"What we've got here is failure to communicate..."

[Hope]

That was bluehillside you were replying to, not me

Apologies, I lost track of the poster.  My bad.

And to state that an argument is replete with logical fallacies entails being able to correctly identify such fallacies, which many here can do and many others - you included - cannot.

Well, since you regularly incorrectly identify such fallacies, by claiming their existence when they aren't there, not only is your argument moot, you and others seem too keen to identify fallacies than debate the issue.

[Shaker]

Well, since you regularly incorrectly identify such fallacies, by claiming their existence when they aren't there

Provide an example of this.

You won't, of course.

[Gordon]

Well, since you regularly incorrectly identify such fallacies, by claiming their existence when they aren't there, not only is your argument moot, you and others seem too keen to identify fallacies than debate the issue.

Don't be daft, again - that your 'arguments' (for want of a better term) are all inherently and demonstrably fallacious removes the debate aspect since all that can be done is to point out your repeated use of fallacies. Produce a non-fallacious argument for your God/Christianity and perhaps then there would be something to debate: this is unlikely though, in that every 'argument' you've made to date has been fallacious in one way or another.

[Hope]

Provide an example of this.

#55, part 2

[Shaker]

#55, part 2

... which is a correct identification of the negative proof fallacy, therefore not an example of what I asked for at all.

[Hope]

Hopeless analogy (pun intended).

Pity you got the wrong poster, Shakes 

[Shaker]

Pity you got the wrong poster, Shakes 

I didn't. It was a deliberate pun, which is a form of humour, which itself is a linguistic contrivance intended to elicit the sensation of merriment in the audi ... oh never mind.

[OH MY WORLD!]

There goes old Shaker with his poopourri again. And he's sold a can to Gordon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKLnhuzh9uY

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

but nor does the opposite apply

Yes it does. If a book makes a truth claim about a past event then the book alone tells us nothing about the truthfulness or otherwise of that claim. The most that can be said is, “that’s a truth claim made in a book”. To determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the claim you need some means of testing the claim. 

And there are plenty of those, which because of your understanding of life aren't acceptable to you.  It doesn't mean that they are unacceptable.

Yes it does if you want those claims to be accepted as true for other people too. That’s why, for example, biblical miracles stories aren’t taught as facts in science or history lessons.   

I agree, but as I'm not making those same logical fallacies, it doesn't apply.

Then your memory fails you. In response to having one of your fallacies pointed out to you (the negative proof fallacy) your reply was that others have done it too. Whether or not they have says nothing though to your (frequent) use of it.

Sorry, but I've heard it used by a number of high-profile people on your side of the debate over the years, so the straw man accusation is on you, not me.

No you haven’t. If you think that you have, then cite an example of it. You can’t just assert your way out of a straw man.

good to see you trying to avoid the natural consequences of your assertion.  You made an assertion, so where is the evidence to back it up.

What assertion?

Sorry, Shakes, but just because you believe the argument to be relying on logical fallacies, doesn't mean - as you say earlier in the post - that it does.

That’s true – it’s not just my “belief" though that makes your arguments fallacious. What does make them fallacious however is that they precisely follow the structures of the various fallacies on which you rely. When you demand that others disprove your claims, that’s the negative proof fallacy; when you attack an argument that no-one makes, that’s the straw man fallacy; when you defend your use of a fallacy by suggesting that others do it too, that’s the tu quoque fallacy, when you…etc etc

And that’s your problem: you don’t seem even to be aware of what logical fallacies are, so you use them repeatedly. And the problem with that is that fallacious arguments are always wrong. If you seriously care about making a cogent argument then you need grasp this simple point and (finally) attempt an argument that does not rely on logical fallacies.

Go on, you know you want to don’t you.

Don’t you?

[Hope]

Why not? 

We're told that thenBible god is omnipotent.  It would be easier for him to do that, than it is for us to blink.

Khat, Floo has asked this question on a number of occasions (in fact she's done threads very like this, but with slightly different title wording, on a number of occasions).  If, as you say, it is thought that he is omnipotent, why should he not choose to use human beings to talk to other human beings about him?  Are you saying that you would believe in God if he was to appear in front of you and explain everything to you?  If so, how would you know that it was God and not just some idea conjured up by a fevered mind?

[Leonard James]

Khat, Floo has asked this question on a number of occasions (in fact she's done threads very like this, but with slightly different title wording, on a number of occasions).  If, as you say, it is thought that he is omnipotent, why should he not choose to use human beings to talk to other human beings about him?  Are you saying that you would believe in God if he was to appear in front of you and explain everything to you?  If so, how would you know that it was God and not just some idea conjured up by a fevered mind?

And how do you know that "God" is not just some idea conjured up by a fevered mind?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be daft, again - that your 'arguments' (for want of a better term) are all inherently and demonstrably fallacious removes the debate aspect since all that can be done is to point out your repeated use of fallacies. Produce a non-fallacious argument for your God/Christianity and perhaps then there would be something to debate: this is unlikely though, in that every 'argument' you've made to date has been fallacious in one way or another.

This post is mostly assertion.
You are again running rampant with your accusations of fallacy without demonstration.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Provide an example of this.

You won't, of course.

That,s right turn it on it,s head.
It,s up to those clawing fallacy to demonstrate it.

[Leonard James]

That,s right turn it on it,s head.
It,s up to those clawing fallacy to demonstrate it.

Not so! It's up to those claiming "God" to demonstrate him.

[Gordon]

This post is mostly assertion.
You are again running rampant with your accusations of fallacy without demonstration.

Not so - in recent times both Hope and Alan Burns have given us repeated demonstrations of fallacies. I wouldn't be surprised if some of their posts didn't find their way into some future textbook for philosophy students as being glowing examples of the fallacy genre.

[Shaker]

This post is mostly assertion.
You are again running rampant with your accusations of fallacy without demonstration.

It's less demonstration than identification - that's to say, knowing what a particular fallacy is, recognising it as such when encountered and pointing it out. This is done on an almost daily basis here - I do it; Gordon does it; bluehillside does it, plenty more.

It would be fantastic if we didn't need to do this, but no matter how many times one or other of these failures of reasoning are pointed out, the serial offenders just keep on using them. They seemingly can't help themselves. Whether it's some sort of intellectual blindfold that prevents them from taking an explanation on board, or pride, or sheer apathy, I really don't know. There has to be some reason for it.

[Hope]

And how do you know that "God" is not just some idea conjured up by a fevered mind?

Well, this would require huge swathes of the human species to have been suffering from 'fevered brain' syndrome for centuries, if not millennia.  So, it's a rather simplistic explanation, not worthy of your normal level of debate, Len.  I realise that some here believe that we are evolving ever-more advanced brains, that will cause such a belief to become obsolete.  Is there any evidence that this is so?

[Leonard James]

Well, this would require huge swathes of the human species to have been suffering from 'fevered brain' syndrome for centuries, if not millennia.

Not at all. It only needs that founders of each religion to invent their gods ... all the rest will simply be caught up by the idea and follow.

So, it's a rather simplistic explanation, not worthy of your normal level of debate, Len.

As you would have seen if you were honest with yourself it was nothing of the kind. 

I realise that some here believe that we are evolving ever-more advanced brains, that will cause such a belief to become obsolete.  Is there any evidence that this is so?

It's not that we are evolving more advanced brains, it's just that our knowledge of how things work is increasing steadily, and will eventually see the demise of gods.

[Bubbles]

Dear Khatru,

Not Gods failure it is the staff he employs.

The "core value" of the company is Love, but we seem to have to much "blue sky thinking", in "going forward" staff must at all times remember to "touch base" which is Love.

As the man says in the GodFather 3 movie, "all our ships must sail in the same direction" to "get the ball rolling" we must at all times remember to "drill down" to our "core value" Love.

When staff consult the "company manual" they must avoid the "strategic staircase" and "focus on" our "core value".

Dear Staff,

The Commander in Chief would just like to remind staff of the importance of the Two Greatest commandments, this is your "core mission" he would also like to remind you that "staff appraisals" are on going, come Judgement day "end of year evaluation" you really don't want to be behind TW in the queue.

Gonnagle.

👍🏻

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Well, this would require huge swathes of the human species to have been suffering from 'fevered brain' syndrome for centuries, if not millennia.  So, it's a rather simplistic explanation, not worthy of your normal level of debate, Len.

Hope fallacy No. 17: the argumetum ad populum. And no, all it would require is a predisposition to pattern seeking and the workings of memetics. I'd have though that the beliefs in the bewildering multiplicity of gods in which you do not believe would have told you that.

I realise that some here believe that we are evolving ever-more advanced brains,...

Hope fallacy No. 11 - the straw man. "More advanced" and differently adapted are not the same thing.

... that will cause such a belief to become obsolete.  Is there any evidence that this is so?

Hope fallacy No. 11 redux. It's not "more advanced brains" but more robust reasoning, and yes - among more educated countries we see a correlation between higher literacy, living longer, greater happiness etc and reduced religiosity. Whether it'll ever become "obsolete" is hard to say, though encouragingly there are examples of large cultural change happening remarkably quickly these days - the treatment of homosexuality for example.

Incidentally, as you ignored my last post should I take it that you intend to continue to rely on logical fallacies for your position or will you try to avoid them in future only you lack the grace to tell us so? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not so! It's up to those claiming "God" to demonstrate him.

That is true however you seem to be suffering from a fallacy concerning burden of proof namely thinking that being an atheist lifts having to prove ANYTHING.

[Leonard James]

That is true however you seem to be suffering from a fallacy concerning burden of proof namely thinking that being an atheist lifts having to prove ANYTHING.

I have no idea what you mean here. An atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in gods. How does that oblige him to prove anything?

[jeremyp]

That is true however you seem to be suffering from a fallacy concerning burden of proof namely thinking that being an atheist lifts having to prove ANYTHING.

Given that being an atheist entails only a refusal to accept the religionist assertions about God without evidence, that's pretty much a true statement.

By the way, I don't demand proof of God, I only demand evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope,

Yes it does. If a book makes a truth claim about a past event then the book alone tells us nothing about the truthfulness or otherwise of that claim. The most that can be said is, “that’s a truth claim made in a book”. To determine the truthfulness or otherwise of the claim you need some means of testing the claim. 

And that means would be science wouldn't it ?

But then science determining all truth values is scientism isn't it.....which cannot be determined scientifically.

You may demonstrate by philosophical argument that only science determines truth but that argument is circular and cannot be falsified.

No wonder your pin up boy Sean Carroll wants falsifiability retired from the world of science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have no idea what you mean here. An atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in gods. How does that oblige him to prove anything?

Prove any number of mere assertions you have made about believers then. Prove the materialism on which your drivellings are obviously based.