Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

The current wave of antitheism has had it thanks to, among others, NDG Tyson.

    

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is obvious Vlad, is that this is an explicitly naturalistic piece of speculation that you are desperate to connect to the idea of a god.

It connects itself, Stranger.

It excludes itself from naturalism by obviously proposing an intelligent creator of the universe. That is the giant elephant in your room.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you care so little about what your 'god' actually is, I guess you could extend the term to include (for example) groups of mortal beings, who may well be amoral or even evil, rather than good, by our standards - but I very much doubt many of your fellow theists would agree.

You have no control of what the intelligent creator could be once you suggest it. In fact we can see you shoehorning the idea to what fits your philosophy.

Making the intelligent creator in your own image is a typical New Atheist conceit. The link between New Atheism, skepticism and the gaming community being apparent.

The money though must be on technologies, ways of being, even dimensions etc, which are unlike our own.

[Stranger]

Vlad, by all means keep digging if you want but I'm not going to go through it all yet again and your desperate straw clutching is blindingly obvious...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, by all means keep digging if you want but I'm not going to go through it all yet again and your desperate straw clutching is blindingly obvious...

No need to straw clutch old boy since you are making all the arguments for the intelligent creator and then shoehorning it into atheism. 

[Stranger]

No need to straw clutch old boy since you are making all the arguments for the intelligent creator...

And now you're resorting to dishonesty.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And now you're resorting to dishonesty.   

Ad Hominem.

I've no need to resort to anything since you have made the case for an intelligent creator of the universe.

Shoehorning that creator into naturalism  (The horse has already bolted)
Appealing to a caricature theology,
etc.......is all incidental.

[Stranger]

Ad Hominem.

No (something else you don't understand) - I was pointing out that you are misrepresenting my position.

I've no need to resort to anything since you have made the case for an intelligent creator of the universe.

Now you've done it again! I have not made any case for any intelligent creator of the universe.

As for the rest of it: keep digging.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Having found the truth, I cannot possibly close the door on that truth.

Unless you have access to every possible bit of data in the universe, you have no basis to claim absolute certainty about anything. How otherwise would you know for sure that there isn’t some piece of information that would turn your beliefs on their head?

And if you insist nonetheless that your beliefs are absolutely, certainly true then by definition your mind is closed to the possibility that they might not be.

QED 

If you had a truly open mind yourself, you would surely realise the possibility (and probability) of God's existence, but from what I read of your posts and some others on this forum, the door which allows God into your life has been firmly closed.

That’s untrue and it sneaks in a cheat claim. First your many, “I’m only trying to open to the door to you accepting the possibility of God” assertions continue to be misplaced (and actually untrue in any case as what you’re actually here to do is to proselytise). No-one that I know of denies the possibility of anything - your god, my leprechauns, anything at all (I'm ignoring here by the way your foundational problem of incoherence). Your problem though (and now your cheat) is throwing in that “probability” when you have neither argument nor logic to validate it. How would you even go about calculating this supposed probability in any case?   

And please don't start equating God with leprechauns again!p

Do I really have to explain this to you again? Really? I don’t “equate God with leprechauns” at all – the claims made about each vary widely. What I actually do though is equate the arguments attempted for “God” with the arguments attempted for leprechauns when they're the same arguments. Pick any of the various logical fallacies on which you depend –  the argumentum ad consequentiam, the argument from personal incredulity, god of the gaps, post hoc ergo propter hoc, any of them. It really doesn’t matter which. Now consider that I could use the identical argument to argue for leprechauns with equal facility. 

So what does that tell you? It tells you one of two things. Either:

A. The argument is sound so both God and leprechauns exist; or

B. The argument cannot be sound so should be abandoned as a demonstration of either claim.

Or, as bluehillside’s fourth maxim has it: If an argument for “God” works just as well for leprechauns, then it’s probably a bad argument.

Why is this so difficult for you?

And again, my mind is open to the possibility of being wrong; yours isn’t. Why then are you so proud of having a closed mind?

[bluehillside Retd.]

It excludes itself from naturalism by obviously proposing an intelligent creator of the universe. That is the giant elephant in your room.

One of several problems with near-pathological lying must be trying (and failing) to remember the lies you've told. Needless to say, NdGT did not conjectire an intelligent creator of the universe at all. Vlad knows this (because it's been explained several times to him with the exact quote copied and pasted to boot) yet still he continues to lie about what NdGT said.

It's very odd.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

And now you're resorting to dishonesty.   

Vlad? Dishonest? Say it ain't so...!

Oh, hang on though...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Unless you have access to every possible bit of data in the universe, you have no basis to claim absolute certainty about anything. How otherwise would you know for sure that there isn’t some piece of information that would turn your beliefs on their head?

And if you insist nonetheless that your beliefs are absolutely, certainly true then by definition your mind is closed to the possibility that they might not be.

QED 

That’s untrue and it sneaks in a cheat claim. First your many, “I’m only trying to open to the door to you accepting the possibility of God” assertions continue to be misplaced (and actually untrue in any case as what you’re actually here to do is to proselytise). No-one that I know of denies the possibility of anything - your god, my leprechauns, anything at all (I'm ignoring here by the way your foundational problem of incoherence). Your problem though (and now your cheat) is throwing in that “probability” when you have neither argument nor logic to validate it. How would you even go about calculating this supposed probability in any case?   

Do I really have to explain this to you again? Really? I don’t “equate God with leprechauns” at all – the claims made about each vary widely. What I actually do though is equate the arguments attempted for “God” with the arguments attempted for leprechauns when they're the same arguments. Pick any of the various logical fallacies on which you depend –  the argumentum ad consequentiam, the argument from personal incredulity, god of the gaps, post hoc ergo propter hoc, any of them. It really doesn’t matter which. Now consider that I could use the identical argument to argue for leprechauns with equal facility. 

So what does that tell you? It tells you one of two things. Either:

A. The argument is sound so both God and leprechauns exist; or

B. The argument cannot be sound so should be abandoned as a demonstration of either claim.

Or, as bluehillside’s fourth maxim has it: If an argument for “God” works just as well for leprechauns, then it’s probably a bad argument.

Why is this so difficult for you?

And again, my mind is open to the possibility of being wrong; yours isn’t. Why then are you so proud of having a closed mind?

Let me put it this way,

You stand a far better chance of convincing me that Leprechauns exist than you do of convincing me that God does not exist, or that God does not need to exist.

[SusanDoris]

Let me put it this way,

You stand a far better chance of convincing me that Leprechauns exist than you do of convincing me that God does not exist, or that God does not need to exist.

It doesn't matter which way you put it, your cloyingly saccharine assertions and views are drivel.

[torridon]

Let me put it this way,

You stand a far better chance of convincing me that Leprechauns exist than you do of convincing me that God does not exist, or that God does not need to exist.

Telling us you are convinced cuts no ice with people that value evidence and reason as a guide to truth.  In fact, the opposite, it provides a cautionary tale of how it seems that some humans can just selectively switch off their critical thinking skills

[floo]

Let me put it this way,

You stand a far better chance of convincing me that Leprechauns exist than you do of convincing me that God does not exist, or that God does not need to exist.

What do you mean by that?

[Stranger]

Let me put it this way,

You stand a far better chance of convincing me that Leprechauns exist than you do of convincing me that God does not exist, or that God does not need to exist.

So, once again, you're boasting about how closed-minded you are.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

Unless you have access to every possible bit of data in the universe, you have no basis to claim absolute certainty about anything. How otherwise would you know for sure that there isn’t some piece of information that would turn your beliefs on their head?

And if you insist nonetheless that your beliefs are absolutely, certainly true then by definition your mind is closed to the possibility that they might not be.

QED 

That’s untrue and it sneaks in a cheat claim. First your many, “I’m only trying to open to the door to you accepting the possibility of God” assertions continue to be misplaced (and actually untrue in any case as what you’re actually here to do is to proselytise). No-one that I know of denies the possibility of anything - your god, my leprechauns, anything at all (I'm ignoring here by the way your foundational problem of incoherence). Your problem though (and now your cheat) is throwing in that “probability” when you have neither argument nor logic to validate it. How would you even go about calculating this supposed probability in any case?   

Do I really have to explain this to you again? Really? I don’t “equate God with leprechauns” at all – the claims made about each vary widely. What I actually do though is equate the arguments attempted for “God” with the arguments attempted for leprechauns when they're the same arguments. Pick any of the various logical fallacies on which you depend –  the argumentum ad consequentiam, the argument from personal incredulity, god of the gaps, post hoc ergo propter hoc, any of them. It really doesn’t matter which. Now consider that I could use the identical argument to argue for leprechauns with equal facility. 

So what does that tell you? It tells you one of two things. Either:

A. The argument is sound so both God and leprechauns exist; or

B. The argument cannot be sound so should be abandoned as a demonstration of either claim.

Or, as bluehillside’s fourth maxim has it: If an argument for “God” works just as well for leprechauns, then it’s probably a bad argument.

Why is this so difficult for you?

And again, my mind is open to the possibility of being wrong; yours isn’t. Why then are you so proud of having a closed mind?

Ah, the Hillside method.
Introduce Leprechauns for a starter of argumentum ad ridiculum.
Reel off a list of logical fallacy for the main course
Slap hands together loudly wipe off dribble of Turdpolish coulis for afters with chef's apron.
Shout bish Bosh Job done triumphantly.

[BeRational]

Ah, the Hillside method.
Introduce Leprechauns for a starter of argumentum ad ridiculum.
Reel off a list of logical fallacy for the main course
Slap hands together loudly wipe off dribble of Turdpolish coulis for afters with chef's apron.
Shout bish Bosh Job done triumphantly.

It is job done, unless you can remove the fallacies from your argument. If you cannot, then job done.

[Alan Burns]

Telling us you are convinced cuts no ice with people that value evidence and reason as a guide to truth.  In fact, the opposite, it provides a cautionary tale of how it seems that some humans can just selectively switch off their critical thinking skills

But if the only evidence you accept as admissible is that derived from human scientific investigation, you will never discover the truth behind our existence.  God's existence does not contradict what science has discovered - it complements it by allowing us see the spiritual nature of ourselves, which is a reflection of God's spiritual nature.  And it allows us to see far beyond the limits of human scientific investigation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Let me put it this way,

You stand a far better chance of convincing me that Leprechauns exist than you do of convincing me that God does not exist, or that God does not need to exist.

Why would I let you put it that way as it’s just avoidance of what was said to you? I explained clearly:

1. That absolute epistemic certainty is impossible absent knowing every bit of data that could falsify you.

2. That claiming absolute certainty nonetheless confirms your closed-mindedness.

3. That you have no basis on which to calculate the probability of “God”.

4. That leprechauns are relevant not for comparison purposes with “God” but with the same arguments used to validate both leprechauns and “God”.

5. That you continue to be proud of your boast of closed-mindedness, as opposed to the approach of accepting at least the possibility that you could be wrong.

So why do you keep ducking and diving when these matters are put to you? Does your faith make you so slippery, or are you just that way anyway?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Ah, the Hillside method.
Introduce Leprechauns for a starter of argumentum ad ridiculum.
Reel off a list of logical fallacy for the main course
Slap hands together loudly wipe off dribble of Turdpolish coulis for afters with chef's apron.
Shout bish Bosh Job done triumphantly.

Vlad's lying is really getting out of hand now.

[Alan Burns]

What do you mean by that?

I was simply referring to the physical impossibility of anything coming into existence without God, who is the ultimate source of everything that exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But if the only evidence you accept as admissible is that derived from human scientific investigation, you will never discover the truth behind our existence.  God's existence does not contradict what science has discovered - it complements it by allowing us see the spiritual nature of ourselves, which is a reflection of God's spiritual nature.  And it allows us to see far beyond the limits of human scientific investigation.

Thank you for these statements of un-defined, unqualified, un-argued blind faith. Now then – did you actually have anything to say to the arguments that undo you?

[Alan Burns]

That leprechauns are relevant not for comparison purposes with “God” but with the same arguments used to validate both leprechauns and “God”.

How can you possibly compare arguments for leprechauns with arguments for the source of all creation?

[floo]

I was simply referring to the physical impossibility of anything coming into existence without God, who is the ultimate source of everything that exists.

That is just your opinion, I reckon if/when science works it out, no god will have been responsible for creating the universe. Besides which, who/what created god, if it is a physical impossibility for anything to exist without being created?