Evidence of God

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So has your god when he chose to appear in physical form. So far, so equivalent then…

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?

Gibberish.



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?

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.

Nope, no idea.


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?

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.

Who said they’d be shorn of their supernatural abilities?

What are we talking about here – leprechauns or your 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?     


The empirical arguments for leprechauns cover leprechauns when they’re material,

Thank you. What part of "The divine is not susceptible to empirical investigation" are you not getting.

You aren't subscribing to a philosophical empiricism as I define it then it's reasonable for me not to agree with divinity as you describe it.

I find your appeal to a literal interpretation of seeing the hind quarters of God to shore up argumentum ad Leprechaunum er veridum.

[Stranger]

Thank you. What part of "The divine is not susceptible to empirical investigation" are you not getting.

You aren't subscribing to a philosophical empiricism as I define it then it's reasonable for me not to agree with divinity as you describe it.

I find your appeal to a literal interpretation of seeing the hind quarters of God to shore up argumentum ad Leprechaunum er veridum.

How about you stop spouting utter drivel and irrelevant nonsense just long enough to address the actual point? That being, what specifically is your definition of 'god' and why we should take it seriously?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So having had your arse handed to you on sling yet again, this is the best you can come up with?

Ah well.

Thank you. What part of "The divine is not susceptible to empirical investigation" are you not getting.

The part that questions your special pleading about your faith claim “god” being “not susceptible to empirical investigation” when in non-material mode not applying equally to my faith claim “leprechauns” when they’re in non-material mode. 

You aren't subscribing to a philosophical empiricism as I define it then it's reasonable for me not to agree with divinity as you describe it.

No it isn’t. First, I’ve told you countless times what it is that I do “subscribe to”, and over and over again you’ve misrepresented what I’ve said and instead invited me to defend something I expressly don’t subscribe to at all.   

Second, I have no interest in what you mean by “divine”. Your argument is that you cannot investigate claims about a non-material entity by using naturalistic methods. The twofold problem this gives you is first that neither can any other method you’re capable of producing, and second that then the same could be said about any other claim of non-material entities, leprechauns included when they choose to be in that mode.

I find your appeal to a literal interpretation of seeing the hind quarters of God to shore up argumentum ad Leprechaunum er veridum.

It’s not my interpretation. A collection of books you think to be “holy” claims that your god appeared in physical form multiple times. If you want these claims to be taken seriously, then during those times he would have been as amenable to naturalistic investigation as my leprechauns were when they chose to be in material form.   

Short version: if you want to apply a conditional caveat to your faith claim, you have no basis to deny the same conditional caveat to my faith claim. QED

[Walt Zingmatilder]

no-one here subscribes to the absolutist versions of them despite your endless misrepresentations about that.

That's irrelevant to the question asked.

Can you then, agree now that some of the same arguments for philosophical empiricism, naturalism, physicalism, etc. can be used for Leprechauns?

Either you agree in which your use of Leprechauns for God and not for the above philosophies is itself a fallacy.....or you disagree with Leprechauns being unfalsifiable.

Basically Hillside you are fucked whatever.

And since you've covered preventing me from choosing a chess metaphor '''oh yes....mim, mim, mim that's pigeon chess''

I'll just say. Game over.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's irrelevant to the question asked.

Complaining that people can’t defend positions they neither take nor rely on is entirely relevant. It just shows you to be dishonest.

Can you then, agree now that some of the same arguments for philosophical empiricism, naturalism, physicalism, empiricism.

That doesn’t scan. What are you trying to ask?

Either you agree in which your use of Leprechauns for God and not for the above philosophies is itself a fallacy.....or you disagree with Leprechauns being unfalsifiable.

Agree with what?

Basically Hillside you are fucked whatever.

Not when you’re incapable of a coherent sentence I’m not. Try again, then say it out loud until you can finally come up with a version that doesn’t resemble a bad hand at Scrabble.

And since you've covered prevented me from choosing a chess metaphor '''oh yes....mim, mim, mim that's pigeon chess''

“And since you've covered prevented me from choosing a chess metaphor…”? I tend not to comment on your struggles with the English language, but would it really kill you to check your efforts for coherence before posting them?

I'll just say. Game over.

As you never showed up for the “game”, it never began.

[Stranger]

Vlad, it speaks volumes that you would rather post endless daft misunderstandings and spurious nonsense, than actually make any attempt at all to justify your own claims - or even define what they are, for that matter.

[Roses]

That's irrelevant to the question asked.

Can you then, agree now that some of the same arguments for philosophical empiricism, naturalism, physicalism, etc. can be used for Leprechauns?

Either you agree in which your use of Leprechauns for God and not for the above philosophies is itself a fallacy.....or you disagree with Leprechauns being unfalsifiable.

Basically Hillside you are fucked whatever.

And since you've covered preventing me from choosing a chess metaphor '''oh yes....mim, mim, mim that's pigeon chess''

I'll just say. Game over.

Nurse come quickly Vlad needs his nappy changing!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nurse come quickly Vlad needs his nappy changing!

Little rose doing her atheist groupie bit

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, it speaks volumes that you would rather post endless daft misunderstandings and spurious nonsense, than actually make any attempt at all to justify your own claims - or even define what they are, for that matter.

Never talk doing his atheist groupie bit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Complaining that people can’t defend positions they neither take nor rely on is entirely relevant. It just shows you to be dishonest.

That doesn’t scan. What are you trying to ask?

Agree with what?

Not when you’re incapable of a coherent sentence I’m not. Try again, then say it out loud until you can finally come up with a version that doesn’t resemble a bad hand at Scrabble.

“And since you've covered prevented me from choosing a chess metaphor…”? I tend not to comment on your struggles with the English language, but would it really kill you to check your efforts for coherence before posting them?

As you never showed up for the “game”, it never began.

Anybody who is effectively saying. Never mind what others interpretations and definitions say, it's what I mean that counts is indicative of a man used to getting his own way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Anybody who is effectively saying.

“Anybody who is effectively saying.” Doesn’t scan as a sentence. Has even your fragile grip on the language begun to fail you now?
 

Never mind what others interpretations and definitions say, it's what I mean that counts is indicative of a man used to getting his own way.

Stop lying. Definitions matter – that’s why you keep getting called out when you assert that a term (“materialism” etc) means something it doesn’t mean at all, and then complain that someone who argues for it can’t defend your personal redefinition. The first few times you do it could be forgiven for simple mistake. When you do it over and over again though no matter how many times your mistake is explained, no matter how many times you’re given citations and references etc then you’re just lying.

You really should try at least to stop lying.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you then, agree now that some of the same arguments for philosophical empiricism, naturalism, physicalism, empiricism.

That doesn’t scan. What are you trying to ask?

My bad

What I meant to say was.

Can you agree now that some of the same arguments for philosophical empiricism, naturalism, physicalism, empiricism can be used for Leprechauns?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My bad

What I meant to say was.

Can you agree now that some of the same arguments for philosophical empiricism, naturalism, physicalism, empiricism can be used for Leprechauns?

First, these are different categories of arguments: some don't make absolute claims, others do. No-one here argues for the latter, and lumping them together as if they were in the same category is dishonest.

Second, I have no idea what you’re trying to ask still but you can try good and bad arguments to justify the claim "leprechauns" as much as you can try them them to justify anything else. The point though has nothing to do with that. The point was, is and will continue to be that if you think an argument works to justify the claim “god” and the same argument also justifies “leprechauns” then it’s probably a bad argument. See “reductio ad absurdum” to see why.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When you do it over and over again though no matter how many times your mistake is explained, no matter how many times you’re given citations and references etc

Seriously, do you have citations for that?.........They're not there Hillside. Am I supposed to take you seriously or not?

I'm at the point where I know you can't really hate me Hillside but you must absolutely HATE those people who don't take what you say with a pinch of salt.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Seriously, do you have citations for that?.........They're not there Hillside. Am I supposed to take you seriously or not?

What the hell is wrong with you? Citations for the proper definitions of the words you try to re-define? Yes, lots of them – all of which have been given to you often.

Or do you mean citations fir the countless the times I’ve said one thing, you’ve promptly misrepresented what I said and then demanded that I defend your misrepresentation of it? There are countless examples of that too.   

I'm at the point where I know you can't really hate me Hillside but you must absolutely HATE those people who don't take what you say with a pinch of salt.

I don’t hate “you” at all – I have no idea who you are. What I actually hate is your inability to be truthful, presumably because you take some kind of perverse pleasure from relentless trolling.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

First, these are different categories of arguments: some don't make absolute claims, others do

Which ones do and which ones don't? And now you seem to be in the market for giving citations can we have those too.

No-one here argues for the latter

Don't they? I'm more of the opinion that they don't want to give any idea of what their philosophy is. These are people who purport to lack, rather than purport to have

and lumping them together as if they were in the same category is dishonest.

Lumping them as philosophies is not dishonest, that's just your propensity for accusing people of lying....IMV a major cause for the loss and lack of membership on this board.

Second, I have no idea what you’re trying to ask still but you can try good and bad arguments to justify the claim "leprechauns" as much as you can try them them to justify anything else. The point though has nothing to do with that. The point was, is and will continue to be that if you think an argument works to justify the claim “god” and the same argument also justifies “leprechauns” then it’s probably a bad argument. See “reductio ad absurdum” to see why.

The question is quite clear. Either you are off colour, stupid or you are bullshitting.

[Stranger]

Never talk doing his atheist groupie bit.

   Kind of demonstrating my point. You'll post any old shit rather than define and attempt to justify your own claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Which ones do and which ones don't? And now you seem to be in the market for giving citations can we have those too.

The exact same ones I’ve given you citations for many times. Why the hell should I give them to you again, only for you to ignore them again as you always do? Oh, and can you have forgotten already that time you attempted a citation to justify your definition of a term and it turned out to say precisely the opposite of what you though it said? Many was the chuckle we all had about that down at the Limping Whippet.   

Don't they? I'm more of the opinion that they don't want to give any idea of what their philosophy is. These are people who purport to lack, rather than purport to have

To have what? Your already flaky grasp of the language is slipping again.

Lumping them as philosophies is not dishonest, that's just your propensity for accusing people of lying....IMV a major cause for the loss and lack of membership on this board.

Then stop lying. Your standard stunt is to lump together non-absolute positions (materialism etc) that people here do argue for with absolute positions (physicalism etc) that no-one here argues for, and then to demand that they defend them as whole.     

The question is quite clear. Either you are off colour, stupid or you are bullshitting.

I answered it (something you will never do by the way). Why have you lied about that? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The exact same ones I’ve given you citations for many times. Why the hell should I give them to you again, only for you to ignore them again as you always do? Oh, and can you have forgotten already that time you attempted a citation to justify your definition of a term and it turned out to say precisely the opposite of what you though it said? Many was the chuckle we all had about that down at the Limping Whippet.   

To have what? Your already flaky grasp of the language is slipping again.

Then stop lying. Your standard stunt is to lump together non-absolute positions (materialism etc) that people here do argue for with absolute positions (physicalism etc) that no-one here argues for, and then to demand that they defend them as whole.     

I answered it (something you will never do by the way). Why have you lied about that?

No questions answered, no citations. Just shows you how fucking useless atheism is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No questions answered, no citations. Just shows you how fucking useless atheism is.

1. Questions answered (try to stop lying about that, even if you can't stop lying about everything else).

2. How useful something is doesn't tell you whether it's right or not.

3. You've been given countless citations, and ignored them all. Why would anyone want to go the same trouble for you again?
 

[Stranger]

No questions answered, no citations. Just shows you how fucking useless atheism is.

Not as fucking useless as somebody who will do anything, employ any distraction possible, post endless shit about anything, just to avoid defining and attempting to justify their own claims.

[Enki]

Vlad, In Post 267, you said:

I’ve argued that Leprechauns have physical definitive features. Enki has provided a list of those features which would satisfy existence empirically.

Not at all. I simply listed a range of types of evidence which might well include but is not limited to physical characteristics, any or all of which might well support the idea that leprechauns existed. Here again is the whole paragraph:

"Bones, DNA, reputable historical references and cross references, ideologically independent witnesses, captured examples(living or dead), plenty of photographs and film, examples of wishes being granted under lab conditions, even pots of gold found regularly at the ends of rainbows."

This type of evidence, although it wouldn't necessarily confirm the existence of leprechauns, would to some extent support the idea as a feasible possibility, just as it would for your God. The analogy stands. 

There are no properties of the divine that can be studied so.

Rubbish! There are plenty of references to his physical characteristics.

In the Bible, God is described as having the likeness of a human. He seems to have ears, eyes, hair, nostrils, feet, fingers. Moses used to speak to him and Abraham met him. As for his character attributes, he can be jealous, warlike, a deceiver, a waverer, gracious, kindly, vicious. He can even encourage adultery and suicide on occasions. He is described in many different ways, some comical, some decent, some horrendous. Jesus is described as having white wool like hair and with a sword coming out of his mouth in Revelations. He is also described as performing numerous miracles.

The trouble is that we have no means of verification for any of these characteristics and attributes so, just like leprechauns, the analogy stands.

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad, In Post 267, you said:

Not at all. I simply listed a range of types of evidence which might well include but is not limited to physical characteristics, any or all of which might well support the idea that leprechauns existed. Here again is the whole paragraph:

"Bones, DNA, reputable historical references and cross references, ideologically independent witnesses, captured examples(living or dead), plenty of photographs and film, examples of wishes being granted under lab conditions, even pots of gold found regularly at the ends of rainbows."

This type of evidence, although it wouldn't necessarily confirm the existence of leprechauns, would to some extent support the idea as a feasible possibility, just as it would for your God. The analogy stands. 

Rubbish! There are plenty of references to his physical characteristics.

In the Bible, God is described as having the likeness of a human. He seems to have ears, eyes, hair, nostrils, feet, fingers. Moses used to speak to him and Abraham met him. As for his character attributes, he can be jealous, warlike, a deceiver, a waverer, gracious, kindly, vicious. He can even encourage adultery and suicide on occasions. He is described in many different ways, some comical, some decent, some horrendous. Jesus is described as having white wool like hair and with a sword coming out of his mouth in Revelations. He is also described as performing numerous miracles.

The trouble is that we have no means of verification for any of these characteristics and attributes so, just like leprechauns, the analogy stands.

For info

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=6939.msg822446#msg822446

[Andy]

If an asteroid crashed into the moon and the debris spelt out the word God in every human language would you believe in God or would you require more evidence?

If an asteroid crashed into the moon and the debris DIDN'T spell out the word God in every human language, would that not be evidence for God?

Do you think that asteroids, the moon and the results of their collisions can exist without God existing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If an asteroid crashed into the moon and the debris spelt out the word God in every human language would you believe in God or would you require more evidence?

More evidence (indeed any "evidence" would be helpful). It’s been a while since you tried the survivorship bias fallacy though:

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

Given enough asteroids hitting enough moons such a thing could happen with no god involved. Fantastically unlikely events happen at the time - consider the fact of your existence for example. How many bajillions of events must have happened since the big bang do you suppose for you to be here? Is that evidence for “God” too do you think as you seem think very unlikely = god?