Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

HV,

Not consciously, therefore not dishonest.

So to be clear:

1. First you called me “thick”.

2. Then you accused me of dishonesty on no basis whatever.

3. Then you ignored again the explanation I gave you twice of why your “omnipotent but not really omnipotent” claim is wrong.

4. Now you say that you weren’t being dishonest because you weren’t “consciously” doing it, despite (presumably consciously) still ignoring the argument and going for an ad hominem ("determined to misunderstand") response instead.

What does all this say about you do you think?

Then why did you put "he" in inverted commas, implying I'd used the pronoun?

The “then” is a non sequitur – why I did it is still irrelevant to the issue you’re trying to divert us from.

If you want to start a discussion about the gendering of “God” though then do so, but I used inverted commas for “He” just to indicate that I don’t assign an agenda to the claim either.

So back to the issue you're trying to distract us from: should we conclude that you intend to continue to ignore the falsification of your claim about omnipotence?   

[Gordon]

Moderator:

I've removed two posts from the same member that consisted primarily of simplistic insults (and also two replies to these posts, since the replies quoted the removed posts).

Posts that consist mainly of provocative statements are always likely to be removed and members that do this persistently may well be suspended. 

[ippy]

Had they put there is no God such a claim would have had demands for justification.
This would have undermined the stealth aspect of Dawkins big antireligious project.

If one can say there is no God then they are perceiving the absence of something. Just like the absence of flying spaghetti monsters or Leprechauns.
What then is the God which is not there?

Simple answer Vlad, because of the complete lack of any relevant viable evidence to support this god idea of yours, there's no good reason to think there is any such thing as a god, a leprechaun or, come to that, a unicorn in the first place, so why would I or anyone else want to go looking for any one of them or look for an Agibedgar, I haven't seen an Agibedgar lately, not one.

Regards ippy. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Simple answer Vlad, because of the complete lack of any relevant viable evidence to support this god idea of yours, there's no good reason to think there is any such thing as a god, a leprechaun or, come to that, a unicorn in the first place, so why would I or anyone else want to go looking for any one of them or look for an Agibedgar, I haven't seen an Agibedgar lately, not one.

Regards ippy.

I would suggest then that there are issues you do not take very seriously for your own reasons and your actual knowledge of religion was as small as mine used to be. I suspect you are a bit of an apatheist attracted to the butch brash militant world of Richard Dawkins...........as we all are around here although I am afraid people like GK Chesterton CS Lewis and C Sagan have had a bigger effect on me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I would suggest then that there are issues you do not take very seriously for your own reasons and your actual knowledge of religion was as small as mine used to be. I suspect you are a bit of an apatheist attracted to the butch brash militant world of Richard Dawkins...........as we all are around here although I am afraid people like GK Chesterton CS Lewis and C Sagan have had a bigger effect on me.

Been a while since you tried the Courtier's Reply fallacy – "If only you could see as I do the fruits of theology, then..." etc. Just out of interest though, if you genuinely think that theology has an argument for the existence of "God" that isn't broken, why keep it such a secret?

[ippy]

I would suggest then that there are issues you do not take very seriously for your own reasons and your actual knowledge of religion was as small as mine used to be. I suspect you are a bit of an apatheist attracted to the butch brash militant world of Richard Dawkins...........as we all are around here although I am afraid people like GK Chesterton CS Lewis and C Sagan have had a bigger effect on me.

No none of that Vlad, I see no value in religion it looks pretty obvious to me it's a man made idea and as for the magical, mystical and its superstitional base, well come on, these things don't happen, perhaps in Harry Potter.

I'll give it some points for its social side, but then it looses all of them for me when it puts it's mucky hands around the very young filling their heads with nothing more than its usual nonsense and the religions haven't even got the decency to leave this particular age group alone at least until they are of an age where they've acquired the ability to challenge, see Vlad, again secularism a level playing field bring all of these life stances for later on for all of the very youngest of children.

The religious supporters of all kinds just can't wait to get their hands on the very youngest and most vulnerable children to start dinging in their dogmas.

Regards ippy       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Been a while since you tried the Courtier's Reply fallacy – "If only you could see as I do the fruits of theology, then..." etc. Just out of interest though, if you genuinely think that theology has an argument for the existence of "God" that isn't broken, why keep it such a secret?

The Myers shuffle you mean.
Having an alternative argument doesn't automatically mean alternative arguments are broken.Is broken even a technical word?
As I pointed out to you Evolution News which you introduced me to has critiqued the misunderstandings of evangelical atheists of the arguments.
So having poor philosophical basis New Atheism relies on slogans, celebrity and rant sites.

But I suppose EN are right when they support you and wrong when they don't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No none of that Vlad, I see no value in religion it looks pretty obvious to me it's a man made idea and as for the magical, mystical and its superstitional base, well come on, these things don't happen, perhaps in Harry Potter.

I'll give it some points for its social side, but then it looses all of them for me when it puts it's mucky hands around the very young filling their heads with nothing more than its usual nonsense and the religions haven't even got the decency to leave this particular age group alone at least until they are of an age where they've acquired the ability to challenge, see Vlad, again secularism a level playing field bring all of these life stances for later on for all of the very youngest of children.

The religious supporters of all kinds just can't wait to get their hands on the very youngest and most vulnerable children to start dinging in their dogmas.

Regards ippy     

No evidence of an increasingly secular society doing much for children since over a third are mow in poverty.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The Myers shuffle you mean.

No, it’s called “the Courtier's Reply”. If you want to re-name the fallacy you’re attempting that’s up to you but it’s still a fallacy either way.

Having an alternative argument doesn't automatically mean alternative arguments are broken.

No-one has suggested otherwise.

Is broken even a technical word?

Does it need to be? The meaning is plain enough I’d have thought Use “fallacious” if you like though.

As I pointed out to you Evolution News which you introduced me to has critiqued the misunderstandings of evangelical atheists of the arguments.

So? Are you suggesting the correct understanding of them means they’re logically cogent?

Which ones?

So having poor philosophical basis New Atheism relies on slogans, celebrity and rant sites.

That “so” is yet another non sequitur, and (apparently) not understanding all the arguments of theology tells you nothing about how good the “philosophical basis” of atheism (new or otherwise) might be.   

But I suppose EN are right when they support you and wrong when they don't.

Then, as ever, you suppose wrongly. EN says something about misunderstanding some of the arguments of theology. It says nothing whatever though about whether those arguments are logically sound.

That’s why I asked you what logically cogent arguments for “God” theology has, in reply to which you’ve been conspicuously silent.

Again, if you think there are any why keep them such a secret?   

[ippy]

No evidence of an increasingly secular society doing much for children since over a third are mow in poverty.

Vlad, what's that got to do with that previous post of mine?

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

Vlad, what's that got to do with that previous post of mine?

Vlad's posts very rarely have anything to do with the posts they're replying to. Nailing jelly to a wall comes to mind...

[Gordon]

Having an alternative argument doesn't automatically mean alternative arguments are broken.

Who has actually said this?

broken even a technical word?

Could be, as in describing something that has demonstrably failed (such as fallacious arguments).

As I pointed out to you Evolution News which you introduced me to has critiqued the misunderstandings of evangelical atheists of the arguments.

Have you posted a link, Vlad? If so I'll have a read and see if I come to the same conclusion as you and consider if what the EN says stands scrutiny.

So having poor philosophical basis New Atheism relies on slogans, celebrity and rant sites.

But I suppose EN are right when they support you and wrong when they don't.

Once I have a look at what EN says then then we can compare notes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, it’s called “the Courtier's Reply”. If you want to re-name the fallacy you’re attempting that’s up to you but it’s still a fallacy either way.

No-one has suggested otherwise.

Does it need to be? The meaning is plain enough I’d have thought Use “fallacious” if you like though.

So? Are you suggesting the correct understanding of them means they’re logically cogent?

Which ones?

That “so” is yet another non sequitur, and (apparently) not understanding all the arguments of theology tells you nothing about how good the “philosophical basis” of atheism (new or otherwise) might be.   

Then, as ever, you suppose wrongly. EN says something about misunderstanding some of the arguments of theology. It says nothing whatever though about whether those arguments are logically sound.

That’s why I asked you what logically cogent arguments for “God” theology has, in reply to which you’ve been conspicuously silent.

Again, if you think there are any why keep them such a secret?

And the courtiers reply is?
By cogent you mean?
By method you mean?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And the courtiers reply is?

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/

For an example see Reply 23928 (“I would suggest then that there are issues you do not take very seriously for your own reasons and your actual knowledge of religion was as small as mine used to be” etc).

By cogent you mean?

Clear and logically consistent.

By method you mean?

A systematic series of steps to investigate and validate claims of fact. Not guessing.

But then again, you knew all that already didn’t you.

Notice too what I did there - answer your questions. You know, the thing you will never, ever, ever do when people ask you questions.

Why is that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/

For an example see Reply 23928 (“I would suggest then that there are issues you do not take very seriously for your own reasons and your actual knowledge of religion was as small as mine used to be” etc).

Clear and logically consistent.

A systematic series of steps to investigate and validate claims of fact. Not guessing.

But then again, you knew all that already didn’t you.

Notice too what I did there - answer your questions. You know, the thing you will never, ever, ever do when people ask you questions.

Why is that?

And I suppose this reply will stand as cast iron proof that God has been disproved.
Myers. Once again someone else who is right when they are in agreement with you and wrong when they aren't.

Myers was refuted by Feser et al. The et al including the great Michael Ruse.

Clear and logically consistent. Please present something of yours that is.

What is your definition of morality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And I suppose this reply will stand as cast iron proof that God has been disproved.

Why would you even bother with such a bizarre straw man?

Myers. Once again someone else who is right when they are in agreement with you and wrong when they aren't.

There is no “once again” (you just lied about your previous claim) and the Courtier’s Reply is a sound argment regardless of who makes it. 

Myers was refuted by Feser et al. The et al including the great Michael Ruse.

So you claim. What then were those supposed refutations?

(PS You’re relying on Ruse of all people for support by the way? Ruse? Dear god man…)

Clear and logically consistent. Please present something of yours that is.

Everything I post. See everything you post for the opposite of that.

What is your definition of morality.

The same as it always is, and the same as I told it was just a few posts ago. (And what the fuck has that to do with anything here in any case?)

PS You're still silent on those supposed arguments in theology for "God" that are sound I see. Why is that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why would you even bother with such a bizarre straw man?

There is no “once again” (you just lied about your previous claim) and the Courtier’s Reply is a sound argment regardless of who makes it. 

So you claim. What then were those supposed refutations?

(PS You’re relying on Ruse of all people for support by the way? Ruse? Dear god man…)

Everything I post. See everything you post for the opposite of that.

The same as it always is, and the same as I told it was just a few posts ago. (And what the fuck has that to do with anything here in any case?)

PS You're still silent on those supposed arguments in theology for "God" that are sound I see. Why is that?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/richard-dawkins-humanists-religion-atheists
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-new-philistinism/

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/richard-dawkins-humanists-religion-atheists

I'm fairly sure this is the same particularly dimwitted piece by Ruse I dismantled para by para some time ago (either here or on the old BBC mb).

Did you have anything to say about the actual issues we were discussing though - the mysterious arguments from theology about the existence of "God" you seem to want to keep so secret for example?

Could it be (and I'll whisper here...) there aren't any?

Say it ain't so old mendacious dissembler, say it ain't so...

[Shaker]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/richard-dawkins-humanists-religion-atheists
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-new-philistinism/

Loves the Courtier's Reply, does Eddie.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I'm fairly sure this is the same particularly dimwitted piece by Ruse I dismantled para by para some time ago (either here or on the old BBC mb).

Did you have anything to say about the actual issues we were discussing though - the mysterious arguments from theology about the existence of "God" you seem to want to keep so secret for example?

Could it be (and I'll whisper here...) there aren't any?

Say it ain't so old mandacious dissembler, say it ain't so...

I don't know about your demolition of Ruse but I never saw your refutation of Feser indeed a three way debate earlier this year with Wigginhall saw you fail to grasp the argument although in a world where philosophical ignorance is a boon ignorance counts as refutation.
Other occasions of antitheist argument (slaughtering of ) have been that a creator outside of its universe has never been proposed by theology, the Krauss nothing, the scientism of new atheism and yourself. To which we can add shifting attitudes to whether outside the universe can be argued for I've left the daddy of them all to the end. The continued confusion of methodological whatever is missing and philosophical whatever is.

To which we can probably add atheism as default and the impossibility of moral arbitration in moral relativity. Amongst others.

[Sebastian Toe]

Myers was refuted by Feser et al. The et al including the great Michael Ruse.

What is your definition of morality.

I suppose we should refer to the great Mr Ruse on that one then......

https://tinyurl.com/ThisIsMorality

Any objections?

[Shaker]

Morality then is not something handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai. It is something forged in the struggle for existence and reproduction, something fashioned by natural selection. It is as much a natural human adaptation as our ears or noses or teeth or penises or vaginas. It works and it has no meaning over and above this [...]
Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down. Before long, we would find ourselves saying something like: "Well, morality is a jolly good thing from a personal point of view. When I am hungry or sick, I can rely on my fellow humans to help me. But really it is all bullshit, so when they need help I can and should avoid putting myself out. There is nothing there for me." The trouble is that everyone would start saying this, and so very quickly there would be no morality and society would collapse and each and every one of us would suffer.

So morality has to come across as something that is more than emotion. It has to appear to be objective, even though really it is subjective.

I'm betting Vlad didn't have that in mind when he decided to invoke Ruse for Team Jesus 

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm betting Vlad didn't have that in mind when he decided to invoke Ruse for Team Jesus 

..the great Ruse, please!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm betting Vlad didn't have that in mind when he decided to invoke Ruse for Team Jesus 

TeamJesus? Why should I be recruiting the atheist Dr Ruse for Team Jesus? No it is far more satisfying watching the New Atheism receiving a filleting from a philosophical collective of many stripes.

[Shaker]

TeamJesus? Why should I be recruiting the atheist Dr Ruse for Team Jesus? No it is far more satisfying watching the New Atheism receiving a filleting from a philosophical collective of many stripes.

Who do you consider to belong to this "philosophical collective"? Eddie "Courtly but Nice" Feser?