Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

That there are no reports of naturally occurring cars is one factor: the other being reliable evidence that all objects referred to as 'cars' are designed. You need a better analogy.

But if you analyse all the physical events needed to produce a car, they are all apparently just cause and effect.  If the human bodies involved in the process are just material entities, they are just part of the natural chains of cause and effect.  So from a materialist point of view, a car is just an accidental consequence of nature.

But you say that cars are designed - so what is the ultimate cause of this design in your materialist world?

[Nearly Sane]

You quotemined from my post! Why are you such a hypocrite?

and he lies again. Folks,I don't want anyone to get too excited but I think SotS is going for the all time board lying record. He's been building up to for sometime but he looks on good lying form today.

[floo]

Can you prove that cars are a human creation?

Can you prove that the 'something' you are referring to is a human creation?

The Bible was written by humans, QED a human creation!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

I think you're confusing me with someone who gives a damn.

Not really. If it doesn't bother you that you self-identify as a but scummy that's up to you.

What, like Alan Burns or Emergence have done in their hundreds of posts?

No, not like that at all. By "positive argument" I was thinking more  of something that would be coherent and not logically hopeless.If your cupboard is bare in those respects though, so be it.

I'm more interested in your tautological, unfalsifiable worldview that keeps on looking for evidence of the non-natural, using a methodology that assumes that that which is being investigated has a natural cause/explanation.

Not sure why you're so egregiously lying about that. I do no such thing of course - rather I make the commonplace observation that, of not with a naturalistic method of verification, then it's for the person asserting "God", "soul", "spirit" etc to come up with some other means so as to distinguish his claims from white noise or just guessing.

So far at least no one has but hey, you never know - maybe you could be the first.

I'll alert the Templeton prize committee!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Folks,I don't want anyone to get too excited but I think SotS is going for the all time board lying record.

Yes, let's not get too excited, because you're the one who feels the need to run around accusing people of lying. Is this your latest tactic because you are incapable at countering arguments of theists here?

[Gordon]

But if you analyse all the physical events needed to produce a car, they are all apparently just cause and effect.  If the human bodies involved in the process are just material entities, they are just part of the natural chains of cause and effect.  So from a materialist point of view, a car is just an accidental consequence of nature.

But you say that cars are designed - so what is the ultimate cause of this design in your materialist world?

SotS simplistic question was 'Can you prove that cars are a human creation?'

What available answers do you think there are?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I'll alert the Templeton prize committee!

I shouldn't bother. Gets a bit boring proving that 1=1

[Gordon]

Yes, let's not get too excited, because you're the one who feels the need to run around accusing people of lying. Is this your latest tactic because you are incapable at countering arguments of theists here?

Since most of these are fallacious they are easily countered - by pointing out the various fallacies.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, let's not get too excited, because you're the one who feels the need to run around accusing people of lying. Is this your latest tactic because you are incapable at countering arguments of theists here?

yes, when people lie, I think it's reasonable to pull them up on. Nul points on this last post since it only includes a strawman, not an actual lie.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Since most of these are fallacious they are easily countered - by pointing out the various fallacies.

and I'll repeat from my #15575

Perhaps a good indirect illustration of the problem that exists, regarding the approach to Alan Burns' posts.

Changing the sum: 1+1=10 is incorrect. Logically flawed. The assumption. Base 10

1+1=10 is correct if base 2 is applied.

Alan Burns' reasoning comes from his worldview. The arguments (including all the charges of fallaciousness, etc) are based on an entirely different worldview.

So any charges of fallaciousness, etc., may well be themselves fallacious!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Perhaps a good indirect illustration of the problem that exists, regarding the approach to Alan Burns' posts.

Changing the sum: 1+1=10 is incorrect. Logically flawed. The assumption. Base 10

1+1=10 is correct if base 2 is applied.

Alan Burns' reasoning comes from his worldview. The arguments (including all the charges of fallaciousness, etc) are based on an entirely different worldview. It is never going to work...but hey, if you want to keep on wasting your time, be my guest!

Dear god man, surely you’re not going to continue with that piece of idiocy are you?

Are you?

First, the “worldview” in both cases is the same – logic. That you’ve just tinkered with the starting conditions in one case doesn’t change that. This could only work if you gave as the second example something like, "1 + 1 = fish".

Second, Alan is attempting at least logical arguments (albeit incompetently). Logic is a naturalistic concept – if he wants to play on naturalism’s turf, then he’ll keep crashing and burning. Changing the outcome of "2 + 2 = 5" to "2 + 2 = God" doesn't somehow turn illogic into logic. 

Third, Alan is entitled to any world view he likes about any conjecture at all. As indeed am I. His problem though is that he wants to assert his personal world view to be my world view too – he insists that his god is also my god. And for that position to be credible, he needs to do more than just assert it.

Trouble is though, assertion is all he has.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Is this your latest tactic because you are incapable at countering arguments of theists here?

What arguments?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

yes, when people lie, I think it's reasonable to pull them up on.

Best then to ensure you're doing it correctly.

[Nearly Sane]

I shouldn't bother. Gets a bit boring proving that 1=1

Back on lying form here though, with a quite egregious quote mine. I appreciate your dedication to lying but I worry about  the overall effect on you. Constantly lying as you do isn't good.

[Gordon]

Perhaps a good indirect illustration of the problem that exists, regarding the approach to Alan Burns' posts.

Changing the sum: 1+1=10 is incorrect. Logically flawed. The assumption. Base 10

1+1=10 is correct if base 2 is applied.

Alan Burns' reasoning comes from his worldview. The arguments (including all the charges of fallaciousness, etc) are based on an entirely different worldview. It is never going to work...but hey, if you want to keep on wasting your time, be my guest!

Ah you're still on the 'worldview' bollocks - logic isn't worldview (whatever this means) dependent: but it seems anything remotely philosophical is beyond your ken.

[Nearly Sane]

Best then to ensure you're doing it correctly.

indeed but then I get plenty of practice with you lying so frequently. But again none in that post above.


ETA

Just have to ask, are you Paul Nuttall?

[Stranger]

Perhaps a good indirect illustration of the problem that exists, regarding the approach to Alan Burns' posts.

Changing the sum: 1+1=10 is incorrect. Logically flawed. The assumption. Base 10

1+1=10 is correct if base 2 is applied.

Seriously? That is a notational difference - nothing at all to do with logic. The concept of 'two' remains the same whether it is written as '2' or '10' or 'II' or '{∅, {∅}}' or any other notation.

Alan Burns' reasoning comes from his worldview. The arguments (including all the charges of fallaciousness, etc) are based on an entirely different worldview. It is never going to work...but hey, if you want to keep on wasting your time, be my guest!

Logic is logic - either something is based on sound logic or it isn't. Either a world view is logical or it isn't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

and I'll repeat from my #15575

You can if you like, but it's still nonsense on stilts for reasons that have been explained to you often but that you just ignore nonetheless.

[Gordon]

and I'll repeat from my #15575
So any charges of fallaciousness, etc., may well be themselves fallacious!

Which demonstrates your utter ignorance of fallacies, and philosophy in general.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Disclaimer for Nearly Sane. I am responding to certain parts of bluehillside's post. Is that ok with you? Pretty please...

First, the “worldview” in both cases is the same – logic. That you’ve just tinkered with the starting conditions in one case doesn’t change that. This could only work if you gave as the second example something like, "1 + 1 = fish".

Except that is demonstrably false. At no stage have you been able to demonstrate why anything Alan Burns has said is false.

Second, Alan is attempting at least logical arguments (albeit incompetently). Logic is a naturalistic concept – if he wants to play on naturalism’s turf, then he’ll keep crashing and burning. Changing the outcome of "2 + 2 = 5" to "2 + 2 = God" doesn't somehow turn the illogic into logic.

Again, 2+2=5 is demonstrably false and I've yet to see where you have demonstrated that anything Alan Burns has said is the equivalent of "2+2=God"

Third, Alan is entitled to any world view he likes about any conjecture at all. As indeed am I. His problem though is that he wants to assert his personal world view to be my world view too – he insists that his god is also my god. And for that position to be credible, he needs to do more than just assert it.

And some do the same thing that Alan Burns is criticised for!! How many people are expected to believe that nothing can cause something? Yes, it is dressed up elaborately with molecules - man evolution and your emergence theories, but they are all variations on a theme. Why else does the likes of Richard Dawkins talk about illusion of design if it is not to deny the obvious. Why else do we have situations where it is ok for human beings to design and make things, but not any other entity? Are not these the products of a worldview that everyone are expected to accept without question?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Just have to ask, are you Paul Nuttall?

No, I'm Spartacus.

There. Another lie for your collection!

[Stranger]

Is this your latest tactic because you are incapable at countering arguments of theists here?

Still waiting for one that isn't obviously flawed. I take it that you are unable to provide one - hence the drivel about "world views" and number base?

I'll repeat #15574:

...why don't you post any reason whatsoever that isn't obviously wrong, for believing any of the various god concepts on offer?

Go on!

[Nearly Sane]

No, I'm Spartacus.

There. Another lie for your collection!

Unfortunately the jury have marked that not to be a lie given the obvious irony. They are, as ever, harsh but fair.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

They are, as ever, harsh but fair.

Are you Karren Brady?

[Stranger]

How many people are expected to believe that nothing can cause something?

Who asked anybody to believe that?

Yes, it is dressed up elaborately with molecules - man evolution and your emergence theories, but they are all variations on a theme. Why else does the likes of Richard Dawkins talk about illusion of design if it is not to deny the obvious.

Err, because of the copious evidence for evolution as an explanation.

Why else do we have situations where it is ok for human beings to design and make things, but not any other entity?

Who said that?

Are not these the products of a worldview that everyone are expected to accept without question?

No.