Stephen Laws' Going nuclear

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What do you think this has to do with methodological naturalist evidence for philosophical naturalism being commensurate for any other philosophy which seeks to explain the nature and providence of the universe?

This is just alphabet soup, and will continue to be until and unless you finally sort out what these terms actually mean.

I've corrected you on it many times, and you've either ignored or lied about the corrections. I'm not doing it again - just look up any of the various times it's happened. In the meantime though, all you have is gibberish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stephen,

Just to give you a heads up, Vlad either doesn't understand the term "philosophical naturalist" or he deliberately lies about it to suit his purpose. He needs it to mean "the material is all there is or can be" to suit his purpose, rather than its actual meaning of "the material is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable."

I think Stephen is old enough and ugly enough not to need you as a chaperone.
As I said with you Bulverism rides again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

This is just alphabet soup, and will continue to be until and unless you finally sort out what these terms actually mean.

I've corrected you on it many times, and you've either ignored or lied about the corrections. I'm not doing it again - just look up any of the various times it's happened. In the meantime though, all you have is gibberish.

sorry for 'commensurate for' read 'commensurate with'.......My Bad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your problem here is that "that shit" is exactly what you've attempted. You seem to think that "God" and "theology" should be given some special respect and privileged status by right over, say, "pixies" and "just guessing".

Oh yes ?....and when was just guessing ever proposed as a cause of the universe.

Mention of pixies is argumentum ad ridiculum....another Laws' error.
All calling God a pixie tells us is that you have chosen to call God a pixie.

Just like what Laws' wishes to get over ...........he thinks new age philosophy is unpicked
(we are never told how) and people who propose something he disagrees with are as dumb as aforementioned new agers who as we know have had their arguments unpicked

...........but Laws' hasn't bothered to tell us how.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think Stephen is old enough and ugly enough not to need you as a chaperone.

But he could be forgiven for assuming that when you use a term like "philosophical naturalism" you do so correctly rather than according to your own personal re-definition. It'll save him time if he knows that.

As I said with you Bulverism rides again.

I'll add "bulverism" to the ever-growing list of words you attempt but don't understand then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh yes ?....and when was just guessing ever proposed as a cause of the universe.

Every time you've asserted "god did it".

Mention of pixies is argumentum ad ridiculum....another Laws' error.

Flat wrong. For epistemological purposes "pixies" is no more and no less ridiculous than "god". When you finally realise that "god" should not have some special, reserved status that differentiates it a priori from pixies (or from any other un-defined, un-argued, un-evidenced conjecture) then finally perhaps you'll comprehend the mountain you've given yourself to climb. And SL makes no error here - or indeed elsewhere in his essay that undoes you.

All calling God a pixie tells us is that you have chosen to call God a pixie.

It would do, yes but no-one has done that. What's actually happened is that the arguments you attempt for "god" have been shown to work just a well for pixies, and so they're probably bad arguments.

Just like what Laws' wishes to get over ...........he thinks new age philosophy is unpicked
(we are never told how) and people who propose something he disagrees with are as dumb as aforementioned new agers who as we know have had their arguments unpicked

Why bother lying again here when you're so easily found out? What he actually does is to explain why the going nuclear argument is a bad one - no more, no less. Why not finally engage with that rather than throw a small army of straw men at it?

...........but Laws' hasn't bothered to tell us how.

Yes he has - precisely so in fact in respect of the argument he confines himself to rebutting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Every time you've asserted "god did it".

Flat wrong. For epistemological purposes "pixies" is no more and no less ridiculous than "god".

Total Bollocks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It would do, yes but no-one has done that. What's actually happened is that the arguments you attempt for "god" have been shown to work just a well for pixies,

Only with Hillsidian category fuck.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It would do, yes but no-one has done that. What's actually happened is that the arguments you attempt for "god" have been shown to work just a well for pixies, and so they're probably bad arguments.

The evolution of beings which are physically so like pixies that it would be unreasonable not to identify them such in the universe is a high probability. Also Clarks law indicates a high probability that they have a technology so more advanced than us that it appears as magic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Total Bollocks.

Ah, the unedifying sight of a (presumably) grown man spitting the dummy. So now you've capitulated completely would you mind helping stack the chairs and maybe running the hoover over to clear up all those crumbs from the Cheesy Wotsits?

Ta everso - just leave the key under the flowerpot by the front door too would you, there's a good chap.

Only with Hillsidian category fuck.

Oops, and there go the stickle brix too. Fair enough. Maybe one day when you're all grown up you'll finally realise that a category error doesn't mean the analogous subject has to be the same in every respect - just in the relevant one. Thus for example the arguments "you can't disprove god, therefore god is real" and "you can't disprove pixies, therefore pixies are real" are in the same category, even though the characteristics of god and pixies are different.

You've never understood this have you. Ah well.

Oh, and if you could just leave a note cancelling the milk tomorrow that'd be helpful too. Thanks.

   

[Sebastian Toe]

Total Bollocks.

At last,  you mention the name of the punk group of which you, I believe, are the lead singer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

At last,  you mention the name of the punk group of which you, I believe, are the lead singer.

Vlad and I are thinking of forming a singing duo called The Symbolics.

I'm Sym.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


Oh, and if you could just leave a note cancelling the milk tomorrow that'd be helpful too. Thanks.

 

What are you going to dunk your rusks in?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seb,

Vlad and I are thinking of forming a singing duo called The Symbolics.

I'm Sym.

Nah...... what about you, Seb and I forming a trio called the Mothers of Invention where you could accuse me of invention and I could accuse you of being Mothers.

[jeremyp]

Seb,

Vlad and I are thinking of forming a singing duo called The Symbolics.

I'm Sym.

After you split up, you should release an album called Never Mind the Bolics

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

After you split up, you should release an album called Never Mind the Bolics

A great album title and good advice both.