Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

I'm trying to help you here, but you keep on digging, lol!!

Perhaps he is digging to find the 'properties of truth' - you could help by telling all of us what these are.

After all you've been asked frequently and have had plenty of time to make them up set them out in detail so as to allow discussion of said 'properties'.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I shall unfortunately be 'runnin off' at just before 4:0 p.m. I have quite a bad bout of dizziness today and have booked myself in at the local Care Home for the night for safety purposes. Never fear, though, I'll be back reading tomorrow, to see if you have come up with any objective evidence of, well,   anything really!

And now, you're doing a bluehillside. You're asking for objective evidence of something for which there is not a natural explanation, using a testing methodology that makes assumptions about the nature of that evidence, i.e. that there is a natural explanation.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Then you just lost "your case" for the reasons I explained and you ignored.

That would be up to the decision  of an unbiased jury, not you.

[Gordon]

And now, you're doing a bluehillside. You're asking for objective evidence of something for which there is not a natural explanation, using a testing methodology that makes assumptions about the nature of that evidence, i.e. that there is a natural explanation.

Then all you need do now is provide us with an unnatural explanation and details of the unnatural methods we should use to verify claims of the unnatural.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Perhaps he is digging to find the 'properties of truth' - you could help by telling all of us what these are.

Even if I did, it wouldn't help because

After all you've been asked frequently and have had plenty of time to make them up set them out in detail so as to allow discussion of said 'properties'.

betrays your true intentions on the matter.

You, bluehillside, susan doris really need to figure this out for yourselves, because when you do, you'll see the error in some of what you write yourselves, rather than have Vlad, Alan Burns and Gabriella pointing it out to you on a daily basis.

[Gordon]

Even if I did, it wouldn't help becausebetrays your true intentions on the matter.

You, bluehillside, susan doris really need to figure this out for yourselves, because when you do, you'll see the error in some of what you write yourselves, rather than have Vlad, Alan Burns and Gabriella pointing it out to you on a daily basis.

Evasion noted.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Then all you need do now is provide us with an unnatural explanation and details of the unnatural methods we should use to verify claims of the unnatural.

Where Christianity is concerned, I'm sure that Vlad, Alan Burns, Spud, Sassy and other Christians would have done this at least once in the past. It's never enough though is it?

Until you stop prejudicing things by dictating what things should look like and/or how things should go, you are wasting your time. All you are doing continually is demonstrating why the god of your own creation doesn't exist!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Evasion noted.

Laziness noted.

[Gordon]

Where Christianity is concerned, I'm sure that Vlad, Alan Burns, Spud, Sassy and other Christians would have done this at least once in the past. It's never enough though is it?

You're right on the button there, unintentionally no doubt!

Until you stop prejudicing things by dictating what things should look like and/or how things should go, you are wasting your time. All you are doing continually is demonstrating why the god of your own creation doesn't exist!

I'm just asking you guys to justify your claims without recourse to logical errors or incoherence: for instance I've asked about these 'properties of truth' several times, and I've just asked you about methods for the unnatural stuff you seem so keen on. No answers though but plenty of cryptic nonsense.

You seem very confused.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

So I offered to post the rebuttals to the arguments you’ve attempted provided you agree to reply to them. I do so because, on every occasion I’ve done this before, you’ve just run only to reappear days or weeks later with repetitions of the same (but now rebutted) arguments.

This doesn’t seem unreasonable to me given your behaviour yet you show no sign of changing that behaviour.

What are you so afraid of that behaving that badly is a price worth paying to avoid it?

[torridon]

Where Christianity is concerned, I'm sure that Vlad, Alan Burns, Spud, Sassy and other Christians would have done this at least once in the past. It's never enough though is it?

Supernatural claims cannot be investigated.  This is what supernatural means.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Swordy,

And before I forget religious claims of fact are uninvestigable because no-one attempting them also proposes a method to investigate them. That’s the burden of proof issue you just got wrong. If you think anyone has ever done that, then why not tell us what it is?

Oh, and in the vanishingly unlikely event that you do ever do that there’s just one caveat by the way: whatever method of investigation you do propose cannot also work equally well for every other faith-based assertion of a truth.

Fair enough?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Where Christianity is concerned, I'm sure that Vlad, Alan Burns, Spud, Sassy and other Christians would have done this at least once in the past. It's never enough though is it?

Nothing is "never enough", no. None of these people have ever proposed a method to investigate their faith clams, and nor for that matter to my knowledge has any other theist done so either. Certainly you haven't, posting some very bad reasoning and then running away being your stock in trade.   

Until you stop prejudicing things by dictating what things should look like and/or how things should go, you are wasting your time.

I don't do that at all, as you well know. Why then pretend otherwise?

All you are doing continually is demonstrating why the god of your own creation doesn't exist!

Wrong again. All I'm actually doing is demonstrating that no-one to my knowledge has even managed to provide a method for others to treat his claim "god" as anything other than guessing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

You, bluehillside, susan doris really need to figure this out for yourselves, because when you do, you'll see the error in some of what you write yourselves, rather than have Vlad, Alan Burns and Gabriella pointing it out to you on a daily basis.

So now all you have to do is to find an example of that ever happening. After all, I'm sure you wouldn't want people here thinking you just make shit up and then run away now would you.

Would you?

[torridon]

The other is explanations for life on earth based on common-descent evolutionary theories. Again, a self-creation process, with things creating themselves from nothing. The appeal of course is that its adherents do not have to answer to a potential creator.

You fail to understand. 

The real reason why the notion of a creator fails is this : if we ask the question "why do things exist" then the answer "because something made them" is not an explanation, it is a sleight of hand.  It might look superficially like an explanation, but in fact it explains nothings, it is a logic trick to snare the unwary.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You fail to understand. 

The real reason why the notion of a creator fails is this : if we ask the question "why do things exist" then the answer "because something made them" is not an explanation, it is a sleight of hand.  It might look superficially like an explanation, but in fact it explains nothings, it is a logic trick to snare the unwary.

It looks like an explanation and you haven't explained why it isn't.

It looks too as if there can only be three possible answers
They popped out of nothing
They were made by something
They are eternal and have always existed

Any of these answers rules out the other two and it is hard to see how that doesn't constitute explanation.

[torridon]

It looks like an explanation and you haven't explained why it isn't.

It looks too as if there can only be three possible answers
They popped out of nothing
They were made by something
They are eternal and have always existed

1/ and 3/ could be explored for their value as explanatory models.

2/ is clearly self referential, so can be ruled out straight away.  It's a bit like asking, why does 2 + 2 = 4, well, clearly because it is derivable from the fact that 1 + 3 = 4.  A self referential explanation is a category fail in so far as it claims to be an explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1/ and 3/ could be explored for their value as explanatory models.

2/ is clearly self referential, so can be ruled out straight away.  It's a bit like asking, why does 2 + 2 = 4, well, clearly because it is derivable from the fact that 1 + 3 = 4.  A self referential explanation is a category fail in so far as it claims to be an explanation.

Complete flannel
For starters all can be explored
How is two especially self referential?
What on earth do you mean by it or how it is a categorical fail.

If a house appeared seemingly out of nowhere then Joe Bloggs built it would be perfectly reasonable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Been a while since Vladdo fell into the Paley’s watch hole.

[Alan Burns]

You fail to understand. 

The real reason why the notion of a creator fails is this : if we ask the question "why do things exist" then the answer "because something made them" is not an explanation, it is a sleight of hand.  It might look superficially like an explanation, but in fact it explains nothings, it is a logic trick to snare the unwary.

But the fact that you are able to contemplate such a question aptly demonstrates a profound ability to think outside the box of deterministic activity derived from material properties.

[Gordon]

But the fact that you are able to contemplate such a question aptly demonstrates a profound ability to think outside the box of deterministic activity derived from material properties.

Waffle: it just demonstrates the ability to think (about all sorts of things).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the fact that you are able to contemplate such a question aptly demonstrates a profound ability to think outside the box of deterministic activity derived from material properties.

Nothing about determinism implies that there is any such "box". That's just something you've made up.

[Maeght]

But the fact that you are able to contemplate such a question aptly demonstrates a profound ability to think outside the box of deterministic activity derived from material properties.

It demonstrates no such thing.

[torridon]

But the fact that you are able to contemplate such a question aptly demonstrates a profound ability to think outside the box of deterministic activity derived from material properties.

What makes you think that ?  Show us your reasoning.

[torridon]

Complete flannel
For starters all can be explored
How is two especially self referential?
What on earth do you mean by it or how it is a categorical fail.

If a house appeared seemingly out of nowhere then Joe Bloggs built it would be perfectly reasonable.

No, that just shifts the goal posts to 'where did Joe Bloggs' come from.  That's not an explanation.