Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Isn't this opening paragraph fallacious in being the naturalistic fallacy?

No.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Aw come on you lot WAKE UP!

You are much more than a few molecules dancing to the deterministic tune of the Devil's secular world.

Rejoice in the free spirit God has given you and give thanks for it! 

Other ancient myths for the credulous are available.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

If Alan is wrong as you claim, then you will have no problem demonstrating why.

We haven't had someone attempt the negative proof fallacy for a while - good effort.

It's not that Alan's beliefs can be demonstrated to be necessarily wrong, any more than any one else's beliefs can be demonstrated to necessarily wrong (Russell's teapot included). What can be demonstrated though is that the arguments he attempts to show that he's right can all be falsified - easily so in fact.

Which means that all he has left - at best - is guessing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So how come we are capable of doing something which is not logical, just because we want to?

"Not logical" and "not a function of cause and effect" are not the same thing.

[floo]

Where matters of faith are concerned we can't prove or disprove that a god exists. However, as much of what is attributed to the Biblical deity lacks any credibility, I think the default position is non belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Most of the fallacies you try to identify are labelled as such because they are not water-tight arguments...

No. It's not that they are "not water-tight" at all; it's that they're flat wrong.

...,but this does not necessarily imply that what is being argued is wrong.

No-one says it does. What it does do though is to falsify your reasons for thinking it's right.

In many cases they are just indicators to what is likely to be true.

No they're not. Flat wrong is flat wrong is flat wrong. A flat wrong argument for "God" no more "indicates what's likely to be true" than a flat wrong argument for leprechauns "indicates what's likely to be true."

When discussing spiritual matters, it is not possible to express everything as hard irrefutable facts.

When discussing "spiritual matters" it is though necessary to demonstrate in the first place that there is such a thing as spiritual matters at all.

Why not finally give it a go?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's 1000 points every time Gordon mentions the word fallacy.

What would you rather he did when people here attempt them?

[Nearly Sane]

Gordon,
Most of the fallacies you try to identify are labelled as such because they are not water-tight arguments, but this does not necessarily imply that what is being argued is wrong.  In many cases they are just indicators to what is likely to be true.  When discussing spiritual matters, it is not possible to express everything as hard irrefutable facts.

Although badly phrased, some of the above post isn't wrong. What you are grasping toward is the fallacy fallacy - I.e. merely saying that someone is using a fallacy does not show their conclusion is wrong. That said it's not the lack of facts that is causing you problems elsewhere,  it's the lack of logic.

[Nearly Sane]

Sword,

We haven't had someone attempt the negative proof fallacy for a while - good effort.

It's not that Alan's beliefs can be demonstrated to be necessarily wrong, any more than any one else's beliefs can be demonstrated to necessarily wrong (Russell's teapot included). What can be demonstrated though is that the arguments he attempts to show that he's right can all be falsified - easily so in fact.

Which means that all he has left - at best - is guessing.

I don't see SOTS as using the NPF here, he's jyst asking SD to back up her positive claim that AB is wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What would you rather he did when people here attempt them?

He should use the word so we can claim our 1000 points.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What would you rather he did when people here attempt them?

Apparently you've been seeing fallacies that aren't there.
As Feser points out New Atheism has form in inventing fallacies......courtiers reply for instance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Although badly phrased, some of the above post isn't wrong. What you are grasping toward is the fallacy fallacy - I.e. merely saying that someone is using a fallacy does not show their conclusion is wrong. That said it's not the lack of facts that is causing you problems elsewhere,  it's the lack of logic.

He may be grasping toward it but it's a straw man in any case - no-one says that his beliefs are wrong because his arguments for them are hopeless, just that we (and he) have no reason to think they're right. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

He may be grasping toward it but it's a straw man in any case - no-one says that his beliefs are wrong because his arguments for them are hopeless, just that we (and he) have no reason to think they're right.

More warmed over materialism which ignores the Moral argument due to your uses of it making the word and concept instantly redundant.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

He may be grasping toward it but it's a straw man in any case - no-one says that his beliefs are wrong because his arguments for them are hopeless, just that we (and he) have no reason to think they're right.

Except SD has said he us wring and Gordon has said that it is his use of fallacies that make this term valid. Now, in a later post, Gordon makes clear that he is talking about arguments, whereas SD is talking about positions but the confusion is there. Alan's conclusion isn't 'wrong' and is not shown to be wrong even if his arguments are fallacious.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I don't see SOTS as using the NPF here, he's jyst asking SD to back up her positive claim that AB is wrong.

Fair enough - I read "the answer" in Susan's "believing that he has the answer that he will meet this 'God' at the end of his life..." too hastily as meaning his arguments rather then their conclusion. 

The rest though ("It's not that Alan's beliefs can be demonstrated to be necessarily wrong, any more than any one else's beliefs can be demonstrated to necessarily wrong (Russell's teapot included). What can be demonstrated though is that the arguments he attempts to show that he's right can all be falsified - easily so in fact" in response.) seems fine to me.

[Nearly Sane]

More warmed over materialism which ignores the Moral argument due to your uses of it making the word and concept instantly redundant.

http://thinkzone.wlonk.com/PoemGen/PoemGen.htm


I presume you used something similar to the above link for your post?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Apparently you've been seeing fallacies that aren't there.

A fallacy, and the basic point that a stuck clock can still be right remains.

As Feser points out New Atheism has form in inventing fallacies......courtiers reply for instance.

Except the Courtier's reply isn't a fallacy at all, and no-one has invented fallacies in any case.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Fair enough - I read "the answer" in Susan's "believing that he has the answer that he will meet this 'God' at the end of his life..." too hastily as meaning his arguments rather then their conclusion. 

The rest though ("It's not that Alan's beliefs can be demonstrated to be necessarily wrong, any more than any one else's beliefs can be demonstrated to necessarily wrong (Russell's teapot included). What can be demonstrated though is that the arguments he attempts to show that he's right can all be falsified - easily so in fact" in response.) seems fine to me.

Yes, I would agree with that. I also think there is an occasional tendency from some posters to suddenly get orgasmically excited if they see a positive claim from an atheist and ask for evidence, as if that means their own lack of arguments can then be ignored

[SusanDoris]

This doesn't answer the question.
If the statement He's wrong is true, demonstrate why.

How about you demonstrating why you think he's right?!!

I have now read the interesting, intervening posts so add that, as I have mentioned some while ago, I take the liberty of being ancient to be 100% sure instead of allowing for a minute possibility that I might be wrong!

[Nearly Sane]

How about you demonstrating why you think he's right?!!

Now that is an example of the NPF

[Sebastian Toe]

More warmed over materialism which ignores the Moral argument due to your uses of it making the word and concept instantly redundant.

That's 1001 points every time Vlad mentions the word materialism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except SD has said he us wring and Gordon has said that it is his use of fallacies that make this term valid. Now, in a later post, Gordon makes clear that he is talking about arguments, whereas SD is talking about positions but the confusion is there. Alan's conclusion isn't 'wrong' and is not shown to be wrong even if his arguments are fallacious.

There is no “except”. Susan said that his conclusion is wrong but she didn’t attempt the fallacy fallacy, which is why grasping toward it in response is a straw man.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Now that is an example of the NPF

Actually I think it's shifting the burden of proof, but ok.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

There is no “except”. Susan said that his conclusion is wrong but she didn’t attempt the fallacy fallacy, which is why grasping toward it in response is a straw man.

I didn't say she did attempt it, though she has later rolled out the NPF. That's why I covered that the confusion arise with Gordon's initial post in defense of her.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Actually I think it's shifting the burden of proof, but ok.

Essentially the NPF and shifting the burden of proof are related.