Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

But then surely that should tell you that counter arguments are wrong?

One of the reasons I keep bringing up properties of truth here is because one is illustrated here. For example:
If I said that Theresa May is the President of the United States, I could show that this is false by showing that Donald Trump is the President of the United States. The counter-example is true, therefore my original assertion is false.
Or alternatively, it exposes a flaw in the reasoning. As Vlad tried to explain a couple of pages back in his #29336, if a first cause is eternal, it needs no explanation. The only alternative is to have things creating themselves from nothing. There is no evidence to support this, the physics of the natural world contradict it (Newton's conservation of xxx laws, for example), and the best that philosophy can apparently come up with is the argument from incredulity, which only renders its position as unfalsifiable by science's own standards!!

You're both floundering and digging here.  Sorry for the mixed metaphors but it's not a pretty sight.

If a 19th century European finds a watch on the ground it would be a reasonable assumption that somebody had made it.  It is a reasonable inference within its particular context. But we cannot extrapolate from that to Nature must have been made by a Nature creator.  To do so renders us guilty of naive anthropomorphising.  Watches being made by watchmakers is an outcome of cause and effect, which as far as we know holds at all scales microscopic and macroscopic with the probable exception of inside certain classes of black hole below the Cauchy horizon where determinism breaks down.  But below microscopic, in the quantum world all our intuitions fail us, as does determinism. Work in quantum gravity suggests that fundamentally there is no such things as time, matter, space, direction, energy, infinity.  All of these intuitive concepts are derived from our perception of reality at macro scales and it is foolish to imagine we can confidently apply the simple intuitions of our everyday experience to the fundamental nature of reality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi ipster,

Vlads resorted to lying on the Religion in our schools thread too; I'm trying to be kind perhaps his sight is failing or he's lost his glasses.

My wife's always hiding my glasses from me, when I catch her!

As Wiggs reminded us a while ago the principle of charity suggests that we shouldn't assume lying when on occasion an untruth is told. When the person concerned though does it routinely, consistently, pathologically without ever apologising for let alone withdrawing his lies then the behaviour should be identified for what it is. There's also something about the nature of the lies being told: "I had eggs for breakfast" is a lie when the person saying it actually had cereal, but it's a non-personal lie. "You said X, and X is stupid because..." on the other hand when "X" is a lie (ie, Vlad's stock in trade) is defamatory. Anyone else reading it and not knowing about Vlad's lying might think the person he's defamed has actually said the things he lied about them saying, so it's a worse type of lying.

My view now I think is that he's been caught out lying so often and just carried on regardless that it's about time it stopped. Surprisingly there's nothing in the forum rules about lying (though there is about derailing) but as he's just told us that refraining from lying would be a "nicety" he's not prepared to observe he's telling us that he thinks it's a legitimate tactic here.

It isn't.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword of the Spirit

I have no time for Vlad's posts and only dip into them when absolutely necessary, but I think even he would have to agree that most of what you say does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny;

Then I look forward for his comments, assuming you are correct of course.

and thinking back over some of the memorable 10 and 11 year olds I taught over the years, particularly those with a natural ability to think critically, there were quite a few who would see the flaws in your non-arguments quite easily.

Then get them on here, because you being far older than 10/11 cannot produce a single challenge, preferring instead to make pejorative comments, or jump on the coat-tails of other posters.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Then get them on here, because you being far older than 10/11 cannot produce a single challenge, preferring instead to make pejorative comments, or jump on the coat-tails of other posters.

What would be the point of "producing a challenge" when you just run away when it is done?

I've asked you several times now whether you'd keep running away if I falsified your arguments again and you've even run away from answering that.

Why is that?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Liar Boy,

You can always tell when bluehillside has lost his latest argument against Vlad because he resorts to calling him a liar.

Since calling something a lie is based on properties of truth, bluehillside, you are in a position unsuitable for making such a comment. Your so-called rebuttals of what he has posted does not mean that you are right. However it is another example of you assuming the truth of your position and thereby saying anyone that disagrees with you is wrong. Alan Burns was spot-on with his algorithm a few pages back.

The strange thing is, I have never seen a single post from SusanDoris accusing you of smugness. Yet she'll accuse Alan Burns of things, Vlad of things, Gabriella of things, except for when I'm posting, lol, because then all of a sudden she starts to see some good in their posts compared with mine, rofl!! And I'm supposed to take this as a person basing their arguments on truth??

Between you, Gordon and Susan Doris, have any of you figured out any properties of truth yet, or are you going to do your usual obfuscation, prevarication and convolution to avoid the problem?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Since calling something a lie is based on properties of truth, bluehillside, you are in a position unsuitable for making such a comment. Your so-called rebuttals of what he has posted does not mean that you are right. However it is another example of you assuming the truth of your position and thereby saying anyone that disagrees with you is wrong.

And true to form ...

I've asked you several times now whether you'd keep running away if I falsified your arguments again

Priceless, lol

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

You can always tell when bluehillside has lost his latest argument against Vlad because he resorts to calling him a liar.

No you can’t. He is a liar. He told lies about me. I posted the lies he told about me. He didn’t even try to deny telling lies about me. He told me that the “nicety” of not telling lies about me was a something he wasn’t willing to do.

In what possible way is that “losing an argument”?

Since calling something a lie is based on properties of truth, bluehillside, you are in a position unsuitable for making such a comment. Your so-called rebuttals of what he has posted does not mean that you are right. However it is another example of you assuming the truth of your position and thereby saying anyone that disagrees with you is wrong. Alan Burns was spot-on with his algorithm a few pages back.

The strange thing is, I have never seen a single post from SusanDoris accusing you of smugness. Yet she'll accuse Alan Burns of things, Vlad of things, Gabriella of things, except for when I'm posting, lol, because then all of a sudden she starts to see some good in their posts compared with mine, rofl!! And I'm supposed to take this as a person basing their arguments on truth??

Between you, Gordon and Susan Doris, have any of you figured out any properties of truth yet, or are you going to do your usual obfuscation, prevarication and convolution to avoid the problem?

Wrong in every respect. As you’d just run away again if I told you why it’s wrong in every respect though, what would be the point of doing it?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Incidentally Bluehillside, here's a link to WWE's Summerslam 2014 where Brock Lesnar demolished John Cena.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzfwHWF2Hgs

This is what I'm reminded of whenever I see Vlad or Gabriella doing a hatchet job on your so-called arguments!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Priceless, lol

What would be "priceless" about identifying that you always run away from arguments you don't like or can't process, about asking whether you intend to continue doing it, and about asking you why you won't even answer the question about whether you intend to keep doing it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Incidentally Bluehillside, here's a link to WWE's Summerslam 2014 where Brock Lesnar demolished John Cena.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzfwHWF2Hgs

This is what I'm reminded of whenever I see Vlad or Gabriella doing a hatchet job on your so-called arguments!

She's a pernicious mistress, confirmation bias.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Swordy,

Incidentally, as you seem to think that Vlad's self-confessed lying is "doing a hatchet job" should I take it that, like him, you think flat out lying is an acceptable debating technique?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

PS Still no clues then on what you even think you mean by your odd phrase "properties of truth" I see.

Is Vlad's lying a "property of truth"?

Is your endorsement of Vlad's lying as a "hatchet job" a "property of truth"?

Is your running away from arguments you don't like or can't process a "property of truth"?

Is your refusal to tell us whether you'll keep running away from arguments you don't like or can't process a "property of truth"?   

Pathetic or dishonest?

[wigginhall]

You can always tell when bluehillside has lost his latest argument against Vlad because he resorts to calling him a liar.

Since calling something a lie is based on properties of truth, bluehillside, you are in a position unsuitable for making such a comment. Your so-called rebuttals of what he has posted does not mean that you are right. However it is another example of you assuming the truth of your position and thereby saying anyone that disagrees with you is wrong. Alan Burns was spot-on with his algorithm a few pages back.

The strange thing is, I have never seen a single post from SusanDoris accusing you of smugness. Yet she'll accuse Alan Burns of things, Vlad of things, Gabriella of things, except for when I'm posting, lol, because then all of a sudden she starts to see some good in their posts compared with mine, rofl!! And I'm supposed to take this as a person basing their arguments on truth??

Between you, Gordon and Susan Doris, have any of you figured out any properties of truth yet, or are you going to do your usual obfuscation, prevarication and convolution to avoid the problem?

I think this is incorrect.   Someone is wrong when they use bad arguments, e.g. fallacies.  This is not about 'disagreeing with me'.   As to lying, well, Vlad is notorious for this.   I assume that he can't stop, for some reason, particularly with misrepresenting what others say. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

I think this is incorrect.   Someone is wrong when they use bad arguments, e.g. fallacies.  This is not about 'disagreeing with me'.   As to lying, well, Vlad is notorious for this.   I assume that he can't stop, for some reason, particularly with misrepresenting what others say.

Quite. One of the various things Sword struggles with is separating the self from the argument. "Who are you to decide that X is wrong?" is one of his favourite tropes. I've explained to him several times that the argument - ie, the attempted logic – stands or falls on its own terms but he's just disappeared when I've done it only to repeat the same trope later on. Odd.

[ippy]

I think this is incorrect.   Someone is wrong when they use bad arguments, e.g. fallacies.  This is not about 'disagreeing with me'.   As to lying, well, Vlad is notorious for this.   I assume that he can't stop, for some reason, particularly with misrepresenting what others say.

Exactly.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

What’s unintentionally rather funny too is that Sword thinks “hatchet job” ("This is what I'm reminded of whenever I see Vlad or Gabriella doing a hatchet job on your so-called arguments!") means something like, “comprehensively defeat an argument” when in fact it means “destroy the reputation of” instead of critiqueing the argument itself:

“Noun[edit]

hatchet job (plural hatchet jobs)

1.(idiomatic) A journalistic or other treatment which portrays its subject in a very unfavorable manner; a work of criticism which aims to destroy a reputation.
That article about the mayor is nothing more than a hatchet job.

2.(idiomatic) An action or a program which imposes deep reductions in expenditure.

This so-called reform of our wage agreement was really just one big hatchet job!

Synonyms[edit]

•   (very unfavorable treatment): slam piece, hit piece, traducement, calumny, calumniation, obloquy, defamation”

(https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hatchet_job)

Which "hit piece, traducement, calumny, calumniation, obloquy, defamation” etc is pretty much the playbook of the some at least of the people of whom he approves. So Sword finally got something right it seems – who’d have thought it!

[SusanDoris]

Then I look forward for his comments, assuming you are correct of course.
Then get them on here, because you being far older than 10/11 cannot produce a single challenge, preferring instead to make pejorative comments, or jump on the coat-tails of other posters.

Well, now, let me try a few random challenges about the God people apparently wish to search for, or claim exists, or claim gives people personal characteristics or useful personality traits. Perhaps you think it supplies the properties of truth, but since you never explain what these are, this is a bit of a puzzle.

Some posts back, you chose what you thought was an appropriate analogy using the PM and Donald Trump. It was, of course, useless because such facts are easy to verify, do not have anything to say about the existence or not of any God/god/spirit/soul/etc.

How about producing one verifiable fact about said God/god/spirit/soul/etc. from the way you appear so sure, complacent  and confident that you are right about it/them, it should be easy for you. I, on the other hand, make no claim about them since I totally lack belief in any of their existences, separate or combined,  and zero objective evidence for them exists so far. I am, yes, as confident as I can be that such evidence will fail utterly to turn up anywhere before my death, but I’ll stay alert!

I’d also be interested to know what you believe will happen to me when I die. I shall be cremated, so zero chances of resurrection!!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I think this is incorrect.   Someone is wrong when they use bad arguments, e.g. fallacies.  This is not about 'disagreeing with me'.

But this is just more evidence of how you get to claim a position as true by default and then use that to say that an opposing argument is false, without ever having to justify that your position is true. For example, I have frequently seen posters (especially Vlad and Alan Burns) accused of using the NPF whenever they ask those claiming the truth of their opposing arguments to justify the foundation for their arguments.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

What’s unintentionally rather funny too is that Sword thinks “hatchet job” ("This is what I'm reminded of whenever I see Vlad or Gabriella doing a hatchet job on your so-called arguments!") means something like, “comprehensively defeat an argument” when in fact it means “destroy the reputation of” instead of critiqueing the argument itself:

“Noun[edit]

hatchet job (plural hatchet jobs)

1.(idiomatic) A journalistic or other treatment which portrays its subject in a very unfavorable manner; a work of criticism which aims to destroy a reputation.
That article about the mayor is nothing more than a hatchet job.

2.(idiomatic) An action or a program which imposes deep reductions in expenditure.

This so-called reform of our wage agreement was really just one big hatchet job!

Synonyms[edit]

•   (very unfavorable treatment): slam piece, hit piece, traducement, calumny, calumniation, obloquy, defamation”

(https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hatchet_job)

Which "hit piece, traducement, calumny, calumniation, obloquy, defamation” etc is pretty much the playbook of the some at least of the people of whom he approves. So Sword finally got something right it seems – who’d have thought it!

hatchet job in British
noun
informal
a malicious or devastating verbal or written attack (1)

And the context in which I meant it was a devastating written attack. I even included the visual illustration of Brock Lesnar's demolition of John Cena to reinforce the point.

But hey, don't let that bit of truth get in the way of your worldview. I'm sure you'll just twist what I say to suit your ends, just as you do with Vlad, and then turn round and accuse him of lying. The one accusing of lying turns out to be the biggest liar. Who'd have thought it...

(1) https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hatchet-job

[wigginhall]

But this is just more evidence of how you get to claim a position as true by default and then use that to say that an opposing argument is false, without ever having to justify that your position is true. For example, I have frequently seen posters (especially Vlad and Alan Burns) accused of using the NPF whenever they ask those claiming the truth of their opposing arguments to justify the foundation for their arguments.

I don't know what you mean by 'your position is true'.    I don't think anyone here states that God does not exist, but if an argument for God is a bad one, then it fails.  However, that doesn't mean I can now say God does not exist.   It's not binary.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Well, now, let me try a few random challenges about the God people apparently wish to search for, or claim exists, or claim gives people personal characteristics or useful personality traits. Perhaps you think it supplies the properties of truth, but since you never explain what these are, this is a bit of a puzzle.

Some posts back, you chose what you thought was an appropriate analogy using the PM and Donald Trump. It was, of course, useless because such facts are easy to verify, do not have anything to say about the existence or not of any God/god/spirit/soul/etc.

How about producing one verifiable fact about said God/god/spirit/soul/etc. from the way you appear so sure, complacent  and confident that you are right about it/them, it should be easy for you. I, on the other hand, make no claim about them since I totally lack belief in any of their existences, separate or combined,  and zero objective evidence for them exists so far. I am, yes, as confident as I can be that such evidence will fail utterly to turn up anywhere before my death, but I’ll stay alert!

I’d also be interested to know what you believe will happen to me when I die. I shall be cremated, so zero chances of resurrection!!

There's a reason this thread is 1179 pages ...

What you are, in reality looking for is proof not evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Oh blimey, he's back...

But this is just more evidence of how you get to claim a position as true by default...

No-one does that.

... and then use that to say that an opposing argument is false...

No-one does that.

...without ever having to justify that your position is true.

No-one does that.

For example, I have frequently seen posters (especially Vlad and Alan Burns) accused of using the NPF whenever they ask those claiming the truth of their opposing arguments to justify the foundation for their arguments.

No you haven't because it hasn't happened. The occasions when they have been identified as attempting the NPF are when they've actually done that - ie, used "but you can't disprove it" as if it had some sort of epistemic value.

Apart from all that though...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

hatchet job in British
noun
informal
a malicious or devastating verbal or written attack (1)

And the context in which I meant it was a devastating written attack. I even included the visual illustration of Brock Lesnar's demolition of John Cena to reinforce the point.

But hey, don't let that bit of truth get in the way of your worldview. I'm sure you'll just twist what I say to suit your ends, just as you do with Vlad, and then turn round and accuse him of lying. The one accusing of lying turns out to be the biggest liar. Who'd have thought it...

(1) https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hatchet-job

Nope. A hatchet job is a character assassination - it's an attack on the person, not a critique of his argument. Here's the first part of the Collins definition you just excluded, presumably hoping no-one would notice:

"countable noun [usually singular]

To do a hatchet job on someone or something means to say or write something mentioning many bad things about them, which harms their reputation. [informal]

Despite its title, his book is no hatchet job."

Did you see that "which harms their reputation"? Of course you did. That's why you left it out.

How do you feel about your behaviour here right now? Seriously though, how?

Oh, and not only did Vlad lie but he's quite happy it seems to confirm that he lied by telling us that he refuses to observe the "nicety" of not lying. Don't take my word for it, take his.

[SusanDoris]

There's a reason this thread is 1179 pages ...

What you are, in reality looking for is proof not evidence.

So how are you deciding what I am looking for?! What words lead you to that assumption?

By the way, one of the things I have learnt during my life and learnt well over the past 25 years in particular is that science and scientists never say they have 100% proof. Their conclusions and /or Theories may be as near 100% proof as makes no difference, but the big advantage of using the scientificmethod is that the results are awyas open to challenge and improvements if these are shown to be more reliable than current info.

[Gordon]

But this is just more evidence of how you get to claim a position as true by default and then use that to say that an opposing argument is false, without ever having to justify that your position is true. For example, I have frequently seen posters (especially Vlad and Alan Burns) accused of using the NPF whenever they ask those claiming the truth of their opposing arguments to justify the foundation for their arguments.

You really don't get fallacies do you!

The NPF is only cited when someone uses it and your summary of the NPF, as above, is quite simply wrong: asking someone to 'justify the foundation for their arguments' is not the NPF. Moreover those responding to Vlad and AB, like me, aren't usually offering any arguments and are mainly critiquing the hopeless arguments advanced by the likes of yourself, by pointing out where they are fallacious (in various ways).