Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

OK, so the problem with circular reasoning is lost on you then. Again just out of interest, do you understand why if Aunt Doreen feels poorly, you pray for her and she gets better that isn't evidence for the efficacy of prayer? 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

SotS,

Believing things for bad (or no) reasons is what “gullible” means. What else is there to demonstrate?

Except that truth does not work like that bluehillside Retd.

The truth (or otherwise) of a statement is not affected by whether Walter, you, SusanDoris or anyone else thinks it is a bad (or no) reason.

Your "believing things for bad (or no) reasons" is a positive statement. I refer you to what I said earlier:

There is no ‘moral high ground’ on who can claim the truth of their position here.

And that is the problem you all have, since none of you are prepared to back up your positive statements.

[Gordon]

The truth (or otherwise) of a statement is not affected by whether Walter, you, SusanDoris or anyone else thinks it is a bad (or no) reason.

So what is 'truth' affected by?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

No doubt you are congratulating yourself on a well-crafted
 reply?

No.

I am sure there are quite a few who will not agree with you, including me.

Unfortunately for you, the truth (or otherwise) of a statement is not affected by whether or not you agree with it.

Walter cannot defend his positive claim about Alan Burns and bluehillside Retd. is assuming the truth of his position to imply that anything that contradicts it is false. Perhaps you can explain why it is ok for Walter to make positive claims and not defend them, whereas Alan Burns should defend his.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see nobody proposing thos.............. YAWN............. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No not anymore but people round here sometimes like to dig up the old nag for the occasional flogging

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

I see nobody proposing thos.............. YAWN............. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Quite. He utterly misunderstood these (and other) terms so as to attack those he wrongly described as arguing for them, then (hilariously) suggested I look them up on Wiki, then got found out when it turned out Wiki had the correct meanings. Now he's returned with the same with the same mistakes (to put it charitably) as if nothing had happened. 

Still, it seems to keep him amused for some reason. He's such a droll!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Hi Susan,

I wonder whether he does think that, or if at some level he's realised that he's just fallen off (another logical) cliff? Maybe, just maybe somewhere inside there's a little voice saying, "Oh hang on, in that case my own argument about pre-commitment to a naturalistic explanation would apply to any other claim of the supernatural too - why then should anyone dismiss those ones but not mine or Alan's? Yikes!"

Then again, maybe not...

Ah well.

It is indeed the maybe not ...

I can consider the possibility of a natural explanation or a supernatural explanation. You can not, so any 'pre-commitment' is always going to be on your side!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Congratulations on a well crafted reply.

You're welcome! 

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

Except that truth does not work like that bluehillside Retd.

Er, we were talking about gullibility remember, and gullibility does work like that. Whether someone has been gullible but nonetheless by dumb chance has landed on a truth is a separate matter. 

The truth (or otherwise) of a statement is not affected by whether Walter, you, SusanDoris or anyone else thinks it is a bad (or no) reason.

You don’t say. What is affected though is whether you have any means to know that it is a truth.

Your "believing things for bad (or no) reasons" is a positive statement. I refer you to what I said earlier:

Quote
There is no ‘moral high ground’ on who can claim the truth of their position here.

And that is the problem you all have, since none of you are prepared to back up your positive statements.

Wrong again – see above.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Surely you don't expect me to simply believe what you say , I require evidence that something as incredible as you claim has happened . Why don't you?

You say, I require evidence.... Ok, lets test this.

What would you consider as evidence that what Alan says is true?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

SotS,

Er, we were talking about gullibility remember, and gullibility does work like that. Whether someone has been gullible but nonetheless by dumb chance has landed on a truth is a separate matter.

Not in the context of what Alan said. Here it is again:

But I can't ignore the evidence I see before my eyes of a person able to walk unaided after being confined to a wheelchair for over two years

sounds like you've been duped Alan , you should be ashamed of yourself for being so gullible.

The charge of being 'duped' or being gullible could not apply if what Alan says is a true statement. Furthermore the use of the words imply that he is wrong. That is a positive statement. Care to back it up?

[Gordon]

Not in the context of what Alan said. Here it is again:
The charge of being 'duped' or being gullible could not apply if what Alan says is a true statement. Furthermore the use of the words imply that he is wrong. That is a positive statement. Care to back it up?

It isn't: it is a critique of the nature of a positive claim made by Alan that a miracle occurred due to divine intervention. After all, only the gullible would accept miracle claims based on anecdotal reports from possibly biased sources.

All Alan need do now is demonstrate how the this claimed supernatural intervention occurred and that it is mutually exclusive from all other possible explanations: that is the primary claim here, but I notice you give it a free pass.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

You're welcome! 

FOR GOD'S SAKE MAN DON'T FEED HIM!!!!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

Not in the context of what Alan said. Here it is again:

Quote from: Alan Burns

But I can't ignore the evidence I see before my eyes of a person able to walk unaided after being confined to a wheelchair for over two years

Quote from: Walter

sounds like you've been duped Alan , you should be ashamed of yourself for being so gullible.
The charge of being 'duped' or being gullible could not apply if what Alan says is a true statement.

Ah, I see the mistake here – you don’t know what “gullible” means. Of course it could. Someone could have chanced by dumb luck on a truth and still be entirely gullible nonetheless. “Gullible” just means, “credulous”, “easily persuaded” etc. It’s not concerned at all with the object of the claim.

Let’s say that you tell me you know the capital of France to be Paris because you decided that walking on the cracks in the pavement on the way home meant it was Quito, but not walking on them meant it was Paris and as you didn’t walk on them so it must be Paris.

Would that mean you were gullible? Of course it would – that by chance you’d found the right answer would have nothing to do with your credulousness at arriving there.

Glad to have cleared that up for you though.       

Furthermore…

Er, you can’t have a “furthermore” when your premise has collapsed – see above.

…the use of the words imply that he is wrong. That is a positive statement. Care to back it up?

Wrong again. All it implies is that he’s wrong in the method he used to reach his conclusion. And that’s trivially easy to "back up" – pretty much every argument he attempts is a logical fallacy, and all logically false arguments are wrong arguments.

When you crash you crash hard don’t you. 

[SusanDoris]

When you crash you crash hard don’t you.

And he doesn't even know he is doing so!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

You say, I require evidence.... Ok, lets test this.

What would you consider as evidence that what Alan says is true?

Something that isn't logically false and that doesn't work equally well for leprechauns would be a good start don't you think?

You're also shifting the burden of proof again by the way. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Susan,

And he doesn't even know he is doing so!!

Apparently not, though even he must be dimly aware at least I'd have thought of the size of the cliff he just fell from with his "gullible" error.

Let's see shall we?

[Walter]

It is indeed the maybe not ...

I can consider the possibility of a natural explanation or a supernatural explanation. You can not, so any 'pre-commitment' is always going to be on your side!

I'm not prepared to engage with someone who thinks supernatural explanations are real . There is obviously something wrong with their thinking ability .

[Walter]

You say, I require evidence.... Ok, lets test this.

What would you consider as evidence that what Alan says is true?

I would rather remain a member of this site than engage with you and say what I  really think of you

[Alan Burns]

So everyone who disagrees with you is mad? So it's not that they cannot admit it

Deluded does not mean they are mad.

[Nearly Sane]

Deluded does not mean they are mad.

So you are using it in the sense that they are deceived? So everyone who disagrees with you here has been deceived? What is your evidence for this?

[SusanDoris]

You say, I require evidence.... Ok, lets test this.

What would you consider as evidence that what Alan says is true?

You know, I've been on message boards for a long time now and every now and again that question comes up. The writer often appears to think it is an original, and therefore exciting, new idea, whereas it mostly elicits a yawn from those who have seen it asked and trounced many times.

[torridon]

There is the presence of spiritual healing too - but if you can't admit to the existence of your spiritual nature, you would not perceive this as evidence - unless you were the one to experience the healing.

As mother Theresa said - the big problem with the affluent west is spiritual poverty.

Does that mean that people in the East have more spiritual healing ?  Perhaps we should ask Sriram.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You know, I've been on message boards for a long time now and every now and again that question comes up. The writer often appears to think it is an original, and therefore exciting, new idea, whereas it mostly elicits a yawn from those who have seen it asked and trounced many times.

Trouncing questions is an antitheists party piece.
If Sots is committing any fault imho it's directing a question at you.

[torridon]

Deluded does not mean they are mad.

A delusion is a psychiatric disorder that we can treat with combinations of neuroinhibitors and cognitive behaviour therapies. I don't think we can say that the NHS for example is suffering a collective delusion that there is no significant evidence base in favour of miraculous healing through prayer.  A delusion is normally a false belief, not the absence of a belief.