Searching for GOD...

[SteveH]

That's not ridiculous as it is correct.

The evidence for god and leprechauns is the same.

No, it isn't, because Leprechauns, if they existed, would be objects in the world, alongside all the other existing objects, whereas God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, and outside it. God does not merely exist; God enjoys a higher order of reality. You are making a basic category error, therefore.

[Maeght]

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 ...

Could you explain what atheists say, in your view, which reflects this please?

[torridon]

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?

Muddled thinking.

A thing is not the same as the concept of the thing.  You cannot have a piece of string that is infinitely long but that does not mean that the concept of infinity therefore does not exist.

I might not be able to prove that my partner loves me, but I can be fairly sure she exists; I can measure her with machines that have no agenda, and this is another area where the comparison between love and gods fails us.  The god claim is (usually) one of existence,   the existence of an ontologically distinct entity, and that implies we are entitled to ask for measureable evidence.

[Stranger]

That's not ridiculous as it is correct.

The evidence for god and leprechauns is the same.

No, it isn't, because Leprechauns, if they existed, would be objects in the world, alongside all the other existing objects, whereas God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, and outside it. God does not merely exist; God enjoys a higher order of reality. You are making a basic category error, therefore.

A category error is when "things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category" [my emphasis] or "a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property".

Where is the category error in pointing out that neither god nor leprechauns have any supporting evidence for their existence?

[Stranger]

I see SotS has paid us one of his flying visits in order to spam utter drivel and then run away.   

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 ...

Read: Burden of proof (philosophy). Then reflect on the fact that, as far as I know, nobody is claiming that there are definitely no gods - only that nobody has provided any good reasons to think that any of the many, many available actually exist.

[ippy]

No, it isn't, because Leprechauns, if they existed, would be objects in the world, alongside all the other existing objects, whereas God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, and outside it. God does not merely exist; God enjoys a higher order of reality. You are making a basic category error, therefore.

I can't see why, regardless of the things gods or leprechauns are supposed to be capable of, you're unable to see that the arguments for the existence of a gods or Leprechauns are both equally as valid, as likely to be true until one or the other of the two can find some form of definitive proof that one or the other of them do in fact, in reality exist, in effect they could represent two of Burt's teapots orbiting in tandem.

There is no, zero, viable evidence that would, if there were any, support the 'idea' of such a thing as a god, unless there's something you know about that hasn't been revealed to us yet.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can't see why, regardless of the things gods or leprechauns are supposed to be capable of, you're unable to see that the arguments for the existence of a gods or Leprechauns are both equally as valid, as likely to be true until one or the other of the two can find some form of definitive proof that one or the other of them do in fact, in reality exist, in effect they could represent two of Burt's teapots orbiting in tandem.

There is no, zero, viable evidence that would, if there were any, support the 'idea' of such a thing as a god, unless there's something you know about that hasn't been revealed to us yet.

Regards ippy

But you and the others are arguing from a view point of physicalism and some extra unevidenced assumptions namely that it is the default position and that it is the virtuous position to take...and this in the face of physicalism being unevidenced itself.

Oh and before anyone tries it, evidence of the physical is not evidence of physicalism.
Those who cling to physicalist principles on account of straying from them leads to some kind of disorder and indiscipline would I move probably be happier wearing a black uniform with knee length boots and Peaked cap .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it isn't, because Leprechauns, if they existed, would be objects in the world, alongside all the other existing objects, whereas God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, and outside it. God does not merely exist; God enjoys a higher order of reality. You are making a basic category error, therefore.


A category error is when "things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category" [my emphasis] or "a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property".

Where is the category error in pointing out that neither god nor leprechauns have any supporting evidence for their existence?

Man up and admit your appeal to ridicule.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

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

"Objective" as in something that is based on measurement that can be demonstrated to another person, rather than something that is influenced by personal feelings or interpretation? If you are referring to whether testimony about the existence of God or God's plans has nothing to say to claims of objective fact about the world, then how many times do I need to repeat myself before you grasp the point? I have been arguing this repeatedly on this thread and on the thread about faith schools - claims of God's existence are a belief or opinion. The supernatural can't be measured , which precludes it from being demonstrated to someone else as objective fact. This "objective fact" description is your claim. It may well be that some theists make the claim of objective fact but lots of theists don't. So if you make the assumption that a theist you come across would describe God as an objective fact that would be a mistake on your part. 

If you mean does religion have nothing to say to claims of objective fact about the world, I think there probably is some stuff in historical texts or religious teachings that could be backed up by science or surveys or archaeological finds. I certainly wouldn't rule it out, so no, I wouldn't make the claim that it had nothing to say to claims of objective fact about the world as I couldn't back up that claim with evidence.

That's more your department - making claims, generalisations and assumptions that you often can't or won't support with evidence.

[ippy]

But you and the others are arguing from a view point of physicalism and some extra unevidenced assumptions namely that it is the default position and that it is the virtuous position to take...and this in the face of physicalism being unevidenced itself.

Oh and before anyone tries it, evidence of the physical is not evidence of physicalism.
Those who cling to physicalist principles on account of straying from them leads to some kind of disorder and indiscipline would I move probably be happier wearing a black uniform with knee length boots and Peaked cap .

I can see rational logic must be a difficult obsticle for you to navigate your way around Vlad.

I've yet to see any reason to look for such a thing as a god in the first place, how much time do you spend looking for Zeus for example Vlad? Quite there's no valid reason to go looking for Zeus, ditto god or gods.

Regards ippy

[SteveH]

I came to this forum a non-realist Christian, as I've said before, believing that religion is a human activity which does not refer to anything outside itself, and which we should be involved in, if we are, without imagining that it does: in short that there is, objectively speaking, no God. However, the immature, adolescent sneering of most of the atheists here, and their pseudo-intellectualism, and the sustained campaign of sarcasm directed at me from one such in particular, which got me suspended for three months, is pissing me off so much that I'm heading back into a realist (though minimalist) version of Christianity out of sheer bloody-mindedness. Well done, atheists!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

It’s not a disputed issue.

Well that's clearly incorrect as I just asked you to provide evidence that AB makes claims about objective evidence - so it is a disputed issue until we settle it with some evidence.

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.

I will look forward to the evidence to support your claim.

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.

Testimony and personal experience can be evidence, just not objective evidence. Testimony is always open to challenge about it's accuracy, plausability, bias etc and then people make up their own minds about how plausible they think it is. When many theists talk about "evidence" they don't mean objective evidence as the supernatural can't be investigated or measured or tested.

“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…”

You are quoting me talking about testimony. Testimony is not necessarily forensics - I wasn't referring to forensics.

[ippy]

"Objective" as in something that is based on measurement that can be demonstrated to another person, rather than something that is influenced by personal feelings or interpretation? If you are referring to whether testimony about the existence of God or God's plans has nothing to say to claims of objective fact about the world, then how many times do I need to repeat myself before you grasp the point? I have been arguing this repeatedly on this thread and on the thread about faith schools - claims of God's existence are a belief or opinion. The supernatural can't be measured , which precludes it from being demonstrated to someone else as objective fact. This "objective fact" description is your claim. It may well be that some theists make the claim of objective fact but lots of theists don't. So if you make the assumption that a theist you come across would describe God as an objective fact that would be a mistake on your part. 

If you mean does religion have nothing to say to claims of objective fact about the world, I think there probably is some stuff in historical texts or religious teachings that could be backed up by science or surveys or archaeological finds. I certainly wouldn't rule it out, so no, I wouldn't make the claim that it had nothing to say to claims of objective fact about the world as I couldn't back up that claim with evidence.

That's more your department - making claims, generalisations and assumptions that you often can't or won't support with evidence.

Nothing wrong with religions having their say, as long as it's not a privileged say, a level playing field for 'all'.

Regards ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can see rational logic must be a difficult obsticle for you to navigate your way around Vlad.

I've yet to see any reason to look for such a thing as a god in the first place, how much time do you spend looking for Zeus for example Vlad? Quite there's no valid reason to go looking for Zeus, ditto god or gods.

Regards ippy

Looking is an empiricist thing. Your empiricism is a flaw.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I came to this forum a non-realist Christian, as I've said before, believing that religion is a human activity which does not refer to anything outside itself, and which we should be involved in, if we are, without imagining that it does: in short that there is, objectively speaking, no God. However, the immature, adolescent sneering of most of the atheists here, and their pseudo-intellectualism, and the sustained campaign of sarcasm directed at me from one such in particular, which got me suspended for three months, is pissing me off so much that I'm heading back into a realist (though minimalist) version of Christianity out of sheer bloody-mindedness. Well done, atheists!

Ha, ha - I know what you mean - the more time I spend on here listening to some of the atheists the more I don't want to be anything like them. I sometimes copy BHS's posts and then shake my head at the silliness of Susan who complains the posts I have just copied are arrogant or have a sneering tone - just part of the entertainment on here.

I think people are often looking to forge an identity in the world and religion can be one way of doing that. To me, being thought of as gullible or superstitious or silly or a supporter of Muslim terrorists is still  a far, far better option than being thought of as an atheist, given some of the characteristics some of the atheists on here display. 

[ippy]

Looking is an empiricist thing. Your empiricism is a flaw.

You are entitled to your opinion Vlad.

Regards ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Nothing wrong with religions having their say, as long as it's not a privileged say, a level playing field for 'all'.

Regards ippy.

Yes I would agree with secularism in principle. So if people are persuaded to adopt a particular public policy by arguments by citizens or lobby groups who happen to be religious, that's fine, but no special privilege for the religious group or citizens.

I wouldn't campaign for secularism at the moment because I personally don't have a problem with the current system. If I was living in a theocracy I would campaign for secularism.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

No, it isn't, because Leprechauns, if they existed, would be objects in the world, alongside all the other existing objects, whereas God is the creator and sustainer of the universe, and outside it. God does not merely exist; God enjoys a higher order of reality. You are making a basic category error, therefore.

You don’t understand the meaning of “category error”. What you’re describing are differences in features or characteristics – inside the universe vs outside the universe (whatever that would mean) etc. The category here though is actually, “outcomes that can be arrived at with equal facility using exactly the same arguments”. Thus if you want to use the argumentum ad consequentiam, the ad pop, the post hoc ergo propter hoc, the negative proof fallacy, survivor bias etc (and wearily) etc so beloved of some of the theists here to argue for “God” then you cannot deny the same arguments for leprechauns.

And if you think that the outcome “leprechauns” is ridiculous and so the argument that led to it must be false, then the same argument must also be false when it leads to “God”. 

Changing the characteristics or features of the outcome doesn’t somehow reach back into the argument and make it good for one outcome you happen to think is non-ridiculous, but not good for the outcome you happen to think is ridiculous. 

QED

[bluehillside Retd.]

But you and the others are arguing from a view point of physicalism and some extra unevidenced assumptions namely that it is the default position and that it is the virtuous position to take...and this in the face of physicalism being unevidenced itself.

Oh and before anyone tries it, evidence of the physical is not evidence of physicalism.
Those who cling to physicalist principles on account of straying from them leads to some kind of disorder and indiscipline would I move probably be happier wearing a black uniform with knee length boots and Peaked cap .

Must be lying o'clock time again. The only argument here is from logic, not from "physicalism" (regardless of what meaning Vlad has deampt up for the term).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Man up and admit your appeal to ridicule.

Yep, definitely lying o'clock. Even when he's had his own Wiki reference to the appeal to ridicule detonated Vladdo still returns to the same lie.

Feeding time at the bridge!

[Robbie]

I came to this forum a non-realist Christian, as I've said before, believing that religion is a human activity which does not refer to anything outside itself, and which we should be involved in, if we are, without imagining that it does: in short that there is, objectively speaking, no God. However, the immature, adolescent sneering of most of the atheists here, and their pseudo-intellectualism, and the sustained campaign of sarcasm directed at me from one such in particular, which got me suspended for three months, is pissing me off so much that I'm heading back into a realist (though minimalist) version of Christianity out of sheer bloody-mindedness. Well done, atheists!

Not worth going round in endless circles & getting cross StevenH; there's no real discussion, only rude shouting down by people who like to show off to a small audience - & don't even know the meaning of the word, 'lying'. FTR I've not seen you run away from anything & you're not the only poster to find themselves on the receiving end of bad manners. I'm eternally amazed at the patience of Gabriella, for example.

Ha, ha - I know what you mean - the more time I spend on here listening to some of the atheists the more I don't want to be anything like them. I sometimes copy BHS's posts and then shake my head at the silliness of Susan who complains the posts I have just copied are arrogant or have a sneering tone - just part of the entertainment on here.

I think people are often looking to forge an identity in the world and religion can be one way of doing that. To me, being thought of as gullible or superstitious or silly or a supporter of Muslim terrorists is still  a far, far better option than being thought of as an atheist, given some of the characteristics some of the atheists on here display. 

[floo]

I came to this forum a non-realist Christian, as I've said before, believing that religion is a human activity which does not refer to anything outside itself, and which we should be involved in, if we are, without imagining that it does: in short that there is, objectively speaking, no God. However, the immature, adolescent sneering of most of the atheists here, and their pseudo-intellectualism, and the sustained campaign of sarcasm directed at me from one such in particular, which got me suspended for three months, is pissing me off so much that I'm heading back into a realist (though minimalist) version of Christianity out of sheer bloody-mindedness. Well done, atheists!

Having a little temper tantrum? You accuse others of all the things that you are doing, your posts are hardly sweetness and light. If this forum upsets you so much, LEAVE, I doubt you will be missed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

"Objective" as in something that is based on measurement that can be demonstrated to another person, rather than something that is influenced by personal feelings or interpretation?

Not quite, but close enough. “Objective” as in distinguishable from just opinion or guessing by the use of logic and evidence.

If you are referring to whether testimony about the existence of God or God's plans has nothing to say to claims of objective fact about the world, then how many times do I need to repeat myself before you grasp the point? I have been arguing this repeatedly on this thread and on the thread about faith schools - claims of God's existence are a belief or opinion. The supernatural can't be measured , which precludes it from being demonstrated to someone else as objective fact. This "objective fact" description is your claim. It may well be that some theists make the claim of objective fact but lots of theists don't. So if you make the assumption that a theist you come across would describe God as an objective fact that would be a mistake on your part.

Good grief. Your memory fails you – there are many theists who precisely do think their beliefs (“God” etc) are objectively true (that’s why they proselytise), and you were given documentation from a religious faith authority (the RCs) that told you that in their schools they do teach these things to children as objective facts about the world.   

If you mean does religion have nothing to say to claims of objective fact about the world, I think there probably is some stuff in historical texts or religious teachings that could be backed up by science or surveys or archaeological finds. I certainly wouldn't rule it out, so no, I wouldn't make the claim that it had nothing to say to claims of objective fact about the world as I couldn't back up that claim with evidence.

You’re confusing historical theology (eg, a “holy” book says a city existed and either it did or it didn’t) with the reification of faith claims (“God” etc) as if they were equivalent objectively true facts about the world.   

That's more your department - making claims, generalisations and assumptions that you often can't or won't support with evidence.

Not sure why you think lying here helps you, but that’s up to you.

[SusanDoris]

"Objective" as in something that is based on measurement that can be demonstrated to another person,

Objective - as in an independently verifiable, independently observable, ready to be challenged and shown to be incorrect if that is indeed the case, fact; plus being shown to be predictable and remain so regardless of personal bias.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

I came to this forum a non-realist Christian, as I've said before, believing that religion is a human activity which does not refer to anything outside itself, and which we should be involved in, if we are, without imagining that it does: in short that there is, objectively speaking, no God.

Blimey. What then should we make of those Christians who continually tell us the opposite of that – indeed who have it taught children in schools?

However, the immature, adolescent sneering of most of the atheists here, and their pseudo-intellectualism, and the sustained campaign of sarcasm directed at me from one such in particular, which got me suspended for three months, is pissing me off so much that I'm heading back into a realist (though minimalist) version of Christianity out of sheer bloody-mindedness. Well done, atheists!

Funny isn’t it how perceptions differ. What I see form the “atheist side” is calm, measured, logical argument from the likes of stranger and torridon and precisely the behaviours you describe from the Swords and Vlads. That’s not surprising I think when one side can rely on reason and the other brings only emotion.

Oh and whatever gets people suspended here by the way is their own behaviour, not that of others.