Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

It is not religious people who need to grow up. It is atheists like you, unable to handle the fact that there is a God. Try as you might, you come up with all sorts of excuses to deny the obvious, to deny the truth. So in your own words,
Grow Up

I think you got that the wrong way round.  It's people claiming a positive belief in something that need to justify why they believe it.  If there were any evidence for gods, then that would be the end of the matter.  But in the absence of evidence it leaves some people scratching their heads as to why many people continue to believe in them.  Simply bolding up your exasperation in no way amounts to evidence or reasoning.

[ippy]

Sword, where you have written in your post as follows:

'It is not religious people who need to grow up. It is atheists like you, unable to handle the fact that there is a God. Try as you might, you come up with all sorts of excuses to deny the obvious, to deny the truth'.

I see what it is you're saying Sword, the only trouble with making excuses to deny the obvious as you put it makes it pretty obvious that I can only answer you with a question, denying what?

Please let me know any of the evidence that I have to assume you have that this he, she or it figure you are referring to as god really does exist or be a first and hit the world media with this evidence you seem to think you have, that is of course if you have anything viable, you know something that'll stand up to scrutiny.

If you think about it Sword, the world media might be just a tad interested in anyone that has some conclusive evidence that this god figure of your imagination does in fact exist in reality.

I await your reply Sword, I suspect a long wait?   

Regards ippy

[Gordon]

Then don't call it marriage!! Marriage is when MALE + FEMALE come together and the two become one flesh. Two people of the same sex can no more get married than one can start calling a circle a square!

Don't be silly: in the UK (where we both are) marriage is a legally defined status and in most parts of the UK any two people can get married provided the meet the legislative criteria such as being old enough and not already married. Therefore you are wrong since you don't get to personally define marriage to fit your preferred 'holy' book: and if in that book marriage is defined as you'd prefer to see it then self-evidently your 'holy' book is not as as authoritative as you imagine it to be.

That you don't like it is irrelevant to the reality of the current situation.

Well, you guys have had enough time to disprove them, but you can't can you? Instead, you hide like cowards behind philosophical bullshit and call it reasoning.

Well you would said that given your lack of knowledge about philosophy.

No doubt, Gordon will regale us with the latest in his magnificent bullshit and SusanDoris will do her NFL-like pom-pom waving act jumping on the coat-tails of other posters. Maybe get Bluehillside back here so he can tell us why his dancing pixies on keyboards are responsible!

Quod erat demonstrandum.

It is not religious people who need to grow up. It is atheists like you, unable to handle the fact that there is a God.

Now that, old chap, is a claim for which the burden of proof is yours - no doubt you'll run away since we are still waiting for you to explain these 'properties of truth' you were telling us about.

Try as you might, you come up with all sorts of excuses to deny the obvious, to deny the truth. So in your own words,
Grow Up

I'll use my words thanks: I suggest you get yourself some education, else you'll continue to look foolish: epistemology might be a good place for you to start.

[Shaker]

Then don't call it marriage!! Marriage is when MALE + FEMALE come together and the two become one flesh. Two people of the same sex can no more get married than one can start calling a circle a square!

Except they very clearly and obviously can. And do. In more and more places as time goes by, in fact. (Twenty-seven nations to date - Austria starts in January next year; the Czech Republic may very well be next. The dominos are a-falling ). As Gordon rightly said: "That you don't like it is irrelevant to the reality of the current situation."

It is not religious people who need to grow up. It is atheists like you, unable to handle the fact that there is a God.

It isn't a fact.

Same-sex marriage, however, is.

Ironic, innit?

[ippy]

Why do you do a disappearing act Sword? It looks very much as though you've done it again?

Is it because you're unable to find any worthy evidence that would support this he, she or it god idea of yours?

Regards ippy.

[SusanDoris]

Why do you do a disappearing act Sword? It looks very much as though you've done it again?

Is it because you're unable to find any worthy evidence that would support this he, she or it god idea of yours?

Regards ippy.

Perhaps he thinks we have such short memories that we'll have forgotten the questions and comments we made by the time he comes back!!!

[Nearly Sane]

Why do you do a disappearing act Sword? It looks very much as though you've done it again?

Is it because you're unable to find any worthy evidence that would support this he, she or it god idea of yours?

Regards ippy.

People not replying, or not replying frequently enough for your perception of what is acceptable tells you nothing about their arguments,or their motivation.

[ippy]

People not replying, or not replying frequently enough for your perception of what is acceptable tells you nothing about their arguments,or their motivation.

Thank you for your deep insight on that subject N S, I would seriously miss your input on so many important subjects.

Regards ippy.

[Nearly Sane]

Thank you for your deep insight on that subject N S, I would seriously miss your input on so many important subjects.

Regards ippy.

Glad to have helped correct your incorrect implication.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly: in the UK (where we both are) marriage is a legally defined status and in most parts of the UK any two people can get married provided the meet the legislative criteria such as being old enough and not already married. Therefore you are wrong since you don't get to personally define marriage to fit your preferred 'holy' book: and if in that book marriage is defined as you'd prefer to see it then self-evidently your 'holy' book is not as as authoritative as you imagine it to be.

That you don't like it is irrelevant to the reality of the current situation.

Well you would said that given your lack of knowledge about philosophy.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Now that, old chap, is a claim for which the burden of proof is yours - no doubt you'll run away since we are still waiting for you to explain these 'properties of truth' you were telling us about.

I'll use my words thanks: I suggest you get yourself some education, else you'll continue to look foolish: epistemology might be a good place for you to start.

Argument from authority and argumentum ad populum
Im afraid Gordon.
Probably an appeal to absolute morality.

[Gordon]

Argument from authority and argumentum ad populum
Im afraid Gordon.

Not really, Vlad, no fallacy here since when it comes to legal marriage where we both live the UK legislatures are the authorities and that is something that the general population need to understand: if you don't believe me try getting married twice at the same time, let me know the details and I'll call the cops.

Probably an appeal to absolute morality.

How so?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really, Vlad, no fallacy here since when it comes to legal marriage where we both live the UK legislatures are the authorities and that is something that the general population need to understand: if you don't believe me try getting married twice at the same time, let me know the details and I'll call the cops.

How so?

None of that matters Gordon......its still an appeal to authority and you compound your multitudinous errors with an argumentum ad consequentium.

[Gordon]

None of that matters Gordon......its still an appeal to authority and you compound your multitudinous errors with an argumentum ad consequentium.

Don't be silly: recognising that the legislature is authoritative in regard to legal marriage isn't fallacious in any sense because to say you are 'married' implies compliance with their authoritative definition of marriage, else you ain't 'married'. Whether or not you or I approve of this situation is irrelevant. You forgot to answer my question about why you thought I was appealing to 'absolute morality'.

Now, please pick up your toys since the floor around your pram is untidy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly: recognising that the legislature is authoritative in regard to legal marriage isn't fallacious in any sense because to say you are 'married' implies compliance with their authoritative definition of marriage, else you ain't 'married'. Whether or not you or I approve of this situation is irrelevant. You forgot to answer my question about why you thought I was appealing to 'absolute morality'.

Now, please pick up your toys since the floor around your pram is untidy.

Appealing to the law in an argument is an appeal to authority
You cant get round that.

Stating that something is right ........universally.........is an appeal to absolute morality......no way round that either.

Appeal to the numbers supporting whatever is an appeal to popularity.

Finally in terms of being married twice Gordon....is it Molly or Clare from Maddison square or bonny Jean from Glengarry?

[Gordon]

Appealing to the law in an argument is an appeal to authority
You cant get round that.

Don't be silly - noting that legislation is authoritative is not fallacious given that there are penalties for non-compliance.

Stating that something is right ........universally.........is an appeal to absolute morality......no way round that either.

No it isn't since I've no idea what you mean by 'absolute morality' and in any event I didn't state that anything was 'right'. I can think the law is an ass, to use a cliche, but still recognise that the law is authoritative irrespective of whether I think the law is 'right' or not. You seem confused, probably because you fire off notions like 'absolute morality' with first thinking about what you are actually saying.

Appeal to the numbers supporting whatever is an appeal to popularity.

I'm not appealing to numbers in pointing out that legislation is applicable to all who fall under its jurisdiction: for example, people only being able to get legally married if they comply with the conditions set out in legislation.  You really don't understand fallacies very well.     

Finally in terms of being married twice Gordon....is it Molly or Clare from Maddison square or bonny Jean from Glengarry?

I see you're trying to cover your lack of understanding by making inane comments: you're fooling nobody, Vlad, except of course yourself.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I see you're trying to cover your lack of understanding by making inane comments: you're fooling nobody, Vlad, except of course yourself.

This from the person who does not know what absolute morality is. If you did, you would not need to ask The poster formerly known as.... what they meant by it.

Odd how ignorant you suddenly become when faced with an argument that undoes you. You're like the foreign football manager who can speak English until given a difficult question ... then their understanding of the English language suddenly disappears, lol!

[Nearly Sane]

This from the person who does not know what absolute morality is. If you did, you would not need to ask The poster formerly known as.... what they meant by it.

Odd how ignorant you suddenly become when faced with an argument that undoes you. You're like the foreign football manager who can speak English until given a difficult question ... then their understanding of the English language suddenly disappears, lol!

Asking someone what they mean by a phrase does not show ignorance of the term. Your post is Moebius strip of irony.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Asking someone what they mean by a phrase does not show ignorance of the term.

That was the implication on this occasion; a way of avoiding the line of reasoning that undid him.

[Nearly Sane]

That was the implication on this occasion; a way of avoiding the line of reasoning that undid him.

You haven't demonstrated that, and your post didn't even deal with the fact that it is common sense to define terms. Your assertions are not arguments.

[Gordon]

This from the person who does not know what absolute morality is. If you did, you would not need to ask The poster formerly known as.... what they meant by it.

So what does 'absolute morality' mean then, and what are its distinguishing features?

You see Vlad has a reputation for manufacturing things made of straw so it always pays to check when he uses terms, to quote one of Vlad's own nonsensical favourites, 'shamanically', what he actually means.

Odd how ignorant you suddenly become when faced with an argument that undoes you. You're like the foreign football manager who can speak English until given a difficult question ... then their understanding of the English language suddenly disappears, lol!

I'm wasn't faced with an argument though: I was faced with Vlad just dropping 'absolute morality' into a response to me for no real reason - and it always pays to ask Vlad what he actually means, which of course presumes that his explanation (if provided) will be intelligible.

Anyway - are you any closer to explaining these 'properties of truth' yet?

[SusanDoris]

So what does 'absolute morality' mean then, and what are its distinguishing features?

You see Vlad has a reputation for manufacturing things made of straw so it always pays to check when he uses terms, to quote one of Vlad's own nonsensical favourites, 'shamanically', what he actually means.

I'm wasn't faced with an argument though: I was faced with Vlad just dropping 'absolute morality' into a response to me for no real reason - and it always pays to ask Vlad what he actually means, which of course presumes that his explanation (if provided) will be intelligible.

Anyway - are you any closer to explaining these 'properties of truth' yet?

And now, I suppose, we shall never know!!!!

[Alan Burns]

Don't be silly: recognising that the legislature is authoritative in regard to legal marriage isn't fallacious in any sense because to say you are 'married' implies compliance with their authoritative definition of marriage, else you ain't 'married'.

But there are two authorities involved here, Gordon, and I am in no doubt about which is the higher authority.   How about you?

[Gordon]

But there are two authorities involved here, Gordon, and I am in no doubt about which is the higher authority.   How about you?

When it comes to a definition of marriage: it is what the legislature says it is at any given time. There is no other authority that is binding on society at large, although opinions and preferences may vary.

[BeRational]

But there are two authorities involved here, Gordon, and I am in no doubt about which is the higher authority.   How about you?

How do you know there are two.

We only see one.

[Alan Burns]

It struck me recently how capable human beings are at making assumptions.

We can assume that the universe came into existence by an unintended natural event.

We can assume that the very precise conditions needed for the formation of planets, stars and solar systems were also just an unintentional consequence of natural events.

We can assume that the bringing into existence of self replicating cells was also a natural, unintended process done by random events, even though humans have never been able to achieve this using raw materials.

We can assume that every single mutation needed bring life into existence as we know it was achieved by random events.

We can assume that conscious self awareness is just an emergent property of material reactions, though we have no idea how it works and it is a process we are unable to replicate.

We can assume that our ability to make consciously driven choices is just an illusion, because everything is assumed to be a consequence of physically predefined material reactions.

We can assume that every reported miracle must have a natural explanation.


Alternatively we can assume God