Searching for GOD...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You want me to go back to find the times he’s said he has evidence (and lots of it apparently)?. Do it yourself!

No I want you to justify your claim that he claims he has objective evidence. But that's fine if you don't want to.

Yes, that is indeed what the “evidence” would entail if ever he could produce any.

No - there is testimony that can be challenged but can't be tested for objective truth. But the testimony can still be taken as evidence.

Certainly – it began in 27428 and you repeated it several times thereafter.

I had a look and couldn't spot the word "forensics". What is it that you think I said involving forensics?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Like I said, I took "evidence" to mean experience and testimony, which is a form of evidence but one that isn't in the category of objective evidence.

Very good. So would you agree then that it has nothing to say to claims of objective fact about the world?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

No I want you to justify your claim that he claims he has objective evidence. But that's fine if you don't want to.

It’s not a disputed issue. He’s claimed it a lot, and no doubt he’ll claim it again. If I can be bothered I’ll trawl through to find the last time he did it, but he has done it – and several times too.

No - there is testimony that can be challenged but can't be tested for objective truth. But the testimony can still be taken as evidence.

Not as evidence for objective truths about the world it can’t. He claims to have it, but fails to grasp that to be evidence at all (as opposed to testimony, opinion etc) it would have to be investigable and testable. 

I had a look and couldn't spot the word "forensics". What is it that you think I said involving forensics?

“My understanding is that there is an established legal principle that testimony under oath can be accepted as evidence (with a penalty for perjury if it is later proved that a person lied under oath).

Apart from legal situations…”

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

“In which Vladdo still keeps pretending that there is an "argument from ridicule" when there’s no such thing. An argument from ridicule would go something like:

1. Leprechauns are like god.

2. Leprechauns are ridiculous.

3. Therefore god is ridiculous.

It’s not an argument anyone has made, but that’s never been an obstacle to Vlad’s infatuation with the straw man.”

Ok, let's adapt this to your usual strategy.

1. Any argument for God can equally be applied to leprechauns.

2. The arguments when applied to leprechauns are bad/fallacious/ ...

3. Therefore the arguments for God are bad/fallacious ...

Who decides the arguments are bad? Bluehillside. No confirmation bias there then!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

AB,

Not when the “evidence” (ie, the validating argument) is the same it’s not. And that’s your problem remember?

But it’s not a comparison of god with leprechauns at all, as I keep explaining to you and you keep ignoring. What it actually is is a comparison of the arguments you attempt to demonstrate this supposed “god” with the same arguments when they're used to demonstrate leprechauns. You know, the bit that would get you to that “if” at the beginning of your sentence if only it didn't keep collapsing in a heap.

And in order for you to assert this, you have to first demonstrate that the comparison of arguments is valid, namely that there is a common frame of reference. You cannot do this without doing what I have seen you accusing Vlad of elsewhere, namely assuming the conclusion to demonstrate the conclusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SoTS,

Oh blimey, he's back...

Ok, let's adapt this to your usual strategy.

1. Any argument for God can equally be applied to leprechauns.

2. The arguments when applied to leprechauns are bad/fallacious/ ...

3. Therefore the arguments for God are bad/fallacious ...

Who decides the arguments are bad? Bluehillside. No confirmation bias there then!

As I corrected you on this same mistake a while back only for you to disappear (again), can you think of a good reason for me to correct you again?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SoTS,

And in order for you to assert this, you have to first demonstrate that the comparison of arguments is valid, namely that there is a common frame of reference. You cannot do this without doing what I have seen you accusing Vlad of elsewhere, namely assuming the conclusion to demonstrate the conclusion.

See my previous reply to you.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Gabriella,
The problem isn’t that you can’t have objective evidence, it’s that you can’t have any evidence at all. Evidence itself is a naturalistic  concept, so absent an alternative method of testing the claim all we have is white noise. Whether that white noise happens to be “God” or “leprechauns” doesn’t for this purpose matter much.   

Which, of course is not true.

For those in a relationship, where is the objective evidence that your partner loves you? Love may be demonstrated in action, but one could not (if they chose to) rule out ulterior motives. Therefore there is no way to prove objectively that love exists. Does that mean that the concept of love does not exist?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Gabriella,

Yes but none of them are then used to validate objective facts about the world - "god is" for example. That's the point.

It's an odd idea when you think about it - jut get rid of all those research labs and stuff and invite people to give their "testimony", then decide the true facts about the world are determined by the most persuasive testimony. Job done!

The odd idea is whatever led you to post this latest demonstration of your utter ignorance of what religious belief entails.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Alan tests the antitheism around here since they will not fully state their beliefs preferring to hide behind science etc, unknowing, which although is unforgivable in a theist becomes a noble thing in an antitheist.Goddodging.

Indeed. The No God of the gaps strategy is strong round here, isn't it?

[Gordon]

Which, of course is not true.

For those in a relationship, where is the objective evidence that your partner loves you? Love may be demonstrated in action, but one could not (if they chose to) rule out ulterior motives. Therefore there is no way to prove objectively that love exists. Does that mean that the concept of love does not exist?

'Love' is a subjective experience: if it was objective we could measure it in some way - do you have a love-meter to hand?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

Which, of course is not true.

For those in a relationship, where is the objective evidence that your partner loves you? Love may be demonstrated in action, but one could not (if they chose to) rule out ulterior motives. Therefore there is no way to prove objectively that love exists. Does that mean that the concept of love does not exist?

Category error.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Gabriella,

Yes. But as his claim is that it is an objective fact, that’s all that’s necessary. 

Then you haven’t read anything he’s posted. He’s claimed (multiple times in fact) to have evidence and logic for his beliefs being objective facts about the world – ie, they are “proveable”.

In which bluehillside Retd. wrongly assumes that evidence leads to proof.

That he has neither evidence nor logic (or at least none that he’s prepared to present here) is a different matter.

In which bluehillside makes an incorrect accusation. Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it. You have made it clear on numerous occasions that only that which can be tested using the scientific method counts. Therefore the premise at the start is that there is a natural explanation for that evidence. No confirmation bias there then ...

You’re the one who introduced forensics into the conversation (a category error) but in any case he clearly does think that these things in some way mean we should privilege his beliefs as describing objective facts about the world. Why he thinks that is anyone’s guess, but that’s what he thinks nonetheless.

In which bluehillside again fails to appreciate that whereas his faith lies in arguments against God, Alan's faith does not lie in arguments for God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SoTS,

The odd idea is whatever led you to post this latest demonstration of your utter ignorance of what religious belief entails.

Courtier's reply fallacy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SoTS,

Indeed. The No God of the gaps strategy is strong round here, isn't it?

Straw man.

[Gordon]

The odd idea is whatever led you to post this latest demonstration of your utter ignorance of what religious belief entails.

I can't speak for BHS but I suspect it may have something to do with the fallacious arguments offered by such as yourself (which include arguments from ignorance). For example: this post of yours is a superb example of the 'Courtier's Reply'.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

But the great mistake is to suggest that it therefore isn't. How would you know?

It is scientifically unfalsifiable..........and that's it. That's all you have. The Outer limit and twilight zone of atheism thank you and good night.

Careful Private Frazer Asking the likes of bluehillside to back up their position will inevitably lead to you being accused of invoking the negative proof fallacy.

Hang on a minute ...

[bluehillside Retd.]

SoTS,

In which bluehillside Retd. wrongly assumes that evidence leads to proof.

Quote
That he has neither evidence nor logic (or at least none that he’s prepared to present here) is a different matter.
In which bluehillside makes an incorrect accusation. Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it. You have made it clear on numerous occasions that only that which can be tested using the scientific method counts. Therefore the premise at the start is that there is a natural explanation for that evidence. No confirmation bias there then ...

Quote
You’re the one who introduced forensics into the conversation (a category error) but in any case he clearly does think that these things in some way mean we should privilege his beliefs as describing objective facts about the world. Why he thinks that is anyone’s guess, but that’s what he thinks nonetheless.
In which bluehillside again fails to appreciate that whereas his faith lies in arguments against God, Alan's faith does not lie in arguments for God.

Wrong in every detail. As you'll just disappear again if I correct you though, why should I bother?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SoTS,

Careful Private Frazer Asking the likes of bluehillside to back up their position will inevitably lead to you being accused of invoking the negative proof fallacy.

Hang on a minute ...

But only when it is the negative proof fallacy.

Seems fair enough to me.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

It is scientifically unfalsifiable..........and that's it. That's all you have. The Outer limit and twilight zone of atheism thank you and good night.

Yep, definitely QED there. An unfalsifiable hypothesis claiming the truth of its position, thereby implying that contradictory viewpoints/arguments are false by default, yet continuing to ask for evidence to support the opposing position.

One could scarcely ask for a better demonstration of where the faith of the atheist lies ...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,

And orbiting teapots.

Still, it's been a while since he's tried the negative proof fallacy so that's some relief at least.

Stating that God is scientifically unfalsifiable is not the negative proof fallacy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SoTS,

Yep, definitely QED there. An unfalsifiable hypothesis claiming the truth of its position, thereby implying that contradictory viewpoints/arguments are false by default, yet continuing to ask for evidence to support the opposing position.

One could scarcely ask for a better demonstration of where the faith of the atheist lies ...

Still here? Well that's a record of some kind I suppose.

Let me know if you ever feel like manning up and actually replying to a rebuttal of your hopelessness.

[Gordon]

In which bluehillside Retd. wrongly assumes that evidence leads to proof.

Ah - 'proof' eh! Comes with risks you know (or you don't).

In which bluehillside makes an incorrect accusation. Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it.

No it doesn't: I have a view that the world would be a better place if we banned mayonnaise (and related noxious substances) - but this says nothing about beliefs in religious superstitions.

You have made it clear on numerous occasions that only that which can be tested using the scientific method counts. Therefore the premise at the start is that there is a natural explanation for that evidence. No confirmation bias there then ...

I suspect you don't understand either naturalism or confirmation bias.

In which bluehillside again fails to appreciate that whereas his faith lies in arguments against God, Alan's faith does not lie in arguments for God.

It is the arguments for 'God' that are the problem: but I suspect that is another aspect that escapes you.

[Gordon]

Careful Private Frazer Asking the likes of bluehillside to back up their position will inevitably lead to you being accused of invoking the negative proof fallacy.

Hang on a minute ...

Sword and Vlad: the Laurel and Hardy of R&E (nice messes guaranteed).

[SusanDoris]

I was just about to turn off the computer, when I noticed sotS had appeared again, so of course, I am hanging on a bit longer; (a) because I do like to read the responses, and (b) because I find it interesting to watch SotS tie himself in knots ... an he does it with such a superciious air!

I note also that the sensible responses are in abbreviated form, as SotS will no doubt disappear again soon, probably feeling that he has bestowed upon us his superior learning.