Searching for GOD...

[floo]

Bluehillside wrote earlier, quoting 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."

I think BHS is being far too literal-minded here. AB's statement is not a cool philosophical proposition, but a personal, emotional statement of faith.

I agree but he always states it as a fact, rather than just his own personal standpoint.

[Maeght]

I agree but he always states it as a fact, rather than just his own personal standpoint.

He's not the only one who does that though.

[floo]

He's not the only one who does that though.

I don't state things a fact unless there is verifiable evidence, of which there is none in regard to claims that god exists.

[SteveH]

I agree but he always states it as a fact, rather than just his own personal standpoint.

I think his meaning is clear.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Bluehillside wrote earlier, quoting Alan Burns,

"AB,
Quote
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."

I think BHS is being far too literal-minded here. AB's statement is not a cool philosophical proposition, but a personal, emotional statement of faith.

Doesn’t work. If AB pitched up and said, “this is a personal belief I happen to have and here’s why”  - ie, he was indeed making “a personal, emotional statement of faith” as you put it, then you’d have a point. Some of us might think, “well you’re fooling yourself then” but that’s all. What he actually does though is proselytise – he insists that his personal, subjective beliefs are also general, objective statements of fact for the rest of us too. And when he does that of course it’s legitimate to investigate the claim, and to dismantle it when it rests on false arguments. 

And AB’s problem with that is that false arguments and statements of blind faith are all he brings to the table.

[Stranger]

I think BHS is being far too literal-minded here. AB's statement is not a cool philosophical proposition, but a personal, emotional statement of faith.

Well of course it is - but try getting AB to admit that that is all he has to support his views. He keeps telling us about evidence and logic but ends up just posting fallacies, baseless assertions, and making statements of personal faith.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Steve H,

Doesn’t work. If AB pitched up and said, “this is a personal belief I happen to have and here’s why”  - ie, he was indeed making “a personal, emotional statement of faith” as you put it, then you’d have a point. Some of us might think, “well you’re fooling yourself then” but that’s all. What he actually does though is proselytise – he insists that his personal, subjective beliefs are also general, objective statements of fact for the rest of us too. And when he does that of course it’s legitimate to investigate the claim, and to dismantle it when it rests on false arguments. 

And AB’s problem with that is that false arguments and statements of blind faith are all he brings to the table.

I think it's legitimate to investigate the claim.

Given language is used and understood differently by different people, I don't think AB needs to word it any particular way for it to be understood as a personal statement of faith by some posters. It depends on who is reading and interpreting his statements as to how they perceive his words. There is no objective, testable evidence so to me it reads as his personal, subjective truth and beliefs regardless of how much he wants it to be objectively true for everyone.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I think it's legitimate to investigate the claim.

Given language is used and understood differently by different people, I don't think AB needs to word it any particular way for it to be understood as a personal statement of faith by some posters. It depends on who is reading and interpreting his statements as to how they perceive his words. There is no objective, testable evidence so to me it reads as his personal, subjective truth and beliefs regardless of how much he wants it to be objectively true for everyone.

Well yes, but it's not just that he wants it to be "objectively true for everyone" but rather that he insists that it actually is objectively true for everyone.

And the problem with that is that, when he tries to explain why anyone should accept his claims he always collapses into logical incoherence.

[floo]

I think his meaning is clear.

Really?

[bluehillside Retd.]

And just by way of a coda Steve H, if he has no intention of discussing anything and just wants to give us his "personal, emotional statement of faith" then he should be doing it in the faith sharing area for those who like that kind of thing to enjoy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And just by way of a coda Steve H, if he has no intention of discussing anything and just wants to give us his "personal, emotional statement of faith" then he should be doing it in the faith sharing area for those who like that kind of thing to enjoy.

My impression is that he doesn't seem to mind his claims being challenged - it probably isn't pleasant but not exactly unexpected so if he's still here, with no objective evidence, maybe it's more meaningful to him to evangelise on this board.

ETA: Also, this thread has become part of the furniture - it would be kind of fun if it did not end until the board closes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science extends our ability to investigate; it does not limit it.  If there is something there that we cannot detect using science, then it probably isn't there.  This is why we do science.

Isn't where?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

My impression is that he doesn't seem to mind his claims being challenged - it probably isn't pleasant but not exactly unexpected so if he's still here, with no objective evidence, maybe it's more meaningful to him to evangelise on this board.

It’s not so much that he doesn’t mind, but rather that he tries to rebut the falsifications of his arguments with even more bad arguments as if that in some way validates his initial claims. Look at the recent exchanges here for examples of it. 

What would be more honest would be for him to say something like, “OK, I have no good arguments to validate my claims but I choose to assert them nonetheless because it’s important to me that I do”. He could do that unchallenged to his heart’s content over in the faith sharing area if he wanted to, but when he tries it here he must expect to have his efforts detonated every time.

[Alan Burns]

So within the space of a couple of posts you are making contradictory claims.  On the one hand, we cannot detect any evidence for god because of the limitations of our native senses, even when extended by 'man made contraptions'.

And then bang, all of a sudden, very next post, there is 'overwhelming evidence' for god.

You need to make you mind up and stop playing word games with people.  If there is overwhelming evidence, then it would already be in the scientific literature, and theology would be subsumed as another branch of science, a subdivision of cosmology perhaps.

As it is, it is not a branch of science because there isn't any evidence in support of it.

As I inferred earlier, the overwhelming evidence will not be found in investigating the minutia of material entities.  There is more, far, far more to reality than human scientific investigation will ever discover.

[BeRational]

As I inferred earlier, the overwhelming evidence will not be found in investigating the minutia of material entities.  There is more, far, far more to reality than human scientific investigation will ever discover.

So how do you know its true then?

You just like it, and feel that its true.

The clue is that lots of people feel the same way for lots of other gods.

Do you accept their overwhelming evidence as well, or do you ignore them, as their fairy tale does not match yours?

I am sure there is far more to reality than we have discovered, or perhaps ever will, but just making stuff up is not a good way to find out what is real.

[floo]

As I inferred earlier, the overwhelming evidence will not be found in investigating the minutia of material entities.  There is more, far, far more to reality than human scientific investigation will ever discover.

You have no overwhelming evidence if it can't be substantiated by human scientific investigation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I inferred...

You mean "implied", not "inferred"...

...earlier, the overwhelming evidence will not be found in investigating the minutia of material entities.

Then unless you can come up with a new method of investigation and testing, it's not "evidence" at all - just opinion and anecdote.

There is more, far, far more to reality than human scientific investigation will ever discover.

That may or may not be true. Your problem though is that, absent "human scientific investigation" you have no method of any kind to establish whether you ever have "discovered" something rather than just guessed at it.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Deep breath...

Yes you can WHEN THEY'RE THE SAME ARGUMENTS!

A bad argument doesn't suddenly become a good one becasue you happen to like the outcome, and vice versa. The argument stands of falls on its merits - if you want to use an argument for "God" you cannot deny the IDENTICAL argument for a different outcome, leprechauns included. Either the argument is valid for both, or it's valid for neither - anything else is just special pleading.

You really struggle with this don't you.   

But they are not the same arguments.

I find no evidence for worship of leprechauns in all the major civilisations in this world.
People have not presented any substantial evidence for miracles brought about by the intercession of leprechauns.
I do not see any major works of art inspired by true belief in leprechauns.
Nor are there dedicated works of amazing architecture designated for the use of worshipping leprechauns.
I know of no one who has had to sacrifice their life for belief in leprechauns.
I do not see any leprechaun inspired works of literature which offer meaning and purpose to our lives on this earth.
Nor do I see four independent accounts of the life of a leprechaun who sacrificed himself to save the souls of all mankind.
And is there any leprechaun who can claim to have lived most of his life in obscurity, was executed for blasphemy, yet became the most famous person who ever lived?

[Stranger]

As I inferred earlier, the overwhelming evidence will not be found in investigating the minutia of material entities.

So where is this evidence?

There is more, far, far more to reality than human scientific investigation will ever discover.

Possibly, but that tells us exactly nothing about the existence of your favourite deity.

[BeRational]

But they are not the same arguments.

I find no evidence for worship of leprechauns in all the major civilisations in this world.
People have not presented any substantial evidence for miracles brought about by the intercession of leprechauns.
I do not see any major works of art inspired by true belief in leprechauns.
Nor are there dedicated works of amazing architecture designated for the use of worshipping leprechauns.
I know of no one who has had to sacrifice their life for belief in leprechauns.
I do not see any leprechaun inspired works of literature which offer meaning and purpose to our lives on this earth.
Nor do I see four independent accounts of the life of a leprechaun who sacrificed himself to save the souls of all mankind.
And is there any leprechaun who can claim to have lived most of his life in obscurity, was executed for blasphemy, yet became the most famous person who ever lived?

You mean John Lennon?

Do you see other religion offering similar reasons for following their particular gods?

You have just latched onto the one you like, and then retro fit the reasons to believe.

Why not believe in all the other gods that other people do. They can easily list their reasons as you have in favour of their god(s).

So how do I tell which if any of you are correct?

[Gordon]

But they are not the same arguments.

I find no evidence for worship of leprechauns in all the major civilisations in this world.
People have not presented any substantial evidence for miracles brought about by the intercession of leprechauns.
I do not see any major works of art inspired by true belief in leprechauns.
Nor are there dedicated works of amazing architecture designated for the use of worshipping leprechauns.
I know of no one who has had to sacrifice their life for belief in leprechauns.
I do not see any leprechaun inspired works of literature which offer meaning and purpose to our lives on this earth.
Nor do I see four independent accounts of the life of a leprechaun who sacrificed himself to save the souls of all mankind.
And is there any leprechaun who can claim to have lived most of his life in obscurity, was executed for blasphemy, yet became the most famous person who ever lived?

There is so much wrong with this, Alan, that I can't be bothered to point it all out to you: and in any event I'd just be repeating what has been said to you many times by several here to the extent that you should by now be able, on re-reading your post, to spot your own mistakes.

[torridon]

As I inferred earlier, the overwhelming evidence will not be found in investigating the minutia of material entities.  There is more, far, far more to reality than human scientific investigation will ever discover.

Science doesn't confine itself to minutiae, it looks at all scales, have you never heard of cosmology ?

Sure we haven't discovered all there is to know, but that is why we are still doing the science. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But they are not the same arguments.

Yes they are. Look, I’ll show you.

I find no evidence for worship of leprechauns in all the major civilisations in this world.

That’s just the argumentum ad populum again. If I identified lots of people who did believe in leprechauns would that make them true too? Why not?

And while we’re here, your faith was once a small cult too – does that mean that the bigger ones were then true and yours was then false? Why not?

Oh, and just to put the last nail in that particular coffin more people believe in different gods than believe in your god in any case. Does that mean that your god must also be false because it’s the minority belief position? Why not?

People have not presented any substantial evidence for miracles brought about by the intercession of leprechauns.

And nor have they presented substantial evidence for miracles brought about by the intercession of “God”. If you want to drop the evidence bar so low that it lets in miracle stories about “God” though, then you have no choice but to set it equally low for leprechauns. In which case I give you pots of gold at the ends or rainbows.   

I do not see any major works of art inspired by true belief in leprechauns.

Then you’re not looking hard enough - there are plenty of cultural references to leprechauns. If you’re asserting that in some unknown way more of them for one faith belief somehow validates the claim though then you’ve fallen into a weird sort of aesthetic ad pop. 

Nor are there dedicated works of amazing architecture designated for the use of worshipping leprechauns.

See above. Again, if you think that the fact of lots of buildings in some unknown way has anything to do with the truth of the proposition then I give you mosques and temples. There was also a time when there were no building put up to worship your good too, but plenty of them for the Roman gods remember? Try looking up "survivor bias" to see where you've gone wrong.     

I know of no one who has had to sacrifice their life for belief in leprechauns.

But you do know of lots of people who have sacrificed their lives for faith beliefs other than your own, and besides this is supposed to be a comparison of the arguments made for the epistemic truth of the two claims. Since when has “lots of people have died for their belief in god(s), therefore those gods are real” been an argument? 

I do not see any leprechaun inspired works of literature which offer meaning and purpose to our lives on this earth.

Stop digging!

Nor do I see four independent accounts of the life of a leprechaun who sacrificed himself to save the souls of all mankind.

Nor are there four independent accounts for the life of Jesus etc and, even if there were, what would that tell you other than that a good story gets repeated?

And is there any leprechaun who can claim to have lived most of his life in obscurity, was executed for blasphemy, yet became the most famous person who ever lived?

Again, this is supposed to be a comparison of arguments. Since when has someone claiming these things been an argument that these things are true?

So having enjoyed your odd little diversion, let’s get back to arguments shall we? When you try any one of many available logical fallacies – the ad pop, survivor bias, the argumentum ad consequentiam, the argument from personal incredulity, the post hoc ergo propter hoc etc etc then either you think they’re sound regardless of whether you apply them to “God” or to leprechauns, or you think they’re sound for neither. Special pleading does not get you off that hook, regardless of how uncomfortable you find it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hillside in response to AB.

Quote
I find no evidence for worship of leprechauns in all the major civilisations in this world.


That’s just the argumentum ad populum again.

But is it? Is it not just a statement?

Doesn't it have to be ''I find no evidence for worship of leprechauns in all major civilisations in this world therefore God must exist?

You see why we must be suspicious of your statements Hillside. Just like dodgy terms such as 'approaching a fallacy; and shaking hands with a fallacy?''

[SusanDoris]

As I inferred earlier, the overwhelming evidence will not be found in investigating the minutia of material entities.  There is more, far, far more to reality than human scientific investigation will ever discover.

You did not infer, you implied; but since your  implications and inferences are all up the creek, I suppose it doesn't matter one way or the other. *usual deep sighs*

ETA I see bluehillside noted the infer/imply before me, or, as they say on IS, I have been ninja'd.