Leprechaunodammerung-Twilight of the little chaps

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God versus Leprechauns.

Who wins?

Unfair contest?

Is God a leprechaun?

Are Leprechauns divine?

Richard Dawkins passed over on Leprechaunology. Was that the biggest mistake of his career???

It's time to settle things.

THIS is THAT thread. For all things Leprechaun.

LEPRECHAUNODAMMERUNG-TWILIGHT OF THE LITTLE CHAPS

[BeRational]

They are equivalent, in that in that they are myths and unevidenced assertions.

They can both be treated in the same way.

The default position is not to believe either of them at the moment.

[floo]

God versus Leprechauns.

Who wins?

Unfair contest?

Is God a leprechaun?

Are Leprechauns divine?

Richard Dawkins passed over on Leprechaunology. Was that the biggest mistake of his career???

It's time to settle things.

THIS is THAT thread. For all things Leprechaun.

LEPRECHAUNODAMMERUNG-TWILIGHT OF THE LITTLE CHAPS

The Leprechaun wins every time. I am sure Dawkins will get around to Leprechaunology when he realises how studying that important topic will enhance humanity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The Leprechaun wins every time.

With that dress sense?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They are equivalent, in that in that they are myths and unevidenced assertions.

They can both be treated in the same way.

The default position is not to believe either of them at the moment.

What does the word mean to you then?

[BeRational]

What does the word mean to you then?

What word?

[Gordon]

What does the word mean to you then?

Depends on the word of course: have you a specific one in mind?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

God versus Leprechauns.

Who wins?

Neither - they're epistemically equivalent claims.

Unfair contest?

No: even-stevens.

Is God a leprechaun?

The last two words are unnecessary.

Are Leprechauns divine?

No idea.

Richard Dawkins passed over on Leprechaunology. Was that the biggest mistake of his career???

No. If leprechaunology ever presumed a position in society akin to that of theology though, doubtless he'd turn his attention to it.

It's time to settle things.

They already are.

THIS is THAT thread. For all things Leprechaun.

There's only one "thing leprechaun" you need to grasp: that an argument for "God" that works equally for leprechauns is probably a bad argument. The characteristics of either claim are irrelevant for that purpose.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What word?

Myth

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Neither - they're epistemically equivalent claims.

Positive assertion. Be my Guest.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Positive assertion. Be my Guest.

When the argument for each has only the word "leprechaun" substituted for the word "God" then they're epistemically identical arguments. Worrying about the different characteristics painted on to each conjecture is just putting lipstick on the pig so as to avoid the problem, which is presumably why you do it.   

Coda:

Your Reply 10 - thanks for confirming the point for me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

When the argument for each has only the word "leprechaun" substituted for the word "God" then they're epistemically identical arguments.

Yes, you've already said that....go ahead and demonstrate it.
Fulfil your burden.

I take issue because leprechauns are falsifiable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes, you've already said that....go ahead and demonstrate it.
Fulfil your burden.

I don't have a "burden", and I already have in any case. Take the NPF as an example: "You can't disprove God, therefore God"/"You can't disprove leprechauns, therefore leprechauns" is the same argument.

It's simple enough I'd have thought, so why keep avoiding it? 

I take issue because leprechauns are falsifiable.

Really?

How?

[Gordon]

I take issue because leprechauns are falsifiable.

Do tell.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Do tell.

He never will. Or can.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I don't have a "burden", and I already have in any case. Take the NPF as an example: "You can't disprove God, therefore God"/"You can't disprove leprechauns, therefore leprechauns" is the same argument.

It's simple enough I'd have thought, so why keep avoiding it? 

Really?

How?

This is pretty thin stuff particularly as nobody has NPF'd around here.....only knocked on the door thereof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Listen everybody,everybody,everybody

Oooooooh Leprechaun's are falsiable

wooaaah On account of being Little Irish Chaps

found at the end of rainbows in Ireland.

Don't let them tell you any different wo wo wo

or lay some shit about induction oh oh oh

(Apologies to Chubby Checker.).................................Goodness that felt Good.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This is pretty thin stuff particularly as nobody has NPF'd around here.....only knocked on the door thereof.

How did I know that you'd miss the point entirely? Uncanny eh?

For the hard of understanding: it doesn't matter which argument is used equally for "God" and for leprechauns, just that it is the same argument. You can attempt as many distractions from that as you like, but it remains the basic point nonetheless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Listen everybody,everybody,everybody

Oooooooh Leprechaun's are falsiable

wooaaah On account of being Little Irish Chaps

found at the end of rainbows in Ireland.

Don't let them tell you any different wo wo wo

or lay some shit about induction oh oh oh

(Apologies to Chubby Checker.).................................Goodness that felt Good.

Then, having made the claim, why not at least try to demonstrate it?

[Gordon]

Listen everybody,everybody,everybody

Oooooooh Leprechaun's are falsiable

wooaaah On account of being Little Irish Chaps

found at the end of rainbows in Ireland.

Don't let them tell you any different wo wo wo

or lay some shit about induction oh oh oh

(Apologies to Chubby Checker.).................................Goodness that felt Good.

Twas you who said they were old chap - so evading again: have you no shame?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then, having made the claim, why not at least try to demonstrate it?

Hillside you are confusing falsifiable with falsified.

All that remains to say is that maybe one day science will actually falsify Leprechauns. Ha Ha Ha

Alas poor Hillside. I knew his reputation well.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside you are confusing falsifiable with falsified.

Wrong again. It was your claim that they are falsifiable - all you're being asked for is the method of falsifiability. 

All that remains to say is that maybe one day science will actually falsify Leprechauns. Ha Ha Ha

?

Alas poor Hillside. I knew his reputation well.

As you seem determined to wreck what's little is left of yours with every post you attempt, I'll leave you to your private grief here.

Should you ever finally grasp the point of the leprechauns analogy though, by all means report back.

[Gordon]

Hillside you are confusing falsifiable with falsified.

All that remains to say is that maybe one day science will actually falsify Leprechauns. Ha Ha Ha

Alas poor Hillside. I knew his reputation well.

Here's the confirmation: you have no shame.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Here's the confirmation: you have no shame.

Possibly the least newsworthy post ever to be made on this mb?