Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

But instead of just labelling "fallacy" and implying job done, it would be more constructive to offer alternative arguments and reasoning.

Don't be silly: pointing out the fallacies you've committed is the only reasonable response to, er, your fallacious arguments. 

[Sebastian Toe]

But instead of just labelling "fallacy" and implying job done, it would be more constructive to offer alternative arguments and reasoning.

They have.
So instead of you just ignoring those and only retorting with futile fallacy fests. Maybe you should offer constructive arguements.
Thats actual arguements.

[Sebastian Toe]

...and actual reasoning.

[Alan Burns]

That's fine, but you aren't justifying or backing that suggestion with anything. I could, with absolutely equal validity, suggest that these profound human attributes are the work of time-travelling humans from the future, and we're just a recursive paradox doomed to have to complete an infinitely futile time-loop.

Simply presuming that there's an intended purpose or meaning doesn't mean that there is, let alone whether or not rational enquiry could deduce it.

O.

Like many replies I get, there is an attempt to invalidate my reasoning on a particular point by trying to ridicule it using some arbitrary fictitious subject,  but the points I make can be compared to individual pieces of the jigsaw which, when put together, make sense of the whole reality of our existence.  It is comparatively easy to pick on a piece of this jigsaw and claim that on its own it makes no sense.  But putting them all together they fit well enough to offer substantial evidence for the spiritual nature of human beings and the existence of God.   We have the existence of human free will, conscience, self awareness, miracles, witness stories, answers to prayer, four independently written gospels, highly improbable sequences of events to create life, the human tendency to search for God, incredibly precise conditions needed for the creation of stars an galaxies. Each of these points (and more) can be argued with individually, but putting them all together shows how they can validate the Christian faith in a way which is more difficult to ridicule as a whole.

[floo]

Like many replies I get, there is an attempt to invalidate my reasoning on a particular point by trying to ridicule it using some arbitrary fictitious subject,  but the points I make can be compared to individual pieces of the jigsaw which, when put together, make sense of the whole reality of our existence.  It is comparatively easy to pick on a piece of this jigsaw and claim that on its own it makes no sense. But putting them all together they fit well enough to offer substantial evidence for the spiritual nature of human beings and the existence of God.   We have the existence of human free will, conscience, self awareness, miracles, witness stories, answers to prayer, four independently written gospels, highly improbable sequences of events to create life, the human tendency to search for God, incredibly precise conditions needed for the creation of stars an galaxies. Each of these points (and more) can be argued with individually, but putting them all together shows how they can validate the Christian faith in a way which is more difficult to ridicule as a whole.

You might think it offers substantial evidence, but most of us don't see it your way.

[Gordon]

Like many replies I get, there is an attempt to invalidate my reasoning on a particular point by trying to ridicule it using some arbitrary fictitious subject,  but the points I make can be compared to individual pieces of the jigsaw which, when put together, make sense of the whole reality of our existence.  It is comparatively easy to pick on a piece of this jigsaw and claim that on its own it makes no sense.  But putting them all together they fit well enough to offer substantial evidence for the spiritual nature of human beings and the existence of God.   We have the existence of human free will, conscience, self awareness, miracles, witness stories, answers to prayer, four independently written gospels, highly improbable sequences of events to create life, the human tendency to search for God, incredibly precise conditions needed for the creation of stars an galaxies. Each of these points (and more) can be argued with individually, but putting them all together shows how they can validate the Christian faith in a way which is more difficult to ridicule as a whole.

Actually, Alan, it is very easy to ridicule the Christian faith on the basis of the various fallacious elements in your above post, and in most of your previous ones. Aggregating various fallacious arguments like this doesn't make the core claim any less fallacious: quite the opposite.

[Walter]

Like many replies I get, there is an attempt to invalidate my reasoning on a particular point by trying to ridicule it using some arbitrary fictitious subject,  but the points I make can be compared to individual pieces of the jigsaw which, when put together, make sense of the whole reality of our existence.  It is comparatively easy to pick on a piece of this jigsaw and claim that on its own it makes no sense.  But putting them all together they fit well enough to offer substantial evidence for the spiritual nature of human beings and the existence of God.   We have the existence of human free will, conscience, self awareness, miracles, witness stories, answers to prayer, four independently written gospels, highly improbable sequences of events to create life, the human tendency to search for God, incredibly precise conditions needed for the creation of stars an galaxies. Each of these points (and more) can be argued with individually, but putting them all together shows how they can validate the Christian faith in a way which is more difficult to ridicule as a whole.

Alan

some people here like to reply with well thought out intellectual arguments in long sentences in an attempt to say what I'm going to say in a few short words ;
You talk fucking bollocks.

[Outrider]

Like many replies I get, there is an attempt to invalidate my reasoning on a particular point by trying to ridicule it using some arbitrary fictitious subject,

You've not supplied any reasoning, you've just made blanket declarations of faith.

...but the points I make can be compared to individual pieces of the jigsaw which, when put together, make sense of the whole reality of our existence.

The various pieces of the Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit and The Silmarrilion (sp?), when put together, hold up with a sense of internal logic, but that doesn't mean they're real.

It is comparatively easy to pick on a piece of this jigsaw and claim that on its own it makes no sense.

Then you have a problem with your rationale.

But putting them all together they fit well enough to offer substantial evidence for the spiritual nature of human beings and the existence of God.

No, they don't. They define a possibility, a conjecture, but there's still no justification for accepting that premise and not any of the other unevidenced conjectures. Why that 'spirituality' and not, say, Hinduism, which has an equally historic, prestigious, widely-followed and internally consistent set of justifications and explanations, and an absolutely equal dearth of evidentiary support.

We have the existence of human free will,

No, we have the claim of it, and no logical explanation by which it can possibly exist

conscience, self-awareness

Which doesn't require any concept of 'spirituality' to accept

miracles

which, by definition, are events for which we don't have enough evidence to explain; as 'evidence' for something spiritual they are an argument from ignorance predicated on 'you can't explain it therefore (my understanding of) god'

witness stories

which suffers from any number of flaws, not least of which is the well-established fact that eye-witness testimony is highly unreliable, especially as time after the purported events increases

answers to prayer

none of which appear to happen for, say, amputees? Only for people with otherwise curable or potentially self-limiting conditions. How many unanswered prayers do there need to be before 'answered prayers' just becomes natural variation in an immense data set, cherry-picked by selection bias?

four independently written gospels

Two (possibly) independently written gospels, and two others heavily based on those, all of which contradict each other, all of which were written by unknown people claiming to have been eye-witnesses to events decades before their writing, which have subsequently been edited before being deliberately selected from a broader range of even more inter-contradictory accounts, and subsequently edited again by vested interests before being poetically and selectively interpreted through at least two languages.

highly improbable sequences of events to create life

We have no idea how improbable it is, because a) we don't know the exact requirements and b) we don't know how many chances there are out there

the human tendency to search for God

easily explained as apophenia, a manifestation of the demonstrable survival trait of pattern recognition shading into perceiving meaning in otherwise random events

incredibly precise conditions needed for the creation of stars an galaxies

incredibly precise conditions for those particular manifestations - who is to say that with a different physics we wouldn't get different stars? How many different universes are there for those 'incredibly precise' conditions to randomly emerge? Is there any possibility of the conditions being different?

Each of these points (and more) can be argued with individually, but putting them all together shows how they can validate the Christian faith in a way which is more difficult to ridicule as a whole.

It's only more difficult because it's more laborious, it's not as though you have a 'strong link' somewhere to hang the rest from, it's a house of cards. You have nothing that isn't either an argument from ignorance or begging a question. Why the Christian version (and WHICH Christian version) and not Scientology's, or Buddhism's, or Norse? Why posit non-natural explanations for phenomena in the first place?

O.

[Shaker]

But instead of just labelling "fallacy" and implying job done, it would be more constructive to offer alternative arguments and reasoning.

Strictly speaking this isn't actually necessary.

As it happens alternative arguments and reasoning (not 'alternative' reasoning - just reasoning, full stop) are regularly put forward. These are the things you ignore and fail utterly to grapple with.

Nevertheless, it is sufficient to demonstrate that your reasoning isn't (i.e. is fallacious) and your arguments defective. Since by your own admission your only reason for being here is to proselytise your belief system, that really is, as you say, job done.

[Maeght]

Like many replies I get, there is an attempt to invalidate my reasoning on a particular point by trying to ridicule it using some arbitrary fictitious subject,  but the points I make can be compared to individual pieces of the jigsaw which, when put together, make sense of the whole reality of our existence.  It is comparatively easy to pick on a piece of this jigsaw and claim that on its own it makes no sense.  But putting them all together they fit well enough to offer substantial evidence for the spiritual nature of human beings and the existence of God.   We have the existence of human free will, conscience, self awareness, miracles, witness stories, answers to prayer, four independently written gospels, highly improbable sequences of events to create life, the human tendency to search for God, incredibly precise conditions needed for the creation of stars an galaxies. Each of these points (and more) can be argued with individually, but putting them all together shows how they can validate the Christian faith in a way which is more difficult to ridicule as a whole.

Its really not since many of your jigsaw pieces are themselves unproven beliefs not facts.

[Shaker]

Oh goody: fresh meat. Eyes down:

Like many replies I get, there is an attempt to invalidate my reasoning on a particular point by trying to ridicule it using some arbitrary fictitious subject,  but the points I make can be compared to individual pieces of the jigsaw which, when put together, make sense of the whole reality of our existence.  It is comparatively easy to pick on a piece of this jigsaw and claim that on its own it makes no sense.  But putting them all together they fit well enough to offer substantial evidence for the spiritual nature of human beings and the existence of God.   We have the existence of human free will

An article of belief, not an issue of demonstrated fact. That humans possess free will is a belief you hold because you want it to be true, not a fact you have demonstrated (and one looking ever more shaky as time goes by).

conscience

Fully explicable by evolutionary theory.

self awareness

Defined as the property of brains sufficiently complex that their model of the world includes themselves.

miracles

Unsupported and unevidenced religious belief, not fact.

witness stories

Unsupported and unevidenced religious belief, not fact, and an egregiously obnoxious example given your slippery and evasive response to those who probe the sketchy details of the alleged witness stories you've come out with in the past.

answers to prayer

Fallacious reasoning - observational selection/confirmation bias, aka counting the 'hits' and quietly (and conveniently) ignoring the 'misses'.

four independently written gospels

Unsupported and unevidenced religious belief, not fact.

highly improbable sequences of events to create life

Argument from incredulity.

the human tendency to search for God

Hyperactive agency detection; emotional need; fallacious reasoning.

incredibly precise conditions needed for the creation of stars an galaxies.

Weak anthropic principle. Without the stars there would be no humans to argue for the significance of stars, so they cannot be used to draw any conclusions about the existence of stars.

Each of these points (and more) can be argued with individually, but putting them all together shows how they can validate the Christian faith in a way which is more difficult to ridicule as a whole.

On the contrary; it ridicules itself, more than ably assisted by its votaries, as you demonstrate on a near-daily basis.

Anything else?

[Alan Burns]

Oh goody: fresh meat. Eyes down:
An article of belief, not an issue of demonstrated fact. That humans possess free will is a belief you hold because you want it to be true, not a fact you have demonstrated (and one looking ever more shaky as time goes by).

Fully explicable by evolutionary theory.
Defined as the property of brains sufficiently complex that their model of the world includes themselves.

Unsupported and unevidenced religious belief, not fact.

Unsupported and unevidenced religious belief, not fact, and an egregiously obnoxious example given your slippery and evasive response to those who probe the sketchy details of the alleged witness stories you've come out with in the past.

Fallacious reasoning - observational selection, aka counting the 'hits' and quietly (and conveniently) ignoring the 'misses'.

Unsupported and unevidenced religious belief, not fact.
Argument from incredulity.

Hyperactive agency detection; emotional need; fallacious reasoning.

Weak anthropic principle. Without the stars there would be no humans to argue for the significance of stars, so they cannot be used to draw any conclusions about the existence of stars.
On the contrary; it ridicules itself, more than ably assisted by its votaries, as you demonstrate on a near-daily basis.

Anything else?

As I implied in my post, it is relatively easy to offer counter arguments for each piece of the jigsaw individually, but they all point to the probability of our spiritual nature and God's existence.  None of these pieces can be totally dismissed by your arguments, so for those who claim no evidence of God - they are wrong.

[Maeght]

As I implied in my post, it is relatively easy to offer counter arguments for each piece of the jigsaw individually, but they all point to the probability of our spiritual nature and God's existence.  None of these pieces can be totally dismissed by your arguments, so for those who claim no evidence of God - they are wrong.

Nope. None of your unproven beliefs point to that and to claim that putting them together is evidence of anything other than your beliefs is wrong.

[Gordon]

As I implied in my post, it is relatively easy to offer counter arguments for each piece of the jigsaw individually, but they all point to the probability of our spiritual nature and God's existence.

You're kite-flying, Alan: all your various different arguments fail by being fallacious, which has been pointed out to you often: and an aggregation of them is no less fallacious than any one of them taken individually. I see you use the term 'probability' - how have you calculated this?

None of these pieces can be totally dismissed by your arguments, so for those who claim no evidence of God - they are wrong.

They can be effortlessly dismissed, Alan, since they have no merit - I think your position is, to use a well-known philosophical cliche, 'not even wrong'.

[Shaker]

As I implied in my post, it is relatively easy to offer counter arguments for each piece of the jigsaw individually, but they all point to the probability of our spiritual nature and God's existence.

No they don't. Moreover, this is merely repetition of an already incorrect point you've made before.

None of these pieces can be totally dismissed by your arguments, so for those who claim no evidence of God - they are wrong.

Unfortunately for you, Colin the Giant Invisible Lobster can't be totally dismissed either. (See also: leprechauns, bluehillside).

If this seems utterly ridiculous to you, welcome to the world of those of us who have to listen to your no less ridiculous pronouncements.

You make a distinction for those things you have an emotional need (based on childhood inculcation) to believe in.

We don't.

In addition, it's of absolutely no surprise to me that - clearly unable to help yourself - you've committed the fallacy of composition in suggesting that since individual arguments can't be dismissed (in your mind, although in actuality they can and have been) those arguments in aggregate are sound. Wrong.

So it goes.

[wigginhall]

Outrider wrote:

Why posit non-natural explanations for phenomena in the first place?

Very good question.  Creationists will try and kid you that they have assessed the quality of natural explanations, and found them wanting.  They haven't.   This is fake news.   You can see this by the frequent use of 'probability', without any backup material as to how this probability was calculated.    It wasn't. 

In fact, they are working backwards.  They are desperate to denigrate natural explanations, so that supernatural ones are favoured.    Only problem is that their fakery is so transparent.

[Shaker]

Aha - the old wedge strategy, if I recall correctly.

[Sebastian Toe]

As I implied in my post, it is relatively easy to offer counter arguments for each piece of the jigsaw individually, but they all point to the probability of our spiritual nature and God's existence.  None of these pieces can be totally dismissed by your arguments, so for those who claim no evidence of God - they are wrong.

The trouble is Alan, your jigsaw is, as far as I can determine an original base picture of a nice cake.
You have then taken every piece and stripped the original print from it. Then you have written on it, in thick felt tip pen...GOD.
Now you run around showing it to everyone you can think of, proclaiming - "It's all true, look I have the proof"

[ippy]

Alan:


BURT'S TEA POT!

Ippy

[torridon]

Outrider wrote:

Very good question.  Creationists will try and kid you that they have assessed the quality of natural explanations, and found them wanting.  They haven't.   This is fake news.   You can see this by the frequent use of 'probability', without any backup material as to how this probability was calculated.    It wasn't. 

In fact, they are working backwards.  They are desperate to denigrate natural explanations, so that supernatural ones are favoured.    Only problem is that their fakery is so transparent.

Don't be ridiculous, that's like claiming that Noah's flood never happened, when in reality every tom, dick and harry on the planet has seen the evidence for it - rainbows.

[Alan Burns]

From Sassy's opening post:

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.

It is apparent that no matter what evidence is put forward to confirm God's existence, some people will use their God given human intelligence to find fault with it.  The irony is that some of these people are in denial that they have the freedom to do this and claim it is all done within the sub conscious activity of the human brain.   

[Shaker]

From Sassy's opening post:It is apparent that no matter what evidence is put forward to confirm God's existence, some people will use their God given human intelligence to find fault with it.  The irony is that some of these people are in denial that they have the freedom to do this and claim it is all done within the sub conscious activity of the human brain.   

No; that's not the irony at all.

The irony is that your cognitive processes are so addled that you can't function without some sort of logical fallacy. Consider the whopping begging the question/circular argument/petitio principii in the example above. You won't even know what this means and why it's a fallacy, and moreover you don't care.

It appears that you can't put fingers to keys without displaying one form of illogic or another.

A sad case.

[floo]

From Sassy's opening post:It is apparent that no matter what evidence is put forward to confirm God's existence, some people will use their God given human intelligence to find fault with it.  The irony is that some of these people are in denial that they have the freedom to do this and claim it is all done within the sub conscious activity of the human brain.   

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, that is the problem. 

[torridon]

From Sassy's opening post:It is apparent that no matter what evidence is put forward to confirm God's existence, some people will use their God given human intelligence to find fault with it.  The irony is that some of these people are in denial that they have the freedom to do this and claim it is all done within the sub conscious activity of the human brain.   

There isn't any evidence for gods though.  If there were any, theology would be a branch of science already.

[Alan Burns]

It appears that you can't put fingers to keys without displaying one form of illogic or another.

I can't put my fingers to keys without demonstrating my God given freedom to do so.