Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Oh, and don’t try to use torri for support – he’s as alert to your reliance on logical fallacies as the rest of us are.

So how come he can deal with content without the need to cry "fallacy"?

[Nearly Sane]

But I have explained quite clearly why my arguments are not the equivalent of "2+2=5"

Oh no you haven't

[Shaker]

So how come he can deal with content without the need to cry "fallacy"?

Possibly because he may think the rest of us are concentrating on that. That's my guess - why don't you ask him?

[BeRational]

But I have explained quite clearly why my arguments are not the equivalent of "2+2=5"

Why not state your argument, so it can be pointed out where you do say 2+2+=5.

Then you will know.

[Nearly Sane]

So how come he can deal with content without the need to cry "fallacy"?

False dichotomy, and begging the question.

ETA and a poisoning of the well. All in all a scurrilous little post

[Gordon]

I do not use fallacies

Don't be silly: you're in danger of wearing them out!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But I have explained quite clearly why my arguments are not the equivalent of "2+2=5"

No you haven’t. What you did was to focus on content (evolution, emergence etc) rather than on the structural logic of the argument. That’s akin to me focusing on the numbers 2 and 5, but ignoring the failure in the structural logic of the sum. That’s why they’re analogous.

Pick any of the fallacies in the Wiki article I linked to. Can you see why they’re wrong even though none of them have any specific content? Not evolution, not “God”, not anything. They’re wrong a priori because their structure fails, not because they happen to be about something.

If you can grasp that, then you’ll see why your “reasoning” earlier was irrelevant. When the structure of your argument is the same as the structures of arguments codified as fallacious then your arguments fail just there. What you happen to populate those arguments with doesn’t matter a jot – the answer “God” for example does not in other words somehow reach back into the broken argument that got you there and turn it into a good one.

This really isn’t that difficult to grasp Alan.

Really, it isn’t.

[torridon]

So how come he can deal with content without the need to cry "fallacy"?

To a degree I might be prepared to overlook some sloppiness of expression in order to get to the gist of what you are trying to say.  But I think you'll find that I often dispute your ideas on the grounds that they are inherently incoherent rather than lacking evidence.

To recap on a few off the top of my head  :

- a God that is good but who creates a Devil to bring about suffering and evil : incoherent
- a soul which is immaterial that has no problems communicating with matter in a brain: incoherent
- heaven, a place of sublime happiness wherein souls retain a memory of earthly life which would tarnish any happiness - incoherent
- free will, wherein meaningful choices are made on a basis that is free of any relevant basis - incoherent
- consciousness derived thinking that requires one to think a thought before you thought it - incoherent
- a God that is good who reveals himself to some but hides from others - incoherent
- a God who saves those who believe but forsakes the rest - incoherent

All these notions of yours are self contradictory, and can therefore be dismissed as fallacious concepts without recourse to considering evidence for or against.

[savillerow]

Msg 18659 Torridon. Put like that, im sitting here wishing that the first thing we must do is educate people out of religion. Ive been listening to radio and TV over the last few weeks about the awful events in this country. Everybody tiptoes around the big question. And that is what do you believe and why. You can believe what you like but the why answer is so so flakey with all the usual bits that dont make sense i feel like sometimes im in the film The Day of the Triffads. Theresa May said weve got to ask the hard embarrassing questions. Go ahead its long overdue. IMO religion is just plain odd.

[Nearly Sane]

Msg 18659 Torridon. Put like that, im sitting here wishing that the first thing we must do is educate people out of religion. Ive been listening to radio and TV over the last few weeks about the awful events in this country. Everybody tiptoes around the big question. And that is what do you believe and why. You can believe what you like but the why answer is so so flakey with all the usual bits that dont make sense i feel like sometimes im in the film The Day of the Triffads. Theresa May said weve got to ask the hard embarrassing questions. Go ahead its long overdue. IMO religion is just plain odd.

How do you propose we 'educate people out of religion'?

[Shaker]

How do you propose we 'educate people out of religion'?

Actually the practice of education in itself seems to do it automatically. We know a few things already - such as that there's a negative correlation between educational attainment and religious adherence, and/or that typically religious belief is lower in countries with universal education.

Why that should be is interesting and complex - my partial suggestion would be thst it has much to do with critical, evidence-based thinking.

[Ricky Spanish]

I was reading some of the threads and it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him.

In doing so they ignore the very warnings and signs of the times.
If people read the bible in a manner that sought to know God...how many would be so ignorant of those signs?

How many fallacies in the original post?

[Ricky Spanish]

I was reading some of the threads and it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him.

In doing so they ignore the very warnings and signs of the times.
If people read the bible in a manner that sought to know God...how many would be so ignorant of those signs?

How many fallacies in the original post?

[Nearly Sane]

Actually the practice of education in itself seems to do it automatically. We know a few things already - such as that there's a negative correlation between educational attainment and religious adherence, and/or that typically religious belief is lower in countries with universal education.

Why that should be is interesting and complex - my partial suggestion would be thst it has much to do with critical, evidence-based thinking.

Which isn't an answer to the question of what savillerow thinks is the way we should educate people out of religion. Note, I think one way is to remove sectarian schools but savillerow seems to be pointing to something much more active.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong! Fallacies are not matters of opinion but of poor reasoning. Logic has rules, and that means they can be followed or broken, as in the case of fallacies. Now, another day and on another thread we can have an interesting discussion if you wish as to where logic comes from - whether, like mathematics, you take a Platonic or an instrumentalist view. That's a separate issue though; the point is that logic has rules and you violate them in just about every post you make.

You really don't absorb anything at all on here, do you? What passes for your mind is closed to reason and logic tighter than a duck's arsehole under water.
Well that's been a dismal failure all round, hasn't it?

Likpe Hillside you are just telling us what fallacies are and hoping that does the job.
Hillside et al has said that God is per se fallacious but has not demonstrated why. Torrid Don has said it and was challenged on begging the question.

Moderator:Content removed as off topic discussion of Moderator decisions.
 


 I'm afaraid I have better things to do.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Likpe Hillside you are just telling us what fallacies are and hoping that does the job.

Fallacy number onnnnnnne – the straw man.

As you’ve only ever ignored or lied about the explanations of where you make false arguments, it’s simpler now just to flag them when you do it.

Hillside et al has said that God is per se fallacious but has not demonstrated why. Torrid Don has said it and was challenged on begging the question.

Fallacy number onnnnnnne – the straw man.

Agaaaaaiiiiinnnn…

Hillside has said no such thing. What Hillside has always actually said is that the arguments some attempt to demonstrate “God” are false, a very different matter.

As a separate matter, what Hillside also says is that, absent a meaningful definition, the term “God” is incoherent.


Moderator:Content removed as off topic discussion of Moderator decisions.

I'm afaraid I have better things to do.

Than tell lies on a message board? I’d hope so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

A quick post re Alan Burns.

Yesterday I drafted a reply to one of Alan's posts and had a bit of a senior moment so PM'd it direct to him by mistake. He in turn replied with such grace and charm that it's quite disarmed me. While I all but face-palm sometimes in sheer frustration at his reasoning, it doesn't hurt to remember that there's a decent human being out there too.

Just a thought.

[floo]

A quick post re Alan Burns.

Yesterday I drafted a reply to one of Alan's posts and had a bit of a senior moment so PM'd it direct to him by mistake. He in turn replied with such grace and charm that it's quite disarmed me. While I all but face-palm sometimes in sheer frustration at his reasoning, it doesn't hurt to remember that there's a decent human being out there too.

Just a thought.

Alan gets a lot of stick on this forum for his perspective on matters of faith, with which most of us, including me, disagree. However, to give credit where credit is due he doesn't shout, scream and swear in response, he is a gentleman.

[torridon]

A quick post re Alan Burns.

Yesterday I drafted a reply to one of Alan's posts and had a bit of a senior moment so PM'd it direct to him by mistake. He in turn replied with such grace and charm that it's quite disarmed me. While I all but face-palm sometimes in sheer frustration at his reasoning, it doesn't hurt to remember that there's a decent human being out there too.

Just a thought.

nice post 

[Shaker]

Likpe Hillside you are just telling us what fallacies are and hoping that does the job.

To those who purport to understand what a logical fallacy is, that should do the job.

I'm afaraid I have better things to do.

Let joy be unconfined.

Though I suspect it won't last long.

[Alan Burns]

And you are trying to avoid engaging with the subtler insights that have accrued from research.  Yes, conscious awareness is not fully understood, but hang on, your notion of soul has zero definition, zero evidence and zero rationale, so out of the two approaches, the one based on evidence and reason stands head and shoulders above all else for anyone wanting to understand the truth of the matter, difficult though it may be, not intuitive though it may be. 

Understanding personhood does not come easy as we take it for granted and always have done so.  I think the evolution of humanity is a landmark step in the evolution of life on Earth and most people, when asked what is the defining characteristics that mark humans out from other species come up with answers like, sense of humour, religion, advanced cognitive abilities, love of music, sociability, and whilst these are all true to a degree, they miss the profoundest insight of all, the one overarching step change that characterises us as being different from other apes is personhood; it is the evolution from upright ape to person that is a most remarkable achievement for evolution but that cannot just appear out of nowhere as if by magic, there is a complex under-the-hood neurobiological phenomenon at work that we all habitually take for granted, and research into the cognitive sciences is gradually yielding insight into how those processes work to produce the phenomenology of personhood, of self, of identity.

An interesting post, Torri
If you could replace "personhood" with "soul" you are almost there! 

[Shaker]

An interesting post, Torri
If you could replace "personhood" with "soul" you are almost there! 

On what evidential basis would he do that?

[Alan Burns]

On what evidential basis would he do that?

Can you not see that you are the evidence?  I know you label it a personal incredulity, but I can't for a moment believe that I am just an uncontrollable emergent property of material reactions. (And how could deterministic material reactions experience the concept of belief?)

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator Apologies for locking the giant thread but after some consultation the Mod Team need to edit and remove a number of off topic posts


Thread is now unlocked and posts and content on, and arising from such comments on Mod Team decisions have been removed. Please note, once again, that comments on Mod Team decisions should be via PM to members of the Mod Team. Current moderators are Gordon, Humph Warden Bennett, and Nearly Sane.

[floo]

Can you not see that you are the evidence?  I know you label it a personal incredulity, but I can't for a moment believe that I am just an uncontrollable emergent property of material reactions. (And how could deterministic material reactions experience the concept of belief?)

You might not be able to believe it Alan, but that doesn't mean to say it isn't so. However, even if some sort of intelligent designer was involved, there is no evidence to support the existence of any of the gods belonging to the world's religions, including the Christian god.