Gay Bishop

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Piss poor analogy.

Actually it'a s perfectly good analogy as I'll explain (but you wont understand or will lie about)...

Prior to microscopes we could say we don't have the equipment.

No, we could say that we don't know whether or not at some future time technologies will appear that enable us to identify previously unsuspected phenomena - bacteria or leprechauns alike for this purpose.   

To say that looking for diminutive people dressed in green is the same thing is wrong since we have the means to see those.

What means would they be given their mystical nature? How for example would you know that, as well as their green-ness, they don't also have the remarkable property of disappearing whenever cctv is pointed at them?
 

That's what comes of plucking stuff extra atmospherically. Don't do it.

That's what comes of failing to grasp the induction problem with which you keep landing yourself. Don't do it.

As NS says, just because every swan you've ever found is white you have thereby no evidence whatever to tell you that the next one won't be black.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If I can give total empirical surveillance of the world...

You can't. All you can do it to survey the world using the techniques and technologies that happen to be available to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do yph give 'total empirical surveillance' of the world? How do you demanstate that is what you have done? Until you tell me, how it can be demonstrated the problem of induction applies. Black swan,black black swan.

Total empirical surveillance sufficient to detect any small person dressed in green is all that is necessary. It can be done, now if there was the will to do it. All that is lacking is the will to find leprechauns.

There is no question in this of prediction. There is no problem of induction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You can't. All you can do it to survey the world using the techniques and technologies that happen to be available to you.

What?, These are small humans Hillside not particles of dark matter.

[Nearly Sane]

Total empirical surveillance sufficient to detect any small person dressed in green is all that is necessary. It can be done, now if there was the will to do it. All that is lacking is the will to find leprechauns.

There is no question in this of prediction. There is no problem of induction.

and total empirical evidence is a prediction that you have total empirical evidence. Again how would you demonstrate that? You assert it can be done but how would you know that. Assertion is a prediction here, see black black swans

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Total empirical surveillance sufficient to detect any small person dressed in green is all that is necessary. It can be done, now if there was the will to do it. All that is lacking is the will to find leprechauns.

Oh dear.

1. Did the Romans think they had "total empirical surveillance" when they sent their soldiers out to look behind all the trees?

How about the Tudors when they had magnifying glasses?

Or what about the scientists who had the first scanning electron microscopes?

What makes you so confident that the technologies that happen to be with us now are any more capable of doing the job than the technologies of the past were capable of it?

2. If you want to posit a god outwith known physical laws, then I can do the same for leprechauns. I've already told you my assertion that my supernatural belief objects can avoid at will any detection equipment you may happen to have.

How then would you falsify their existence?

There is no question in this of prediction. There is no problem of induction.

Of course there is - you just can't see it. Just because you can't find something tells you nothing at all about whether it exists. All it tells you is that it doesn't exist in the places you've looked using the techniques available to you.

As NS suggests, why not just delete everything you've attempted by way of an argument and try again?

[Nearly Sane]

What?, These are small humans Hillside not particles of dark matter.

this is your strawman of a definition.And even were I to accept if, say they have cloaking technology?


BTW my gran who did believe in the little people and believed she had experienced them and others had too,  and indeed believed in god. thought they only appeared when they chose, are you saying her definition was wrong? Or that her experience was wrong?  Or that her belief in shared experience of them was wrong?

If so, how?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What?, These are small humans Hillside not particles of dark matter.

"Humans"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

my gran who did believe in the little people and believed she had experienced them and others had too,  and indeed believed in god. thought they only appeared when they chose, are you saying her definition was wrong? Or that her experience was wrong?  Or that her belief in shared experience of them was wrong?

Total Empirical Surveillance (TM VLADCORP) for 'Little people'' should cover that.......unless you tip 'em off and I wouldn't put that past you.

[Nearly Sane]

Total Empirical Surveillance (TM VLADCORP) for 'Little people'' should cover that.......unless you tip 'em off and I wouldn't put that past you.

So cut out the part of the post that you don't address at all, and then ignored the bit you kept in. Why are you doing this sort of dishonest approach? Why do you continually refuse to actually engage with posts?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Total Empirical Surveillance (TM VLADCORP)...

Again, how would you know that it was "total" rather than just the best you could manage using the tools available to you at the time?

...for 'Little people'' should cover that...

"People" is just your straw man definition. My leprechauns are a type a fairy, able to appear and disappear at will.   

....unless you tip 'em off and I wouldn't put that past you.

Not necessary - they could avoid you whether or not I tipped them off.

And again, the point you keep dodging remains: when an argument for "God" works equally well for leprechauns then it's probably a bad argument. You can't falsify leprechauns, so you can apply the NPF to each conjecture.

QED 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So cut out the part of the post that you don't address at all, and then ignored the bit you kept in. Why are you doing this sort of dishonest approach? Why do you continually refuse to actually engage with posts?

He can't help himself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Again, how would you know that it was "total" rather than just the best you could manage using the tools available to you at the time?
 

It doesn't have to be the best it merely has to be adequate to the task of detecting little people of irish extraction dressed in green. The technology for total surveillance is available all that is lacking is the will.

There is no piece of equipment which could detect God.

Your Leprechauns Hillside? What is Leprechaun about them?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It doesn't have to be the best it merely has to be adequate to the task of detecting little people of irish extraction dressed in green. The technology for total surveillance is available all that is lacking is the will.

And the king of the straw men is among us again...

Leprechauns are a type of fairy, outwith the known laws of the universe. I know this because that's my faith. 

There is no piece of equipment which could detect God.

So you assert, just as I do about leprechauns.

Your Leprechauns Hillside? What is Leprechaun about them?

About two feet six since you ask.

Bit late to ask me isn't it given that until now you've just made up your own false definitions? 

[Nearly Sane]

It doesn't have to be the best it merely has to be adequate to the task of detecting little people of irish extraction dressed in green. The technology for total surveillance is available all that is lacking is the will.

There is no piece of equipment which could detect God.

Your Leprechauns Hillside? What is Leprechaun about them?

and again  "human' is your strawman definition. Why do you not engage? As to total surveillance that is as prediction. As is the no piece of equipment. As is the idea you are not a piece of equipment in the sense of experiencing things. And that is leaving aside your inability to give any logically consistent or meaningful definition of 'god'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And the king of the straw men is among us again...

Leprechauns are a type of fairy, outwith the known laws of the universe.

OK So you've redefined them......but you also mentioned the Loch Ness Monster.....redefine that Ha Ha,

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

and again  "human' is your strawman definition. Why do you not engage? As to total surveillance that is as prediction. As is the no piece of equipment. As is the idea you are not a piece of equipment in the sense of experiencing things. And that is leaving aside your inability to give any logically consistent or meaningful definition of 'god'

As is the inability to explain why thinking you can have a "relationship" with this god "points to" there being a god at all. As is the provision of a method of any kind to distinguish his assertions about god from mistake, guessing, false attribution etc. As is the relentless re-invention of words and terms so as to support his bad arguments. As is the continued use of false accusations about logical mistakes ("category fuck" etc) when there is no mistake. As is the weird notion the he is "competent" by some secret means whereas others aren't. As is draining the entire North American crop of dried grass to construct his straw men. As is...   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and again  "human' is your strawman definition. Why do you not engage? As to total surveillance that is as prediction. As is the no piece of equipment. As is the idea you are not a piece of equipment in the sense of experiencing things. And that is leaving aside your inability to give any logically consistent or meaningful definition of 'god'

I think you've missed your own total inability to give any logical and meaningful definition of Leprechaun......and you and Hillside seem to have forgotten about the Loch Ness Monster.

That these can go into different categories marks your attempt at putting them into the same category slovenly and or desperate. Redefining them during an argument by progressively giving them more superpowers more so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

OK So you've redefined them......but you also mentioned the Loch Ness Monster.....redefine that Ha Ha,

No, you have. You're the one who misdescribed them as small people.

And the point yet again that you keep dodging remains: regardless of the object of your faith belief, if your argument for its objective truth works equally for any other unfalsifiable conjecture then its probably a bad argument.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

[jeremyp]

It doesn't have to be the best it merely has to be adequate to the task of detecting little people of irish extraction dressed in green.

That's not a concept of leprechauns that I recognise.

The technology for total surveillance is available all that is lacking is the will.

No it isn't. We have only learned how to surveil natural phenomena.

There is no piece of equipment which could detect God.

So first you say the technology for total surveillance is available and then you say it can never be available in the very next sentence.

Furthermore, if there is no piece of equipment that could detect God then all the Christians that say they know God must be lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you've missed your own total inability to give any logical and meaningful definition of Leprechaun......

This from someone who expects others to take seriously his claim about "God"?

Seriously?

Seriously seriously?

Wow.

...and you and Hillside seem to have forgotten about the Loch Ness Monster.

No-one's forgotten about it. Or about Russell's teapot for that matter. They're just different means of illustrating the poverty of the NPF.

That these can go into different categories...

No they can't. They're all in the same category called "unfalsifiable conjectures".

...marks your attempt at putting them into the same category slovenly and or desperate.

No, accurate.

Redefining them during an argument by progressively giving them more superpowers more so.

The only person to re-define them is you. Why bother lying about that when your lies are so easily checked?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, you have. You're the one who misdescribed them as small people.

And the point yet again that you keep dodging remains: regardless of the object of your faith belief, if your argument for its objective truth works equally for any other unfalsifiable conjecture then its probably a bad argument.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

I admit to call them small people......and Sane referred to them as Little people and to be fair I did ask you what was leprechauny about what you described as 'my Leprechauns'' and you passed over that.

Sane has rendered the falsifiable unfalsiable argument invalid. Following his logic it is impossible to falsify anything and therefore we can kick out Popper and leave the sexiest theory to prevail.

All theories are unfalsifiable according to him.

J'accuse therefore you of deliberate category and definition fucking.

However if you state that Leprechauns can appear then Total Empirical observation would catch that.

In any case:

Explain How being unfalsifiable guarantee that something is not objectively real or true without recourse to philosophy.

And to sane.....If unfalsifiability equals not being objectively true. What in your theory of universal unfalsifiability is objectively true?

It's been nice playing with you guys i'm going to find a reference to Leprechauns being the Little folks.

[Hope]

Does it matter if a Bishop is gay?

Of course not; what's more relevant is that s/he doesn't live in a way that runs contrary to Biblical teaching - be s/he homosexual or heterosexual.

What does it mean to be gay and celibate? I mean can you be really gay if you don't do anything?

Is that equally true in the case of a 'celibate' heterosexual, john?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
No-one's forgotten about it. Or about Russell's teapot for that matter. They're just different means of illustrating the poverty of the NPF.

Illustrating the poverty of argumentum ad ridiculum more like.

[Hope]

..., what matters is that all Bishops and leaders of god-believing religions tell their followers to believe in some god or other with not one shred of testable evidence to back up such beliefs.

Evidence that the argument that only evidence that is testable, in the way you understand that phrase, is valid, please.