Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then why not try to explain why they're "shite" rather than just spit the dummy?

Vlad,

Why not try to explain why they're "shite" rather than just spit the dummy?

There are categorical differences between creator and created.
You can't/don't want to acknowledge them just like you don't want to acknowledge that although the KCA doesn't pass the debating society rules it's premises and conclusions are not as yet demolished.

If you think I am wrong about you:
List the differences between Leprechauns and God.
State that those posts where you claim to be a believer in Leprechauns are absolutely true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

... The chances of me persuading the Mods to jump to anything are about the same as those of you constructing a logically cogent argument.

I'm glad you agree with me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

You’ve had this mistake explained to you countless times yet still you make it. Why?

Yet again: the characteristics attached to an outcome tell you nothing about the quality of the argument that leads to it.

Now write that down 100 times until it sinks in.

What you’re doing here is equivalent to making an argument for unicorns, me saying that it’s a bad argument because it works just as well for dragons, and you replying “ah but dragons don’t have a horn in the middle of their heads do they?” As if that somehow made the bad validating argument into a good one.

It’s just bad reasoning and you should stop doing it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

You’ve had this mistake explained to you countless times yet still you make it. Why?

Yet again: the characteristics attached to an outcome tell you nothing about the quality of the argument that leads to it.

Now write that down 100 times until it sinks in.

What you’re doing here is equivalent to making an argument for unicorns, me saying that it’s a bad argument because it works just as well for dragons, and you replying “ah but dragons don’t have a horn in the middle of their heads do they?” As if that somehow made the bad validating argument into a good one.

It’s just bad reasoning and you should stop doing it.

Rhiannon spotted your error and you have entered aanother cycle of ego protection.
Because either you lack the intellect and imagination, or you know your failings of your case and are compiling your terpsichorean solutions to them for some kind of portfolio, you've never stopped to consider why God is still a going concern in philosophy or why people still entertain God yet do not believe in Santa. I've never seen anyone fight so hard to protect his own ego.
As for 'survivor' bias you never get past just dropping this bit of contra Darwinian pop psychology which completely avoids the issue of how things survive......because it suits you at the time.

I was really glad that Rhiannon joined the fray and that the number of people who have noticed that King Hillside isn;t wearing as much as he would like us to think.

[bluehillside Retd.]

I corrected you in plain terms.

You just ignored the correction in favour of more diversionary gibberish.

Why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I corrected you in plain terms.

You just ignored the correction in favour of more diversionary gibberish.

Why?

What correction? bad arguments are bad arguments, we all know that, why should that become 'magic' in your hands.

Where you are fault is your equation of Leprechauns and God . We will have all seen you elevate the Little chaps from Contingent to necessary and your employment of horses laugh fallacy.

[BeRational]

What correction? bad arguments are bad arguments, we all know that, why should that become 'magic' in your hands.

Where you are fault is your equation of Leprechauns and God . We will have all seen you elevate the Little chaps from Contingent to necessary and your employment of horses laugh fallacy.

So if you understand about bad arguments, why did you mention the Kalam?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So if you understand about bad arguments, why did you mention the Kalam?

I wanted to see if it's premises and conclusion could be demolished. I'm still waiting.

[BeRational]

I wanted to see if it's premises and conclusion could be demolished. I'm still waiting.

Why?

Did you not understand all the posts that explain it?

State the premises, then demonstrate them to be true.

If you cannot, then you will understand.

I find it hard to believe you cannot understand this simple concept.

If the premises cannot be demonstrated to be TRUE, then the argument is useless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

What correction?

This one:

“Vladdo,

You’ve had this mistake explained to you countless times yet still you make it. Why?

Yet again: the characteristics attached to an outcome tell you nothing about the quality of the argument that leads to it.

Now write that down 100 times until it sinks in.

What you’re doing here is equivalent to making an argument for unicorns, me saying that it’s a bad argument because it works just as well for dragons, and you replying “ah but dragons don’t have a horn in the middle of their heads do they?” As if that somehow made the bad validating argument into a good one.

It’s just bad reasoning and you should stop doing it.”

…bad arguments are bad arguments, we all know that, why should that become 'magic' in your hands.

Except that you it seems don’t – which is why you keep attempting them remember?

Where you are fault is your equation of Leprechauns and God .

Where you’re at fault is in continually lying about that. Why do you lie so much – is it because that’s all you have to offer? Dull, mendacious nihilism?

We will have all seen you elevate the Little chaps from Contingent to necessary and your employment of horses laugh fallacy.

And then you just repeat the lie. Pretty disgraceful really, but hey if it keeps you happy…

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I wanted to see if it's premises and conclusion could be demolished. I'm still waiting.

He lied.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just been musing on Vladistic special pleading. It goes something like this:

Special pleading 1: I cannot know whether the universe is eternally old or had a beginning, of even if the question has meaning as time itself is a property of the universe. Nonetheless I’m going to assert it to have had a beginning, and therefore to have required a cause. I’m also going to place this cause “outside time and space” or some such without bothering either to define or to demonstrate such a thing.

Special pleading 2: I’m going to exempt my creator from all the objections I had to the universe being eternally old, to being created ex nihilo etc and will allow any or all of these properties for my creator.

Special pleading 3: Having magicked my creator these properties and denied them to the universe, I’m also going to deny them to anything else. Therefore there cannot have been a team effort of many somethings all created ex nihilo that made the universe, and there cannot be countless other somethings that had nothing to do with universe creating etc either.

Job done!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just been musing on Vladistic special pleading. It goes something like this:

Special pleading 1: I cannot know whether the universe is eternally old or had a beginning, of even if the question has meaning as time itself is a property of the universe. Nonetheless I’m going to assert it to have had a beginning,

SHOW ME WHERE I ASSERT THIS.

Special pleading 2: I’m going to exempt my creator from all the objections I had to the universe being eternally old,

I HAVE EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION TO THE UNIVERSE BEING ETERNALLY OLD.

Special pleading 3: Having magicked my creator these properties and denied them to the universe, I’m also going to deny them to anything else. Therefore there cannot have been a team effort of many somethings all created ex nihilo

IF IT WAS A TEAM EFFORT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO EXCLUDE EITHER,  A TEAM LEADER OR, A SINGLE WILL?
Also I see the issue as you dismissing God as impossible because he has 'magicked' properties such as eternality, self creation but being happy for the universe to have them and that my friend is special pleading on your part.

[BeRational]

Vlad

Do you now understand that the Kalam is a bad argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

Do you now understand that the Kalam is a bad argument?

When did I deny it? Because Hellooo, if I didn't denied it it is not appropriate for you to ask if I now understand it.

[wigginhall]

But Vlad, you keep saying that the premises haven't been demolished.  The point is rather that they haven't been supported or demonstrated.

[Nearly Sane]

But Vlad, you keep saying that the premises haven't been demolished.  The point is rather that they haven't been supported or demonstrated.

Which in a syllogistic argument means it fails as it isn't demonstrated as true. The KCA  is  valid but until demonstrated as true it is not valud, hence it is a bad argument and is dependent on your use of language 'demolished'. If the first premise 'that everything that begins to exist has a cause' is not demonstrated as tr u then any following premise and conclusion collapses.

[Nearly Sane]

The KCA's initial premise is that the universe had a beginning.

The initial premise is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Since that appears not demonstrated anything about whether the universe begin to exists is irrelevant.

[wigginhall]

I think Sean Carroll said of both premises, 'or maybe not', which made me laugh.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

SHOW ME WHERE I ASSERT THIS.

I HAVE EXPRESSED NO OBJECTION TO THE UNIVERSE BEING ETERNALLY OLD.

IF IT WAS A TEAM EFFORT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO EXCLUDE EITHER,  A TEAM LEADER OR, A SINGLE WILL?

Ah but the problem here Vlad is your inconsistency - at various times you've attempted pretty much every dodgy argument in the William Lane Craig playbook plus a few more besides, then at other times you'll tell us that you don't believe them to be true at all. You change your positions on these arguments as often than you change what you mean by "god" - that is, a lot.

Which of your various and mutually contradictory positions are we supposed to cite therefore?

Also I see the issue as you dismissing God as impossible because he has 'magicked' properties such as eternality, self creation but being happy for the universe to have them and that my friend is special pleading on your part.

And the lying just pours out of you doesn't it. Given how much time I've spent here saying precisely the opposite of that - ie, there's no way to decide that something is "impossible", be it your god or my leprechauns - I wonder why you bother with it. It's a bit like your lying about me supposedly comparing god with leprechauns I suppose - you just can't help yourself.

[Rhiannon]

Hi Rhi,

Not really. If you want to assume a “creator” why stop at just one? You could postulate one with no antecedent or a trillion with no antecedents with equal facility – after all, if you want to magic one creator out of the infinite regress problem why not do the same for lots of them?

The point here too of course is the one Vlad always ignores – namely that if an argument works equally for god and for leprechauns then it’s probably a bad argument. Ascribing different characteristics to them (universe creating vs dancing) doesn’t change that.   

Well, why this belief about a god rather than that belief about a god I’d have thought but ok…

Well yes. Assuming that some theistic beliefs have done well when others haven’t must mean that the former are true and the latter aren’t is just your common-or-garden survivorship bias. It also presents Christians who think that way with a problem given that their suite of beliefs are believed by fewer people than believe in different ones.

The thing about a creator god vs something created is that a created thing should leave tangible evidence - a unicorn hoof print, a leprechaun hat. Even if extinct there should be bones. But a hidden creator god has no physical form. And yes, I do get the logic of the argument but for a theist you are dealing with concepts that are so far apart as to be barely worth consideration. Essentially a created thing - even one we believe to be mythical - would be natural, whereas god is supernatural. Why this Creator and not that is a much more interesting question.

‘Beliefs in’... well I guess many people add ‘beliefs’ to stuff about god, but essentially it’s experiential. I experience the universe as pantheistic, I don’t ‘belueve’ it as that is an interctual exercise that I don’t feel the need for. But yes, survivorship bias is why the many gods all turn out to be Christian, when someone experiences something they search to find a framework in which to understand it and in our culture Christianity is the first stopping off point, at least for now. Even the divine feminine and polytheism can be satisfied within it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Ah but the problem here Vlad is your inconsistency - at various times you've attempted pretty much every dodgy argument in the William Lane Craig playbook plus a few more besides, then at other times you'll tell us that you don't believe them to be true at all. You change your positions on these arguments as often than you change what you mean by "god" - that is, a lot.

Which of your various and mutually contradictory positions are we supposed to cite therefore?

And the lying just pours out of you doesn't it. Given how much time I've spent here saying precisely the opposite of that - ie, there's no way to decide that something is "impossible", be it your god or my leprechauns - I wonder why you bother with it. It's a bit like your lying about me supposedly comparing god with leprechauns I suppose - you just can't help yourself.

You are just underlining your completeness at sea and that you haven't been reading the thread. I have never leaned on Lane Craig I even took part in a lengthy debate during which I never asserted the universe could not be eternal or asserted that the universe had to have a beginning.

Explain why you think a theist depends on the universe having a beginning.

Also you haven't engaged with my observations concerning divine team efforts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

The thing about a creator god vs something created is that a created thing should leave tangible evidence - a unicorn hoof print, a leprechaun hat. Even if extinct there should be bones.

Not necessarily – there are many gaps in the fossil record for example but we know there must have been intermediary species to bridge the gaps between the fossils we do have. That’s not the point though – rather that point is that if someone can special plead into existence ex nihilo a “creator”, why can’t we special plead into existence ten other things that appeared ex nihilo too? Or a trillion? My ex nihilo leprechauns could have given Vlad’s god a hand with the creation biz (the four-leafed clovers for example) but not have been created by him, or they could have been doing something else entirely. That’s the problem with special pleading a god – you can special plead anything else that takes your fancy with equal facility.   

But a hidden creator god has no physical form.

Or maybe he’s just very good a hide and seek. Why is the “no physical form” bit needed, and what would that even mean in any case?

And yes, I do get the logic of the argument but for a theist you are dealing with concepts that are so far apart as to be barely worth consideration. Essentially a created thing - even one we believe to be mythical - would be natural, whereas god is supernatural. Why this Creator and not that is a much more interesting question.

That’s Vlad’s mistake. He keeps pointing to the different characteristics of his god and of my leprechauns as if that has anything to say to the quality of the argument the produces both with equal facility. The “you compare god with leprechauns” is just a lie he repeats over and over, when what’s actually being compared is the argument that produces them. The creator thing is a red herring – why not lots of creators all existing ex nihilo? 

‘Beliefs in’... well I guess many people add ‘beliefs’ to stuff about god, but essentially it’s experiential. I experience the universe as pantheistic, I don’t ‘belueve’ it as that is an interctual exercise that I don’t feel the need for. But yes, survivorship bias is why the many gods all turn out to be Christian, when someone experiences something they search to find a framework in which to understand it and in our culture Christianity is the first stopping off point, at least for now. Even the divine feminine and polytheism can be satisfied within it.

Pretty much, but the “experiential” bit isn’t pulling its weight. Thinking you experience the Christian (or any other) god doesn’t mean that you’re doing any such thing – rather it just means that you’ve found an explanatory narrative (usually culturally determined) that explains the experience to your satisfaction. That’s why when the Vlads of this world blithely tell us that they “experienced god” there’s a grinding of gears because they still have all their work ahead of them to demonstrate that they did any such thing, starting with a coherent definition of what on earth they mean by “god”.

Usually when you ask one of them to do this though, let alone to propose a method to test the claim the only sound you get is that of a door slamming behind them. Vlad is notorious for it, but to be fair he’s not alone in that.

[Rhiannon]

Blue,

The thing is that although the argument works for me and you it won’t for a theist. You aren’t comparing them but you are using both in an argument where you are comparing beliefs in one with the other and that is where theists stop listening. After all, they’ve outgrown the tooth fairy but god is still around.  Personally I think it far more challenging to ask a theist to explain why their god and not another.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

You are just underlining your completeness at sea and that you haven't been reading the thread. I have never leaned on Lane Craig I even took part in a lengthy debate during which I never asserted the universe could not be eternal or asserted that the universe had to have a beginning.

Stop lying. You've repeatedly re-hashed WLC's arguments, been routed and then gone quiet for a bit before repeating them. Wy bother even pretending otherwise?

By the way, if this week you think that the KCA is a crap argument why are you asking other people to demolish it for you when you've got there already yourself?

Explain why you think a theist depends on the universe having a beginning.

You're demanding an answer when you've always refused are to answer anything yourself? Bit rich don't you think?

Anyway if the theist is of the type who thinks a god caused the universe, then necessarily that universe must have begun when this god began it I'd have thought - ie, for him it had a beginning.   

Also you haven't engaged with my observations concerning divine team efforts.

Because they're too stupid to bother with. Ants for example produce outcomes of remarkable complexity but there's no chief ant in the middle with a rolled up set of blueprints and a hard hat telling them what to do. Maybe universe creating is an emergent property of many ex nihilo entities all doing their own thing.