WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vluderingodiocy,

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?

First, the discussion was about the inadequacy of arguments for a god that do also "fit" leprechauns - several of which you've attempted here in the past. If you can grasp that there are such arguments then you have no choice but to accept either all of their conclusions (gods and leprechauns included) or none of them.

And when you do grasp that, then you have a test to apply before attempting arguments again so as to avoid further embarrassment when you post on a public forum like this one.

Second, no-one has suggested that all arguments for god(s) do also work for anything else. The cosmological argument for example is a busted flush for various reasons, but its potential support for leprechaunism isn't one of them (unless you want to conclude that the universe-creator was a leprechaun - ie, the same CV but different characteristics).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingstraightintothequicksand,

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

Still not getting it then I see. I find the idea of leprechauns to be ridiculous too, but the point is that when you try arguments for a god that work equally well for leprechauns then you have no means to defend your claim from being treated as equally ridiculous.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

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

Yes they are "commonly held" as ridiculous. What you keep running away from though is an explanation for why your god belief is any less ridiculous when it relies for its force on arguments that work just as well for each conclusion.

Is this ever going to sink in, or will you keep avoiding it?
 

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

It would take someone with much bigger intellectual shoes than yours to get my goat, and once again you fail to understand what a category error entails. When different conclusions result from the same arguments that's not a category error at all. To make it so, you'd (finally) need to show why, say, "I intuited it, therefore it's objectively true" works for one but not for the other and so they are in different categories. Until then, they remain in the same category of "beliefs about objective facts that have been intuited".

As we both know that you'll never do that though, then in precisely the same category they must remain.

Suck it up old son, suck it up.
 

[Outrider]

I have...the teleological argument

Quite apart from the fundamental errors in the teleological argument:

1.     Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose.
2.     The universe resembles these human artifacts.
3.     Therefore:  It is probable that the universe is a product of intelligent design, and has a purpose.
4.     However, the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact is.
5.     Therefore:  There is probably a powerful and vastly intelligent designer fairy who created the universe.

cosmological argument

Quite apart from the fundamental flaws in the cosmological argument:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause which is a fairy

moral argument

Quite apart from the fact that the moral argument is unadulterated nonsense:

1. If God Oberon, King of the Fairies, does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God Oberon, King of the Fairies, exists.

ontological argument

It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, exists.

If your argument can be unravelled by the simple use of cut and paste, you probably didn't have much of an argument. If you're reliant on the moral, cosmological, teleological or ontological argument you're so far beyond clutching at straws it's no longer funny.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have...the teleological argument

Quite apart from the fundamental errors in the teleological argument:

1.     Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose.
2.     The universe resembles these human artifacts.
3.     Therefore:  It is probable that the universe is a product of intelligent design, and has a purpose.
4.     However, the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact is.
5.     Therefore:  There is probably a powerful and vastly intelligent designer fairy who created the universe.

cosmological argument

Quite apart from the fundamental flaws in the cosmological argument:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause which is a fairy

moral argument

Quite apart from the fact that the moral argument is unadulterated nonsense:

1. If God Oberon, King of the Fairies, does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God Oberon, King of the Fairies, exists.

ontological argument

It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, exists as an idea in the mind.
A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
Thus, if God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
Therefore, God Oberon, Lord of the Silidh, exists.

If your argument can be unravelled by the simple use of cut and paste, you probably didn't have much of an argument. If you're reliant on the moral, cosmological, teleological or ontological argument you're so far beyond clutching at straws it's no longer funny.

O.

How ridiculous. Since notice what happens to your argument when you substitute the words Fairy,.... Oberon , King of the Fairies...and
Oberon, lord of the silidh.....with the words Winston Churchill, Penis and Rubber Duck.

You see all you are doing is changing letters.

Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Sassy]

I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.

What stands out is the words from God:-

Psalm 14:1 (KJV)

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.

Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.

Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.

And your posts have credibility do they Sass? You have no more knowledge of the elusive, 'TRUTH' than us heathen. To claim you have in an untruth!

Heathen??? More knowledge of the 'TRUTH'. I think my post was incredibly clear.

Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.

Do you have an argument which proves me wrong about the points I established and made?

No you don't you somehow want to make it about myself when I am talking about what you do concerning God.
Which establishes the next part of my previous post and shows it is also true.

Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.

Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.

It stands and remains as true... cannot produce an intelligent argument against the word of God.

I guess the simplest of truth eludes you, Floo.

[BeRational]

Vlad,

The problem is that you cannot understand that substituting those other entities actually destroy your argument.

Of course they seem ridiculous, just as you god is also ridiculous.

The only reason your god does not seem ridiculous to you is that you are deluded into thinking it is sensible.

You are not thinking sensibly about them, and simply apply confirmation bias to your favoured option.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The problem is that you cannot understand that substituting those other entities actually destroy your argument.

Of course they seem ridiculous, just as you god is also ridiculous.

The only reason your god does not seem ridiculous to you is that you are deluded into thinking it is sensible.

You are not thinking sensibly about them, and simply apply confirmation bias to your favoured option.

As I shown substituting entities does not destroy the argument as I demonstrated in my reply to Outrider.

Your post is nothing more than assertion that letter substitution, referred to you as entity substitution destroy my argument and assertion that all entities mentioned by you and outrider including God are ridiculous.

I have no time for mere assertion and you shouldn't tolerate them either....so go away and....not tolerate yourself...thank you.

[BeRational]

Vlad,

The problem is that you cannot understand that substituting those other entities actually destroy your argument.

Of course they seem ridiculous, just as you god is also ridiculous.

The only reason your god does not seem ridiculous to you is that you are deluded into thinking it is sensible.

You are not thinking sensibly about them, and simply apply confirmation bias to your favoured option.

As I shown substituting entities does not destroy the argument as I demonstrated in my reply to Outrider.

Your post is nothing more than assertion that letter substitution, referred to you as entity substitution destroy my argument and assertion that all entities mentioned by you and outrider including God are ridiculous.

I have no time for mere assertion and you shouldn't tolerate them either....so go away and....not tolerate yourself...thank you.

You assert your god exists!

Your argument works just as well for fairies, but you cannot see it it seems.

I think you do see it, and do not like it, and that's why you react with insult when it is pointed out.

All you have to do is rebut the argument and explain why it ONLY works for YOUR god. Simply asserting though, as you say, is worthless.

[Outrider]

How ridiculous. Since notice what happens to your argument when you substitute the words Fairy,.... Oberon , King of the Fairies...and
Oberon, lord of the silidh.....with the words Winston Churchill, Penis and Rubber Duck.

You see all you are doing is changing letters.

Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.

The point was to show that your arguments are entirely indistinguishable from arguments for fairies. If I wanted to undermine the arguments I'd attack them, but that wasn't the point of the exercise.

If you'd like me to eviscerate the ridiculous assertions of the cosmological argument or the inherent failures of the teleological argument then by all means start a thread for it.

The point made was that one of the weaknesses of arguments for God was that they were equally applicable as arguments for fairies.

Your own point here not only concedes that, but also makes the point that it works for bath toys, bodily organs and ex-Prime Ministers (which, actually, it doesn't, given that we have evidence for those which can be assessed, but never mind, at least you tried...)

O.

[floo]

I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.

What stands out is the words from God:-

Psalm 14:1 (KJV)

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.

Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.

Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.

And your posts have credibility do they Sass? You have no more knowledge of the elusive, 'TRUTH' than us heathen. To claim you have in an untruth!

Heathen??? More knowledge of the 'TRUTH'. I think my post was incredibly clear.

Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.

Do you have an argument which proves me wrong about the points I established and made?

No you don't you somehow want to make it about myself when I am talking about what you do concerning God.
Which establishes the next part of my previous post and shows it is also true.

Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.

Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.

It stands and remains as true... cannot produce an intelligent argument against the word of God.

I guess the simplest of truth eludes you, Floo.

You cannot argue that the Bible is the word of the deity and you have the truth. There is no evidence to prove it exists let alone what its thoughts are.

If the deity does exist and wanted to communicate with humans surely it would do so in a better way than that. The Bible is open to so many interpretations, some more ludicrous than others, as this forum makes only too clear.

[Sassy]

I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.

What stands out is the words from God:-

Psalm 14:1 (KJV)

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.

Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.

Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.

Sassy

Really!

You are spouting, in my particular case, the same venom that led to the murders of tens of thousands as witches in the 14th to 17th centuries.

That proves my point:-

You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.

You are entitled to what you perceive as the truth ot the Truth, others are equally entitled to reject it. You accept your Truth because you are too terrified of the consequences of rejecting it - I can reject your truth because I have no fear whatsoever of punishment for doing so.

I think even there you are incapable of seeing the truth of your own words to put it in an educated way.
You are acknowledging my faith is real. But you lack the ability to reason how I would believe for fear of consequences.
There is no condemnation for those in Christ. You acknowledge my faith to be real but all for the wrong reasons.
Seems you cannot reason why a person may have faith in Christ without it being for fear.

Three things remain, Faith, Hope and Love, and the greatest of these is Love.
Love has not been made perfect where there is fear.

You need to establish the truth about Christ and why it isn't fear that bring faith, but truth and love.

Your god, to you, is a loving entity of total perfection, to me he is a vicious sadistic mysogynistic tyrant; my deities, male and female, hence no mysogyny, are not perfect as they have the same emotions as us mere mortals, they are, therefore, far more understnding of our little peccadiloes.

I see God as all-knowing and righteous but also Just.
None of these things can the things you believe in, lay claim to because we both know they do not exist.
God punished wrong doers to save the right doers.  My God is just and is therefore entitled to judge that which his hands have made saving the good and being rid of the bad. Didn't the Pagans do that with their beliefs. Got rid of the things which reflected the bad side of the faith steeped in witchcraft and child sacrifices to make it a better belief system?
You cannot hide that your faith/beliefs were the ones that caused child sacrifices etc. Something my God abhorred and something he stopped.
Whatever you do and say, history shows that your beliefs in history caused man to do the worst evils to their own than anything God of the bible did in the OT. You also can add selective truths of your own beliefs to that list.
 

I have stated before that, as I am concerned, you can believe just what you like, I do not have to agree with it and, unsurprisingly, I do not agree with it.

Because you believe in something you know to be false something you CONTROL and yet ignore the evil that what you believe in has done through history. Stick and stones and you live in a glass house be careful.

You, and others like you, I regret to say, and here is where we diverge, you do not and will not allow me the same freedom of thought and continue to condemn my beliefs and railing against me when I do the same to yours!

How would we stop you believing... What we do not allow is your attack as above on Christians and Christianity when your faith has the biggest glass house ever. You don't have a real belief. We both know they don't exist. But the evil man has done because of those beliefs will forever follow you. You cannot shake the evil that paganism has done through history.
But what is worse is that you want to believe in something that caused nothing but untold pain and suffering to so many innocent children for the sake superstition. You can be superstitious all you like. But you have no right to attack God or his word given your beliefs history.

Unless and until someone known to an trusted by me, provable to be that someone to the n^th degree, returns from the dead and tells me that my beliefs are wrong I will continue in them. I wish that I could believe that if you had the same experience you would acknowledge your error but I have no doubt whatsoever that you would reject even that!       

Given you believe in what you do and know it is false.... How would you recognise the true thing?
If my error as you call it, is not believing in things to be false and believing in the things I believe to be truth.
Should you not be accepting Gods truth, at least till you can accept your own are false and have done more evil to man worldwide than faith in God ever did.

[Gordon]

Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.

Which in a way is, of course, the point O was making (as was BHS) that you seem resistant to recognising: that if you substitute terms to replace 'God' in these arguments then they are exposed as being fallacious nonsense, since they must stand or fail together.

To say that they work only for the Christian God just adds to the fallacious reasoning since this brings in special pleading, arguments from tradition/authority, personal incredulity and the old stand-by relativist (its true for me) fallacy.

I'd suggest, Vlad, its time you climbed out of the barrel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The problem is that you cannot understand that substituting those other entities actually destroy your argument.

Of course they seem ridiculous, just as you god is also ridiculous.

The only reason your god does not seem ridiculous to you is that you are deluded into thinking it is sensible.

You are not thinking sensibly about them, and simply apply confirmation bias to your favoured option.

As I shown substituting entities does not destroy the argument as I demonstrated in my reply to Outrider.

Your post is nothing more than assertion that letter substitution, referred to you as entity substitution destroy my argument and assertion that all entities mentioned by you and outrider including God are ridiculous.

I have no time for mere assertion and you shouldn't tolerate them either....so go away and....not tolerate yourself...thank you.

You assert your god exists!

Your argument works just as well for fairies, but you cannot see it it seems.

I think you do see it, and do not like it, and that's why you react with insult when it is pointed out.

All you have to do is rebut the argument and explain why it ONLY works for YOUR god. Simply asserting though, as you say, is worthless.

I assert that I believe God to exist for a number of reasons.
You merely at the moment assert everything.

The point you missed was that the reason the argument for God does not work for Winston Churchill, Penis or Rubberduck is that we know their properties......just like we know the properties of Fairies, and Oberon.

I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.

So there you go then Be Sensible.....Your argument has been well and truly blown.

By the way you accused me of confirmation bias so you have to proof both confirmation and bias.

........Like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Outrider]

I assert that I believe God to exist for a number of reasons.

If the arguments you listed above are your 'reasons' then, no, you're just asserting God.

The point you missed was that the reason the argument for God does not work for Winston Churchill, Penis or Rubberduck is that we know their properties......just like we know the properties of Fairies, and Oberon.

No, we neither 'know' the properties of Oberon, nor fairies nor your hypothesised deity. We do have a reasonable assurance of at least some of the properties of Churchill, peni and bath toys, because we have examples of those which can be studied.

I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.

Which is the case, yes, but fails to acknowledge that in the absence of any evidence you arbitrarily assign those properties to your particular conception of a god as well. That's why the argument is equally as valid.

O.

[Sassy]

Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.

Which in a way is, of course, the point O was making (as was BHS) that you seem resistant to recognising: that if you substitute terms to replace 'God' in these arguments then they are exposed as being fallacious nonsense, since they must stand or fail together.

To say that they work only for the Christian God just adds to the fallacious reasoning since this brings in special pleading, arguments from tradition/authority, personal incredulity and the old stand-by relativist (its true for me) fallacy.

I'd suggest, Vlad, its time you climbed out of the barrel.

Have you finshed trying to shoot fish in the corner of a barrell?

If, you believe that Vlad is substituting the :-

that if you substitute terms to replace 'God' in these arguments then they are exposed as being fallacious nonsense, since they must stand or fail together.

USING the original term 'God' and the 'substitute term' show us why it stands and falls.
If using the term 'God' the argument stands but fails with a substitute then show us the points.
If you are saying the Word of God fails then bring the evidence.

Isn't this a play about an argument based on words rather than the truth of God.

Come on Gordon, you started it... make good your argument bring the evidence and explain the rudimentary elements of those arguments...

[BeRational]

Vlad,

The problem is that you cannot understand that substituting those other entities actually destroy your argument.

Of course they seem ridiculous, just as you god is also ridiculous.

The only reason your god does not seem ridiculous to you is that you are deluded into thinking it is sensible.

You are not thinking sensibly about them, and simply apply confirmation bias to your favoured option.

As I shown substituting entities does not destroy the argument as I demonstrated in my reply to Outrider.

Your post is nothing more than assertion that letter substitution, referred to you as entity substitution destroy my argument and assertion that all entities mentioned by you and outrider including God are ridiculous.

I have no time for mere assertion and you shouldn't tolerate them either....so go away and....not tolerate yourself...thank you.

You assert your god exists!

Your argument works just as well for fairies, but you cannot see it it seems.

I think you do see it, and do not like it, and that's why you react with insult when it is pointed out.

All you have to do is rebut the argument and explain why it ONLY works for YOUR god. Simply asserting though, as you say, is worthless.

I assert that I believe God to exist for a number of reasons.
You merely at the moment assert everything.

The point you missed was that the reason the argument for God does not work for Winston Churchill, Penis or Rubberduck is that we know their properties......just like we know the properties of Fairies, and Oberon.

I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.

So there you go then Be Sensible.....Your argument has been well and truly blown.

By the way you accused me of confirmation bias so you have to proof both confirmation and bias.

........Like shooting fish in a barrel.

But we do not know the properties of fairies or leprechauns or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You can substitute all of these for you god, and they still work.

The fact you cannot see this, shows that you are biased to the one version you are surrounded by and feel comfortable with.

These are no indicators of truth.

If you care about truth, you have to make the argument ONLY work for god.
The moment it is shown it works for fairies etc, your argument fails.

At the moment, the arguments you have offered, have all been refuted.

[Outrider]

Isn't this a play about an argument based on words rather than the truth of God.

To an extent, yes, because to those of us who don't believe it seems that 'god' is just a word invented to account for a vague concept that some people want to be true but lack any evidence for.

Any property can be artificially assigned to a a god because there is nothing that can be tested - and, therefore, that can equally be done for any conceptual entity for which we have no direct evidence: fairies, devils, Zeus, Ghanesh, Ameratsu, the great spirit of the mountain, Gandalf...

O.

[Gordon]

I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.

Vlad

1. So what are the properties of God then?

2. How do you know fairies don't just have these same properties? After all, and to borrow your own point of view as regularly expressed by your good self, perhaps you are guilty of fairy-dodging to the extent that you are underestimating the wee folk. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How ridiculous. Since notice what happens to your argument when you substitute the words Fairy,.... Oberon , King of the Fairies...and
Oberon, lord of the silidh.....with the words Winston Churchill, Penis and Rubber Duck.

You see all you are doing is changing letters.

Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.

The point was to show that your arguments are entirely indistinguishable from arguments for fairies. If I wanted to undermine the arguments I'd attack them, but that wasn't the point of the exercise.

If you'd like me to eviscerate the ridiculous assertions of the cosmological argument or the inherent failures of the teleological argument then by all means start a thread for it.

The point made was that one of the weaknesses of arguments for God was that they were equally applicable as arguments for fairies.

Your own point here not only concedes that, but also makes the point that it works for bath toys, bodily organs and ex-Prime Ministers (which, actually, it doesn't, given that we have evidence for those which can be assessed, but never mind, at least you tried...)

O.

They are only OK for fairies if fairies have ceased to be little chaps with wings or even little local deities and have become God.
Even then if they are fairies in the plural how are they a divine unity. Now if you are deliberately changing the definition of fairies to be the same as that of God then what word you use God or fairies is irrelevant.

In other words the arguments only fit Outrider as you have been dishonest.

Go away, have a cup of tea, reflect on your fall and come back a better person.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.

Vlad

1. So what are the properties of God then?

2. How do you know fairies don't just have these same properties? After all, and to borrow your own point of view as regularly expressed by your good self, perhaps you are guilty of fairy-dodging to the extent that you are underestimating the wee folk.

1: Different from fairies.
2: If they had the same properties of God...which they can't have being plural at least.....They would effectively be what we call God and not be what we effectively call fairies. There would be no reason to have the giggle factor which is vital for this low form of antitheist ''argument'' (If it even merits the term)

[bluehillside Retd.]

VlunderingoverNiagrawithoutabarrel,

How ridiculous. Since notice what happens to your argument when you substitute the words Fairy,.... Oberon , King of the Fairies...and Oberon, lord of the silidh.....with the words Winston Churchill, Penis and Rubber Duck.

You see all you are doing is changing letters.

Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.

Actually it’s more nuanced than that I think. Of course the “flakey five” arguments essayed by WLC and beloved of Alien are hopelessly broken on their own terms, but even if they weren’t then as Outrider notes they’d point to a “something” but not necessarily to your “something”.

At best they’d be arguments for deism – a disinterested clockmaker god about whom nothing more could be said - but could never say anything about a theistic god, let alone the one to which you just happen to be most enculturated.
That is, you’d need something other than the flakey five to show that it was your god at play rather than a different supernatural entity entirely. Substituting “fairy” for “god” isn’t in other words just changing letters, it’s changing one faith belief object for another albeit that each would be in the universe-creating business.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The problem is that you cannot understand that substituting those other entities actually destroy your argument.

Of course they seem ridiculous, just as you god is also ridiculous.

The only reason your god does not seem ridiculous to you is that you are deluded into thinking it is sensible.

You are not thinking sensibly about them, and simply apply confirmation bias to your favoured option.

As I shown substituting entities does not destroy the argument as I demonstrated in my reply to Outrider.

Your post is nothing more than assertion that letter substitution, referred to you as entity substitution destroy my argument and assertion that all entities mentioned by you and outrider including God are ridiculous.

I have no time for mere assertion and you shouldn't tolerate them either....so go away and....not tolerate yourself...thank you.

You assert your god exists!

Your argument works just as well for fairies, but you cannot see it it seems.

I think you do see it, and do not like it, and that's why you react with insult when it is pointed out.

All you have to do is rebut the argument and explain why it ONLY works for YOUR god. Simply asserting though, as you say, is worthless.

I assert that I believe God to exist for a number of reasons.
You merely at the moment assert everything.

The point you missed was that the reason the argument for God does not work for Winston Churchill, Penis or Rubberduck is that we know their properties......just like we know the properties of Fairies, and Oberon.

I think you'll find you are either specially pleading and/or altering their properties to be more like God's to the point where they are indistinguishable from God and at that point, what you call them really is just letter changing.

So there you go then Be Sensible.....Your argument has been well and truly blown.

By the way you accused me of confirmation bias so you have to proof both confirmation and bias.

........Like shooting fish in a barrel.

But we do not know the properties of fairies or leprechauns or Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You can substitute all of these for you god, and they still work.

The fact you cannot see this, shows that you are biased to the one version you are surrounded by and feel comfortable with.

These are no indicators of truth.

If you care about truth, you have to make the argument ONLY work for god.
The moment it is shown it works for fairies etc, your argument fails.

At the moment, the arguments you have offered, have all been refuted.

Er we don't know the properties of Flying Spaghetti, Leprechauns and fairies.....what rot!

The whole dishonest enterprise of this kind of ''Flying Spaghetti monster'' works like this.

1: Come up with something ridiculous, the more ridiculous the better.
2: In argument, promote it to God. In fact make it so like God it is indistinguishable from God
3: Keep the ridiculous handle and hope that mugs maintain the association.
4: Celebrate what a smart ''bright'' you have been by having a bumper sticker!!!

Great...Disneyland for Antitheists!

[Gordon]

If using the term 'God' the argument stands but fails with a substitute then show us the points.

Outrider already did in reply #557 which exposes the fallacious reasoning inherent in these arguments.

If you are saying the Word of God fails then bring the evidence.

Shifting the burden of proof doesn't wash, Sass, it is for you who promote this 'Word' to demonstrate why others shouldn't regard this 'Word' as just another set of ancient myths.

Isn't this a play about an argument based on words rather than the truth of God.

In a sense, the point being that replacing the terms (say with a god that once once taken seriously) shows the weaknesses in these arguments.

Come on Gordon, you started it... make good your argument bring the evidence and explain the rudimentary elements of those arguments...

Not really Sass, challenges to these arguments pre-date me, and Outrider has set them out nicely in post #557. You are again trying to shift the burden of proof - it isn't for me to produce evidence that you are wrong, it is for you to produce arguments or evidence that cannot be rebutted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingintothealligatorpool,

Er we don't know the properties of Flying Spaghetti, Leprechauns and fairies.....what rot!

The whole dishonest enterprise of this kind of ''Flying Spaghetti monster'' works like this.

1: Come up with something ridiculous, the more ridiculous the better.
2: In argument, promote it to God. In fact make it so like God it is indistinguishable from God
3: Keep the ridiculous handle and hope that mugs maintain the association.
4: Celebrate what a smart ''bright'' you have been by having a bumper sticker!!!

Great...Disneyland for Antitheists!

No it doesn't. How it works is to take various of the arguments theists make for "god" to see whether they work just as well for plainly ridiculous outcomes.

And guess what? Lots of them do!

Anyway, as fusilli pasta is EXACTLY THE SAME SHAPE AS DNA what more proof positive for the FSM do you want exactly?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VlunderingoverNiagrawithoutabarrel,

How ridiculous. Since notice what happens to your argument when you substitute the words Fairy,.... Oberon , King of the Fairies...and Oberon, lord of the silidh.....with the words Winston Churchill, Penis and Rubber Duck.

You see all you are doing is changing letters.

Putting down your argument was like shooting fish in a barrel.

Actually it’s more nuanced than that I think. Of course the “flakey five” arguments essayed by WLC and beloved of Alien are hopelessly broken on their own terms, but even if they weren’t then as Outrider notes they’d point to a “something” but not necessarily to your “something”.

At best they’d be arguments for deism – a disinterested clockmaker god about whom nothing more could be said - but could never say anything about a theistic god, let alone the one to which you just happen to be most enculturated.
That is, you’d need something other than the flakey five to show that it was your god at play rather than a different supernatural entity entirely. Substituting “fairy” for “god” isn’t in other words just changing letters, it’s changing one faith belief object for another albeit that each would be in the universe-creating business.

As moderate as this looks Hillside compared to Outrider's and Be Rational's defence of a bad argument (flaws listed in posts recently passim), it doesn't escape being a warmed over argumentum ad ridiculum.

An important and necessary modification needs to be made to the definition of fairy. There would need to be one fairy.

Secondly...and I don't think you ever owned up to this.......This fairy would therefore no longer legitimately have the same ''giggle'' factor....and that would be fatal to any argument for which ridicule was a factor.