Vlad,
I’ve argued that Leprechauns have physical definitive features. Enki has provided a list of those features which would satisfy existence empirically.
So has your god when he chose to appear in physical form. So far, so equivalent then…
There are no properties of the divine that can be studied so.
There would be when this supposed divine chose to appear in material form (pillar of light, a whisper etc). This has been explained to you many times so why keep lying about it?
Also again My contention is we would all remain a leprechaunist even if Leprechauns were shown to exist just like our lives never change whenever any obscure species ceases to exist or some obscure species is discovered.
Gibberish.
My contention is that one could witness a miracles and remain an atheist.
You’d have to sort out first what you meant by “miracle”, but in principle yes. Why? Because you’d have no means of knowing that it was a “miracle” rather than just a natural phenomenon for which you had no naturalistic explanation to hand – like thunder or erupting volcanoes once were. That’s your basic burden of proof problem remember?
If you were unable to remain an atheist it would be because you would acknowledge an ability to perceive the divine.
No, it would be because you’d been able to apply a method to test the claim “miracle” that had no other possible explanation. Whether your god or the Flying Spaghetti Monster had performed said miracle would of course be a different matter entirely.
Answered prayer is different because you may have been experimentally involved.
Nope, no idea.
If Leprechauns were discovered empirically we would act as if they didnt exist and apparently that's all being an atheist is acting as though God doesn't exist.
More gibberish. If leprechauns (or your god) were discovered empirically (ie, when either chose to be in material mode) why would anyone ignore either finding?
Magic/ supernatural is not I'm afraid susceptible to empirical means. In the case therefore of Leprechauns disappearing, only illusion or instrumental failure or electromagnetic interference
Can be demonstrated empirically. We could therefore continue being a-Leprechaunist in terms of them being magical or supernatural.
Utter bollocks. You claim a god that flits between non-material and non-material states. I claim leprechauns that flit between material and non-material states. Both are faith claims, and there are various eye-witness accounts for each when in material form.
Shorn of their supernatural abilities we could proceed with life as normal.
Who said they’d be shorn of their supernatural abilities?
But, even if we did have evidence of them disappearing so what?
What are we talking about here – leprechauns or your god?
And here we come to it, if all arguments for Leprechauns are the same as for God., if we have found Leprechauns have we also found God?
First, no-one said “all” arguments. What’s only ever been said is that WHEN the argument used to justify the belief “god” applies equally to justify the belief “leprechauns”, then it’s probably a bad argument.
Second, this is more bollocks: the same argument will often justify different, equally valid outcomes.
Third, even if you weren’t flat wrong again you seem to have painted yourself into the corner of “if the argument to justify the claim god also justifies the claim leprechauns, then there are leprechauns.” Is that really where you want to be?
So all arguments for God are the same for Leprechauns but the empirical argument for Leprechauns does not cover God.
The empirical arguments for leprechauns cover leprechauns when they’re material, and the empirical arguments for god cover god when he’s material. There are no arguments to justify the belief in either when they choose (supposedly) to be non-material That’s your problem.
So what you are saying then is you will appeal to Leprechauns not because all arguments for Leprechauns are the same for God but because you want to confuse the ridiculousness of Leprechauns with God for the purposes of horse laugh....got you.
More pigeon chess. He’s not saying that at all.
So they are both things for which there is no evidence.
When in non-material form, yes. If you think witness accounts is evidence though, then there’s some of that for both when they have been in material form.
Would you therefore agree with me then that that applies to philosophical physicalism, empiricism, naturalism, scientism and a number of positions from which you argue.
No. First because you just lie about what some of these terms mean, and second because no-one here subscribes to the absolutist versions of them despite your endless misrepresentations about that.
And in any case Not all arguments which apply to Leprechauns apply to God.
Most seem to, but in any case has anyone said that they do?
Basically then as far as Leprechauns are concerned you are merely providing each other with atheist wankfodder.
And you spit the dummy again when you’ve run out of road again. ‘twas ever thus.
