WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[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.

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)

1. To know that you'd have to know the properties of both God and fairies - care to elaborate?

2. Bearing in mind that we are told that the Christian God involves three elements (the so-called Trinity), about which we seem to have been told by Christians, iirc, is mysterious and not possible to explain with precision, then perhaps your assessment of fairies involves dodging their mysterious and ineffable characteristics on exactly the same basis that you have accused others of God-dodging'.

Seems to me that you are jumping straight into the barrel marked 'special pleading'.

[Outrider]

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.

Who know what misinformation the nefarious Ninja Turtles have spread about the Silidh court, over the centuries...

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.

Which is, to an extent, the point - the idea of 'God' in these (already flawed) arguments is so vague as to be meaningless. You'd be as well saying 'something'.

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

I'd say it's as dishonest as your use of 'God' rather than 'a god' to pretend that your flawed arguments aren't deist but specifically Christian.

To my mind your use of 'God' is as meaningless as anyone else's use of 'fairy' or 'tribble' - these are concepts without clear definitions or mechanisms for determining their properties.

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

I'm more of a coffee man, this time of day, but from where I stand it seems I'm doing fine, so you crack on with demonstrating why this hasn't demonstrated that one unevidenced assertion of an hypothetical concept isn't interchangable with an equally unevidenced assertion of an equally hypothetical concept.

Yes, it's showing that the particular word you use is irrelevant, that's an important point: the point being that, stripped of culturally appropriated gravitas, God is a meaningless term.

O.

[Outrider]

1: Different from fairies.

.. he asserted.

2: If they had the same properties of God...which they can't have being plural at least.....

I didn't figure you for a non-Trinitarian... who'd a thunk?

They would effectively be what we call God and not be what we effectively call fairies.

Be effectively what you call god, perhaps.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1: Different from fairies.

.. he asserted.

2: If they had the same properties of God...which they can't have being plural at least.....

I didn't figure you for a non-Trinitarian... who'd a thunk?

They would effectively be what we call God and not be what we effectively call fairies.

Be effectively what you call god, perhaps.

O.

Haven't you heard of three in one oil.

Please read my previous posts. None of what you've said actually helps the argument you originally wanted to make.

[Outrider]

Haven't you heard of three in one oil.

Yes. Have you not heard of the Silidh Court?

Please read my previous posts. None of what you've said actually helps the argument you originally wanted to make.

I did read them. The argument I originally made doesn't need any help, you've not yet demonstrated that there's any problem with it. It adequately shows that 'God' (and the associated 'god') are so insufficiently defined and vague as to be meaningless, and can therefore be replaced with 'fairies' or 'something' in the (flawed) formulations you mentioned.

If you'd like to suggest another argument where perhaps that isn't the case then, by all means, I'll review.

O.

[Gordon]

Haven't you heard of three in one oil.

So you have a lubrication argument to hand, Vlad - hope it isn't a slippery one!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingjehosivat!,

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.

The argument is fine – your “flaws” were no such thing, but ok.

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

Only if you wanted to make a like-for-like swap with “god”. There’s no reason not to think that there were two of them (or a million of them) all either eternal or all pouffed into existence at the same time jointly making the universe 

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.

The reason your “argumentum ad ridiculum" schtick fails so badly is that it just assumes that “god” should be afforded a special privilege not afforded to fairies etc. Some of us find whatever you think you intuit to be just as ridiculous as fairies though – and that’s the point.

[floo]

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


Of course the concept fails, if it worked everyone would believe in it. Besides which the deity's so called 'word' can be interpreted in so many different ways by believers, so it fails on that score as well!

[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)

1. To know that you'd have to know the properties of both God and fairies - care to elaborate?

2. Bearing in mind that we are told that the Christian God involves three elements (the so-called Trinity), about which we seem to have been told by Christians, iirc, is mysterious and not possible to explain with precision, then perhaps your assessment of fairies involves dodging their mysterious and ineffable characteristics on exactly the same basis that you have accused others of God-dodging'.

Seems to me that you are jumping straight into the barrel marked 'special pleading'.

Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.

What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.

That reveals all.

Things are what their properties are. If you are not convinced that we know the properties and definitions of God, or spaghetti, or monster or fairy or unicorn I suggest you use both a dictionary and thesaurus.

Also read my post on how dishonest the FSM argument is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingjehosivats!,

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.

The argument is fine – your “flaws” were no such thing, but ok.

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

Only if you wanted to make a like-for-like swap with “god”. There’s no reason not to think that there were two of them (or a million of them) all either eternal or all pouffed into existence at the same time jointly making the universe 

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.

The reason your “argumentum ad ridiculum: schtick fails so badly is that it just assumes that “god” should be afforded a special privilege not afforded to fairies etc. Some of find whatever you think you intuit to ne just as ridiculous as fairies though – that’s the point.

If the argument is find it should stand substitution of the ridiculous beings with the words Penis, Winston Churchill and Rubber Duck.

[Outrider]

Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.

All you have to do then is explain how your idea of a god is qualitatively different - you have this expectation of cultural acceptance of the concept, but you haven't given any reason why we should think that 'god' is different to 'fairy'.

What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.

Penises are really things, they have properties that can be assessed, measured and determined so that particular claims about them can be justified. Gods and fairies are not in this class of claims.

Things are what their properties are. If you are not convinced that we know the properties and definitions of God, or spaghetti, or monster or fairy or unicorn I suggest you use both a dictionary and thesaurus.

If you think we know the properties and definitions of God I suggest you refer to the thousands upon thousands of competing religious sects with different concepts and absolutely no reliable evidence upon which to base their claims.

Also read my post on how dishonest the FSM argument is.
1: Come up with something ridiculous, the more ridiculous the better

Like the classical Christian conception of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god, or does it not have to be as ridiculous as that? Ridiculous is a subjective understanding.

2: In argument, promote it to God. In fact make it so like God it is indistinguishable from God

As indistinguishable as the Catholic, Orthodox, Orthodox Jewish, Hassidic Jewish, Shi'ite and Mormon conceptions of the Abrahamic Deity? As indistinguishable as the classical Greek, Christian and Norse depictions of gods?

3: Keep the ridiculous handle and hope that mugs maintain the association.

Or just fail to realise that two identical arguments that result in two different reactions highlights a logical failing in the person with the different reactions... one of the two.

4: Celebrate what a smart ''bright'' you have been by having a bumper sticker!!!

I think the last stage is actually despair that seemingly intelligent people cling to the primitive tribal superstitions of the Big Boy's Jewish Book of Bed-Time Stories and therefore justify philosophies that result in genital mutilation, homophobia, misogyny, censorship, terrorism and enviromentally harmful reality-denial.

I'm not in this just for the shits and giggles, and I certainly don't rate how smart I am by pointing out that gaping flaws in the special pleading of differences between religious arguments.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.

All you have to do then is explain how your idea of a god is qualitatively different - you have this expectation of cultural acceptance of the concept, but you haven't given any reason why we should think that 'god' is different to 'fairy'.

What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.

Penises are really things, they have properties that can be assessed, measured and determined so that particular claims about them can be justified. Gods and fairies are not in this class of claims.

Things are what their properties are. If you are not convinced that we know the properties and definitions of God, or spaghetti, or monster or fairy or unicorn I suggest you use both a dictionary and thesaurus.

If you think we know the properties and definitions of God I suggest you refer to the thousands upon thousands of competing religious sects with different concepts and absolutely no reliable evidence upon which to base their claims.

Also read my post on how dishonest the FSM argument is.
1: Come up with something ridiculous, the more ridiculous the better

Like the classical Christian conception of an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god, or does it not have to be as ridiculous as that? Ridiculous is a subjective understanding.

2: In argument, promote it to God. In fact make it so like God it is indistinguishable from God

As indistinguishable as the Catholic, Orthodox, Orthodox Jewish, Hassidic Jewish, Shi'ite and Mormon conceptions of the Abrahamic Deity? As indistinguishable as the classical Greek, Christian and Norse depictions of gods?

3: Keep the ridiculous handle and hope that mugs maintain the association.

Or just fail to realise that two identical arguments that result in two different reactions highlights a logical failing in the person with the different reactions... one of the two.

4: Celebrate what a smart ''bright'' you have been by having a bumper sticker!!!

I think the last stage is actually despair that seemingly intelligent people cling to the primitive tribal superstitions of the Big Boy's Jewish Book of Bed-Time Stories and therefore justify philosophies that result in genital mutilation, homophobia, misogyny, censorship, terrorism and enviromentally harmful reality-denial.

I'm not in this just for the shits and giggles, and I certainly don't rate how smart I am by pointing out that gaping flaws in the special pleading of differences between religious arguments.

O.

Two things here
1: The properties of God are those which fit the four ''Arguments for God'' and those outlined in scripture....to which we could add ''in a dictionary''.
2: To say we don't understand the definitions of fairies, Flying spaghetti, Leprechauns etc. is not credible since there are sources.
3: making their properties more like God's so that they fit is also dishonest.

This line of enquiry.....argumentum ad ridiculum is not profiting you and you need the others.

By bringing in censorship, homophobia you seem to be suggesting that the ends.....the elimination of religion...justifies the means....dishonest argument.

I think you'll find censorship and homophobia would exist without religion.

[Gordon]

Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.

Not really, it is the argument that is ridiculous, and this is what is highlighted when the argument is applied beyond the special case that you hold so dear. 

What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.

That reveals all.

All it reveals, Vlad, is the peril of hanging a case for God on an argument that, as used by you, is fallacious since you have to immediately indulge in special pleading in favour of your choice of target as being the only possible target that the argument can be used for. 

Things are what their properties are.

An utterly meaningless statement, Vlad, unless you go on the identify these 'things' with a degree of precision as opposed to just vacuously asserting that there are 'things'.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Penises are really things, they have properties that can be assessed, measured and determined so that particular claims about them can be justified.

My God is bigger than your god.

Yes I know!! go straight to hell Gonnagle, do not pass go, do not collect £200.

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

1: The properties of God are those which fit the four ''Arguments for God'' and those outlined in scripture....to which we could add ''in a dictionary''.

And yet, even within the faiths that hold to that scripture (which is an unreliable indicator, but that's a different argument) that interpretation is questioned. That dictionary definition is going to be strongly culturally influenced: the definition of 'god' in, say, an Indian dictionary is going to be vastly different to that in an English dictionary.

In the absence of any reliable evidence, there is no way to determine if the 'commonly held' understanding of the putative comparative properties of 'fairies' and 'gods' are correctly assigned: by contrast, and this is why I've made the point that it's different, we can determine things about rubber ducks and penises, so they aren't interchangable in your argument.

2: To say we don't understand the definitions of fairies, Flying spaghetti, Leprechauns etc. is not credible since there are sources.

There are opinions, but nothing more than that.

3: making their properties more like God's so that they fit is also dishonest.

No, it isn't, because you've no basis beyond desire to assign those properties to god in the first place. You've inherited a tradition of accepting that claim, but it's an unsubstantiated claim; the fact that my claim on behalf of fairies might be newer doesn't change the fact that they're both unsubstantiated.

This line of enquiry.....argumentum ad ridiculum is not profiting you and you need the others.

Except that I'm not making the ridiculous argument - I'm simply highlighting that the argument you make is ridiculous, by pointing out that it's equally valid for the sentient, sex-addled spirit of the gasses within a ping-pong ball.

Properties

Yes? All assertions for fairies, Oberon, gods, God and nymphomaniacal gas spirits.

O.

[Outrider]

Dear Outrider,

Penises are really things, they have properties that can be assessed, measured and determined so that particular claims about them can be justified.

My God is bigger than your god.

Yes I know!! go straight to hell Gonnagle, do not pass go, do not collect £200.

Gonnagle.

I've been reliably informed that it's not what you've got, it's what you do with it... but no charges were pressed, so it's probably fine.

It does put a different complexion on the benediction 'touched by his noodly appendage', though!

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.

Not really, it is the argument that is ridiculous, and this is what is highlighted when the argument is applied beyond the special case that you hold so dear. 

What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.

That reveals all.

All it reveals, Vlad, is the peril of hanging a case for God on an argument that, as used by you, is fallacious since you have to immediately indulge in special pleading in favour of your choice of target as being the only possible target that the argument can be used for. 

Things are what their properties are.

An utterly meaningless statement, Vlad, unless you go on the identify these 'things' with a degree of precision as opposed to just vacuously asserting that there are 'things'.

I have arguments for God and you have arguments against.....it happens that this argument against is transparently duff.

Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.

As your argument in this case has proved to be ''un Turd exemplere'' I think you and the posse need to be addressing those arguments instead of dressing this turkey.

[BeRational]

Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.

Not really, it is the argument that is ridiculous, and this is what is highlighted when the argument is applied beyond the special case that you hold so dear. 

What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.

That reveals all.

All it reveals, Vlad, is the peril of hanging a case for God on an argument that, as used by you, is fallacious since you have to immediately indulge in special pleading in favour of your choice of target as being the only possible target that the argument can be used for. 

Things are what their properties are.

An utterly meaningless statement, Vlad, unless you go on the identify these 'things' with a degree of precision as opposed to just vacuously asserting that there are 'things'.

I have arguments for God and you have arguments against.....it happens that this argument against is transparently duff.

Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.

As your argument in this case has proved to be ''un Turd exemplere'' I think you and the posse need to be addressing those arguments instead of dressing this turkey.

You have arguments that work for more than your god, and that is the problem.

You like the answer god, and reject fairy, but both work equally well with the argument.

You have to either accept BOTH or NEITHER.

You cannot logically accept one and not the other.

This is where you are illogical.

[floo]

Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.

Not really, it is the argument that is ridiculous, and this is what is highlighted when the argument is applied beyond the special case that you hold so dear. 

What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.

That reveals all.

All it reveals, Vlad, is the peril of hanging a case for God on an argument that, as used by you, is fallacious since you have to immediately indulge in special pleading in favour of your choice of target as being the only possible target that the argument can be used for. 

Things are what their properties are.

An utterly meaningless statement, Vlad, unless you go on the identify these 'things' with a degree of precision as opposed to just vacuously asserting that there are 'things'.

I have arguments for God and you have arguments against.....it happens that this argument against is transparently duff.

Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.

As your argument in this case has proved to be ''un Turd exemplere'' I think you and the posse need to be addressing those arguments instead of dressing this turkey.

You have arguments that work for more than your god, and that is the problem.

You like the answer god, and reject fairy, but both work equally well with the argument.

You have to either accept BOTH or NEITHER.

You cannot logically accept one and not the other.

This is where you are illogical.

I agree.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really. The special pleading here is that your or outriders argument only works for ridiculous things.

Not really, it is the argument that is ridiculous, and this is what is highlighted when the argument is applied beyond the special case that you hold so dear. 

What I have said is test the arguments in a non special pleading way by changing the word fairy or FSM or Pink Unicorn to the word penis in the argument.

That reveals all.

All it reveals, Vlad, is the peril of hanging a case for God on an argument that, as used by you, is fallacious since you have to immediately indulge in special pleading in favour of your choice of target as being the only possible target that the argument can be used for. 

Things are what their properties are.

An utterly meaningless statement, Vlad, unless you go on the identify these 'things' with a degree of precision as opposed to just vacuously asserting that there are 'things'.

I have arguments for God and you have arguments against.....it happens that this argument against is transparently duff.

Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.

As your argument in this case has proved to be ''un Turd exemplere'' I think you and the posse need to be addressing those arguments instead of dressing this turkey.

You have arguments that work for more than your god, and that is the problem.

You like the answer god, and reject fairy, but both work equally well with the argument.

You have to either accept BOTH or NEITHER.

You cannot logically accept one and not the other.

This is where you are illogical.

That might be true for arguments where the arguments establish that both God and the other thing are unfalsifiable. But outside that I just forsee the troubles you have experienced this morning with what is frankly a turd of an argument on your parts.

By promoting your supposed entities to God you have acknowledged that the argument does not work for them! It's as clear as that.....You have disproved your own argument!

This time I'm afraid you've all pissed on your own bonfires.

Smackdown!

[Outrider]

That might be true for arguments where the arguments establish that both God and the other thing are unfalsifiable.

Those exist, but this does not require that.

But outside that I just forsee the troubles you have experienced this morning with what is frankly a turd of an argument on your parts.

If it were such a turd you'd be showing us why rather than merely asserting that it is.

By promoting your supposed entities to God you have acknowledged that the argument does not work for them!

No.

It's as clear as that.....You have disproved your own argument!

No.

This time I'm afraid you've all pissed on your own bonfires.

And no.

Smackdown!

... he asserted.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingintothestrawmandiscountwarehouse,

Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.

No, "Hillside" is merely restating bluehillside's fourth maxim: If an argument for "God" works just as well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument.

Why is this so difficult for you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That might be true for arguments where the arguments establish that both God and the other thing are unfalsifiable.

Those exist, but this does not require that.

But outside that I just forsee the troubles you have experienced this morning with what is frankly a turd of an argument on your parts.

If it were such a turd you'd be showing us why rather than merely asserting that it is.

By promoting your supposed entities to God you have acknowledged that the argument does not work for them!

No.

It's as clear as that.....You have disproved your own argument!

No.

This time I'm afraid you've all pissed on your own bonfires.

And no.

Smackdown!

... he asserted.

O.

Poor Outrider

He started out with high hopes that this was a mere assertion that his argument was a Turd.

Then the explanation came and all could do was assert ''No''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingintothestrawmandiscountwarehouse,

Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.

No, "Hillside" is merely restating bluehillside's fourth maxim: If an argument for "God" works just as well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument.

Why is this so difficult for you?

Do the Vlad test Hillside. For any argument involving Leprechauns, substitute the word Penis for the word Leprechaun

[BeRational]

Vlunderingintothestrawmandiscountwarehouse,

Hillside seems to be saying that it somehow merely represents an umbrella protest against shite theist arguments.

No, "Hillside" is merely restating bluehillside's fourth maxim: If an argument for "God" works just as well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument.

Why is this so difficult for you?

Do the Vlad test Hillside. For any argument involving Leprechauns, substitute the word Penis for the word Leprechaun

That fails.

Perhaps you just need more help to show were you are going wrong.

Do you feel that you are answering the points put to you.

To me, and perhaps others you cannot resist posting replies, but the replies never address the points ranged against you.

It's tantamount to shouting LALALALALA.

Your arguments so far have been defeated, but it appears you do not understand that?