Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

 Vlad,

Logic has never been successfully used to establish a God free cosmos Hillside.

Nor has it ever claimed to. That’s called straw man – from a crowded field probably your most well-worn fallacy. 

Logic has never taken down the case for God.

It has when the arguments made to support the claim “god” are logically false. 

Things and the state of things are either a) necessary or b) contingent.

That is a logical statement. Please get to naturalism, materialism or render theism illogical or as Gordon would put it an incoherent mess from that?

It’s not a logical statement at all when you have no idea what you mean by those terms; it’s just gibberish.

Of course logic can bring down certain arguments for theism but that is true of anything....and then of course an eminent turdpolisher can gussy that into a statement like theistic claims fail logical tests.

 

And another straw man to finish. You cannot say “all” theistic claims because there may be some the logician hasn’t heard. In terms of any I’ve heard of either here or elsewhere though, yes all of those have been “brought down”.

Sorry my fault by I suppose I couldn't believe that people are so stupid to equate logic with atheism.

Why would anyone be stupid enough not to when the theist provides no other method to evaluate his claims?

Of course, you could finally try at least to answer that but as we both know you’ll always run away from answering I guess we’ll never know eh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nor has it ever claimed to.

So what's your issue then? When has logic been run away from and, since you have negated the only possible reason to do so, what is the motive for doing so?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

It’s not a logical statement at all when you have no idea what you mean by those terms; it’s just gibberish.
 

So let me get this right.
A logical statement is only logical depending on the status of the person making it?


Got there in the end Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So what's your issue then? When has logic been run away from and, since you have negated the only possible reason to do so, what is the motive for doing so?

The issue is your straw man. No-one clams a ”God free cosmos” because that would be a positive statement about the non-existence of something, which cannot be known with certainty. The same is true of any faith belief in anything.

That’s why atheism (or a-anything-else-ism) isn’t the statement “there are no gods”. Rather the atheist just says, “I know of no good reason to think there to be any gods”. You know this because it’s been explained to you about 8,345,681 times already even though you keep lying about it.

The logic you always run away from is the answer to the question: “When you claim there to be (or even to have encountered) a “God”, why should anyone else think you to be right about that?” The supplementary by the way is, “why should you think yourself to be right about that?” but stick to baby steps for now.

The motive for asking the question is that countless people claim all sorts of privileges for their personal faith beliefs – not least that they be taken any more seriously than just guessing – when they provide no means to evaluate the claim. If you think logic can’t do it suggest something else. Just running away from the problem though makes you look dishonest.     

So let me get this right.

Never happened yet, but hey – you never know…

A logical statement is only logical depending on the status of the person making it?

As it bears no relation to anything I’ve said I’ll leave you to your personal grief about where on earth you derived that bizarre misunderstanding from. 

So again, if not with the tools of logic how should anyone evaluate your claim “god”?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The issue is your straw man. No-one clams a ”God free cosmos” because that would be a positive statement about the non-existence of something, which cannot be known with certainty. The same is true of any faith belief in anything.

That’s why atheism (or a-anything-else-ism) isn’t the statement “there are no gods”. Rather the atheist just says, “I know of no good reason to think there to be any gods”. You know this because it’s been explained to you about 8,345,681 times already even though you keep lying about it.

The logic you always run away from is the answer to the question: “When you claim there to be (or even to have encountered) a “God”, why should anyone else think you to be right about that?” The supplementary by the way is, “why should you think yourself to be right about that?” but stick to baby steps for now.

The motive for asking the question is that countless people claim all sorts of privileges for their personal faith beliefs – not least that they be taken any more seriously than just guessing – when they provide no means to evaluate the claim. If you think logic can’t do it suggest something else. Just running away from the problem though makes you look dishonest.     

Never happened yet, but hey – you never know…

As it bears no relation to anything I’ve said I’ll leave you to your personal grief about where on earth you derived that bizarre misunderstanding from. 

So again, if not with the tools of logic how should anyone evaluate your claim “god”?

I fear you have declared that the logic of a statement is dependent on the status of the person making it.
Your iron curtain has fallen and your missiles decommisioned .....as we speak the hotline between us has been unwired.....hope you like the metaphors

Byeeeeeeeeeeeee.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I fear you have declared that the logic of a statement is dependent on the status of the person making it.
Your iron curtain has fallen and your missiles decommisioned .....as we speak the hotline between us has been unwired.....hope you like the metaphors

Byeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Why are you flat out lying about this again?

If your answer to the question is, "actually I can suggest no good reason at all for you think my claims about a god to be correct" then finally put on your big boy pants and say so. Just polluting this mb with endless lying and avoidance only confirms your trolling.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why are you flat out lying about this again?

If your answer to the question is, "actually I can suggest no good reason at all for you think my claims about a god to be correct" then finally put on your big boy pants and say so. Just polluting this mb with endless lying and avoidance only confirms your trolling.   

But Hillside THIS post is merely appeal from your own argument.

The moral argument, the logic of necessity and contingency are excellent reasons and also the observation over years of this forum of palpable God avoidance.

As well of this there are the weaknesses in establishing naturalism, physicalism etc.

But at the end of the day no amount of thinking can conjur the real. That has to exist by itself and i'm afraid does have to be encountered.


I think you have refused to even entertain the possibility that the God business is not just a question of an intellectual arm wrestle.

[BeRational]

Vlad

To avoid all the word salad can you answer this question.

You believe a god exists.

Why?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But Hillside THIS post is merely appeal from your own argument.

The moral argument, the logic of necessity and contingency are excellent reasons and also the observation over years of this forum of palpable God avoidance.

As well of this there are the weaknesses in establishing naturalism, physicalism etc.

But at the end of the day no amount of thinking can conjur the real that has to exist by itself and i'm afraid does have to be encountered.


I think you have refused to even entertain the possibility thaat the God business is not just a question of an intellectual arm wrestle.

Except they're all bad arguments because they're either incoherent or logically false. They're trivially easy to dismantle, and that's happened countless times here. That you just lie about or ignore the falsifications is a function of your character, not of the quality of the arguments that undo you. You'll never deal with that though because you seem to be pathologically incapable of honesty.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Except they're all bad arguments because they're either incoherent or logically false. They're trivially easy to dismantle, and that's happened countless times here. That you just lie about or ignore the falsifications is a function of your character, not of the quality of the arguments that undo you. You'll never deal with that though because you seem to be pathologically incapable of honesty.   

Yes but you've never managed to trivially or easily dismiss them.
There will we will find at the end just the claim that they have. When asked to repeat these ''demolitions'' back nobody either wants to or is able.

There has been nothing to deal with Hillside.

Now Be Rational has asked me to explain why I believe and when I get round to it I will happily with no appeal to ''Oh i've done it several times'' or mindgaming.

[BeRational]

Yes but you've never managed to trivially or easily dismiss them.
There will we will find at the end just the claim that they have. When asked to repeat these ''demolitions'' back nobody either wants to or is able.

There has been nothing to deal with Hillside.

Now Be Rational has asked me to explain why I believe and when I get round to it I will happily with no appeal to ''Oh i've done it several times'' or mindgaming.

I notice you have not given your sound reasoning for believing and guess you never will.
The reason being that you know you do not have a sound reason for believing, and know that any argument you present will contain a fallacy.
Every argument I have been aware of has always failed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I notice you have not given your sound reasoning for believing and guess you never will.
The reason being that you know you do not have a sound reason for believing, and know that any argument you present will contain a fallacy.
Every argument I have been aware of has always failed.

Another post confusing atheism with logic. I'm wondering whether that is symptomatic of the deeper confusion.....arse from elbow?

[BeRational]

Another post confusing atheism with logic. I'm wondering whether that is symptomatic of the deeper confusion.....arse from elbow?

Avoidance as usual noted.

Do you believe in a God?

If yes WHY?

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

Avoidance as usual noted.

Do you believe in a God?

If yes WHY?

He'll never answer those or any other questions. Nor incidentally will he ever suggest a method other than logic to evaluate the claims of theists. He's here to pollute, not to contribute.

[BeRational]

BR,

He'll never answer those or any other questions. Nor incidentally will he ever suggest a method other than logic to evaluate the claims of theists. He's here to pollute, not to contribute.

Yes I agree.

Perhaps when others see that he never answers simple questions they will see his antics for what they are.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

Yes I agree.

Perhaps when others see that he never answers simple questions they will see his antics for what they are.

I suspect that most already have. What's ironic (and hence will be lost on him) is that he asserts atheism not to be derived from logic, and at the same time refers to arguments for "god" (objective morality etc) that are themselves logic-based, albeit fallaciously so. So essentially his position is "here's some logic" and at the same time, "but you can't use logic to falsify them". What else he proposes people should use to evaluate his claims and assertions is something on which he seems to be determined to be forever silent, but it's a dog's breakfast of irrationality, gibberish and dishonesty whichever way you look at it.

[Maeght]

Another post confusing atheism with logic. I'm wondering whether that is symptomatic of the deeper confusion.....arse from elbow?

Atheism isn't logic.

[jeremyp]

Perhaps when others see that he never answers simple questions they will see his antics for what they are.

Do you honestly believe that there is anybody on this forum who doesn't see Vlad's antics for what they are?

[jeremyp]

Atheism isn't logic.

The tentative acceptance of atheism is the logical conclusion to come to given the complete inability of theists to present any evidence that their god(s) exist(s).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you honestly believe that there is anybody on this forum who doesn't see Vlad's antics for what they are?

I don't Jeremy......and I am Vlad.

Perhaps you could elucidate what it is i'm up to?

[BeRational]

Do you honestly believe that there is anybody on this forum who doesn't see Vlad's antics for what they are?

I would hope so,  but felt it was worth noting

[BeRational]

I don't Jeremy......and I am Vlad.

Perhaps you could elucidate what it is i'm up to?

If you believe in God, can you say why?
What convinces you that it is likely that a God exists?

I remain unconvinced that any God exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you believe in God, can you say why?
What convinces you that it is likely that a God exists?

I remain unconvinced that any God exists.

1) To a large extent yes.

2) Personal encounter, the moral argument, the division into the necessary and the contingent, the explanatory failure of materialism, naturalism with regards to fundamental human questions, the explanatory failure of same with regards to personal experience.

[BeRational]

1) To a large extent yes.

2) Personal encounter, the moral argument, the division into the necessary and the contingent, the explanatory failure of materialism, naturalism with regards to fundamental human questions, the explanatory failure of same with regards to personal experience.

I don't understand most of point 2 apart from personal encounter.
How did this personal encounter take place and why does God reveal himself to so e and not others.
How can you be sure you really had an encounter?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't understand most of point 2

I am surprised by that since you claim comprehensive knowledge of arguments for God resulting in their dismissal. Are you saying that dismissal is happening prior to understanding?