Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

which also gives the lie to your fantasy about having a doctorate in philosophy by the way

How dare you accuse me of lying about this?

[BeRational]

How dare you accuse me of lying about this?

Is it because its an obvious lie?

[Nearly Sane]

While posters might doubt Alan Burns' claim, I don't think it is reasonable to state he has lied. You may find it unlikely but that's insufficient here. I'd also note that just because Alan is stating he has a Ph.D/D.Phil, that is a doctorate of philosophy not necessarily in philosophy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How dare you accuse me of lying about this?

I accuse you of it for the reasons I set out in Reply 9573 and that - as with everything else you don't want to hear - you've just ignored. Look, I'll even set it out for you again here:

"Normally I'd take comments like this at face value, but in this case the contrast between these claims and your inability to apply even the most rudimentary of logic when you try to argue your case suggests strongly that something is - to say the least - amiss.

Take philosophy, in which you claim to have a doctorate. Philosophy is fundamentally built on logic and reason, yet your attempts at either would embarrass a ten-year-old. A few posts ago for example you decided that, as science couldn't yet explain consciousness, it's necessary to look elsewhere for the explanation. This is desperately poor reasoning for the reasons I explained and that - as ever - you have ignored (science does already explain quite a bit about consciousness; when science can't explain something people don't just abandon it, they do more of it to look for an answer; if you want to look elsewhere nonetheless, then you need a method of some kind to test your claims).

How then would it even be possible to obtain a doctorate when - presumably - someone who can argue cogently and coherently - would have marked your thesis? And while we're about it a mark of someone as intellectually capable as you claim to be is that they don't just ignore the rebuttals that don't suit them - rather they engage with the arguments and propose counter-arguments of their own.

Nope, just deal with it. You're possessed of the reasoning ability of a child, you've lighted on an explanatory narrative for the world that makes sense to you even though it flatly contradicts the available evidence and has no supporting evidence of its own, and now you've panicked and gone all porky pie on us in the (vain) hope that an argument from authority will impress us: "Old Alan cannot make an argument of any kind, buy hey - he has a doctorate so he must be right all along then".

Doesn't wash though.

Why not start instead at the beginning; do you even know what "logical fallacy" means?

As the answer appears to be "no", why not just ask - there are people here who will help you you know."

A doctorate in philosophy requires a thesis or a dissertation that's moderated by a senior academic. How on earth could someone unable to construct even the simplest of logically coherent arguments have done that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

I accuse you of it for the reasons I set out in Reply 9573 and that - as with everything else you don't want to hear - you've just ignored. Look, I'll even set it out for you again here:

"Normally I'd take comments like this at face value, but in this case the contrast between these claims and your inability to apply even the most rudimentary of logic when you try to argue your case suggests strongly that something is - to say the least - amiss.

Take philosophy, in which you claim to have a doctorate. Philosophy is fundamentally built on logic and reason, yet your attempts at either would embarrass a ten-year-old. A few posts ago for example you decided that, as science couldn't yet explain consciousness, it's necessary to look elsewhere for the explanation. This is desperately poor reasoning for the reasons I explained and that - as ever - you have ignored (science does already explain quite a bit about consciousness; when science can't explain something people don't just abandon it, they do more of it to look for an answer; if you want to look elsewhere nonetheless, then you need a method of some kind to test your claims).

How then would it even be possible to obtain a doctorate when - presumably - someone who can argue cogently and coherently - would have marked your thesis? And while we're about it a mark of someone as intellectually capable as you claim to be is that they don't just ignore the rebuttals that don't suit them - rather they engage with the arguments and propose counter-arguments of their own.

Nope, just deal with it. You're possessed of the reasoning ability of a child, you've lighted on an explanatory narrative for the world that makes sense to you even though it flatly contradicts the available evidence and has no supporting evidence of its own, and now you've panicked and gone all porky pie on us in the (vain) hope that an argument from authority will impress us: "Old Alan cannot make an argument of any kind, buy hey - he has a doctorate so he must be right all along then".

Doesn't wash though.

Why not start instead at the beginning; do you even know what "logical fallacy" means?

As the answer appears to be "no", why not just ask - there are people here who will help you you know."

A doctorate in philosophy requires a thesis or a dissertation that's moderated by a senior academic. How on earth could someone unable to construct even the simplest of logically coherent arguments have done that?

Hillside's lost it........(if he ever had it to begin with)

[BeRational]

Does AB remind anyone of the poster that claimed to have an honoree degree or something like that.

I think he also claimed to have some fantastic IQ but never seemed to show it any post.

Coincidence?

[Alan Burns]

Surely a god who wanted people to believe in him would pick someone who could .............

Wouldn't he?

This same God chose a group of fishermen to spread the Good News to the whole world

[BeRational]

This same God chose a group of fishermen to spread the Good News to the whole world

I see you never use your great intelligence to answer the points Blue hillside raises.

Why is that?

[Nearly Sane]

Does AB remind anyone of the poster that claimed to have an honoree degree or something like that.

I think he also claimed to have some fantastic IQ but never seemed to show it any post.

Coincidence?

Other than the degree, not at all. Given that Leonard has been posting with Alan on other fora for some time also seems unlikely

[Shaker]

Does AB remind anyone of the poster that claimed to have an honoree degree or something like that.

A digression admittedly, but: blimey, I remember that from years ago! Who was it who claimed they had that famous "honoree" degree? It must have been back in the old BBC days, surely.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This same God chose a group of fishermen to spread the Good News to the whole world

Unfortunately Alan the arguments the fishermen could have mounted may well have worked for their audience, but attempting them now will necessarily fail in most cases because by and large modern folks are intellectually better equipped to spot the problems with those arguments. 

In other words, if you're serious then you need to up your game.

A lot.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see you never use your great intelligence to answer the points Blue hillside raises.

Why is that?

Hillside is mainly into Ad Hominem?

[Nearly Sane]

A digression admittedly, but: blimey, I remember that from years ago! Who was it who claimed they had that famous "honoree" degree? It must have been back in the old BBC days, surely.

Initially Margeret (sic) but then multiple banned personalities on here.

[Shaker]

Hillside is mainly into Ad Hominem?

No. He isn't.

[Gordon]

Whole posters might doubt Alan Burns' claim, I don't think it is reasonable to state he has lied. You may find it unlikely but that's insufficient here. I'd also note that just because Alan is stating he has a Ph.D/D.Phil, that is a doctorate of philosophy not necessarily in philosophy.

This is indeed the case in that a Ph.D is typically a research acquired degree where the thesis must meet the requirements of the awarding University. Typically these requirements involve the research being original, theoretically based, a contribution to knowledge and is of a publishable standard.

It doesn't necessarily involve 'philosophy' in the sense of Aristotle et al. As such I'm happy to accept that Alan has a Ph.D since I think he previously said he attended a mainstream university in England and as such there will be a copy of his thesis in the library, which can be so easily checked that it would be foolish to lie about: so I think Alan is telling the truth.

[Rhiannon]

I thought Alan told us when he got here that his qualifications were to do with computers. Did I imagine that?

[Shaker]

I thought Alan told us when he got here that his qualifications were to do with computers. Did I imagine that?

No, he mentioned it again just a few days ago.

[Alan Burns]

A doctorate in philosophy requires a thesis or a dissertation that's moderated by a senior academic.

My supervisors were Dr William Jenkins and Dr Esmut Awadalla of Teesside Polytechnic.
My external supervisor was professor Majid of Aston university.

[BeRational]

I remain unconvinced.

The big concern is the lack of sound reasoning whilst maintaining an IQ of over 170?

In addition never answering rebuttals to his assertions and poor logic.

[Shaker]

This is indeed the case in that a Ph.D is typically a research acquired degree where the thesis must meet the requirements of the awarding University. Typically these requirements involve the research being original, theoretically based, a contribution to knowledge and is of a publishable standard.

It doesn't necessarily involve 'philosophy' in the sense of Aristotle et al. As such I'm happy to accept that Alan has a Ph.D since I think he previously said he attended a mainstream university in England and as such there will be a copy of his thesis in the library, which can be so easily checked that it would be foolish to lie about: so I think Alan is telling the truth.

While I don't disagree with any of this, on the other kettle of fish, given Alan's claims, viz.:

I have a measured IQ of 173.
I am a member of Mensa.
I have a first class honours degree.
I am a Doctor of Philosophy
I posess four awards for outstanding academic achievement.

I would hope that I do have at least a rudimentary grasp of logic.

the car-crash logic and the screaming fallacies that Alan employs daily are not generally a hallmark of any person of whom the preceding achievements are true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

This is indeed the case in that a Ph.D is typically a research acquired degree where the thesis must meet the requirements of the awarding University. Typically these requirements involve the research being original, theoretically based, a contribution to knowledge and is of a publishable standard.

It doesn't necessarily involve 'philosophy' in the sense of Aristotle et al. As such I'm happy to accept that Alan has a Ph.D since I think he previously said he attended a mainstream university in England and as such there will be a copy of his thesis in the library, which can be so easily checked that it would be foolish to lie about: so I think Alan is telling the truth.

Possibly he was just spelling out "Doctor of Philosophy" rather than the more usual "PhD" for some reason other than hoping we'd assume he had some grounding in (Aristotle-type) philosophy, but it's hard to tell. Either way, a PhD in any subject requires a degree at least of intellectual rigour, and usually a thesis of publishable standard. Possibly Alan can do that in one area and entirely switch it off in respect of arguments for his faith but it'd require remarkable cognitive dissonance I'd have thought.

Who can say, but it'd be helpful if he'd at least attempt to understand the rebuttals he faces rather than reply with his usual "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right because...." etc.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. He isn't.

I'm sorry but he is the only person I know who will immediately answer posts and yet be unavailable for constructive comment..... simultaneously. His two great motifs are that he has a) previously explained and b) that his adversary is too stupid to respond to.
(insert offensive hyperbole).

What new thing has he actually brought to the table except for tricky rhetoric and hyperbole? In fact many of his posts seem recycled

[Alan Burns]

I thought Alan told us when he got here that his qualifications were to do with computers. Did I imagine that?

My PhD was awarded for research into optimum methods of computer aided design.

The full title of my thesis was "Computer Aided Optimum Design of Structural Steelwork".

So despite the title of my degree, it was not directly related to philosophy.
However it did require a great deal of logic.

[Bubbles]

I remain unconvinced.

The big concern is the lack of sound reasoning whilst maintaining an IQ of over 170?

In addition never answering rebuttals to his assertions and poor logic.

I'm not sure you need a high IQ to get a doctorate.

Not if it's in a non mathematical subject like theology for example.

[Shaker]

... it'd be helpful if he'd at least attempt to understand the rebuttals he faces rather than reply with his usual "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right because...." etc.     

Or the corollary (short version): "You're wrong because Satan."