Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Potentially, yes (I was coming to that). For now though, I was just trying to establish that - while language and the relation of the self to the world is a critical issue - nonetheless all that's necessary here is for the commonality of the experience of difference.

Whether and how that can be mapped analogously to logic is the next step.

I don't think that anything here is analogous to the experience of difference. I don't think you are even close to establishing that any form of argument like this is a form of experience where you have the agreement from the other party that they have any different experiences between whatever it is you see as their 'logic' experiences. How is an argument about fallacies like someone saying to you I see A as different from B?

Again to link to your belief that NM is lying, show me the parts where he has said anything like A is different from B and then denied it.

[wigginhall]

I quite agree , Wiggs. especially about David Bentley Hart.

Have you reached his chapter on 'Bliss' yet, where he has such little gems as:

“The least gesture of the will towards a moral end, no matter how vehemently one may suggest otherwise, is necessarily a confession of a natural longing for God.”

or:

"“Simply said, if there were no God, neither would there be such a thing as moral truth, nor such a thing as good or evil, nor such a thing as a moral imperative of any kind.”

Assertions rule OK. it seems.

Yes, I was very disappointed in his book, as he had been sold to me as a top Orthodox theologian.   I can see that he is a good writer, although too flowery for me, but the structure of that book is ridiculous.  First, you get a very long argument from incredulity (how can thoughts come from the brain?), and then a very long series of assertions, along the lines of those you quote, and also an incredibly patronizing attitude to non-Christians, poor unfortunates, little do they realize that really, they are Christians at heart.   Awful.

I've just realized that I've got his 'Atheist Delusions' on Kindle, oh hell, I suppose I'll have a look.   I think a trip to the pub would be more fun.

[Nearly Sane]

This comes up in psychiatry, where a delusion is defined as a belief contrary to evidence, with the exception of culturally accepted beliefs.   I remember a NZ psychiatrist telling me that Maoris who communicated with their ancestors, are not considered delusional in NZ psychiatry.   In Maori society, they are 'normal'. 

This is also confirmed by life-style, i.e. many people with unwarranted beliefs can live perfectly normally.

given the impossibility of dealing with hard solipsism, don't the vast majority of us, if you lot exist, work on some form of unwarranted belief?

In the lack of objectivity, madness is only a form of ad populum judgement.

[wigginhall]

given the impossibility of dealing with hard solipsism, don't the vast majority of us, if you lot exist, work on some form of unwarranted belief?

In the lack of objectivity, madness is only a form of ad populum judgement.

Yes, I think psychiatrists don't really care what you believe.   You won't get sectioned if you think you're Napoleon, but you might if you try to get in bed next door, (with obvious exceptions!).

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I don't think that anything here is analogous to the experience of difference. I don't think you are even close to establishing that any form of argument like this is a form of experience where you have the agreement from the other party that they have any different experiences between whatever it is you see as their 'logic' experiences. How is an argument about fallacies like someone saying to you I see A as different from B?

I'm not even close because I haven't tried to argue for it yet! One way in though might be by analogy - try the same fallacious arguments attempted for "God" in other contexts and see whether the people using them find them just as compelling.

The Earth is 6,000 years old? Well, lots of people think it is, therefore...

I can't imagine how gravity works? Well, that opens the door to my invisible pixies and very thin string belief then etc.

Of course this often gets derailed by irrelevance ("but leprechauns are obviously ridiculous, whereas "God"..." etc) but that's another matter. I'll see whether I can find an argument to connect the phenomenon of perceptual difference to logic though - just give me time to get my trousers off!       

Again to link to your belief that NM is lying, show me the parts where he has said anything like A is different from B and then denied it.

If I could find the damn reference to him saying that earthquakes are on the increase I would do. (Incidentally, the Search feature here doesn't work. Even if you tap in "God" and "Nicholas Marks" it comes back with "No items found").

The point though is (presumably we agree that) there is such a thing as lying. What we're trying to do therefore is to sort those who are doing it from those who are misrepresenting, even though they may not see it that way. Re the "black is black" thing it's hard to see how they're not lying, especially if you show them the quote and they keep denying it nonetheless. I agree though that other cases are more nuanced.     

[Nearly Sane]

But only today we have had NM say earthquakes are on the increase - it's denying that I haven't seen.

If you have not tried to make a case, that you then refer to by analogy, I'm a bit lost as to your point using the analogy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But only today we have had NM say earthquakes are on the increase - it's denying that I haven't seen.

I asked him specifically (several times in fact) whether he now says he said it, didn't say it or couldn't remember. The closest he came to an answer was this:

I have not gone into any details with you on the business of earthquakes...and certainly not as you previously implied in a tat-for-tat dialogue in which you presented your proof in exceptional detail.

Which is pretty close to a denial, though he seemed to me to be leaving himself enough wriggle room so that when I showed him where he said it he could say something like, "ah, but that wasn't in detail" or some such. 

If you have not tried to make a case, that you then refer to by analogy, I'm a bit lost as to your point using the analogy.

So far I just made the case by reference to perceptual difference. If I say "back is black" and someone replies "you said black is white", I correct them, and they repeat the misrepresentation then at some point we cross the line into dishonesty.

Whether there's as clear cut a distinction to be made for arguments in logic is another matter, but I wanted to establish the principle first. Let me try the argument re logic before you criticise me for it.         

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I asked him specifically (several times in fact) whether he now says he said it, didn't say it or couldn't remember. The closest he came to an answer was this:
 

Which is pretty close to a denial, though he seemed to me to be leaving himself enough wriggle room so that when I showed him where he said it he could say something like, "ah, but that wasn't in detail" or some such. 

So far I just made the case by reference to perceptual difference. If I say "back is black" and someone replies "you said black is white", I correct them, and they repeat the misrepresentation then at some point we cross the line into dishonesty.

Whether there's as clear cut a distinction to be made for arguments in logic is another matter, but I wanted to establish the principle first. Let me try the argument re logic before you criticise me for it.         

We have had NM on here today talking about increasing earthquakes. There is no denial of that. There is a dispute between the two of you about the amount of discusiion you had previously on this. NM thinks you are wrong on the amount of the discussion. He has not answered your question.

That isn't a denial of what he has previously said.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

We have had NM on here today talking about increasing earthquakes. There is no denial of that. There is a dispute between the two of you about the amount of discusiion you had previously on this. NM thinks you are wrong on the amount of the discussion. He has not answered your question.

That isn't a denial of what he has previously said.

We clearly interpret "I have not gone into any details with you on the business of earthquakes..." differently.

That's exactly what we did do - I remember it well because I chased him for so long either to validate his claim or to withdraw it (neither of which he did by the way - he just disappeared). Whether that counts as "details" or not is a judgment call, but I'd say it does. 

[BashfulAnthony]

These suggestions that religious belief is akin to madness, or some sort of psychological divergence, are bizarre.  For my part, I think anyone who spends literally years of their life on a forum like this, day in and day out, arguing such points is the one who has a psychological hang-up.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

We clearly interpret "I have not gone into any details with you on the business of earthquakes..." differently.

That's exactly what we did do - I remember it well because I chased him for so long either to validate his claim or to withdraw it (neither of which he did by the way - he just disappeared). Whether that counts as "details" or not is a judgment call, but I'd say it does.

Which again is not a denial of saying earthquakes are increasing

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Which again is not a denial of saying earthquakes are increasing

As he said "any details", yes it is.

As he refuses point blankly to answer the question in unequivocal terms though, why are we wasting time on this? We had an extended exchange about the incidence of earthquakes, now he says he didn't discuss any details about earthquakes. QED     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

As he said "any details", yes it is.

As he refuses point blankly to answer the question in unequivocal terms though, why are we wasting time on this? We had an extended exchange about the incidence of earthquakes, now he says he didn't discuss any details about earthquakes. QED   

No, it isn't. Any details is not a denial if something he admits he said, which is your case here. Neither is his refusal to answer a question where he does not accept the basis of asking it, a denial. Surely 'extended exchange' is a matter if opinion? And surely his denying that there was any 'extended discussion' is not a denial of claiming that earthquakes are increasing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, it isn't. Any details is not a denial if something he admits he said, which is your case here. Neither is his refusal to answer a question where he does not accept the basis of asking it, a denial. Surely 'extended exchange' is a matter if opinion? And surely his denying that there was any 'extended discussion' is not a denial of claiming that earthquakes are increasing?

No. If there was no exchange (extended or otherwise) about earthquakes then there could have been no claim about the increase in the incidence of earthquakes. Ergo he's denying that he (could have) said it.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No. If there was no exchange (extended or otherwise) about earthquakes then there could have been no claim about the increase in the incidence of earthquakes. Ergo he's denying that he (could have) said it.

he is not denying any exchange, and by the way to cover your analogy, he would have to say that there was one. You and he are arguing about whether there was a detailed exchange, and you are arguing that he denies ever saying that earthquakes are increasing. I can't see that. If you think he has done this, put up the post. Where has NM denied saying earthquakes are increasing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

he is not denying any exchange, and by the way to cover your analogy, he would have to say that there was one. You and he are arguing about whether there was a detailed exchange, and you are arguing that he denies ever saying that earthquakes are increasing. I can't see that. If you think he has done this, put up the post. Where has NM denied saying earthquakes are increasing?

He denied a "detailed" exchange, presumably to weasel his way off the hook if/when I found a link.

Putting up the thread is what I'm trying to do but the Search facility won't play ball. Do the Mods have a clear out every now and then - the earliest reference is only in 2015? If they/you do, do you know of any other way of accessing older threads?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

He denied a "detailed" exchange, presumably to weasel his way off the hook if/when I found a link.

Putting up the thread is what I'm trying to do but the Search facility won't play ball. Do the Mods have a clear out every now and then - the earliest reference is only in 2015? If they/you do, do you know of any other way of accessing older threads?

There isn't a way of accessing purged threads, and that makes no difference to 'detailed' being an opinion. Nor a difference on that being a denial of saying earthquakes are increasing, which it isn't

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

There isn't a way of accessing purged threads, and that makes no difference to 'detailed' being an opinion. Nor a difference on that being a denial of saying earthquakes are increasing, which it isn't

If that's so, why did you ask me to put up the post?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

If that's so, why did you ask me to put up the post?

Because i had no idea that any post you were referring to was purged

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Because i had no idea that any post you were referring to was purged

But you just said that it would "make(s) no difference to 'detailed' being an opinion. Nor a difference on that being a denial of saying earthquakes are increasing, which it isn't". What then would you have gleaned from it?

I'm losing the point (and the will to live) here, but here's what happened:

1. In a thread a while back NM claimed that the incidence of earthquakes was increasing, and claimed it be a portent.

2. I told him that it wasn't and posted some data re the actual incidence of earthquakes. I invited him to rebut the evidence or to withdraw the claim.

3. As ever he ducked and dived, and there was an extended exchange on this before he disappeared with the parting shot that I needed to read the Bible.

4. In the current exchange I reminded him of this, and asked:

"In a fairly extended exchange we had a while back you said explicitly that the rate of earthquakes had risen, and you did so to imply that it was a portent of some kind. Are you saying:

1. That you did say that?

2. That you did not say that?

3. That you can't remember whether you said it or not?"

All you have to do to answer is to reply 1, 2 or 3."

5. He avoided answering, and instead said:

"...At no time have I gone into any great detail about earthquakes with you, or anyone"; and later

"Out of a courtesy you don't really deserve bluehillside...I have not gone into any details with you on the business of earthquakes...and certainly not as you previously implied in a tat-for-tat dialogue in which you presented your proof in exceptional detail."

6. I take that to be closer to option 2 than to either of the others.

That's a misrepresentation at best, and a lie at worst. 


 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But you just said that it would "make(s) no difference to 'detailed' being an opinion. Nor a difference on that being a denial of saying earthquakes are increasing, which it isn't". What then would you have gleaned from it?

I'm losing the point (and the will to live) here, but here's what happened:

1. In a thread a while back NM claimed that the incidence of earthquakes was increasing, and claimed it be a portent.

2. I told him that it wasn't and posted some data re the actual incidence of earthquakes. I invited him to rebut the evidence or to withdraw the claim.

3. As ever he ducked and dived, and there was an extended exchange on this before he disappeared with the parting shot that I needed to read the Bible.

4. In the current exchange I reminded him of this, and asked:

"In a fairly extended exchange we had a while back you said explicitly that the rate of earthquakes had risen, and you did so to imply that it was a portent of some kind. Are you saying:

1. That you did say that?

2. That you did not say that?

3. That you can't remember whether you said it or not?"

All you have to do to answer is to reply 1, 2 or 3."

5. He avoided answering, and instead said:

"...At no time have I gone into any great detail about earthquakes with you, or anyone"; and later

"Out of a courtesy you don't really deserve bluehillside...I have not gone into any details with you on the business of earthquakes...and certainly not as you previously implied in a tat-for-tat dialogue in which you presented your proof in exceptional detail."

6. I take that to be closer to option 2 than to either of the others.

That's a misrepresentation at best, and a lie at worst.

How is someone saying that they don't think that they have gone into detailed discussion on earthquakes a denial that that they have ever said  earthquakes are increasing? None of the above from you answers that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I quite agree , Wiggs. especially about David Bentley Hart.

Have you reached his chapter on 'Bliss' yet, where he has such little gems as:

“The least gesture of the will towards a moral end, no matter how vehemently one may suggest otherwise, is necessarily a confession of a natural longing for God.”

or:

"“Simply said, if there were no God, neither would there be such a thing as moral truth, nor such a thing as good or evil, nor such a thing as a moral imperative of any kind.”

Assertions rule OK. it seems.

No.....
I think we all have to decide if there is really such a thing as moral truth. Whether there really is good or evil etc.

If not then your morality is just made up. Just a redundant label pasted onto the term 'behaviour'.

[Nearly Sane]

No.....
I think we all have to decide if there is really such a thing as moral truth. Whether there really is good or evil etc.

If not then your morality is just made up. Just a redundant label pasted onto the term 'behaviour'.

and stamping your tiny feet, saying 'it's troo' is an argument in what way?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and stamping your tiny feet, saying 'it's troo' is an argument in what way?

Grow up.

[Nearly Sane]

Grow up.

shiny shiny shiny mirror