is even more absurd and riddled with silly misunderstandings.
Why not try to pay some actual attention to what is being said for, just for a change?
Thirdly, what the fuck is this: "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory. Why is Y absurd?
It depends what Y is, of course. ::)
If I accept God, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd(ridiculous)
For about the ten thousandth time: that is not the argument. The argument is about some arguments or justifications for belief in god, which could just as easily be used to justify belief in leprechauns.
How am I deducing Leprechauns from God anyway?
You can't - that has never (in all I've read here) been suggested.
TRY PAYING SOME ATTENTION!
-
Of course it's 'bad' (invalid or unsound) if it leads to a contradiction or absurdity.
Do you know anybody who takes them seriously?
What a stream of unmitigated, ignorant drivel. Why don't you use google and read up on all these fallacies and terms you clearly haven't got a clue about? There is no horse laugh fallacy, calling leprechauns magical is not equating them with magic, so there is no category error. The rest is even more absurd and riddled with silly misunderstandings.
Why not try to pay some actual attention to what is being said for, just for a change?
It depends what Y is, of course. ::)
For about the ten thousandth time: that is not the argument. The argument is about some arguments or justifications for belief in god, which could just as easily be used to justify belief in leprechauns.
You can't - that has never (in all I've read here) been suggested.
That contradicts your previous claim about what I am doing.
For the umpteenth time what is absurd(contradictory or impossible) about Leprechauns?
-
Yes but Hillside takes this forward by suggesting that this is a bad thing. How does he possibly deduce this. He assumes that Leprechauns are absurd and proceeds as if we know this. This is horses laugh. In what way are though they absurd. Hillside replies they are magical. Here he is equating Leprechauns with magic which is a category error. Then he tells us he cannot accept Leprechauns as hyper diminutive irishmen. Effectively denying that there is anything about a Leprechaun other than magic. So why doesn't he use the word magic rather than Leprechaun. Answer, he knows he won't get the same horses laugh.
Secondly of course Hillside ridicules God. He comes from the same batch as Dawkins.
Thirdly, what the fuck is this: "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory. Why is Y absurd?
Let's exercise your statement.
If I accept God, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd(ridiculous)
So how am I not saying God is ridiculous. and if I am saying he is I am somehow not ridiculing God or whoever?
If I accept Winston Churchill, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd.(ridiculous)
How am I deducing Leprechauns from God anyway?
The absurdity of Leprechauns is to sprinkle humour on to the argument, it isn't the argument itself. You could replace 'Leprechauns' with any number of not inherently absurd but also not generally accepted phenomena to show that the argument is that the particular justification for God being deployed is flawed because it can equally justify any number of concepts which (presumably) the original proponent does not accept are real.
The 'absurdum' in the 'reductio ad absurdum' is the argument; the absurd in Leprechauns is just because it's an amusing contrast to the stereotypically stern, sagacious depiction of the Abrahamic god.
O.
-
The absurdity of Leprechauns is to sprinkle humour on to the argument, it isn't the argument itself. You could replace 'Leprechauns' with any number of not inherently absurd but also not generally accepted phenomena to show that the argument is that the particular justification for God being deployed is flawed because it can equally justify any number of concepts which (presumably) the original proponent does not accept are real.
The 'absurdum' in the 'reductio ad absurdum' is the argument; the absurd in Leprechauns is just because it's an amusing contrast to the stereotypically stern, sagacious depiction of the Abrahamic god.
O.
OK then so how are Leprechauns absurd I.e impossible or contradictory.
And what arguments are made for God that are being made for Leprechauns bearing in mind the humour is based on them being hyper diminutive Irishmen with tiny clothes and pots of gold at the end of rainbows?
-
That contradicts your previous claim about what I am doing.
What previous claim?
For the umpteenth time what is absurd(contradictory or impossible) about Leprechauns?
Are you really as daft as your posts sometimes suggest? It's just a fable that pretty much nobody takes seriously - it could be anything similar, and that's the whole point - your 'reasons' or 'arguments' for god are often applicable to pretty much any myth you care to mention.
-
What previous claim?
Are you really as daft as your posts sometimes suggest? It's just a fable that pretty much nobody takes seriously - it could be anything similar, and that's the whole point - your 'reasons' or 'arguments' for god are often applicable to pretty much any myth you care to mention.
I’m not taking lessons from someone who proposes that, and I quote.ridiculous (https://www.lexico.com/definition/ridiculous) ("Deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd."). It does not involve the ridicule of anything, let alone some other concept or person. It's just of the form "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory. In your case it's mostly "if I accept your argument for god, then I can use the same to deduce the existence leprechauns, the FSM, or whatever".
Are you denying this is yours?
-
Vlad,
What a tangled web of ignorance, incomprehension and straw manning you weave. In the sure knowledge that you’ll do exactly the same to the rebuttals to it, for what it’s worth…
Yes but Hillside takes this forward by suggesting that this is a bad thing. How does he possibly deduce this. He assumes that Leprechauns are absurd and proceeds as if we know this.
Leprechauns are ridiculous because there's no good reason to think they exist.
This is horses laugh.
No it isn’t.
In what way are though they absurd.
See above.
Hillside replies they are magical.
No he doesn’t. What he actually says is that if you want to claim anything able at will to flit between supposed non-material and material states then absent any known process to do that the claim is epistemically equivalent to “it’s magic”.
Here he is equating Leprechauns with magic which is a category error.
No he isn’t and no it isn’t. See above.
Then he tells us he cannot accept Leprechauns as hyper diminutive irishmen.
No he doesn’t. He exactly accepts that when they choose to be in material form (just as you think “god” was a burning bush, an angel etc when in material form).
Effectively denying that there is anything about a Leprechaun other than magic.
Wrong again. “Magic” may as well be the description for the process of moving in and out of the material, for leprechauns and for god alike.
So why doesn't he use the word magic rather than Leprechaun.
He doesn’t. The “horse laugh” fallacy means something else.
Answer, he knows he won't get the same horses laugh.
Nope - see above.
Secondly of course Hillside ridicules God. He comes from the same batch as Dawkins.
Be nice if you could stop lying here, even just for five minutes. What Hillside actually does is to rebut the arguments you attempt to justify your belief “god”.
Why not write that down over and over again until if finally sinks in?
Thirdly, what the fuck is this: "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory. Why is Y absurd?
It’s called logic. You should try it.
Let's exercise your statement.
If I accept God, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd(ridiculous)
Wrong again. It’s “if I accept the arguments is use to justify my belief God, then when identical arguments also produce the outcome “leprechauns” I must accept them too”.
Again, write it down so I don’t have to keep correcting you on it.
So how am I not saying God is ridiculous. and if I am saying he is I am somehow not ridiculing God or whoever?
Gibberish.
If I accept Winston Churchill, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd.(ridiculous)
You’ve lost it completely now.
How am I deducing Leprechauns from God anyway?
You’re not. No-one is.
-
I’m not taking lessons from someone who proposes that, and I quote.
...
Are you denying this is yours?
You're not making the slightest bit of sense here. What do you think I've contradicted? What has what you quoted got to do with you not taking lessons from me when it's simply a description of the redreductio ad absurdum process and how it's often applied to your stated reasons for belief in god? Something that's been explained to you multiple times by several people.
-
Vlad,
Hillside, if you are saying and you have that anything is possible then you contradict yourself everytime you claim you are making an argumentum ad absurdum.
You haven’t understood a word of the arguments that undo you have you. Not. A. Word.
Once again: our understanding of reality is limited by our ability to understand reality. Within the understanding we do have though, we assign to truth claims the epistemic values “subjective” and “objective”. The former are opinions that cannot be justified with reason or evidence; the latter are facts justifiable with reason or evidence. At that level of abstraction beliefs such as “leprechauns”, “god” etc are in the former category – so when people assert them to be in the latter we can call the claim absurd or ridiculous.
That’s not to say though that there cannot be realities beyond our ability to understand them, and that those realities could be inhabited by anything.
I suggest you write this down.
So Leprechauns and God are anything therefore they are possible so they cannot be part of an argumentum ad absurdum.
Oh dear. See above…
So When you make an argument involving Leprechauns you cannot be making an argumentum ad absurdum.
Stop digging.
So you must be making a Horses Laugh argument.
No, I’m using the reductio ad absurdum to falsify the arguments you attempt to justify your belief that “god” is a fact.
Because saying anything is possible and Gods and Leprechauns are impossible is contradictory.....It is absurd.
Have you reached Australia yet?
You may now collect your arse in a sling, as they say.
It’s such a pity you have no understanding of irony.
-
Vlad,
What a tangled web of ignorance, incomprehension and straw manning you weave. In the sure knowledge that you’ll do exactly the same to the rebuttals to it, for what it’s worth…
Leprechauns are ridiculous because there's no good reason to think they exist.
Yes and what reasons have been put forward for Leprechauns?
-
Vlad,
Yes and what reasons have been put forward for Leprechauns?
Are you trolling here are are you seriously not understanding a word of what's being said?
No-one argues for leprechauns. When the arguments you try to justify your belief "god" work just as well to justify the belief "leprechauns" though, then that tell you something about the quality of the arguments.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
-
Vlad,
Are you trolling here are are you seriously not understanding a word of what's being said?
No-one argue for leprechauns. When the arguments you try to justify your belief "god" work just as well to justify the belief "leprechauns" though, then that tell you something about the quality of the arguments.
Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Again, is that a bad thing? You must have a reason.
-
Vlad,
Again, is that a bad thing? You must have a reason.
What are to even trying to say here?
It's not that it's a "bad" thing but that it's a wrong thing. It's as wrong as alchemy and astrology (subjective) are compared with chemistry and astronomy (objective). Or for that matter as theology (subjective) is compared with philosophy (objective).
Oh, and having taken the time to take apart line-by-line your recent litanies of straw men, lies, dull misunderstandings and incomprehensions I see you've just ignored all those rebuttals to slide sideways into another piece of poorly thought out irrelevance.
Why do you do this?
-
Vlad,
What are to even trying to say here?
It's not that it's a "bad" thing but that it's a wrong thing. It's as wrong as alchemy and astrology (subjective) are compared with chemistry and astronomy (objective). Or for that matter as theology (subjective) is compared with philosophy (objective).
Oh, and having taken the time to take apart line-by-line your recent litanies of straw men, lies, dull misunderstandings and incomprehensions I see you've just ignored all those rebuttals to slide sideways into another piece of poorly thought out irrelevance.
Why do you do this?
You are doing it again! God is wrong because astrology is wrong? Bald meaningless assertion. Accompanied by people who think you must be saying something profound.
-
Vlad,
You are doing it again! God is wrong because astrology is wrong?
For fuck's sake. Can you not read or something, or do you so struggle with comprehension that you must misrepresent everything that's said here?
Where on earth have I said "God is wrong because astrology is wrong"? I'll give you a clue - I said no such thing.
Yet again...the arguments used to justify the claim "god" are epistemically equivalent to the arguments used to justify astrology. Or for that matter leprechaunology.
Look, if the concept is above your intellectual pay grade then at least have the decency to say so rather than keep misrepresenting it.
Bald meaningless assertion.
It probably would be if anyone had said it. No-one has though.
Accompanied by people who think you must be saying something profound.
Any attempt profundity would be wasted on you. For now, i can't even get you to grasp simple reasoning without you straw manning it.
-
Vlad,
For fuck's sake. Can you not read or something, or do you so struggle with comprehension that you must misrepresent everything that's said here?
Where on earth have I said "God is wrong because astrology is wrong"? I'll give you a clue - I said no such thing.
Yet again...the arguments used to justify the claim "god" are epistemically equivalent to the arguments used to justify astrology. Or for that matter leprechaunology.
Look, if the concept is above your intellectual pay grade then at least have the decency to say so rather than keep misrepresenting it.
It probably would be if anyone had said it. No-one has though.
Any attempt profundity would be wasted on you. For now, i can't even get you to grasp simple reasoning without you straw manning it.
And God is wrong how then?
-
Vlad,
And God is wrong how then?
I read a piece about trolling a while ago that explained the psychological profiles of people who do it. It seemed rather sad to me.
-
And God is wrong how then?
Jeez, have you really not got it into your head that this is all about the reasons used to justify god claims?
-
Jeez, have you really not got it into your head that this is all about the reasons used to justify god claims?
Yes what reasons and why are they wrong ?
-
Vlad,
Yes what reasons and why are they wrong ?
1. The reasons you attempt to justify you belief "god".
2. They're wrong because they're constructed as fallacies. One way to demonstrate that your reasons are fallacious is the reductio ad absurdum.
-
Vlad,
1. The reasons you attempt to justify you belief "god".
2. They're wrong because they're constructed as fallacies. One way to demonstrate that your reasons are fallacious is the reductio ad absurdum.
Feel free to demonstrate.
-
Vlad,
Feel free to demonstrate.
I have done - many, many times in fact. Never though have you shown any interest in trying to rebut those demonstrations.
Take for example the list of reasons you put up recently for your belief in "god" (a sense of wonder, texts seeming easier to read, thinking about it for two hours and various other embarrassments). Now apply the narrative "leprechauns" (or Thor or unicorns or whatever) as the explanation for them. If an argument "works" to produce the outcome "god", you cannot then deny the claim "leprechauns" when the same argument produces that outcome too. Your only way out of that is to junk the argument as false and to try something else.
I should warn you though that most of the justifications you attempt for your belief "god" are easily undone by the reductio ad absurdum.
-
Vlad,
I have done - many, many times in fact. Never though have you shown any interest in trying to rebut those demonstrations.
Take for example the list of reasons you put up recently for your belief in "god" (a sense of wonder, texts seeming easier to read, thinking about it for two hours and various other embarrassments). Now apply the narrative "leprechauns" (or Thor or unicorns or whatever) as the explanation for them. If an argument "works" to produce the outcome "god", you cannot then deny the claim "leprechauns" when the same argument produces that outcome too. Your only way out of that is to junk the argument as false and to try something else.
I should warn you though that most of the justifications you attempt for your belief "god" are easily undone by the reductio ad absurdum.
You may have done although we only have your word for it But nobody else seems to be able to recreate the feat or want to.
Again you are saying stuff which doesn’t even state why on earth you should substitute the word God with unicorns etc. Thor is a bit different since there is a claim of the divine. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the only genuinely impossible thing here.
-
You may have done although we only have your word for it But nobody else seems to be able to recreate the feat or want to.
Actually, several people have both seen it done and done it too.
Again you are saying stuff which doesn’t even state why on earth you should substitute the word God with unicorns etc.
This has been explained to you multiple times by many people - why do you ignore them?
The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the only genuinely impossible thing here.
Why is she impossible?
-
Vlad,
You may have done although we only have your word for it But nobody else seems to be able to recreate the feat or want to.
That your MO is routinely to ignore, misrepresent or divert from the arguments you’re given rather than address them doesn’t mean they’re not given to you. Try reading just a few posts back for examples.
Again you are saying stuff which doesn’t even state why on earth you should substitute the word God with unicorns etc. Thor is a bit different since there is a claim of the divine.
You should substitute them because they work equally as outcomes for some of the arguments attempted to justify the claim “god”, so those arguments are (most likely) wrong. That’s the reductio ad absurdum.
Take just one example: the negative proof fallacy (which you rely on often by the way even though you don’t realise it). Some who would assert for the claim “god” will try, “well you can’t disprove it” as if that somehow justifies the claim. The same is true of the claim “leprechauns” though so either the argument is good and both “god” and “leprechauns” are true, or the argument is false so cannot be used to justify either claim.
The same principle applies to many of the other arguments attempted to justify the claim “god”.
Do you get it now?
The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the only genuinely impossible thing here.
Depends what you mean by “genuinely impossible” for the reason I explained to you a few posts ago and you just ignored.
-
If something is not absurd in actuality you cannot use it in any reduction ad adsurdum.
Sorry.
-
Vlad,
If something is not absurd in actuality you cannot use it in any reduction ad adsurdum.
Depends what you mean by "actuality". In the actuality we're capable of perceiving, leprechauns are absurd. That's all that's necessary for the reductio ad absurdum. If there are other levels of actuality we're not aware of though, all bets are off.
Sorry.
You should be.
-
Vlad,
Depends what you mean by "actuality". In the actuality we're capable of perceiving, leprechauns are absurd. That's all that's necessary for the reductio ad absurdum. If there are other levels of actuality we're not aware of though, all bets are off.
You should be.
We are capable of seeing hyper-diminutive Irishmen in green suits with pots of gold Hillside.
Seems as though you are inventing the definition of our reality and you cannot prove what we are capable of perceiving. And indeed what would it matter if humans couldn’t perceive them anyway.
They are neither logically impossible or contradictory and therefore they offer nothing to any reductio ad absurdum.
.
-
Vlad,
We are capable of seeing hyper-diminutive Irishmen in green suits with pots of gold Hillside.
We'd be capable of seeing burinng bushes and angels too. If gods and leprechauns alike can manifest in material forms then we should be capable of seeing either when they do.
How does that help you?
Seems as though you are inventing the definition of our reality and you cannot prove what we are capable of perceiving. And indeed what would it matter if humans couldn’t perceive them anyway.
It only seems that way for the hard of understanding. Try reading what I said for comprehension this time, only very slowly.
They are neither logically impossible or contradictory and therefore they offer nothing to any reductio ad absurdum.
You've collapsed into incoherence again.
-
Vlad,
We'd be capable of seeing burinng bushes and angels too. If gods and leprechauns alike can manifest in material forms then we should be capable of seeing either when they do.
How does that help you?
It only seems that way for the hard of understanding. Try reading what I said for comprehension this time, only very slowly.
You've collapsed into incoherence again.
I'm afraid Hillside Reductio ad absurdum depends on the genuine impossible.
-
Vlad,
I'm afraid Hillside Reductio ad absurdum depends on the genuine impossible.
Notwithstanding your propensity for redefining terms to suit your needs, no it doesn't. What it actually depends on is an argument reaching a conclusion that's absurd - ie, ridiculous, wildly improbable, without meaning. The clue is in the name: reductio ad absurdum. If the argument required the conclusion to be impossible, then it would be the reductio ad impossibile.
You're all over the floor on the epistemology of "impossible" too by the way, but having tried to explain that to you several times to no avail I see no point in trying again to educate the uneducable.
-
OK then so how are Leprechauns absurd I.e impossible or contradictory.
They aren't, inherently, any more absurd than the Abrahamic God, that's sort of the point.
And what arguments are made for God that are being made for Leprechauns bearing in mind the humour is based on them being hyper diminutive Irishmen with tiny clothes and pots of gold at the end of rainbows?
Pretty much all of them. The humour is irrelevant to the point - you take arguments for gods on faith, you take arguments for leprechauns on faith, too. You can dismiss the lack of material evidence of gods as a result of 'divinity/magic', and you can equally dismiss the lack of material evidence for leprechauns on the same basis.
O.
-
They aren't, inherently, any more absurd than the Abrahamic God, that's sort of the point.
Pretty much all of them. The humour is irrelevant to the point - you take arguments for gods on faith, you take arguments for leprechauns on faith, too. You can dismiss the lack of material evidence of gods as a result of 'divinity/magic', and you can equally dismiss the lack of material evidence for leprechauns on the same basis.
O.
I don’t know much about magic and I don’t suppose many or any on this forum do eitherI suspect the magic We might mutually sneer at would be a caricature of what it fully is.
Why I think Leprechauns have a lot of people not supporting them in the ontological stakes is that there indeed should be material evidence and yet there isn’t. That is not so of God who is unfalsifiable.
-
Vlad,
Why I think Leprechauns have a lot of people not supporting them in the ontological stakes is that there indeed should be material evidence and yet there isn’t. That is not so of God who is unfalsifiable.
Why do you think your belief "god" is any more or less falsifiable than my belief "leprechauns"?
-
Why I think Leprechauns have a lot of people not supporting them in the ontological stakes is that there indeed should be material evidence and yet there isn’t.
So you've decided exactly which version of the leprechaun faith we are talking about and then attacked that. Bit like me insisting to you that 'god' has to mean the one that created the world 6000 years ago in six literal days and then telling you that there should be evidence but there isn't.
That is not so of God who is unfalsifiable.
Which particular meaning of the word 'god' are you using today (you do seem to change your mind about it just to suit whatever conversation you're having)?
-
So you've decided exactly which version of the leprechaun faith we are talking about and then attacked that. Bit like me insisting to you that 'god' has to mean the one that created the world 6000 years ago in six literal days and then telling you that there should be evidence but there isn't.
Which particular meaning of the word 'god' are you using today (you do seem to change your mind about it just to suit whatever conversation you're having)?
I don't have to know anything about Leprechauns.
According to your Lord and master Richard Dawkins and yet here you are suggesting I have the wrong kind of Leprechauns. So apparently knowing your Leprechauns DOES matter....when it suits eh boys, when it suits.
As it happens I was talking about the Donegal leprechauns, hyper small people, irish, dressed in green.
That'll be the divine, necessary being Leprechauns from County Cork your talking about.
-
I don't have to know anything about Leprechauns.
According to your Lord and master Richard Dawkins and yet here you are suggesting I have the wrong kind of Leprechauns. So apparently knowing your Leprechauns DOES matter....when it suits eh boys, when it suits.
Firstly, it's you who have the Dawkins fetish, not me, and secondly, you don't need to know anything about leprechauns to dismiss them if I've not come up with any evidence or reasoning to support them (just like you and your ever-changing god). However, if you're going to make statements like there should be material evidence, then you do need to understand the specific claim.
-
Firstly, it's you who have the Dawkins fetish, not me, and secondly, you don't need to know anything about leprechauns to dismiss them if I've not come up with any evidence or reasoning to support them (just like you and your ever-changing god). However, if you're going to make statements like there should be material evidence, then you do need to understand the specific claim.
Firstly, it's you who have the Dawkins fetish, not me, and secondly, you don't need to know anything about leprechauns to dismiss them if I've not come up with any evidence or reasoning to support them (just like you and your ever-changing god). However, if you're going to make statements like there should be material evidence, then you do need to understand the specific claim.
Even if I did have a fetish so what?
Of course theres reasoning. For starters. Simulated universe theory and it's implications. The reasonable proposal of this universe having a creator, creators who have the power of intervention and are not dependent for existence on their creation is a) reasonable. Secondly that rather damages the type of atheism you stand for.
It makes a lie out of any claim that there are no good reasons.
Lastly it gives no warrant for the statement....."This cant be your God" which you will find is a declaration based on special pleading.
-
Even if I did have a fetish so what?
Just don't assume that other people share it. Probably best to keep your fetishes to yourself - too much information and all that.
Of course theres reasoning. For starters. Simulated universe theory and it's implications
::)
Lastly it gives no warrant for the statement....."This cant be your God" which you will find is a declaration based on special pleading.
It has nothing to do with special pleading. Yet again: to the highly questionable extent that SU can be considered 'reasonable' it is based entirely on naturalistic premises. It would be nothing like the other varieties of god you've alluded to.
This just demonstrates that you are in an even worse situation than somebody who has no reasoning or evidence, you don't even have a fixed idea about what you're claiming exists. It renders all discussion about it pointless.
-
I don’t know much about magic and I don’t suppose many or any on this forum do eitherI suspect the magic We might mutually sneer at would be a caricature of what it fully is.
Why I think Leprechauns have a lot of people not supporting them in the ontological stakes is that there indeed should be material evidence and yet there isn’t. That is not so of God who is unfalsifiable.
Why should there? Leprechauns are magical, and therefore can hide the evidence absolutely and leave no trace. God is magical and therefore can hide the evidence absolutely and leave no trace. Invisible pink unicorns are magical and therefore can hide the evidence absolutely and leave no trace. The Great JuJu is magical.... The Flying Spaghetti Monster is magical...
The absurdity comes not from the specifics of Leprechauns, or gods, or the subject of the argument, but from the fact that you can insert any subject at all that make up, and it's exactly equally as valid an argument, and therefore useless.
O.
-
Why should there? Leprechauns are magical, and therefore can hide the evidence absolutely and leave no trace. God is magical and therefore can hide the evidence absolutely and leave no trace. Invisible pink unicorns are magical and therefore can hide the evidence absolutely and leave no trace. The Great JuJu is magical.... The Flying Spaghetti Monster is magical...
It's The Invisible Pink Unicorn (bbhhh). There is only One.
The absurdity comes not from the specifics of Leprechauns, or gods, or the subject of the argument, but from the fact that you can insert any subject at all that make up, and it's exactly equally as valid an argument, and therefore useless.
O.
Exactly. Vlad's arguments are the same for anything at all. The absurdity is not that Vlad's arguments lead to us having to assume leprechauns exist but that they lead to us having to assume that anything you can imagine exists. Either there is a flaw in Vlad's argument or literally everything really exists. That is the absurdity.
-
Vlad,
Others have dealt with your latest suites of errors, faux pas and evasions so I don't need to. As you ignored it though, any chance of telling us why you think your belief "god" is any ore or less unfalsifiable than my belief "leprechauns" as you claimed?
-
Jeez, have you really not got it into your head that this is all about the reasons used to justify god claims?
He is sitting at home with a huge cheesy grin on his face at the fact that reams and reams of posts have been made responding to posts he has made that he knows full well are tonnage of bullshit and garbage.
He thinks manipulating those on here who respond to his idiotic arguments makes him cleverer than them, including you!.
Why else would he do it except that he is a wind-up merchant who wears a nappy/diaper because he is permanently pissing himself laughing at you!
Owlswing
)O(
-
It's The Invisible Pink Unicorn (bbhhh). There is only One.Exactly. Vlad's arguments are the same for anything at all. The absurdity is not that Vlad's arguments lead to us having to assume leprechauns exist but that they lead to us having to assume that anything you can imagine exists. Either there is a flaw in Vlad's argument or literally everything really exists. That is the absurdity.
Hillside is the one that argues or rather declares everything is possible, I don’t. I say we cannot rule Leprechauns out but that they are as described physical beings with unusual skills. Unfortunately not even the more unlikely skills need not be impossible and don’t forget it is possible to believe in Leprechauns but not their unusual skills.
Invisible pink 🦄 unicorns clearly are self contradictory and absurd.
I’ve never said or argued for the existence of everything, none of my arguments do.
I acknowledge there are bad arguments and that Leprechauns are no basis for any formal reductio ad absurdum.
Impossible or contradictory
-
Hillside is the one that argues or rather declares everything is possible,
No he isn't and you know that.
I don’t. I say we cannot rule Leprechauns out but that they are as described physical beings with unusual skills. Unfortunately not even the more unlikely skills need not be impossible and don’t forget it is possible to believe in Leprechauns but not their unusual skills.
This is irrelevant. Leprechauns are only an example that show your arguments are bankrupt.
Invisible pink 🦄 unicorns clearly are self contradictory and absurd.
As self contradictory and absurd as a being that is both fully god and fully human?
I’ve never said or argued for the existence of everything, none of my arguments do.
Yes they do.
-
No he isn't and you know that.
This is irrelevant. Leprechauns are only an example that show your arguments are bankrupt.
As self contradictory and absurd as a being that is both fully god and fully human?
Yes they do.
Hillside has used the term frequently and I don’t recall you responding. If he has since changed his mind then good on him.
No, more so. Invisibility and pinkness are in the same category. Effects of lighting.
Humanity and divinity are not in the same category.
For example you can be a mathematician and a father. But you cannot be simultaneously the worlds best mathematician and the worlds worse mathematician.
-
Vlad,
Hillside is the one that argues or rather declares everything is possible, I don’t.
No, Hillside simply says that our understanding of reality is bounded by our ability to understand reality and so it’s impossible to know what may or may not lies outwith that ability.
I say we cannot rule Leprechauns out but that they are as described physical beings with unusual skills.
No, they are described as non-material entities able at will to flit in and out of materiality but when they choose to be material they do it in a particular form. I believe this to be true because that’s my faith.
You on the other hand think there to be a “god” described as an entity able at will to flit in and out of materiality, but when he chooses to be material he does it in particular forms (burning bushes, angels etc). You believe this to be true because that’s your faith.
While their objects are different (leprechauns vs god) they’re epistemically the same claim.
Unfortunately not even the more unlikely skills need not be impossible and don’t forget it is possible to believe in Leprechauns but not their unusual skills.
Nope, no idea. What are you trying to say here?
Invisible pink 🦄 unicorns clearly are self contradictory and absurd.
More so than your claim “god”? Why do you think that?
I’ve never said or argued for the existence of everything, none of my arguments do.
Nor has anyone else. So?
I acknowledge there are bad arguments and that Leprechauns are no basis for any formal reductio ad absurdum.
Why not?
Impossible or contradictory
God, leprechauns or both?
-
No, more so. Invisibility and pinkness are in the same category. Effects of lighting.
Humanity and divinity are not in the same category.
For example you can be a mathematician and a father. But you cannot be simultaneously the worlds best mathematician and the worlds worse mathematician.
Oh this is fun. The IPU can of course be both pink and invisible, it's a limit thing. You know, if you want to know the gradient of a function y = f(x) you have to divide change in y by change in x. If you want to know it at a single point you end up with 0/0 which is nonsense, but you can take the limit as x approaches 0. Similarly, if something is pink and it gets less and less visible, in the limit it is still pink but totally invisible.
Now, how can an omnipotent, omniscient being be fully human?
-
Vlad,
Hillside has used the term frequently and I don’t recall you responding. If he has since changed his mind then good on him.
What term do you think Hillside has used frequently?
No, more so. Invisibility and pinkness are in the same category. Effects of lighting.
?
Humanity and divinity are not in the same category.
Nor then is leprchaunity. So?
For example you can be a mathematician and a father. But you cannot be simultaneously the worlds best mathematician and the worlds worse mathematician.
And nor then can you be simultaneously a vengeful and a merciful god. Again, what are you trying to say here?
-
Hillside conflated Leprechauns with God. It is therefore mere conflatus.
-
Vlad,
Hillside conflated Leprechauns with God. It is therefore mere conflatus.
Why do you lie so much, especially as you're so easily caught out when you do it?
Hilliside has of course done no such thing. Hilliside has said over and over and over again that your god and his leprechauns have different characteristics.
What Hillside has also done though is to explain that you cannot claim an argument to justify your belief "god" and at the same time deny the identical argument to justify my belief "leprechauns". Either the arguments is sound so both are justified, or the argument isn't sound.
Take your pick.
-
Vlad,
What term do you think Hillside has used frequently?
?
Nor then is leprchaunity. So?
And nor then can you be simultaneously a vengeful and a merciful god. Again, what are you trying to say here?
I think God is what they call just.
-
Vlad,
I think God is what they call just.
I think leprechauns are what they call musical.
So?
-
I think God is what they call just.
Just what? Just a bunch of mortal beings simulating a universe...?
Oh, no, I see what you mean, different god to earlier in the day. ::)
-
Just what? Just a bunch of mortal beings simulating a universe...?
Oh, no, I see what you mean, different god to earlier in the day. ::)
No Just as in justice. You do not have the luxury of them being mortal beings. Even if they are contingent they may have transcended death. They are not of our universe.
-
Oh this is fun. The IPU can of course be both pink and invisible, it's a limit thing. You know, if you want to know the gradient of a function y = f(x) you have to divide change in y by change in x. If you want to know it at a single point you end up with 0/0 which is nonsense, but you can take the limit as x approaches 0. Similarly, if something is pink and it gets less and less visible, in the limit it is still pink but totally invisible.
Now, how can an omnipotent, omniscient being be fully human?
regarding pinkness. I won’t argue that under the strained straw clutch arguments pink may be a type of pink. You will be able to show where this has been demonstrated in the real world.
So the argumentum ad ridiculum does not apply to the IPU. So what. I was the one being told I was trying to argue that everything was possible and here you are.
-
No he isn't and you know that.
This is irrelevant. Leprechauns are only an example that show your arguments are bankrupt.
As self contradictory and absurd as a being that is both fully god and fully human?
Yes they do.
Feel free to demonstrate.
-
Vlad,
So the argumentum ad ridiculum does not apply to the IPU.
Why not?
-
Vlad,
Feel free to demonstrate.
Demonstrate what?
-
No Just as in justice.
I know what you meant Vlad, that was why I said so. I was just highlighting again your inconsistent view of what 'god' means.
You do not have the luxury of them being mortal beings.
And you don't have the luxury of identifying them with any of your other versions of 'god'.
-
You will be able to show where this has been demonstrated in the real world.
Just like you're able to do with the attributes of whatever version of god you believe in a this time of day...?
So the argumentum ad ridiculum does not apply to the IPU.
So...? Where was the reason?
So what. I was the one being told I was trying to argue that everything was possible and here you are.
I haven't argued that everything is possible.
-
No he isn't and you know that.
This is irrelevant. Leprechauns are only an example that show your arguments are bankrupt.
As self contradictory and absurd as a being that is both fully god and fully human?
Yes they do.
Aren’t you suffering from a few misapprehensions here Jeremy firstly, Do you think I believe in God solely because he is unfalsifiable?
That may lead you to believe that I should believe in everything or I should worship everything.
I think you ought to examine that if you do. I have a case against a lot of things. As you do.
-
I think God is what they call just.
The Christian god is far from just.