Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[Stranger]

or as opposed to taking philosophical naturalism seriously.

No.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That might be true from a philosophical naturalists perspective.
But why should the rest of us buy it?

Even allowing for your redefinition of the term “philosophical naturalism”, have you ever come across anyone who actually argues for it? Fun as it is watching you tilt at a windmill entirely of your own making, what’s the point of it?

That might be true from a philosophical naturalists perspective.
But why should the rest of us buy it?

If by “it” you also mean your personal redefinition of the term, no-one I know of does “buy it”. Or propose it.

God has been described as the creator and maintainer of the universe whose existence is independent of it's creation.

“God” has been described as many things, but by all means throw that one into the mix if you want to.

You have been noted as finding simulated universe reasonable and therefore you logically have to find God reasonable.

It’s “plausible” rather than “reasonable”, and you still fundamentally fail to understand that a simulated universe would not have to entail the notion that everything that could possibly be actually is. It requires no such thing, and if you think it does then you'd have to include leprechauns too. So...? 

And Leprechauns have erroneously been likened to God having all his powers when I have informed them that they are small people dressed in green

Can you find an example of anyone ever doing that, or is it just another of your straw men? What actually happens of course is entirely different from that – it’s the reductio ad absurdum, something you’ve either never grasped or never been honest about.

Poor analogy since Leprechauns are small people dressed in green…

And needles and haystacks are different objects too. “God” and leprechauns are still a perfectly good analogy though when the point of the analogy is that the same argument can lead equally to either conclusion.
 

…and Stranger at one time thought that proposing a creator of the universe could, if shaved of ''religion'', be a reasonable proposition.

No, so far as I recall he was correcting you about your conjecture “creator” leading to deism but not to theism, which requires many more assumptions.

He was unable to say why we should shave away religion nor why being a creator of the universe was not itself a religious notion.

No he wasn’t, and you should “shave away religion” when your argument (even if it wasn’t wrong) would lead to deism but not to theism.

A lie doesn’t become less of a lie because you repeat it. You do know that right?   

[Nearly Sane]

or as opposed to taking philosophical naturalism seriously.

Random drivel

[Nearly Sane]

And Leprechauns have erroneously been likened to God having all his powers when I have informed them that they are small people dressed in green
 Poor analogy since Leprechauns are small people dressed in green and Stranger at one time thought that proposing a creator of the universe could, if shaved of ''religion'', be a reasonable proposition. He was unable to say why we should shave away religion nor why being a creator of the universe was not itself a religious notion.

Vacuous drivel

[jeremyp]

That might be true from a philosophical naturalists perspective.
But why should the rest of us buy it?

Who said anything about philosophical naturalism. This is a case of balance of probabilities. The most obvious reason why Evidence for your god does it exist is that your god doesn’t exist.

[Gordon]

And Leprechauns have erroneously been likened to God having all his powers when I have informed them that they are small people dressed in green
 Poor analogy since Leprechauns are small people dressed in green and Stranger at one time thought that proposing a creator of the universe could, if shaved of ''religion'', be a reasonable proposition. He was unable to say why we should shave away religion nor why being a creator of the universe was not itself a religious notion.

Vlad

You have all the subtlety of a flying mallet (not to mention the insight).

[Outrider]

And Leprechauns have erroneously been likened to God having all his powers when I have informed them that they are small people dressed in green

That's not the Leprechauns I believe in - heretic!  Beardy, cloud-dwelling white men - no evidence. Leprechauns - rainbows! Case closed...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not the Leprechauns I believe in - heretic!  Beardy, cloud-dwelling white men - no evidence. Leprechauns - rainbows! Case closed...

O.

You'd be talking about the Donegal Leprechauns there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who said anything about philosophical naturalism. This is a case of balance of probabilities. The most obvious reason why Evidence for your god does it exist is that your god doesn’t exist.

I see no evidence for philosophical naturalism, so by your own logic that cannot be, but you are arguing from it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Even allowing for your redefinition of the term “philosophical naturalism”, have you ever come across anyone who actually argues for it? Fun as it is watching you tilt at a windmill entirely of your own making, what’s the point of it?

People frequently argue from it amongst other things like scientism.

No he wasn’t, and you should “shave away religion” when your argument (even if it wasn’t wrong) would lead to deism but not to theism.

First of all I have to ask how deism helps atheism.
Secondly, the problem with deism is it requires faith that God isn't going ever to intervene in the universe he has created. That he is going to remain true to expectation that he has finally pissed off and is no longer concerned with us and we need not be about him? Where do these guarantees come from? The wishful thinking of deists?

[Stranger]

I see no evidence for philosophical naturalism, so by your own logic that cannot be, but you are arguing from it.

People frequently argue from it amongst other things like scientism.

You keep on asserting this about people's arguments. Where is your evidence? What part of any argument here relies on philosophical naturalism?

[Outrider]

You'd be talking about the Donegal Leprechauns there.

Splitter!

[Sebastian Toe]

Secondly, the problem with deism is it requires faith that God isn't going ever to intervene in the universe he has created. That he is going to remain true to expectation that he has finally pissed off and is no longer concerned with us and we need not be about him? Where do these guarantees come from? The wishful thinking of deists?

Do I detect a faint whiff of No true Scotsman in the air?

[Outrider]

First of all I have to ask how deism helps atheism.

Given there still isn't a coherent definition or argument for any form of deity, what makes you think atheism needs any help?

Secondly, the problem with deism is it requires faith that God isn't going ever to intervene in the universe he has created.

No, the problem with deism is that there's no evidence for the deity it presumes - it resolves many of the issues that things like the 'Problem of Evil' raise with the concept of a benevolent monotheistic deity.

That he is going to remain true to expectation that he has finally pissed off and is no longer concerned with us and we need not be about him?

Deism doesn't require that this will continue, it merely suggests that it's been the case until now.

O.
[/quote]

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So you’ve made a string of mistakes and misrepresentations, I’ve corrected you on them, you’ve ignored the corrections and moved straight on to further mistakes and misrepresentations. ‘twas ever thus I guess, but why do you bother with it?

Oh well…

People frequently argue from it amongst other things like scientism.

Which people? I’ve never encountered one, certainly not here. Have you? Really though?

Incidentally, the term you’re actually trying to describe here is physicalism – “….the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical.” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/)

First of all I have to ask how deism helps atheism.

As no-one has suggested that it does, why? The cosmological arguments doesn’t justify deism, but is even less adequate for theism. So what?

Secondly, the problem with deism is it requires faith that God isn't going ever to intervene in the universe he has created. That he is going to remain true to expectation that he has finally pissed off and is no longer concerned with us and we need not be about him? Where do these guarantees come from? The wishful thinking of deists?

Bizarre. Is the problem for invisible leprechaunism that it requires faith that leprechauns will never be seen leaving pots of gold at the ends of rainbows? No part of deism requires that theism be not true – it’s just a conclusion that says, “on the basis of the available arguments, this is all that can be said about a deity”. That those arguments are wrong even for that purpose is a different matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So you’ve made a string of mistakes and misrepresentations, I’ve corrected you on them, you’ve ignored the corrections and moved straight on to further mistakes and misrepresentations. ‘twas ever thus I guess, but why do you bother with it?

Oh well…

Which people? I’ve never encountered one, certainly not here. Have you? Really though?

Incidentally, the term you’re actually trying to describe here is physicalism – “….the thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical.” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/)

As no-one has suggested that it does, why? The cosmological arguments doesn’t justify deism, but is even less adequate for theism. So what?

Bizarre. Is the problem for invisible leprechaunism that it requires faith that leprechauns will never be seen leaving pots of gold at the ends of rainbows? No part of deism requires that theism be not true – it’s just a conclusion that says, “on the basis of the available arguments, this is all that can be said about a deity”. That those arguments are wrong even for that purpose is a different matter.

You have listed arguments that are wrong but these are by and large arguments that no one makes NPF....In fact you are notorious for it but nobody makes the arguments you claim namely ''you can't....therefore arguments.

Your modus though I would describe as horse laugh arguments.

I've never seen a good argument for contingency without necessity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You have listed arguments that are wrong but these are by and large arguments that no one makes NPF....In fact you are notorious for it but nobody makes the arguments you claim namely ''you can't....therefore arguments.

To the contrary, the NPF, the argumentum ad consequentiam, the ad hom, the post hoc ergo proper hoc, the argument by assertion, shifting the burden of proof, the straw man, the etc are regularly trotted out here, not least by you. Each time I correct you though you just ignore the correction, go quiet for a bit and then select from exactly the same suite of fallacies. Why?

Your modus though I would describe as horse laugh arguments.

And to prove my point, there you go again with a straw man. I’ve explained to you several times that the “horse laugh” fallacy and the reductio ad absurdum are not the same thing, and that misdescribing the latter as the former is a straw man. Yet you continue to do it. Why? 

I've never seen a good argument for contingency without necessity.

Only the first five words of the sentence were necessary, only maybe swap “seen” for “made”.

[Owlswing]

Vlad,

So you’ve made a string of mistakes and misrepresentations, I’ve corrected you on them, you’ve ignored the corrections and moved straight on to further mistakes and misrepresentations. ‘twas ever thus I guess, but why do you bother with it?

Because it allows him to have people like you running around like headless chickens explaining to him something upon which all his posts are based in order to get a reaction from other, non Christian, posters.

With me, he just corrects my typing mistakes!

[jeremyp]

I see no evidence for philosophical naturalism, so by your own logic that cannot be, but you are arguing from it.

You would do well to engage with people’s arguments rather than obsessing about what labels you can apply.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s philosophical naturalism or not, the fact is there’s no evidence that God exists in spite of the fact that theists have been looking for it for centuries. How many years are you going to search your house without finding evidence of any elephants do you need to do before you conclude there are no elephants in your house?

[Nearly Sane]

You would do well to engage with people’s arguments rather than obsessing about what labels you can apply.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s philosophical naturalism or not, the fact is there’s no evidence that God exists in spite of the fact that theists have been looking for it for centuries. How many years are you going to search your house without finding evidence of any elephants do you need to do before you conclude there are no elephants in your house?

Oddly Vlad decides leprechauns do not exist by using induction. And he does that in a leprechaunfree absolute. He then misrepresents other's positions as if they are doing the same but that is just Vlad's lying laid over his ineptitude.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You would do well to engage with people’s arguments rather than obsessing about what labels you can apply.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s philosophical naturalism or not, the fact is there’s no evidence that God exists in spite of the fact that theists have been looking for it for centuries. How many years are you going to search your house without finding evidence of any elephants do you need to do before you conclude there are no elephants in your house?

The impulse not to be labelled can be down to guilt or shame or evasion or seeing oneself as the scientist and not really part of what you are observing. So much for, then, 'engaging' with others.

To be fair the picture you paint of religion scrabbling to satisfy science for thousands of years isn't accurate.
Religion has largely been doing it's own thing which isn't science rather a philosophical, spiritual and moral undertaking things which science doesn't do or hasn't been successful in because basically it's physics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



And to prove my point, there you go again with a straw man. I’ve explained to you several times that the “horse laugh” fallacy and the reductio ad absurdum are not the same thing, and that misdescribing the latter as the former is a straw man. Yet you continue to do it. Why? 

I've never used the term reduction ad absurdum. All I've ever said is that your argument is just ridicule . I have switched to using the term Horse laugh fallacy because you earlier confused argument by ridicule with reduction ad absurdum......once again a term I've never used.

You indulge in the old oriental art of Pistake( pronounced piss take ) In other words you are making a great Piss take.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The impulse not to be labelled can be down to guilt or shame or evasion or seeing oneself as the scientist and not really part of what you are observing. So much for, then, 'engaging' with others.

Bizarre reply. What you were actually asked to do was to engage with the arguments you’re given rather than ignore them, lie about them or distract from them. That science endeavours to be objective has nothing whatever to do with an observation about your behaviour here.

To be fair the picture you paint of religion scrabbling to satisfy science for thousands of years isn't accurate.

He didn’t say that at all. What he actually said was, “the fact is there’s no evidence that God exists in spite of the fact that theists have been looking for it for centuries”. See, all he referred to was evidence, not “scrabbling to satisfy science” at all.

Perhaps if you addressed his charge re your failure to engage with what’s being said you wouldn’t keep resorting to stunts like this?
 

Religion has largely been doing it's own thing which isn't science rather a philosophical, spiritual and moral undertaking things which science doesn't do or hasn't been successful in because basically it's physics.

And yet we see many times theists of various stripes trying to pray in aid science to support their faith beliefs. You for example often reference your (utter misunderstanding of) the multiverse conjecture as if that in some way validates your claims and assertions about the god in which you happen to believe. Why?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I've never used the term reduction ad absurdum.

It’s “reductio”, and I know you haven’t – that’s the problem. The argument you’re actually given though is in the form of a reductio ad absurdum, for example “any argument that leads equally to god and to leprechauns is probably a bad argument”. It’s a perfectly legitimate piece of rhetorical reasoning, whether or not you grasp the point of it.   

All I've ever said is that your argument is just ridicule . I have switched to using the term Horse laugh fallacy because you earlier confused argument by ridicule with reduction ad absurdum......once again a term I've never used.

Yes you have, and “All I've ever said is that your argument is just ridicule” is precisely the fuck up you keep making.

You indulge in the old oriental art of Pistake( pronounced piss take ) In other words you are making a great Piss take.

Perhaps if you bothered to look up what "reductio ad absurdum" means you wouldn’t keep getting it so badly wrong? Look, I’ll even help you:

In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for '"reduction to absurdity"'), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is a form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2] It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,[3] or to prove a statement by showing that if it were false, then the result would be absurd or impossible.[4][5] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. 'demonstration to the impossible', 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.[6]

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)

You're welcome.

[jeremyp]

The impulse not to be labelled can be down to guilt or shame or evasion or seeing oneself as the scientist and not really part of what you are observing. So much for, then, 'engaging' with others.

To be fair the picture you paint of religion scrabbling to satisfy science for thousands of years isn't accurate.
Religion has largely been doing it's own thing which isn't science rather a philosophical, spiritual and moral undertaking things which science doesn't do or hasn't been successful in because basically it's physics.

I said religionists have been looking for evidence for centuries not trying to satisfy science for thousands of years. Science does finding about reality. If religion has been doing something that isn’t finding out about reality, I’m fine with that, but you can’t then claim your god is part of reality, at least not with any degree of honesty.