Where's the evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well now - since as far as I can see no atheists are making any claims specifically about 'gods' then you seem to have painted yourself into a corner once again.

No apparently there is a bus going around with the claim made by atheists that there is no God .....and had to insert the word probably in by all accounts although the final version is a claim.

You seem to have painted yourself onto the side of a bus .

[Sebastian Toe]

No

Good. Nothing to see here then. Time to move along.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you answer the question though?

What and fall for the old trick of inserting another issue to make the response look like it was to the previous issue?

I should co-co.

Open another thread and well deal with it there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good. Nothing to see here then. Time to move along.

Red Herring?

[bluehillside Retd.]

No apparently there is a bus going around with the claim made by atheists that there is no God .....and had to insert the word probably in by all accounts although the final version is a claim.

You seem to have painted yourself onto the side of a bus .

More lies from Trollboy. The "probably" wasn't "inserted", and the "claim" that guesses are more likely to be wrong than right is evidently true. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seb,

Trolling 101: Never, ever answer a question. You can ask all you like, but he'll never do it.

Try asking him for example why he thinks finding the logic used to validate "God" and leprechauns alike to be false is a "claim", or try asking him what evidence he thinks he has for "God" that doesn't work equally for leprechauns and he'll ignore the questions and respond only with more lies and distractions.

It's a red herring gambit on Seb's part Hillside. I will take anything up on new threads.

[Maeght]

Then if you agree that your position is susceptible to socratic analysis then you might agree that it is such analysis that draws a claim of God from a simple statement like ''I have a belief in God''.

I've no idea whether my position is susceptible to Socratic analysis or not. My response meant that I'm sure people would attempt to apply it if so inclined, but some people like to over analyse and play word games. If someone says they have a belief in God but accept it is just a belief then that's not a claim. If people say God exists then that is aclaim.

Socratic interrogation also brought out that someone in the light of his perceived a commitment to ''no god'', Dawkins comes down to probably God does not exist, and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God........... all positions and claims demanding proof/evidence.

Speak to them about that then.

You say that you have no belief in God that could cover a number of positions belief in no god, no belief in God, choosing not to even think about God, etc. NOT just no belief in God which is claimed and as Professor Anthony rightly calls it a 'fix' to try and avoid it's own evidentialism.

I have no belief in any gods. I am aware of claims made about various gods but have no belief in any of those. This is not a 'fix', no matter how desperate you are for it to be, and no evidene is required as no claim is being made.

Which brings us to a claim and position

Noit doesn't.

I am sure socratic analysis if not logic will unearth from you.

Go for it. Demonstrate what claim I am making

Dr Anthony rightly established the evidentialist thrust of the New Atheism.

Welldone him. Fairly obvious that ifpeople make claims they need evidence for them.

Let's hear it from  'extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence'.

So the claim in atheism is that No God is the ordinary and God is extraordinary. At this point I would usually say 'jump to proving/demonstrating' your claim but it probably needs to sink in.'

Fine. Do that if someonesays that. I haven't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

What and fall for the old trick of inserting another issue to make the response look like it was to the previous issue?

In which the one trick pony whose trick is precisely to "insert another issue to make the response look like it was to the previous issue" accuses someone else of the same thing in order to avoid answering a question.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which the one trick pony whose trick is precisely to "insert another issue to make the response look like it was to the previous issue" accuses someone else of the same thing in order to avoid answering a question.

I have said I will answer his question on a new thread.
You seem to have just used the ''insert an accusation of using the same thing to cover the insertion of another issue to make the response look like it was to the previous issue'' gambit.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Trollboy,

I have said I will answer his question on a new thread.

So having derailed this thread with lies and distractions you now claim to be prepared (after all these years) actually to answer a question, but only provided there's a new thread for it (oh the opportunities for further derails eh?). And in the meantime we're all supposed to forget the flat out lying ("...and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God......." etc) you've been caught out in as if it never happened.

Do you not think that perhaps it's time to stop polluting this board and to ply your trolling trade somewhere else for a change?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Trollboy,

So having derailed this thread with lies and distractions you now claim to be prepared (after all these years) actually to answer a question, but only provided there's a new thread for it (oh the opportunities for further derails eh?). And in the meantime we're all supposed to forget the flat out lying ("...and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God......." etc) you've been caught out in as if it never happened.

Do you not think that perhaps it's time to stop polluting this board and to ply your trolling trade somewhere else for a change?

I disagree that I am derailing this thread which should actually by now consist of supporting statements for Dr Anthony Senior lecturer in philosophy and/or statements specificall y refuting his points rather than yet another ''play Vlad and not the ball'' type thread.

Of course it is necessary for a responsible adult to try and untangle the blurtings of several antitheists demanding this that and the other.

Got a problem or something to say other than you agree or disagree and why with Dr Anthony's article ''where's the evidence''? Then open another thread.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Trollboy,

I disagree that I am derailing this thread which should actually by now consist of supporting statements for Dr Anthony Senior lecturer in philosophy and/or statements specificall y refuting his points rather than yet another ''play Vlad and not the ball'' type thread.

Of course it is necessary for a responsible adult to try and untangle the blurtings of several antitheists demanding this that and the other.

Got a problem or something to say other than you agree or disagree and why with Dr Anthony's article ''where's the evidence''? Then open another thread.

None of which addresses your pathological lying. Why not start with that? You could for example say something like, "OK, I lied when I said "..and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God......." so I apologise for that and withdraw the statement"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Trollboy,

None of which addresses your pathological lying. Why not start with that? You could for example say something like, "OK, I lied when I said "..and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God......." so I apologise for that and withdraw the statement"?

Another no sequitur post Hillside. If you are concerned about lying open a new thread on it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Trollboy,

Another no sequitur post Hillside. If you are concerned about lying open a new thread on it.

Another demonstration that you have no idea at all what non sequitur means, and there's not point in starting another thread about your lying only to give you the opportunity to lie there too. Your lying infects every thread you pollute with it. I just gave you an example of it. Deal with that, withdraw the lie and commit at least to trying to stop lying in future and perhaps there'll be something to talk about. Until then though, there's no point.   

[SteveH]

Vlad - as you seem to be actively posting on this thread this morning I wonder if you would respond to reply235 please.

To repeat:

If someone asked you to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist how would you go about doing it? Or would you say that it wasn't possible to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist?

Bowls of milk are objects in the universe. Whatever God is, God is not merely an object in the universe.

[Nearly Sane]

Bowls of milk are objects in the universe. Whatever God is, God is not merely an object in the universe.

Which surely means that the original analogy as used in the article and by Vlad in the thread pointless?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Which surely means that the original analogy as used in the article and by Vlad in the thread pointless?

Yes. He (and presumably Flew) either confused or deliberately conflated claims that are investigable (bowl/milk) with claims that are not (gods). When asked to propose a method to investigate the latter that would in principle at least make the analogy work, he just ignores the question.

[ippy]

ipster,

You know what old son? I think you're right about that (though his ego doesn't seem particularly limited to me...).

Good advice.

Limited, in as much as there's very little needed to bolster his ego, a reply to any of his inadequate/ill conceived posts is usually enough.

I enjoy a wind up as much as anyone either giving or receiving but there's a point at which wind ups can take away the point of having a sensible discussion, look to this thread for several examples.

ippy

[Owlswing]

yes but unfortunately for you it is a positive assertion and needs evidence or demonstrating by you to elevate it above a belief.
Please now do your duty and give us the cogent logic for your positive assertion

I believe I have pissed on your bonfire.

Why should Bluehillside do for you that which you steadfastly refuse to do for him?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Owls,

Why should Bluehillside do for you that which you steadfastly refuse to do for him?

It’s also a demand based on yet another lie. There is no “positive assertion”. What there actually is though is logic – specifically examples of logical fallacies.

If ever he had the decency to reply to something that was actually said, his options would be either:

1. "My arguments for a “true for you too God” do not correspond to logical fallacies and here’s why"; or

2. "However logically false my arguments to validate it, my “faith” is such that I think I can use them with impunity anyway".

Sadly his pathological dishonesty prevents us from knowing which he thinks to be the case, but either way if he seriously thinks he deserves cogent logic to validate logic, he’s even more away with the fairies than his efforts ordinarily suggest anyway.

[ippy]

Owls,

It’s also a demand based on yet another lie. There is no “positive assertion”. What there actually is though is logic – specifically examples of logical fallacies.

If ever he had the decency to reply to something that was actually said, his options would be either:

1. "My arguments for a “true for you too God” do not correspond to logical fallacies and here’s why"; or

2. "However logically false my arguments to validate it, my “faith” is such that I think I can use them with impunity anyway".

Sadly his pathological dishonesty prevents us from knowing which he thinks to be the case, but either way if he seriously thinks he deserves cogent logic to validate logic, he’s even more away with the fairies than his efforts ordinarily suggest anyway.

Quite.

Ippy