WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.

The point I am making is that:

If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.

And again....What is this argument?

And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?

For now forget the argument

LOL.

Do you understand the concept though?

So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderbus,

LOL.

Why? He's merely trying to get you to grasp the concept for now. If you manage to do that, it's a simple enough matter to populate the "bad argument" set with examples - blimey, you of all people should know that!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingallovertheplace,

So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.

Why the gratuitous scumminess?

Either way you know full well the arguments that work just as well for both, and I've listed some of them already.

Your problem for now though is that even conceptually you don't seem to be able to grasp the principle that arguments for a god that work just as well for any other object of a personal belief must allow either all of them or none of them under the objectively true wire.

Why is this difficult for you?

[Owlswing]

Vlad,

I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.

The point I am making is that:

If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.

And again....What is this argument?

And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?

For now forget the argument

LOL.

Do you understand the concept though?

So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.

The argument that is the same for god (your god or my gods), to an atheist, is the same as that for fairies to someone who does not believe in fairies - the existence of your god is about as likely as the existence of fairies, and as equally impossible to prove beyond any doubt, regardless of who steadfastly you believe in one or the other!

Does this finally get through the six inches of concrete that form your skull?   

[Owlswing]

Vlunderingallovertheplace,

So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.

Why the gratuitous scumminess?

Either way you know full well the arguments that work just as well for both, and I've listed some of them already.

Your problem for now though is that even conceptually you don't seem to be able to grasp the principle that arguments for a god that work just as well for any other object of a personal belief must allow either all of them or none of them under the objectively true wire.

Why is this difficult for you?

See the last line of #385

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderbus,

LOL.

Why? He's merely trying to get you to grasp the concept for now. If you manage to do that, it's a simple enough matter to populate the "bad argument" set with examples - blimey, you of all people should know that!

No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.
Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.

I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.

So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.

Give an argument which is the same for God as it is for a fairy and while your at it why God or fairies should not be believed even if one is found.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderouslydense,

No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.

No - your "question or two" fundamentally misses the point of the argument. He's trying to get you to grasp the point in principle at least before worrying too much about providing examples for god/fairy arguments.

Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.

Your total refusal to engage with the point in principle suggests strongly that you don't get it at all, as does your insistence on asking irrelevant questions to try to derail the point under discussion.

I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.

Does not the irony that I've answered - what - a 1,000 plus of your questions maybe whereas you've never managed to answer any of mine strike at all you here?

You can ask all you like and have answers too, but not when the attempt is so obviously an avoidance tactic.

Do you even understand conceptually that an argument for an objective god that works equally for an objective fairy is a bad argument?

So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.

Wrong. Here's your chance to engage Vlunderbus or to be seen forever to be ducking the actual question under discussion.

If you're determined to pursue your derail nonetheless, start a thread on it.   

Give an argument which is the same for God as it is for a fairy...

How would that be relevant to the principle you keep dodging?

... and while your at it why God or fairies should not be believed even if one is found.

Again? Because you'd then have to treat whatever popped into anyones' heads - essentially your argument for your god - as necessarily objectively true too for everyone else, which is logically impossible. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderouslydense,

No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.

No - your "question or two" fundamentally misses the point of the argument. He's trying to get you to grasp the point in principle at least before worrying too much about providing examples for god/fairy arguments.

Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.

Your total refusal to engage with the point in principle suggests strongly that you don't get it at all, as does your insistence on asking irrelevant questions to try to derail the point under discussion.

I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.

Does not the irony that I've answered - what - a 1,000 plus of your questions maybe whereas you've never managed to answer any of mine strike at all you here?

You can ask all you like and have answers too, but not when the attempt is so obviously an avoidance tactic.

Do you even understand conceptually that an argument for an objective god that works equally for an objective fairy is a bad argument?

So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.

Wrong. Here's your chance to engage Vlunderbus or to be seen forever to be ducking the actual question under discussion.

If you're determined to pursue your derail nonetheless, start a thread on it.   

Give an argument which is the same for God as it is for a fairy...

How would that be relevant to the principle you keep dodging?
 

You assert much, state that it has been justified in past posts but are unable to repeat the purported justification.

The organ therefore has no grinder.............only two monkeys.

So to answer YOUR questions in language You will understand:

Eeee Eeee Eeeeeeeeeee Eeeeeeeeeeeee Ee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee!

[wigginhall]

Is there an argument for God which does not apply to fairies, or angels, or water-sprites?  I'm off for my dinner, so will try to think of one.   

[Owlswing]

Vlunderouslydense,

No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.

No - your "question or two" fundamentally misses the point of the argument. He's trying to get you to grasp the point in principle at least before worrying too much about providing examples for god/fairy arguments.

Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.

Your total refusal to engage with the point in principle suggests strongly that you don't get it at all, as does your insistence on asking irrelevant questions to try to derail the point under discussion.

I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.

Does not the irony that I've answered - what - a 1,000 plus of your questions maybe whereas you've never managed to answer any of mine strike at all you here?

You can ask all you like and have answers too, but not when the attempt is so obviously an avoidance tactic.

Do you even understand conceptually that an argument for an objective god that works equally for an objective fairy is a bad argument?

So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.

Wrong. Here's your chance to engage Vlunderbus or to be seen forever to be ducking the actual question under discussion.

If you're determined to pursue your derail nonetheless, start a thread on it.   

Give an argument which is the same for God as it is for a fairy...

How would that be relevant to the principle you keep dodging?
 

You assert much, state that it has been justified in past posts but are unable to repeat the purported justification.

The organ therefore has no grinder.............only two monkeys.

So to answer YOUR questions in language You will understand:

Eeee Eeee Eeeeeeeeeee Eeeeeeeeeeeee Ee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee!

Two pages of terminally boring evasion of the question and of a posted answer to your question -

Repeat of post #385

The argument that is the same for god (your god or my gods), to an atheist, is the same as that for fairies to someone who does not believe in fairies - the existence of your god is about as likely as the existence of fairies, and as equally impossible to prove beyond any doubt, regardless of how steadfastly you believe in one or the other!

You can ignore this all you like - it will not change the fact that you have no answer to this statement that will validate your belief in your god and invalidate someone else's belief in fairies!

May I suggest a brain transplant from a snail in order to double you rather dubious intelligence?

Vlad - posting since 2004 without answering a single question put to him that will validate the Christain god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Librarian,

Eeee Eeee Eeeeeeeeeee Eeeeeeeeeeeee Ee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee!

Your further evasion is noted. As you have nothing to contribute here other than your usual cocktail of dull incomprehension, thuggish nihilism and clunking derail attempts I shall leave you to your personal grief. Cock-eyed optimist that I am, I do though retain some hope that BA will at least grasp the principle under discussion.

Let’s see…

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Wiggs,

Is there an argument for God which does not apply to fairies, or angels, or water-sprites?  I'm off for my dinner, so will try to think of one.

Well, if anyone can think of one you’re the man for the job. One approach is the “my Dad is bigger than your Dad” of simply claiming that, whatever the different belief, yours outranks and nullifies it but that doesn’t seem to lead very far. 

Actually I’m not too scorched earth about this – the “fairy test” seems like a handy way of clearing away the brushwood if “it gives meaning to my life”, “you can’t disprove it”, “I intuited it” etc to me but no more. I genuinely would like to hear some arguments for an objective god that pass the test if there are any so I look forward to hearing from you!   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderouslydense,

No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.

No - your "question or two" fundamentally misses the point of the argument. He's trying to get you to grasp the point in principle at least before worrying too much about providing examples for god/fairy arguments.

Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.

Your total refusal to engage with the point in principle suggests strongly that you don't get it at all, as does your insistence on asking irrelevant questions to try to derail the point under discussion.

I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.

Does not the irony that I've answered - what - a 1,000 plus of your questions maybe whereas you've never managed to answer any of mine strike at all you here?

You can ask all you like and have answers too, but not when the attempt is so obviously an avoidance tactic.

Do you even understand conceptually that an argument for an objective god that works equally for an objective fairy is a bad argument?

So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.

Wrong. Here's your chance to engage Vlunderbus or to be seen forever to be ducking the actual question under discussion.

If you're determined to pursue your derail nonetheless, start a thread on it.   

Give an argument which is the same for God as it is for a fairy...

How would that be relevant to the principle you keep dodging?
 

You assert much, state that it has been justified in past posts but are unable to repeat the purported justification.

The organ therefore has no grinder.............only two monkeys.

So to answer YOUR questions in language You will understand:

Eeee Eeee Eeeeeeeeeee Eeeeeeeeeeeee Ee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee!

Two pages of terminally boring evasion of the question and of a posted answer to your question -

Repeat of post #385

The argument that is the same for god (your god or my gods), to an atheist, is the same as that for fairies to someone who does not believe in fairies - the existence of your god is about as likely as the existence of fairies.

At last....the old probability of God schtick.
That's a bit dubious since no actual figure for the probability is ever provided by it's proponent and yet here you are announcing it is equal to that for fairies.

Fairies are little chaps with wings who are able to transmute stuff using some kind of dust. So there is a probability attached to this. God is completely in a different category.

if there is equal probability then it is highly improbable that they are not the same thing and yet here you are arguing they are different things.

So you see, the atheist position is based on deliberate category confusion and a vague probabilism.

Before he was seduced by the dark side Wigginhall would have explained all of this to you but I think I saw him slink off stage left a bit earlier.

[Owlswing]

Vlunderouslydense,

No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.

No - your "question or two" fundamentally misses the point of the argument. He's trying to get you to grasp the point in principle at least before worrying too much about providing examples for god/fairy arguments.

Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.

Your total refusal to engage with the point in principle suggests strongly that you don't get it at all, as does your insistence on asking irrelevant questions to try to derail the point under discussion.

I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.

Does not the irony that I've answered - what - a 1,000 plus of your questions maybe whereas you've never managed to answer any of mine strike at all you here?

You can ask all you like and have answers too, but not when the attempt is so obviously an avoidance tactic.

Do you even understand conceptually that an argument for an objective god that works equally for an objective fairy is a bad argument?

So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.

Wrong. Here's your chance to engage Vlunderbus or to be seen forever to be ducking the actual question under discussion.

If you're determined to pursue your derail nonetheless, start a thread on it.   

Give an argument which is the same for God as it is for a fairy...

How would that be relevant to the principle you keep dodging?
 

You assert much, state that it has been justified in past posts but are unable to repeat the purported justification.

The organ therefore has no grinder.............only two monkeys.

So to answer YOUR questions in language You will understand:

Eeee Eeee Eeeeeeeeeee Eeeeeeeeeeeee Ee eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeee!

Two pages of terminally boring evasion of the question and of a posted answer to your question -

Repeat of post #385

The argument that is the same for god (your god or my gods), to an atheist, is the same as that for fairies to someone who does not believe in fairies - the existence of your god is about as likely as the existence of fairies.

At last....the old probability of God schtick.
That's a bit dubious since no actual figure for the probability is ever provided by it's proponent and yet here you are announcing it is equal to that for fairies.

Fairies are little chaps with wings who are able to transmute stuff using some kind of dust. So there is a probability attached to this. God is completely in a different category.

if there is equal probability then it is highly improbable that they are not the same thing and yet here you are arguing they are different things.

So you see, the atheist position is based on deliberate category confusion and a vague probabilism.

Before he was seduced by the dark side Wigginhall would have explained all of this to you but I think I saw him slink off stage left a bit earlier.

You really are a bloody fool, an idoit, and an illiterate imbecile!

I am not and nver have been an athieist!

You belief in your god is a matter of FAITH!

My belief in my Gods and Goddesses is a matter of FAITH!

Someone, anyone, elses belief in Fairies is a matter of FAITH.

END OF!

Now for the love of whatever god you believe in superglue all you fingers together and then to your VDU screen and SHUT THE FUCK UP about belief in any god or fairies being different - they are NOT! They both a matter of faith.

[jeremyp]

I'll answer it as I would any child-like query.  "Got io bed now, dear, and we'll read about some little fairies that live at the bottom of the garden, tomorrow.  Night."

I would never treat a child's question with that level of contempt.

[Outrider]

No Hillside. He is trying to avoid answering a question or two.

And we all know who has the patent on that tactic, don't we?

Neither he nor you have any idea whether ''I get'' or ''don't get'' the concept and will not until you answer the question.

Nobody knows where you stand on any issue - you fail to make any actual points and only pop up occasionally to ask questions ranging from the puerile to the inane or to dribble the contents of a thesaurus pretentiously across a thread.

I have told you time and time again that I am against the morally doubtful antitheist sense of entitlement where they think it is their right to ask the questions and avoid fielding them.

Et voila.

So here is your chance Hillside or forever be seen as ducking the question.

Bonjour Monsieur Kettle, et vous noir?

O.

[Outrider]

Fairies are little chaps with wings who are able to transmute stuff using some kind of dust. So there is a probability attached to this. God is completely in a different category.

I'll take 'Unsubstantiated Assertions' for 100 please... Or, no, I'll take 'Mythical Creatures' for 200... actually, thinking about it, I'll take 'Unevidenced Claims' for 300.

So you see, the atheist position is based on deliberate category confusion and a vague probabilism.

If you are correct - which isn't demonstrable here - you'd perhaps call into question AN atheist position, there are many.

Before he was seduced by the dark side Wigginhall would have explained all of this to you but I think I saw him slink off stage left a bit earlier.

How dare he have better things to do at a particular moment in time! What a sense of entitlement, doesn't he realise Vlad is spouting!!!

O.

[floo]

Vlad,

I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.

The point I am making is that:

If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.

And again....What is this argument?

And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?

For now forget the argument

LOL.

Do you understand the concept though?

So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.

Can you provide a credible argument that gives more credence to the existence of a deity than fairies?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.

The point I am making is that:

If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.

And again....What is this argument?

And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?

For now forget the argument

LOL.

Do you understand the concept though?

So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.

Can you provide a credible argument that gives more credence to the existence of a deity than fairies?

Fairies are little chaps with wings....therefore we should expect them at least to be stalked by Attenborough, Naturewatch or have an appearance in the Observers Book of winged thingies.

God is in philosophy as the platonic one, the root of morality, the unity of knowledge, universal consciousness etc. etc.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlud the Vulgarian,

Dammit man, it’s only October and now we’ll have to close the stupidest post of 2015 competition early.

At last....the old probability of God schtick.

That's a bit dubious since no actual figure for the probability is ever provided by it's proponent and yet here you are announcing it is equal to that for fairies.

It’s not dubious at all. There’s no means of calculating the probability of one conjecture against another because none of them are probability apt. The primary problem is that none of them – gods, fairies, whatever – have any sort of meaningful definitions so comparisons between them would be like comparing y7(*&^54fg76r with 7uy67546wF86t. It’s all just white noise.

Nonetheless, even if you take the bewildering variety of claims about these things at face value, the secondary problem is that by using exactly the same arguments for all of them they become equally (im)probable. That’s the point: pick any of the hopeless arguments (”you can’t disprove it”, “it gives meaning to my life”, I intuit it” etc) and you have no choice but to conclude that they are all either equally likely or equally unlikely.

Fairies are little chaps with wings who are able to transmute stuff using some kind of dust. So there is a probability attached to this. God is completely in a different category.

Deep, deep stupidity.

First, you continually miss the basic point here: regardless of the characteristics you attach to your belief, if the argument that gets you to its existence in the first place is exactly the same as the arguments that get you to different belief objects with different characteristics then your arguments are wrong.

Second, you cannot retrofit the characteristics you happen to approve of (eg those of your god over those of fairies) and somehow work back from that as if in some way those characteristics had anything to do with the quality of the arguments that got you there to start with.

if there is equal probability then it is highly improbable that they are not the same thing and yet here you are arguing they are different things.

Non sequitur. There’s no reason for equally improbable things not to be different from each other. 

So you see, the atheist position is based on deliberate category confusion and a vague probabilism.

So you see that any “category confusion” is in fact all yours.

Before he was seduced by the dark side Wigginhall would have explained all of this to you but I think I saw him slink off stage left a bit earlier.

Wiggs hasn’t been seduced by anything (well, not here anyway) and he hasn’t “explained” is because he’s more than intelligent enough to grasp the crock you’ve attempted here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlud the Vulgarian,

Dammit man, it’s only October and now we’ll have to close the stupidest post of 2015 competition early.

You said that and then proceeded to type the rest of your interminable post!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Forum,

In the midst of this ever changing world it's nice to read the familiar.

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

Including Vlad's complete ignorance of what fairies are.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Including Vlad's complete ignorance of what fairies are.

Careful now.....if you come up with something new it may undermine Hillsides 'argumentum ad ridiculum' and one should never undermine Hillside.

For you also the claim that I am ignorant of what fairies are, a positive assertion, requires you for once to explain your beliefs.............Oh dear looks like you are in a cleft stick.

[floo]

Vlad,

I am not talking about the argument as I have not heard it for a while.

The point I am making is that:

If an argument for god also works for fairies, you MUST either believe both or not believe both. You cannot believe one and reject the other.

And again....What is this argument?

And why can you not see that you needn't believe in things just on the strength or failure of one argument?

For now forget the argument

LOL.

Do you understand the concept though?

So, you cannot provide an argument that is the same for God as for fairies........I shall be waiting on Hillside' attempt....the voice of the engineer rather than the stain from the oily rag.

Can you provide a credible argument that gives more credence to the existence of a deity than fairies?

Fairies are little chaps with wings....therefore we should expect them at least to be stalked by Attenborough, Naturewatch or have an appearance in the Observers Book of winged thingies.

God is in philosophy as the platonic one, the root of morality, the unity of knowledge, universal consciousness etc. etc.

The deity and morality is an oxymoron!