Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It's not the cracks in the pavement that matters, but rather that it's an example of a logical fallacy - one that you've used often in the past by the way.

I have never once mentioned cracks in the pavement

[Shaker]

I have never once mentioned cracks in the pavement

Dear me.

Are you actually capable of reading or of even following an argument at all?  Bluey said:

... it's an example of a logical fallacy - one that you've used often in the past by the way.

[Gordon]

I have never once mentioned cracks in the pavement

Now you are being concrete, Alan.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You said:

I have never once mentioned cracks in the pavement

In response to my:

It's not the cracks in the pavement that matters, but rather that it's an example of a logical fallacy - one that you've used often in the past by the way.

See whether you can work out where you went wrong there without me holding your hand.

[BeRational]

I have never once mentioned cracks in the pavement

I think this shows he is dim.

We have 10 watt light bulb here!

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You said:

In response to my:

See whether you can work out where you went wrong there without me holding your hand.

OK - sorry for mis reading your post.

But I still can't relate any of my logical arguments to the fallacy of the example you quote.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

I think this shows he is dim.

We have 10 watt light bulb here!

Can't be - he has a "Doctorate of Philosophy"!

[BeRational]

BR,

Can't be - he has a "Doctorate of Philosophy"!

I find that really hard to believe, sorry, I just cannot see it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But I still can't relate any of my logical arguments to the fallacy of the example you quote.

It's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and weren't you the one telling us about your wife running late for church, the organist coming down with a bad case of the bunions etc? (I'm a little hazy on the details.)

Anyways, how often you've used each fallacious argument is a secondary matter. The primary one is that you rely on them at all - a lot in fact - and that until you realise that and try different arguments then no "higher level of discussion" is possible.

Do you grasp this now?   

[torridon]

The scenario you describe is truly awe inspiring.  Can you not see that the progress the human race is making - discoveries, achievements, breakthroughs and skills - these are totally meaningless in the natural deterministic world view.  If a meteorite crashes into this earth, obliterating all life, everything we currently strive for will be rendered meaningless - just a blip in the natural deterministic path of this universe heading for total inevitable oblivion.  My perception of life on this earth is evidence of a creative force driven my unimaginable intelligence towards the goals you rightly perceive.

Eerm, yet another logical fallacy I'm afraid Alan.  This one is known as argumentum ad consequentiam, or appeal to consequences. Because we don't like the consequences or the implications of something is not an argument against it. Better to face reality head on.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and weren't you the one telling us about your wife running late for church, the organist coming down with a bad case of the bunions etc? (I'm a little hazy on the details.)

Anyways, how often you've used each fallacious argument is a secondary matter. The primary one is that you rely on them at all - a lot in fact - and that until you realise that and try different arguments then no "higher level of discussion" is possible.

Do you grasp this now?

Would it not be much easier to simply point out the error or ambiguity directly instead of quoting latin phrases and giving unrelated examples?

[Shaker]

Would it not be much easier to simply point out the error or ambiguity directly instead of quoting latin phrases and giving unrelated examples?

Why? Are you saying that that would actually work?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Would it not be much easier to simply point out the error or ambiguity directly instead of quoting latin phrases and giving unrelated examples?

I have done - lots and lots and lots and lots of times, only you just ignore it when I do and then repeat the mistake(s).

When then would be the point of continuing to tell you where you'd gone off the rails? Better I'd hope to have you grasp what logical fallacies are so as to avoid them in future - teach a man to fish and all that...

[Gordon]

Would it not be much easier to simply point out the error or ambiguity directly instead of quoting latin phrases and giving unrelated examples?

This isn't rocket science, Alan. Perhaps this would help.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

[wigginhall]

Because you have never posted anything which points to the existence of the Biblical deity, that is why!

Yes, it's quite bizarre really, that AB's God is so elusive.   Well, you might get a glimpse of him in the soul, but hang on, where's that?  Or you might connect him with consciousness, or if you squint very hard, you might see a shadow out of the corner of your eye, or if you pray very hard, something might go bump in the night.   People might think that Alan is kidding them!

[Alan Burns]

I think this shows he is dim.

We have 10 watt light bulb here!

Would you like to see my newspaper cuttings?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/135283340@N03/albums/72157661943553813
but that was back in the 1970s
Perhaps senility is setting in

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Would you like to see my newspaper cuttings?

If they're from that court case about the unfortunate misunderstanding involving you, the goat, the whipped cream and the set of jump leads, then yes please.

If they're about you PhD though, no thanks: a qualification in an entirely unrelated subject would tell us nothing about you ability to reason your way to a conclusion in this one.
 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It's the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and weren't you the one telling us about your wife running late for church, the organist coming down with a bad case of the bunions etc? (I'm a little hazy on the details.)

Just to re visit this example.
I was not implying a miracle, just that it was a strange coincidence - one of many in my lifetime which I feel points to the influence of the Holy Spirit guiding our lives.

to re cap:
A lady was being received into the church at one of our mid week services.  Her sponsor had to cancel at the last minute, so the lady asked if my wife would act as sponsor during the ceremony.  Neither the lady in question nor the priest knew if we would be attending the service with it being mid week. (We normally attend on sundays, and very occasionally mid week).   There was no time for the priest or the lady to contact us, so this normally very punctual priest held up the service until we arrived 5 minutes late. 

The strange thing is that my wife and I had not intended to go until we felt a last minute urge, even though we knew we would be late.  And how on earth did the priest know we were coming?

I do not think I fully explained this in my original post, but I do not see any correlation with the cracks in the pavement example.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just to re visit this example.

Why? The charge sheet against you of logical fallacies is long enough without troubling too much over just one instance of it. Have it your own way though…

I was not implying a miracle, just that it was a strange coincidence - one of many in my lifetime which I feel points to the influence of the Holy Spirit guiding our lives.

That’s because you don’t understand randomness. Everything you experience is fantastically unlikely – dealing a pack of cards and obtaining a specific sequence gives you an astonishingly unlikely outcome – 52 factorial in fact (or 1 in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000) yet people deal cards and obtain these unlikely outcomes all the time. Or consider buying your newspaper this morning from that nice Mr Patel at the corner shop – have you any inkling of the fantastic unlikelihood of the countless events that had to have occurred for that event to have happened?

Sometimes though we attach significance to certain events after they have happened – what are the chances of bumping into Fred after 30 years? etc – when in fact we’ve bumped into countless people but we focus just on one of them, and moreover we ignore the no shows of all the other people we haven’t seen for decades (the “silent evidence” error). 

So to your story:

to re cap:

A lady was being received into the church at one of our mid week services.  Her sponsor had to cancel at the last minute, so the lady asked if my wife would act as sponsor during the ceremony.  Neither the lady in question nor the priest knew if we would be attending the service with it being mid week. (We normally attend on sundays, and very occasionally mid week).   There was no time for the priest or the lady to contact us, so this normally very punctual priest held up the service until we arrived 5 minutes late. 

The strange thing is that my wife and I had not intended to go until we felt a last minute urge, even though we knew we would be late.  And how on earth did the priest know we were coming?

Maybe he didn’t, any more than Mr Patel knew you were coming. This lady might though have told him she’d asked your wife, he might have guessed at it because he knew that they knew each other, he may just have been waiting for anyone to show up, it may have been dumb luck, maybe, maybe, maybe…

Simply assuming that because you showed up a god must have caused it though is just bad reasoning.   

I do not think I fully explained this in my original post, but I do not see any correlation with the cracks in the pavement example.

See above. That the original sponsor cancelled does not imply that her cancellation was causal of your showing up – just that one event followed the other. 

[ippy]

Just to re visit this example.
I was not implying a miracle, just that it was a strange coincidence - one of many in my lifetime which I feel points to the influence of the Holy Spirit guiding our lives.

to re cap:
A lady was being received into the church at one of our mid week services.  Her sponsor had to cancel at the last minute, so the lady asked if my wife would act as sponsor during the ceremony.  Neither the lady in question nor the priest knew if we would be attending the service with it being mid week. (We normally attend on sundays, and very occasionally mid week).   There was no time for the priest or the lady to contact us, so this normally very punctual priest held up the service until we arrived 5 minutes late. 

The strange thing is that my wife and I had not intended to go until we felt a last minute urge, even though we knew we would be late.  And how on earth did the priest know we were coming?

I do not think I fully explained this in my original post, but I do not see any correlation with the cracks in the pavement example.

Where you have said:

"I do not think I fully explained this in my original post, but I do not see any correlation with the cracks in the pavement example".

It can only be for one of two reasons you say the above Alan, you're either mega intransigent or pitifully thick.

 ippy

[Enki]

I was just pointing out that it is not easy being a Christian.  We are called to take up our cross and follow Jesus.  But it is what life is all about.  It is the ultimate fulfilment of our life on this earth.

I already know you feel like that, Alan, but so what! There are many people of many different beliefs who find it just as hard(if not harder) to adhere to their beliefs, just as some find it easy to do so. Furthermore this says nothing about whether any of these beliefs are true in any way.

I know that this is what you think life is all about, and you feel fulfilled by your beliefs. No one is questioning this at all. The problems arise when you try to convince others that your beliefs are the ones which others should also accept. Your idea of convincing others seems to be by way of assertions which ultimately rely on your own personal incredulity. I suggest that such tactics seem to be failing, and that the only sound alternative you have is to give evidenced, reasoned and logical arguments, taking on board any sensible challenges and rebuttals, and then giving further reasoned discussion on the merits of your case which may entail modifying your views.

Unfortunately I can't see this happening, but there it is.
 

[savillerow]

AB Your whole approach is starting to sound like HAL the computer.

[Alan Burns]

That’s because you don’t understand randomness. Everything you experience is fantastically unlikely – dealing a pack of cards and obtaining a specific sequence gives you an astonishingly unlikely outcome – 52 factorial in fact (or 1 in 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000)

So what evidence would you accept for God's existence?

[Shaker]

AB Your whole approach is starting to sound like HAL the computer.

... particularly towards the 'Daisy, Daisy' bit.

[Bubbles]

Where you have said:

"I do not think I fully explained this in my original post, but I do not see any correlation with the cracks in the pavement example".

It can only be for one of two reasons you say the above Alan, you're either mega intransigent or pitifully thick.

 ippy

Or Alan experiences things in a different way.

Or he can see something you appear blind too.

Rather than cracks in the pavement, It's more like Alan is trying to explain what red  is like, to a colour blind man. ( I have experience of that)

He can only tell you what he sees, you can get as angry as you like, and deny his experiences or that red even exists ............. Or that he can see it.

But he can still see it.

My father is colour blind ( one bright red sock, one obviously green he thinks they are a pair) he used to deny it and hated to admit he couldn't see the difference ( but he still had to ask if he wanted to know if the socks matched)

Would never admit it though, used to get angry.

Couldn't see the red berries on a holly tree, completely crap at decorating. Childhood memory ... He  once painted the flagstone ( brick)  floor blood red ( instead of brick red) looked like a massacre. Mother hysterical, he insisted it was brick red. Total bloodbath.
 




Alan in effect is describing a red sock to a colourblind man.