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

[Stranger]

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

Trying to co-opt his speculation for theism changes nothing except the incredible depths of absurdity to which theists are prepared to sink.

In any event, your last couple of posts suggest that you aren't even pretending to answer the points put to you any more...

[Maeght]

 Do you think the fine detail in the gospels could be made up or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Trying to co-opt his speculation for theism changes nothing except the incredible depths of absurdity to which theists are prepared to sink.

His speculation was co opted centuries ago.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Lieutenant Pigeon,

His speculation was co opted centuries ago.

What do you get out of telling lies here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lieutenant Pigeon,

What do you get out of telling lies here?

The idea of an intelligent creator of the universe has been around in theology and general belief for centuries.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Lieutenant Pigeon,

The idea of an intelligent creator of the universe has been around in theology and general belief for centuries.

You've had the fundamental qualitative differences between the claims of theism and DeGrasse's speculation explained to you many times now. What do you get out of continuing to lie about it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lieutenant Pigeon,

You've had the fundamental qualitative differences between the claims of theism and DeGrasse's speculation explained to you many times now. What do you get out of continuing to lie about it?

I'm sorry you'll have to talk to my agent.......Dr PZ Myers.

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon…

I'm sorry you'll have to talk to my agent.......Dr PZ Myers.

...fails to notice that “his agent” actually argues that NdGT’s mistake is to risk looking as stupid as theology. Here in fact:

“I also have to wonder if this is a general property of physicists, that they think they know so much that the only people they can imagine having a conversation about unverifiable, untestable, undetectable, hypothetical, imaginary foundational properties of the universe is a group of their fellow physicists (with one token philosopher).

Congratulations. They’ve discovered that they have something in common with theologians.”

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/

Myers may or may not be right about that (and he’s attacking NdGT’s reasoning in any case, not his conclusions - which is where the Lieutenant careers off the rails), but either way it’s hardly a prop for theism.

Epic fail. Just epic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Lieutenant Pigeon…

...fails to notice that “his agent” actually argues that NdGT’s mistake is to risk looking as stupid as theology. Here in fact:

“I also have to wonder if this is a general property of physicists, that they think they know so much that the only people they can imagine having a conversation about unverifiable, untestable, undetectable, hypothetical, imaginary foundational properties of the universe is a group of their fellow physicists (with one token philosopher).

Wow is this an atheist on agnostic or a biologist on Physicist thing? Is there mud involved?

I think Myers is saying they should have checked this out with New Atheist Central aka himself presumably.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wow is this an atheist on agnostic or a biologist on Physicist thing? Is there mud involved?

In which the Vladatstrophe completely ignores his disastrous effort to recruit PZ Myers now he’s realised that he’s actually his worst enemy. Here it is a again then so he can ignore it all over again:

“In which Lieutenant Pigeon…

...fails to notice that “his agent” actually argues that NdGT’s mistake is to risk looking as stupid as theology. Here in fact:

“I also have to wonder if this is a general property of physicists, that they think they know so much that the only people they can imagine having a conversation about unverifiable, untestable, undetectable, hypothetical, imaginary foundational properties of the universe is a group of their fellow physicists (with one token philosopher).

Congratulations. They’ve discovered that they have something in common with theologians.”

I think Myers is saying they should have checked this out with New Atheist Central aka himself presumably.

And then again fails to notice that what P Z Myers actually argued was that, by lapsing into bad reasoning, NdGT risks putting himself in the same camp as those other bad reasoners the theologians. Some "agent" eh?

Oh, and he also fails to notice that where NdGT’s bad thinking got him is still qualitatively different from where the bad reasoning of theologians gets them.

Apart from all that though…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hillside

Your trying to propose that PZ Myers is not equating NDG's with theology?, and yet the title of the very blog you quote from is:
''We have a term for that, Neil deGrasse Tyson: Intelligent Design''. Later on he refers to the De grasse Tyson speculationism as ''creationism''.
Also I think you think I should be bothered with what PZ Myers reckons on theology. Why start now>

.

[Stranger]

Your trying to propose that PZ Myers is not equating NDG's with theology?

I've just read this blog post, it really is rather amusing and no, it is not equating the two. He's actually saying that NdGT's speculation is just as bad as theology - bluehillside provided the quote in his last post (and you ignored it).

So very far from saying that NdGT has provided a reason to take the idea of a god seriously, he's saying that NdGT's arguments (for something different to god) are similarly bad arguments to those used for theism.

None of which changes the fact that NdGT is not talking about god(s).
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've just read this blog post, it really is rather amusing and no, it is not equating the two. He's actually saying that NdGT's speculation is just as bad as theology - bluehillside provided the quote in his last post (and you ignored it).

So very far from saying that NdGT has provided a reason to take the idea of a god seriously, he's saying that NdGT's arguments (for something different to god) are similarly bad arguments to those used for theism.

None of which changes the fact that NdGT is not talking about god(s).

Firstly There is the title of the piece
''We have a term for that, Neil deGrasse Tyson: Intelligent Design''.
It strains credibility that he is not using that in the usual sense it is used in Myer's circle.

Then he states Chalmers acknowledgement that it is a 'version of the God hypothesis. Suggesting he thinks the God hypothesis was already out there.

Then comes this after a quote of what Tyson said
''That really is an intelligent design creationism argument:''

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter if Tyson didn't think he was givng the God hypothesis. He doesn't need to think about it he just gave it, an agnostic unencumbered by new atheist dogma.

the professional inthe the house, Chalmers , stated that it is the God hypothesis and Myers quotes him.


 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladastrophe,

Your trying to propose that PZ Myers is not equating NDG's with theology?

I’m not just proposing it, he didn’t do it. What he actually did (as you’d know if you bothered dealing with the quote I gave you) is to point out that bad thinking is also the province of theologians.

…and yet the title of the very blog you quote from is:

''We have a term for that, Neil deGrasse Tyson: Intelligent Design''.

Yes it is – what point do you think you’re making? At no point does he suggest that NdGT holds the same opinions about evolution that creationists hold – far from it. He could just as well have said “flat earthers”, and in any case he refers more generally in his conclusion to theologians (again, try reading the quote). What he does say though is that bad thinking leads to bad answers – whether those bad answers are those of NdGT or the very different bad answers of theologians doesn’t matter for his purpose. 

Later on he refers to the De grasse Tyson speculationism as ''creationism''.

Stop lying. What he actually says is: “That really is an intelligent design creationism argument: I can imagine a superior being outside our universe, therefore…”

(https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/#ixzz562J3vDU6)

Note the use of “argument” there, not “conclusion”. 

Also I think you think I should be bothered with what PZ Myers reckons on theology. Why start now>

Nope, no idea. Perhaps it meant something in your head when you typed it?

So why not, after all these years and thousands of mistakes and misrepresentations, finally man up and actually say: “OK, I screwed up there. Not for one moment does Myers suggest that NdGT has the same opinions as those of theologians (let alone those of creationists) and I now understand that he was merely making an analogy about bad reasoning. Sorry about that.”?   

You never know, it might even be good for your “soul”…

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladastrophe,

Firstly There is the title of the piece
''We have a term for that, Neil deGrasse Tyson: Intelligent Design''.
It strains credibility that he is not using that in the usual sense it is used in Myer's circle.

Just to note too that, if you insist on trying to fool people into thinking that the use of "Intelligent Design" here is significant then you shoot yourself in the foot (again). Your (ludicrous) claim is that NdGT's speculation leads to the assertions of theologians. If you now want to insinuate that it also leads to the assertions of creationism, then you have to paint NdGT as an evolution denier too.

Is that really what you want to say? 

Perhaps is you stuck to what Myers actually says rather than your misrepresentation of it you'd be on safer ground, albeit that your basic nonsense (that NdGT is a theist) collapses.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladastrophe,

Just to note too that, if you insist on trying to fool people into thinking that the use of "Intelligent Design" here is significant then you shoot yourself in the foot (again). Your (ludicrous) claim is that NdGT's speculation leads to the assertions of theologians. If you now want to insinuate that it also leads to the assertions of creationism, then you have to paint NdGT as an evolution denier too.

Is that really what you want to say? 

Perhaps is you stuck to what Myers actually says rather than your misrepresentation of it you'd be on safer ground, albeit that your basic nonsense (that NdGT is a theist) collapses.

Hmmm The old ploy ''I'm not talking about that intelligent design''
You don.t have to be an evolution denier to suggest interventionist design Hillside, I think we've all read the literature.....or do have I the advantage over you here?

Bravely you did give the reference so it can be read albeit on this forum by people like yourself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladastrophe,

Hmmm The old ploy ''I'm not talking about that intelligent design''
You don.t have to be an evolution denier to suggest interventionist design Hillside, I think we've all read the literature.....or do have I the advantage over you here?

Bravely you did give the reference so it can be read albeit on this forum by people like yourself.

But you do to be a creationist. Look, of course it's "that intelligent design" but Myers limits himself to the fact of poor reasoning on which creationists (and theologians generally) rely to draw his analogy with the poor reasoning on which NdGT relies. He makes no reference whatever to the conclusions of any of them being the same, however much you might want to lie about that.

So having been caught out in another lie and refused to apologise for it, again - what exactly do you get from telling lies on a message board? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladastrophe,

But you do to be a creationist. Look, of course it's "that intelligent design" but Myers limits himself to the fact of poor reasoning on which creationists (and theologians generally) rely to draw his analogy with the poor reasoning on which NdGT relies. He makes no reference whatever to the conclusions of any of them being the same, however much you might want to lie about that.

So having been caught out in another lie and refused to apologise for it, again - what exactly do you get from telling lies on a message board?

I have already introduced where Myers talks about creationism and Tyson's speculation and people can read that for themselves.

Here it is again:

Then comes this after a quote of what Tyson said

''That really is an intelligent design creationism argument:''

And then of course Myers quotes Chalmers as saying that the Tyson speculation is ''the God hypothesis.''

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladastrophe,

I have already introduced where Myers talks about creationism and Tyson's speculation and people can read that for themselves.

At which time they’ll see where you’ve gone wrong (or just lied) again.

Here it is again:

Then comes this after a quote of what Tyson said

''That really is an intelligent design creationism argument:''

Which part of “argument” rather than “conclusion” is confusing you?

And then of course Myers quotes Chalmers as saying that the Tyson speculation is ''the God hypothesis.''

Your problem with being a flat out liar is that you’re not very good at it – not least because your lies are so readily discoverable.

Here’s what Myers actually says when he cites Chalmers:

“David Chalmers, the philosopher, also points out that the simulation hypothesis is a naturalistic version of the god hypothesis, that claiming the universe is a simulation implies that there is a great Simulator, “someone” who built this code with some intent.”

( https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/#ixzz562oFiPVH )

Can you see that “naturalistic version of” there? Can you?

So Chalmers doesn’t say that the NdGT speculation “is the God Hypothesis” at all as you just misquoted does he? What he actually says is that it’s “a naturalistic version” of it – ie, precisely not the same thing as the claim made by theologians.

Again, what exactly do you get from turning up here to tell lies?   

[Stranger]

And then of course Myers quotes Chalmers as saying that the Tyson speculation is ''the God hypothesis.''

No, he does not. What he says is that "the simulation hypothesis is a naturalistic version of the god hypothesis" [my emphasis] However, the term 'hypothesis' is obviously not being used in the scientific sense, since neither can be tested or falsified.

The whole point of the blog post is to point out that the arguments for the simulated universe speculation are just as bad (in many respects) as the arguments for god.

I have no idea why you are pretending it is anything else; anybody can read it and see you are wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

No, he does not. What he says is that "the simulation hypothesis is a naturalistic version of the god hypothesis" [my emphasis] However, the term 'hypothesis' is obviously not being used in the scientific sense, since neither can be tested or falsified.

The whole point of the blog post is to point out that the arguments for the simulated universe speculation are just as bad (in many respects) as the arguments for god.

I have no idea why you are pretending it is anything else; anybody can read it and see you are wrong.

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.   

[Maeght]

Perhaps we should ask him why he left out the 'naturalistic version' bit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladastrophe,

At which time they’ll see where you’ve gone wrong (or just lied) again.

Which part of “argument” rather than “conclusion” is confusing you?

Your problem with being a flat out liar is that you’re not very good at it – not least because your lies are so readily discoverable.

Here’s what Myers actually says when he cites Chalmers:

“David Chalmers, the philosopher, also points out that the simulation hypothesis is a naturalistic version of the god hypothesis, that claiming the universe is a simulation implies that there is a great Simulator, “someone” who built this code with some intent.”

( https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/#ixzz562oFiPVH )

Can you see that “naturalistic version of” there? Can you?
   

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.
 

[Maeght]

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.

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

[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's good to see you guys acknowledging that Chalmers did talk about a God hypothesis that Tyson is a recent version.

Putting naturalistic in doesn't change that it is a version of the God Hypothesis.

That it is a naturalistic version of the God hypothesis is debateable.

How does it fit in with the claims, for instance, that.

1:Transcendence and an outside the universe are supernatural ideas

2:There is nothing outside the universe and thinking there is a recipe for intellectual chaos.......for instance since the intelligent creator would be transcendent of.

3: Myers complaint that it is intelligent design.....which if you don't believe it doesn't preclude intelligent design.

The point is whether it is naturalistic or not it is still a version of the God hypothesis. according to Chalmers.