Does antitheism exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I wondered whether you’d go down your usual route of utter irrelevance so as to avoid the argument, and sure enough you didn’t disappoint. The characteristics of leprechauns or of “God” have absolutely nothing to do with the point of the argument, which I set out for you only recently (Reply 976). Try reading it for comprehension this time – it’s perfectly clear:

 

Thus in the absence of non-fallacious arguments for “God”, proceeding as if there are no gods while simultaneously accepting gods as an unfalsifiable possibility (among countless other unfalsifiable possibilities) is not only logically consistent but unavoidable. 
What’s not to “coco” about that?
   

Since Gordon's contention that I live my life according to not having a reasonable reason to believe in Leprechauns is undermined by the possibility of my life style not changing were there to be Leprechauns shows Gordon's contention to be false. Whether one would or could live with the knowledge of God and it not change their lifestyles I'm not sure. Citing not recieving reason to change one's point of view to accommodate God is no explanation for why you hold that point of view before hand. It also doesn't explain the vehemence at which, whatever your point of view is, is defended to the point where you choose to camouflage it. In other words I don't know what it is but I know it isn't God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

In reply 1001 Stranger said:

No matter how many times you repeat this drivel, it will remain drivel. Nobody is making the claim "God does not exist", it's not even a meaningful statement because of the ambiguity of the term "God".

In your reply to that post (Reply 1005) you said:

Again.......Why have you settled on God does not exist as the status quo.

(Emphases in bold added to both).

Why do you do this? Why do you claim people have said the exact opposite of what they’ve actually said, if not then only to attack the straw man that’s entirely of your own making?

Can you not read?

Can you read but you can't comprehend even very plainly written sentences?

Can you both read and comprehendbut you just can't help lying?

What?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since Gordon's contention that I live my life according to not having a reasonable reason to believe in Leprechauns is undermined by the possibility of my life style not changing were there to be Leprechauns shows Gordon's contention to be false. Whether one would or could live with the knowledge of God and it not change their lifestyles I'm not sure. Citing not recieving reason to change one's point of view to accommodate God is no explanation for why you hold that point of view before hand. It also doesn't explain the vehemence at which, whatever your point of view is, is defended to the point where you choose to camouflage it. In other words I don't know what it is but I know it isn't God.

Utter and irrelevant gibberish. Try again:

“X does not exist” is a categorical statement about the non/existence of something. The statement stands only in relation to that non/existence.
 
“I have no good reason to believe that X exists” on the other hand makes no reference to the truth or otherwise of the claim, but only to the arguments used to justify it. It stands independently of whether or not X exists.

Atheism requires the latter, but not the former…

Thus in the absence of non-fallacious arguments for “God”, proceeding as if there are no gods while simultaneously accepting gods as an unfalsifiable possibility (among countless other unfalsifiable possibilities) is not only logically consistent but unavoidable.

What’s not to “coco” about that?

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Utter and irrelevant gibberish. Try again:

“X does not exist” is a categorical statement about the non/existence of something. The statement stands only in relation to that non/existence.
 
“I have no good reason to believe that X exists” on the other hand makes no reference to the truth or otherwise of the claim, but only to the arguments used to justify it.

And to the person making the judgment on good reason. But that still doesn't explain the point of view held by that person into which God cannot be subsequently incorporated in other words that persons status quo.

In conversion something makes the status quo no longer viable there can be defence of the status quo but eventually this breaks down in conversion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thus in the absence of non-fallacious arguments for “God”, proceeding as if there are no gods while simultaneously accepting gods as an unfalsifiable possibility (among countless other unfalsifiable possibilities) is not only logically consistent but unavoidable.

It seems to me that when it comes to a point of view of how reality is we can only go to unfalsifiable possibilities. Since the expectation is that those with some kind of belief have to give account and justify. Why are you not providing for your belief in an unfalsifiable possibility?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And to the person making the judgment on good reason.

If someone thinks he has good reason to justify his belief “god” (or his belief leprechauns) and he wants others to take the claim seriously then making those arguments would be a good way to discharge the burden of proof. So far at least all you’ve managed is either no argument at all (ie, unqualified assertions) or fallacious attempts at arguments, so there’s no reason for anyone to take your faith belief seriously.

But that still doesn't explain the point of view held by that person into which God cannot be subsequently incorporated in other words that persons status quo.

In conversion something makes the status quo no longer viable there can be defence of the status quo but eventually this breaks down in conversion.

You sound as though you’re attempting a thought here, but it’s so badly worded that it’s incomprehensible. What are you even trying to say?

Anyway, as you've just ignored the question again can you now grasp that when someone has no good reasons to accept the claim "X exists" it’s a consistent position to have no certain view on X’s non-/existence, but at the same time to proceed as if it doesn’t exist – and that when X is called “God” that’s atheism?

[Outrider]

It seems to me that when it comes to a point of view of how reality is we can only go to unfalsifiable possibilities.

That's a distinct possibility.

Since the expectation is that those with some kind of belief have to give account and justify.

That seems reasonable.

Why are you not providing for your belief in an unfalsifiable possibility?

I suspect for the same reason I'm not - I'm not saying this is true, my answer to 'how does this work?' is that I don't know.  My answer to 'how can you argue with my contention that it must be gods' is to show other viable possibilities.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It seems to me that when it comes to a point of view of how reality is we can only go to unfalsifiable possibilities.

Clearly wrong. If we could “only go to unfalsifiable possibilities” any unfalsifiable possibility would be as valid as any other. That would be chaotic. What we actually do is to use tools and methods to convert some of those possibilities to functional probabilities.

And if you don’t like the tools and methods we have because they’re empirical, then suggest some different ones of your own to distinguish your claims from just guessing (you know, the question you always run away from).

Since the expectation is that those with some kind of belief have to give account and justify.

Yes, it’s called the burden of proof – that basic principle that you keep ignoring or abusing.

Why are you not providing for your belief in an unfalsifiable possibility?

Because they’re not unfalsifiable at all. You’re doing a Stephen Laws “going nuclear” here – “OK, even if I’m guessing so are you so our guesses are equal”. It’s utter bollocks for reasons that have been explained to you many times already: we have methods to sift the more probably true from the more probably not true, which I why both of us can distinguish with reasonable facility between the claims “I have a pet dog” and "I have a pet dragon”.   

Why on earth are you trying to rehash your greatest hits of wrong-headed thinking? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If someone thinks he has good reason to justify his belief “god” (or his belief leprechauns) and he wants others to take the claim seriously

That suggests the idea of God is felt to be not serious. We should be hearing why

then making those arguments would be a good way to discharge the burden of proof

I'm not sure why since God is unfalsifiable.

So far at least all you’ve managed is either no argument at all (ie, unqualified assertions) or fallacious attempts at arguments

Let's see evidence,

so there’s no reason for anyone to take your faith belief seriously

But some do without necessarily accepting it. It seems to me that you are taking your attitude toward it and superimposing that on others. If Christianity is funny, what is it about the unfalsifiable possibility which makes up your view of reality which makes it serious?

Anyway, as you've just ignored the question again can you now grasp that when someone has no good reasons to accept the claim "X exists" it’s a consistent position to have no certain view on X’s non-/existence, but at the same time to proceed as if it doesn’t exist – and that when X is called “God” that’s atheism?

Yes that's all very well but why not proceed as if you aren't sure whether X exists or not. What is more attractive about a universe without God, what is more real about that 'possibility'? If you want people to take you seriously Hillside you need to be providing these answers for them rather taking the piss out of their enquiries about the unfalsifiable possibility you have committed to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That suggests the idea of God is felt to be not serious. We should be hearing why

You already have – no truth claim should be taken seriously unless there’s sound reason to do so. Can you remember why (it was explained to you several times only recently)?

I'm not sure why since God is unfalsifiable.

“God” is your claim, you justify it. If you want to posit an unfalsifiable god that’s your problem, not mine. 

Let's see evidence,

You already have – just a few posts ago you committed an egregious straw man against Stranger and I pointed out to you. That’s a fallacy even though you just ignored the problem.

But some do without necessarily accepting it. It seems to me that you are taking your attitude toward it and superimposing that on others. If Christianity is funny, what is it about the unfalsifiable possibility which makes up your view of reality which makes it serious?

Why are you just lying again? I’m not “superimposing” anything – I’m just explaining basic reasoning to you, even though you endlessly twist in the wind to avoid addressing the problems it gives you.
 

Yes…

Halle-fuckin’-lujah.

…that's all very well but why not proceed as if you aren't sure whether X exists or not.

Which part of the very plain words I used makes you think that this isn’t what I just said?

What is more attractive about a universe without God, what is more real about that 'possibility'? If you want people to take you seriously Hillside you need to be providing these answers for them.

If I gave my dog a bowl of alphabet soup and she puked it up it would make more sense than that. Rather than endlessly lying, ducking and diving and posting gibberish why not have the basic decency actually to engage openly and honestly for once?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Clearly wrong. If we could “only go to unfalsifiable possibilities” any unfalsifiable possibility would be as valid as any other. That would be chaotic. What we actually do is to use tools and methods to convert some of those possibilities to functional probabilities.

Flannel.

And if you don’t like the tools and methods we have because they’re empirical,

Got there in the end.

Since you have revealed yourself as an empiricist then empiricism is an unfalsifiable possibility.

Because they’re not unfalsifiable at all

see previous.

You’re doing a Stephen Laws

STOP! woah yeh wait a minute Mr Postman

How “going nuclear” here – “OK, even if I’m guessing so are you so our guesses are equal”.

There is no probabilty for an unfalsifiability for the origin of the universe as far as I can see. And if we look at probabilities that are touted they make the way the universe is very, very unlikely so, so much for trying to use probabilty, particularly when you can never say what the probability for God is and show your working out

It’s utter bollocks for reasons that have been explained to you many times already: we have methods to sift the more probably true from the more probably not true,

But unfortunately no empirical ones which establish empiricism.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An open thank you to Dr Stephen Law
For years Hillside has been telling us that God and leprechauns are on an equal footing and that that both are guesses and of equal value and now he makes use of this argument

You’re doing a Stephen Laws “going nuclear” here – “OK, even if I’m guessing so are you so our guesses are equal”. 

Once again, thank you your LAWdship.

PS If I've caused you embarrassment if you've used the Leprechaun argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Flannel.

No, basic epistemology actually. If you think it’s wrong, say why.

Got there in the end.

Since you have revealed yourself as an empiricist then empiricism is an unfalsifiable possibility.

He lied. Again. If you don’t like that the only tools we have to investigate and verify truth claims are empirical ones then find some different ones of your own. “God” is your claim, you tell us how it should be distinguished from any other unfalsifiable claim.

What’s stopping you?   

see previous.

Ditto.

STOP! woah yeh wait a minute Mr Postman

There is no probabilty for an unfalsifiability for the origin of the universe as far as I can see. And if we look at probabilities that are touted they make the way the universe is very, very unlikely so, so much for trying to use probabilty, particularly when you can never say what the probability for God is and show your working out

I don’t need to. “God” is precisely as im/probable as any other unfalsifiable truth claim with no good reasons to justify it. Should we accept all of them or none of them on the say-so of people who happen to believe in them? There is no Option 3.
 

But unfortunately no empirical ones which establish empiricism.   

Ah, and back to your favourite bollocks wrong argument then. Well, as it relies entirely on you re-defining various terms and then accusing people of subscribing to your redefinitions when they do no such thing I’ll leave you to your personal grief on that one.

Anyway, good to hear that you’ve finally grasped that atheism does not require the statement “there are no gods”. It’s taken you years to get here, but it’s progress of a kind I guess. Now if only we could do something about your pathological lying too…   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

An open thank you to Dr Stephen Law
For years Hillside has been telling us that God and leprechauns are on an equal footing and that that both are guesses and of equal value…

Epistemically, that’s correct yes.

…and now he makes use of this argument
Quote from: bluehillside Retd. on Today at 04:42:44 PM
You’re doing a Stephen Laws “going nuclear” here – “OK, even if I’m guessing so are you so our guesses are equal”.
Once again, thank you your LAWdship.

And now you’ve completely fucked up Law’s argument. The argument says that if you treat everything as epistemically equivalent guesses, the result is chaotic. That’s why it’s essential to be able to distinguish between possibilities and probabilities – and we have tools and methods to do that. That doesn’t mean though that the first box of possibilities only doesn’t still have your god/my leprechauns/the Loch Ness monster/whatever in it.

Jeez when you crash and burn you crash hard and burn hot don’t you.     

PS If I've caused you embarrassment if you've used the Leprechaun argument.

Oh, I think where we can all see where the embarrassment lies here. Would you like some Savlon?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidence for empiricism please Hillside Full logical argument, I want it on my desk by Monday, I don't care how you do it, I just want it done.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



And now you’ve completely fucked up Law’s argument. The argument says that if you treat everything as epistemically equivalent guesses, the result is chaotic. That’s why it’s essential to be able to distinguish between possibilities and probabilities – and we have tools and methods to do that. That doesn’t mean though that the first box of possibilities only doesn’t still have your god/my leprechauns/the Loch Ness monster/whatever in it.

Flannel, First box of possibilities? How was that derived? Hillside writes down all the things he thinks are ridiculous?, accurate or what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Evidence for empiricism please Hillside Full logical argument, I want it on my desk by Monday, I don't care how you do it, I just want it done.

It has been. Many times. If though by “empiricism” you actually mean your personal, made-up, straw man redefinition of that term then no-one can do that. 

Flannel, First box of possibilities? How was that derived?

It was “derived” as the set of truth claims (and possible truth claims) that have no reliable means of investigation or verification. I just listed some of them for you (have you forgotten already?) but it’s a very, very big box.

Hillside writes down all the things he thinks are ridiculous?, accurate or what?

No, anyone can “write down” any truth claim with no reliable means of investigation or verification they like. If you want to call them all “ridiculous” that’s up to you.
   
Anyway, as you completely fucked up Law’s argument and then claimed your victory just as a pigeon playing chess and knocking over the pieces, crapping on the board and flying away will claim its victory I’ll have the family-size pack of Savlon sent over asap.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It has been. Many times. If though by “empiricism” you actually mean your personal, made-up, straw man redefinition of that term then no-one can do that. 

It was “derived” as the set of truth claims (and possible truth claims) that have no reliable means of investigation or verification. I just listed some of them for you (have you forgotten already?) but it’s a very, very big box.

No, anyone can “write down” any truth claim with no reliable means of investigation or verification they like. If you want to call them all “ridiculous” that’s up to you.
   
Anyway, as you completely fucked up Law’s argument and then claimed your victory just as a pigeon playing chess and knocking over the pieces, crapping on the board and flying away will claim its victory I’ll have the family-size pack of Savlon sent over asap.

It seems to me that Law undermines your argument that we can treat all arguments for all unfalsifiables equally. Law's argument therefore undermines Russell's Teapot too.

Yours, Russell's and Law's argument seem to proceed from Horses laugh argument

Russell and yourself plumping for analogising God with the most ridiculous sounding thing you can think of. Law is making a heirarchy of which arguments to take more seriously, hence proceeding from the establishment of the most ridiculous and then going from there.

Since there is some kind of heirarchy you are applying Law's argument to, let's see what that heirarchy is and how you arrived at it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It seems to me that Law undermines your argument that we can treat all arguments for unfalsifiables equally. Law's argument therefore undermines Russell's Teapot too.

Love you way you go straight from an un-argued assertion to a “therefore”. Any chance of telling us why that seems to be the case to you?

Yours, Russell's and Law's argument seem to proceed from Horses laugh argument

A mistake you’ve had corrected often, so why return to it? The “horse laugh” as you put it is to mock something without a qualifying argument. The reductio ad absurdum on the other hand (which is what’s actually in play) is to show that when exactly the same argument for a conclusion someone thinks to be not ridiculous can also lead to a plainly ridiculous conclusion then it’s probably a bad argument. Here’s a link to put you straight (again):

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

Russell and yourself plumping for analogising God with the most ridiculous sounding thing you can think of. Law is making a heirarchy of which arguments to take more seriously, hence proceeding from the establishment of the most ridiculous and then going from there.

Wrong again - see above.

Since there is some kind of heirarchy you are applying Law's argument to, let's see what that heirarchy is and how you arrived at it.

I have no idea what you mean by “hierarchy” here, but broadly the two categories are:

1. Box A: claims with no reliable means of investigation and verification. Call these claims “possibilities” if you like; and

2. Box B: claims with reliable means of investigation and verification. Call these claims “probabilities” if you like.

Of course claims in Box A can move to Box B if reliable means of investigation and verification for them are found, and equally claims in Box B can move to Box A if it can be shown that the reliable mean of investigation and verification were unreliable. That’s why “truth” is a probabilistic claim – it’s defined solely by our ability to discern it and we’re fallible creatures.

Anyway, you’ve had all this explained to you before now several times so why you insist on making a fool of yourself again about it is anyone’s guess.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Love you way you go straight from an un-argued assertion to a “therefore”. Any chance of telling us why that seems to be the case to you?

A mistake you’ve had corrected often, so why return to it? The “horse laugh” as you put it is to mock something without a qualifying argument. The reductio ad absurdum on the other hand (which is what’s actually in play) is to show that when exactly the same argument for a conclusion someone thinks to be not ridiculous can also lead to a plainly ridiculous conclusion then it’s probably a bad argument. Here’s a link to put you straight (again):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
   
Wrong again - see above.

I have no idea what you mean by “hierarchy” here, but broadly the two categories are:

1. Box A: claims with no reliable means of investigation and verification. Call these claims “possibilities” if you like; and

2. Box B: claims with reliable means of investigation and verification. Call these claims “probabilities” if you like.

Of course claims in Box A can move to Box B if reliable means of investigation and verification for them are found, and equally claims in Box B can move to Box A if it can be shown that the reliable mean of investigation and verification were unreliable. That’s why “truth” is a probabilistic claim – it’s defined solely by our ability to discern it and we’re fallible creatures.

Anyway, you’ve had all this explained to you before now several times so why you insist on making a fool of yourself again about it is anyone’s guess.     

So a real infinity, Philosophical Empiricism, Philosophical physicalism, Philosophical Philosophical Naturalism would end up in Box A along with the leprechauns. I think you've undermined a lot of people's cases for an infinitely old universe there.
I never saw you making the Leprechaun argument with them. The verdict on you for that oversight is you are a humbug.

Truth is probabilistic is an opinion. One you think that like your moral argument and your empiricism has triumphed overall.

No, the thing now Hillside is that you have to choose between your two darlings Russell or Law's

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So a real infinity, Philosophical Empiricism, Philosophical physicalism, Philosophical Philosophical Naturalism would end up in Box A along with the leprechauns. I think you've undermined a lot of people's cases for an infinitely old universe there.

Depends whether you intend the actual meanings of these terms or your personal redefinitions of them. If it’s the latter, we’d need another box called “White Noise”, or perhaps "Straw Men".

Even if you mean various philosophical positions that make claims of certainty though (“the universe is certainly physical” etc) that’s not a claim anyone I know of subscribes to, and nor is it necessary reasonably to assign values to truth claims - the methodological versions are just fine for that purpose.   

I never saw you making the Leprechaun argument with them.

Why would I as they’re entirely unnecessary for it?
 

The verdict on you for that oversight is you are a humbug.

There is no oversight – you’re just trying yet another of your straw men.

Truth is probabilistic is an opinion.

No, it’s logic. How would you eliminate the possibility of an unknown unknown that falsifies what you think to be a truth?

One you think that like your moral argument and your empiricism has triumphed overall.

Did that mean something in your head when you typed it?

No, the thing now Hillside is that you have to choose between your two darlings Russell or Law's

No, the actual “thing now” is that you should decide between lying and not lying. I have very little hope of you opting for the latter, but you could start by responding honestly to my last post rather than just ignoring it or misrepresenting it. For example, can you now grasp the difference between a "horse laugh" and the reductio ad absurdum?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Depends whether you intend the actual meanings of these terms or your personal redefinitions of them. If it’s the latter, we’d need another box called “White Noise”, or perhaps "Straw Men".

Even if you mean various philosophical positions that make claims of certainty

We are talking philosophical positions so I don't see why you've introduced certainty here other than a get out as you have been rumbled. Working, pragmatic assumption of these philosophies will get you the T-shirt just as well as certainty though.

(“the universe is certainly physical” etc) that’s not a claim anyone I know of subscribes to, and nor is it necessary reasonably to assign values to truth claims - the methodological versions are just fine for that purpose.

No, they aren't because a theist can use the methodology......The Atheist is not arguing theism from any methodology. Also you cannot argue theism using, say , methodological empricism and insist that theism has no methodology.....you would have roundly contradicted yourself.

Why would I as they’re entirely unnecessary for it?

If you foolishly let the cat out of the bag that infinite universes and creators are in the same category as Leprechauns then at the very least attacking creators as as ridiculous as leprechauns while leaving infinite universes of scott-free shows inconsistency and lack of rigour at the very least.
 
 

How would you eliminate the possibility of an unknown unknown that falsifies what you think to be a truth?

God or no god is a question of known unknowns i'm afraid .

No, the actual “thing now” is that you should decide between lying and not lying. I have very little hope of you opting for the latter, but you could start by responding honestly to my last post rather than just ignoring it or misrepresenting it. For example, can you now grasp the difference between a "horse laugh" and the reductio ad absurdum?

No you need to justify why Infinite universes should be in the same category as Leprechauns.

[bluehillside Retd.]

lad,

We are talking philosophical positions so I don't see why you've introduced certainty here other than a get out as you have been rumbled.

I haven’t – you have. You redefine various terms to mean “there certainly are no gods” and having set up your straw man you attack the people who don’t subscribe to them in any case. I’m not sure why you bother with the deceit though as there’s a perfectly good word for what you’re striving for – "physicalism" – though it’s still a straw man.
 

Working, pragmatic assumption of these philosophies will get you the T-shirt just as well as certainty though.

Have you finally grasped this or something? Yes, working pragmatic positions are all I’ve ever argued for – the clue is that generally they have the word “methodological” at the beginning, and they make no claims to absolutes at all. If you’re changing horses now because you’ve finally got it though, well and good. Presumably now then we’ll no longer be treated to your endless idiocies about materialism nor being able to justify itself. Halle-flippin’-llujah. Well done.   

No, they aren't because a theist can use the methodology......

Oh dear. What methodology do you think theist can argue from exactly (and while we’re here, why have you never done it as you claim to be one)?

The Atheist is not arguing theism from any methodology.

Er, the atheist doesn’t “argue theism” at all. Obviously. What the atheist actually does is to use logic to falsify the attempts theists make to justify their beliefs with reason. Call that a “methodology” or not as you wish, but that’s all that’s required for atheism. The day I can’t falsify an argument tried by a theist to justify his belief "god" is the day I’ll stop being an atheist. There’s precious little sign of that happening any time soon though.

Also you cannot argue theism…

Again, atheists don’t “argue theism”. Are you trying to say “argue against theism” or something?

…using, say , methodological empricism and insist that theism has no methodology.....you would have roundly contradicted yourself.

Er no. As ever, you have the burden of proof arse-backwards. If a theist wants to try logic and reason to justify his beliefs then he can’t complain when his fallacies are identified. If though you think theism has a different methodology to justify its claims, then why not finally tell us what it is? 

If you foolishly let the cat out of the bag that infinite universes and creators are in the same category as Leprechauns then at the very least attacking creators as as ridiculous as leprechauns while leaving infinite universes of scott-free shows inconsistency and lack of rigour at the very least.

Well that was stupid. The category in question is “truth claims with no means of investigation and verification”. Nothing more, nothing less. Your god, other peoples’ gods, leprechauns, dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri and Jack Frost all fit that category. Your usual stunt to avoid the problem at this point is to say that your god and my leprechauns have different characteristics, which is true but utterly irrelevant.   
 

God or no god is a question of known unknowns i'm afraid .

But a reason or evidence no-one’s yet thought to substantiate the claim isn’t. That was the point.

No you need to justify why Infinite universes should be in the same category as Leprechauns.

Arguably infinite universes aren’t (that’s just another of your straw men) but your god is for the reason I just explained. Either way, you’ve just posted another evasion in any case: what I actually asked you was whether you now grasp the difference between a horse laugh argument and the reductio ad absurdum. He former is just pointing and laughing; the latter is the reasoning that when identical arguments attempted to justify one conclusion (god) can lead equally well to a plainly daft conclusion (leprechauns) then the argument is probably wrong. You've never had the former, but you have had plenty of the latter - rightly so. 

I don’t have to justify anything for that to be the case - it’s a simple point in logic.

Once again old son, an epic fail.

0/10 – see me.         

[Walt Zingmatilder]

lad,

I haven’t – you have. You redefine various terms to mean “there certainly are no gods” and having set up your straw man you attack the people who don’t subscribe to them in any case. I’m not sure why you bother with the deceit though as there’s a perfectly good word for what you’re striving for – physicalism – though again it’s still a straw man.
 
Have you finally grasped this or something? Yes, working pragmatic positions are all I’ve ever argued for – the clue is that generally they have the word “methodological” at the beginning, and they make no claims to absolutes at all. If you’re changing horses now because you’ve finally got it though, well and good. Presumably now then we’ll no longer be treated to your endless idiocies about materialism nor being able to justify itself. Halle-flippin’-llujah. Well done.   

Oh dear. What methodology do you think theist can argue from exactly (and while we’re here, why have you never done it as you claim to be one)?

Er, the atheist doesn’t “argue theism” at all. Obviously. What the atheist actually does is to use logic to falsify the attempts theists make to justify their beliefs with reason. Call that a “methodology” or not as you wish, but that’s all that’s required for atheism. The day I can’t falsify an argument tried by a theist to justify his belief "god" is the day I’ll stop being an atheist. There’s precious little sign of that happening any time soon though.

Again, atheists don’t “argue theism”. Are you trying to say “argue against theism” or something?

Er no. As ever, you have the burden of proof arse-backwards. If a theist wants to try logic and reason to justify his beliefs then he can’t complain when his fallacies are identified. If though you think theism has a different methodology to justify its claims, then why not finally tell us what it is? 

Well that was stupid. The category in question is “truth claims with no means of investigation and verification”. Nothing more, nothing less. Your god, other peoples’ gods, leprechauns, dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri and Jack Frost all fit that category. Your usual stunt to avoid the problem at this point is to say that your god and my leprechauns have different characteristics, which is true but utterly irrelevant.   
 
But a reason or evidence no-one’s yet thought to substantiate the claim isn’t. That was the point.

Arguably infinite universes aren’t (that’s just another of your straw men) but your god is for the reason I just explained. Either way, you’ve just posted another evasion in any case: what I actually asked you was whether you now grasp the difference between a horse laugh argument and the reductio ad absurdum. He former is just pointing and laughing; the latter is reasoning that when identical arguments attempted to justify one conclusion (god) can lead equally well to a plainly daft conclusion (leprechauns) then the argument is probably wrong.

I don’t have to justify anything fo that to be the case - it’s a simple point in logic.

Once again old son, an epic fail.

       
Methodological empiricism doesn't even establish philosophical empiricism, same for all the other methodologies. So I don't understand why you think they will be any more succesful for God. If though you think empiricism, physicalism, naturalism, materialism...delete as applicable, has a different methodology to justify its claims, then why not finally tell us what it is?

Look, you alerted us to Laws's heirarchy of guesses.

So I want to know is how you operate it with a view to the following

a) How does it decide what are 'better' guesses, as you put it?
b) What heirarchy can you get out of it?
c) How can it possibly not be counter to Russell's Teapot and equating God with Leprechaun's but not it seems infinite universes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Methodological empiricism doesn't even establish philosophical empiricism, same for all the other methodologies.

No-one suggests that it does. So what?

So I don't understand why you think they will be any more succesful for God.

Who or what is “they”?

If though you think empiricism, physicalism, naturalism, materialism...delete as applicable, has a different methodology to justify its claims, then why not finally tell us what it is?

First, they’re different things and second what are you even trying to say here?

Look, you alerted us to Laws's heirarchy of guesses.

No I didn’t. What I actually referenced was his identification of the “going nuclear” error: “OK, I might be guessing but so are you, and our guesses have equal epistemic value”. You've tried it several times, and it's bollocks.   

So I want to know…

That’s a bit rich isn’t it? You’ve been asked endless questions and never bothered to answer them, but here you demand answers from someone else. Anyway…

…is how you operate it with a view to the following

a) How does it decided what are 'better' guesses, as you put it?

It’s your claim, and “it”/I decide(s) the same way you do: utility. Given the choice between leaving a building by jumping from a twelfth floor window or taking the lift you (presumably) opt for the latter. Taking the lift is thus more “true” for you as the answer to the question of which is safer means of descent. It’s also more true for me, and by this process of intersubjective experience societies cohere around values for more/less probable truths.     

b) What heirarchy can you get out of it?

Lift first, window jumping second.
 

c) How can it possibly notbe counter to Russell's Teapot…

Russell’s teapot concerns non-falsifiability not being a good argument for the existence of something, and is completely irrelevant.
 

…and equating God with Leprechaun's but not it seems infinite universes.

Conceptually at least the infinite universe conjecture could be falsifiable. Gods and leprechauns on the other hand aren’t. Either way though, it’s irrelevant - the point remains that the category description is ”truth claims with no means of investigation and verification” – and your god and leprechauns both fit right in to it no matter what characteristics you chose to attach to either of them.

As I see you didn’t bother addressing the rebuttals to the last set of eff-ups you posted, can I take it that you’ve now resiled from them?