Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Very entertaining.
After trying to refute that your line of argument is Leprechauns are ridiculous, Therefore God probably does not exist.

There’s no correlation of any kind between what I do say (and have consistently said) and your utter misrepresentation of it here.

Will you at least try to grasp it if I explain it yet again?

OK then: the point is actually that, if an argument works equally for “God”, for leprechauns and for any other conjecture, then it’s probably a bad argument. Whether you happen to find some of those conjectures more ridiculous than others has not one scrap of a scintilla of an iota of a smidgin of relevance to that simple point. 

That’s why, in response to one such argument (the negative proof fallacy), Russell’s teapot makes the point well – not because a teapot is inherently ridiculous, but because any unverifiable conjecture would fit the bill.

You are now IMHO saying there are Bad arguments therefore God probably doesn't exist.

You really haven’t understood a word have you.

Not   

a

freakin’   

word.

What I actually say (and have consistently said) is that bad arguments provide no reason to think that “God” does exist, which is a very different thing. That doesn’t eliminate the possibility “God” (or leprechauns for that matter) but, absent a cogent argument for either, it does mean that assertions of their existence are only guesses. 

You can put up a bad argument for Leprechauns. You might even show that it is a bad argument for God.

All bad arguments for leprechauns are also bad arguments for “God”, and vice versa. A bad argument is a bad argument is a bad argument, regardless of its outcome.

But then you've got to get from that to saying all arguments are bad without exposing the ground of your claim. Good luck with that....Now bring it on.

Why have you lied again?

First, the point is complete in itself: if an argument works equally for “God” and for leprechauns, then it’s probably a bad argument. That’s it: no more, no less. Unless you really want to argue on the same terms for leprechauns, at a stroke we can therefore eliminate the swathe of fallacious arguments on which you rely for “God”.

Which leaves you with the problem: if you want to assert a “true for you too” “God” then it's your job not rely on arguments for it that work equally for leprechauns (or indeed for any other conjecture).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Gordon said:

Nobody is saying 'all arguments are bad'...

And you re-wrote that as:

I disagree that ''nobody is saying all arguments for God are bad''.

Is your lying actually pathological do you think - you just can't help but do it?

Even if you are right and yone can be mealy mouthed and frame it as no arguments ''yet''. The charges still stand. A statement that a Bad argument is a bad argument is non sequitur and red herring. So what? we are entitled to ask.........

That's not what non sequitur means and nor is it a red herring.

The "so what" is that you cannot look at the characteristics of the outcome of a bad argument and, when you happen to like them, somehow magic it into a good one. You try this a lot, I've corrected you on it a lot, and then you repeat the mistake a lot - generally with the charge of a "category f***" even though you clearly don't know what that term means.

Of course it is made in an effort to implicate all arguments as bad arguments.

Another lie.

The whole picture is trying to negate arguments by non sequiturs and red herrings...

And another lie to finish. Why do you bother?

[Alan Burns]

Well that's all very nice for you but not everyone apparently is so favoured by god.  Do all those desperate people risking life and limb to cross the Med in flimsy boats lead such blessed charmed lives ? You would admire a god who heaps gifts on you but leaves others to live out their wretched lives without any such help.  This makes no sense to me at all; a god with the power to do good without fear or favour rewarding just his acolytes it seems.

From an early age I discovered that things work out better when I pray about them.  I know there is no way to scientifically verify this finding, but I am certain that prayer works for me.  And I know that it is much more effective to ask for God's help in advance, rather than asking Him to sort things out after the event.  The power of prayer is available to everyone, and the essential ingredient to make it work is faith.

[torridon]

From an early age I discovered that things work out better when I pray about them.  I know there is no way to scientifically verify this finding, but I am certain that prayer works for me.  And I know that it is much more effective to ask for God's help in advance, rather than asking Him to sort things out after the event.  The power of prayer is available to everyone, and the essential ingredient to make it work is faith.

So why don't you start praying for fatalities amongst the boat migrants in the Med to be reduced, or eliminated. We can all watch the figures, and if they start to reduce from the day you start praying for them then we'd have some hard evidence to base a statistical analysis on, rather than just your assertions.

[Gordon]

I disagree that ''nobody is saying all arguments for God are bad''.

Which isn't what I said: you've added 'for God', and in doing so changed the context of what I said.

You yourself reckon there are no good arguments for God.

Haven't seen one as yet but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

[Alan Burns]

I see zero evidence of rationality, logic and critical thinking in anything you've ever posted. Your constant and continued use of just about every logical fallacy going confirms this.

I use rationality, logic and critical thinking and have concluded that the case(s) advanced for the existence of gods are a lamentable crock that supposed grown adults ought to be utterly embarrassed to advance as serious arguments. Where does that leave us?
Why do you think that's different to the other things listed?

My posts are based on logic, but it seems that some people do not fully understand the logic behind them.  For example whenever I mention the word "improbable" or "impossible" I immediately get accused of personal incredulity.  But there is logic behind my conclusions.  I do not have the time and space to fully describe my logic in detail, but I would have hoped that my posts could give food for thought for those who genuinely search for God. 

[BeRational]

My posts are based on logic, but it seems that some people do not fully understand the logic behind them.  For example whenever I mention the word "improbable" or "impossible" I immediately get accused of personal incredulity.  But there is logic behind my conclusions.  I do not have the time and space to fully describe my logic in detail, but I would have hoped that my posts could give food for thought for those who genuinely search for God.

There is no such thing as 'your logic'. There is just logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

you've added 'for God', 

Haven't seen one as yet but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

I added for God because that was the context in which we are working.
I have seen arguments that work for God and I've seen arguments which work for atheism, however it would be simplistic to exclude ''the weight'' of argument.

[Shaker]

My posts are based on logic, but it seems that some people do not fully understand the logic behind them.

Perhaps it's just your man-made opinion that it's logic you're using. There's no show of logic in someone who writes: "The power of prayer is available to everyone, and the essential ingredient to make it work is faith."

For example whenever I mention the word "improbable" or "impossible" I immediately get accused of personal incredulity.  But there is logic behind my conclusions.  I do not have the time and space to fully describe my logic in detail

Perhaps if you found the time and space it might help get across whatever you think your points are?

but I would have hoped that my posts could give food for thought for those who genuinely search for God.

And yet again the question arises which to you is like kryptonite to Superman given your repeated dodging of it: how do you think that that's going, generally speaking?

[Rhiannon]

My posts are based on logic, but it seems that some people do not fully understand the logic behind them.  For example whenever I mention the word "improbable" or "impossible" I immediately get accused of personal incredulity.  But there is logic behind my conclusions.  I do not have the time and space to fully describe my logic in detail, but I would have hoped that my posts could give food for thought for those who genuinely search for God.

So to you it is logical that all your life you get the goodies while other people (believers
and non believers) don't. Including those who pray.

Explain this please.

[Shaker]

Perhaps he doesn't have the time and space.

[torridon]

My posts are based on logic, but it seems that some people do not fully understand the logic behind them.  For example whenever I mention the word "improbable" or "impossible" I immediately get accused of personal incredulity.  But there is logic behind my conclusions.  I do not have the time and space to fully describe my logic in detail, but I would have hoped that my posts could give food for thought for those who genuinely search for God.

After 19000 posts you still haven't found the space and time to describe your logic     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So to you it is logical that all your life you get the goodies while other people (believers
and non believers) don't. Including those who pray.

Explain this please.

I can't believe you are being so simplistic about this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

From an early age I discovered that things work out better when I pray about them.  I know there is no way to scientifically verify this finding, but I am certain that prayer works for me.  And I know that it is much more effective to ask for God's help in advance, rather than asking Him to sort things out after the event.  The power of prayer is available to everyone, and the essential ingredient to make it work is faith.

You didn’t “discover” that – you just think it’s true. To discover it you’d need to demonstrate that prayed for events happen with a greater frequency than would anyway be the case.

Not only have you not proposed a means to do that, you seem to have no interest in doing so – presumably because the answer would disconfirm your bias.

My posts are based on logic…

No, they’re based on illogic. You've broken pretty much every rule of logic when you've attempt to argue for something.

…, but it seems that some people do not fully understand the logic behind them.

No, some of us just understand better than you do when an argument is a false one. If you seriously think there to be robust reasoning “behind them” and you want people to take that claim seriously, then you need to stop making the same mistakes over and over again and (finally) to present the better thinking you claim to have.

For example whenever I mention the word "improbable" or "impossible" I immediately get accused of personal incredulity.  But there is logic behind my conclusions.

That’s because you construct your argument along the lines of, “I cannot imagine a natural cause for X, therefore God”, which is what the argument from personal incredulity entails. Stop doing it and you won't be accused of it.

I do not have the time and space to fully describe my logic in detail…

That’s a lie. If you have the time to make very bad arguments, you could instead use that time to make better ones. There doesn’t need to be “detail” – just some logic that isn’t obviously broken.

…but I would have hoped that my posts could give food for thought for those who genuinely search for God.

They might do, but only if those people too fail to understand the difference between a false argument and a cogent one. If that’s your target audience, then knock yourself out (unless of course it includes children). If on the other hand you want to persuade those possessed of a functioning intellect though, then you need to find some arguments that aren’t wrong.

Good luck with it though. 

[Nearly Sane]

I can't believe you are being so simplistic about this.

I can't believe you were so evasive there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, they’re based on illogic. You've broken pretty much every rule of logic when you've attempt to argue for something.

Hyperbole.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

I added for God because that was the context in which we are working.

Then you shouldn't have put it in quotation marks as if you were responding to something he'd actually said.

I have seen arguments that work for God...

Then why have you kept them a secret if you expected anyone to take the claim seriously?

...and I've seen arguments which work for atheism...

Not difficult that, but OK...

...however it would be simplistic to exclude ''the weight'' of argument.

That's not how logic works - it's not a popularity contest. Even if you had 999,999,999 bad arguments for something and one robust one, the robust one would carry the day.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Hyperbole.

Did you have anything to say to the point that was actually being made?

[Nearly Sane]

Hyperbole.

So in your opinion it's only most of the rules of logic that AB has broken?

[floo]

From an early age I discovered that things work out better when I pray about them.  I know there is no way to scientifically verify this finding, but I am certain that prayer works for me.  And I know that it is much more effective to ask for God's help in advance, rather than asking Him to sort things out after the event.  The power of prayer is available to everyone, and the essential ingredient to make it work is faith.

If it works for you, fine. The mind is an incredible organ and can be very convincing when one wishes to believe something is true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So in your opinion it's only most of the rules of logic that AB has broken!

1: religionethics must be a byword for disregard of the rules of logic.
2: Most of the posters on it are not Christian.

[Shaker]

1: religionethics must be a byword for disregard of the rules of logic.

Sounds like a positive assertion in need of evidence, to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If it works for you, fine. The mind is an incredible organ and can be very convincing when one wishes to believe something is true.

I'm always touched when antitheists go on about how deluded and incompetent the brain is at reality but never extend this to themselves.

[Shaker]

I'm always touched when antitheists go on about how deluded and incompetent the brain is at reality but never extend this to themselves.

Well at least some "antitheists" tend to favour things like rationality, critical thinking, scepticism and logic and so forth ... the sort of things which, while not perfect (which nobody claims anyway) help us to be able to tell when thinking is wonky.

[Nearly Sane]

1: religionethics must be a byword for disregard of the rules of logic.
2: Most of the posters on it are not Christian.

What has that to do with a post talking about AB having broken pretty much all the rules of logic that you called hyperbole? If saying AB has broken mist of them is hyperbole, then you are taking a position on AB. So how many of the rules of logic do you think AB has broken? Which ones? And what ones has he not broken so that bluehillside's statement can be classed as hyperbole?