WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingeverdeeperintohisownwellofcontradictions,

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

As Outy has already explained to you, the "Vlad test" is a category error.

To put it another way, your penis analogy would never stand up in court...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingeverdeeperintohisownwellofcontradictions,

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

As Outy has already explained to you, the "Vlad test" is a category error.

To put it another way, your penis analogy would never stand up in court...

Yes! By George he's got it and that's the point fairies, leprechauns etc are in the wrong category.

That's why the full version of the Vlad test as mentioned numerous times includes the words penis, Winston Churchill and rubberduck......take your pick.

Saying you can't use non ridiculous entities Hillside is just special pleading.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingevendeeperintothepitofhisownirrationality,

Yes! By George he's got it and that's the point fairies, leprechauns etc are in the wrong category.

That's why the full version of the Vlad test as mentioned numerous times includes the words penis, Winston Churchill and rubberduck......take your pick.

Saying you can't use non ridiculous entities Hillside is just special pleading.

Is the penis ridiculous? I haven't seen mine for ages so couldn't solicit an opinion.
How about you? You seem to be in constant contact with yours.

Oh dear. Fairies, leprechauns and gods alike are in the category "supernatural somethings".

Penises, rubber ducks and Winston Churchill are in the category "natural somethings".

That's why the "Vlad test" is a category error.

If you think there to be sub-sets of the set "supernatural somethings" that would make fairy/god comparisons erroneous then by all means attempt an argument for it, but for now when the arguments for each are identical ("I intuit it" etc) then they are in the same category.   

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad, Blue, Outrider, Berational, old tom cobbly and all,

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/06/god-gods-and-fairies

Anybody read anything from this man, he mentions philosophical naturalism and black swans.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingevendeeperintothepitofhisownirrationality,

Yes! By George he's got it and that's the point fairies, leprechauns etc are in the wrong category.

That's why the full version of the Vlad test as mentioned numerous times includes the words penis, Winston Churchill and rubberduck......take your pick.

Saying you can't use non ridiculous entities Hillside is just special pleading.

Is the penis ridiculous? I haven't seen mine for ages so couldn't solicit an opinion.
How about you? You seem to be in constant contact with yours.

Oh dear. Fairies, leprechauns and gods alike are in the category "supernatural somethings".

Penises, rubber ducks and Winston Churchill are in the category "natural somethings".

That's why the "Vlad test" is a category error.

If you think there to be sub-sets of the set "supernatural somethings" that would make fairy/god comparisons erroneous then by all means attempt an argument for it, but for now when the arguments for each are identical ("I intuit it" etc) then they are in the same category.   

Supernatural? What is supernatural about being physically small, being Irish, Having wings, being noodly, physically representing a horse and the colour pink?

Which is why I have said the only safe argument in which you can put other things in with God is unfalsifiability.....Is having wings falsifiable?, whoops I think it is.

This is all down to your dicey categorisations. unfalsifiability is a sounder categorisation than ''supernatural'' which as I have demonstrated to you....again...
is prey to falsifiability.

[Outrider]

Supernatural? What is supernatural about being physically small, being Irish, Having wings, being noodly, physically representing a horse and the colour pink?

The magic bits.

Which is why I have said the only safe argument in which you can put other things in with God is unfalsifiability.....Is having wings falsifiable?, whoops I think it is.

Yes, but the fairies all appear to have intangible, invisible wings - unless you can point me in the direction of a natural history museum with an example? Of course, you have depictions of fairies with wings, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster with beef meatballs, but then you have depictions of God with a long, flowing Zeus-like beard.

This is all down to your dicey categorisations. unfalsifiability is a sounder categorisation than ''supernatural'' which as I have demonstrated to you....again... is prey to falsifiability.

If you choose the label 'unfalsifiable' because you can't adequately define supernatural then fine - penises, rubber ducks and Winston Churchill are all falsifiable, and leprechauns, fairies, unicorns and gods aren't.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Supernatural? What is supernatural about being physically small, being Irish, Having wings, being noodly, physically representing a horse and the colour pink?

The magic bits.

Which is why I have said the only safe argument in which you can put other things in with God is unfalsifiability.....Is having wings falsifiable?, whoops I think it is.

Yes, but the fairies all appear to have intangible, invisible wings - unless you can point me in the direction of a natural history museum with an example? Of course, you have depictions of fairies with wings, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster with beef meatballs, but then you have depictions of God with a long, flowing Zeus-like beard.

This is all down to your dicey categorisations. unfalsifiability is a sounder categorisation than ''supernatural'' which as I have demonstrated to you....again... is prey to falsifiability.

If you choose the label 'unfalsifiable' because you can't adequately define supernatural then fine - penises, rubber ducks and Winston Churchill are all falsifiable, and leprechauns, fairies, unicorns and gods aren't.

O.

No. If a Leprechaun is small, irish, dressed in green and hangs around with pots of Gold a Leprechaun is by dint of that falsifiable since you have already accepted that only the magic bits aren't. Similarly small fairies with wings are falsifiable.

so...big fail on your part.

Sorry Rider. The smart money is on sensible, uncontroversial, defineable categories such as unfalsifiable , contingent etc. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, but the fairies all appear to have intangible, invisible wings - unless you can point me in the direction of a natural history museum with an example? Of course, you have depictions of fairies with wings, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster with beef meatballs, but then you have depictions of God with a long, flowing Zeus-like beard............

.......And that could be why we don't believe in Zeus....Also, Don't you understand art.

I'm afraid the above objections are easily countered with questions like
''If they are invisible......How do we know that they are pink?''

Sorry to piss on your bonfire.

[Outrider]

No. If a Leprechaun is small, irish, dressed in green and hangs around with pots of Gold a Leprechaun is by dint of that falsifiable since you have already accepted that only the magic bits aren't.

If it is - do you have anything to substantiate that claim?

Similarly small fairies with wings are falsifiable.

How? How do you know that fairies have wings? How do you know that all fairies have wings?

so...big fail on your part.

Not so that you'd... not so that someone paying attention would notice.

Sorry Rider. The smart money is on sensible, uncontroversial, defineable categories such as unfalsifiable , contingent etc.

Right. So we have an unfalsifiable category that includes God, fairies, leprechauns etc., and a falsifiable category that includes penises, Winston Churchill and rubber ducks. We've been here before...

O.

[Outrider]

.......And that could be why we don't believe in Zeus....

That's your reason?

Also, Don't you understand art.

Often, I confess, this is the truth. In this instance, though, I note that there are depictions of God which include beards, so I can therefore disprove at least some contentions of God in exactly the same way that I can disprove some contentions of fairies, but that does not equate to a comprehensive proof of non-existence.

I'm afraid the above objections are easily countered with questions like. ''If they are invisible......How do we know that they are pink?''

Oh, that's easy. I have a copy of this old, old book...

Sorry to piss on your bonfire.

Not nearly as sorry as I am that your aim is so poor. I have, it would appear, wet shoes but a servicable bonfire.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. If a Leprechaun is small, irish, dressed in green and hangs around with pots of Gold a Leprechaun is by dint of that falsifiable since you have already accepted that only the magic bits aren't.

If it is - do you have anything to substantiate that claim?

Similarly small fairies with wings are falsifiable.

How? How do you know that fairies have wings? How do you know that all fairies have wings?

so...big fail on your part.

Not so that you'd... not so that someone paying attention would notice.

Sorry Rider. The smart money is on sensible, uncontroversial, defineable categories such as unfalsifiable , contingent etc.

Right. So we have an unfalsifiable category that includes God, fairies, leprechauns etc., and a falsifiable category that includes penises, Winston Churchill and rubber ducks. We've been here before...

O.

I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.

And.....that's it really.............

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vluderingstraightintothewarmvatofcustardagain,

I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.

And.....that's it really.............

It would be if you didn't claim a god able at will to intervene in the material world. What in principle is the difference between a god who answers prayers and intervenes to heal the lame, and a fairy who answers prayers and leaves teeth under children's pillows?

I can see that you would dearly love there to be a category difference so as to put (your particular) god in a set of his own, but there isn't.

[floo]

No. If a Leprechaun is small, irish, dressed in green and hangs around with pots of Gold a Leprechaun is by dint of that falsifiable since you have already accepted that only the magic bits aren't.

If it is - do you have anything to substantiate that claim?

Similarly small fairies with wings are falsifiable.

How? How do you know that fairies have wings? How do you know that all fairies have wings?

so...big fail on your part.

Not so that you'd... not so that someone paying attention would notice.

Sorry Rider. The smart money is on sensible, uncontroversial, defineable categories such as unfalsifiable , contingent etc.

Right. So we have an unfalsifiable category that includes God, fairies, leprechauns etc., and a falsifiable category that includes penises, Winston Churchill and rubber ducks. We've been here before...

O.

I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.

And.....that's it really.............

What it all boils down to in the end is that the stories in the Bible, which some people believe to be literally true, have no more credibility than Grimm's fairy tales, for instance, which were intended to be fanciful.

[Outrider]

I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.

And.....that's it really.............

So if God doesn't have a beard, we've falsified god?

We don't have any actual fairies, we have depictions of fairies - those depictions have wings, but that doesn't mean that fairies necessarily do.

We don't have any actual leprechauns, we have depictions of leprechauns - those depictions have rainbows and pots of gold, but that doesn't mean that leprechauns necessarily do.

We don't have any actual gods, we have depictions of God... you see where this is going?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vluderingstraightintothewarmvatofcustardagain,

I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.

And.....that's it really.............

It would be if you didn't claim a god able at will to intervene in the material world. What in principle is the difference between a god who answers prayers and intervenes to heal the lame, and a fairy who answers prayers and leaves teeth under children's pillows?

I can see that you would dearly love there to be a category difference so as to put (your particular) god in a set of his own, but there isn't.

It doesn't matter whether I claim it or not.
Divine intervention is not falsifiable.

[floo]

Vluderingstraightintothewarmvatofcustardagain,

I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.

And.....that's it really.............

It would be if you didn't claim a god able at will to intervene in the material world. What in principle is the difference between a god who answers prayers and intervenes to heal the lame, and a fairy who answers prayers and leaves teeth under children's pillows?

I can see that you would dearly love there to be a category difference so as to put (your particular) god in a set of his own, but there isn't.

It doesn't matter whether I claim it or not.
Divine intervention is not falsifiable.

What does that mean? You can't prove any sort of divine intervention, so people who say, 'it was god wot did it', are telling an untruth as they can't substantiate the statement.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.

And.....that's it really.............

So if God doesn't have a beard, we've falsified god?

We don't have any actual fairies, we have depictions of fairies - those depictions have wings, but that doesn't mean that fairies necessarily do.

We don't have any actual leprechauns, we have depictions of leprechauns - those depictions have rainbows and pots of gold, but that doesn't mean that leprechauns necessarily do.

We don't have any actual gods, we have depictions of God... you see where this is going?

O.

Yes. The arbitrary redefinition of these things to make them fit your argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingintothewrongendofthecementmixeragain,

It doesn't matter whether I claim it or not.
Divine intervention is not falsifiable.

Nor is fairyist intervention.

How does that help you?

[Outrider]

What does that mean? You can't prove any sort of divine intervention, so people who say, 'it was god wot did it', are telling an untruth as they can't substantiate the statement.

Not an untruth because (a) it might be true, and (b) even if it isn't they might genuinely believe it.

They can't support their statement adequately, so it is ultimately an opinion, but that's not lying by any stretch.

O.

[Outrider]

I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.

And.....that's it really.............

So if God doesn't have a beard, we've falsified god?

We don't have any actual fairies, we have depictions of fairies - those depictions have wings, but that doesn't mean that fairies necessarily do.

We don't have any actual leprechauns, we have depictions of leprechauns - those depictions have rainbows and pots of gold, but that doesn't mean that leprechauns necessarily do.

We don't have any actual gods, we have depictions of God... you see where this is going?

O.

Yes. The arbitrary redefinition of these things to make them fit your argument.

Which differs in that your argument runs from the abitrary definition of your conception of God in what way?

Is it the order that you think makes a difference, because there were conceptions of gods around before the Christians decided their definition.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vluderingstraightintothewarmvatofcustardagain,

I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.

And.....that's it really.............

It would be if you didn't claim a god able at will to intervene in the material world. What in principle is the difference between a god who answers prayers and intervenes to heal the lame, and a fairy who answers prayers and leaves teeth under children's pillows?

I can see that you would dearly love there to be a category difference so as to put (your particular) god in a set of his own, but there isn't.

It doesn't matter whether I claim it or not.
Divine intervention is not falsifiable.

What does that mean? You can't prove any sort of divine intervention, so people who say, 'it was god wot did it', are telling an untruth as they can't substantiate the statement.

We can't say they are telling an untruth because we cannot falsify it. This misunderstanding of the term untruth is what you have laboured under Floo.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingflatonhisfaceagain,

Yes. The arbitrary redefinition of these things to make them fit your argument.

You're getting really desperate now. Why are these any more or less "arbitrary redefinitions" of fairies than your "arbitrary redefinition" of a god?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm afraid Outrider it remains that unless all the mythical beasts you mention lose all of there physical and measurable and falsifiable properties in an arbitrary redefinition they remain falsifiable whether I have current evidence or not.

And.....that's it really.............

So if God doesn't have a beard, we've falsified god?

We don't have any actual fairies, we have depictions of fairies - those depictions have wings, but that doesn't mean that fairies necessarily do.

We don't have any actual leprechauns, we have depictions of leprechauns - those depictions have rainbows and pots of gold, but that doesn't mean that leprechauns necessarily do.

We don't have any actual gods, we have depictions of God... you see where this is going?

O.

Yes. The arbitrary redefinition of these things to make them fit your argument.

Which differs in that your argument runs from the abitrary definition of your conception of God in what way?

Is it the order that you think makes a difference, because there were conceptions of gods around before the Christians decided their definition.

O.

I feel the time has come for you to make up your mind Outrider.......do these mythical beasts have the ''ridiculous'' characteristics which make comparison to God a bad thing. Or do they not have them and they all including God become respectable suggestions?

[floo]

What does that mean? You can't prove any sort of divine intervention, so people who say, 'it was god wot did it', are telling an untruth as they can't substantiate the statement.

Not an untruth because (a) it might be true, and (b) even if it isn't they might genuinely believe it.

They can't support their statement adequately, so it is ultimately an opinion, but that's not lying by any stretch.

O.

It is an untruth if they state it as a fact and true, when it is only a belief.

[Outrider]

I feel the time has come for you to make up your mind Outrider.......do these mythical beasts have the ''ridiculous'' characteristics which make comparison to God a bad thing. Or do they not have them and they all including God become respectable suggestions?

Who knows? Are invisible unicorns pink before they become invisible? Do fairies have intangible wings? Are leprechauns living in 'spiritual' pots of gold? Does god count as having a beard because his avatar (which is him) does?

We have no way of knowing any of these, so for you to arbitrarily decide that we'll hold fairies to a depiction of being physical winged things but not hold god to the depiction of being a physical bearded man is unjustified.

I don't need to classify them at all, because I don't think any of them are real. You're the one suggesting there's a category difference between them, it's incumbent upon you to suggest why the classifications are different.

O.