AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

Try really, really hard to focus here. Really hard...

Whether leprechauns, "God", "X", pixies or anything else is made up is utterly irrelevant to the maxim. Really - made-upness has nothing to do with it: zip; nada; zilch; bugger all. My god, even Vlad was edging toward that realisation yesterday albeit that he then fell off the cliff by thinking that it would have to apply to all arguments rather than to just any of them.

What's being addressed here isn't the object of the belief ("God", leprechauns, whatever) at all. What is being addressed though is the argument(s) used to arrive at that object. Thus for example the NPF is still a very bad argument whether it's used to demonstrate "God", leprechauns or anything else.

To put it another way, even if I was a dyed-in-the wool hard core fundie Christian who thought that the belief "God" wasn't ridiculous at all, I'd still have no choice but to recognise that the NPF is a hopeless way to demonstrate it - especially when I realised that it worked equally for any other conjecture. 

That's the point of the maxim. Surely even you can grasp this now can't you?

Try really, really hard to focus here. Really hard...

Is anyone here claiming that because their belief cannot be disproved, it is therefore true by default? In my opinion no. So no need for the NPF...ever!

Is anyone here asking for their belief to be disproved? On occasions, yes.

Does the failure to disprove it mean that they are claiming that their belief is true? No, because there is no proof on their side either. That is why it is a belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

I do read his posts.

In my opinion, I think you are arguing against a scenario you think is being claimed, but is not being claimed. If Hope has said, "but you can't disprove it", it doesn't follow that he is therefore claiming his stance as true, by default. I think that this is an assumption on your part, an incorrect one.

Then you think wrongly. Hope (and some others here) regularly use the NPF to imply that his/their conjecture "God" is thereby true. If he/they didn't think "but you can't falsify it" implied that why otherwise would they return to it over and over again? 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Because he makes up things that do not exist, hence are false by default and then compares them with aspects of religious belief, e.g. the likely existence of God.

This is special pleading on your part, you being a fan of 'God', and a demonstration that you dont understand Blue's point.

And I could equally argue that he doesn't understand my point, because whenever I ask him a question, he never gives a direct answer.

I asked him if he believes that leprechauns exist, yes or no. He won't answer.

I asked him how he would show that 2+2≠5. He won't answer.

He is misusing the NPF so that he can accuse religious believers of doing something that they are not doing. That seems to be the only way he can justify his stance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Try really, really hard to focus here. Really hard...

Is anyone here claiming that because their belief cannot be disproved, it is therefore true by default? In my opinion no. So no need for the NPF...ever!

Yes. Hope and others imply that regularly. If that wasn't the implication, why bother with it?

Is anyone here asking for their belief to be disproved? On occasions, yes.

Does the failure to disprove it mean that they are claiming that their belief is true? No, because there is no proof on their side either. That is why it is a belief.

Evasion noted, even though I asked that you try really hard to focus on the rebuttal. I'll try one last time:

DO YOU NOW GRASP THAT BLUEHILLSIDE'S FOURTH MAXIM IS NOT IN ANY RESPECT FLAWED BECAUSE EITHER OR BOTH OF ITS OBJECTS ARE MADE UP AS YOU WRONGLY ASSERTED A FEW POSTS AGO?

Look, I even put it in capitals for you so you can't pretend this time that you didn't see it. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

And I could equally argue that he doesn't understand my point, because whenever I ask him a question, he never gives a direct answer.

I asked him if he believes that leprechauns exist, yes or no. He won't answer.

I asked him how he would show that 2+2≠5. He won't answer.

He is misusing the NPF so that he can accuse religious believers of doing something that they are not doing. That seems to be the only way he can justify his stance.

Stop lying - it's boorish.

Re leprechauns, I've explained that whether I or anyone else believes in them is entirely irrelevant but you just run away from the rebuttal.

Re maths, I've explained that your premise is false but you just run away from the rebuttal.

Re the NPF, I've explained that some religious believers here do use it to imply "God" but you just run away from the fact.

Either have a sudden rush of honesty and finally engage or don't - it's your call.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Is anyone here asking for their belief to be disproved? On occasions, yes.

Does the failure to disprove it mean that they are claiming that their belief is true? No, because there is no proof on their side either. That is why it is a belief.

Evasion noted, even though I asked that you try really hard to focus on the rebuttal.

Perhaps then you need to ask the question why some are asking for their belief to be disproved? You seem to be assuming that they are asking, so that if it isn't they can then claim that it is true.

The next time this happens, try asking the poster why they are asking the question. Their response may surprise you...and I bet it will have nothing to do with trying to claim that their belief is true.

[Gordon]

And I could equally argue that he doesn't understand my point, because whenever I ask him a question, he never gives a direct answer.

I asked him if he believes that leprechauns exist, yes or no. He won't answer.

I asked him how he would show that 2+2≠5. He won't answer.

He is misusing the NPF so that he can accuse religious believers of doing something that they are not doing. That seems to be the only way he can justify his stance.

Sword

I'd suggest, Sword, the problem here is your lack of understanding of fallacies.

By the way I asked by eldest grandson, aged 14 and very good at maths,  to do what you claim a 6 year-old can do, and he replied along the lines of it being a simplistic question in that it depended on what axioms were involved - or words to that effect- he is going to run it past his maths teacher so I'll let you know what reply he gets. I think you your 6-year old claim might be at risk.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Re leprechauns, I've explained that whether I or anyone else believes in them is entirely irrelevant but you just run away from the rebuttal.

Because it is not a rebuttal, it is an evasion. When you answer the question honestly, I'll explain why. Perhaps this is the reason you won't. However, I'll try again.

Do you believe that leprechauns exist, yes or no?

Re the NPF, I've explained that some religious believers here do use it to imply "God" but you just run away from the fact.

in which you failed to provide a single citation of said accusation. I've already explained that I think there is a misunderstanding of what is being said, so provide a link to a post...any post and I can go from there.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Perhaps then you need to ask the question why some are asking for their belief to be disproved? You seem to be assuming that they are asking, so that if it isn't they can then claim that it is true.

I assume no such thing and, so far as I'm aware, no-one does that.

The next time this happens...

It hasn't.

..., try asking the poster why they are asking the question.

They don't.

Their response may surprise you...and I bet it will have nothing to do with trying to claim that their belief is true.

Their response would be, "why ask you asking me about something I've not said?"

What Hope and other actually do though is rely on the NPF to imply "God". They seem to think that non-falsifiability is an argument for something being true, when it's no such thing.

Why is this difficult for you to grasp?

[Gordon]

I've already explained that I think there is a misunderstanding of what is being said, so provide a link to a post...any post and I can go from there.

You need to do some homework, Sword, since you are starting to look silly or intransigent, or both.

When someone deploys the NPF, or any other fallacy, they aren't actually making a valid argument no matter what they think - and when this is picked up their interlocutor is doing no more than simply rejecting their bad argument since there is no more to be said. That you interpret pointing out a fallacy is equivalent to saying 'religion is bollocks' is your lack of understanding showing through.
 

[Owlswing]

Ok, so all you and Floo seem to be arguing here is that "sense" is based on each person's individual definition of the word "sense". As in what makes sense to you as you write it might not make any sense to anyone else; what makes sense to Floo as she writes it might not make sense to anyone else; what makes sense to me as I write it might not make sense to anyone else. We're all pots calling kettles black according to Floo if we label anyone else as not making sense, while claiming "we" make sense. Hence I said, whatever Floo's words means in Flooland - she probably knows what she meant - it probably made sense to her as she wrote it.

When you said "we" you did define it as people who were trying to talk sense - no mention of anyone succeeding. In that case we are all probably trying to talk sense.

Terll you what Gabriella - go through a couple of dozen posts by such Christian luminaries as Sassy, Hope, Sword, Alan Burns. you could even go back as far as the posts of Oh My World and Bashful Anthony - these are some of those I refer to as the Ultras - see if their explanations of scripture, gospel, the Bible and the Christian religion's belief that everyone, everyone, without exception, MUST MUST MUST drop whatever theist or non-Christian theist beliefs they have and rush, lemming-like, over the precipice into the ocean of Christianity in order to ensure that they achieve their God's forgiveness and his acceptance of them into his Heaven.

If you can make sense of more that about 5% of it you will be doing better than I.

You might also try to work out why they cannot admit that their religion, like mine, is a matter of faith and not of fact.

Come back and let me know how you get on, please.

[SusanDoris]

Sword of the spirit

Judging of course only from your posts, it seems to me that your belief in your own skill at the discussion format here is boundless.

By the way, have you heard of non-stamp-collectors?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Because it is not a rebuttal, it is an evasion. When you answer the question honestly, I'll explain why. Perhaps this is the reason you won't. However, I'll try again.

Do you believe that leprechauns exist, yes or no?

No, it's a rebuttal because I explained to you why the made-upness of the object is irrelevant to the point the maxim makes. The only evasion here is your evasion of the rebuttal and your constant repetition of a question you now know to be irrelevant. 

in which you failed to provide a single citation of said accusation.

First, even if no-one attempted it it would still be a bad argument, and second anyone who's spent any time here will tell you that it's tried regularly - most notably/relentlessly perhaps by Hope. If you want to trawl through his posts to find examples, help yourself.

I've already explained that I think there is a misunderstanding of what is being said, so provide a link to a post...any post and I can go from there.

And as I've explained to you, not it isn't. Why else do you think Hope et al would return to it over and over again but for thinking it supported their belief in "God"?

Oh, and I see that you've just run away again from the rebuttal of your misunderstanding of bluehillside's fourth maxim even though I put it in capital letters for you.

Oh well.

Incidentally, what you're attempting here is called a Gish Gallop - keep hammering away at the same irrelevant question rather than address the arguments that undo you, then accuse your interlocutor of dissembling for not answering them. William Lane Craig is in particular notorious for it, and it reflects just as badly on you.

[Owlswing]

#164
This post gives a strong impression of Sword of the Spirit in a self-appointed role as teacher and wise adviser to the poor, benighted denizens of R&E, using the Socratic way of teaching by only asking,  never answering,  questions put to him, or something like that.

In that case the vibration that I feel under my feet is probably Socrates spinning in his grave at gyroscopic speeds!

[Owlswing]

What are the chances sword has realised that repeatedly ejaculating into a sock is not going to make a baby

I have really and truly had to add this (insert expletive/insult of your choice) to my ignore list after my last post - his obtuseness and his inability to see anything that does not conform to his view of the religious world is enough to make a pacifist kick a hole in a stained glass window - if for no other reason thn to stop him kicking seven different shades of shit out of SOTS!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Sword,

Then you think wrongly. Hope (and some others here) regularly use the NPF to imply that his/their conjecture "God" is thereby true. If he/they didn't think "but you can't falsify it" implied that why otherwise would they return to it over and over again?

Which means you have no actual evidence that Hope (and some others) think that the NPF objectively proves their god is true - that's just your possibly faulty reasoning, as opposed to what they actually stated. Unless of course you can link to a post where Hope did state that NPF proves the objective truth of his god.

Equally Hope could simply be arguing that if you can't objectively disprove his god, he is free to carry on believing what he sees as evidence for his god as well as free to try to convince others, including children, to believe in it too. In other words it's true for him and could potentially be true for anyone else who sees it the way he sees it.

[Brownie]

In that case the vibration that I feel under my feet is probably Socrates spinning in his grave at gyroscopic speeds!

Or it could be your person channelling the dynamic energy of the Lord, Owl.
(Been reading Nicholas Marks on another forum)

[Gordon]

Which means you have no actual evidence that Hope (and some others) think that the NPF objectively proves their god is true - that's just your possibly faulty reasoning, as opposed to what they actually stated. Unless of course you can link to a post where Hope did state that NPF proves the objective truth of his god.

That is what is implied whenever the NPF is employed, which is usually in the form 'I believe x to be the case and you can't show that I'm wrong' where 'x' is an unfalsifiable conjecture. Post 403 by Alan Burns in the 'Atheism and the Celestial Teapot' contains some obvious examples where 'therefore God' is clearly being implied. The NPF can be justifiably cited whenever the form of the argument deployed involves this fallacy irrespective of the subject: so whether it involves the Christian God or one of the Greek or Roman examples is irrelevant since the fallacy involves the same form of (bad) argument.

Equally Hope could simply be arguing that if you can't objectively disprove his god, he is free to carry on believing what he sees as evidence for his god as well as free to try to convince others, including children, to believe in it too. In other words it's true for him and could potentially be true for anyone else who sees it the way he sees it.

'Objective' raises other issues, and until such times as 'God' can objectively be demonstrated in the first place without recourse to fallacies then any challenge to 'objectively disprove' claims of God would just be an example of the NPF. Hope can believe what he likes of course, and the 'true for me' approach is fine in personal terms, but when this involves unfalsifiable conjectures like 'God' and is extended to imply 'this is true for me so it must is also true for you/everyone too' then it is an example of the Relativist Fallacy and not the NPF.

[floo]

Ok, so all you and Floo seem to be arguing here is that "sense" is based on each person's individual definition of the word "sense". As in what makes sense to you as you write it might not make any sense to anyone else; what makes sense to Floo as she writes it might not make sense to anyone else; what makes sense to me as I write it might not make sense to anyone else. We're all pots calling kettles black according to Floo if we label anyone else as not making sense, while claiming "we" make sense. Hence I said, whatever Floo's words means in Flooland - she probably knows what she meant - it probably made sense to her as she wrote it.

When you said "we" you did define it as people who were trying to talk sense - no mention of anyone succeeding. In that case we are all probably trying to talk sense.

 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That is what is implied whenever the NPF is employed, which is usually in the form 'I believe x to be the case and you can't show that I'm wrong' where 'x' is an unfalsifiable conjecture. Post 403 by Alan Burns in the 'Atheism and the Celestial Teapot' contains some obvious examples where 'therefore God' is clearly being implied. The NPF can be justifiably cited whenever the form of the argument deployed involves this fallacy irrespective of the subject: so whether it involves the Christian God or one of the Greek or Roman examples is irrelevant since the fallacy involves the same form of (bad) argument.

'Objective' raises other issues, and until such times as 'God' can objectively be demonstrated in the first place without recourse to fallacies then any challenge to 'objectively disprove' claims of God would just be an example of the NPF. Hope can believe what he likes of course, and the 'true for me' approach is fine in personal terms, but when this involves unfalsifiable conjectures like 'God' and is extended to imply 'this is true for me so it must is also true for you/everyone too' then it is an example of the Relativist Fallacy and not the NPF.

Do you please have a link to the Atheism and the Celestial Teapot thread or can you let me know which board it's on or can you quote what Alan wrote. Do you have any links/quotes from Hope?

In your above statement you seem to be asserting what is clearly being implied by the NPF. I get that this is your understanding of what you think is clearly being implied. But presumably if other people understand it differently they will use the NPF to justify their belief based on the possibility of their belief being true.

So are you saying Hope has not committed the Relativist Fallacy and is not saying it must also be true for you because it is true for me?

[floo]

I wonder if Gabby and Sass came out of the same celestial teapot as their posts have some similarities? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Which means you have no actual evidence that Hope (and some others) think that the NPF objectively proves their god is true - that's just your possibly faulty reasoning, as opposed to what they actually stated. Unless of course you can link to a post where Hope did state that NPF proves the objective truth of his god.

No, that's a straw man version of what I say. I don't say that Hope et al "think that the NPF objectively proves their god is true" because that's not the construction they use. What they actually do is first to assert "my god is true for you too" and, when asked for evidence to support the claim, respond with, "you can't disprove it". The implied "therefore I'm right" is usually left hanging rather than said outright, but the use of the NPF as the answer to the request for evidence is the giveaway. For them, the NPF is the evidence.   

Equally Hope could simply be arguing that if you can't objectively disprove his god, he is free to carry on believing what he sees as evidence for his god as well as free to try to convince others, including children, to believe in it too. In other words it's true for him and could potentially be true for anyone else who sees it the way he sees it.

No, a "true for me only" god is no-one's business but his own. What's called into question here is his use of the NPF as his evidence for a "true for you too" god.

Incidentally, whether or not Hope or others here do this is in fact irrelevant to the underlying point in any case, namely that the NPF is logically flawed - and as it leads to "God" and to leprechauns with equal facility, that's obvious. Where Sword (and previously at least Vlad) have gone off the rails is to critique the maxim by complaining that leprechauns are just made up, which is of course entirely irrelevant to the thrust of the argument.   

[Gordon]

Do you please have a link to the Atheism and the Celestial Teapot thread or can you let me know which board it's on or can you quote what Alan wrote. Do you have any links/quotes from Hope?

It's on the R&E Board - examples from Hope can be had by reviewing his posts, but since there are many it might be easier to search for 'NPF' or 'Negative Proof Fallacy' in posts by the likes of myself, and others, which would probably get you to the posts being referred to more easily than by trawling through posts in general.

In your above statement you seem to be asserting what is clearly being implied by the NPF. I get that this is your understanding of what you think is clearly being implied. But presumably if other people understand it differently they will use the NPF to justify their belief based on the possibility of their belief being true.

That they've used the NPF (or any other fallacy for that matter) at all means they are attempting to justify their belief via a bad (fallacious) argument, and that they do so suggests they haven't recognised their own reasoning error. Remember too that committing a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that their belief is false - they might well be correct: all it means that the particular argument they've used to justify their belief has failed where it is fallacious. Whether or not they can justify their beliefs using arguments that aren't fallacious is a separate matter.

So are you saying Hope has not committed the Relativist Fallacy and is not saying it must also be true for you because it is true for me?

No, but in this context I was pointing out that your portrayal of Hope's position would be an example of the Relativist Fallacy.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Do you please have a link to the Atheism and the Celestial Teapot thread or can you let me know which board it's on or can you quote what Alan wrote. Do you have any links/quotes from Hope?

Here it is Gabriella

Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Here it is Gabriella

Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!

Have a look at posts 1 & 2 from the link - you'll see that Sword fundamentally misunderstands that the NPF is a bad argument for something regardless of what that something happens to be. His straw man is to claim that the argument is, "you've used the NPF, therefore no god" whereas in fact it's, "you've used the NPF, therefore the argument on which you rely to get you to "God" does not get you there".

Whether there are other arguments for gods (or for leprechauns for that matter) that do get you to either is a separate matter, as is the possibility that there are no cogent arguments but gods/leprechauns happen to be real in any case just as a matter of dumb luck. Whatever. The point though of Russell's teapot is that it adroitly illustrates the fallaciousness of the NPF, and there's nothing flawed about that.