The Meaning Of The Bible

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

See previous Reply.

I'm having to complete this for you.
Arguments for God are good for Leprechauns and Leprechauns are ridiculous.
That is immediately a fallacy. Appeal to ridicule.
Leprechauns are absurd because they are unfalsifiable
So is philosophical physicalism.
Also Leprechauns are falsifiable since they are little green men.
That is an empirical observation. And there are other things about them which would count as evidence of the physical variety

So it really does come down to absurdity. Which you are now invited again to comment on.

Ridicule I think has well and truly had it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, the unfalsifiability of 'philosophical Physicalism' is unfalsifiable regardless of the unfalsifiability of claims of magic, they are independent concepts.  Now, if someone were claiming that 'Physicalism' was fact that might be an issue, but as nobody's doing that it seems it's just another of your attempts at 'whataboutism' to avoid accepting the point.

O.

I think I see it as a chain magic to physicalism  via unfalsifiability.
If you are going to say unfalsifiability makes something absurd the suggestion is it makes everything unfalsifiable absurd.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm having to complete this for you.
Arguments for God are good for Leprechauns and Leprechauns are ridiculous.
That is immediately a fallacy. Appeal to ridicule.
Leprechauns are absurd because they are unfalsifiable
So is philosophical physicalism.
Also Leprechauns are falsifiable since they are little green men.
That is an empirical observation. And there are other things about them which would count as evidence of the physical variety

So it really does come down to absurdity. Which you are now invited again to comment on.

Ridicule I think has well and truly had it.

I don’t know what’s wrong with you. I really don’t. I’ll correct you latest dull incomprehension/dishonesty for you:

Arguments for God are good for Leprechauns and Leprechauns are ridiculous.

Wrong: the reductio ad absurdum tells you that only the arguments for “god(s)” that are also good for leprechauns are ridiculous arguments.

That is immediately a fallacy. Appeal to ridicule.

Your straw man distortion may be, but the actual god/leprechauns reductio ad absurdum isn’t.

Leprechauns are absurd because they are unfalsifiable

Leprechauns are absurd for several reasons. Unfalsifiability isn’t one of them. Something unfalsifiable may also be not absurd just as a matter of dumb luck.

So is philosophical physicalism.

Which is why no-one I know of argues for it.

Also Leprechauns are falsifiable since they are little green men.

Able to flit in and out of their supernatural state at will. I know this because that’s my “faith”. Thus they’re not falsifiable after all. 

That is an empirical observation. And there are other things about them which would count as evidence of the physical variety

As is god curing little Timmy of his rickets. So?

So it really does come down to absurdity.

Of the arguments, yes – why have you just ignored that?

Which you are now invited again to comment on.

I have. Why haven’t you commented on the argument that falsifies you?

Ridicule I think has well and truly had it

No it doesn’t. Try again. Which part of the rabbit’s foot example has you confused still?   

[Outrider]

I think I see it as a chain magic to physicalism  via unfalsifiability.

How you choose to get from 'magic' to physicalism which appear to be pretty much polar opposites to everyone else is entirely up to you, but don't expect the rest of us to follow you.

If you are going to say unfalsifiability makes something absurd the suggestion is it makes everything unfalsifiable absurd.

If I were going to you might have a point, but given that I expressly said that I wasn't, is there a danger of you verging towards a valid point at all?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I don’t know what’s wrong with you. I really don’t. I’ll correct you latest dull incomprehension/dishonesty for you:

Wrong: the reductio ad absurdum tells you that only the arguments for “god(s)” that are also good for leprechauns are ridiculous arguments.

Your straw man distortion may be, but the actual god/leprechauns reductio ad absurdum isn’t.

Leprechauns are absurd for several reasons. Unfalsifiability isn’t one of them. Something unfalsifiable may also be not absurd just as a matter of dumb luck.

Which is why no-one I know of argues for it.

Able to flit in and out of their supernatural state at will. I know this because that’s my “faith”. Thus they’re not falsifiable after all. 

As is god curing little Timmy of his rickets. So?

Of the arguments, yes – why have you just ignored that?

I have. Why haven’t you commented on the argument that falsifies you?

No it doesn’t. Try again. Which part of the rabbit’s foot example has you confused still?

Any appeal to ridicule is an appeal to ridicule which is a fallacy.
Where also is the ridiculum in reductio ad absurdum?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Any appeal to ridicule is an appeal to ridicule which is a fallacy.

No it isn’t. Is the exam/lottery example an “appeal to ridicule”? Why not?

Where also is the ridiculum in reductio ad absurdum?

Gibberish.

Explaining to you that when the arguments you attempt to justify your claim “god” work just as well to justify my claim “leprechauns” they’re therefore bad arguments is a reductio ad absurdum. It’s a logically sound argument. Deal with it or not as you wish, but at least stop lying about it.       

[ippy]

There is no verifiable evidence for the following philosophies for how reality is
Empiricism, Materialism, physicalist, Naturalism, scientism. I shall leave it to you to decide which of those  underpins your atheism.

I'm not saying anything about the isms on your list Vlad or promoting them, so I've no need to justify or support any of them, on the other hand theists in general wish to promote the god things that without the necessary evidence that right up until now only exist inside your/their heads.

ippy. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not saying anything about the isms on your list Vlad or promoting them, so I've no need to justify or support any of them, on the other hand theists in general wish to promote the god things that without the necessary evidence that right up until now only exist inside your/their heads.

ippy.

Lord love you all in your delusion that you are not arguing from any position.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Lord love you all in your delusion that you are not arguing from any position.

Of course we argue from a "position" - the position that reason and logic and evidence are more reliable and robust ways to establish truths than just guessing about stuff. That these positions are different from the position you desperately and dishonestly keep trying to paint some of us into (ie, physicalism) is a separate matter.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Of course we argue from a "position" - the position that reason and logic and evidence are more reliable and robust ways to establish truths than just guessing about stuff. That these positions are different from the position you desperately and dishonestly keep trying to paint some of us into (ie, physicalism) is a separate matter.

Evidence? Back to physicalism again.
Logic and reason. Horses laugh argument? You must be Guildford and Woking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Of course we argue from a "position" - the position that reason and logic and evidence are more reliable and robust ways to establish truths than just guessing about stuff.

More reliable....or only way?

[Stranger]

Horses laugh argument?

Seriously, Vlad? Are you still making this basic, basic mistake?

[jeremyp]

See, I think that's why scientists are so lonely on Saturday nights. Technically all humans are apes isn't much of a pick up line is it?

It's not meant to be. It is, however, a statement of fact.

[Outrider]

See, I think that's why scientists are so lonely on Saturday nights. Technically all humans are apes isn't much of a pick up line is it?

Is it a close call against 'Have you heard the word of our Lord and Saviour?', though?

O.

[ippy]

Lord love you all in your delusion that you are not arguing from any position.

Simples Vlad, to most people:

It doesn't make any sense to believe in things like Leprechauns without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.

It doesn't make any sense to believe in things like god or gods without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.

If you don't understand the above, it can only be that you don't want to understand it Vlad, your name's not Nick! 

ippy.
 

[ippy]

It's all in the Holy Bible. The book you refuse to acknowledge but which tells us exactly where the good, the bad, and the ugly will finish up. No one is going to Heaven except the 144000 to wait for the Judgement when they will return with the Son of Man and set up the righteous kingdom that is to come...the new heavens and the new Earth. Many here on Earth are practicing for that event all with varying Christian codes, but with willing hearts and as long as the individual relates to the righteous code of Jesus they will be saved. The ugly will go into the fiery lake of sulphur...they had their chance and fluffed it...The bad can repent but I'm not convinced that many will...but I'll pray for them anyway.

When our Deity say that there is only one accurate path to righteousness and we know that science is embedded within every aspect of the universe we know that righteousness is the science that we need to understand, to enable us to understand all other sciences...otherwise it would all clash...and as is proven by Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Jesus Christ, and Almighty God, Himself...everything is energy, and this energy is all around us all the time...especially in the construction and maintenance of the living cell.

Think outside the box for a change and think yourself into the Holy Bible...the master scientific book showing us how the spiritual mechanics of the universe belong to a space-age science...that we will all be heading into except for the awkward, the difficult, the spiteful, the unrighteous, and the followers of Satan...summed up in Revelation 21:8.

I note Nick you still haven't supplied any viable evidence for the existence of your god again in this post of yours.

You seem to think if you quote something or other, doesn't seem to matter what, from your manual, that because the words you're using come from this book well that's as though that's enough, all that's needed?

I have to tell you Nick you haven't supplied one single piece of viable evidence, if there were any, that supports the possibility that the words in your book are factual in any way, so if you would Nick, forget the irrelevant and pointless sermons, and do your best to supply some viable evidence.

You haven't answered me when all I ask of you is for some viable evidence you go all around the houses put out sermons etc, most likely out of  of embarrassment because you can't find any viable evidence that would support the words of your bible?

ippy. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Simples Vlad, to most people:

It doesn't make any sense to believe in things like Leprechauns without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.

It doesn't make any sense to believe in things like god or gods without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.

If you don't understand the above, it can only be that you don't want to understand it Vlad, your name's not Nick! 

ippy.
 

I dont believe in Leprechauns  but I do believe in God.
Unless you are here just to thump your particular guess you should be interested in how people can both disbelieve in Leprechauns yet believe in God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Evidence? Back to physicalism again.

Not even close. For all I (or you) know we’re part of a computer simulation programmed to think it hurts if we jump out of the window. Physicalism is impossible to justify, which is why no-one argues for it – regardless of your constant lying about that. 
 

Logic and reason. Horses laugh argument? You must be Guildford and Woking.

Your dull incomprehension/dishonesty is noted.

More reliable....or only way?

More reliable.

I dont believe in Leprechauns  but I do believe in God.

Even though, on the rare occasion you try to justify your beliefs, most of the arguments you attempt work equally well to justify leprechauns?   

Unless you are here just to thump your particular guess you should be interested in how people can both disbelieve in Leprechauns yet believe in God.

He probably would be if ever you felt like telling us why you believe in one and not the other when the justifying arguments for each are the same. Do you have any arguments to justify your belief “god” that wouldn’t also justify the belief “leprechauns”?

Something?

Anything at all? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Not even close. For all I (or you) know we’re part of a computer simulation programmed to think it hurts if we jump out of the window. Physicalism is impossible to justify, which is why no-one argues for it – regardless of your constant lying about that. 
 
Your dull incomprehension/dishonesty is noted.

More reliable.

Even though, on the rare occasion you try to justify your beliefs, most of the arguments you attempt work equally well to justify leprechauns?   

He probably would be if ever you felt like telling us why you believe in one and not the other when the justifying arguments for each are the same. Do you have any arguments to justify your belief “god” that wouldn’t also justify the belief “leprechauns”?

Something?

Anything at all?

I think there are arguments which show that it is reasonable to propose God. The simulated or constructed universe theory which covers De grasse Tyson, Bostrom and Lane Craig, The argument from contingency, the moral argument.

What argument have you Got ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think there are arguments which show that it is reasonable to propose God.

Then tell us what they are, and while you’re about it tell us why you go a lot further than “proposing” something and actually believe it too.

The simulated or constructed universe theory which covers De grasse Tyson, Bostrom and Lane Craig,…

No it doesn’t, and in any case it’s not a speculation that would justify the claim “god”.

The argument from contingency,…

Easily falsified…

…the moral argument.

Even more easily falsified...

What argument have you Got ?

That yours are demonstrably shit. That’s all I need.

[ippy]

I dont believe in Leprechauns  but I do believe in God.
Unless you are here just to thump your particular guess you should be interested in how people can both disbelieve in Leprechauns yet believe in God.

Tried to make it a bit more simples for you Vlad:

It doesn't make any more sense to believe in things like Leprechauns or Gods without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.
 
It doesn't make any more sense to believe in things like gods or Leprechauns without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.

ippy.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Tried to make it a bit more simples for you Vlad:

It doesn't make any more sense to believe in things like Leprechauns or Gods without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.
 
It doesn't make any more sense to believe in things like gods or Leprechauns without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.

ippy.

If you say it makes as much sense to believe in God as Leprechauns I have to say you are wrong.
I put it down to all that shit the NSS is filling your head with.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you say it makes as much sense to believe in God as Leprechauns I have to say you are wrong.

He doesn’t. He says that when an argument to justify the claim “god” also justifies the claim “leprechauns” you have no grounds to believe in one but not the other if that’s the argument you need.

I put it down to all that shit the NSS is filling your head with.

Wrongly so.

[Spud]

The reality is that people choose the god, and the denomination of that god, which fits the morality they're comfortable with, and the source materials are so loosely written and even more loosely translated that if they look far enough they can probably find one that fits; if they can't, they just go all John Smith on it and write their own.

They all have in common submission to their god, which is the essence of the tree of knowledge story.

[Spud]

And yet the moral standard we're given alongside Genesis is overly simplistic, lacking in key areas and just flat out unsupportable in others; the calibration of relative infractions is woeful, with issues regarding haircuts deemed at some point to be an egregious matter whilst rape and slavery are never decried.

What's not to like about no adultery, rights for slaves, strange haircuts a sign of ungodly attitude so forbidden. Do you mean relative interactions?