Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

erm,er, yes....would that pity extend to a small renumeration perhaps?

[Walter]

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

you are no different from a Flat Earther .

No matter what arguments you make for it , your basic premise is WRONG. Therefore I don't need to know what they are. No amount of studying the subject is going to change that .

you're welcome !   

[Nearly Sane]

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.

So when I point out your misrepresentation, you them misrepresent what I said.  You really cannot help yourself. Just saying there are there is some argument that someone does not know, as you have done in this thread to Never Talk to Strangers, is not an argument. It's an empty meaningless assertion.

[jeremyp]

And if you think about it is the equivalent of saying God is as non existent as the clothes on a naked man.

Yes it is. You don't need to be an expert in tailoring to see that the emperor is naked. I can argue that there is no evidence for the existence of the emperor's costume without knowing anything about different types of fine cloth.

[Stranger]

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

Still waiting for you to post or link to one of these amazing arguments. It looks rather like you lack confidence in getting behind any argument for fear of it being demolished.

What is it with the theists here? Alan keeps telling us he has logic but never posts any and you keep telling us about great arguments for god but never post any either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes it is. You don't need to be an expert in tailoring to see that the emperor is naked. I can argue that there is no evidence for the existence of the emperor's costume without knowing anything about different types of fine cloth.

And yet it his hard to find an atheist round here who will commit to the statement:

There IS no God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

you are no different from a Flat Earther .

No matter what arguments you make for it , your basic premise is WRONG. Therefore I don't need to know what they are. No amount of studying the subject is going to change that .

you're welcome !

Flat earther? Don't be so soft.
Premise WRONG? positive assertion....get cracking.

Bluff northern doesn't wash wi'me .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still waiting for you to post or link to one of these amazing arguments. It looks rather like you lack confidence in getting behind any argument for fear of it being demolished.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#Obje3PrinCausSuffReasSusp

[Gordon]

And yet it his hard to find an atheist round here who will commit to the statement:

There IS no God.

I'm sure you'd love that: why are you so dissatisfied with 'there are no good reasons to think there is a 'God'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm sure you'd love that: why are you so dissatisfied with 'there are no good reasons to think there is a 'God'?

Whose ''good''?

[Gordon]

Whose ''good''?

'Good' as in being arguments that are neither fallacious nor incoherent, which I'd say was a colloquially acceptable use of the term: arguments that stand scrutiny. Would it help you if I changed 'good' to 'sound'?

Now is you chance to advance a 'good' or 'sound' argument for 'God', Vlad.

[Stranger]

And yet it his hard to find an atheist round here who will commit to the statement:

There IS no God.

That'll probably be because most of us are agnostic atheists or igtheists.

You don't seem to get the burden of proof - it's up to those proposing a god to both define what they mean by it and give us some reason to take it seriously.

[Nearly Sane]

'Good' as in being arguments that are neither fallacious nor incoherent, which I'd say was a colloquially acceptable use of the term: arguments that stand scrutiny. Would it help you if I changed 'good' to 'sound'?

Now is you chance to advance a 'good' or 'sound' argument for 'God', Vlad.

And in order to do that he will need to provide a logically coherent definition of 'God'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Good' as in being arguments that are neither fallacious nor incoherent, which I'd say was a colloquially acceptable use of the term: arguments that stand scrutiny. Would it help you if I changed 'good' to 'sound'?

Now is you chance to advance a 'good' or 'sound' argument for 'God', Vlad.

Unfortunately, as far as scrutiny is concerned you and others have signally lacked it. Preferring Argumentum ad ridiculum.

You've talked a lot about fallacies. All I've seen from you are continual cack handed attempts to show NPF.

[Gordon]

And in order to do that he will need to provide a logically coherent definition of 'God'

He certainly will: I'm looking forward to seeing what he comes up with.

[Gordon]

Unfortunately, as far as scrutiny is concerned you and others have signally lacked it. Preferring Argumentum ad ridiculum.

You've talked a lot about fallacies. All I've seen from you are continual cack handed attempts to show NPF.

Which highlights that you really don't understand fallacies: perhaps you could point out where I did this.

[Stranger]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#Obje3PrinCausSuffReasSusp

That's a whole class of arguments and the article itself points out the problems and objections. The Kalam version has been dealt with here several times (and is laughable).

Is there one version you find compelling and are prepared to defend, that we can talk about?

[Nearly Sane]

Unfortunately, as far as scrutiny is concerned you and others have signally lacked it. Preferring Argumentum ad ridiculum.

You've talked a lot about fallacies. All I've seen from you are continual cack handed attempts to show NPF.

lying and evasion

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's a whole class of arguments and the article itself points out the problems and objections. The Kalam version has been dealt with here several times (and is laughable).

Is there one version you find compelling and are prepared to defend, that we can talk about?

Have you read it? I think not since you are still finding things 'laughable'.

[Walter]

Flat earther? Don't be so soft.
Premise WRONG? positive assertion....get cracking.

Bluff northern doesn't wash wi'me .

I would have some respect for you if you simply admitted that you cant prove anything and it's all about emotion and feelings .

I for one would accept that and leave you alone but you can't do it ,can you?

Vlad remember, nobody in the history of the world has ever shown any clear evidence for what you say you believe to be true
And lying about it is not an argument .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would have some respect for you if you simply admitted that you cant prove anything and it's all about emotion and feelings .

I for one would accept that and leave you alone but you can't do it ,can you?

Vlad remember, nobody in the history of the world has ever shown any clear evidence for what you say you believe to be true
And lying about it is not an argument .

There's still the matter to be settled of why something and not nothing.
And the matter of Christ's mission and message which goes beyond just an appeal for people to be Good.

[Roses]

Being a good, decent person is what is important, whether you are religious or not.

[Walter]

There's still the matter to be settled of why something and not nothing.
And the matter of Christ's mission and message which goes beyond just an appeal for people to be Good.

well there is 'something' so get over it . I don't know why and neither do you .

and as for 'christ's mission', all you are doing is introducing more  ideas that require verification and validation before they can be discussed .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Being a good, decent person is what is important, whether you are religious or not.

Important for who?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

well there is 'something' so get over it . I don't know why and neither do you .

and as for 'christ's mission', all you are doing is introducing more  ideas that require verification and validation before they can be discussed .

That's a cop out. Or has this become the discussion board which refuses to discuss...…….(yes?)