Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Human science can't yet define how the soul interacts with our physical brain, but that does not mean that the interaction is not there.

No, there is no evidence for (immaterial) souls and there is no evidence for souls interacting with brains, just asserting it will not pouf it into existence.

The concept of the soul is incoherent because of the word immaterial, whether explicit or implied. An immaterial soul is one that cannot interact with matter which interacts with matter.

Incoherent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are making stuff up.

Whatever you make up, can be replaced by some other made up stuff.

Jesus, God, Leprechaun, Pixie. All the same.

You have said that no person has died for sin. evidence that thank you.
You have said I have made God up. Evidence that.

,,,,,,this should be good......

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, there is no evidence for (immaterial) souls and there is no evidence for souls interacting with brains, just asserting it will not pouf it into existence.

The concept of the soul is incoherent because of the word immaterial, whether explicit or implied. An immaterial soul is one that cannot interact with matter which interacts with matter.

Incoherent.

By evidence you are talking about material evidence aren't you? Can you not see your circular argument here?

[torridon]

I do not presume to make judgements about Heaven until I get there!

Maybe you have changed your mind then; previously you were asserting that Earthly suffering served a purpose - so that we would know the difference when we get to heaven, and appreciate its lovely heavenliness.  But of course that implies memories, bad memories in particular, which would ruin all that nice noodly heavenliness.

Incoherent.

[BeRational]

You have said that no person has died for sin. evidence that thank you.
You have said I have made God up. Evidence that.

,,,,,,this should be good......

You cannot die for someone sin, because sin does not exist.

You have bought into the idea of a made up god.


I thought you were leaving?

[Nearly Sane]

By evidence you are talking about material evidence aren't you? Can you not see your circular argument here?

And non material evidence is what? note it may exist but you have to provide a definition and a methodology for such a thing for discussion first. Something you consistently haven't done despite being asked many hundreds of times.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You cannot die for someone sin, because sin does not exist.

Ah, you fail to evidence two positive assertions and introduce a third.....well done............. now evidence all three.

I thought you were leaving?

Not while you are still on the hook.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And non material evidence is what? note it may exist but you have to provide a definition and a methodology for such a thing for discussion first. Something you consistently haven't done despite being asked many hundreds of times.

methodology is not ontology.

[BeRational]

I thought you were leaving?

Not while you are still on the hook.

What hook.

You believe stuff that has no credible evidence, and you think that a good thing?

I see you lied about leaving then?

[Nearly Sane]

methodology is not ontology.

Never said it was. No methodology for evidence means any of your claims are meaningless currently though, and I note that again rather tgan deal with tge question you came up with a non sequitur.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And non material evidence is what? note it may exist but you have to provide a definition and a methodology for such a thing for discussion first. Something you consistently haven't done despite being asked many hundreds of times.

Non sequitur. Saying evidence is material and therefore the immaterial cannot exist is a circular argument.
Stop Handwaving.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What hook.

You believe stuff that has no credible evidence, and you think that a good thing?

I see you lied about leaving then?

Argument from incredulity and invincible ignorance.

Lying ? Did I set a time?

[torridon]

By evidence you are talking about material evidence aren't you? Can you not see your circular argument here?

No more circular than not believing in leprechauns because of the lack of evidence.  Engage brain before opening mouth

[Shaker]

methodology is not ontology.

Vlad catchphrases and buzzwords are catchphrases and buzzwords, though.

[Nearly Sane]

Non sequitur. Saying evidence is material and therefore the immaterial cannot exist is a circular argument.
Stop Handwaving.

I didn't say it cannot exist. i asked for a methodology and a definition. Stop lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

As far as I know no Leprechaun has died for anyone's sins. There is I think you'll find that if you kept going your logic would have Leprechauns and God the same thing and your appeal inevitably would and is just to ridicule.

Fallacy number eeeeeiiiiggghhhttttt…. The argumentum ad consequentiam.

Now all you have to do is to find some logic that takes you from someone saying, “I will die for your sins” and that person being divine.

What happened to the retirement by the way? Or was it perhaps just a brief sabbatical to give you the chance to put together a few more fallacies for future use?

Fallacy 1: The straw man

Fallacy 2: The ad hominem/abusive terms fallacy

Fallacy 3: Judgmental language

Fallacy 4: Circular reasoning

Fallacy 5: The moralistic fallacy (“ought from an is”)

Fallacy 6: Negative proof fallacy

Fallacy 7: The tu quoque

Fallacy 8: Argumentum ad consequentiam

Fallacy 9: Argumentum ad populum

Fallacy 10: Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Fallacy 11: Argumentum from incredulity

Fallacy 12: Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance)

Fallacy 13: The appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

methodology is not ontology.

Fallacy number ooooonnnnneeeeee.... The straw man.

Fallacy number tweeeelllllvvvveeee.... Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance).

No-one says otherwise. You still though need a method to distinguish your "ontology" from utter rowlocks.



Fallacy 1: The straw man

Fallacy 2: The ad hominem/abusive terms fallacy

Fallacy 3: Judgmental language

Fallacy 4: Circular reasoning

Fallacy 5: The moralistic fallacy (“ought from an is”)

Fallacy 6: Negative proof fallacy

Fallacy 7: The tu quoque

Fallacy 8: Argumentum ad consequentiam

Fallacy 9: Argumentum ad populum

Fallacy 10: Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Fallacy 11: Argumentum from incredulity

Fallacy 12: Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance)

Fallacy 13: The appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing)

[Alan Burns]

You cannot die for someone sin, because sin does not exist.

"Sin does not exist"

This is the terrifying logic which materialist thinking leads to.  If we pretend that we have no free will, it gives evil doers a licence to do whatever they want, because whatever they do will be seen as an inevitable consequence of the material reactions in their brain.

The reality is that God has given us the knowledge of good and evil, and with it has given us the power to choose by conscious interaction, not just inevitable reaction.

[Nearly Sane]

"Sin does not exist"

This is the terrifying logic which materialist thinking leads to.  If we pretend that we have no free will, it gives evil doers a licence to do whatever they want, because whatever they do will be seen as an inevitable consequence of the material reactions in their brain.

The reality is that God has given us the knowledge of good and evil, and with it has given us the power to choose by conscious interaction, not just inevitable reaction.

I note you accuse people of lying by 'pretending' here, Alan. Are you saying torridon is lying? If not then you need to rephrase the above post.

[BeRational]

"Sin does not exist"

This is the terrifying logic which materialist thinking leads to.  If we pretend that we have no free will, it gives evil doers a licence to do whatever they want, because whatever they do will be seen as an inevitable consequence of the material reactions in their brain.

The reality is that God has given us the knowledge of good and evil, and with it has given us the power to choose by conscious interaction, not just inevitable reaction.

That is not a reality, just your belief. I completely disagree.

Sin and evil do not exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This is the terrifying logic which materialist thinking leads to.  If we pretend that we have no free will, it gives evil doers a licence to do whatever they want, because whatever they do will be seen as an inevitable consequence of the material reactions in their brain.

The reality is that God has given us the knowledge of good and evil, and with it has given us the power to choose by conscious interaction, not just inevitable reaction.
 Logged

No it isn't. Moral philosophy is a substantial body of thinking, research, discussion and debate. "Sin" on the other hand is a word religious people use to describe rules written in books they think to be "holy" (and therefore inerrant) with no cogent logic to support the claim.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Incidentally Alan, as you haven't replied are we now agreed that logical fallacies are a function of the structure of the argument and not of their content? You referenced the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy a while back for example - do you now agree that it's a bad argument regardless of whether you happen to populate it with gods, leprechauns or anything else?

And if you do agree, can you now see why your post about evolution, emergence etc was irrelevant?

And if you do see that, can you also see why any argument you make whose structure correlates to that of a fallacy is necessarily a wrong argument, regardless of what it happens to be about?   

And if you do see that, can you now see why identifying the fallacies on which you depend isn't a matter of difference of opinion or of interpretation at all?

[floo]

Of course wrongdoing exists, but the word 'sin' often covers things no reasonable person would consider bad. 

[Shaker]

"Sin does not exist"

This is the terrifying logic which materialist thinking leads to.  If we pretend that we have no free will, it gives evil doers a licence to do whatever they want, because whatever they do will be seen as an inevitable consequence of the material reactions in their brain.

Argumentum ad consequentiam. What's that you were saying about not using fallacies?

The reality is that God has given us the knowledge of good and evil, and with it has given us the power to choose by conscious interaction, not just inevitable reaction.

That's not reality: it's a statement of belief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

No it isn't. Moral philosophy is a substantial body of thinking, research, discussion and debate. "Sin" on the other hand is a word religious people use to describe rules written in books they think to be "holy" (and therefore inerrant) with no cogent logic to support the claim.

I think you'll find sin is a part of moral philosophy. Moral irrealism actually has nothing to offer the debate ultimately because morality needs arbitration and there is no actual arbitration in moral irrealism. In other words, what moral irrealists perform is a kind of intellectual pretence. Unlike you I would not seek to exclude moral irrealism no matter how cranky it's proponents are.

In other words you are wrong to exclude sin from moral philosophy....but hey....if intellectual totalitarianism isn't about saying ''moral philosophy is whatever I say it is''....what is it for?