Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

Four days into a new year and bluey is still knocking them out of the park.

*sigh* Normal life resumes 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

....Maybe. Your still trying to turn it into a knock down argument for a theory you are uncomfortable with. Nobody is saying these ideas are unchallengeable but Hillside has said all arguments for causation by a God are demolished. When pressed on that, the pips start to squeak and what we actually have is not a demolition but a litany of ''I don't knows'' from people like yourself.

Would you mind laying off the lies for a bit please - it's getting tiresome.

Ta.

At least you haven't taken the ''Don't even go there'' argument suggested by Plastic Bertrand Russell or Dawkins......But then being cleverer than you guys THEY DO realise the arguments against causation are a bit thin.

You shouldn't "even go there" if "there" is something you claim to be a probability rather than just a possibility, albeit a vanishingly unlikely one.

Perhaps if you finally looked up "burden of proof" it would help you avoid repeating this mistake in future?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Nope. All that’s being said is that at a certain point the laws of nature as we currently understand them break down; nothing more, nothing less.

Of course it does – it’s essentially several logical fallacies (depending on which version you opt for) and so it has the same “trouble” that other fallacious arguments have.

Actually it’s “you don’t know” and it is an argument inasmuch as it points out that you reach a conclusion (causality) built on a premise you don’t know to be true (ie, the universe having a beginning).

It is a “knock down argument” in the sense that it pulls your premise from under you. If you want to persist with your second guess about causality built upon your first guess about a universal beginning, that’s up to you I guess (and that’s before we even get to your third guess about what that cause might be).

No-one does say that. Your problem though is to show not that they can happen, but that they do happen – and in a very specific fashion (that you call “god”) to boot.

This burden of proof concept really has got you foxed still hasn’t it. 

Nope, nope and nope with chocolate sprinkles on top. “Nature” is “allowed” the possibility of anything – even allowing for what might happen when nature’s laws break down. What you’re doing though isn’t just positing a possibility (albeit an undefined one with no rationale to support it, no means to test or falsify it etc) but you’re also positing a probability – you’re actively trying to argue that your speculation is true.

And that’s a fundamentally different matter.

A total wad of gibber and arserush Hillside.

Hint It's the idea that saying ''I don't know'' is in fact ever a ''knock down'' argument which is what you are suggesting.

[Shaker]

Hint It's the idea that saying ''I don't know'' is in fact ever a ''knock down'' argument which is what you are suggesting.

Except that nobody is saying this, other than in what passes for your mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

A total wad of gibber and arserush Hillside.

And again Vlad throws in the towel without even realising he's done it. I posted a perfectly clear explanation of why your thinking is flawed - why then spit the dummy rather than at least try to respond to that?

Hint It's the idea that saying ''I don't know'' is in fact ever a ''knock down'' argument which is what you are suggesting.

Hint: try reading what's actually been said to you rather than misrepresenting it. Again, it's "you don't know" and it is a "knock down argument" inasmuch as you claim a probable truth ("god") on the basis of something you do not know to be the case (ie, the universe having a beginning).

Troll feeding eh - why do I bother? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Four days into a new year and bluey is still knocking them out of the park.

*sigh* Normal life resumes 

Oh so it's just the limits of scientific knowledge that is holding up proof of a natural explanation for the universe then?

And then later in his latest arserush Hillsides extols the virtues of not knowing as the knockdown argument.

That's the ultimate ''I don't know but whatever it is it won't be God'' Gambit!!!

....And sure enough you are on hand to ''fanfare'' this handwaving!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

And again Vlad throws in the towel without even realising he's done it. I posted a perfectly clear explanation of why your thinking is flawed - why then spit the dummy rather than at least try to respond to that?

Hint: try reading what's actually been said to you rather than misrepresenting it. Again, it's "you don't know" and it is a "knock down argument" inasmuch as you claim a probable truth ("god") on the basis of something you do not know to be the case (ie, the universe having a beginning).

Troll feeding eh - why do I bother?

Your posts are just one big courtier's reply Hillside.......Why do I bother?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Oh so it's just the limits of scientific knowledge that is holding up proof of a natural explanation for the universe then?

And then later in his latest arserush Hillsides extols the virtues of not knowing as the knockdown argument.

That's the ultimate ''I don't know but whatever it is it won't be God'' Gambit!!!

....And sure enough you are on hand to ''fanfare'' this handwaving!

How is it that you can have something explained to you perfectly clearly not once but twice, only for you immediately to twist and distort it into something else entirely just to suit your purpose?

Deeply stupid or deeply dishonest? I dunno, but either way it does you no credit.

[Shaker]

Why do I bother?

Given the spanking you get on a practically daily basis, nobody knows that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Your posts are just one big courtier's reply Hillside.......Why do I bother?

Trolling? I've no idea.

Oh, and you don't understand the Courtier's reply either. Try looking it up before repeating this mistake too.

[Shaker]

Deeply stupid or deeply dishonest? I dunno, but either way it does you no credit.

That's interesting, bluey ... I'm as well aware of and understand the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle as well as most (and better than many, here especially), but you've just reminded me of the number of responses to posts I've seen to which only colossal stupidity or deliberate and explicit mendacity can apply, with no third option. If I had a fiver for the number of times I've seen posts to which only either blithering witlessness or knowing dishonesty apply I'd be legless on my very own Caribbean island, wearing a vomit-inducing shirt with pineapples and palm trees on and barely able to post here unless Aria Giovanni climbs off my face for five minutes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Given the spanking you get on a practically daily basis,

What has that got to do with this forum?

[Shaker]

What has that got to do with this forum?

Because you're on it in much the same way that I once had an unsightly and troublesome rash on my leg after a mosquito bite, and have your arse handed to you on a silver salver with a neat tissue doily by highly intelligent, acute, sharp and witty posters, regularly.

That's what.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because you're on it in much the same way that I once had an unsightly and troublesome rash on my leg after a mosquito bite, and have your arse handed to you on a silver salver with a neat tissue doily by highly intelligent, acute, sharp and witty posters, regularly.

That's what.

Nonsense.
If you boil it down........ for the ''Side'' his argument of choice is actually better known as the Courtiers reply.

And you are just supporting the ''I don't know....but whatever it is it wont be God'' Gambit.

If you genuinely believed you didn't know whether it was God or not you would be a happy agnostic not an axe grinding antitheist.

Arse in a sling, Shaker?.................... are you sure it isn't an Elbow?

[Shaker]

Nonsense.
If you boil it down........ for the ''Side'' his argument of choice is actually better known as the Courtiers reply.

No it isn't. If you think it is, you don't understand the Courtier's Reply, which would come as no surprise to anyone as you seem to throw around words and phrases as a mad woman treats her breakfast, as the Australians say - all over the place with vigorous energy for sure but scant conscious attention or understanding.

And you are just supporting the ''I don't know....but whatever it is it wont be God'' Gambit.

More or less. There are good, sound reasons for that. Feel free to ask.

If you genuinely believed you didn't know whether it was God or not you would be a happy agnostic not an axe grinding antitheist.

Many of us are past adolescence and have enough intellectual wherewithal to know why these terms/concepts are not actually in opposition.

Arse in a sling, Shaker?.................... are you sure it isn't an Elbow?

The only Elbow of which or of whom I'm aware is the rather splendid band led by Guy Garvey, of which/whom I'm quite a fan and have been for years.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Forum,

This thread, peaks and troughs, what is the essence of a excellent thread

Gonnagle.

[Alan Burns]

There goes my Spetsnaz-approved military grade ironymeter 
Because that has such a stellar track record of telling us about how the world works, doesn't it?

But God's revelations do tell us why we exist, and indicate our ultimate destiny - which is a tad more important in my view than finding out how God made things work.

[Shaker]

But God's revelations do tell us why we exist, and indicate our ultimate destiny

No, they do not.

Even if it were the case that "God's revelations" tell us why we exist - it isn't -, to state that they indicate our ultimate destiny is to claim psychic powers of precognition, i.e. an ability to foretell the future. You're not claiming psychic powers capable of predicting the future, are you, Alan?

which is a tad more important in my view than finding out how God made things work.

Which is sure to be because there's such a laughable non-record of such, so you have to scrabble about for something else to drag God into the picture at all costs no matter what.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

If you boil it down........ for the ''Side'' his argument of choice is actually better known as the Courtiers reply.

No it isn't; the Courtier's Reply is a different argument entirely.

And you are just supporting the ''I don't know....but whatever it is it wont be God'' Gambit.

A "gambit" no-one has attempted. Again, try looking up "burden of proof" to see where you've gone wrong once more.

If you genuinely believed you didn't know whether it was God or not you would be a happy agnostic not an axe grinding antitheist.

Doubly wrong: "atheism" just means "without gods", and anti-theism is a response to the harm that theism does.

Arse in a sling, Shaker?.................... are you sure it isn't an Elbow?

No, but your arse sure has been handed to you in a sling often and consistently. That you do not or cannot see it is your problem, and not a problem for those of us who do it.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Doubly wrong: "atheism" just means "without gods",

Atheism, that is a thing, but when it becomes Atheist, that becomes a person, just like me.

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

But can these animals, (or any other species), contemplate the concept of eternity, or infinity? 

Possibly - in the absence of a common language it's impossible to accurately establish what they're capable of.

However, is that a qualitative difference or a quantitative one? If they are capable of any sort of abstraction is it not simply a matter of the degree, then? We are 'better' at it than they are, but that doesn't make us categorically different.

O.

[Rhiannon]

Possibly - in the absence of a common language it's impossible to accurately establish what they're capable of.

However, is that a qualitative difference or a quantitative one? If they are capable of any sort of abstraction is it not simply a matter of the degree, then? We are 'better' at it than they are, but that doesn't make us categorically different.

O.

And a young human can't contemplate these things. The emotional development of dogs (and big cats, I wouldn't mind betting) is similar to that of a child aged around three.

Alan asserted that animals can't feel. When presented with evidence that they can he moves the goalposts. That's just cheating, however politely done.

[Alan Burns]

Quite a profound reading from yesterday's Mass, from the first letter of St John;
I would like to share it for it has some valid messages:

We know that he lives in us
by the Spirit that he has given us.
It is not every spirit, my dear people, that you can trust;
test them, to see if they come from God,
there are many false prophets, now, in the world.
You can tell the spirits that come from God by this:
every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus the Christ has come in the flesh
is from God;
As for them, they are of the world,
and so they speak the language of the world
and the world listens to them.
But we are children of God,
and those who know God listen to us;
those who are not of God refuse to listen to us.
This is how we can tell
the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood.

[Alan Burns]

And a young human can't contemplate these things. The emotional development of dogs (and big cats, I wouldn't mind betting) is similar to that of a child aged around three.

Alan asserted that animals can't feel. When presented with evidence that they can he moves the goalposts. That's just cheating, however politely done.

I do not know what animals feel.  I still think we can attach too much human interpretation to animal's reactions.

[Outrider]

Quite a profound reading from yesterday's Mass, from the first letter of St John;
I would like to share it for it has some valid messages:

We know that he lives in us
by the Spirit that he has given us.
It is not every spirit, my dear people, that you can trust;
test them, to see if they come from God,
there are many false prophets, now, in the world.
You can tell the spirits that come from God by this:
every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus the Christ has come in the flesh
is from God;
As for them, they are of the world,
and so they speak the language of the world
and the world listens to them.
But we are children of God,
and those who know God listen to us;
those who are not of God refuse to listen to us.
This is how we can tell
the spirit of truth from the spirit of falsehood.

That the assertion has been around so long it has become doctrine doesn't change the fact that it's an assertion - that's quite apart from the special pleading/No True Scotsman buried in there as well.

O.