Gay Bishop

[Hope]

To the best of my knowledge, the Bishop of Grantham has not married his partner. He is thus celibate.

As the Bishop of Grantham isn't a Catholic, H, I'm not sure of the relevance of the rest of your post.

[jeremyp]

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

If you can't test a hypothesis, how can you know if it is true or false?

[Hope]

How many more times? Celibate means unmarried not totally abstemious.

Unfortunately, H, over the centuries, the term 'celibate' has become synonymous with total abstention.   

[Hope]

It is about time the Catholic Church dropped this daft celibacy rule, especially as married Anglican Priests who convert can continue to serve as priests.

The reason they don't require celibacy from these ex-Anglicans is that would potentially lead to divorces - which is another thing they don't approve of, Floo.

[Nearly Sane]

Illustrating the poverty of argumentum ad ridiculum more like.

you mean your made up argument.

[Hope]

God might appear.

..or might not.

The problem with your argument, Seb - and with Vlad's - is that there is no conditionality involved in the issue.  Christians believe that he has already appeared, and lived a human life for 30-odd years.

[Gordon]

From what I read this chap this quite good at the Bishop-ing: not only did he get the job in the first place but he enjoys the support of the MD of the CofE, who says his personal life is irrelevant in relation to his suitability for his current job.

In addition, and despite the publicity surrounding him, he seems like a thoughtful and modest chap. Pity then that he isn't afforded the same personal privacy that the rest of us could reasonably expect.     

[Nearly Sane]

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.

oh dear apart from your habitual misrepresentations, if you want to accept relativism as I discussed it means that your validation by others is pointless, so you have pissed so hard you drowned your own meagre argument and therefore said your experience is worthless, how sad!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

oh dear apart from your habitual misrepresentations, if you want to accept relativism as I discussed it means that your validation by others is pointless, so you have pissed so hard you drowned your own meagre argument and therefore said your experience is worthless, how sad!

I haven't a clue what that means.

[Nearly Sane]

..or might not.
The problem with your argument, Seb - and with Vlad's - is that there is no conditionality involved in the issue.  Christians believe that he has already appeared, and lived a human life for 30-odd years.

which is entirely useless to the ask to provide a method that Vlad was answering. Take it up with your 'fellow Christian'.

[Nearly Sane]

I haven't a clue what that means.

will lay it out for you tomorrow, sleep well

[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?

Yes Hillside but the argument about Leprechauns depends on their ridiculousness. Small people who collect Gold at the end of rainbows . In the course of the argument these are transmuted so they get more God like powers until they are totally unfalsifiable but still are surrounded by the halo of ridiculousness.

Outside that you have to face that if things are in different categories then statements such as
' if your argument for its objective truth works equally for any other unfalsifiable conjecture then its probably a bad argument' are meaningless and carry a huge 'so what?' Value.

This is why you are desperate to coral God in the category of ridiculous things.
You aren't making an argument but merely attempting to get people into holding two conflicting ideas at the same time.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes Hillside but the argument about Leprechauns depends on their ridiculousness. Small people who collect Gold at the end of rainbows . In the course of the argument these are transmuted so they get more God like powers until they are totally unfalsifiable but still are surrounded by the halo of ridiculousness.

Outside that you have to face that if things are in different categories then statements such as
' if your argument for its objective truth works equally for any other unfalsifiable conjecture then its probably a bad argument' are meaningless and carry a huge 'so what?' Value.

This is why you are desperate to coral God in the category of ridiculous things.
You aren't making an argument but merely attempting to get people into holding two conflicting ideas at the same time.

why are you lying again?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

why are you lying again?

OK so why is it always fairies, Unicorns, leprechauns, spaghetti monsters ....and let's not forget.....Loch Ness Monsters?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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.

Stop lying. What's "leprechauny" about them is the beliefs I hold as a matter of "faith" about something outwith the normal universal laws. The specific properties I attach to them (musicality etc) are no more relevant for this purpose than the properties you attach to your supernatural character "God" (healing etc).

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.

Try that again with a coherent sentence.

All theories are unfalsifiable according to him.

Stop lying.

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

Then as ever you're flat wrong.

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

Not if they can vanish just before whatever tools you use to do the job kick in it wouldn't.

In any case:

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

Straw man. No-one says that. so why just make it up?

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

It doesn't, and no-one says that it does. Stop lying.

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

You can look if you like, but it'll have no relevance whatever to the point. My leprechauns are supernatural. You can't falsify them. Therefore for the purpose of the NPF they have the same status as your "God".

QED

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Illustrating the poverty of argumentum ad ridiculum more like.

It's the wrong argument, and has been every time you've attempted it. My leprechauns and Russell's teapot alike don't depend on their ridiculousness for the primary effect - what they actually depend on is that some arguments the religious use for "God" work just as well for these conjectures too. Either you accept the argument for all of them therefore, or for none of them. There's no other option.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Stop lying. What's "leprechauny" about them is the beliefs I hold as a matter of "faith" about something outwith the normal universal laws. The specific properties I attach to them (musicality etc) are no more relevant for this purpose than the properties you attach to your supernatural character "God" (healing etc).

Classic Hillside pisstake . Accuse someone of lying while claiming a belief in the supernatural, you little scamp.

[Nearly Sane]

OK so why is it always fairies, Unicorns, leprechauns, spaghetti monsters ....and let's not forget.....Loch Ness Monsters?

why is it always god, why are you lying about it being different, why are you lying about definition  being important but unwilling to provide a definition that can be looked at? Why do you lie about what other's position is! Why do you think lying is acceptable?

[Nearly Sane]

Classic Hillside pisstake . Accuse someone of lying while claiming a belief in the supernatural, you little scamp.

he doesn't, why are you lying again?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It's the wrong argument, and has been every time you've attempted it. My leprechauns and Russell's teapot alike don't depend on their ridiculousness for the primary effect - what they actually depend on is that some arguments the religious use for "God" work just as well for these conjectures too. Either you accept the argument for all of them therefore, or for none of them. There's no other option.   

Hillside. You stated Leprechauns can flit to Mars. And you have demonstrated you can disappear ''up Uranus''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

why is it always god, why are you lying about it being different, why are you lying about definition  being important but unwilling to provide a definition that can be looked at? Why do you lie about what other's position is! Why do you think lying is acceptable?

It isn't always God I've argued that Nature could have done supernatural things and/or have supernatural properties.

[bluehillside Retd.]

lad,

Yes Hillside but the argument about Leprechauns depends on their ridiculousness.

No it doesn't. It relies on the fact that some arguments work equally for "God" and for leprechauns. That you find one to me more ridiculous than the other is irrelevant.

Small people who collect Gold at the end of rainbows . In the course of the argument these are transmuted so they get more God like powers until they are totally unfalsifiable but still are surrounded by the halo of ridiculousness.

Stop lying. My leprechauns are not and never have been "small people". The fact that any published definition will tell you that they will grant you three wishes for their escape should tell you that they're not naturalistic in characater. 

Outside that you have to face that if things are in different categories then statements such as
' if your argument for its objective truth works equally for any other unfalsifiable conjecture then its probably a bad argument' are meaningless and carry a huge 'so what?' Value.

Stop lying. When the category is "unfalsifiable" then they're in the same category. 

This is why you are desperate to coral God in the category of ridiculous things.

It's not "coral" and you don;t need to be "desperate" for the logic to hold. And unfalsifiable conjecture is an unfalsifiable conjecture - what it happens to be is neither here nor there.

You aren't making an argument but merely attempting to get people into holding two conflicting ideas at the same time.

Stop lying. The argument holds perfectly well - if an argument for "God" wors equally well for any other unfalsifiable conjecture, then it's probably a bad argument.

Why is this so difficult for you?
 

[Nearly Sane]

Hillside. You stated Leprechauns can flit to Mars. And you have demonstrated you can disappear ''up Uranus''.

wit,but also more lies.Bhs didn't state that. . Why is it that you think lying yet again is useful?

[Nearly Sane]

It isn't always God I've argued that Nature could have done supernatural things and/or have supernatural properties.

why are lying again about what's being asked? Why is it you cannot engage without lying?why Are you evading the definition issue againj ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

why are lying again about what's being asked? Why is it you cannot engage without lying?why Are you evading the definition issue againj ?

Sorry? Come again?