Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

No wonder.

You ascribe physical characteristics (green clothing, living in Ireland etc) to something fictitious and then claim that since these characteristics haven't been detected by science then you don't believe in leprechauns. I then, albeit sarcastically, invited you to substitute 'God' for 'leprechauns' on the same basis and, predictably, as I said, whoosh.   

You seem to know a lot about leprechauns Gordon?

ippy.

[Gordon]

You seem to know a lot about leprechauns Gordon?

ippy.

Not really, ippy: I'm just echoing Vlad's expertise - see his #39562 in this thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No wonder.

You ascribe physical characteristics (green clothing, living in Ireland etc) to something fictitious and then claim that since these characteristics haven't been detected by science then you don't believe in leprechauns. I then, albeit sarcastically, invited you to substitute 'God' for 'leprechauns' on the same basis and, predictably, as I said, whoosh.   

OK Gordon, why don't you believe in them?...….(this'll be good)

[Nearly Sane]

Regarding your last paragraph I don't see any special skill in that particular direction.

With regards a ready answer to why I believe Leprechaun freehere it is.

Leprechauns are diminutive little men of Irish extraction dressed in green that are found at pots of Gold at rainbows.

They should therefore be detectable by the scientific method. Since the epicentre of leprechauns is Ireland and science has not found any evidence of such people then I'm afraid I don't believe them.

I'd forgotten about your lack of understanding about induction. Even with your cherry picking about the attributes about leprechauns - i.e. missing their supernatural qualities - you are just doing black swans.

[Gordon]

OK Gordon, why don't you believe in them?...….(this'll be good)

Easy peasy - no credible evidence on which beliefs could be justified.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd forgotten about your lack of understanding about induction. Even with your cherry picking about the attributes about leprechauns - i.e. missing their supernatural qualities - you are just doing black swans.

I don't believe they exist Nearly Sane nobody else does either for broadly the same reasons. Only you could make it seem like a crime.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't believe they exist Nearly Sane nobody else does either for broadly the same reasons. Only you could make it seem like a crime.

Your use of irrelevant non sequitur is tedious.

[Owlswing]

I don't believe they exist Nearly Sane nobody else does either for broadly the same reasons. Only you could make it seem like a crime.

No, the crime is that you do not believe that leprechauns exist there being no evidence for their existence, yet you believe in a God for who there is an equal quantity of evidence of his existence.

[Roses]

Some people genuinely believe fairies exist, although the evidence is lacking. Until there is evidence to prove without any shadow of doubt that god exists, its existence can only be a matter of faith, not fact.

[Nearly Sane]

Some people genuinely believe fairies exist, although the evidence is lacking. Until there is evidence to prove without any shadow of doubt that god exists, its existence can only be a matter of faith, not fact.

Until there is a logically coherent claim about what a god is, it's not even a matter of faith, just meaningless white noise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, the crime is that you do not believe that leprechauns exist there being no evidence for their existence, yet you believe in a God for who there is an equal quantity of evidence of his existence.

There is no crime. My experience of leprechauns is that everyone laughed at them they were an object of ridicule so, relying on cultural references I laughed at them as well so the possibility of believing in them has never arisen. In the event of having to discuss Leprechaun's because of faddism amongst the giggling atheists. One defends one's unbelief in them by saying that because of physical description
Leprechauns are the very thing that should be empirically apparent yet aren't and that too is based on the cultural lack of viable reports. I do not go doing my own research on them because to me they are 'An Irish affair'.

God on the other hand is a completely different affair and the impact of God crops up in all sorts of places. I find God more affecting than other lesser mysteries because, they are, ultimately not Ultimate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some people genuinely believe fairies exist, although the evidence is lacking. Until there is evidence to prove without any shadow of doubt that god exists, its existence can only be a matter of faith, not fact.

Some people genuinely believe in naturalism, although the evidence is lacking. Until there is evidence to prove without any shadow of doubt that naturalism exists, its existence can only be a matter of faith, not fact.

[Stranger]

God on the other hand is a completely different affair and the impact of God crops up in all sorts of places.

What's the exact definition of "God" and where are these places of which you speak?

And you still seem to be missing the point entirely. The similarity between leprechauns and all the various species of god(s) is just the amount of evidence we have for each of them (zero).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd forgotten about your lack of understanding about induction. Even with your cherry picking about the attributes about leprechauns - i.e. missing their supernatural qualities - you are just doing black swans.

My unbelief is probabilistic I believe so I don't know why you are going on about Black Swan's. I haven't confessed to knowing they don't exist, just believing they don't. So I refute your mentioning of Black swans.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's the exact definition of "God" and where are these places of which you speak?

And you still seem to be missing the point entirely. The similarity between leprechauns and all the various species of god(s) is just the amount of evidence we have for each of them (zero).

Where's the evidence of naturalism?
The lack of evidence for theism not being the evidence for naturalism.

[Stranger]

Where's the evidence of naturalism?
The lack of evidence for theism not being the evidence for naturalism.

Evasion noted.

Why do you want evidence for naturalism? Who's proposing it? I'm happy to consider the "supernatural" or whatever just as soon as there's a good reason to think it exists and there is an objective way to investigate it...

[Nearly Sane]

My unbelief is probabilistic I believe so I don't know why you are going on about Black Swan's. I haven't confessed to knowing they don't exist, just believing they don't. So I refute your mentioning of Black swans.

You have just admitted that you are wrong, so your refutation' is mere foot stamping

[Nearly Sane]

Some people genuinely believe in naturalism, although the evidence is lacking. Until there is evidence to prove without any shadow of doubt that naturalism exists, its existence can only be a matter of faith, not fact.

Gibberish

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evasion noted.

Why do you want evidence for naturalism? Who's proposing it? I'm happy to consider the "supernatural" or whatever just as soon as there's a good reason to think it exists and there is an objective way to investigate it...

No let's just have the evidence for naturalism, thank you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have just admitted that you are wrong, so your refutation' is mere foot stamping

How have I admitted I was wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

How have I admitted I was wrong?

That you can't rule out the existence of something by induction. It's one of your old failings, But in the post I replied to you accepted that, and then just ignored it. I honestly don't know if it's a deliberate ploy or if it's just you are that bad at thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That you can't rule out the existence of something by induction. It's one of your old failings, But in the post I replied to you accepted that, and then just ignored it. I honestly don't know if it's a deliberate ploy or if it's just you are that bad at thinking.

How did I do that I just said I didn't believe it. Do you know the difference between belief, knowledge, proof etc?

[Stranger]

No let's just have the evidence for naturalism, thank you.

No. I'm not proposing it. On the other hand, you have made claims about "God" and won't answer my questions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. I'm not proposing it. On the other hand, you have made claims about "God" and won't answer my questions.

Of course you are in your implicit demands for empirical evidence.

[Stranger]

Of course you are in your implicit demands for empirical evidence.

I didn't demand empirical evidence - I asked for a definition and where all these places are that this "God" of yours "crops up in".

I was asking you for clarification of your statement. If you have some other route than empirical evidence by which your claims can be distinguished from just guessing, then I'm perfectly happy for you to explain it.