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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which the Lieutenant…

Yet again tries a negative proof fallacy.

Hillside doesn't properly understand the NPF fallacy since my statement is correct, nowhere does the statement suggest that therefore god is immortal.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Its whole basis is technology. I really can't believe I'm having to argue about a speculation, based on a set of (arguable) assumptions and an extrapolation of our technology, being compared with supernatural fairy tales.

It really is a mark of the utter desperation of theist straw clutching.

Technology is just another word for technique. And there's no guarantee that it was done by our technology, whatever that means. Super natural fairy tales is just Horses laugh fallacy.

The straw clutching is all yours since many of the arguments of atheism, and yeh, a central one is being washed down the Riviera including the ''no good'' reason bollocks.

I'm afraid having proposed an intelligent creator in another universe one has put God in heaven effectively since presumably both are as accessible to science.

[Stranger]

No atheism also rejected God, the intelligent creator of the universe and not just the stories about him.

If you apply the term 'god' to the creators of universe simulations, as in the speculation, then it is theism that is flying the white flag. Monotheism is dead, god can die or may actually be dead, god may be a corporation, and so on, and so on...

There is strong evidence that atheists did not understand the purpose of the stories and caricatured religion ignoring ANY argument.

Then do enlighten us...

Tyson is not a modern treatment. More the same treatment out of a different bottle. Poor and desperate analogy on your part.

It's really hard to see how Tyson's speculation could be more different from theistic stories.

I think you misunderstand PZ Myers has argued that this is a form of intelligent design theory.....which I don't think we can deny.

I've never read anything he's said on the subject - I just said that if he (or anybody) takes this seriously as an argument for theism, then he is (they are) a fool.

As for intelligent design, well it might be, it would depend what the simulation was for. There is still bugger all evidence of intelligent design in this universe.

And it still wouldn't be an argument for theism.

An intelligent creator of the universe has been a feature of theology for centuries.

Completely irrelevant - just as miraculous leprosy healing is irrelevant to modern medicine.

A creator not dependent on the universe it creates is part of the definition of the supernatural

It is not part of the definition of natural.

Therefore we cannot assume ordinaryness or mortality in the intelligent creator.

I've already addressed this nonsense.

I'm still utterly gobsmacked that anybody is stupid enough to put this forward as an argument. I really can't think of a more silly argument for theism. Logical fallacies and blatant contradictions are one thing but this really is the depth of total idiocy.

Your desperation is apparent in your ever shifting notions of god. Once again this (natural, quite possibly mortal and/or a corporation, etc.) 'god' is absolutely nothing like the 'god' that you were arguing for on the thread about Feser's argument.

What sort of god do you actually believe in?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As per Stranger above, yes, I think it is desperate, that speculation about aliens is connected with God.   But then Christianity has never been shy of refurbishing the idea - there is the classic view, rather austere, the causeless Cause, 'without body, parts or passions',  then the despotic tribal god of the Hebrew bible (OT), then something more loving in the NT, but still with a thuggish ability.   In modern times, the ground of all being, which came from Tillich, then the God of 'weak theology', who is not omnipotent.   Maybe Vlad's intelligent alien shows the final collapse of theism.

Is there an intelligent alien or God? We may never know scientifically because God is in his heaven and the intelligent alien is in his alternative universe. Hardly the end of theism.

Since intelligent alien could describe a stone age tap dancing pink Gorriloid from proxima centauri I think your language is a bit inadequate Wiggi. 

[wigginhall]

'Theism flying the white flag' - surely this is true if you look at this forum, when you consider AB's bizarre ruminations about free will, and now Vlad's citing of intelligent aliens as gods.   Intellectual suicide?

[Stranger]

The straw clutching is all yours since many of the arguments of atheism, and yeh, a central one is being washed down the Riviera including the ''no good'' reason bollocks.

This is not a good reason - this is beyond silly. It greatly expands the theist range of utter desperation, contradiction, and total absurdity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you apply the term 'god' to the creators of universe simulations, as in the speculation, then it is theism that is flying the white flag. Monotheism is dead, god can die or may actually be dead, god may be a corporation, and so on, and so on...

But we cannot guarantee God's necessary death can we Stranger, We cannot guarantee that it isn't monotheism after all. God may be a corporation, how does that constitute the surrender of theism and the triumph of atheism.

Look, let's agree on the word creator.....The trouble is though that has zero atheist ring to it but a massive theistic tintinnabulation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'Theism flying the white flag' - surely this is true if you look at this forum, when you consider AB's bizarre ruminations about free will, and now Vlad's citing of intelligent aliens as gods.   Intellectual suicide?

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Delusion, as if this forum is representative of anything resembling reality, intellectual acumen or anything not decidedly odd.

[wigginhall]

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Delusion, as if this forum is representative of anything resembling reality, intellectual acumen or anything not decidedly odd.

Well, true, I don't really know if you and AB are representative or not.    Where else would one find something pro-theism which is intellectually serious?   And please don't say Feser.

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon…

No atheism also rejected God, the intelligent creator of the universe and not just the stories about him.

Tries some more reification. He has all his work ahead of him to bridge the gap from story to fact.

There is strong evidence that atheists did not understand the purpose of the stories and caricatured religion ignoring ANY argument.

Gets it badly wrong again – all atheism entails is the falsification of arguments for theism. Any purpose those stories may have is irrelevant.

Tyson is not a modern treatment. More the same treatment out of a different bottle. Poor and desperate analogy on your part.

Fails to grasp that Tyson doesn’t try a “treatment” of any kind. He merely speculates about a creator of a universe. Theism on the other hand asserts as fact the supernatural creator of the universe. 

I think you misunderstand PZ Myers has argued that this is a form of intelligent design theory.....which I don't think we can deny.

Fails to grasp that speculations about the naturalistic intelligent creator of a universe would have bugger all to do with the clams of theism.

The state of play is this.

An intelligent creator of the universe has been a feature of theology for centuries.

Thereby again lies by omission by conveniently excludes the “supernatural” bit…

A creator not dependent on the universe it creates is part of the definition of the supernatural

It is not part of the definition of natural.

Fails to grasp the difference between a universe and the universe, and moreover fails even t attempt to tell us what he means by “supernatural”. 

Therefore we cannot assume ordinaryness or mortality in the intelligent creator.

And concludes with the crash and burn of another non sequitur – the premise has failed, and so there is no “therefore”.

Apart from all that though…

[bluehillside Retd.]

But we cannot guarantee God's necessary death can we Stranger, We cannot guarantee that it isn't monotheism after all. God may be a corporation, how does that constitute the surrender of theism and the triumph of atheism.

In which Lieutenant Pigeon weighs in with the fallacy of the irrelevant truth: we cannot guarantee anything - the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy included. Yet again he fails to grasp (or deliberately gets wrong) that it's not the job of the interlocutor to guarantee that the conjectures of the theist (or of the Tooth Fairyist) are false - all that's required is to demonstrate that the arguments the theist and the Tooth Fairyist attempt for their conjectures are false - a simple matter in both cases.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon weighs in with the fallacy of the irrelevant truth: we cannot guarantee anything -

Nurse! Hillsides gone nuclear.

(orchestra strike up with ''Stop weigh hey Mr Postman'')

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon...

Nurse! Hillsides gone nuclear.

(orchestra strike up with ''Stop weigh hey Mr Postman'')

Fails to grasp that, "But we cannot guarantee God's necessary death can we Stranger, We cannot guarantee that it isn't monotheism after all" is no more helpful to him than, "we cannot guarantee that there isn't an orbiting teapot" is helpful to the orbiting teapotist. Then again, he always was a big fan of the negative proof fallacy. Not being able to demonstrate that something isn't tells you nothing at all about whether that thing is.

How many times does this have to be explained? Why, one might almost think he was deliberately...   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

As per Stranger above, yes, I think it is desperate, that speculation about aliens is connected with God.   But then Christianity has never been shy of refurbishing the idea - there is the classic view, rather austere, the causeless Cause, 'without body, parts or passions',  then the despotic tribal god of the Hebrew bible (OT), then something more loving in the NT, but still with a thuggish ability.   In modern times, the ground of all being, which came from Tillich, then the God of 'weak theology', who is not omnipotent.   Maybe Vlad's intelligent alien shows the final collapse of theism.

Nice post. Has theism collapsed? Should we take the inability of those here to mount an argument for it worthy of the name as indicative of a larger truth, or are there intelligent and nuanced theists about who do have something of substance to say? You'd have to think that the hopeless ones here would have heard of them and brought them to the table if there were such arguments, but then again maybe not.

Does anyone know?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon...

Fails to grasp that, "But we cannot guarantee God's necessary death can we Stranger, We cannot guarantee that it isn't monotheism after all" is no more helpful to him than, "we cannot guarantee that there isn't an orbiting teapot" is helpful to the orbiting teapotist. Then again, he always was a big fan of the negative proof fallacy. Not being able to demonstrate that something isn't tells you nothing at all about whether that thing is.

How many times does this have to be explained? Why, one might almost think he was deliberately...   

Actually Hillside I was responding to someone suggesting Gods mortality and that God might be a committee. So your accusation is misplaced.Again you demonstrate that you dont understand the NPF fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggs,

Nice post. Has theism collapsed? Should we take the inability of those here to mount an argument for it worthy of the name as indicative of a larger truth, or are there intelligent and nuanced theists about who do have something of substance to say? You'd have to think that the hopeless ones here would have heard of them and brought them to the table if there were such arguments, but then again maybe not.

Meeeiouwww!

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon…

Actually Hillside I was responding to someone suggesting Gods mortality and that God might be a committee. So your accusation is misplaced.Again you demonstrate that you dont understand the NPF fallacy.

Still fails to grasp the NPF. When someone says, “You can’t guarantee that X isn’t what I say it is” and thinks he’s making a point about truth of the claim “X”, then he’s committing the NPF. 

Example 1: “I think there’s an orbiting teapot. You can’t prove me wrong, therefore…”

Example 2: “I think there’s a monotheistic god. You can't prove me wrong, therefore…”

[Stranger]

But we cannot guarantee God's necessary death can we Stranger...

What part of "...god can die or may actually be dead..." is confusing you?

...We cannot guarantee that it isn't monotheism after all.

Yes we can, for the simple reason that the speculation isn't any sort of theism.

However, if you're going to base your stupid-pretend-theism on Tyson's science fiction speculation, then it's very unlikely to be mono-stupid-pretend-theism, for the following reasons:

• It is a massive assumption that, in a technological society, just one individual would be responsible for the creation and maintenance of a universe simulation.
  
  
• Even if that were the case, it is another massive assumption that this individual is the only such universe creator (stupid-pretend-god).
  
  
• Even if we accept those two assumptions, the argument about simulated universes would apply equally to this stupid-pretend-god's universe, so our stupid-pretend-god, probably has its own stupid-pretend-god.

What is more, it doesn't seem to be much of a speculation (as we are in that territory), that full universe simulations would be less common than partial ones, for specific purposes. If you or I are in a simulation, we may be the only actual person in it. Even if it's a simulation of the entire human population, much of the rest of the universe (in both time and space) may not be fully simulated. Just how much of a simulation earns its creator the stupid-pretend-god title?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon…

Still fails to grasp the NPF. When someone says, “You can’t guarantee that X isn’t what I say it is” and thinks he’s making a point about truth of the claim “X”, then he’s committing the NPF. 

Example 1: “I think there’s an orbiting teapot. You can’t prove me wrong, therefore…”

Example 2: “I think there’s a monotheistic god. You can't prove me wrong, therefore…”

Well I would have to claim something and I didn't Hillside. It's no good just thinking something. How do you know he's thinking. He has to do it.

Your examples have bugger all to do with a mere observation of non guarantee in somebody's argument.

Suspecting someone of doing it is not the same as them actually doing it. It's a wonder no one comes in and puts you straight on this.That's a bad sign for the forum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What part of "...god can die or may actually be dead..." is confusing you?

None i'm just confused at why you missed of ''or might be immortal.............''

[Stranger]

None i'm just confused at why you missed of ''or might be immortal.............''

The point is that the speculation is specifically about technology extrapolated from our own. There is bugger all in it that even hints at an immortal creator, let alone one with all the omnis.

Just another reason why it's the stupidest argument for god that I've ever encountered, by quite a considerable margin.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What part of "...god can die or may actually be dead..." is confusing you?

Yes we can, for the simple reason that the speculation isn't any sort of theism.

Ah, so now I see the reason for the Dawkinsian drive and new atheist article of faith that you don't have to understand theology......so the wee wizards of antitheism can operate from a position of invincible ignorance.......of course.

Roll credits

Ian Fleming's Never say Never Again      Starring Vlad         Bluehillside as Dr No       Richard Dawkins as Pussy Galore           PZ Myers as Odd Job         Neil De Grasse Tyson as James Bond             Vlad will return

[bluehillside Retd.]

 In which Lieutenant Pigeon…

Well would have to claim something and I didn't Hillside. It's no good just thinking something. How do you know he's thinking. He has to do it.

Tries to back away from his various recent NPF outings – if he didn’t think, “but you can’t disprove X” was relevant to the argument for X, why bother typing it?

Your examples have bugger all to do with a mere observation of non guarantee in somebody's argument.

(Presumably wilfully) misrepresents the point of the examples entirely – non-guarantee being utterly irrelevant in both cases.

Suspecting someone of doing it is not the same as them actually doing it. It's a wonder no one comes in and puts you straight on this.That's a bad sign for the forum.

Desperately tries to back away from the mess he got himself into by denying his mistakes, thereby leaving himself with only two options: 

1. "Yes, I tried the NPF (several times in fact)"; or

2. "Yes, I posted entirely irrelevant comments in the hope that some people would be taken in by their insinuation."

Cue further knocking over of the pieces, flying back to claim “victory” etc…

…or should that be “coo”?   

[Stranger]

Ah, so now I see the reason for the Dawkinsian drive and new atheist article of faith that you don't have to understand theology......so the wee wizards of antitheism can operate from a position of invincible ignorance.......of course.

Before you can appeal to theology, you need to establish a reason to think that there is a god.

In the course of the last few days you have argued for Fesers's 'end of hierarchy' which cannot possibly be like the Christian god, because if it can plan, make moral judgements, offer forgiveness and so on, then the argument for it becomes self-contradictory.

Now you are trying to co-opt an explicitly naturalistic speculation that is extrapolated from our own technology (and a large quantity of assumptions) - which leads to a being, or more likely beings, that are also unlike the Christian god because they would be natural, probably several of them, have their own 'gods', and so on, and so on (see above) - and are definitely nothing at all like Feser's 'end of hierarchy'.

Your desperate straw clutching is a plain as day - you can't even decide what sort of being or abstract idea your 'god' actually is - just any old daft nonsense you imagine you can get away with sticking the label on...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Before you can appeal to theology,.

I think, thanks to De Grasse Tyson, you guys are condemned to reinvent the wheel.