Is man getting too big for the world?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Wired to believe" is just another way of saying that humans on the whole look for explanations for what they see. They are simply an inquisitive species.

The "god" beliefs only come when they read/hear about them.

To which the next obvious question is who wrote the God beliefs and who first told them?

Actually a God is one of the obvious options when thinking about why there is anything anyway.
If one does not self formulate a god hypothesis in one's thinking of why something rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain I'm afraid. Another hypothesis that should naturally spring to mind of course is it all just popped out of nothing spontaneously.

[Shaker]

Actually a God is one of the obvious options when thinking about why there is anything anyway.

If you're partial to non-answers with no supporting evidence, no fixed definition and an infinite regress of further questions, sure.

[bluehillside Retd.]

To which the next obvious question is who wrote the God beliefs and who first told them?

Actually a God is one of the obvious options when thinking about why there is anything anyway.
If one does not self formulate a god hypothesis in one's thinking of why something rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain I'm afraid. Another hypothesis that should naturally spring to mind of course is it all just popped out of nothing spontaneously.

In which Trollboy fails to notice that:

1. "Actually a God is one of the obvious options when thinking about why there is anything anyway" works just as well for Thor and lightning respectively.

2. "If one does not self formulate a god hypothesis in one's thinking of why something rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain" leads immediately to the response, "If one does not self formulate a Daddy god hypothesis in one's thinking of why Trollboy's god rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain".

3. Applying an argument from ignorance, calling the result "God" and worshipping it would still be logically broken and would still tell you nothing whatever about which god it was in any case wot did it.

Ladeeez an' Gennelemen - the Trollboy hattrick!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you're partial to non-answers with no supporting evidence, no fixed definition and an infinite regress of further questions, sure.

Non answer? Even if it were it makes better sense than ''we don't know but we know it isn't God''......a formulation which was ever the last refuge of the scoundrel and does nothing for anybody claiming to love evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Non answer? Even if it were it makes better sense than ''we don't know but we know it isn't God''......a formulation which was ever the last refuge of the scoundrel and does nothing for anybody claiming to love evidence.

In which Trollboy fires his cap guns both barrels directly at something no-one has said, conflating yet again "but it isn't God" with "there's no reason to think it was (a) god". Exhausted after his efforts, he's relieved that Mummy has called him in for his tea and some warm milk, doubtless fortifying him for another long day tomorrow heroically tearing apart the small army of straw men he's spent so much time knocking up on the kitchen table.

Sweet eh?

[Owlswing]

Non answer? Even if it were it makes better sense than ''we don't know but we know it isn't God''......a formulation which was ever the last refuge of the scoundrel and does nothing for anybody claiming to love evidence.

What evidence? None has ever been produced here that shows that God, any God, (or Goddess for that matter), thine or mine, is anything more than a matter of faith - I cannot prove or offer any testable evidence that my deities exist any more than you and/or the rest of the Christians here can for the existence of yours/theirs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Trollboy fails to notice that:

1. "Actually a God is one of the obvious options when thinking about why there is anything anyway" works just as well for Thor and lightning respectively.

2. "If one does not self formulate a god hypothesis in one's thinking of why something rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain" leads immediately to the response, "If one does not self formulate a Daddy god hypothesis in one's thinking of why Trollboy's god rather than nothing then you have a malfunctioning brain".

3. Applying an argument from ignorance, calling the result "God" and worshipping it would still be logically broken and would still tell you nothing whatever about which god it was in any case wot did it.

Ladeeez an' Gennelemen - the Trollboy hattrick!

Non sequitur to Len's ludicrous claim that people only think about God because they've been told or read about him.

Also non sequitur reply to what I am saying which is that the healthy brain contemplates origin theories such as God, Spontaneous creation etc.

Finally You get round the problem of Gods being different by making them the same. The trouble for you is, if you are making them all the same then the actual name is irrelevant. Another Smurfian pisstake exposed by the Good Guys.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Non sequitur to Len's ludicrous claim that people only think about God because they've been told or read about him.

In which Trollboy shows yet again that he has no idea what non sequitur means as he's commenting on a response to his post, not to Len's.

Also non sequitur reply to what I am saying which is that the healthy brain contemplates origin theories such as God, Spontaneous creation etc.

In which Trollboy further demonstrates that he has no idea what non sequitur means because "God is one of the obvious options" is precisely not a sign of a "functioning brain" if by "functioning" he means, "having even a basic understanding of logic and reason".   

Finally You get round the problem of Gods being different by making them the same. The trouble for you is, if you are making them all the same then there actual name is irrelevant. Another Smurfian pisstake exposed by the Good Guys.

In which Trollboy just makes up the idea that all gods are the claimed to be same, apparently oblivious to the notion that someone who hypothesises his god's dad is as free to ascribe whatever varied and different characteristics he likes to that god as Trollboy is to his.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What evidence? None has ever been produced here that shows that God, any God, (or Goddess for that matter), thine or mine, is anything more than a matter of faith - I cannot prove or offer any testable evidence that my deities exist any more than you and/or the rest of the Christians here can for the existence of yours/theirs.

But how do you know of them and why have you adopted them?

I don't think I have ever said that God was scientifically falsifiable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

I don't think I have ever said that God was scientifically falsifiable.

In which Trollboy fails to notice that "God" isn't scientifically anything - other that is than not even wrong. Sadly as he'll never even propose a method to use instead of the scientific one to investigate his assertions, then un-argued, un-defined and un-evidenced guesses they must remain.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Trollboy shows yet again that he has no idea what non sequitur means as he's commenting on a response to his post, not to Len's.

In which Trollboy further demonstrates that he has no idea what non sequitur means because "God is one of the obvious options" is precisely not a sign of a "functioning brain" if by "functioning" he means, "having even a basic understanding of logic and reason".   

In which Trollboy just makes up the idea that all gods are the claimed to be same, apparently oblivious to the notion that someone who hypothesises his god's dad is as free to ascribe whatever varied and different characteristics he likes to that god as Trollboy is to his.

Hillside......if one is talking about why there is anything and not nothing and one does not know the answer then a God must take it's place as one of the alternatives. It would be illogical not to and unreasonable.

That's why Dawkins et al cannot finally dismiss the possibility of God (and not your understanding of possible which encompasses Leprechauns etc and is in fact argumentum ad ridiculum).

Also, what is logical about something popping up from nothing since it is in fact not observed in nature? That it is taken more seriously than a cause for the universe is more Goddodging than anything that can be fobbed off onto us spiv like as logic and reason.

[Shaker]

Non answer?

Yes, that's what I said.

Even if it were

It is. No 'if' about it. For an explanation to be worthy of the name it actually has to explain stuff in reality, from thing to be explained to explanation with all the links of the chain in between intact. If it doesn't do that it's white noise, gap-plugging Polyfilla - a pseudo-explanation, not an actual explanation.

it makes better sense than ''we don't know but we know it isn't God''......a formulation which was ever the last refuge of the scoundrel and does nothing for anybody claiming to love evidence.

Given the number of times that the burden of proof, the necessity of clear definition etc. have had to be explained to you by so many different posters over such an extended period of time I can only assume that, as with Hope, you're literally incapable of being able to take these points on board.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hillside......if one is talking about why there is anything and not nothing and one does not know the answer then a God must take it's place as one of the alternatives. It would be illogical not to and unreasonable.

In which Trollboy fails to grasp that the negative proof fallacy requires that any conjecture could be possible, but not that it need trouble a "functioning brain" as the white noise of "God" offers nothing with which such a brain could engage.   

That's why Dawkins et al cannot finally dismiss the possibility of God (and not your understanding of possible which encompasses Leprechauns etc and is in fact argumentum ad ridiculum).

In which Trollboy attempts yet another argumentum ad consequentiam, failing to notice that Dawkins considers leprechauns as precisely as (im)probable as "God", and for exactly the same reason

Also, what is logical about something popping up from nothing since it is in fact not observed in nature? That it is taken more seriously than a cause for the universe is more Goddodging than anything that can be fobbed off onto us spiv like as logic and reason.

In which Trollboy attempts another argument from personal incredulity based for good measure on a false premise, all the while failing to realise that you still cannot "dodge" something you've been given no cogent reason to think exists in the first place. 

Possibly Trollboy should revisit the thread he's just run away from after his latest howler where Some has kindly provided a link to a primer on basic logic that he'd do well to try at least to understand so as to help at least minimise further embarrassment.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, that's what I said.
It is. No 'if' about it.
Given the number of times that the burden of proof, the necessity of clear definition etc. have had to be explained to you by so many different posters over such an extended period of time I can only assume that, as with Hope, you're literally incapable of being able to take these points on board.

If you are saying there is no scientific question of falsifying God then I agree with you.
If you are saying then that therefore we know it isn't God then you are guilty of argumentum ad consequentium.
If you say you are arguing against God from science rather than philosophy then you don't have a grasp on what you are doing.
.........and neither does Hillside.

[Sassy]

Sassy,

Me:

No, I am not reading your crap.
I am better educated than you and when it comes to Christ and God, had more life experience and know the bible that I have forgotten more than you will ever learn.

My post clear and I have forgotten more than you will ever know about God and the bible.
You lost, you can never win, because greater is he who is in us than he who is in the world.


Now be a good boy and leave the adults to discuss the real topics about Christianity.
I personally find you boring as you have no real education about these matters.

Never mind you may mature one day.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Trollboy attempts yet another argumentum ad consequentiam, failing to notice that Dawkins considers leprechauns as precisely as (im)probable as "God", and for exactly the same reason

That just makes Dawkins as foolish as you then with your argument ad ridiculum....

[Shaker]

No, I am not reading your crap.

I'm like that with your crap.

I am better educated than you

Cunningly concealed, I must say.

[bluehillside Retd.]

If you are saying there is no scientific question of falsifying God then I agree with you.

In which Trollboy fails to notice yet again that science is as indifferent to the claim "God" as it is to the claim "leprechaun", and for exactly the same reason.

If you are saying then that therefore we know it isn't God then you are guilty of argumentum ad consequentium.

In which the only guilt on display is Trollboy being guilty of yet another straw man (and of poor spelling).

If you say you are arguing against God from science rather than philosophy then you don't have a grasp on what you are doing.
.........and neither does Hillside.

In which Trollboy throws in a further straw man, also apparently oblivious to the notion that "philosophy" doesn't help him in any case any more than science does.

And in which Trollboy continues to offer no method of any kind to distinguish his assertions from guessing.

[Sassy]

I didn't say that you did, but am pleased to hear you confirm that you don't.

It is worrying people can think that way...

[Shaker]

The method thing - that's to say, the absence of one - is the killer, isn't it? It's the one that's guaranteed to get Hopeless slinking off the forum faster than if you point out to him that he's just deployed yet another logical fallacy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

That just makes Dawkins as foolish as you then with your argument ad ridiculum....

In which Trollboy fails to grasp that, epistemically, "God" as a conjecture precisely is as ridiculous as "leprechauns" as a conjecture.

[Sassy]

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/is.anne.graham.lotz.right.to.say.god.allowed.9.11.to.show.us.we.need.him/86189.htm

So it appears another wasted thread because the woman clearly did NOT say that nor meant that.

[Maeght]

"Wired to believe" is just another way of saying that humans on the whole look for explanations for what they see. They are simply an inquisitive species.

The "god" beliefs only come when they read/hear about them.

You said 'The only reason for belief in "God" is what has been written or said about him by other people'. Clearly to believe in a specific god or God comes from what you hear, read etc but my point was that the reason why there is a tendency for belief is due to how the brain is wired to respond to information etc. Different people can hear, read the same info as a believer and not believe so there must be another reason underlying the process.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The method thing - that's to say, the absence of one - is the killer, isn't it? It's the one that's guaranteed to get Hopeless slinking off the forum faster than if you point out to him that he's just deployed yet another logical fallacy.

It's the killer for you since you mean by method, the scientific method and that is both limited and does not establish the philosophy implicit in your objections to God.

Hillside has said science is indifferent to God and yet here you are trying to resurrect it.

Both Religion and science though are instrumental and for God you are the instrument. I see no personal experimentation in the field of religion from you guys and so ,for me you are just chucking the word method around shamanically.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Trollboy fails to grasp that, epistemically, "God" as a conjecture precisely is as ridiculous as "leprechauns" as a conjecture.

.....And your warrant for that statement is?