Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

Everything in a sense just is. But the position of Dawkins and Bertrand where one stops one's gallop at explaining things at the creation or otherwise of the universe is fundamentally flawed since it reeks of special pleading, humbug and ''move along now, nothing to see here''.

Again my position is everything in a sense Just is or more to the point ''is''...but some things are because of something else.

This is merely repetition. Bluey stated that you place the end of your regress with an uncaused and unevidenced 'thing'; you've merely reiterated that, not denied it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is merely repetition. Bluey stated that you place the end of your regress with an uncaused and unevidenced 'thing'; you've merely reiterated that, not denied it.

No I merely worked on the idea that no system seems to be explicable wholly on it's own terms which is what reductionists try to do I also pointed out that the greatest reductionists minds actually want people not to investigate the causation or otherwise of the universe.

And the context was science describing the concept of meaning.

But if you are accusing me of suggesting that there are things that are caused and a thing that is uncaused.........on balance I would plead guilty as charged.

[Shaker]

No I merely worked on the idea that no system seems to be explicable wholly on it's own terms which is what reductionists try to do I also pointed out that the greatest reductionists minds actually want people not to investigate the causation or otherwise of the universe.

Startlingly ignorant. A great many people investigate the causation or otherwise of the universe; they're called cosmologists. The idea that there's some sort of prohibition on people doing so is one of the more bizarre examples of your already bizarre paranoid ideas.

But if you are accusing me of suggesting that there are things that are caused and things that are uncaused.........on balance I would plead guilty as charged.

Well, yes, we know. But it's good of you to fess up anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A great many people investigate the causation or otherwise of the universe; they're called cosmologists.

Then they are expressly going against the inclinations of ''The masters'' Russell and Dawkins.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, yes, we know. But it's good of you to fess up anyway.

You said that as though it was a bad thing....

[Shaker]

Then they are expressly going against the inclinations of ''The masters'' Russell and Dawkins.

1. I doubt that very much. Certainly, given your rap sheet of misinterpreting and misrepresenting the views of others for your own ends, I wouldn't accept your say so without evidence.

2. So? Dawkins is an ethologist/biologist and Russell a logician and philosopher.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1. I doubt that very much. Certainly, given your rap sheet of misinterpreting and misrepresentation the views of others for your own ends, I wouldn't accept your say so without evidence.

1:I don't give a shit whether you do or don't.

2: I will provide evidence at my own leisure.

[Shaker]

Capital. Look forward to it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Capital. Look forward to it.

Famous Russell quote from his debates with Copplestone

"The universe is just here, and that's all."

[Sebastian Toe]

Famous Russell quote from his debates with Copplestone

Do you mean F C Copleston?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Everything in a sense just is. But the position of Dawkins and Bertrand where one stops one's gallop at explaining things at the creation or otherwise of the universe is fundamentally flawed since it reeks of special pleading, humbug and ''move along now, nothing to see here''.

No idea why you’ve grouped those two together, and no it doesn’t – rather Russell was just saying, “Just is as far as our knowledge takes us”. He was making no comment about what knowledge there may or may not be in future.

No I merely worked on the idea that no system seems to be explicable wholly on it's own terms which is what reductionists try to do…

Again, that’s not what “reductionism” entails so why keep pretending otherwise?

…I also pointed out that the greatest reductionists minds actually want people not to investigate the causation or otherwise of the universe.

That’s not “pointing out” anything – it’s just asserting something that's not true. Why on earth would you pretend otherwise?

And the context was science describing the concept of meaning.

But if you are accusing me of suggesting that there are things that are caused and a thing that is uncaused.........on balance I would plead guilty as charged.

Then why repeat your special pleading, and why while we're at it would you assume that the cause and effect we see within the universe would also be necessary for there to be a universe?

Then they are expressly going against the inclinations of ''The masters'' Russell and Dawkins.

1. They’re not anyone’s “masters”.

2. They’re not going against the inclinations of anything. That the universe appears to be “just is” absent a better explanation tells you nothing about what answers there might be, not about whether we should look for those answers.

2: I will provide evidence at my own leisure.

After all these years of point blank being unwilling or unable to do so you’ll forgive me I hope if I don’t hold my breath about that.

Famous Russell quote from his debates with Copplestone

"The universe is just here, and that's all."

Famous Vlad argument on this mb:

“God is just here, and that's all”.

How do you think that helps explain anything exactly?

[floo]

1:I don't give a shit whether you do or don't.

2: I will provide evidence at my own leisure.

That will be the day, as you haven't any!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

That will be the day, as you haven't any!

To be fair it's technically possible that he has only he really, really wants to keep it a secret – so much so in fact that the price of looking all slippery and evasive whenever he's asked to produce it is one he thinks to be worth paying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

No idea why you’ve grouped those two together, and no it doesn’t – rather Russell was just saying, “Just is as far as our knowledge takes us”. He was making no comment about what knowledge there may or may not be in future.

Again, that’s not what “reductionism” entails so why keep pretending otherwise?

That’s not “pointing out” anything – it’s just asserting something that's not true. Why on earth would you pretend otherwise?

Then why repeat your special pleading, and why while we're at it would you assume that the cause and effect we see within the universe would also be necessary for there to be a universe?

1. They’re not anyone’s “masters”.

2. They’re not going against the inclinations of anything. That the universe appears to be “just is” absent a better explanation tells you nothing about what answers there might be, not about whether we should look for those answers.

After all these years of point blank being unwilling or unable to do so you’ll forgive me I hope if I don’t hold my breath about that.

Famous Vlad argument on this mb:

“God is just here, and that's all”.

How do you think that helps explain anything exactly?

You appear to be having another argument with a Vlad of the imagination now.

Shaker wanted an example of Russell's belief that asking questions about the providence of the universe was impertinent and he got the first instalment.................and as the master would have said..........."and that's all".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

You appear to be having another argument with a Vlad of the imagination now.

No, I was just responding to what you actually said.

Your should try it.

Shaker wanted an example of Russell's belief that asking questions about the providence of the universe and he got the first instalment.................and as the master would have said..........."and that's all".

As you've made these mistakes already, had them corrected, and now repeated them I see little point in correcting you again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

To Bluehillside......The above quote is a positive assertion so please justify.
To the rest of humanity........Go off and make a cup of tea, Start a dynasty, commence see through and retire from a career, start a civilisation,see it flourish, decline and give way to another, build a dyson  sphere, discover a planet send generational ships to colonise it, evolve into beings of pure consciousness then transcend the end of the universe"..............................while you're waiting.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

To Bluehillside......The above quote is a positive assertion so please justify.

Seriously? Can you think of a post you've ever attempted that isn't irrational?

Seriously seriously though?

To the rest of humanity........Go off and make a cup of tea, Start a dynasty, commence see through and retire from a career, start a civilisation,see it flourish, decline and give way to another, build a dyson  sphere, discover a planet send generational ships to colonise it, evolve into beings of pure consciousness then transcend the end of the universe"..............................while you're waiting.

NURSE! HE'S LOST IT AGAIN!!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Seriously? Can you think of a post you've ever attempted that isn't irrational?

Seriously seriously though?

NURSE! HE'S LOST IT AGAIN!!!

So I've got Shaker saying I've never had it and Hillside saying that I've lost it ....and not just the once either.

Any chance of making your minds up boys?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrational,

So I've got Shaker saying I've never had it and Hillside saying that I've lost it ....and not just the once either.

Any chance of making your minds up boys?

Happy for you to pick either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrational,

Happy for you to pick either.

You were always good at accepting the equal validity of completely opposing ideas.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrational,

You were always good at accepting the equal validity of completely opposing ideas.

You need to look up the meaning of "opposing". Whether you self identify as permanently irrational or as intermittently irrational is not something with which I concern myself. Either is fine by me. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrational,

You need to look up the meaning of "opposing". Whether you self identify as permanently irrational or as intermittently irrational is not something with which I concern myself. Either is fine by me.

If the end of the line is where your track ran out we are now ten miles up the disused branch line where the old trackbed has had an industrial estate built on it.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#21612

NS,

The theme of why AB continually ignores questions - you know, the issue you keep asking him about.

AB keeps on being accused of this - incorrectly in my opinion!

If this were really the case, I would have thought that one option is to ask one question and if you feel that it is isn't answered, leave things alone and move on.

Perhaps the real problem is that illustrated in your #21608

It would be easy to accuse AB of dishonesty (indeed I’ve done so I the past) but I wonder if he’s not just blind to arguments that undo him.

After all this time, you still don't get it, do you?

Arguments that you claim undo him are arguments that he sees as wrong, and illustrates why. Claiming the proverbial moral high ground doesn't make your arguments right. Truth doesn't become truth because bluehillside claims that it is truth. You argue from your perspective, he argues from his and until you can demonstrate that your perspective is categorically right and his is categorically wrong, i'll look forward to another 865 pages of this thread, all of which may well happen because some here do not want Alan Burns to have the last word!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rubber Spatula of Unreason,

AB keeps on being accused of this - incorrectly in my opinion!

It’s not a matter of opinion. Just read the questions he’s actually asked, then read his (non-)answers.

QED

If this were really the case, I would have thought that one option is to ask one question and if you feel that it is isn't answered, leave things alone and move on.

Except when he keeps trying the same fallacies he must expect to receive the same questions and rebuttals in response. Surely the better option would be for him at least to try to engage with rather than just ignore the arguments that undo him wouldn’t you say?

Perhaps the real problem is that illustrated in your #21608
Quote
It would be easy to accuse AB of dishonesty (indeed I’ve done so I the past) but I wonder if he’s not just blind to arguments that undo him.
After all this time, you still don't get it, do you?

Arguments that you claim undo him are arguments that he sees as wrong, and illustrates why.

No he doesn’t – he just ignores them. Look at the argument from personal incredulity problem I pointed out a few posts back for example and that, sure enough, he just ignored.

Claiming the proverbial moral high ground doesn't make your arguments right.

Can you find an example of that, or is it just a straw man?

Truth doesn't become truth because bluehillside claims that it is truth.

“Truth” is itself a probabilistic concept, and bluehillside has never claimed any such thing in any case. Rather what bluehillside actually does do it to use logic that’s more cogent and robust than the logic (or more likely assertions) attempted so far to demonstrate “God”, “soul” etc. That’s why identifying logical fallacies matters – fallacious arguments are always wrong arguments, and once the fallacy has been identified then the argument on which it rests collapses.

You argue from your perspective, he argues from his and until you can demonstrate that your perspective is categorically right and his is categorically wrong, i'll look forward to another 865 pages of this thread, all of which may well happen because some here do not want Alan Burns to have the last word!

You’re still not getting it – perspective is one thing, but logic is another. When the logic used to argue from any perspective is broken, then it’s broken. Just ignoring that doesn’t somehow change it.

[torridon]

This is still a bit of a paeon to faith in technology and in the human spirit of discovery. It also rings hollow given that one of reductionists greatest thinkers and Bertrand Russell are, at base satisfied that the universe just is. I'm talking about their reluctance to prize open the greatest black box of all. How or whether the universe came about.

I don't see there are limits to human curiosity, rather that there may be limits to what is achievable in practical terms and we may have to accept that we will never know everything.  That's not comfortable perhaps, but it is realistic.