Disproofs of God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pgeon,

Explanatory gap in the answer to why something and not nothing.

Nope, wrong question. "Why?" implies intention; the actually question is "how?"

Firstly it looks as if it’s all gap.

Not if you entertain the various competing hypotheses it doesn't but either way that's irrelevant. A god of the gaps is still a god of the gaps no matter the size of the 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.

Yes it does. "Science can't answer, therefore God" is god of the gaps whichever way you look at it. "Always nature" is just another of your many straw men. 

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

Absent any method to test the claim or to investigate its properties, that's exactly what it is.

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.

As it's just another of your straw men, I'll leave you to you private grief about that.

So Hillside it still looks like you remained banjaxed.

You can't "banjax" someone by ignoring or lying about the arguments that undo you - your pigeon chess "checkmate" is no such thing.   

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

Another tin of alphabet soup hits the linoleum then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wilks,

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

Or correct. Vlad's entire MO is to post mistakes or misrepresentations, have them corrected, then repeat exactly the same mistakes and misrepresentations. He's been caught doing it countless times - I have no idea what he gets from such trolling, but lying is essential to it. I'd have more time for your comment if he didn't have form as long as your arm for near pathological dishonesty.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

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.

Which when you began saying it could have been just a mistake, but as you've ignored the correction countless time and repeat it still then it's another lie.

How more so than saying that God may have created the universe was a God of the gaps theory...

It's precisely a god of the gaps when the "argument" goes thus:

1. Science doesn't have all the answers.

2. Therefore there are gaps in knowledge.

3. Therefore those gaps are explained by my assertion "God".

1 & 2 are fine; 3 isn't. And that's all you have.

... and that it is stupidity to believe in anything but a natural solution....

More lying. It's "stupidity" to believe things without good reasons to justify those beliefs. No-one says that the justifications have to be naturalistic in nature, but they do have to be something.   

...which it seemed to me what Hillside was saying.

Given the number of times I've expressly explained that that's not what I'm saying, why are you lying about this again?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pgeon,

Nope, wrong question. "Why?" implies intention;

Can you demonstrate that or is it more New Atheist arsepull?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Before I offer apology

Are you a) admitting that some things are uninvestigable because they are beyond the scope of science?
B) Because they are supernatural or beyond nature.
C) They are natural but are uninvestigable because science does not yet have the means but will have.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pgeon,

Nope, wrong question. "Why?" implies intention; the actually question is "how?"

Not if you entertain the various competing hypotheses it doesn't but either way that's irrelevant. A god of the gaps is still a god of the gaps no matter the size of the gap.

Yes it does. "Science can't answer, therefore God" is god of the gaps whichever way you look at it. "Always nature" is just another of your many straw men. 

Absent any method to test the claim or to investigate its properties, that's exactly what it is.

As it's just another of your straw men, I'll leave you to you private grief about that.

You can't "banjax" someone by ignoring or lying about the arguments that undo you - your pigeon chess "checkmate" is no such thing.   


Another tin of alphabet soup hits the linoleum then.

science can’t answer but God is a stupid idea, eh Hillside? Why because Essex man fink it is stoopid.

You just can’t lay off the horse laugh can you.

I’m glad though you have come round to science can’t answer though.
Let’s see you get out of that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Which when you began saying it could have been just a mistake, but as you've ignored the correction countless time and repeat it still then it's another lie.

It's precisely a god of the gaps when the "argument" goes thus:

1. Science doesn't have all the answers.

2. Therefore there are gaps in knowledge.

3. Therefore those gaps are explained by my assertion "God".

1 & 2 are fine; 3 isn't. And that's all you have.

More lying. It's "stupidity" to believe things without good reasons to justify those beliefs. No-one says that the justifications have to be naturalistic in nature, but they do have to be something.   

Given the number of times I've expressly explained that that's not what I'm saying, why are you lying about this again?

a lot of this is fucking shite.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Can you demonstrate that...

Yes: "why" means "for what purpose or reason". To have a purpose or reason, you need to demonstrate first something capable of having a purpose or reason.

"How" on the other hand just means "by what process", which is only as far as you can go without begging the question.

Suggest you try a dictionary the next time you're confused.

...or is it more New Atheist arsepull?"

"arsepull" is just a typically scatological diversionary tactic you try when you cannot deal with an argument that undoes you.

Before I offer apology

Yeah right. have you forgotten the Vlad family motto: "Never explain, never apologise"?

Are you a) admitting that some things are uninvestigable because they are beyond the scope of science?
B) Because they are supernatural or beyond nature.

You can't "admit" something you've been given no good reason to think to be true. I have no idea how you'd define, investigate or verify claims of a "supernatural", and nor have you. That's your problem.   

C) They are natural but are uninvestigable because science does not yet have the means...

That's certainly true, That's why we have people called "scientists" busy researching to find out more.

... but will have.

That's unknowable. It's also the lie on which you rest your false accusation of scientism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

a lot of this is fucking shite.

Do you have an argument to show that to be the case, or are you back to full "I'll just insult the arguments that falsify me and hope no-one notices the difference" mode?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Yes: "why" means "for what purpose or reason". To have a purpose or reason, you need to demonstrate first something capable of having a purpose or reason.

"How" on the other hand just means "by what process", which is only as far as you can go without begging the question.

Suggest you try a dictionary the next time you're confused.

"arsepull" is just a typically scatological diversionary tactic you try when you cannot deal with an argument that undoes you.

Yeah right. have you forgotten the Vlad family motto: "Never explain, never apologise"?

You can't "admit" something you've been given no good reason to think to be true. I have no idea how you'd define, investigate or verify claims of a "supernatural", and nor have you. That's your problem.   

That's certainly true, That's why we have people called "scientists" busy researching to find out more.

That's unknowable. It's also the lie on which you rest your false accusation of scientism.

We have no idea but are adamant it can’t be God because well God is like Leprechauns and orbiting teapots doesn’t seem to be a very reasonable position to hold.

As for position C . Science isn’t yet at that place........could be scientism.......might not be. True in some cases I suppose but not I fear in cosmogeny.....and that is the time old issue of where you are going to put your equipment even if you have any?

[jeremyp]

Before I offer apology

Are you a) admitting that some things are uninvestigable because they are beyond the scope of science?
B) Because they are supernatural or beyond nature.
C) They are natural but are uninvestigable because science does not yet have the means but will have.

What’s the functional difference between “uninvestigable” and “does not exist”.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What’s the functional difference between “uninvestigable” and “does not exist”.

One is a claim which carries burden of proof and one is more of an admission of one’s limitations.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Yes: "why" means "for what purpose or reason". To have a purpose or reason, you need to demonstrate first something capable of having a purpose or reason.

"How" on the other hand just means "by what process", which is only as far as you can go without begging the question.

Complete paranoid New atheist invention. I shan’t be pandering to it. Asking for explanation is begging the question and assuming God? Utter bullshit.

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator Some posts regarding the current UK govt have been removed as a derail

[jeremyp]

One is a claim which carries burden of proof and one is more of an admission of one’s limitations.

Yes but what is the functional difference? Why should we treat something that is uninvestigable as existing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes but what is the functional difference? Why should we treat something that is uninvestigable as existing?

Why should we treat it as not existing? You seem to be at a form Pascal’s wager here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

We have no idea but are adamant it can’t be God because well God is like Leprechauns and orbiting teapots doesn’t seem to be a very reasonable position to hold.

No it isn't, which is why no-one I know of holds it. Still, as it's one of your favourite go to straw men and you seem to get something from it why not just keep on lying about that?

As for position C . Science isn’t yet at that place........could be scientism.......might not be. True in some cases I suppose but not I fear in cosmogeny.....and that is the time old issue of where you are going to put your equipment even if you have any?

Irrelevant. Your mistake was to misrepresent "there are gaps in scientific knowledge" (not scientism) with "science will have all the answers" (scientism), the latter being something no-one I know of subscribes to.   

Complete paranoid New atheist invention. I shan’t be pandering to it. Asking for explanation is begging the question and assuming God? Utter bullshit.

Aw, are basic words confusing you again? Here are the first definitions I found when I looked online (Merriam Webster):

"Why:

1: the cause, reason, or purpose for which
know why you did it
that is why you did it"

"How: 1

a: in what manner or way
How did you two meet each other?
How did he die?
How do you know that?"

So now I've cleared that up for you, let's just nail your final lie and we'll be done. You can ask for any explanation you like (even though you'll never provide any of your own incidentally) - no-one says otherwise. You're begging the question some when you frame that as purposive (why) rather than process (how). 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Why should we treat it as not existing? You seem to be at a form Pascal’s wager here.

Because, obviously, if you treat one non-investigable claim as existing then you have no grounds not to treat any other non-investigable claims as existing too. You're back to god/leprechauns territory again.

This burden of proof thing has got you seriously foxed hasn't it.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pigeon,

No it isn't, which is why no-one I know of holds it. Still, as it's one of your favourite go to straw men and you seem to get something from it why not just keep on lying about that?

Irrelevant. Your mistake was to misrepresent "there are gaps in scientific knowledge" (not scientism) with "science will have all the answers" (scientism), the latter being something no-one I know of subscribes to.   

Aw, are basic words confusing you again? Here are the first definitions I found when I looked online (Merriam Webster):

"Why:

1: the cause, reason, or purpose for which
know why you did it
that is why you did it"

"How: 1

a: in what manner or way
How did you two meet each other?
How did he die?
How do you know that?"

So now I've cleared that up for you, let's just nail your final lie and we'll be done. You can ask for any explanation you like (even though you'll never provide any of your own incidentally) - no-one says otherwise. You're begging the question some when you frame that as purposive (why) rather than process (how).

bollocks doesn't get any better with more exposure Hillside. Why, sorry, how do you keep doing it?

Answer. That's easy Vlad I pull it out m'ass and Just keep posting it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Cap'n Pigeon,

Because, obviously, if you treat one non-investigable claim as existing then you have no grounds not to treat any other non-investigable claims as existing too. You're back to god/leprechauns territory again.

This burden of proof thing has got you seriously foxed hasn't it.

 

trouble is it doesn't exist is a claim with a burden of proof .....that is unavoidable.

Also you have admitted that for you investigation is just science investigation.
So the filthy stench of philosophical empiricism hangs over your post.

[jeremyp]

Why should we treat it as not existing? You seem to be at a form Pascal’s wager here.

Because there's nothing you can do with it. If you can't even investigate it, what's the point of doing anything about it?

[jeremyp]

trouble is it doesn't exist is a claim with a burden of proof .....that is unavoidable.

"It doesn't exist" is a positive claim. "I'm going to proceed as if it doesn't exist" is not.

Also you have admitted that for you investigation is just science investigation.
So the filthy stench of philosophical empiricism hangs over your post.

The filthy stench of pseudo-intellectualism hangs over all of your posts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because there's nothing you can do with it. If you can't even investigate it, what's the point of doing anything about it?

Well you cant investigate it empirically. However if it is also at the  centre of moral reality.....well, were all, most of us a bit morally competent perhaps we can investigate that Avenue.

[jeremyp]

Well you cant investigate it empirically.

You said "investigable" - no qualifications. Stop moving the goalposts.

However if it is also at the  centre of moral reality

How can you be sure that something is at the centre of morality if you can't investigate it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"It doesn't exist" is a positive claim. "I'm going to proceed as if it doesn't exist" is not.
The filthy stench of pseudo-intellectualism hangs over all of your posts.

As I say you seem to be taking a Pascal's wager type affair.

Pseudo intellectual Mi, wirklich, poùrquoi.