Why is the FSM absurd

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Stranger]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hillside conflated Leprechauns with God. It is therefore mere conflatus.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think God is what they call just.

I think leprechauns are what they call musical.

So?

[Stranger]

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. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So the argumentum ad ridiculum does not apply to the IPU.

Why not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Feel free to demonstrate.

Demonstrate what?

[Stranger]

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'.

[Stranger]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[jeremyp]

I think God is what they call just.

The Christian god is far from just.