Strutting one's funky Atheist stuff.

[Stranger]

No Ihave outlined in the past where I there have been examples of God dodging behaviour and no doubt will do in the future.

Such as where? It's also impossible to dodge something that doesn't have a coherent or fixed definition, which is the case for the word 'God' without further explanation. Your claim of "God dodging" is a baseless and all but meaningless assertion.

[Outrider]

But that is the very opposite of what Hillside and others assume when in conversation with the religious.

Ok.  You'll need to take that up with them, then.

No I have outlined in the past where I there have been examples of God dodging behaviour and no doubt will do in the future.

Really - any idea where?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But that is the very opposite of what Hillside and others assume when in conversation with the religious

Flatly not true. I don’t just “assume” that you tell lies at all – I conclude that for reasons, some of which I set out in my last reply to you.

No Ihave outlined in the past where I there have been examples of God dodging behaviour and no doubt will do in the future.

Also flatly not true, What you have done is to assert it – when it’s explained to you that you cannot “dodge” something you find no reason to exist in the first place you ignore the explanation and just repeat the same assertion. Over and over and over again. What would you call that if not lying?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I disagree here. I think you need a definition of what the individual means by 'God' to engage in anything more than a discussion of the validity of arguments that would apply if you substituted 'Bnatiop' for 'God'.

Except the proof of the pudding is the countless post here that do discuss religious beliefs with no firm ground established a priori about what the theists actually mean by “God”. The closest any of them seem to get to it is a CV – ie, claims of what their various gods did/do rather than what they are. And when that fails, we’re given sub-Hallmark cards platitudes like “the ground of all being” and such like. Many a discussion has though been had nonetheless.     

 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Except the proof of the pudding is the countless post here that do discuss religious beliefs with no firm ground established a priori about what the theists actually mean by “God”. The closest any of them seem to get to it is a CV – ie, claims of what their various gods did/do rather than what they are. And when that fails, we’re given sub-Hallmark cards platitudes like “the ground of all being” and such like. Many a discussion has though been had nonetheless.   

The claims of what a 'god' does can be debated separately from needing a definition. So if someone says 'Bnatiop' saved me from getting a parking ticket, you can ask how.

If someone says you are 'Bnatiop dodging' though, without a definition of Bnatiop, you are engaging with empty language.

[Owlswing]

Oh dear, DePfeffelred the Ovenready is rapidly becomeing a Nicholas Marks clone in his attempts to deny the truths about religion and why it is unacceptable to the disbeliever.

You cannot equate belief with fact when you can show no proof of the fact!

Owlswing

)O( 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

The claims of what a 'god' does can be debated separately from needing a definition. So if someone says 'Bnatiop' saved me from getting a parking ticket, you can ask how.

But as soon as you do, then the answer has to say something definitional too about this “god”/” Bnatiop” – that it can assume material form to point the traffic warden away from your car for example. Sure that’s not a complete definition, but definitionally it’s significantly more than the white noise of “god”/”Bnatiop”. There’s no escape from that – how something acts tells you something too about what it is, necessarily so.     

If someone says you are 'Bnatiop dodging' though, without a definition of Bnatiop, you are engaging with empty language.

And the same with “God”. So let’s ask a “how?” question then: how does this “god”/” Bnatiop” make itself “dodgeable” rather than unavoidably obvious? Could that be answered without telling us something about what this supposed “god”/” Bnatiop” is as well as how it operates? I don't think it could. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But as soon as you do, then the answer has to say something definitional too about this “god”/” Bnatiop” – that it can assume material form to point the traffic warden away from your car for example. Sure that’s not a complete definition, but definitionally it’s significantly more than the white noise of “god”/”Bnatiop”. There’s no escape from that – how something acts tells you something too about what it is, necessarily so.     

And the same with “God”. So let’s ask a “how?” question then: how does this “god”/” Bnatiop” make itself “dodgeable” rather than unavoidably obvious? Could that be answered without telling us something about what this supposed “god”/” Bnatiop” is as well as how it operates? I don't think it could.

But the assumption of 'Bnatiop dodging' by an individual clearly implies that the individual is already working with a definition that they accept else how could they dodge Bnatiop. Given that it's an incorrect implication the entire statement is worthless. Indulging someone by asking questions beyond what is Bnatiop is a rhetorical and logical dead end.

It should be noted that if someone were to say I call Covid 19, Bnatiop, then I would have to admit to Bnatiop dodging but it would be an uninteresting word game.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But the assumption of 'Bnatiop dodging' by an individual clearly implies that the individual is already working with a definition that they accept else how could they dodge Bnatiop.

Exactly! Now explain that to Vlad – he can’t tell us in any coherent manner what he means by “God”, so without that definition his assumption of “goddodging” by others fails. 

Given that it's an incorrect implication the entire statement is worthless. Indulging someone by asking questions beyond what is Bnatiop is a rhetorical and logical dead end.

Yep – so maybe all theological discussion should cease immediately too. That’s the thing with ignosticism – there’s no next step: “I have no idea what you mean by “God” (and nor have you) – shall we have a game of Scrabble instead then?” Thing is though, discussions can be had as if the theist had managed to define his god. It’s a sort of fiction – the concept is incoherent to begin with, but believing in it nonetheless has real world implications that are interesting.   

It should be noted that if someone were to say I call Covid 19, Bnatiop, then I would have to admit to Bnatiop dodging but it would be an uninteresting word game.

Yes – that would be just a (re)labelling exercise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ok.  You'll need to take that up with them, then.

Really - any idea where?

O.

Generally, anything that is so constructed in a way that says ''we don't know why there is such a thing as existence but we know it isn't God or but there's more likely to be a natural answer is Goddodgery.

More specifically an extreme case of God dodging came from Hillside and NTS who claimed that the idea of an independent creator independent of the universe who created it as proposed in simulated universe theory was not at all similar to the idea of an independent creator independent of the universe as proposed by theologians for the past however many centuries.

[Outrider]

Generally, anything that is so constructed in a way that says ''we don't know why there is such a thing as existence but we know it isn't God or but there's more likely to be a natural answer is Goddodgery.

I see, so nothing that anyone's actually said, then, just your selective interpretation of people pointing out claims based upon a false dichotomy are logically invalid.

More specifically an extreme case of God dodging came from Hillside and NTS who claimed that the idea of an independent creator independent of the universe who created it as proposed in simulated universe theory was not at all similar to the idea of an independent creator independent of the universe as proposed by theologians for the past however many centuries.

It isn't.  Simulated universe theory doesn't specify a supernatural origin for the creator of our reality - indeed, it's almost predicated on the idea that the simulated life (us) would be broadly similar to the creator.  It certainly doesn't allege any sort of absolute moral authority or make allegations of spiritual existence and judgement over afterlife destinations.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I see, so nothing that anyone's actually said, then, just your selective interpretation of people pointing out claims based upon a false dichotomy are logically invalid.

It isn't.  Simulated universe theory doesn't specify a supernatural origin for the creator of our reality - indeed, it's almost predicated on the idea that the simulated life (us) would be broadly similar to the creator.  It certainly doesn't allege any sort of absolute moral authority or make allegations of spiritual existence and judgement over afterlife destinations.

O.

This seems to me a prime example of the problem of  engaging in such arguments without getting a definition of god from the individual believer. It isn't clear what is being referred to, and you are saying an argument is incorrect because of your assumption of definition.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Generally, anything that is so constructed in a way that says ''we don't know why there is such a thing as existence but we know it isn't God or but there's more likely to be a natural answer is Goddodgery.

Except:

1. No-one here does say ”we know it isn't God” – that’s just your favourite straw man making its perennial return;

2. “…there's more likely to be a natural answer” is mis-phrased. It should be, “naturalistic answers are the only type we know of that are reliably investigable and verifiable, and when that happens we call those answers “true”. “God”, “leprechauns” etc on the other hand have no means of investigation and verification, so there’s no basis on which to call them true”; and

3. Still you can’t have “Goddodgery” in any case until you finally tell us what you mean by “God” and find a means to demonstrate that it exist at all. 

Apart from all that though…   

More specifically an extreme case of God dodging came from Hillside and NTS who claimed that the idea of an independent creator independent of the universe who created it as proposed in simulated universe theory was not at all similar to the idea of an independent creator independent of the universe as proposed by theologians for the past however many centuries.

Neither I nor so far as I’m aware NTS has said any such thing, and in any case simulated universe theory says nothing at all about the likelihood of something divine.

Why do you think it’s ok to misrepresent people so egregiously?   

[Stranger]

Generally, anything that is so constructed in a way that says ''we don't know why there is such a thing as existence but we know it isn't God or but there's more likely to be a natural answer is Goddodgery.

Firstly, I'm not aware that anybody has ever said this; care to point to a single example? Secondly, it's meaningless anyway until you define 'God'.

More specifically an extreme case of God dodging came from Hillside and NTS who claimed that the idea of an independent creator independent of the universe who created it as proposed in simulated universe theory was not at all similar to the idea of an independent creator independent of the universe as proposed by theologians for the past however many centuries.

More dishonest misrepresentation and another example of how 'God' is undefined, and therefore meaningless, because you apply it to any "universe simulator(s)", no matter what their other attributes might be, and on other occasions you insist on things like 'necessity' or refer to Feser's 'base of hierarchy', which are totally different concepts.

This isn't god dodging, this is you trying to slap the label 'God' on anything and everything you think you can get away with, no matter how patently absurd.

If you can't make up your own mind what exactly 'God' refers to, how the fuck can we have a sensible discussion, let alone talk about people dodging it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This seems to me a prime example of the problem of  engaging in such arguments without getting a definition of god from the individual believer. It isn't clear what is being referred to, and you are saying an argument is incorrect because of your assumption of definition.

That’s not right though I think. An argument stands alone and on its merits regardless of its conclusion – the post hoc ergo propter hoc for example is still a wrong argument regardless of whether it’s being attempted to justify ritual sacrifice to ensure good crop yields or Vlad’s “god”.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see, so nothing that anyone's actually said, then, just your selective interpretation of people pointing out claims based upon a false dichotomy are logically invalid.

It isn't.  Simulated universe theory doesn't specify a supernatural origin for the creator of our reality - indeed, it's almost predicated on the idea that the simulated life (us) would be broadly similar to the creator.  It certainly doesn't allege any sort of absolute moral authority or make allegations of spiritual existence and judgement over afterlife destinations.

O.

The idea is that the creator is independent of it's creation and that the universe is created by a personal entity. As Chalmers has said this is a creation narrative and as PZ Myers has further pointed out, it is intelligent design which is commonly held as a cover for religion.

The theory immediately proposes the supernatural namely something without the
nature of the universe, in fact in this respect it cannot fail to.

The fact that the only thing that is ruled out of this  ,by you , is God. So we now know what it is you are running from. It can't be the supernatural because the creative agent is outside of the universe. So this is a specific case of the supernatural which is being avoided.

When Dawkins was confronted by the simulated universe concept his reaction was interesting ''I wouldn't worship it''. He knew the parameters of a God he wasn't prepared to worship'' so that makes pleas of ''we don't know what you mean by God'' are IMHO misplaced.

[Stranger]

...so that makes pleas of ''we don't know what you mean by God'' are IMHO misplaced.

Then you've got even less of a grasp of logic than I thought (and I didn't think that was even possible). If you apply the same label to any old universe simulator, and to something that is necessary rather than contingent and Feser's base of hierarchy, then you're actually telling us that the term is worthless nonsense devoid of any specific meaning.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The idea is that the creator is independent of it's creation and that the universe is created by a personal entity. As Chalmers has said this is a creation narrative and as PZ Myers has further pointed out, it is intelligent design which is commonly held as a cover for religion.

Yes, there have been countless creation myths over the millennia – yours is just one such from a crowded field.

The theory immediately proposes the supernatural namely something without the
nature of the universe, in fact in this respect it cannot fail to.

What “theory”? It’s just a speculation entirely unsupported by evidence to justify it.

The fact that the only thing that is ruled out of this  ,by you , is God. So we now know what it is you are running from. It can't be the supernatural because the creative agent is outside of the universe. So this is a specific case of the supernatural which is being avoided.

That’s not a fact, it’s just you telling a lie again. Ruling something out and finding no sound reason to rule it in are not the same thing. Why is this so difficult to grasp, or are you so invested in the lie that you cannot back out of it? I cannot rule out the possibility of the Tooth Fairy; I see no good reason to think it exists. Can you really not see the difference between these two positions?   

When Dawkins was confronted by the simulated universe concept his reaction was interesting ''I wouldn't worship it''. He knew the parameters of a God he wasn't prepared to worship'' so that makes pleas of ''we don't know what you mean by God'' are IMHO misplaced.

Wrong again. If that’s an accurate representation, it would not imply that he thought there was a god involved at all – just a “creator” of some kind that could just as well have been non-divine.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

That’s not right though I think. An argument stands alone and on its merits regardless of its conclusion – the post hoc ergo propter hoc for example is still a wrong argument regardless of whether it’s being attempted to justify ritual sacrifice to ensure good crop yields or Vlad’s “god”.

But the conclusion here is necessarily based around the definition of 'god'. If you have a conversation with 2 different definitions  it's worthless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But the conclusion here is necessarily based around the definition of 'god'. If you have a conversation with 2 different definitions  it's worthless.

That’s not the point though – regardless of the nature of what’s being claimed (ie, defined or not) the arguments attempted to justify the claim can be examined on their own terms and found to be sound or not. Whether the claim is germs causing disease, Vlad’s god or !87o87ty makes no difference to that.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then you've got even less of a grasp of logic than I thought (and I didn't think that was even possible). If you apply the same label to any old universe simulator, and to something that is necessary rather than contingent and Feser's base of hierarchy, then you're actually telling us that the term is worthless nonsense devoid of any specific meaning.

As I pointed out. Once you propose a creative agent outside of the universe you have no real sanction on how ''supernatural'' this is. You cannot specify therefore if it is necessary or contingent. In fact to say oh,oh,oh I'm only talking about the contingent here not the necessary a)it's special pleading b)You've no actual warrant c)You are actually involved in dodging God.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,
 

That’s not the point though – regardless of the nature of what’s being claimed (ie, defined or not) the arguments attempted to justify the claim can be examined on their own terms and found to be sound or not. Whether the claim is germs causing disease, Vlad’s god or !87o87ty makes no difference to that.

Which doesn't apply to an argument that states there is a probability of an outside creator and Vlad choosing to say that this would be equivalent to a  'god' and Outrider saying 'Oh no, it isn't' if both of them are using different definitions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Which doesn't apply to an argument that states there is a probability of an outside creator and Vlad choosing to say that this would be equivalent to a  'god' and Outrider saying 'Oh no, it isn't' if both of them are using different definitions.

Yes it does. The cosmological argument for there being a non-material god for example fails because of its inherent weakness, not because of different understandings of what’s intended by “god”. 

[Stranger]

As I pointed out. Once you propose a creative agent outside of the universe you have no real sanction on how ''supernatural'' this is.

'Supernatural' is another meaningless word without a proper definition.

You cannot specify therefore if it is necessary or contingent.

Indeed. So defining any universe simulator(s) as 'god', means that you have excluded any questions of contingency versus necessity and the question of the basis of existence (Feser) from the definition; not to mention any moral element, any afterlife, any of the omnis, any connection to any 'holy book', and so on, and so on. A universe simulator might have any of those characteristics but by applying the label to any simulators, specifically excludes all those things from the definition. As and aside you also never answered the question of how much of a universe has to be simulated before the simulator becomes 'god' - which makes the term even less meaningful.

The label 'God' has become far too vague to have a meaningful discussion about it; it's just rather comical nonsense. Unless you have a specific definition, then any discussion is impossible, as is any idea that anybody is doing any 'dodging'.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,
 

Yes it does. The cosmological argument for there being a non-material god for example fails because of its inherent weakness, not because of different understandings of what’s intended by “god”.

Vlad hasn't made an argument for a non material god here. He can't have since he hasn't provided a definition