The use of the Courtiers reply in science.

[jeremyp]

From someone who keeps coming up with variable definitions of Leprechauns from little men to indistinguishable from Abrahamic divinity you are on dodgy grounds about not knowing about Leprechauns.

How would you know? What are your credentials in leprechaunology?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who says any part has to remain? Has anything useful at all ever evolved out of theology?
I think it's fair to say that the Christian version of God does not exist just based on the fact that the concept of the Christian god is incoherent.

There are a lot of views on what the Christian God is.Why alight on one which is incoherent?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Less of a joke more of a ruse.

Feeling better now? So anyway, back to your OP where you said:

“The biologist PZ Myers discovered/invented/Arsepulled the alleged logical fallacy " The Courtiers Reply" to  excuse people ignorant of a subject commenting on it because it looked to that person to be bollocks anyway.”

You now know that that’s not what the CR is about at all because I’ve explained it to you (twice – Replies 8 & 30). The CR is actually about people who aren’t ignorant of a subject (foundational arguments for gods) being told their reasoning is inadmissible because they are ignorant of unrelated theological claims about the attributes of those supposed gods, even though the latter arguments have no relevance to the former.

So now all you have to do is to amend your OP to say something like: “Amendment: I now realise that my OP was fundamentally mistaken about what the CR actually entails so I hereby withdraw it.”

What’s stopping you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How would you know? What are your credentials in leprechaunology?

I am one.

[jeremyp]

There are a lot of views on what the Christian God is.Why alight on one which is incoherent?

Which Christians don't believe that God came down from heaven and was made man to save humans from their sins? To do that, he engineered his own execution because that was the only way to circumvent a rule that he made up that sinners must die. And his execution turned out to be trickery because he came alive again after a couple of days but he fell for his own trick because Christians stayed saved.

Then there's the whole all-loving omnipotent, omniscient nonsense which is not even logically consistent. The Christian god is an incoherent mess. He makes Donald Trump seem sane.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

From someone who keeps coming up with variable definitions of Leprechauns from little men to indistinguishable from Abrahamic divinity you are on dodgy grounds about not knowing about Leprechauns.

You therefore make the same sort of philosophical blunders as Dawkins and put up the same limp excuses.

Whoosh!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There are a lot of views on what the Christian God is.Why alight on one which is incoherent?

They're all incoherent.

Have you amended your OP yet? Why not?

[jeremyp]

I am one.

You are a leprechaunology? That doesn't make sense.

Do you mean you are a leprechaun? If so, that doesn't mean you have any credentials in leprechaunology. You wouldn't let a surgeon operate on you if their credentials were "I am a human".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which Christians don't believe that God came down from heaven and was made man to save humans from their sins? To do that, he engineered his own execution because that was the only way to circumvent a rule that he made up that sinners must die. And his execution turned out to be trickery because he came alive again after a couple of days but he fell for his own trick because Christians stayed saved.

Then there's the whole all-loving omnipotent, omniscient nonsense which is not even logically consistent. The Christian god is an incoherent mess.

I don’ t believe that one can come down from an environment that isn’t spatial temporal.
His execution was inevitable given the state of humanity and its reaction to God incarnate.
His resurrection is that of a man raised by God.
Trick, yes there is theology which is not unanimous. But has God tricking the devil. God tricking himself......yes that is in theology to but also not unanimously. I have referred to it as Jesus being the cloak of Christ covering sins. Was it Wesley who wasn’t having any of this or someone else?

All loving, omnipotent omniscient. Lot of platonic ideas here again, not unanimous. Indeed some theologies replace platonic interpretations with the idea of the maximal. Whatever so called philosophical horrors Anselm is allegedly responsible for he does introduce the idea of maximality

So It looks as if the unanimity  you seek isn’t quite there as a bit of theological knowledge might have informed you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don’ t believe that one can come down from an environment that isn’t spatial temporal.
His execution was inevitable given the state of humanity and its reaction to God incarnate.
His resurrection is that of a man raised by God.
Trick, yes there is theology which is not unanimous. But has God tricking the devil. God tricking himself......yes that is in theology to but also not unanimously. I have referred to it as Jesus being the cloak of Christ covering sins. Was it Wesley who wasn’t having any of this or someone else?

All loving, omnipotent omniscient. Lot of platonic ideas here again, not unanimous. Indeed some theologies replace platonic interpretations with the idea of the maximal. Whatever so called philosophical horrors Anselm is allegedly responsible for he does introduce the idea of maximality

So It looks as if the unanimity  you seek isn’t quite there as a bit of theological knowledge might have informed you.
« Last Edit: Today at 01:28:01 PM by The Suppository of Norman Wisdom »

None of which conjectures and fancies have anything whatever to say about whether or not there's good reason to think there to be god (or gods) in the first place – hence the CR.

Have you withdrawn your OP yet?

Why not?

[jeremyp]

I don’ t believe that one can come down from an environment that isn’t spatial temporal.
His execution was inevitable given the state of humanity and its reaction to God incarnate.
His resurrection is that of a man raised by God.
Trick, yes there is theology which is not unanimous. But has God tricking the devil. God tricking himself......yes that is in theology to but also not unanimously. I have referred to it as Jesus being the cloak of Christ covering sins. Was it Wesley who wasn’t having any of this or someone else?

So you don't deny it's an incoherent mess.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

None of which conjectures and fancies have anything whatever to say about whether or not there's good reason to think there to be god (or gods) in the first place – hence the CR.

Have you withdrawn your OP yet?

Why not?

The meet,right and correct response is No because you want it removed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you don't deny it's an incoherent mess.

I think we have done this before.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The meet,right and correct response is No because you want it removed.

No, having had your mistake explained to you and as you’re unable to refute the correction, the “meet, right and correct response” of someone with any integrity would be to withdraw their original misrepresentation.

Oh hang on though – it’s you isn’t it. Integrity? What was I thinking?   

[jeremyp]

I think we have done this before.

And you lost last time too.

The Christian god is an incoherent, logically inconsistent concept. In fact so much so that even you admitted "there are a lot of views on what the Christian God is".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you lost last time too.

The Christian god is an incoherent, logically inconsistent concept. In fact so much so that even you admitted "there are a lot of views on what the Christian God is".

No, some views of Christianity are incoherent.
We dont know enough about love because of and it's certainly not in the category of omniscience and omnipotence but hell Jeremy there isn't unanimity on what omnipotence might be.As for omniscience well I've seen convinced nee atheists declare that science has the potential to offer that.

Now if you want incoherence. Look no further than moral idealists condemn the morality of Christianity.

[jeremyp]

No, some views of Christianity are incoherent.

Some is enough.

We dont know enough about love because of and it's certainly not in the category of omniscience and omnipotence

Nobody said it was, but if you examine the world we live in, it's quite clear that, if there is an omniscient, omnipotent god, it doesn't love us.

but hell Jeremy there isn't unanimity on what omnipotence might be.As for omniscience well I've seen convinced nee atheists declare that science has the potential to offer that.

Do you realise that every time you say "there isn't unanimity about property X of God", you strengthen the case for the concept being incoherent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some is enough.
Nobody said it was, but if you examine the world we live in, it's quite clear that, if there is an omniscient, omnipotent god, it doesn't love us.

Do you realise that every time you say "there isn't unanimity about property X of God", you strengthen the case for the concept being incoherent.

How?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your OP has been shown to be entirely wrong or dishonest. Why are you persisting with it? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your OP has been shown to be entirely wrong or dishonest. Why are you persisting with it?

Just a quick suggestion Hillside. The big analysis you did on CR? Did you actually apply it to the original story to see if it fits. If it doesn't, the fact that it isn't about the courtiers reply and therefore falls at the first hurdle.

I doubt for instance if HCA didn't have obvious falsehood in mind when he wrote the story. Since God is obvious bollocks is an opinion we don't have to share or feel guilty for the non sharing, I think I may just have spent a wee bit too much time indulging you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just a quick suggestion Hillside. The big analysis you did on CR? Did you actually apply it to the original story to see if it fits. If it doesn't, the fact that it isn't about the courtiers reply and therefore falls at the first hurdle.

Dear god but you struggle. Are you really that dim, or are you just lying again because it gives you a thrill of some kind? I know you’ve always struggled with the concept of an analogy, but this is ridiculous. The CR isn’t actually about a naked emperor. You do understand that right?

Do you?

The CR is an ANALOGY – it’s just a useful way to illustrate the IDEA that you cannot dismiss criticisms of foundational arguments about the existence of something on the ground of insufficient information about the (supposed) attribute of that (supposed) thing. What that thing happens to be is neither here nor there.

C’mon now, even someone as unironic and intellectually limited as you should be able to grasp this at some dim level of comprehension surely. 

Shouldn’t you?     

I doubt for instance if HCA didn't have obvious falsehood in mind when he wrote the story. Since God is obvious bollocks is an opinion we don't have to share or feel guilty for the non sharing, I think I may just have spent a wee bit too much time indulging you.

Stop digging!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Dear god but you struggle. Are you really that dim, or are you just lying again because it gives you a thrill of some kind? I know you’ve always struggled with the concept of an analogy, but this is ridiculous. The CR isn’t actually about a naked emperor. You do understand that right?

Do you?

The CR is an ANALOGY – it’s just a useful way to illustrate the idea that you cannot dismiss criticisms of foundational arguments about the existence of something on the ground of insufficient information about the (supposed) attribute of that (supposed) thing. What that thing happens to be is neither here nor there.

C’mon now, even someone as unironic and intellectually limited as you should be able to grasp this at some dim level  of comprehension surely. 

Mustn’t you?     

Stop digging!

Hillside, I fear you are projecting again at Golden age of Cinema proportions. My post prior to yours strongly hints at the use of the term Courtiers Reply being bad analogy.  But that happens in an emergency when your emperor Dawkins having made a complete tool of himself needed a cover story.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside, I fear you are projecting again at Golden age of Cinema proportions. My post prior to yours strongly hints at the use of the term Courtiers Reply being bad analogy.  But that happens in an emergency when your emperor Dawkins having made a complete tool of himself needed a cover story.

If you think it's a bad analogy then you need to say why. Talking about HCA's intentions though betrays the fact that you utterly misunderstand (or lie about) what the ANALOGY entails. Again: the CR just a useful way to illustrate the idea that you cannot dismiss criticisms of foundational arguments about the existence of something on the ground of insufficient information about the (supposed) attributes of that (supposed) thing. What that thing happens to be is neither here nor there.

Suggest you start here:

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