Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

You are totally missing the point, Blue.
You can speculate and pontificate all you like from outside the faith, but until you encounter and accept the love of Jesus into your life you will never experience the complete and lasting happiness and fulfilment which faith can bring.
You need to let down the barriers, allow the love of Jesus come into your life - and I will look forward to hearing or reading your own testimony. 

I was in the faith, Alan and so were many other atheists. I experienced the love of Jesus, or so I thought. Eventually, I realised it was a con, perpetrated by the church(es).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You mentioned Leprechauns again.

Yes, because a reductio ad absurdum argument requires an absurd claim. Could you try at least to understand why?
 

You admit to horses laugh fallacy...

More lying isn't helping you here. I admitted no such thing, and I explained to you at some length how a reductio ad absurdum precisely is not the horse's laugh fallacy.

...and chuck in words like reductio ad absurdum to throw off the scent.

No, I explain to you the reductio ad absurdum argument because that's the argument I actually use.

You must absolutely hate the readers of this post.

Not at all.

It's pitiful seeing the simple and innocent trust they put in you stretching their keen wee atheist mittens to you for your "wisdom".

It's not my wisdom it's the wisdom of logicians long before me, including Socrates. If you'd bothered reading the Wiki article you'd know this by now and so wouldn't keep soiling yourself in public here.

Oh, and there's no response to the last lie you were caught attempting I see. 'twas ever thus I guess.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Actual, don't know (and neither do you)reported, loads

Fun as it is watching you still flip-flopping between claiming “loads” of empirical encounters and “I've never declared divine encounters are empirical” (Reply #51810) you might now want to consider not riding these two flatly contradictory horses at the same time. 

[jeremyp]

Actual, don't know (and neither do you)reported, loads

Yes i do know. The answer is none. No experience of God can be verified as being an experience of God..

I reason that it is not impossible for him to be so and that possibility is greater than actual infinities and circular hierarchies.

I agree, it is not impossible for Christ to have been a cult leader whose cult got lucky and I think the first part of that is quite mundane. The second part (the getting lucky part) is much rarer but not unknown. There are a number of successful religions.

[jeremyp]

Vlad,

Yes, because a reductio ad absurdum argument requires an absurd claim. Could you try at least to understand why?

Actually, it requires an absurd conclusion. i.e. you take Vlad's claim that his argument shows that God is real and follow it through to the point where, if its a valid argument, it can also be shown that leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters and various other deities and supernatural beings are also real. This is an absurd conclusion, and therefore the premise must be false.
 
It doesn't even have to absurd in the ridiculous sense. It could just be mutually contradictory with the premise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes i do know. The answer is none. No experience of God can be verified as being an experience of God..I agree, it is not impossible for Christ to have been a cult leader whose cult got lucky and I think the first part of that is quite mundane. The second part (the getting lucky part) is much rarer but not unknown. There are a number of successful religions.

I think the first part of your answer depends on the certainty of God not being able to manifest physically and I don't think we can be certain.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Fun as it is watching you still flip-flopping between claiming “loads” of empirical encounters and “I've never declared divine encounters are empirical” (Reply #51810) you might now want to consider not riding these two flatly contradictory horses at the same time.

I've never claimed loads of empirical encounters, I said
I didn't know how many actual physical manifestations there had been.

[jeremyp]

I think the first part of your answer depends on the certainty of God not being able to manifest physically

No it doesn't. It depends on people being able to present verifiable evidence that their encounters were with the actual creator of the Universe - or his son. We know they can't present this evidence, because, if they could, you Christians would be banging on about it all the time.

[Gordon]

I think the first part of your answer depends on the certainty of God not being able to manifest physically and I don't think we can be certain.

Leaving aside how you could be 'certain' about any aspect of the 'God' claim  - if, as you say, you cannot be certain that 'God' can manifest itself physically then you are conceding that, in the absence of supporting physical evidence for 'God', a wise person would doubt any such claims and treat them as not being a serious proposition.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I've never claimed loads of empirical encounters, I said
I didn't know how many actual physical manifestations there had been.

You:

I've never declared divine encounters are empirical.

Reply #51810

Also you:

My understanding is that a theophany is an empirically detected divine manifestation.

Reply #51784

It might help if you finally us told which one you opt for.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremyp,

Actually, it requires an absurd conclusion. i.e. you take Vlad's claim that his argument shows that God is real and follow it through to the point where, if its a valid argument, it can also be shown that leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters and various other deities and supernatural beings are also real. This is an absurd conclusion, and therefore the premise must be false.
 
It doesn't even have to absurd in the ridiculous sense. It could just be mutually contradictory with the premise.

Yes I know - I meant "claim" to mean the conclusion. Vlad though seems to think that the very mention of leprechauns, the flying spaghetti monster etc must be an argument from ridicule ("You mentioned ⁴Leprechauns Hillside. Your'e guilty" (sic)), presumably because he can't or won't grasp the meaning of the reductio ad absurdum.

[jeremyp]

jeremyp,

Yes I know - I meant "claim" to mean the conclusion. Vlad though seems to think that the very mention of leprechauns, the flying spaghetti monster etc must be an argument from ridicule ("You mentioned ⁴Leprechauns Hillside. Your'e guilty" (sic)), presumably because he can't or won't grasp the meaning of the reductio ad absurdum.

You could just stick to the god of Islam who is not ridiculous according to about two billion muslims, but is mutually incompatible with two thirds of the Christian god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremyp,

You could just stick to the god of Islam who is not ridiculous according to about two billion muslims, but is mutually incompatible with two thirds of the Christian god.

Yes, any god will do when the argument attempted for the Christian god in which the Christian believes would work equally well for another god in which the Christian doesn’t believe. The particular force of the reductio ad absurdum though is in the indisputable barminess of the conclusion – leprechauns, the flying spaghetti monster etc – in which no-one could believe but which could be justified just as well with the argument the theist attempts for his choice of god.       

Sadly this simple reasoning still eludes Vlad, but simple reasoning it is nonetheless.