Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God could decide to make its presence known in some way that we simply can't currently envisage and that is in some way fundamentally different from all the arguments for God made to date.

Not playing - have pointed out fallacies many times: but you know that already. Tell you what though: next time one occurs (which I'm sure will be soon) I'll be sure to flag it up for you.

But it isn't a one is it Gordon it's the justification for the statement ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent'' we need.

I've already got a season ticket to you interminably repeating the words ''fallacious'' and ''incoherent''.

So Gordon...... please........ cite where your proof,  that ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent'', can be found. 

[Gordon]

lol

Is this the same Dawkins who thinks it's ok to have designer humans to explain organised complexity, but not a designer God?

I don't think Dawkins has any great difficulty in accepting that not only do humans exist but some of them do design stuff. He's not convinced with regard to 'God' in the absence of good reasons to think this may be the case, having disposed of the bad reasons (e.g. all of them made by theists to date).

Is this the same Dawkins who says effectively that a blind watchmaker is more likely to design and make a watch than someone who can see what they are doing?

Where exactly does he say specifically this? I'm suspect you've misunderstood what Dawkins is saying (which doesn't surprise me).

[wigginhall]

It will be interesting to see what SotS replies.

Haven't read it for a while, but remember it as a very elegant book, and famous as a summary of evolution, and the analogy is between that and a blind watchmaker.    Or if you like, natural selection has no purpose and no plan in mind. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, the argument that X is possible is used widely in relation to all manner of bizarre occurrences.  For example, last Thursdayism is a common one - it's possible that the universe was created last Thursday, but few people devote much attention to the idea.
 

But of more interest are the A theories and B theories of time......in which even granting a last Thursday would be generous.

[Gordon]

But it isn't a one is it Gordon it's the justification for the statement ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent'' we need.

I've already got a season ticket to you interminably repeating the words ''fallacious'' and ''incoherent''.

So Gordon...... please........ cite where your proof,  that ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent'', can be found.

Nope - the 'proof' is on a case by case basis that is dependent on the content of the fallacious argument - and there are many examples: if you've missed these then you haven't been paying attention.

Next time a fallacy is posted I'll highlight it for you, but since I've cited fallacies many times then you'll have no trouble searching for a previous example. 

[Stranger]

So Gordon...... please........ cite where your proof,  that ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent'', can be found.

There are numerous examples in this thread (many more on the whole forum) and it's a claim that is eminently falsifiable: all you have to do is cite a single argument for god that isn't fallacious and incoherent.

So, if you know of just one single valid and coherent argument for god, then you can falsify the claim and bask in your victory....

[Not holding my breath.]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are numerous examples in this thread (many more on the whole forum) and it's a claim that is eminently falsifiable: all you have to do is cite a single argument for god that isn't fallacious and incoherent.

So, if you know of just one single valid and coherent argument for god, then you can falsify the claim and bask in your victory....

[Not holding my breath.]

Trying to change the burden of proof I see.

[BeRational]

Trying to change the burden of proof I see.

no you are just trying to waste his time.

They have been pointed out many many times.

Just read back and they are there.

You have made them many times, and they have been pointed out to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - the 'proof' is on a case by case basis that is dependent on the content of the fallacious argument

Then why make a statement ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent''?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

no you are just trying to waste his time.

They have been pointed out many many times.

Just read back and they are there.

You will be able to cite then?

[BeRational]

Then why make a statement ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent''?

Because to date, every single one has been.

Give you best reason, and let's see if it has a fallacy.

[BeRational]

You will be able to cite then?

I assumed you could read, and had been reading threads.

No point in me writing what is already there if you cannot read.

[Gordon]

Trying to change the burden of proof I see.

Not really - citing a fallacy is invariably made in the context of a response to a post in which a fallacious argument is made.

All you need do is search using 'personal incredulity' or 'reification' or 'straw' and I'm sure you'll find plenty.

[Stranger]

There are numerous examples in this thread (many more on the whole forum) and it's a claim that is eminently falsifiable: all you have to do is cite a single argument for god that isn't fallacious and incoherent.

So, if you know of just one single valid and coherent argument for god, then you can falsify the claim and bask in your victory....

[Not holding my breath.]

Trying to change the burden of proof I see.

I'll take that to mean that you don't know of a single, solitary, valid and coherent argument for god. Otherwise you wouldn't be pissing around like this....

[Gordon]

Then why make a statement ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent''?

For crying out loud, Vlad - you seem especially dense today. Note that I'm using the plural - arguments - which implies various different fallacies have been used.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For crying out loud, Vlad - you seem especially dense today. Note that I'm using the plural - arguments - which implies various different fallacies have been used.

Then why make a statement ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent''

[Walter]

But of more interest are the A theories and B theories of time......in which even granting a last Thursday would be generous.

ETM
I'm not interested in well thought out and cleverly constructed arguments from either side . All I want is for you to show the evidence that support your claims .
If you can there will be no reason for this board to exist.
If  you can't  , what are you doing here?

and before you ask , I'm here to simply ridicule people like you .

[BeRational]

Then why make a statement ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent''

Because so far, every single one has been.

Do you know an argument for gods existence, that does not contain a fallacy?

If so, present it, and stop wittering on, and admit that as far as you know, all arguments for god do contain a fallacy.

[Gordon]

Then why make a statement ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent''

For the obvious reason that the variety of those offered to date are: if they weren't then I'd be a theist.

So, to cut to the chase, give us the argument for God you find to be most convincing and we can explore that.

[floo]

Then why make a statement ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent''

Because they are.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because to date, every single one has been.

Give you best reason, and let's see if it has a fallacy.

After you. Since I asked first.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because they are.

Demonstrate that positive assertion then.

[torridon]

lol

Is this the same Dawkins who thinks it's ok to have designer humans to explain organised complexity, but not a designer God?

Is this the same Dawkins who says effectively that a blind watchmaker is more likely to design and make a watch than someone who can see what they are doing?

Ooh, what a naïve trashy misrepresentation.  Check out Orgel's 2nd rule : blind trial error plus selection always beats 'intelligent design' in the long run

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For the obvious reason that the variety of those offered to date are: if they weren't then I'd be a theist.

So, to cut to the chase, give us the argument for God you find to be most convincing and we can explore that.

After you. Since I asked first.
In any case I did ask you to work on Feser's argument and that time you didn't because you couldn't spare the time.

It's becoming obvious that you cannot cite a demolition of a theistic argument let alone show any proof that ''arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent.''

[Walter]

Demonstrate that positive assertion then.

so fuckin' TEDIOUSE you must be achingly frustrated, Just PROOVE IT! or shut the fu.

with all due respect of course,