Karma

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wigs,

It's all a bit like Tommy Cooper again.  There's hardware, software, the user, and the 'big picture' - just like that.

Quite so. It's a sort of Deepak Chopra-lite: "You know that software stuff? You can't weigh it or see it under a microscope can you? Well then Mr Know-It-All Scientist, that means that anything else I happen to dream up that can't be seen under a microscope must be real too!" etc.

That software and much else you can't see with a microscope are precisely the fruits of the scientific method seems to elude him entirely too.

Ah well.

[ekim]

I reckon you are either enlightened or dead. Maybe both?

... or as the Sufi poet Rumi said:
Die before you die, even as I have died before death and brought this reminder from Beyond.
Become the resurrection of the spirit so you may experience the resurrection.
This becoming is necessary for seeing and knowing the real nature of anything.
Until you become it, you will not know it completely, whether it be light or darkness.
 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

And please: no more of your dancing pixies on keyboards / your imaginary friend Colin / leprechauns, or teapots in space!

These conjectures are all examples of the outcomes when I use the arguments you attempt for “God” (NPF, argument from incredulity etc and wearily etc) to conjectures other than your god. That they “work” equally for those conjectures too should tell you something about your arguments. Find an argument that doesn’t work for leprechauns though and we’ll have something to talk about.

Ok. State exactly what your reasons are for any your conjectures existing. What reasoning has led you to claim any knowledge of them? What evidence do you consider for their existence?

That's called a non sequitur. I explained that, when the arguments you attempt for "God" work equally for conjectures you think to be ridiculous, then they're probably not good arguments. At no point did I claim to "have knowledge" of these things, let alone suggest that I had an argument that would mean that I was right about that.

But there is a difference between what you are claiming as ridiculous and things that you have made up. Your 'Colin' / pixies dancing on keyboards are made up, therefore false by default. Therefore, how can any argument for God be compared with any argument for something for which there is no doubt that it is made up? How can they “work” equally for those conjectures too?

[SusanDoris]

Well, you  know, just possibly, God is made up?You could perhaps give this some consideration!

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

But there is a difference between what you are claiming as ridiculous and things that you have made up. Your 'Colin' / pixies dancing on keyboards are made up, therefore false by default. Therefore, how can any argument for God be compared with any argument for something for which there is no doubt that it is made up? How can they “work” equally for those conjectures too?

You really aren't getting this at all are you. Whether I happen to believe or not in pixies etc is entirely beside the point, as is whether or not they happen to be real or ridiculous. Try to focus here: this is just an issue about the quality of the arguments you attempt to demonstrate "God".

That's it.

Really, that's it.

For all I know there really are leprechauns and dancing pixies and I just happened to guess correctly as a matter of dumb luck. Either way though, it matters not a jot - if the arguments you try for "God" would work just as well for any other conjecture that may or may not be true, then they're bad arguments.

To put it another way, even if I just made up the dancing pixies and even if I hadn't just guessed right when I did it, that still wouldn't make the negative proof fallacy, the argument from personal incredulity etc into good arguments - they're bad arguments come what may.

Good grief! 

[Gordon]

But there is a difference between what you are claiming as ridiculous and things that you have made up. Your 'Colin' / pixies dancing on keyboards are made up, therefore false by default. Therefore, how can any argument for God be compared with any argument for something for which there is no doubt that it is made up? How can they “work” equally for those conjectures too?

How do you know 'God' isn't just as 'made' up as leprechauns since the arguments you've attempted in support of 'God', by dint of being fallacious, are the same as could be used for leprechauns?

Your notion that leprechauns are ridiculous but 'God' isn't looks like special pleading on your part (another fallacy by the way). 

 

 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

SOTS,

You really aren't getting this at all are you. Whether I happen to believe or not in pixies etc is entirely beside the point, as is whether or not they happen to be real or ridiculous. Try to focus here: this is just an issue about the quality of the arguments you attempt to demonstrate "God".

Ok, I'm focusing...

To put it another way, even if I just made up the dancing pixies

Whoa...stop right there!

Now demonstrate how any argument for God made on this forum by any Christian can be applied to the dancing pixies you have made up

[Nearly Sane]

Ok, I'm focusing...Whoa...stop right there!

Now demonstrate how any argument for God made on this forum by any Christian can be applied to the dancing pixies you have made up

You can't disprove pixies
I personally met a pixie
I have a book about pixies
Many people have believed in pixies
The world doesn't make sense without pixies
You are just pixie dodging

[floo]

Ok, I'm focusing...Whoa...stop right there!

Now demonstrate how any argument for God made on this forum by any Christian can be applied to the dancing pixies you have made up

Because there is no evidence either exist.

[wigginhall]

Well, a lot of people say that God is made up.   

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Because there is no evidence either exist.

You missed the point Floo. There is no evidence for bluehillside's dancing pixies because he has made it up. There is no doubt about this, unless he, you and others here are going to have to resort to lying in order to defend their position.

Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up? There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

Whoa...stop right there!

Now demonstrate how any argument for God made on this forum by any Christian can be applied to the dancing pixies you have made up

You need to focus harder. Whether or not I just made it up, "you can't disprove it" (to take one example from your armoury of bad arguments) would neither falsify nor validate the pixies I'd invented. 

Keep trying.

[wigginhall]

You missed the point Floo. There is no evidence for bluehillside's dancing pixies because he has made it up. There is no doubt about this, unless he, you and others here are going to have to resort to lying in order to defend their position.

Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up? There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!

I thought that that was one of the points about the Spaghetti Monster, which is unfalsifiable.   The fact that it's made up is irrelevant.   It could be true.   

[Nearly Sane]

You missed the point Floo. There is no evidence for bluehillside's dancing pixies because he has made it up. There is no doubt about this, unless he, you and others here are going to have to resort to lying in order to defend their position.

Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up? There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!

the point is that they are made up! If the arguments work just as well I.e. not at all for them as for your 'god' then they are bad arguments. It is a comment about the quality of the argument.

As a way to try and help you understand instead of pixie, leprechauns or teapots just insert hutrewdew for god. If the argument doesn't work for hutrewdew, it won't work for god

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

You missed the point Floo. There is no evidence for bluehillside's dancing pixies because he has made it up. There is no doubt about this, unless he, you and others here are going to have to resort to lying in order to defend their position.

No, you have. Whether or not I made up my unfalsifiable claim (and whether or not I happened to guess right) would not make the bad arguments I used to validate it into good arguments for your unfalsifiable claim ("God").

Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up? There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!

Of course there is: the "common frame of reference" is the argument. You're just assuming a priori that "God" isn't made up (or a mistake, or a delusion, or a etc), and then affording the claim special treatment into order to apply bad arguments to it.

Stop looking in the wrong place (whether or not I made it up) and concentrate on the right one: the quality of the argument you attempt.

[Gordon]

You missed the point Floo. There is no evidence for bluehillside's dancing pixies because he has made it up. There is no doubt about this, unless he, you and others here are going to have to resort to lying in order to defend their position.

Therefore, how can any argument that is used by any Christian here about God be applied to something made up, unless you are assuming too that God is made up?

Well you seem to be assuming that pixies are made up.
 

There is no common frame of reference for the comparison!

Why not? Given the arguments in favour of both are fallacious then they seem to belong in the class of fictitious unfalsifiable supernatural agents.

What you are really indulging in here is additional fallacious argument of special pleading in favour of your preferred fictitious unfalsifiable supernatural agent.

[SusanDoris]

SotS

As far as many, many people, including me, are concerned, God is an entirely made-up concept, in the same way as pixies are a made-up concept.

What you need to do is to come up with one fact or argument to demonstrate that the God you believe in is not made up.

You will no doubt try to pour scorn on this post, which I think would say more about you than it does about others.

[wigginhall]

Actually, pixies are not recently made up, not even dancing ones.   They may in fact be pre-Christian, and up to the 19th century, were seriously believed in in Devon and Cornwall.  I think there is still a Pixie Day in some towns.   

Of course, they are unfalsifiable, as everyone is saying.   Lots of people believed in them, therefore they exist!

[Udayana]

Surely all concepts are made up? Just that some are helpful some not. Some are useful at some points, but a hindrance at others.

[SusanDoris]

Surely all concepts are made up? Just that some are helpful some not. Some are useful at some points, but a hindrance at others.

Okay! what word shall I use instead? Mind you, whether it will have any effect on SotS I'm not at all sure.

[Jack Knave]

JK,

Of course I use them. What I don't do though is to use those things as arguments for factual truths for other people.

That's the difference.

I don't think the OP was saying this is the fact of the matter just that it is something to do with an issue (or at least related to it) of what it means to be human and the meaning of life etc. ignoring the popular versions of karma - which I would admit Sriram hasn't totally done.

[Jack Knave]

Not all tools are equal though.  Before we had science, we ran largely on personal experience : most beliefs owed to 'revelations' from individuals - soothsayers, gurus, shamans, priests, prophets ....
 
Personal experiences are just personal though; science aims to remove the personal to approach the objective.  Persons are always full of particular biases.

But the objective is dead and soulless. It is just facts limited to the impersonal world of objects and things and takes no account of the human condition, especially personal element of it, and the value judgements that give substance to life.

[Jack Knave]

Yes, these are attributes that I can trace back to my biological parents and formative life experience.  Subtract these from 'me', and what is left ?

No you can't. Why do you have a propensity at doing some things well (a natural gift) and not others? Do you have siblings? Are they very much like you - many siblings can be the polar opposites of each other; even twins. In fact I believe the study of twins debunks your statement.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought that that was one of the points about the Spaghetti Monster, which is unfalsifiable.   The fact that it's made up is irrelevant.   It could be true.

When was spaghetti unfalsifiable?

[Gordon]

When was spaghetti unfalsifiable?

When it forms into a flying monster, obviously.