Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

No Hillside.....What you are doing is taking little amiable fairy folk who frolic at the end of rainbows and imbue them with every attribute given to God by anyone at anytime. In other words a category fadiddle.

No he isn't and no it isn't.

The only attribute that is relevant is that they are both unsupported by any evidence or reasoning and neither can be falsified. No category mistake and no need for all the attributes of god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No Hillside.....What you are doing is taking little amiable fairy folk who frolic at the end of rainbows and imbue them with every attribute given to God by anyone at anytime. In other words a category fadiddle.

Some has got there before me, but you still fail entirely to understand what "category error" means.

The point being made was that any conjectures might be true, but that making bad arguments for them doesn't make them more likely to be true. Just back-fitting different characteristics to each conjecture is entirely irrelevant for that purpose.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No he isn't and no it isn't.

The only attribute that is relevant is that they are both unsupported by any evidence or reasoning and neither can be falsified. No category mistake and no need for all the attributes of god.

Most references to Leprechauns in the context of God are non sequitur.
To say that there is no reasoning supporting God has never been evidence itself and should be since it is something being positively asserted by yourself and others.

So you are wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Some has got there before me, but you still fail entirely to understand what "category error" means.

The point being made was that any conjectures might be true, but that making bad arguments for them doesn't make them more likely to be true. Just back-fitting different characteristics to each conjecture is entirely irrelevant for that purpose.

I am not talking about error. I am talking about choosing something ridiculous, imbuing it with divine characteristics, losing the definition of the object of ridicule while keeping the ridicule.
How can that be error? deliberate more like it.

[Stranger]

Most references to Leprechauns in the context of God are non sequitur.

I thought you were saying it was a category mistake - make up your mind. It isn't a non sequitur either. Obviously you don't know what either terms mean...

To say that there is no reasoning supporting God has never been evidence itself and should be since it is something being positively asserted by yourself and others.

Who is positively asserting what? If you think that there is a positive assertion that there is no god, then you have spectacularly missed the point of the leprechaun comparison (yet again).

So you are wrong.

While I'm sure I'm wrong about many things, you have totally failed to demonstrate that I'm wrong about this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Most references to Leprechauns in the context of God are non sequitur.

That’s not what “non sequitur” means.

To say that there is no reasoning supporting God has never been evidence itself and should be since it is something being positively asserted by yourself and others.

That’s not what's being said – it’s just another of your many straw men. What is being said is that a bad argument is a bad argument regardless of the characteristics you ascribe to the conjecture that’s being argued for.

So you are wrong.

No, you are.

I am not talking about error. I am talking about choosing something ridiculous, imbuing it with divine characteristics, losing the definition of the object of ridicule while keeping the ridicule.

You can talk about that if you like, but it has nothing to do with the argument. A bad argument is a bad argument is a bad argument. It doesn’t somehow become a better one when you point to the characteristics of the conjecture that’s argued for.

How can that be error? deliberate more like it.

You were the one who accused me of a category error remember? Some and I have just explained that you were – as ever – wrong about that.

[SusanDoris]

I am not talking about error. I am talking about choosing something ridiculous, imbuing it with divine characteristics, losing the definition of the object of ridicule while keeping the ridicule.
How can that be error? deliberate more like it.

Your choice - of God I assume - is just as ridiculous, and perhaps more so, since so many more people believe it, as against the number of people who believe in fairies etc which is, unless you can produce a fact about it,  as close to zero as makes no difference.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought you were saying it was a category mistake - make up your mind. It isn't a non sequitur either. Obviously you don't know what either terms mean...

Who is positively asserting what? If you think that there is a positive assertion that there is no god, then you have spectacularly missed the point of the leprechaun comparison (yet again).

While I'm sure I'm wrong about many things, you have totally failed to demonstrate that I'm wrong about this.

1: Most references to Leprechauns in the context of a debate about God are non sequitur.
2: The attempt to shoehorn them into such debate are often categorical errors.
3: Leprechauns are in the same category as other things things not scientifically demonstrated. A category which includes Consciousness, Dark matter, Multiverse, string theory.
4. Since Leprechauns are never mentioned in the context of the debate above we can conclude the reasons for their inclusion in any debate about God...argumentum ad ridiculum and therefore category 'fadiddling' which is something quite different from category error. Prior and dogmatic commitment to SEA is necessary for such behaviour.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your choice - of God I assume - is just as ridiculous, and perhaps more so, since so many more people believe it, as against the number of people who believe in fairies etc which is, unless you can produce a fact about it,  as close to zero as makes no difference.

If God is so ridiculous one wonders why Hillside and his little wizards feel it necessary to deploy squadrons of leprechauns.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

1: Most references to Leprechauns in the context of a debate about God are non sequitur.

No they’re not for the good reason that that’s not what non sequitur means.

2: The attempt to shoehorn them into such debate are often categorical errors.

I think you mean “category”, not “categorical” and no they’re not in any case. Unless you understand what “category error” means you’ll keep making this same mistake.

3: Leprechauns are in the same category as other things things not scientifically demonstrated. A category which includes Consciousness, Dark matter, Multiverse, string theory.

That’s wrong. Consciousness for example is “demonstrated”, but it’s not fully understood. “Leprechaun” on the other hand is just a conjecture (as is “God").

4. Since Leprechauns are never mentioned in the context of the debate above we can conclude the reasons for there inclusion in any debate about God...argumentum ad ridiculum and therefore category 'fadiddling' which is something quite different from category error.

Now that actually is a non sequitur. Leprechauns are used merely to make the point that bad arguments for them don’t suddenly become good arguments if you substitute the word “God”.

In short a theory can be as crazy as it likes....as long as God is not in there.

“God” and “leprechauns” aren’t theories, they’re conjectures and still you miss the point that back fitting different characteristics to each doesn’t change bad arguments for them into good ones.

Why is this so difficult for you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If God is so ridiculous one wonders why Hillside and his little wizards feel it necessary to deploy squadrons of leprechauns.

Because they're useful for falsifying your arguments for there being a "God" at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Because they're useful for falsifying your arguments for there being a "God" at all.

Apparently they aren't.
What arguments have they falsified since the only category fit they have is ''not being physically evidenced for now''. That only fits materialist arguments for God surely?

[Stranger]

1: Most references to Leprechauns in the context of a debate about God are non sequitur.

So you assert. How about saying why?

2: The attempt to shoehorn them into such debate are often categorical errors.

See above.

3: Leprechauns are in the same category as other things things not scientifically demonstrated. A category which includes Consciousness, Dark matter, Multiverse, string theory.

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Leprechauns are stories that cannot be falsified and that have no supporting evidence or arguments.

Consciousness definitely exists but there is no complete theory yet.
Dark matter has evidence (gravitational effects on other matter).
Multiverse and string theory have arguments based on existing theories.

So no, none of them are in the same category.

4. Since Leprechauns are never mentioned in the context of the debate above we can conclude the reasons for there inclusion in any debate about God...argumentum ad ridiculum and therefore category 'fadiddling' which is something quite different from category error.

Nope. They are included because they share the same attributes of being stories that cannot be falsified and that have no supporting evidence or arguments.

Prior and dogmatic commitment to SEA is necessary for such behaviour.

No idea what this drivel is supposed to mean...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Apparently they aren't.

Yes they are.

What arguments have they falsified since the only category fit they have is ''not being physically evidenced for now''. That only fits materialist arguments for God surely?

Nope. They falsify arguments for god when the argument works just as well when you substitute “leprechaun” for “God”. Take the NPF for example: if you think, “You can’t falsify God, therefore God ” is a sound argument then you have no choice but to accept too that, “You can’t falsify leprechauns, therefore leprechauns” is still a sound argument.

It matters not a jot what attributes you claim for “god” or for leprechauns – either the argument is false or it isn’t. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you assert. How about saying why?

In argument the properties of the Leprechaun are often elevated to those of the divine. That surely goes beyond your categorisation.

If Leprechauns are small visible green irish men then they are not strictly unfalsifiable even if they do have miraculous yet sub divine powers.

Your adherence to their use is therefore for the purpose of ridicule.

Your appeal for multiverse is at base naturalistic and materialist...well leprechauns are little Irishmen...what can be more naturalistic than that?

God is perfectly reasonable within Thomistic philosophy since He is an explanatory for a universe with change.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes they are.

Nope. They falsify arguments for god when the argument works just as well when you substitute “leprechaun” for “God”. Take the NPF for example: if you think, “You can’t falsify God, therefore God ” is a sound argument then you have no choice but to accept too that, “You can’t falsify leprechauns, therefore leprechauns” is still a sound argument.

It matters not a jot what attributes you claim for “god” or for leprechauns – either the argument is false or it isn’t.

That's all just a fancy way of saying there is no evidence yet for Leprechauns.

I've never used the ''can't falsify God therefore God argument'' since that would be good for naturalism, materialism, physicalism, physical informationism or even Hillsidianphilosophywearingahoodiesoitdoesntgetcaughtinthecctvofrationalanalysis-ism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

In argument the properties of the Leprechaun are often elevated to those of the divine. That surely goes beyond your categorisation.

No they’re not. Stop lying.

If Leprechauns are small visible green irish men then they are not strictly unfalsifiable even if they do have miraculous yet sub divine powers.

Yes they are unfalsifiable. If you think otherwise, falsify them. 

Your adherence to their use is therefore for the purpose of ridicule.

Nope – their use is just to help falsify arguments made for “God”.

Your appeal for multiverse is at base naturalistic and materialist...well leprechauns are little Irishmen...what can be more naturalistic than that?

“God” cured little Timmy of rickets. What could be more naturalistic than that?

God is perfectly reasonable within Thomistic philosophy since He is an explanatory for a universe with change.

“God” explains nothing – it’s just white noise in place of an explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea what this drivel is supposed to mean...

How do you know it's drivel then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

“God” cured little Timmy of rickets. What could be more naturalistic than that?

.

Oh no Hillside. You made another category blunder.

[Stranger]

In argument the properties of the Leprechaun are often elevated to those of the divine. That surely goes beyond your categorisation.

I'd like to see you point to a single example of this.

If Leprechauns are small visible green irish men then they are not strictly unfalsifiable even if they do have miraculous yet sub divine powers.

Nope. Just because we haven't seen them doesn't mean that they do not exist (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). To be falsifiable, there would need to be a prediction of exactly when and where one would definitely be seen.

Your adherence to their use is therefore for the purpose of ridicule.

Yes, but that doesn't make it invalid.

Your appeal for multiverse is at base naturalistic and materialist...well leprechauns are little Irishmen...what can be more naturalistic than that?

That makes bugger all sense.

God is perfectly reasonable within Thomistic philosophy since He is an explanatory for a universe with change.

God is only 'explanatory' of the universe in a 'just so' story sense.

How do you know it's drivel then?

Err... extrapolation from the rest of your post.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Err... extrapolation from the rest of your post.

Sounds more like excrapolation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's all just a fancy way of saying there is no evidence yet for Leprechauns.

No it isn’t. It’s just a way of saying that bad arguments for leprechauns do not become good arguments when you attempt them for “God” instead.

I've never used the ''can't falsify God therefore God argument'' since that would be good for naturalism, materialism, physicalism, physical informationism or even Hillsidianphilosophywearingahoodiesoitdoesntgetcaughtinthecctvofrationalanalysis-ism.

Actually it would be no such thing, but that’s not the point. You asked for an example of an argument that’s shown to be false by using “leprechauns” instead of “God” so I provided one.  It’s not necessary to use the analogy – the argument can be shown to be wrong on its own terms – but it is a useful short cut way to illustrate the point.

Possibly you’re so badly off beam today because you spent the night in a builder’s yard (piles of materials being the “same as” a house according to you)?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 
Actually it would be no such thing, but that’s not the point.

LOL.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh no Hillside. You made another category blunder.

No I haven't, and there is no "another". Unless you're finally prepared to find out what "category error" actually means, why keep pretending otherwise?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

LOL.

Avoidance noted.