Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

I'm not sure I want to comply with that if it promotes your perfect happiness.

[Stranger]

I'm not sure I want to comply with that if it promotes your perfect happiness.

Suit yourself, but if you can't even clarify your own statements then I don't see how you expect to be taken seriously...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Suit yourself, but if you can't even clarify your own statements then I don't see how you expect to be taken seriously...

There is a mountain of information on the Christian view of God. Reviewing your output on the subject you haven't accessed this. If you are not interested in what religion has to say then why are you here?

[Roses]

There is a mountain of information on the Christian view of God. Reviewing your output on the subject you haven't accessed this. If you are not interested in what religion has to say then why are you here?

I have been on the receiving end of that 'mountain of information' since I first drew breath, but there is no evidence to substantiate it.

[Stranger]

There is a mountain of information on the Christian view of God.

I know, and much of it is contradictory. There is simply no such thing as the Christian view of God - there are all sorts of different Christian views of god. If there was only one there wouldn't be endless denominations, sects, and cults. It's not even as if you have promoted just one view of god here on these boards. You've gone all the way from Feser's "base of the hierarchy of existence" to the idiotic simulated universe drivel.

You made a statement about "God" so it really is up to you to clarify.

[Gordon]

There is a mountain of information on the Christian view of God.

So there is: so what?

The key point, surely, is whether or not the contents stand scrutiny.

Reviewing your output on the subject you haven't accessed this.

In desperation, perhaps, you now seem to be deploying the 'Courtier's Reply', which isn't a good move, Vlad.

If you are not interested in what religion has to say then why are you here?

Being interested in what "religion" has to say doesn't imply any sort of agreement with what "religion" says.

[ippy]

I know, and much of it is contradictory. There is simply no such thing as the Christian view of God - there are all sorts of different Christian views of god. If there was only one there wouldn't be endless denominations, sects, and cults. It's not even as if you have promoted just one view of god here on these boards. You've gone all the way from Feser's "base of the hierarchy of existence" to the idiotic simulated universe drivel.

You made a statement about "God" so it really is up to you to clarify.

Wherever you come from about anything to do with this god idea, a person or thing of yours Vlad, it doesn't really matter because if you and any of the others like you with a similar viewpoint haven't managed to come up with any evidence that would or could substantiate this god idea as a person or thing actually exists, so why all of this rubbish about a he she or it something you can't even prove exists.

Prove this he she or it thing you refer to as god exists and after that I'll grant you it'd be worth talking about the merits, demerits or the inns an outs of this something that at the moment only amounts to an early bronze age idea and that's all.

ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So there is: so what?



In desperation, perhaps, you now seem to be deploying the 'Courtier's Reply', which isn't a good move, Vlad.

Courtiers reply. A fallacy invented by PZ Myers just to let Dawkins of the hook for knowing fuck all about that which he complained so much about.

[Gordon]

Courtiers reply. A fallacy invented by PZ Myers just to let Dawkins of the hook for knowing fuck all about that which he complained so much about.

Yet you fell into using this very fallacy so easily, probably because you didn't think through what you were posting before clicking on 'post'.

You see, Vlad, if the underlying arguments made for 'God' are all fundamentally fallacious and/or incoherent they don't suddenly become less fallacious and/or incoherent whatever amounts of theobabble are produced in support of them: it is unnecessary to read every smidgen where it is clear that the underlying argument being advanced is flawed.   

[Alan Burns]

Yet you fell into using this very fallacy so easily, probably because you didn't think through what you were posting before clicking on 'post'.

You see, Vlad, if the underlying arguments made for 'God' are all fundamentally fallacious and/or incoherent they don't suddenly become less fallacious and/or incoherent whatever amounts of theobabble are produced in support of them: it is unnecessary to read every smidgen where it is clear that the underlying argument being advanced is flawed.

But for this alleged fallacy to be feasible, you would need to show that scientific knowledge alone was adequate to explain away every miracle that has ever taken place - including your own acts of human free will.

[Walter]

But for this alleged fallacy to be feasible, you would need to show that scientific knowledge alone was adequate to explain away every miracle that has ever taken place - including your own acts of human free will.

Alan

I'm pretty sure now you don't even take yourself seriously. 

[Gordon]

But for this alleged fallacy to be feasible, you would need to show that scientific knowledge alone was adequate to explain away every miracle that has ever taken place - including your own acts of human free will.

Nope: Vlad's descent into the 'Courtier's Reply' was due to him naively claiming that his critics were not taking into account a "mountain of information on the Christian view of God", and I pointed out to him that this "mountain" is just window-dressing (or as I prefer theobabble) that is little more that wordy restatements of the usual range of failed fallacious arguments for 'God'.

The "scientific knowledge" you mention is utterly irrelevant to Vlad's use of the 'Courtier's Reply', but true to form here you go again falling into your routine fallacies of personal incredulity and ignorance, with a dash of begging the question and a splash of reification: a fallacy-cocktail no less, and all in a single sentence too!

[Nearly Sane]

But for this alleged fallacy to be feasible, you would need to show that scientific knowledge alone was adequate to explain away every miracle that has ever taken place - including your own acts of human free will.

That's not just begging the question, that's handrolled Camberwell carrot begging the question.

[torridon]

But for this alleged fallacy to be feasible, you would need to show that scientific knowledge alone was adequate to explain away every miracle that has ever taken place - including your own acts of human free will.

Don't be silly Alan, I don't have supernatural powers and neither do you

[Stranger]

But for this alleged fallacy to be feasible, you would need to show that scientific knowledge alone was adequate to explain away every miracle that has ever taken place...

You really are a total stranger to logic, aren't you? Nobody needs to demonstrate that everything is "natural" in order to spot a that an argument that they are not is a bad argument.

Bad arguments (fallacies) are bad arguments regardless of the truth of their conclusions. When all the arguments for some claim are bad arguments, and we have no evidence, then the claim cannot be supported. This is the case with god claims. That doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a god (or gods) - just that we have no reason to suppose that there is.

...including your own acts of human free will.

Still waiting for you to produce the logic you said you had to support the claim that there is anything magical about anything humans can do...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope: Vlad's descent into the 'Courtier's Reply' was due to him naively claiming that his critics were not taking into account a "mountain of information on the Christian view of God", and I pointed out to him that this "mountain" is just window-dressing (or as I prefer theobabble) that is little more that wordy restatements of the usual range of failed fallacious arguments for 'God'.

I think you need educating on the origin of the courtiers reply.
When challenged on his lack of knowledge in religious matters Dawkins replied that he didn't need to have studied Leprechology to know that Leprechauns were bunk. He thus resorted to campaigning atheisms central argument. Argument ad ridiculum.

Myers then defended Dawkins by coming up with the Courtiers reply. Myers critics then applied the newly forged 'fallacy' to situations where Campaigning atheists wouldn't like it e.g. the promotion of creationism.

Of course it's a ruse to avoid ANY criticism and to allow the Lord and Master to say what he likes.

Here's the rub though if you are unfamiliar with the arguments how can you say what they are?

We know that initially celebrity atheists didn't get and many still don't get arguments from contingency.

So there you go. Dawkins made popular a mode for dismissing expertise which eventually led to Brexit! Only joking...…..or am I?

[Nearly Sane]

I think you need educating on the origin of the courtiers reply.
When challenged on his lack of knowledge in religious matters Dawkins replied that he didn't need to have studied Leprechology to know that Leprechauns were bunk. He thus resorted to campaigning atheisms central argument. Argument ad ridiculum.

Myers then defended Dawkins by coming up with the Courtiers reply. Myers critics then applied the newly forged 'fallacy' to situations where Campaigning atheists wouldn't like it e.g. the promotion of creationism.

Of course it's a ruse to avoid ANY criticism and to allow the Lord and Master to say what he likes.

Here's the rub though if you are unfamiliar with the arguments how can you say what they are?

We know that initially celebrity atheists didn't get and many still don't get arguments from contingency.

So there you go. Dawkins made popular a mode for dismissing expertise which eventually led to Brexit! Only joking...…..or am I?

This is of course a complete misrepresentation. You need to show the expertise and the arguments, not just as you have done here and as is covered by the courtiers reply assert that there are arguments that someone is not aware of, but not make them, or that there is expertise in a field without showing its validity. Your approach is both based on a lie, and also shows your inability to make a coherent argument

[Stranger]

Here's the rub though if you are unfamiliar with the arguments how can you say what they are?

We know that initially celebrity atheists didn't get and many still don't get arguments from contingency.

Still waiting for you to actually present any of these wonderful arguments. As for the courtier's reply - there's no point in studying theology if you haven't established the existence of the relevant god. So, again, where are these arguments that establish the existence of one (or more) of the many god ideas?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is of course a complete misrepresentation. You need to show the expertise and the arguments, not just as you have done here and as is covered by the courtiers reply assert that there are arguments that someone is not aware of, but not make them, or that there is expertise in a field without showing its validity. Your approach is both based on a lie, and also shows your inability to make a coherent argument

Dawkins assumes there is no expertise and then passes this dismissal off as a virtue. The courtiers reply then defends this strategy...….what you are going on about I don't know.

You are defending Dawkins defence of not having to know about that which he speaks.

[Roses]

Dawkins assumes there is no expertise and then passes this dismissal off as a virtue. The courtiers reply then defends this strategy...….what you are going on about I don't know.

You are defending Dawkins defence of not having to know about that which he speaks.

It is you who doesn't seem to know what you are wittering on about.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still waiting for you to actually present any of these wonderful arguments. As for the courtier's reply - there's no point in studying theology

You obviously haven't because you don't know a classic theistic Cosmological argument when you see one.

[Gordon]

I think you need educating on the origin of the courtiers reply.
When challenged on his lack of knowledge in religious matters Dawkins replied that he didn't need to have studied Leprechology to know that Leprechauns were bunk. He thus resorted to campaigning atheisms central argument. Argument ad ridiculum.

Myers then defended Dawkins by coming up with the Courtiers reply. Myers critics then applied the newly forged 'fallacy' to situations where Campaigning atheists wouldn't like it e.g. the promotion of creationism.

Of course it's a ruse to avoid ANY criticism and to allow the Lord and Master to say what he likes.

Here's the rub though if you are unfamiliar with the arguments how can you say what they are?

We know that initially celebrity atheists didn't get and many still don't get arguments from contingency.

So there you go. Dawkins made popular a mode for dismissing expertise which eventually led to Brexit! Only joking...…..or am I?

So, you don't really understand why the 'Courtier's Reply' is fallacious: it's just that you don't like it because of its source, so you are also committing the genetic fallacy. 

What makes you think that I don't know anything of the various arguments for 'God'? Have we not recently discussing aspects under the cosmological argument banner?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is you who doesn't seem to know what you are wittering on about.

What's the matter...….isn't yer axe sharp enough Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho He He He.

[Roses]

What's the matter...….isn't yer axe sharp enough Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho He He He.

You poor old thing, I feel so sorry for you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, you don't really understand why the 'Courtier's Reply' is fallacious: it's just that you don't like it because of its source, so you are also committing the genetic fallacy. 

Not at all. I've bowed to Myer's authority before on what does and doesn't constitute a teleological argument.

I don't like it because it is just a ''get out of jail free'' card designed to eliminate all criticism of the Lord and Master.

And if you think about it is the equivalent of saying God is as non existent as the clothes on a naked man. I think you'll find that not even the Good Dawkter could make as clear as a comparison as that if he has his hand on his heart.