Disproofs of God.

[jeremyp]

I have good reason to believe in God

Excellent. What is it?

[Owlswing]

Excellent. What is it?

That he was brainwashed as a child?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. The sentence was a bit ambiguous though, so let me clarify:

If there is no evidence of God's existence, why bother acting as if he does exist? Acting as if God exists without any evidence is pretending that he exists.

Yes it can be. If you don’t have any evidence. God however is not conjured by argument but by his own being so where as you are proceeding from a gamble he doesn’t exist I proceed from an encounter with him.

Further, I suggest that a lot of people don’t actually want an encounter. The bad news for those is they probably are having one and are trying to avoid it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Excellent. What is it?

The moral argument. Namely moral irrealism has no moral arbitration and neither has science or matter.

The argument from Contingency.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That he was brainwashed as a child?

Nope, I chose as a child not to join the the Sunday school crocodile as it proceeded round the village.
We had a long Garden and a wood at the bottom great place to hide.

[jeremyp]

God however is not conjured by argument but by his own being so where as you are proceeding from a gamble he doesn’t exist

It's also a gamble that unicorns don't exist but I don't act as if one might leap out of the bushes and skewer me with its horn at any moment.

I proceed from an encounter with him.

What's your evidence that the encounter was real and not part of your imagination?

[jeremyp]

The moral argument. Namely moral irrealism has no moral arbitration and neither has science or matter.

That's an argument from adverse consequences.

The argument from Contingency.

That's special pleading.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's also a gamble that unicorns don't exist but I don't act as if one might leap out of the bushes and skewer me with its horn at any moment.

Unicorns are not the only things that might want to skewer you with their horns Jeremy.

[jeremyp]

Unicorns are not the only things that might want to skewer you with their horns Jeremy.

That's OK, as long as whatever else you are thinking of shows no signs of existing, I shan't worry.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's an argument from adverse consequences.That's special pleading.

No you are perfectly entitled to offer the universe as necessary but we are of course back to what actually is it that is necessary since there are many contingent things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's OK, as long as whatever else you are thinking of shows no signs of existing, I shan't worry.

Oh they exist alright.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's also a gamble that unicorns don't exist but I don't act as if one might leap out of the bushes and skewer me with its horn at any moment.
What's your evidence that the encounter was real and not part of your imagination?

I am aware of what my imagination is. Have you ever imagined something and were also convinced of its existence?

[jeremyp]

No you are perfectly entitled to offer the universe as necessary

I'm not offering anything, only pointing out that an argument that there ust be something necessary is a long way from proving God.

but we are of course back to what actually is it that is necessary since there are many contingent things.

As long as you acknowledge that the necessary thing doesn't have to be a god, much less your god.

[jeremyp]

Have you ever imagined something and were also convinced of its existence?

Yes. God.

However, I realised eventually, it was just my imagination.

[Roses]

I am aware of what my imagination is. Have you ever imagined something and were also convinced of its existence?

I have until I realised what I had imagined wasn't credible, there being no evidence to support it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Cap’n Pigeon,

I have good reason to believe in God…

Then rather than tell us only the bad ones, why not share the good ones you claim you have? Why the big secret?

…and arguments support that…

Not yet they don’t. Do you have some arguments though that aren’t easily falsified?

… rather than steer me into the mire of “ I don’t know but it can’t be God because he is a big leprechaun/ sub Planck length teapot” in other words if that is the best you got then potentially there isn’t much substantial to sink in.

A “mire” entirely of your own imagining as it’s not something anyone (least of all I) have ever argued. “I know it can’t be God” and “I have no sound reasons to think it is a god” are fundamentally different positions - it’d be helpful if you’d finally stop lying about that. 

I find I cannot avoid God…

Fallacy of reification.

… who’s existence I am convinced of and his surrounding philosophies are basically sound.

Except they’re not, for reasons that have been given to you many times and that you just ignore or misrepresent.

Obviously I would say God has to be experienced and your behaviour hints to me that this God business is occupying a lot of your emotional energy. Of course any activity at that level is between you and God.

I’d say the same about you and leprechauns, and in any case that’s another fallacy of reification. It only “works” if you just assume your premise. 

I think you need to examine why you are prepared to countenance the popping out of nothing and the infinite material theories both unnatural, why you are prepared to tolerate almost any solution to the universe as long as it is unconscious.

I think you need to examine why you just ignore or misrepresent the corrections you’ve been given many times to these basic mistakes and straw men.   

I have given reasons aplenty as to why I don’t think Leprechauns are likely but am resolved as of now to act according to how probable I think they are and have given reasons.

Same as a rational person will in response to your assertion “God” then. Good.

Not only will you not resolve to do that with God…

Nope, that’s precisely what I’ll do.

…you will not give your reasons...

Stop lying – my reasons are precisely that all the arguments you’ve tried so far to justify your belief “God” are easily falsified. Finally manage an argument that isn’t incoherent of plainly wrong and I’ll sign up on the spot.   

....which incidentally cannot be the same reasons for why you disbelieve in Leprechauns...

Of course they can – a junk argument is a junk argument whether it produces gods or leprechauns alike.

..if they are the same reasons I disbelieve in Leprechauns...

They are the same reasons – when the arguments attempted to justify the beliefs gods/leprechauns are the same they’re both wrong.

...but hey we will never know because of your swerve argument.

Epic dishonesty and epic hypocrisy. You’re only one here who swerves arguments – I’ve lost track of the number of times you’ve run away whenever a simple question has been asked of you. We all know it, so why pretend otherwise?

This message has been brought to you by Vlads humble opinion.

…and troll.

As a monotheist I would say there is only one God so there is only one to miss. Which makes Dawkins smirky “ which God?”completely redundant.

More stupidity. Many monotheists would say there is only one god – only each of them think it's a different god. As the arguments for all of them are equally falsifiable, how should I select any one of them from the crowded field of contenders (this is the part where you always head for the exit pronto though isn’t it. Go right ahead and do it again -  it’s fine. I expect nothing more of you).     

The moral argument. Namely moral irrealism has no moral arbitration and neither has science or matter.

A fallacy called the argmentum ad consequentiam.

The argument from Contingency.

An argument that relies on the fallacy of special pleading (among others).

0/2 so far Go on, have another go. You claimed to have good reasons - what are they?   

[ippy]

That he was brainwashed as a child?

He couldn't have been brainwashed legally in the UK, because any use of torture is against the law here.

Regards, ippy.

[SteveH]

He couldn't have been brainwashed legally in the UK, because any use of torture is against the law here.

Regards, ippy.

And many psychologists think that there's no such thing as brainwashing, anyway.

[Roses]

And many psychologists think that there's no such thing as brainwashing, anyway.

Examples?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wilks,

And many psychologists think that there's no such thing as brainwashing, anyway.

"Indoctrination" is a better fit I think, especially in respect of faith schools that focus on children before their critical faculties have developed.

[ippy]

And many psychologists think that there's no such thing as brainwashing, anyway.

You're right the North Koreans gave up on it because they found it didn't work, they tried very hard to expunge all memories out of the US POWs minds and then indoctrinate these cleaned out, freshly 'brainwashed' minds, with their own Korean ideas. 

ippy.

[ippy]

Examples?

Look up brainwashing during the Korean war, Proff Google will explain it for you L R.

Regards, ippy.

[Roses]

Wilks,

"Indoctrination" is a better fit I think, especially in respect of faith schools that focus on children before their critical faculties have developed.

I agree with you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not offering anything,

Jeremy’s criterion for himself.

As long as you acknowledge that the necessary thing doesn't have to be a god, much less your god.

Jeremy’s criteria for me

Jeremy you seem just to be doing a variation on the I don’t know but it’s very unlikely to be your God.

Because you aren’t offering anything I don’t know what handle you have on the necessary entity and the properties it unavoidably has. I think if you really thought about the implications God would no longer be the laughable suggestion your heroes have been promoting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're right the North Koreans gave up on it because they found it didn't work, they tried very hard to expunge all memories out of the US POWs minds and then indoctrinate these cleaned out, freshly 'brainwashed' minds, with their own Korean ideas. 

ippy.

I just love it when people equate an average Home Counties schooling and village life with North Korea.

 What’s more laughable is Hillside’s comment......who probably had a Home Counties suggesting that his peers in neighbouring counties were subjected to Indoctrination.

Unfortunately when I exposed myself to proper church attendance, bible study, prayer groups and theology my thought was blimey. They don’t teach any of this stuff. My second thought was how fucking bland what you are told about is.

Since I’m Captain Pigeon then I counterchristen Hillside Superbland........ More soulless than Harlow town centre, More empty than a Modern high street Art gallery, more Tasteless than boiled boiled mince It’s  SUPERBLAND.