Disproofs of God.

[Sebastian Toe]

Contingency......
....that is the Necessary.



 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Contingency......
....that is the Necessary.



 

Black, that is the white.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Black, that is the white.

When you have magic as your "method", why not? Or purple? Or fish? Or anything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pigeon,

No, what "dispenses" with "God" is your utter inability to suggest a method of any kind - naturalistic or otherwise - to test the claim. Your claim, your problem.

Bullshit. God is just another unfalsifiable, like Cosmos, infinity, spontaneous appearance etc.
Wishing for the one I love namely scientific evidence, method and equipment for these is not enough and is just cheap shot scientism.

If you are not making any claims or suggestions or express or harbour no rational beliefs Hillside then one is functionally a human custard tart. Slowly festering.....although money in the bank and engaging hobbies go a long way to alleviate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Yet again, physics says a lot about possible answers - they're called conjectures or hypotheses. These conjectures and hypotheses may or may not turn out to be correct if and when the methods and tools of physics ever develop sufficiently to verify them. You're basically someone pre-Einstein saying, "Newtonian physics can't explain the very large and the very small, therefore elves".

Now here's the thing - and you need to concentrate here - even if we never obtain the physics necessary to provide a logically cogent or evidenced answer, still that would give no you support whatever for filling the explanatory gap with, "so it's a magic god then".


If you're relying on magic for your method, any wild guess doesn't need anything - it's all white noise.

WLC (and you) have precisely magic in your "scheme" - what else would you call it when you assert that no rules of logic apply to your speculation, so anything goes? 

Just repeating your stupidity doesn't make it less stupid. You do realise that right?

So, just to be clear - do you have anything other than, "currently we don't have a scientific answer, therefore magic" to offer?

It's ok, you can say "no" if you like. We all know that's all you have in any case.     

Where’s this fucking infinite cosmos then?

[ippy]

Ippy I only recall exchanges between us on the NSS campaigns to limit religious broadcasting and schooling. I recall those as good debate. If you are now calling disagreement with you as irrational then definitionally you can now only have rational argument with those who agree with you.

Thanks Vlad this post of yours brilliantly illustrates the comments I've made in that last post of mine that you're referring to.

The only time I used the word irrational was when referring to your use of so many pointless and irrational name changes, there's nothing wrong with Vlad, why don't you stick with it?

Regards, ippy.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Yet again, physics says a lot about possible answers - they're called conjectures or hypotheses. These conjectures and hypotheses may or may not turn out to be correct if and when the methods and tools of physics ever develop sufficiently to verify them. You're basically someone pre-Einstein saying, "Newtonian physics can't explain the very large and the very small, therefore elves".

Now here's the thing - and you need to concentrate here - even if we never obtain the physics necessary to provide a logically cogent or evidenced answer, still that would give no you support whatever for filling the explanatory gap with, "so it's a magic god then".


If you're relying on magic for your method, any wild guess doesn't need anything - it's all white noise.

WLC (and you) have precisely magic in your "scheme" - what else would you call it when you assert that no rules of logic apply to your speculation, so anything goes? 

Just repeating your stupidity doesn't make it less stupid. You do realise that right?

So, just to be clear - do you have anything other than, "currently we don't have a scientific answer, therefore magic" to offer?

It's ok, you can say "no" if you like. We all know that's all you have in any case.     

Careful Hillside many decent people are allergic to scientism. To put a scientistical ingredient into a bouillabaisse where detection is harder is irresponsible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Bullshit. God is just another unfalsifiable, like Cosmos, infinity, spontaneous appearance etc.

Wrong again. Scientific conjectures and hypotheses rest on known principles; "God" is what you get when you replace that with magic. 

Wishing for the one I love namely scientific evidence, method and equipment for these is not enough and is just cheap shot scientism.

I wondered whether you'd fall straight into that howler again, and sure enough you didn't disappoint. Yet again, no-one says that the gap in scientific knowledge will necessarily one day be filled; what's actually being said is that the fact of a gap doesn't justify filling it with whatever incoherent guess happens to take your fancy.

I don't suppose there's any chance of you stopping lying about that is there, what with it being one of your favourite go to porkies?   

If you are not making any claims or suggestions or express or harbour no rational beliefs Hillside then one is functionally a human custard tart. Slowly festering.....although money in the bank and engaging hobbies go a long way to alleviate.

You appear to have spilt a tin of l alphabet soup and posted the results again. Was that car crash of a sentence supposed to express a coherent thought of some kind?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Careful Hillside many decent people are allergic to scientism. To put a scientistical ingredient into a bouillabaisse where detection is harder is irresponsible.

No-one's arguing for scientism. Stop lying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now here's the thing - and you need to concentrate here - even if we never obtain the physics necessary to provide a logically cogent or evidenced answer, still that would give no you support whatever for filling the explanatory gap with, "so it's a magic god then".


If you're relying on magic for your method, any wild guess doesn't need anything - it's all white noise.

WLC (and you) have precisely magic in your "scheme" - what else would you call it when you assert that no rules of logic apply to your speculation, so anything goes? 
 

Explanatory gap in the answer to why something and not nothing.
Firstly it looks as if it’s all gap.
Secondly does the usual God of the gaps apply here, not sure it does since the unfalsifiable “always nature” therefore no God has its own difficulties here.

God isn’t magic since the necessary comes logically out of the argument from contingency.

Always been is more interesting than popping out of nothing which is far more like magic than god. But always been has no more credentials in logic than God.

So Hillside it still looks like you remained banjaxed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Wrong again. Scientific conjectures and hypotheses rest on known principles; "God" is what you get when you replace that with magic. 

I wondered whether you'd fall straight into that howler again, and sure enough you didn't disappoint. Yet again, no-one says that the gap in scientific knowledge will necessarily one day be filled; what's actually being said is that the fact of a gap doesn't justify filling it with whatever incoherent guess happens to take your fancy.

I don't suppose there's any chance of you stopping lying about that is there, what with it being one of your favourite go to porkies?   

You appear to have spilt a tin of l alphabet soup and posted the results again. Was that car crash of a sentence supposed to express a coherent thought of some kind?

Trouble is though sport and you can blame your darling Professor Brian Greene and NDGT for this. Simulated universe is back on the menu.

[SteveH]

Cap'n Pigeon,

No-one's arguing for scientism. Stop lying.

Accusing people of lying, when they are at worst mistaken, as you frequently do, looks a bit childish.

[Nearly Sane]

Accusing people of lying, when they are at worst mistaken, as you frequently do, looks a bit childish.

So no one ever lies on here?

[SteveH]

So no one ever lies on here?

Of course not!

[Nearly Sane]

Of course not!

Then how can you state that 'they are at worst mistaken'?

[Sebastian Toe]

Black, that is the white.

Does anything in this universe exist without contingency?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So no one ever lies on here?

Where I am coming from on this is that there is a case for every god of the gaps accusation to be representative of scientism.

How more so than saying that God may have created the universe was a God of the gaps theory and that it is stupidity to believe in anything but a natural solution which it seemed to me what Hillside was saying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does anything in this universe exist without contingency?

If everything in the universe is contingent the necessary must be extra universal.

[Sebastian Toe]

If everything in the universe is contingent the necessary must be extra universal.

...I propose that contingency in itself could be the necessary.

[jeremyp]

An infinitely long time?

I thought you said that's not possible.

[jeremyp]

If it is not observable then it is a conjecture based on an argument.

If God is not observable, it is a conjecture based on an argument.

[jeremyp]

Answer 1  you are joshing, of course although if we are playing by naturalistic rules,

Who said that?

a proposal should be detectable by naturalistic means.

That about wraps it up for God.

I’m afraid that means we’ve already dispensed with God but now you are required to empirically and naturalistically show a cosmos.

No I'm not. I'm not claiming the cosmos exists, only that it is a viable alternative to believing in God

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who said that?
That about wraps it up for God.

Which means we must rely on a naturalistic explanation

6........5.........4...........

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who said that?
That about wraps it up for God.

No I'm not. I'm not claiming the cosmos exists, only that it is a viable alternative to believing in God

If the universe is part of the cosmos then the rest of it is unobservable......do I have that right.
It is responsible for the universe? Do I have you right on that one?

[jeremyp]

Which means we must rely on a naturalistic explanation

6........5.........4...........

Why? Are you using "god" as a term for "any explanation of the Universe that can't be investigated naturalistically"? If so, I think you are abusing the definition.