Are we done here?

[Owlswing]

Hope,

Incidentally, if you do read the book I recommended to you you'll understand the terms "null hypothesis" and "p values" that Stephen referred to, and hopefully too therefore you'll see why they demolish your attempt to use personal anecdote to derive universal truths.

Honest Blue. haven't you yet realised that Hope will never, even should he live for a thiusand years, see anything negative with regard to his God, his religion, his arguments in favour of that religion or to that bloody stupid book.

Even to the point that he dismisses the OT as irrelevant to the Chritian religion yet Sassy quotes th OT interminably to justify it and its views and rules.
 
How this man was ever allowed to teach, with a facility for fallacious reasoning like his, is seriously beyond me.

It would be interesteing to interview some of his students but I doubt if many would admit to having been under his tutelage.

Plus which, of course, he has spent so much of his life travelling in just about every country in the world that he probably has precious few students fromn the UK.

[Sebastian Toe]

Some, but not all - but then, I'm not sure exactly what political topics the 50+ groups prayed for at the time.  If conversations I had regarding the Scottish Referendum that followed a month or two later reflected the views of church members, and they prayed for that, then you could probably answer that topic in the affirmative.

...and another thing.
Do you think that there were no, none, zero - honest and earnest Christians in Scotland who were hoping for the reverse result to occur.
And that none of them had a wee prayer to that effect?

And as their prayers were therefore not 'answered' would that then probably answer that topic in exact opposite to your response above?

 

[Owlswing]

...and another thing.
Do you think that there were no, none, zero - honest and earnest Christians in Scotland who were hoping for the reverse result to occur.
And that none of them had a wee prayer to that effect?

And as their prayers were therefore not 'answered' would that then probably answer that topic in exact opposite to your response above?

 

Ah, but then, you see, the reason that their prayers were not answered was that they were praying for the wrong result - the result that God did not want.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.

Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.

In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.

Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.

What then is there left to talk about instead?

But there is also the call on us from respective philosophical positions of which your post is but one.

There is also the call from various moral standpoints and standpoints of morality.

The insistence of holding the default position on everything discussed on this board is IMHO pathological.

Of course God seems to appear in all sorts of philosophical debates and that could explain your need to reduce that role to mere wearer of green jackets, smoker of upside down pipes and keeper of gold pots at the end of rainbows.....................top of the morning to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But there is also the call on us from respective philosophical positions of which your post is but one.

There is also the call from various moral standpoints and standpoints of morality.

There is also the "call" from flat-earthers and the "call" from creationists too. You're just going nuclear again. You can conjecture anything you like, but unless you're prepared to accept all of them as probably true then, finally, you need to provide a method to sort the probably true from the probably not true. And no, "faith" is not a method.

The insistence of holding the default position on everything discussed on this board is IMHO pathological.

Then, as so often, your opinion is wrong. That's why you treat the "the lift is more probably the safer way to the ground than jumping out of the window" as your default too. If you really want to promote a conjecture to something else without the tools of reason and inter-subjective experience, what method would you propose instead to do the job? 

Of course God seems to appear in all sorts of philosophical debates...

Yes, or at least the idea of "God" has done so. So far as I'm aware those who think they have philosophical arguments for "God" now though are considered by most who've engaged with these arguments to be either demonstrably wrong or not even wrong. WLC's flakey five for example are readily undone. There are more nuanced theistic thinkers - Don Cupitt comes to mind - who may have interesting things to say but none of them has provided anything sufficiently persuasive to change the Zeitgeist. 

... and that could explain your need to reduce that role to mere wearer of green jackets, smoker of upside down pipes and keeper of gold pots at the end of rainbows.....................top of the morning to you.

And again you make the same mistake as ever about what I actually do. (Wearily) - Bluehillside's fourth maxim: "If an argument for "God" works equally well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument". The characteristics and properties of "God" and of leprechauns alike are utterly irrelevant for this purpose

Why is this simple point sooo difficult for you to grasp? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

There is also the "call" from flat-earthers and the "call" from creationists too. You're just going nuclear again. You can conjecture anything you like, but unless you're prepared to accept all of them as probably true then, finally, you need to provide a method to sort the probably true from the probably not true. And no, "faith" is not a method.

Then, as so often, your opinion is wrong. That's why you treat the "the lift is more probably the safer way to the ground than jumping out of the window" as your default too. If you really want to promote a conjecture to something else without the tools of reason and inter-subjective experience, what method would you propose instead to do the job? 

Yes, or at least the idea of "God" has done so. So far as I'm aware those who think they have philosophical arguments for "God" now though are considered by most who've engaged with these arguments to be either demonstrably wrong or not even wrong. WLC's flakey five for example are readily undone. There are more nuanced theistic thinkers - Don Cupitt comes to mind - who may have interesting things to say but none of them has provided anything sufficiently persuasive to change the Zeitgeist. 

And again you make the same mistake as ever about what I actually do. (Wearily) - Bluehillside's fourth maxim: "If an argument for "God" works equally well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument". The characteristics and properties of "God" and of leprechauns alike are utterly irrelevant for this purpose

Why is this simple point sooo difficult for you to grasp?

Crikey...................immediate comparison with flat earthers.

Now that is what I call going nuclear ...but I suppose that's another phrase the antitheists have stolen to support Laws inconsequential bollocks.

Using flat earthers straight away eh, surrender accepted......reparation terms.......I will graciously allow your withdrawal from the board to ease your embarrassment.

[Owlswing]

I will graciously allow your withdrawal from the board to ease your embarrassment.

Since when was it in your gift to "allow" anyone to withdraw from this board?

Just what do you think that you can do to prevent someone withdrawing from this board?

[Sebastian Toe]

Since when was it in your gift to "allow" anyone to withdraw from this board?

Just what do you think that you can do to prevent someone withdrawing from this board?

Don't worry about that.
Vlad sometimes feels funny and soon after that wears off - he posts something.
There a re many examples of that littered all over this forum.
Maybe you haven't noticed?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Crikey...................immediate comparison with flat earthers.

Now that is what I call going nuclear ...but I suppose that's another phrase the antitheists have stolen to support Laws inconsequential bollocks.

Using flat earthers straight away eh, surrender accepted......reparation terms.......I will graciously allow your withdrawal from the board to ease your embarrassment.

Blimey, when you shoot yourself in the foot you really give it both barrels don't you. The point was that it matters not a jot which faith belief you happen to be punting; if the argument for it is bad then the argument for it is bad regardless. Absent a method to distinguish one badly argued faith claim from any other badly argued faith claim, do you propose to accept all of them as true or none of them?

It's no good saying, "but this one is ridiculous" as if your opinion on that somehow renders your one not ridiculous. If the argument you attempt for your faith belief and that someone else attempts for his faith belief is the same argument, then in epistemological terms there's no difference between them. Why then would you you think that theology "makes a call" on us whereas, say, faith in a flat earth does not?

For once try to focus here - really, really try: If an argument for "God" works equally well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument.

Really, that's it. Your standard tactic ("yeah but I end up at God that way, but you end up at leprechauns and your output is ridiculous") doesn't work: you can't take one outcome of a bad argument and somehow think that that outcome renders it a good argument, whereas a different outcome does not. Only when (if?) you finally grasp this will you realise the enormity of your mistake...

..and it's never a good idea to cling to a mistake just because you've invested heavily in making it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Blimey, when you shoot yourself in the foot you really give it both barrels don't you. The point was that it matters not a jot which faith belief you happen to be punting; if the argument for it is bad then the argument for it is bad regardless. Absent a method to distinguish one badly argued faith claim from any other badly argued faith claim, do you propose to accept all of them as true or none of them?

It's no good saying, "but this one is ridiculous" as if your opinion on that somehow renders your one not ridiculous. If the argument you attempt for your faith belief and that someone else attempts for his faith belief is the same argument, then in epistemological terms there's no difference between them. Why then would you you think that theology "makes a call" on us whereas, say, faith in a flat earth does not?

For once try to focus here - really, really try: If an argument for "God" works equally well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument.

Really, that's it. Your standard tactic ("yeah but I end up at God that way, but you end up at leprechauns and your output is ridiculous") doesn't work: you can't take one outcome of a bad argument and somehow think that that outcome renders it a good argument, whereas a different outcome does not. Only when (if?) you finally grasp this will you realise the enormity of your mistake...

..and it's never a good idea to cling to a mistake just because you've invested heavily in making it.

When you equate flat earth with God you have made a hole in the bottom of the barrel.
Why because flat earth is a scientific proposition easily dismissed by science and empirical observation.

You are struggling to show that God is probabilistic let alone his probability.

You've fucked up and ruined your reputation for clear thought...........but not for cheeky piss taking which, let's face it makes the vast majority on this forum "moist".

But don't just take my word for it.......the Internet is replete with sceptic boards that do recognise the Leprechaun approach as an unpolishable turd.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

When you equate flat earth with God you have made a hole in the bottom of the barrel.

I genuinely can't tell whether this is deeply stupid or deeply dishonest. Or both.

Again: I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT "EQUATE FLAT EARTH WITH GOD".

See, I even put it in bold and in capitals so you don't have to lie about it any more. 

What I actually do though is to equate the ARGUMENT for each when the argument is the SAME ARGUMENT.

Thus, "you can't disprove God, therefore God is real" and "you can't disprove the flat earth/leprechauns/whatever, therefore the flat earth/leprechauns/whatever is real" is the same argument (Hope's favourite in fact) so - just for the purpose of that argument - they have the same epistemological standing.

Dear god but this is hard work.

Why because flat earth is a scientific proposition easily dismissed by science and empirical observation.

Yeah, all fakes of course by the global spherical earth conspiracy and besides doesn't science rest on axioms so, um, a flat earth is just as valid a hypothesis as a round one then isn't it (copyright V.Lad).

You are struggling to show that God is probabilistic let alone his probability.

Wrong: any truth claim is "probabilistic". Some though we treat as more probably true than others on the basis of the reasoning for them and the inter-subjective experience of engaging with them. That's why we both (presumably) think that gravity is the more probable explanation for apples falling from the tree than invisible elves pulling them down with very thin strings. And there's no need to show the "working out" for how much less probable elf theory is for that purpose. 

You've fucked up and ruined your reputation for clear thought...........but not for cheeky piss taking which, let's face it makes the vast majority on this forum "moist".

Oh dear. Perhaps if you had a lie down with a wet towel round your head while you consider the error of your ways?

But don't just take my word for it.......the Internet is replete with sceptic boards that do recognise the Leprechaun approach as an unpolishable turd.

I don't take your word for anything given your history of pathological mendacity, and as you clearly can't falsify Bluehillside's fourth maxim perhaps you could try producing some of these alleged internet sources that can do so?

I won't hold my breath mind.

[Owlswing]

Don't worry about that.
Vlad sometimes feels funny and soon after that wears off - he posts something.
There a re many examples of that littered all over this forum.
Maybe you haven't noticed?

I had, but this self-elevation to God-level seemed a bit much.

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside

In all fairness, and much as it pains me to do so, ( I must put in a word for Vlad here. When it came to the referendum, he was on the right side as far as I'm concerned and although I didn't agree with every word he said, I did read all his posts in those topics!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

In all fairness, and much as it pains me to do so, ( I must put in a word for Vlad here. When it came to the referendum, he was on the right side as far as I'm concerned and although I didn't agree with every word he said, I did read all his posts in those topics!

Even a busted clock is right twice a day 

[Sebastian Toe]

Hi Susan,

Even a busted clock is right twice a day 

Unless it is a busted 24 hour digital clock!
Vlad would be more like one of those if you had to make that comparison. 

[Brownie]

Plenty worse than Vlad!   At least he is interesting (if you can get your head around what he is saying  ), has the odd swear and drops a few witticisms.  A rather - unusual - Christian which goes to show that God likes a bit of diversity.  (Sorry for talking about you Vlad but couldn't resist, no offence.)

[Gonnagle]

Dear Brownie,

A rather - unusual - Christian which goes to show that God likes a bit of diversity. 

There's a usual type, what like!! good old TW, oh yeah! He is very usual, what about our Sass, a send all the immigrants home kind of Christian, what about the saintly Wigs, that guy is so out there we are talking light years to reach him.

Funny but when I think of Vlad I don't think Christian ( although I do think he has a deep thoughtful faith ) I think of his sense of humour, and I won't gain any friends when I say, Vlad, Shaker, and old Blue are all in the same mold, that is their sense of humour, very dry, very sarcastic, those three guys have had me in fits of laughter over the years, God Bless them all.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

And those Christian types don't even included the skewed hopeful gentle comic stylings of Gonnagle, and the slightly mother hen but straining not to giggle approach of Brownie. To link to another thread the More United approach is not just about the harsh game of politics.

[Brownie]

Agree with both of the above posts and again I say, God obviously loves diversity and wants us to be individuals.

I especially liked this from the ever courteous and gentle Gonnagle: Vlad, Shaker, and old Blue are all in the same mold, that is their sense of humour, very dry, very sarcastic, those three guys have had me in fits of laughter over the years, God Bless them all.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.

Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.

In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.

Is that it then? Are we done here?

Nope All you have illustrated is what happens when you try and solve a problem using an incorrect approach.

You express your dissatisfaction with the answers provided by those of religious belief. But you could try and demonstrate the opposite, namely that as all things have a natural explanation, there is no need for a supernatural/non-natural causes, etc., because that is the basis for your worldview, the one used to examine the evidence for non-natural phenomena. Seeing the problem yet???

I am a Maths teacher. If a student gets a question wrong, I can either
a) Show them where their working out is incorrect (ideally, get them to see if for themselves)
b) Show them why the converse is correct.

You can either disprove religious belief, or prove the converse.

The problem arises, because neither is being done. So perhaps someone could present their proof for all causes having natural explanations, (or at least show how it can be falsified) and then there would be no need for religious belief of any kind!

[torridon]

Nope All you have illustrated is what happens when you try and solve a problem using an incorrect approach.

You express your dissatisfaction with the answers provided by those of religious belief. But you could try and demonstrate the opposite, namely that as all things have a natural explanation, there is no need for a supernatural/non-natural causes, etc., because that is the basis for your worldview, the one used to examine the evidence for non-natural phenomena. Seeing the problem yet???

I am a Maths teacher. If a student gets a question wrong, I can either
a) Show them where their working out is incorrect (ideally, get them to see if for themselves)
b) Show them why the converse is correct.

You can either disprove religious belief, or prove the converse.

The problem arises, because neither is being done. So perhaps someone could present their proof for all causes having natural explanations, (or at least show how it can be falsified) and then there would be no need for religious belief of any kind!

Hi Sword, welcome to the RE Forum.

Have a look at :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


The claim that there is a god is a positive claim requiring justification.  All we get is anecdotes, assertions and fallacious arguments, none of which would stand up as justification in any other context.  Your attempt to reverse the burden of proof is merely a sleight of hand, and it won't wash around here.

[wigginhall]

SwordoftheSpirit wrote:

The problem arises, because neither is being done. So perhaps someone could present their proof for all causes having natural explanations, (or at least show how it can be falsified) and then there would be no need for religious belief of any kind!

You can't prove that all things have natural causes, and atheists don't need to do that.  As torridon said, that is reversing the burden of proof.  It's up to those who argue for the supernatural, to demonstrate it, or argue for it, at least. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Sword – sorry I missed this before.

Nope   All you have illustrated is what happens when you try and solve a problem using an incorrect approach.

No. I’ve just showed what happens when you misuse the only approach available that’s distinguishable from just guessing: reason. If you have either cogent reasoning or another way of verifying a religious claim though, then by all means share.

You express your dissatisfaction with the answers provided by those of religious belief. But you could try and demonstrate the opposite, namely that as all things have a natural explanation, there is no need for a supernatural/non-natural causes, etc., because that is the basis for your worldview, the one used to examine the evidence for non-natural phenomena. Seeing the problem yet???

No, because you’ve just shifted the burden of proof. If you think a conjecture about a supernatural god to be true, then it’s your job to make an argument for it. See “Russell’s teapot” for a shorthand explanation of where you’ve gone wrong.   

I am a Maths teacher. If a student gets a question wrong, I can either
a) Show them where their working out is incorrect (ideally, get them to see if for themselves)
b) Show them why the converse is correct.

Not if the student writes “787uh9 + 753g30 = P)&^gy8” you can’t. All you can say in response it, “this is just white noise”. If on the other hand the student says "2+2=5" (the mathematical equivalent of the various logical fallacies we see so often here) then it's a straightforward matter to explain where he's gone wrong. 

You can either disprove religious belief, or prove the converse.

No, because religious beliefs are set up from the get-go to be unfalsifiable even conceptually. That’s not a strength though – so are leprechaunal beliefs. 

The problem arises, because neither is being done. So perhaps someone could present their proof for all causes having natural explanations, (or at least show how it can be falsified) and then there would be no need for religious belief of any kind!

No, the problem arises because neither can be done because religious conjectures are what science calls “not even wrong”. Again, your problem here is that the burden of proof is yours and not that of your interlocutor. That's why the atheist doesn’t say, “there is no god”; rather he says, “there’s no reason to think that there is a god” – a very different position. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

You can't prove that all things have natural causes, and atheists don't need to do that.  As torridon said, that is reversing the burden of proof.  It's up to those who argue for the supernatural, to demonstrate it, or argue for it, at least.

And if the latter, to do so without recourse to fallacious reasoning.

[ippy]

Nope All you have illustrated is what happens when you try and solve a problem using an incorrect approach.

You express your dissatisfaction with the answers provided by those of religious belief. But you could try and demonstrate the opposite, namely that as all things have a natural explanation, there is no need for a supernatural/non-natural causes, etc., because that is the basis for your worldview, the one used to examine the evidence for non-natural phenomena. Seeing the problem yet???

I am a Maths teacher. If a student gets a question wrong, I can either
a) Show them where their working out is incorrect (ideally, get them to see if for themselves)
b) Show them why the converse is correct.

You can either disprove religious belief, or prove the converse.

The problem arises, because neither is being done. So perhaps someone could present their proof for all causes having natural explanations, (or at least show how it can be falsified) and then there would be no need for religious belief of any kind!

Other than some people think they need religion of some kind or another, there is no actual need for religion, life without gods would be the same as it already is.

Like blue says it's for you to anchor down anything you can find to prove gods exist; you've got a long thankless task ahead of you Sword.

If you do manage to find anything give my regards to Zeus while you're there.

ippy