Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[Stranger]

What have Leprechauns got to do with the impossible?

Did you even bother to read what reductio ad absurdum meant even though it was quoted to you? Once again for the hard-of-thinking: "It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion".

You think leprechauns are not an absurd conclusion arrived at by using exactly the same 'reasoning' that you have used for your god?

Get a grip.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you even bother to read what reductio ad absurdum meant even though it was quoted to you? Once again for the hard-of-thinking: "It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion".

You think leprechauns are not an absurd conclusion arrived at by using exactly the same 'reasoning' that you have used for your god?

Get a grip.

Are you aware that you have described the conclusion for Leprechauns to be absurd. Where does the absurdity come from?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Are you aware that you have described the conclusion for Leprechauns to be absurd. Where does the absurdity come from?

What are you trying to say here, and why have you ignored (again) being corrected on the difference between the horse laugh fallacy and the reductio ad absurdum?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What are you trying to say here, and why have you ignored (again) being corrected on the difference between the horse laugh fallacy and the reductio ad absurdum?

How are you defining absurdum colloquially or by it's original meaning which you have previously discussed? In other words ridiculous or impossible?

[jeremyp]

Did you even bother to read what reductio ad absurdum meant even though it was quoted to you? Once again for the hard-of-thinking: "It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion".

You think leprechauns are not an absurd conclusion arrived at by using exactly the same 'reasoning' that you have used for your god?

Get a grip.

The leprechauns aren't the absurdity. The absurdity is that the arguments that Vlad use "work" equally as well if you replace "God" by "leprechaun" or, indeed, any assumed not to exist entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The leprechauns aren't the absurdity. The absurdity is that the arguments that Vlad use "work" equally as well if you replace "God" by "leprechaun" or, indeed, any assumed not to exist entity.

I don’t assume God doesn’t exist? The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t assume God doesn’t exist Thomas Nagel doesn’t assume God does not exist but hopes he doesn’t exist.

The black Swan business means we cannot assume Leprechauns don’t exist.

God is in the same category as universal simulators. So why not abandon Leprechauns and use universal simulators instead............answer is...They aren’t funny.

[ProfessorDavey]

The black Swan business means we cannot assume Leprechauns don’t exist.

Yes we can. There is a difference between assumption/presumption and knowing.

So the black swan business means that we cannot know that black swans don't exist until or unless we have exhausted every possible avenue to find them. That may be hard enough with something entirely naturalistic, but of course becomes impossible with a supernatural claim.

But not being able to prove that something doesn't exist (which realistically is non-sensical from your black swan argument) does not mean that we cannot reasonably live and make decisions on the assumption or presumption that it does not exist, particularly where there is no evidence for its existence. We can and we do, all the time. There are countless things that have not been proven not to exist (e.g. ghosts, leprechauns, Thor, FSM etc etc) yet we comfortably live our lives under an assumption and presumption that they don't exist as there is no credible evidence for their existence Were evidence to emerge for their existence we would change our starting point assumptions, but until then we don't. Same applies to god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

God is in the same category as universal simulators.

Only if you arbitrarily confine these simulators to the non-material, and only if you reduce their number to one (unless you've become a pantheist).

Oh, and at best that would give you deism. If you want to claim theism though then there are various additional characteristics necessary that a universal simulator wouldn't need to have at all.

Apart from all that though... 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Only if you arbitrarily confine these simulators to the non-material, and only if you reduce their number to one (unless you've become a pantheist).

Oh, and at best that would give you deism. If you want to claim theism though then there are various additional characteristics necessary that a universal simulator wouldn't need to have at all.

Apart from all that though...

We can say they are not dependent on their existence on this universe and that is what puts them in the same category. Anything else is fiddling around the edges.

I’m afraid you’ve only manage to ban God from the league of material universe builders. But even then i’m Sure He could find a way into that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes we can. There is a difference between assumption/presumption and knowing.

So the black swan business means that we cannot know that black swans don't exist until or unless we have exhausted every possible avenue to find them. That may be hard enough with something entirely naturalistic, but of course becomes impossible with a supernatural claim.

But not being able to prove that something doesn't exist (which realistically is non-sensical from your black swan argument) does not mean that we cannot reasonably live and make decisions on the assumption or presumption that it does not exist, particularly where there is no evidence for its existence. We can and we do, all the time. There are countless things that have not been proven not to exist (e.g. ghosts, leprechauns, Thor, FSM etc etc) yet we comfortably live our lives under an assumption and presumption that they don't exist as there is no credible evidence for their existence Were evidence to emerge for their existence we would change our starting point assumptions, but until then we don't. Same applies to god.

Unfortunately Leprechauns are ridiculous are ridiculous because of physical description too.
What I fear you are doing is discounting that. There are many unfalsifiable things but Hillside doesn’t use them why..... because he can’t get a laugh out of them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

We can say they are not dependent on their existence on this universe and that is what puts them in the same category. Anything else is fiddling around the edges.

If you want to change your claim "god" to a deistic one that may or may not just be an advanced alien occupying a material level of universe abstraction requiring none of the characteristics necessary for a theistic god (answering prayers etc) that's quite a change of horses mid-stream, but ok...   

I’m afraid you’ve only manage to ban God from the league of material universe builders. But even then i’m Sure He could find a way into that.

Did you intend that to mean something comprehensible? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the deist/advanced alienist,

Unfortunately Leprechauns are ridiculous are ridiculous because of physical description too.
What I fear you are doing is discounting that. There are many unfalsifiable things but Hillside doesn’t use them why..... because he can’t get a laugh out of them.

You're all over the place here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If you want to change your claim "god" to a deistic one that may or may not just be an advanced alien occupying a material level of universe abstraction requiring none of the characteristics necessary for a theistic god (answering prayers etc) that's quite a change of horses mid-stream, but ok...   

Did you intend that to mean something comprehensible?

Again you are odiddling around the edges. A universal simulator does not necessarily make a universe and just leave it running. Neither is it necessarily a material alien or aliens. You seem to have gone full IMAX in your projection.

[ProfessorDavey]

Unfortunately Leprechauns are ridiculous are ridiculous because of physical description too.

That's irrelevant - the argument that leads to assuming leprechauns exist is the same as that for other entities that may seem less ridiculous (albeit whether something is ridiculous is a completely subjective point).

But what about Thor - is Thor ridiculous Vlad? Why aren't you arguing for Thor on the basis of your train of argument that leads from a complete lack of evidence for the existence of an entity to thinking we should assume it exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Again you are odiddling around the edges. A universal simulator does not necessarily make a universe and just leave it running. Neither is it necessarily a material alien or aliens. You seem to have gone full IMAX in your projection.

Once again you demonstrate your inability to grasp the burden of proof. If you want to claim that your belief "god" and the belief "universe simulators" are the same thing, then great swathes of what you think the former requires (non-materiality, intervention in human affairs etc) are no longer necessary. If that's really where you want to be though, that's a matter for you. 

[ProfessorDavey]

What I fear you are doing is discounting that. There are many unfalsifiable things but Hillside doesn’t use them why..... because he can’t get a laugh out of them.

I suggest you take that up with BH. In my list I used some things that people might find ridiculous (leprechauns, FSG) and others that people aren't likely to find ridiculous (Thor, ghosts). The point isn't about the preposterousness of the claimed entity, but the preposterousness of the argument that starts with a lack of evidence and concludes that they exist or should be assumed to exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Once again you demonstrate your inability to grasp the burden of proof. If you want to claim that your belief "god" and the belief "universe simulators" are the same thing, then great swathes of what you think the former requires (non-materiality, intervention in human affairs etc) are no longer necessary. If that's really where you want to be though, that's a matter for you.

I dont have a problem with burden of proof. Any positive assertion Carrie's one. My problem is agreeing with what you propose as the status quo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's irrelevant - the argument that leads to assuming leprechauns exist is the same as that for other entities that may seem less ridiculous (albeit whether something is ridiculous is a completely subjective point).

But what about Thor - is Thor ridiculous Vlad? Why aren't you arguing for Thor on the basis of your train of argument that leads from a complete lack of evidence for the existence of an entity to thinking we should assume it exists.

Thor soars with other Gods. With this pantheon the line is between divinity and super humanity. That Thor spars  with other gods introduces alienation within the divine rather than a once and for all crisis. Thor lacks comprehensiveness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I dont have a problem with burden of proof. Any positive assertion Carrie's one. My problem is agreeing with what you propose as the status quo.

Yes you have. If you want to assert your god and universal simulators to be the same, then your burden of proof is to justify all the extra features necessary for your version of god that universe simulators would not require. The burden of proof is yours to bridge that gap, even allowing for its baseless premise.

[Owlswing]

Hi, Owls,

Vlad has poor literacy – spelling, grammar, ability to construct coherent sentences, etc are all weak. I generally don’t comment on it though because I think it’s unfair to do so. If I can work out what I think he’s trying to say then I do my best to respond to that.

That said, I find it hard to see how someone who claims to have read around his subject hasn’t learnt from his reading what clear writing should be.

Or how anyone cannot have learned, over the years of reading (?) posts on this Forum, can fail to learn therefrom!

As you know I don’t share your beliefs, but that seems rather lovely to me.

I wish I could take credit for originating the greeting, but I was taught it by a High Priestess of many years standing without whose advice and guidance I would almost certainly be a far worse basket case than I actually am!

To you personally -

Bluehillside:

Bright Blessings, Love and Light, and may the Old Ones watch over you and yours, always!

Owlswing

)O(

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes you have. If you want to assert your god and universal simulators to be the same, then your burden of proof is to justify all the extra features necessary for your version of god that universe simulators would not require. The burden of proof is yours to bridge that gap, even allowing for its baseless premise.

They are the same in what matters. Their existence is independent of the universe they have created. It looks as if you are trying an occam's razor here. We know not what is required.
Nor what extra properties the creator/s may have.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

They are the same in what matters.

So you don’t think your god’s immateriality or intervention in human affairs matters? Or indeed that there’s only one of him?

Well, that’s new at least.

Their existence is independent of the universe they have created.

So? Maybe they’d also be inhabitants of another universe they haven’t created. How does that align with your version of god?

It looks as if you are trying an occam's razor here.

Presumably because you don’t understand what that term means.

We know not what is required.

Yes we do – the ability to create a universe: no more, no less.
 

Nor what extra properties the creator/s may have.

Which is your burden of proof problem. Even if you assert your god to be that which is necessary for universe creators, you have all your work ahead of you to justify the addition of all the non-necessary properties (immateriality, intervention in human affairs, being alone in the endeavour etc) that you think to be its characteristics too. 

Good luck with that though.

[ProfessorDavey]

Thor soars with other Gods.

So does Thor exist then Vlad - as described. In other words a god. And if so how does that square with your purported monotheistic religious views. You cannot have a one-and-only god and then a bunch of other gods. And if Thor doesn't exist in your view you are back to the special pleading for your god (in the absence of evidence of its existence) while rejecting the existence of other gods (also in the absence of evidence of its existence).

The problem you have Vlad is you are either special pleading or you are consistent in an argument ... bur one that leads to belief in (or at the very least an assumption of existence) of leprechauns, FSM, ghosts and Thor (and indeed all of the thousands of other gods purported to exist).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So you don’t think your god’s immateriality or intervention in human affairs matters? Or indeed that there’s only one of him?

No, I’m afraid even if you assent to simulated universe you cannot say that the creator is necessarily material or immaterial or that it is forbidden from intervention. Or that it is a contingent or the necessary being or that it is in base reality or not.

Regards burden of proof, I have no more burden than you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So does Thor exist then Vlad - as described. In other words a god. And if so how does that square with your purported monotheistic religious views. You cannot have a one-and-only god and then a bunch of other gods. And if Thor doesn't exist in your view you are back to the special pleading for your god (in the absence of evidence of its existence) while rejecting the existence of other gods (also in the absence of evidence of its existence).

The problem you have Vlad is you are either special pleading or you are consistent in an argument ... bur one that leads to belief in (or at the very least an assumption of existence) of leprechauns, FSM, ghosts and Thor (and indeed all of the thousands of other gods purported to exist).

Thor is effectively a folk tale about the divine and a view of it that I’m fails to rise above superhumanity. He is the Big man idea of God. That’s why you guys love him so.