Omnipotence

[floo]

There are no good reasons Hillside is a positive assertion.
I've never seen you or any one refute all the arguments for God! There have been a few turds produced by you and the posse and I've seen you back the basically theological iidea of a creator.

There have been no credible arguments for god presented on this forum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There have been no credible arguments for god presented on this forum.

Pooh another positive assertion.
I thought NeilDe Grasse Tysons suggestion was pretty Good.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There are no good reasons Hillside is a positive assertion.

It would be if anyone had said it, yes. Just out of interest though, how did you get to that misrepresentation of what I actually said ("That's your burden of proof mistake again. I'm an atheist because I've never seen an argument for "God" that isn't logically false. QED")?   

I told you that I'm an atheist because "I've never seen an argument for "God" that isn't logically false". Presumably other atheists would say the same. That's not to say that there necessarily isn't an argument for "God" (I'm putting to one side the incoherence of the term here) that isn't hopeless, just that I've never encountered one.

You tried a Courtier's Reply fallacy recently when you dismissed someone for lacking your knowledge of theology. When asked what arguments theology provides for "God" that aren't false though (several times in fact) you were silent. Problem is, so is everyone else. Why you (and they) want to keep its supposed cogent arguments a big secret is anyone's guess, but for as long as you're silent on the matter an atheist I must remain.       

I've never seen you or any one refute all the arguments for God! There have been a few turds produced by you and the posse and I've seen you back the basically theological iidea of a creator.

Lying doesn't help you here. When an argument is demonstrated to be logically false, then it's falsified. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Pooh another positive assertion.
I thought NeilDe Grasse Tysons suggestion was pretty Good.

No doubt you did. It had bugger all to do with "God" though, as you know full well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No doubt you did. It had bugger all to do with "God" though, as you know full well.

You're fooling yourself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But there is no usual ONE Hillside.

Wrong again. As you seem keen on Wiki, here are the first eight words of the entry on omnipotence:

"Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power."

Sounds pretty "usual" to me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You're fooling yourself.

Not lying isn't fooling yourself.

You should try it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It would be if anyone had said it, yes. Just out of interest though, how did you get to that misrepresentation of what I actually said ("That's your burden of proof mistake again. I'm an atheist because I've never seen an argument for "God" that isn't logically false. QED")?   

I told you that I'm an atheist because "I've never seen an argument for "God" that isn't logically false". Presumably other atheists would say the same. That's not to say that there necessarily isn't an argument for "God" (I'm putting to one side the incoherence of the term here) that isn't hopeless, just that I've never encountered one.

You tried a Courtier's Reply fallacy recently when you dismissed someone for lacking your knowledge of theology. When asked what arguments theology provides for "God" that aren't false though (several times in fact) you were silent. Problem is, so is everyone else. Why you (and they) want to keep its supposed cogent arguments a big secret is anyone's guess, but for as long as you're silent on the matter an atheist I must remain.       

Lying doesn't help you here. When an argument is demonstrated to be logically false, then it's falsified.

Courtiers reply is apparently of the status of an alleged fantasy and was refuted by Feser. Who pointed that any twat without sufficient knowledge can utter the words that's crap.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Courtiers reply is apparently of the status of an alleged fantasy...

No it isn't.

...and was refuted by Feser.

No it wasn't.

Who pointed that any twat without sufficient knowledge can utter the words that's crap.

QED

That's not what the Courtier's Reply entails. What "sufficient knowledge" of silk weaving would have caused the little boy to think that the emperor wasn't naked after all?

Why your continued silence on the knock down arguments from theology for "God" by the way? If you think you have "sufficient knowledge" of that but the rest of us don't, why keep it a secret?   

[ippy]

Vlad,

No it isn't.

No it wasn't.

QED

That's not what the Courtier's Reply entails. What "sufficient knowledge" of silk weaving would have caused the little boy to think that the emperor wasn't naked after all?

Why your continued silence on the knock down arguments from theology for "God" by the way? If you think you have "sufficient knowledge" of that but the rest of us don't, why keep it a secret?

Leave it Vlad I'll answer for you:

BHS I ask the questions, the cheek of you riff raff expecting me to give you answers, whatever next!!

Any time Vlad, regards ippy. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

Leave it Vlad I'll answer for you:

BHS I ask the questions, the cheek of you riff raff expecting me to give you answers, whatever next!!

Any time Vlad, regards ippy.

Uncanny! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn't.

No it wasn't.

QED

That's not what the Courtier's Reply entails. What "sufficient knowledge" of silk weaving would have caused the little boy to think that the emperor wasn't naked after all?

Why your continued silence on the knock down arguments from theology for "God" by the way? If you think you have "sufficient knowledge" of that but the rest of us don't, why keep it a secret?

But the Question has always been the sufficiency of Dawkins knowledge. Not very imho.
I'm afraid metaphysical arguments are stuck with that status. Metaphysical. That metaphysical argument which demands arguments to be provable empiricallly being in the direst position in terms of grounds.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But the Question has always been the sufficiency of Dawkins knowledge. Not very imho.

Can anyone translate this?

I'm afraid metaphysical arguments are stuck with that status. Metaphysical. That metaphysical argument which demands arguments to be provable empiricallly being in the direst position in terms of grounds.

Or this?

[ippy]

Vlad,

Can anyone translate this?

Or this?

I did give this one a thought about answering for Vlad again, then I pulled up a chair sat down and read it properly rather tried to read it properly, ying yong yibberdooly hibbley diddle do niddly niddly pong, yiddlelididdlynadgeroo_____________

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

I did give this one a thought about answering for Vlad again, then I pulled up a chair sat down and read it properly rather tried to read it properly, ying yong yibberdooly hibbley diddle do niddly niddly pong, yiddlelididdlynadgeroo_____________

Makes more sense than his post I guess. I saw a documentary many years ago about David Bowie in which he cut up newspaper articles and rearranged the words randomly for his lyrics. I wonder if Vlad is taking the same approach?

You'll notice too that when he flat out misrepresented what I'd said a few posts ago and I corrected him on it he didn't return to it in any way – the lie is forgotten about almost immediately it's said it seems. It's all very Trumpian.   

[ippy]

ipster,

Makes more sense than his post I guess. I saw a documentary many years ago about David Bowie in which he cut up newspaper articles and rearranged the words randomly for his lyrics. I wonder if Vlad is taking the same approach?

You'll notice too that when he flat out misrepresented what I'd said a few posts ago and I corrected him on it he didn't return to it in any way – the lie is forgotten about almost immediately it's said it seems. It's all very Trumpian.   

Yes, I meant what I said, joking aside, I haven't got a masters in written English, difficult to believe, I know, but most of us can stumble at times and write something that's not that brilliant but even so, still  understandable, that post of his really was totally meaningless, I still have no idea of what it was he was, I assume, trying to say.

Remember Hope, now he was a quote out of context specialist, Vlads methods are very similar but lacked the amount of educational base Hope had.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

Yes, I meant what I said, joking aside, I haven't got a masters in written English, difficult to believe, I know, but most of us can stumble at times and write something that's not that brilliant but even so, still  understandable, that post of his really was totally meaningless, I still have no idea of what it was he was, I assume, trying to say.

Remember Hope, now he was a quote out of context specialist, Vlads methods are very similar but lacked the amount of educational base Hope had.

I do remember Hope, yes - big fan of the negative proof fallacy. Seems to me though that the gibberish is the lesser of Vlad's problems - the pathological dishonesty is the big one.

Back to cases though, as HV's "omnipotent but not really" schtick seems to have collapsed with barely a whimper I guess this thread has died of natural causes in any case. 

[ippy]

ipster,

I do remember Hope, yes - big fan of the negative proof fallacy. Seems to me though that the gibberish is the lesser of Vlad's problems - the pathological dishonesty is the big one.

Back to cases though, as HV's "omnipotent but not really" schtick seems to have collapsed with barely a whimper I guess this thread has died of natural causes in any case.

Until I begin to see some substance brought into asserted forays from the direction of these various faith/belief groups, I have great difficulty taking them seriously before the discussion starts.

Regards ippy 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just by way of a coda, what's curious too about HV's "OK, God is theoretically omnipotent but he's not really - only he is. Or something" notion as an explanation for evil is that he could just as well have been as irrational about any of the omnis (or about a combination of them) - omniscience for example: "OK, god is theoretically omniscient but there are some things he doesn't know and that's where bad stuff hides" would to the job just as well I'd have thought.

Why then pick one omni over the others for special pleading?   

[jeremyp]

Vlad,

Can anyone translate this?

Or this?

It's easy. It means Vlad cannot satisfactorily answer the question therefore he obfuscated sin the hope that nobody will notice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

It's easy. It means Vlad cannot satisfactorily answer the question therefore he obfuscated sin the hope that nobody will notice.

Oh right - that must be it. Thanks.

[Sebastian Toe]

It's easy. It means Vlad cannot satisfactorily answer the question therefore he obfuscated sin the hope that nobody will notice.

I hadn't noticed.
But ....... I was incredibly drunk at the time!
 

[ippy]

Just by way of a coda, what's curious too about HV's "OK, God is theoretically omnipotent but he's not really - only he is. Or something" notion as an explanation for evil is that he could just as well have been as irrational about any of the omnis (or about a combination of them) - omniscience for example: "OK, god is theoretically omniscient but there are some things he doesn't know and that's where bad stuff hides" would to the job just as well I'd have thought.

Why then pick one omni over the others for special pleading?

If just one body found some form of supporting evidence for this particular facet of omnipotence or any other form of omni powers, without some form of substantiation, we remain on the usual magical, superstitional mystery tour, sorry O C H, (Over Complicated Handle). 

Regards ippy.

[ippy]

Where's Vlad gone?

Where are you Vlad?

Vlad?

Vlad?

ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

I hadn't noticed.
But ....... I was incredibly drunk at the time!
 

Are you Rowley Birkin Q.C. ? If so, do I get a reward for spotting this?