Searching for GOD...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Fuck me: these 'properties of truth' again - when do we get a clearly set out list of them?

You are utterly clueless. You are incapable of handling truth.

I directed you to a post which has at least one mentioned. You can't even see it. Blind as the proverbial bat as well.

Go and erase your mind of all that philosophical bullshit that currently occupies it. Better still, go and borrow a few brain cells from your grandson and perhaps genetically engineer a new one. Because until then, you are seriously screwed.

[Nearly Sane]

You are utterly clueless. You are incapable of handling truth.

I directed you to a post which has at least one mentioned. You can't even see it. Blind as the proverbial bat as well.

Go and erase your mind of all that philosophical bullshit that currently occupies it. Better still, go and borrow a few brain cells from your grandson and perhaps genetically engineer a new one. Because until then, you are seriously screwed.

Do you get any work in your bad Jack Nicolson from A Few Good Men impersonations?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Do you get any work in your bad Jack Nicolson from A Few Good Men impersonations?

You sure you want me to go there with that example on this forum? Ok.

Was Tom Cruise right or wrong? Who believed him?

Jack Nicholson condemned himself from his own mouth and was as guilty as hell! A bit like some here in their responses to Alan Burns and Private Frazer. They have no excuse.

[Nearly Sane]

You sure you want me to go there with that example on this forum? Ok.

Was Tom Cruise right or wrong? Who believed him?

Jack Nicholson condemned himself from his own mouth and was as guilty as hell! A bit like some here in their responses to Alan Burns and Private Frazer. They have no excuse.

No, I expect you to die, Mr SoTS.

[Gordon]

You are utterly clueless. You are incapable of handling truth.

I directed you to a post which has at least one mentioned. You can't even see it. Blind as the proverbial bat as well.

Go and erase your mind of all that philosophical bullshit that currently occupies it. Better still, go and borrow a few brain cells from your grandson and perhaps genetically engineer a new one. Because until then, you are seriously screwed.

Don't run away: set these properties out nice and clearly and we can discuss them.

P.S. You do know that the ad hom is a fallacy, don't you?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

No, I expect you to die, Mr SoTS.

S. SoTS

[Maeght]

What does 'the properties of truth' mean please?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Don't run away: set these properties out nice and clearly and we can discuss them.

<lists properties of truth>

Utter drivel.

Nah. Think I'll pass on this one!

[Stranger]

You are without excuse because all of the arguments you use here against religious belief fall down flat when used on your arguments against religious belief.
- Your worldview assumes the truth of it's position.
- Your worldview is not falsifiable
- Your worldview requires faith (something that is wrong when people with a religious belief do it) as it is unprovable.
It's why you guys have a whole philosophy set up (Negative Proof Fallacy, etc) which means that you never have to account for your own position. If you could defend it, you would and if shown to be true would disprove all religious belief claims.

What a lot of unsupported assertions.

I would go as far as to say that your position is a whole lot worse than those of religious belief. Taking the main monotheistic religions: For Christianity, the falsification test is whether or not Jesus Christ rise from the dead. For Islam, there is only one God (Allah) and that Muhammad is the messenger of God (I'll stand to be corrected by Gabriella on that one). For Judaism, the Messiah is still to come.

This is supposed to be a joke, yes...?

You justify the double standards by trying to claim that belief v non-belief is not a 50-50 scenario (same as Dawkins tried in 'The God Delusion').

Well you have just given three options (in addition to no gods) so it can't possibly be 50-50 even by whatever passes as logic in the dark recesses of your mind.

Again, all that illustrates is the double-standards, hence why positive claims from religious believers always have to be backed up, but positive claims by those arguing against religious belief (e.g. God does not exist, Jesus didn't rise from the dead, etc), do not appear to require justification.

Now misrepresenting what others are claiming...

[Gordon]

Nah. Think I'll pass on this one!

Oh dear: that sounds like cowardice to me. So much for your faux outrage.

[Stranger]

<lists properties of truth>

Where is this list?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

What does 'the properties of truth' mean please?

For example

• Truth is not affected by what one says about it
• Truth doesn't stop being truth because someone finds it hard to believe
• Truth doesn't stop being truth because it is hard to prove
• For a given truth claim X, you can aim to show that X is true or that anything that contradicts X is false.
• For a given truth claim X, you can aim to show that X is false or show that something that contradicts X is true.

[floo]

For example

• Truth is not affected by what one says about it
• Truth doesn't stop being truth because someone finds it hard to believe
• Truth doesn't stop being truth because it is hard to prove
• For a given truth claim X, you can aim to show that X is true or that anything that contradicts X is false.
• For a given truth claim X, you can aim to show that X is false or show that something that contradicts X is true.

So how do you know you have the elusive 'truth'?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

So how do you know you have the elusive 'truth'?

Have I claimed that I have?

[floo]

Have I claimed that I have?

You give that impression, although admittedly your spiel isn't easy to understand.

[Maeght]

For example

• Truth is not affected by what one says about it
• Truth doesn't stop being truth because someone finds it hard to believe
• Truth doesn't stop being truth because it is hard to prove
• For a given truth claim X, you can aim to show that X is true or that anything that contradicts X is false.
• For a given truth claim X, you can aim to show that X is false or show that something that contradicts X is true.

Fine. Where does this come into the post to which you referred i.e. the one where you said you mentioned one please?

[SusanDoris]

sotS

The content of your posts seems to me to show all the indications of a writer who is extremely arrogant and possibly one who needs to control, not one who likes to discuss on the basis of any equality.

It comes to something when I find myself preferring Vlads posts to yours!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

sotS

The content of your posts seems to me to show all the indications of a writer who is extremely arrogant and possibly one who needs to control, not one who likes to discuss on the basis of any equality.

I don't get that at all. I just see someone who is rightly appalled by the antics on this forum.

[Gordon]

For example

• Truth is not affected by what one says about it

Then what one says is irrelevant.

• Truth doesn't stop being truth because someone finds it hard to believe

What one believes, or finds hard to believe, isn't a property of truth though - so this is irrelevant to something that might be 'true' independent of views about it.

• Truth doesn't stop being truth because it is hard to prove

If it is hard to 'prove', and leaving aside problems involving proving anything (other than mathematical proofs) how do you know what you think is true is, in fact, true?

• For a given truth claim X, you can aim to show that X is true or that anything that contradicts X is false.

• For a given truth claim X, you can aim to show that X is false or show that something that contradicts X is true.

All this depends on how you 'show' anything, in that to 'show' implies some kind of methodology that is suited to whatever the claimed phenomena are: since we're undoubtedly talking about the non-natural here what method(s) would you propose?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

sotS

The content of your posts seems to me to show all the indications of a writer who is extremely arrogant and possibly one who needs to control, not one who likes to discuss on the basis of any equality.

Maeght #27640. Here's another example of a violation. SusanDoris very rarely expresses her disagreement about the content of a post. She prefers to make pejorative comments about the poster. I've seen it with Alan Burns, Vlad and Gabriella.

It still hasn't occurred to her despite her age that the truth or otherwise of what a poster writes is not affected by any alleged style of the post or the poster. The fact that she has to resort to this tactic is indicative of the fact that she cannot (or chooses not to) defend her position.

It comes to something when I find myself preferring Vlads posts to yours!!

You really want to be confessing your relativist approach to truth?

Anyway, if reading my posts makes you appreciate Vlad's posts more, I'm very happy Keep doing it, you may learn something!

[Nearly Sane]

Maeght #27640. Here's another example of a violation. SusanDoris very rarely expresses her disagreement about the content of a post. She prefers to make pejorative comments about the poster. I've seen it with Alan Burns, Vlad and Gabriella.

It still hasn't occurred to her despite her age that the truth or otherwise of what a poster writes is not affected by any alleged style of the post or the poster. The fact that she has to resort to this tactic is indicative of the fact that she cannot (or chooses not to) defend her position.
You really want to be confessing your relativist approach to truth?

Anyway, if reading my posts makes you appreciate Vlad's posts more, I'm very happy Keep doing it, you may learn something!

Just to point out that in saying she prefers one poster's posts above another isn't  'confessing a relativist approach to truth'.

[SusanDoris]

The fact that she has to resort to this tactic is indicative of the fact that she cannot (or chooses not to) defend her position.

What position is it that you think I have and do not defend?

[Stranger]

For example

• Truth is not affected by what one says about it
• Truth doesn't stop being truth because someone finds it hard to believe
• Truth doesn't stop being truth because it is hard to prove
• For a given truth claim X, you can aim to show that X is true or that anything that contradicts X is false.
• For a given truth claim X, you can aim to show that X is false or show that something that contradicts X is true.

So how do the "arguments used by atheists here fall down" with regard to these?

Bear in mind the main "truth claim" being made by atheists here (as far as I'm aware) is that there are no good reasons to think that any of the many gods are real. Of course there's also Alan's claims about 'free will' which have been shown to be logically impossible - which is also a way to falsify a 'truth claim'.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Then what one says is irrelevant.

Erm no, otherwise what's the point of education?

What one believes, or finds hard to believe, isn't a property of truth though - so this is irrelevant to something that might be 'true' independent of views about it.

It is when their hard to believe translates into claims of non-existence.

If it is hard to 'prove', and leaving aside problems involving proving anything (other than mathematical proofs) how do you know what you think is true is, in fact, true?

Faith

All this depends on how you 'show' anything, in that to 'show' implies some kind of methodology that is suited to whatever the claimed phenomena are: since we're undoubtedly talking about the non-natural here what method(s) would you propose?

You ask this on Page 1106 of this thread??? I think Alan Burns has said a lot on the subject!!

There is nothing stopping you, SusanDoris, bluehillside Retd or anyone else testing for yourself whether what Alan Burns is saying is correct or not. Except that what does appear to be stopping you is the fact that your mind is already made up, hence the need to continually oppose what he is saying. SusanDoris in particular has made it clear on more than one occasion that she doesn't want him having the last word. What is she scared of? That he may be right?

[Nearly Sane]

Erm no, otherwise what's the point of education?
It is when their hard to believe translates into claims of non-existence.
Faith
You ask this on Page 1106 of this thread??? I think Alan Burns has said a lot on the subject!!

There is nothing stopping you, SusanDoris, bluehillside Retd or anyone else testing for yourself whether what Alan Burns is saying is correct or not. Except that what does appear to be stopping you is the fact that your mind is already made up, hence the need to continually oppose what he is saying. SusanDoris in particular has made it clear on more than one occasion that she doesn't want him having the last word. What is she scared of? That he may be right?

Floo and Rhiannon tested it. It didn't work for them. Ergo by your position and AB's your god doesn't exist.