WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[BeRational]

Now back to where you think I have been debunked.

How long have you got - it’s happened hundreds of times, only you’ve just ignored or misrepresented it when it has. You could always start by finally telling us why you dismiss my belief in stork theory though.

My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What class?

You still have not answered the question I posed about understanding the concept of comparing two or more arguments that are the same?

I cannot believe you cannot understand the simple concept, but you appear not to.

It was a red herring which I was not prepared to entertain as I recall.

It's not a red herring. It's absolutely gets to the heart of the matter.

Perhaps that's why you do not like it, as it shows your beliefs for what they are?

I am within my rights not to entertain your red herring as it constitutes what I see as sneaky antitheist practice.

It's not a red herring just a logical approach to analysis of competing claims.

You can dismiss it, but it just makes you wrong.

No it was an attempt to establish that something was ridiculous and then merely assert that God was like it. You never actually established a categorical equality between God and the thing you were saying. I believe it was the fallacy of argumentum ad ridiculum.

Try again.

No that's not the case.

The concept allows you to posit any argument you like.

The problem you have is to create an argument that ONLY works for you god, and not something else that I can also plug into the argument.

If it does, then you have to believe neither or both, but not one.

If you do, then you are illogical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingabout,

My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What class?

Please stop lying, it's getting dull.

Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.

How?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingoverthecliff,

No it was an attempt to establish that something was ridiculous and then merely assert that God was like it. You never actually established a categorical equality between God and the thing you were saying. I believe it was the fallacy of argumentum ad ridiculum.

Try again.

See, you've had that stupidity taken apart in front of your eyes more than once and just ignored the rebuttals, and now you return to your original mistake.

Can you see why some of us get so frustrated by your behaviour here?

Yet again: if the precisely the same arguments ("I intuit it", "it gives meaning to my life", "you can't disprove it" etc) support the conclusions of gods and leprechauns alike, then either both of them are ridiculous or neither of them are. 

Your only way out of that - and finally to earn the special privilege for one of those that you just assert to be there - is to find a different argument (or arguments) that does not support both conclusions, and to abandon those that do.

It's simple enough isn't it? 

Try again indeed.

[BeRational]

Vlunderingabout,

My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What class?

Please stop lying, it's getting dull.

Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.

How?

Try to make the argument for your god, and we can see if it also in principle works for something that is not your god.

You then get to refine your argument to improve it and we test again.

[BeRational]

Now back to where you think I have been debunked.

How long have you got - it’s happened hundreds of times, only you’ve just ignored or misrepresented it when it has. You could always start by finally telling us why you dismiss my belief in stork theory though.

My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What class?

You still have not answered the question I posed about understanding the concept of comparing two or more arguments that are the same?

I cannot believe you cannot understand the simple concept, but you appear not to.

It was a red herring which I was not prepared to entertain as I recall.

It's not a red herring. It's absolutely gets to the heart of the matter.

Perhaps that's why you do not like it, as it shows your beliefs for what they are?

I am within my rights not to entertain your red herring as it constitutes what I see as sneaky antitheist practice.

It's not a red herring just a logical approach to analysis of competing claims.

You can dismiss it, but it just makes you wrong.

No it was an attempt to establish that something was ridiculous and then merely assert that God was like it. You never actually established a categorical equality between God and the thing you were saying. I believe it was the fallacy of argumentum ad ridiculum.

Try again.

No that's not the case.

The concept allows you to posit any argument you like.

The problem you have is to create an argument that ONLY works for you god, and not something else that I can also plug into the argument.

Does that include your plonker?

Do you have an argument for your god that can be tested or not?

I assume not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingunderthebus,

How?

Try it and you'll find out.

Again: why should I take your intuited claims about a god any more seriously than you take my intuited claims about storks?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingabout,

My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What class?

Please stop lying, it's getting dull.

Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.

How?

Try to make the argument for your god, and we can see if it also in principle works for something that is not your god.

You then get to refine your argument to improve it and we test again.

How do fairies fit into the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingunderthebus,

How?

Try it and you'll find out.

......and, again!

[BeRational]

Vlunderingabout,

My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What class?

Please stop lying, it's getting dull.

Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.

How?

Try to make the argument for your god, and we can see if it also in principle works for something that is not your god.

You then get to refine your argument to improve it and we test again.

How do fairies fit into the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for God?

Not sure.

You make your argument for your god, and we will see if your argument also works for them or something else.

Until you have an argument for your god, there is nothing to look at.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingabout,

My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What class?

Please stop lying, it's getting dull.

Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.

How?

Try to make the argument for your god, and we can see if it also in principle works for something that is not your god.

You then get to refine your argument to improve it and we test again.

How do fairies fit into the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for God?

Not sure.

You make your argument for your god, and we will see if your argument also works for them or something else.

Until you have an argument for your god, there is nothing to look at.

I have...the teleological argument, cosmological argument, moral argument and ontological argument........Now fit fairies in thank you.

[Nearly Sane]

Then you are redefining omniscience and agreeing with Owlswing.

Not really seeing God is at the end of time.

That makes my point again. Thank you

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then you are redefining omniscience and agreeing with Owlswing.

Not really seeing God is at the end of time.

That makes my point again. Thank you

what point is that?

[BeRational]

Vlunderingabout,

My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What class?

Please stop lying, it's getting dull.

Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.

How?

Try to make the argument for your god, and we can see if it also in principle works for something that is not your god.

You then get to refine your argument to improve it and we test again.

How do fairies fit into the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for God?

Not sure.

You make your argument for your god, and we will see if your argument also works for them or something else.

Until you have an argument for your god, there is nothing to look at.

I have...the teleological argument, cosmological argument, moral argument and ontological argument........Now fit fairies in thank you.

These are just titles.

How do you get from the Cosmological argument to YOUR god, and not say to ZEUS?

[Nearly Sane]

Then you are redefining omniscience and agreeing with Owlswing.

Not really seeing God is at the end of time.

That makes my point again. Thank you

what point is that?

That Vlad shouldn't drink at lunchtime.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingntoabrickwall,

......and, again!

With the avoidance?

Here it is again then: why should I take your intuited claims about a god any more seriously than you take my intuited claims about storks?

Why the endless avoidance Vladdyboy?

[BeRational]

Some aspects of the Cosmological arguments:-

• Something exists
• You don't get something from nothing
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal 'something' must exist

I do not accept that something cannot come from nothing.

Demonstrate that something CANNOT come from nothing.

The eternal something could be anything and not your god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingabout,

My Goodness. The Iceland economy pack Daniel Dennett has gone for a double Hillside .......not only does he refuse to tell me where I've been dismantled for the fourth time, he's tried to get me to dismantle one of his own!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What class?

Please stop lying, it's getting dull.

Asking you for the basis on which you dismiss my belief in stork theory dismantles your PM schtick perfectly well.

How?

Try to make the argument for your god, and we can see if it also in principle works for something that is not your god.

You then get to refine your argument to improve it and we test again.

How do fairies fit into the ontological, cosmological, teleological and moral arguments for God?

Not sure.

You make your argument for your god, and we will see if your argument also works for them or something else.

Until you have an argument for your god, there is nothing to look at.

I have...the teleological argument, cosmological argument, moral argument and ontological argument........Now fit fairies in thank you.

These are just titles.

How do you get from the Cosmological argument to YOUR god, and not say to ZEUS?

Does zeus fit the cosmological argument or do we have to make him more like MY god?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some aspects of the Cosmological arguments:-

• Something exists
• You don't get something from nothing
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal 'something' must exist

I do not accept that something cannot come from nothing.

Demonstrate that something CANNOT come from nothing.

The eternal something could be anything and not your god.

How could it be anything? Could it be something which is not eternal?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vluderingintothevoidofhisownincomprehension,

I have...the teleological argument, cosmological argument, moral argument and ontological argument........Now fit fairies in thank you.

Some of which do work for fairies, and all of which are logically hopeless but we can get to that in a bit.

Are we now agreed then that the arguments you've attempted that do work just as well for fairies ("I intuit it", "you can't disprove it", "it gives meaning to my life", "lots of people agree with me", "how do you explain X then?" etc) are off the table from now on because they can lead just as well to answers we both find to be ridiculous?

And if we are (phew!) would you be so kind as to use the fairy test filter the next time you feel like essaying an argument of this kind?

Ta.

[BeRational]

Some aspects of the Cosmological arguments:-

• Something exists
• You don't get something from nothing
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal 'something' must exist

I do not accept that something cannot come from nothing.

Demonstrate that something CANNOT come from nothing.

The eternal something could be anything and not your god.

How could it be anything? Could it be something which is not eternal?

It could be an eternal universe.

Why would it be a god?

Can you demonstrate that something cannot come from nothing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingntoabrickwall,

......and, again!

With the avoidance?

Here it is again then: why should I take your intuited claims about a god any more seriously than you take my intuited claims about storks?

Why the endless avoidance Vladdyboy?

I am not asking you to treat intuition any grander than necessary......where do you get the idea that I am?
That said someone whose intuitions prove correct many times is taken more seriously than someone who intuits at that very moment that he is ''Belle of the ball and Homecoming Queen'',
God unfortunately crops up in philosophy, morality etc, etc, etc,

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

Some aspects of the Cosmological arguments:-

• Something exists
• You don't get something from nothing
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal 'something' must exist

I do not accept that something cannot come from nothing.

Demonstrate that something CANNOT come from nothing.

The eternal something could be anything and not your god.

It's actually an argument for deism rather than for theism - for a disinterested clockmaker god rather than for one that intervenes in human affairs - and it's problematic for several reasons:

First it assumes that the universe did have a beginning.

Second, it assumes both that time is linear and that "before time" is a meaningful space in which this god could have operated.

Third, it requires all sorts of special pleading for this god so as to be exempt from its own premises.

I thought the more thinking theists had given up on this one as a busted flush now, though doubtless someone here more attuned to current theology could tell us. 
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingntoavatof hotcustard,

I am not asking you to treat intuition any grander than necessary......where do you get the idea that I am?

I get it from you - for example when you overreach by accusing others of the "argumentum ad ridiculum" without first troubling to establish why your belief is any less ridiculous than any other belief arrived at by the same means - intuition for example.

It's not that "grander than necessary" is the test; it's that "grander than stork theory" is the test.

That said someone whose intuitions prove correct many times is taken more seriously than someone who intuits at that very moment that he is ''Belle of the ball and Homecoming Queen'',

You're just kicking the problem down the road a bit here. How would you propose to show that your intuition about a god has been any more "proven correct" than had been someone else's intuition about fairies?

God unfortunately crops up in philosophy, morality etc, etc, etc,

No, ideas about god(s) do.

So what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

BR,

Some aspects of the Cosmological arguments:-

• Something exists
• You don't get something from nothing
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal 'something' must exist

I do not accept that something cannot come from nothing.

Demonstrate that something CANNOT come from nothing.

The eternal something could be anything and not your god.

It's actually an argument for deism rather than for theism - for a disinterested clockmaker god rather than for one that intervenes in human affairs - and it's problematic for several reasons:

First it assumes that the universe did have a beginning.

Second, it assumes both that time is linear and that "before time" is a meaningful space in which this god could have operated.

Third, it requires all sorts of special pleading for this god so as to be exempt from its own premises.

I thought the more thinking theists had given up on this one as a busted flush now, though doubtless someone here more attuned to current theology could tell us.

That's fine Hillside but the challenge was that if the cosmological argument is, as Russell would have put it, ''sound''......... would anything other than God fit it.......say, a leprechaun?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingntoavatof hotcustard,

I am not asking you to treat intuition any grander than necessary......where do you get the idea that I am?

I get it from you - for example when you overreach by accusing others of the "argumentum ad ridiculum" without first troubling to establish why your belief is any less ridiculous than any other belief arrived at by the same means

Since everything you ever come out with Hillside is ridiculous. Your examples are in high probability.......ridiculous.

My establishing them is ridiculous is a red herring. What the issue is is you picking examples which are commonly held to be ridiculous.

I just outline your numerous category fucks and that's what gets your goat.