Does antitheism exist?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are the one asserting there are fallacies........Justify.

I have done - over and over and over again. That you always just ignore, misrepresent or throw insult at the justification doesn't change that.

I'll even do it again if you like. You tell me your best argument for "god" that you think to be not fallacious and I will explain to you why it is.

What are you so afraid of?

Surely you must have even one justification for the claim "god" that isn't fallacious mustn't you? Mustn't you?

Something?

Anything? 

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Stop lying. By "never making an argument" you know perfectly well that I mean by the word "argument" the standard definition of that term - ie, a connected series of premises that justify a conclusion. That's the thing you've never done. What you have done though is to rely either just on unqualified assertions, or on statements that fail the basic requirements necessary for an an argument.

So now you've had your dishonest fun, how about that actual argument for "god" - ie, some connected premises that justify the assertion "god"?

Why are you so afraid of even trying to do that?

Sorry, I rarely make arguments.

[Gordon]

Sorry, I rarely make arguments.

No doubt because you are too busy knitting an army of straw men, perhaps.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry, I rarely make arguments.

Not rarely, never.

Assertions, non sequiturs, circular reasoning, ad homs etc and wearily etc on the other hand - boy are there are plenty of those.

Still not to worry oh king of the trolls: why not take this opportunity finally to make an actual, honest-to-goodness argument that satisfies the basic requirements of that term? Surely you must have something in the locker mustn't you?

Anything at all?

Really?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The day irony died. To my best of my recollection, you have never, ever, ever, tried to justify anything you believe with an actual argument - either at all or that isn't obviously flat wrong.

Of all the countless lies you've told here, surely this must be the biggest of all.

So I have never ever ever made an argument and when I did I was flat wrong.

[Stranger]

I do both. I give explanation and recognise my burden although not the burden. If you dont accept those you need to say why not complain that I'm not justifying and you dont have to.

I have explained why none of what you said amounts to an argument. So have other people. Many, many, many times. Anybody who is bringing forward a hypothesis or conjecture has the burden of proof. It really isn't up to other people to say why it's false.

But it is up to people to show them they are wrong. What do you suppose falsifiability is?

Falsifiability is about making testable predictions. You can't falsify something that makes no such predictions. Are you really that out of your depth?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have explained why none of what you said amounts to an argument. So have other people. Many, many, many times. Anybody who is bringing forward a hypothesis or conjecture has the burden of proof. It really isn't up to other people to say why it's false.

Falsifiability is about making testable predictions. You can't falsify something that makes no such predictions. Are you really that out of your depth?

Science IS a process of falsification. Have you not read Popper. It is a far more  effective goal than verification.

[Stranger]

Science IS a process of falsification. Have you not read Popper. It is a far more  effective goal than verification.

Yes, I have read Popper. It looks like you didn't even read my post. Once you produce a god hypothesis that makes testable predictions, we can talk about falsification.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, I have read Popper. It looks like you didn't even read my post. Once you produce a god hypothesis that makes testable predictions, we can talk about falsification.

What's the point of starting arguments for stuff that is unfalsifiable. I.e. infinite universe and God when we can't even agree on the definition of falsifiability?

[Gordon]

What's the point of starting arguments for stuff that is unfalsifiable. I.e. infinite universe and God when we can't even agree on the definition of falsifiability?

Maybe you should start with your definition of 'God', and as part of that explain where within the characteristics of 'God', as defined by you, you think your definition could be falsified.

[Stranger]

What's the point of starting arguments for stuff that is unfalsifiable. I.e. infinite universe and God when we can't even agree on the definition of falsifiability?

What? You're saying that infinite universe and some concept called "God" (that you still haven't properly defined) are unfalsifiable but we don't agree about what falsifiability means? This after you mentioned Popper.

What is it about falsifiability, as introduced by Popper, that you don't agree with? You were the one who mentioned Popper. Falsifying a hypothesis requires that it make testable predictions of the outcomes of experiments or observations.

The concept of falsifiability doesn't change the burden of proof. Nobody is going to go to much trouble (expensive experiments or difficult observations) trying to falsify something if there is no good reason to think it's true in the first place. If something is, by its nature, unfalsifiable, then reasoning is the only way you can make an argument for it. If somebody wants to argue that the universe is infinite or that there is some god or other, it's still up to them to make the case. It's not up to other people to argue the case against it. That's why Tegmark and Penrose went to the trouble of making their arguments. Just like you never, ever do for your "God".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What? You're saying that infinite universe and some concept called "God" (that you still haven't properly defined) are unfalsifiable but we don't agree about what falsifiability means? This after you mentioned Popper.

What is it about falsifiability, as introduced by Popper, that you don't agree with? You were the one who mentioned Popper. Falsifying a hypothesis requires that it make testable predictions of the outcomes of experiments or observations.

The concept of falsifiability doesn't change the burden of proof. Nobody is going to go to much trouble (expensive experiments or difficult observations) trying to falsify something if there is no good reason to think it's true in the first place. If something is, by its nature, unfalsifiable, then reasoning is the only way you can make an argument for it. If somebody wants to argue that the universe is infinite or that there is some god or other, it's still up to them to make the case. It's not up to other people to argue the case against it. That's why Tegmark and Penrose went to the trouble of making their arguments. Just like you never, ever do for your "God".

I do agree with it. You don't agree with my definition and it's place in science. Popper points out that it is a better approach than verification and that means science progresses faster through people finding out that something is incorrect rather than repeated attempts to verify. It is a demarcation If you can possibly falsify it then t is science ifnot it's something else. So it is up to others to point out where a testable is wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It is a demarcation If you can possibly falsify it then t is science ifnot it's something else.

Yes, a guess.

Anyway, any progress on finally making that non-fallacious argument for "god" yet?

I'd have thought that after all this time you'd have had something oven ready, but if not by all means try to think of something from first principles.

What's stopping you?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes, a guess.   

I think proper, disciplined science would just call it unfalsifiable Hillside. But you have form on putting how Hillside feels about things above all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think proper, disciplined science would just call it unfalsifiable Hillside. But you have form on putting how Hillside feels about things above all.

Actually, "proper, disciplined science" would call it "not even wrong" because it's white noise.

Anyway, you were finally going to attempt a non-fallacious argument for "God" I believe. I've got the Twiglets in and a bottle of Tizer chilling in the fridge - go for it!

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Actually, "proper, disciplined science" would call it "not even wrong" because it's white noise.

It has a proper word to describe exactly what it knows about what it cannot know and that is unfalsiable. Science doesn't have rants you see Hillside, it isn't derogatory.

Anyway, you were finally going to attempt a non-fallacious argument for "God" I believe. I've got the Twiglets in and a bottle of Tizer chilling in the fridge - go for it!

Do they still do Tizer? All I can say is, you lucky Bugger.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It has a proper word to describe exactly what it knows about what it cannot know and that is unfalsiable. Science doesn't have rants you see Hillside, it isn't derogatory.

“unfalsiable”?

Anyway, falsifiability is the capacity of a statement or claim to be contradicted by reason or evidence. A statement can falsification-apt but unfalsifiable because there’s insufficient data to falsify it, or it can be falsification-inapt because it’s just white noise. Religious claims are the latter category, and in science they’re referred to as “not even wrong”.

Glad to have cleared that up for you.

Now then, about that non-fallacious argument for “God” you were going to attempt…?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
“unfalsiable”?

Anyway, falsifiability is the capacity of a statement or claim to be contradicted by reason or evidence. A statement can falsification-apt but unfalsifiable because there’s insufficient data to falsify it, or it can be falsification-inapt because it’s just white noise. Religious claims are the latter category, and in science they’re referred to as “not even wrong”.

Glad to have cleared that up for you.

Now then, about that non-fallacious argument for “God” you were going to attempt…?

I'm afraid you couldn't help yourself and added white noise and not even wrong. How unscientific of you but illustrative of how an atheist mind handles science. Atheist imperialism by the looks of it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm afraid you couldn't help yourself and added white noise and not even wrong. How unscientific of you but illustrative of how an atheist mind handles science. Atheist imperialism by the looks of it.

Clueless avoidance noted.

So anyway, about that non-fallacious argument for "God" you were going to make. What's stopping you exactly? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Clueless avoidance noted.

So anyway, about that non-fallacious argument for "God" you were going to make. What's stopping you exactly?

I don't recall going beyond ''I cannot prove God.'' Like you I just do possibilities. I criticise your possibilities....and you criticise me......as it's always been.

Now I think I deserve an example of one of your fallacy uncoverings.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't recall going beyond ''I cannot prove God.''

Yes you have – you claim that what you call “God” is a necessity remember? Not a maybe, not a perhaps, not even just a possibility – it is, according to you, an actual, stone cold, must be true necessity.

Like you I just do possibilities.

First, utter BS (see above), and second I don’t “just do possibilities” at all. I do probabilities too – like gravitational theory or evolutionary theory being more probably true than not. What is this massive blind spot you have re distinguishing between a possibility and a probability? 
 

I criticise your possibilities....and you criticise me......as it's always been.

A Trumpian truth switcheroo, just Trumpian…

Now I think I deserve an example of one of your fallacy uncoverings.

You “deserve” nothing given your abject failure ever to answer a question despite being given countless answers to your own, and in any case every time you’re tried argument by assertion, circular reasoning, the negative proof fallacy (one of your favourites), the ad hom (another of your favourites) and on and wearily on you have been given “uncoverings”. That you just ignore it, lie about it or throw insult at it while you make your escape doesn’t change that. 

You could of course prove wrong my conviction that all you have if fallacies though, at least in principle: all you’d have to do is to frame an argument to justify your belief “God” that isn’t modelled as a fallacy.

Again, what’s stopping you?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes you have – you claim that what you call “God” is a necessity remember? Not a maybe, not a perhaps, not even just a possibility – it is, according to you, an actual, stone cold, must be true necessity.

First, utter BS (see above), and second I don’t “just do possibilities” at all. I do probabilities too – like gravitational theory or evolutionary theory being more probably true than not. What is this massive blind spot you have re distinguishing between a possibility and a probability? 
 
A Trumpian truth switcheroo, just Trumpian…

You “deserve” nothing given your abject failure ever to answer a question despite being given countless answers to your own, and in any case every time you’re tried argument by assertion, circular reasoning, the negative proof fallacy (one of your favourites), the ad hom (another of your favourites) and on and wearily on you have been given “uncoverings”. That you just ignore it, lie about it or throw insult at it while you make your escape doesn’t change that. 

You could of course prove wrong my conviction that all you have if fallacies though, at least in principle: all you’d have to do is to frame an argument to justify your belief “God” that isn’t modelled as a fallacy.

Again, what’s stopping you?   

If anyone can find the necessity, and I don't mean abstract one's that generate nothing, that isn't God then my goose is cooked. ''No such thing as a necessity'' is just bollocks as far as I am concerned.

That people want to junk necessity, find multiverses etc just shows how desperate some atheists can get. Consciously or unconsciously I think they suspect what the necessity is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You “deserve” nothing given your abject failure ever to answer a question despite being given countless answers to your own, and in any case every time you’re tried argument by assertion, circular reasoning, the negative proof fallacy (one of your favourites), the ad hom (another of your favourites) and on and wearily on you have been given “uncoverings   

Blimey Hillside. At least the police give times and dates and descriptions of events when reading a charge sheet.

Your doing it again......just listing fallacies. specific examples please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

 
A Trumpian truth switcheroo, just Trumpian…
   

Bluehillside MAGA.......Make atheism grate again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It’s OK old son, you can say it. Really you can. Look, I’ll even say it for you if that helps:

“I Vlad cannot make a case to justify my belief “God” that isn’t constructed as a fallacy.”

There you go. All done now. Doesn’t that feel so much better though? Once you’ve got your breath back there’s tea and biscuits waiting outside (I've ordered garibaldis especially). Remember though, if ever the temptation to slip back into fallacy, casuistry, diversionary tactics etc come back just keep  saying it to yourself over and over again until it goes away:

“I Vlad cannot make a case to justify my belief “God” that isn’t constructed as a fallacy.”

“I Vlad cannot make a case to justify my belief “God” that isn’t constructed as a fallacy.”

“I Vlad cannot make a case to justify my belief “God” that isn’t constructed as a fallacy.”

“I Vlad...”

You’re most welcome, and welcome too to rationality. Doesn’t the world seem a better place already?