Searching for GOD...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#15183

He stated that, to date all the arguments presented have contained a fallacy.

Do you agree that every argument you have ever seen for the existence of god contains a fallacy?

No.......... I have no reason to believe that since no one will cite evidence of it.

Furthermore, the question

Do you agree that every argument you have ever seen for the existence of god contains a fallacy?

is biased as it suggests that the assertion

every argument you have ever seen for the existence of god contains a fallacy

is a true statement! That's basic GCSE statistics, the kind of error that every GCSE student doing their Maths exam this summer should be able to highlight as wrong!

As it stands, it's more evidence of the circular reasoning employed (unintentional or otherwise) to allow some non-theists to try and get away with never having to justify their position.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

As it stands, it's more evidence of the circular reasoning employed (unintentional or otherwise) to allow some non-theists to try and get away with never having to justify their position.

Just out of interest, do you think you could cite an example of this supposed circular reasoning please so we can test the assertion you've made here?

Thanks.

[Nearly Sane]

What a great shame we are unlikely to find out what arguments and why.

You have the opportunity, you have been asked but you want to lie about that.

[torridon]

#15129
yet comes up with DNA as the blueprint for all living organisms, according to some!

Citing design, hence a designer allegedly creates an infinite regression, but design from non-design is ok.

Hence the blind watchmaker is supposed to be better than some entity that knows what they are doing.

Nature demonstrates that blind design is ultimately superior to intelligent design, intelligence itself being an intermediate outcome of blind design which varies according to its occurrence and its limitations.  Intelligence is only meaningful in terms of an ability to model a broader ambient context.  Intelligence in the absence of all context would be meaningless, absurd.

[bluehillside Retd.]

As I find myself in a helpful mood today, here's a handy guide to what Alan Burns actually means by the terms he uses. Feel free to cut out and keep for future reference:

"Perception" = consciousness

"Soul"/"Controller" = prefrontal cortex

"Free will" = self-awareness

"Separate" = emergent property

"Evidence" = anything at all, however illogical.

Hope that helps.

 

[Gordon]

#15183Furthermore, the question

Do you agree that every argument you have ever seen for the existence of god contains a fallacy?

is biased as it suggests that the assertion

every argument you have ever seen for the existence of god contains a fallacy

is a true statement! That's basic GCSE statistics, the kind of error that every GCSE student doing their Maths exam this summer should be able to highlight as wrong!

As it stands, it's more evidence of the circular reasoning employed (unintentional or otherwise) to allow some non-theists to try and get away with never having to justify their position.

What circularity and what 'statistics'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

And one too for Vlad:

"Antitheist" = Atheist

"Richard Dawkins" = My bromance obsession

Anything else = I'm lying

[Stranger]

#15183Furthermore, the question

Do you agree that every argument you have ever seen for the existence of god contains a fallacy?

is biased as it suggests that the assertion

every argument you have ever seen for the existence of god contains a fallacy

is a true statement! That's basic GCSE statistics, the kind of error that every GCSE student doing their Maths exam this summer should be able to highlight as wrong!

Is this a joke?

As it stands, it's more evidence of the circular reasoning employed (unintentional or otherwise) to allow some non-theists to try and get away with never having to justify their position.

You have yet to actually point to any circularity.

The position of many "non-theists" (my own included) have been explained and justified here. How about actually addressing what has been said?

[SusanDoris]

As I find myself in a helpful mood today, here's a handy guide to what Alan Burns actually means by the terms he uses. Feel free to cut out and keep for future reference:

"Perception" = consciousness

"Soul"/"Controller" = prefrontal cortex

"Free will" = self-awareness

"Separate" = emergent property

"Evidence" = anything at all, however illogical.

Hope that helps.

 

That is a great help and I'm sure AB too will be grateful!
I wonder if  there is scope for providing a similar handy guide to SotS's ideas?  Hmm, probably not, I suppose.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

As I find myself in a helpful mood today, here's a handy guide to what Alan Burns actually means by the terms he uses. Feel free to cut out and keep for future reference:

"Perception" = consciousness

"Soul"/"Controller" = prefrontal cortex

"Free will" = self-awareness

"Separate" = emergent property

"Evidence" = anything at all, however illogical.

Hope that helps.

All that is needed are citations for each of the above, so that we can be sure you're not guessing. Having regularly accused Emergence of lying, you wouldn't want to be seen as lying, would you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

All that is needed are citations for each of the above, so that we can be sure you're not guessing. Having regularly accused Emergence of lying, you wouldn't want to be seen as lying, would you?

You misunderstand the use of citations. I said that this is what he actually means when he uses these terms - he (presumably) would disagree, but pretty much all of the rebuttals to his efforts here make the same points in longer form. It's not citations you're looking for at all - just copy and paste his last 20 or so replies for that - but rather a discussion/argument about whether he unwittingly means these things at all.

If you want to do that, by all means join the discussion. Quick tip though: you might want to avoid talk of "alternative world views" from now on as your last attempt turned out to be the same "word view" of logic, but just with different starting conditions.     

[floo]

#15183Furthermore, the question

Do you agree that every argument you have ever seen for the existence of god contains a fallacy?

is biased as it suggests that the assertion

every argument you have ever seen for the existence of god contains a fallacy

is a true statement! That's basic GCSE statistics, the kind of error that every GCSE student doing their Maths exam this summer should be able to highlight as wrong!

As it stands, it's more evidence of the circular reasoning employed (unintentional or otherwise) to allow some non-theists to try and get away with never having to justify their position.

The non believer position is perfectly justifiable, just like the position of those who don't believe fairies exist!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

The non believer position is perfectly justifiable, just like the position of those who don't believe fairies exist!

Indeed. Thanks for illustrating the circular reasoning necessary to maintain it! Theists, take note!!

[Gordon]

Indeed. Thanks for illustrating the circular reasoning necessary to maintain it! Theists, take note!!

Super - so now you can explain your reasoning to us all, so that we can assess if you understand circular reasoning.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Indeed. Thanks for illustrating the circular reasoning necessary to maintain it! Theists, take note!!

That's not what "circular reasoning" means or entails. Do you want to look it up perhaps before accusing people of attempting it?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I wonder if  there is scope for providing a similar handy guide to SotS's ideas?  Hmm, probably not, I suppose.

Here's a handy guide for others with respect to your ideas. From #14741 on this thread:

At my age, I'm far too old to be concerned about whether I have made a mistake or not!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just a quick tip for anyone interested - I've decided not to reply to Vlad when he's lying.

So far, it's freed up the whole day!

A whole day.?
What was that about me and a bromance with Richard Dawkins?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nature demonstrates that blind design is ultimately superior to intelligent design,

Then you agree it must be intelligent design because of cancer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nature demonstrates that blind design is ultimately superior to intelligent design,

Ah a teleological argument evolution results in superiority.......cancer,spine problems etc.
Also prophetic scientism because the ultimate is in the future isn't it.

Well actually Torridon your claims are antidarwinian.

[Alan Burns]

Nature demonstrates that blind design is ultimately superior to intelligent design

There can be no such thing as blind design.  Design implies a specific goal, but there is no goal when considering the blind unguided forces of nature.

[Alan Burns]

As I find myself in a helpful mood today, here's a handy guide to what Alan Burns actually means by the terms he uses. Feel free to cut out and keep for future reference:

I feel a little more elaboration is needed:

"Perception" = consciousness

Without consciousness there can be no perception

"Soul"/"Controller" = prefrontal cortex

The prefrontal cortex is just matter, so no control is possible - just reactions.

"Free will" = self-awareness

Free will and self awareness are inextricably linked

"Separate" = emergent property

Emergent properties only exist in the perception of an intelligent observer.

"Evidence" = anything at all, however illogical.

The evidence for the truth is all around you, we are so surrounded by God's creation that we just take it for granted and call it "nature".

[torridon]

The evidence for the truth is all around you, we are so surrounded by God's creation that we just take it for granted and call it "nature".

That is not evidence though.  At best, evidence is something that helps us to discern between rival hypotheses. All you are saying is that because stuff exists that infers an invisible cosmic designer working in isolation must have made it. That is not warranted, it is a non-sequitur; in short, just another fallacy.

[torridon]

Without consciousness there can be no perception

Wrong yet again. Conscious perception is preceded by subconscious perception; consciousness awareness takes longer to form and so lags behind.  In fast moving situations where we do not have time to think we are running mostly on subconscious perception.  Blindsight is another example of subconscious perception.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is not evidence though.  At best, evidence is something that helps us to discern between rival hypotheses. All you are saying is that because stuff exists that infers an invisible cosmic designer working in isolation must have made it. That is not warranted, it is a non-sequitur; in short, just another fallacy.

Torridon
To the neutral question concerning the whole of existence "Why something and not nothing?"
What possible suggested answers do you think are fallacious...and why?

[torridon]

There can be no such thing as blind design.  Design implies a specific goal, but there is no goal when considering the blind unguided forces of nature.

In normal everyday usage, maybe that is right, we tend to think of 'design' like that, we are thinking of it in terms of (human) intelligent design.  By 'blind' design, I mean more the apparent design, the apparent fitness for niche that we see that evolutionary processes for example often produce.  These processes produce better fit than 'intelligent' design in the long run; this is why the biggest software giants are now adopting evolutionary principles and machine learning approaches in preference to hiring expensive 'intelligent' programmers.  Evolutionary style processes produce better results in the long run.