Creator: supernatural vs natural (posts from 'fine detail in the gospels).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But why did you leave those words out of a supposed quote?

Non relevance to the argument that Chalmers uses the term ''The God Hypothesis'' which is part of the main argument that Tyson's suggestion is a rehash of century's old theological thought.

Why do I detect minimising the gravity of the term ''The God Hypothesis?''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,

What's particularly scummy about Vlad's behaviour here is that it must be deliberate. If he'd copied and pasted the extract verbatim it would have retained the "naturalistic version of" that undoes him, but to get from that to his misquote of "is the God hypothesis" (ie, "is (important bit missing here) the God hypothesis") he had to exclude it so as to corrupt the quote to his own ends.

It is not important for whether there was a God hypothesis previous to Tyson which is the thrust of our argument. In other words it looks like a red herring opportunity which you took.

Given that, how do you think this is important?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But why did you leave those words out of a supposed quote?

Supposed quote? have you not read the article?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stranger,

 If he'd copied and pasted the extract verbatim it would have retained the "naturalistic version of" that undoes him

It doesn't undo my claim that Chalmers thinks it's a version of the God hypothesis which is what is important in an argument on er, whether it's a version of the God hypothesis that predates Tyson

How then am I undone?

[Stranger]

Why are you emphasising the term naturalistic version?

For one thing, you have repeatedly denied that the SU speculation could be considered naturalistic and for another, he isn't saying that it is the god hypothesis (which is what you claimed).

You are still ignoring the main point of the article, which is to point out how bad the simulated universe argument is by comparing it to the obviously hopeless arguments for god.

There is no way that this provides a reason to believe in god(s) (as you have claimed). It's a similarly hopeless* argument for something that isn't god.

* As an aside, I wouldn't agree that it's quite as hopeless - but it's the difference between science fiction (simulated universe) and fantasy (god).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The naturalistic version of what though Hillside......
Oh. ''The God hypothesis.''

Chalmers thinks it is the naturalistic version of The God hypothesis.....We can use the internet to see how long The God hypothesis has been going around Hillside. I seem to remember it being used in 'Priestland's progress' Gerald Priestland in the early eighties.

Never the less Chalmers points to it being abroad outside your religionethics forum bubble. This isn't a whizzo new idea by Elon Musk NDG and whoever else after all. It is a version of the God hypothesis.

I suppose you will be replying with a version of ''we're not talking about that God hypothesis''.

you remind me of Rene artois in allo allo who when caught by his wife goes ''You stupid woman'' Ha Ha.

Cut the crap. Why did you doctor the quote?

[Stranger]

It doesn't undo my claim that Chalmers thinks it's a version of the God hypothesis...

FFS, he said it was a naturalistic version - that is to say, it is not an argument for a supernatural god.

...of the God hypothesis that predates Tyson

Why the kindergarten emphasis of what came first? It has bugger all to do with anything. The first people to think of some idea can't bagsy the concept to be forever associated with their reasons for thinking of it. Grow up!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

FFS, he said it was a naturalistic version - that is to say, it is not an argument for a supernatural god.

Which is why he had to doctor the quote to make it fit - he even had the front to add "of course" before he lied about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Cut the crap. Why did you doctor the quote?

I think you've overdone the police procedurals Hillside and have already answered.
I am not afraid to say that Chalmers thinks it is a naturalistic version of the God hypothesis. There I have said it.

can you bring yourself to say the that without emphasis on the naturalistic since you seem to think that undoes my argument that Tyson's speculation is exactly the same as that of Centuries old theology?

Even if Chalmers did not agree with that it is fairly obvious that he is saying the God Hypothesis predates Tyson.

But let us not get away from his statement that this is a version of the God Hypothesis.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you've overdone the police procedurals Hillside and have already answered.
I am not afraid to say that Chalmers thinks it is a naturalistic version of the God hypothesis. There I have said it.

can you bring yourself to say the that without emphasis on the naturalistic since you seem to think that undoes my argument that Tyson's speculation is exactly the same as that of Centuries old theology?

Even if Chalmers did not agree with that it is fairly obvious that he is saying the God Hypothesis predates Tyson.

But let us not get away from his statement that this is a version of the God Hypothesis.

Why did you doctor the quote?

[Stranger]

... my argument that Tyson's speculation is exactly the same as that of Centuries old theology?

Except that it is absolutely, blindingly obvious that it isn't the same at all...

[Maeght]

Non relevance to the argument that Chalmers uses the term ''The God Hypothesis'' which is part of the main argument that Tyson's suggestion is a rehash of century's old theological thought.

Why do I detect minimising the gravity of the term ''The God Hypothesis?''.

Because you always try to read things into what people say which isn't there to try to deflect questions you have been asked.

You left the words naturalistic version out and I am just asking why. A simple question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why did you doctor the quote?

Oh dear, since you have gone down the playing the man not the ball route. I feel I have to bring up the question of why you didn't bring up Chalmers at all and I would also suggest a revisiting to your take on Myer's accusation of creationism.

How do you think the full quote undoes any argument I've made since what I have claimed is that this is a version of the God Hypothesis which has been around for ages.

Since you are pussyfooting around it. I do think the naturalistic claim of chalmers is problematic, for Chalmers, since there is the question ''Can you have a version of the God hypothesis which is naturalistic? I would argue you can't because the moment you have suggested an intelligent creator of the universe you have something which is transcendent of it.........and that was never been part and parcel of naturalism but absolutely part of theism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because you always try to read things into what people say which isn't there to try to deflect questions you have been asked.

You left the words naturalistic version out and I am just asking why. A simple question.

I believe I answered you. It was unnecessary for the main argument. That happens, after all Hillside had omitted any mention of Chalmer's contribution. Which is unusual since he now seems to think my argument is undone by Chalmers.

I have since acknowledged it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that it is absolutely, blindingly obvious that it isn't the same at all...

Not to Chalmer's also.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh dear, since you have gone down the playing the man not the ball route. I feel I have to bring up the question of why you didn't bring up Chalmers at all and I would also suggest a revisiting to your take on Myer's accusation of creationism.

How do you think the full quote undoes any argument I've made since what I have claimed is that this is a version of the God Hypothesis which has been around for ages.

Since you are pussyfooting around it. I do think the naturalistic claim of chalmers is problematic, for Chalmers, since there is the question ''Can you have a version of the God hypothesis which is naturalistic? I would argue you can't because the moment you have suggested an intelligent creator of the universe you have something which is transcendent of it.........and that was never been part and parcel of naturalism but absolutely part of theism.

Why did you doctor the quote?

[Maeght]

I believe I answered you. It was unnecessary for the main argument. That happens, after all Hillside had omitted any mention of Chalmer's contribution. Which is unusual since he now seems to think my argument is undone by Chalmers.

I have since acknowledged it.

No, your post didn't answer the question, even when I managed to decipher it and put in some punctuation to help with the meaning. You think it isn't relevant, but why?

[Stranger]

Not to Chalmer's also.

Utter drivel. It's a naturalistic argument (as Chalmers points out) rather than a magical one, from different premises, arriving at a different conclusion (aside from one, single solitary feature).

To claim they are "exactly the same" is simply untrue - as anybody (who isn't dishonest, stupid, or blinded by faith) can see.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, your post didn't answer the question, even when I managed to decipher it and put in some punctuation to help with the meaning. You think it isn't relevant, but why?

It is relevant to the issue of whether Tyson's theory is a version of the God hypothesis.

Whether it is a naturalistic version of the God hypothesis is IMHO another debate albeit one I am quite happy to have.

[wigginhall]

Lying for Jesus, eh?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It is relevant to the issue of whether Tyson's theory is a version of the God hypothesis.

Whether it is a naturalistic version of the God hypothesis is IMHO another debate albeit one I am quite happy to have.

Why did you doctor the quote?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Utter drivel. It's a naturalistic argument (as Chalmers points out) rather than a magical one, from different premises, arriving at a different conclusion (aside from one, single solitary feature).

To claim they are "exactly the same" is simply untrue - as anybody (who isn't dishonest, stupid, or blinded by faith) can see.

In what way then can he justifiably even refer to ''the God Hypothesis'' unless it had previously been a feature of claims for God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lying for Jesus, eh?

What lie do you think I have made?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Lying for Jesus, eh?

It's worse than that.

First he lied about the Myers argument, so I corrected the lie by quoting Myers' actual argument Vlad had lied about.

Then he ignored the correction, and selected a different part of the Myers blog (the Chalmers quote) and lied about that (by misquoting it).

I then corrected him on the second lie, also by quoting the actual argument.

He then ignored that correction too, and tried to draw an equivalence between his behaviour and mine because I hadn't referenced the Chalmers quote earlier when I undid his initial lie even though it had no relevance to it.

Finally, he's returned to his a priori lie by eliding Myers' (and Chalmers') actual charge about a "naturalistic version" of a god hypothesis into theological god hypothesis which is supernatural.

Now it seems he refuses to tell us why he doctored the Chalmers quote specifically to suit his purpose. If he didn't think the "naturalistic version" part undid him why bother doctoring it? 

Moderator: Content removed

How then should we describe someone who behaves this way?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What lie do you think I have made?

Doctoring the Chalmers quote to suit your purpose was a lie. Why did you do it?

Look, I'll even get you started if that helps: "I Vlad doctored the Chalmers quote because..."