Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And as I have just as frequently corrected you…

Who’s “they”? If you mean supposed universe creators then that “are” is overreaching again (“need not necessarily be” is as much as you can reasonably speculate), and in any case if you want to conjecture a god flitting between universes then you cannot arbitrarily deny the same option for my conjecture about leprechauns.

Thank you for that faith claim. My faith claim is that leprechauns “have a nature” too. Why should either faith claim be taken more seriously than the other?

Depends what you mean by “divine attributes”, but as I keep schooling you even if you want to call creating a universe a “divine attribute” you’re still a long way short of the ones you think to be essential for your belief “god” (supernaturalism for example), so you’re still mired in “horses have unicorn attributes, therefore unicorns” territory. How does that help you?
 
Do you want to have another run at that, only this time expressing something coherent? If you’re trying to say here though that universe creators need not be been supernatural (whatever that would mean) then that’s the central pillar of your god claim defenestrated I’d have thought.

You’re collapsing into gibberish again. I have no idea what you mean by “supernatural” (and nor have you) but if you’re groping toward something like, “not governed by the laws and forces of the observable universe” then you’re still stuck with the problem of showing that these supposed creators weren’t (or aren’t) entirely subject to the laws and forces of whatever universe they do happen to inhabit – which would be pretty ungodlike I’d have thought if you want to claim a god of the “omnis”. 

A highly dubious proposition but, even if it were to be true, then of course you’d then be stuck with explaining why this god/gods would not itself require its own creator and so on through infinite regress. This remains your basic Fletcher’s tunnel mistake.

So thanks for your dog’s breakfast of an attempt at reasoning here, but it remains utterly hopeless for the reasons I’ve set out.

Again.   

Please reference some genuine Leprechaun believers. Can’t? Oh well now we’ve got that shit out of the way, I suggest that you are conflating God and Leprechauns because they are both in your eyes unfalsifiable as if unfalsifiability was the reason for my belief. It isn’t..

The divine entities invoked by SU theory. May or may not be contingent. That doesn’t detract from them being minds that have created the universe and therefore their divinity.

I don’t think even you would deny that Zeus was a God procreated by his father Cronus who in turn was fathered by Uranus, who incidentally seems to have fathered your posts. So then even regression doesn’t detract from divinity.

 You are out of luck because this universe would have been created by will. That is certainly not in the atheist playbook.

Universal naturalism cannot be supported by methodological naturalism in this universe Hillside let alone another. Your brand of atheism Hillside has become “zombie” thanks to Greene, Bostrom and De Grasse Tyson.

[Stranger]

The divine entities invoked by SU theory.

Genuine laugh out loud!

As long as you persist in this idiocy, it makes your notion of god totally undefined because it changes from post to post, so talking about it is pointless. It also makes you look daft.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don’t think even you would deny that Zeus was a God procreated by his father Cronus who in turn was fathered by Uranus ...

BH can speak for himself, but of course I would deny that assertion, unless your definition of a god is something defined by people as a god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

BH can speak for himself, but of course I would deny that assertion, unless your definition of a god is something defined by people as a god.

Firstly, what has this to do with a creator of this universe having the divine attributes.

Secondly your own arguments don't allow the questioning of the divinity of Zeus since in the argument "I believe in one less god than you" the gods we mutually disagree with include Zeus and most other gods who show ancestry or in other words contingent regression.

 You have no warrant though to limit the creator of this universe as necessarily contingent although it doesn't matter if it is.

In other words, who created the creator of this universe is not a specifically atheist question.

[ProfessorDavey]

Firstly, what has this to do with a creator of this universe having the divine attributes.

Secondly your own arguments don't allow the questioning of the divinity of Zeus since in the argument "I believe in one less god than you" the gods we mutually disagree with include Zeus and most other gods who show ancestry or in other words contingent regression.

 You have no warrant though to limit the creator of this universe as necessarily contingent although it doesn't matter if it is.

In other words, who created the creator of this universe is not a specifically atheist question.

None of this is relevant to the point I was making. You implied that it is difficult to deny that Zeus was a god - not it isn't - there is no evidence that god(s) exist at all and therefore on the basis of lack of evidence I deny that Zeus was a god. Rather Zeus is a mythical character created by people who assigned divine characteristics to that character, hence they considered him to be a god. That doesn't mean he was a god, except in the minds of believers as there is no evidence to back up that belief - indeed there is no evidence to back up belief in the divine either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of this is relevant to the point I was making. You implied that it is difficult to deny that Zeus was a god - not it isn't - there is no evidence that god(s) exist at all and therefore on the basis of lack of evidence I deny that Zeus was a god. Rather Zeus is a mythical character created by people who assigned divine characteristics to that character, hence they considered him to be a god. That doesn't mean he was a god, except in the minds of believers as there is no evidence to back up that belief - indeed there is no evidence to back up belief in the divine either.

No material evidence, but that's true also of philosophical empiricism on which your assertion of "no evidence" is based.
My faith is based on encounter through revelation. In terms of the intellectual philosophical arguments on the way to encounter,
For me they are the numinous and what is known as the moral argument oh and the semi revealed, yet intellectual realisation of God evasion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Please reference some genuine Leprechaun believers. Can’t?

Relevance?

Oh well now we’ve got that shit out of the way,…

If by “that shit” you mean your argumentum ad populum then I agree – let’s dispense with it.

I suggest that you are conflating God and Leprechauns…

I suggest you really, really should stop lying about that. If you can find even one post from the thousands I’ve made here that does conflate your belief “god” with my belief “leprechauns” rather than do precisely the opposite of that, then you’ll have a point. Until then though…

…because they are both in your eyes unfalsifiable as if unfalsifiability was the reason for my belief. It isn’t.

See above.

As for your reasons for your belief, if they really are the ones you listed and I kicked all around the room only for you to ignore those rebuttals, then you might want reconsider your justifications for your belief.
 

The divine entities invoked by SU theory.

Very funny. First it’s a conjecture or a hypothesis at best, not a theory; second, even then it does not necessitate features you think to be essential for a god – supernaturalism, intervention in human affairs, singularity etc. If you really want to paint yourself into the corner of worshipping what could just be an advanced alien species though that’s a matter for you and your therapist.   

May or may not be contingent. That doesn’t detract from them being minds that have created the universe and therefore their divinity.

Did you know that when the Spanish and their horses first reached South America the indigenous peoples thought they were divine too – for the same reason you just assume potential universe creators would be. Short version: your “therefore” has no business being there.   

I don’t think even you would deny that Zeus was a God procreated by his father Cronus who in turn was fathered by Uranus, who incidentally seems to have fathered your posts. So then even regression doesn’t detract from divinity.

Err…does it no occur to you that none of them were real either – that is, none of them were actually divine at all?

Perhaps if you had a nice lie down with a damp towel wrapped round your head you’d feel a bit more sensible afterwards?

You are out of luck because this universe would have been created by will. That is certainly not in the atheist playbook.

Your (admittedly already tenuous) grip on reason is loosening fast here. If you want to assume that the observable universe was created, and you want to assume too that it was created by an act of will, still that would have nothing to say to theism or to atheism. Theism requires a god or gods, and gods supposedly must have various properties that universe creators need not have at all.     

Universal naturalism cannot be supported by methodological naturalism in this universe Hillside let alone another. Your brand of atheism Hillside has become “zombie” thanks to Greene, Bostrom and De Grasse Tyson.

Your random word generator seems to be stuck onn overdrive just now – suggest you start again by looking up “burden of proof” and taking baby steps from there.

Good luck with that.   

[ProfessorDavey]

No material evidence, but that's true also of philosophical empiricism on which your assertion of "no evidence" is based.
My faith is based on encounter through revelation. In terms of the intellectual philosophical arguments on the way to encounter,
For me they are the numinous and what is known as the moral argument oh and the semi revealed, yet intellectual realisation of God evasion.

Category error.

Philosophies are merely ideas, theories, opinions etc. Sure ones that may prove useful in deciding on behavioural choices, but they are entirely subjective - not objective in the sense that they objectively exist outside of people's minds. No people (or other equivalently intelligent beings), no philosophy.

Are you really claiming that your (and other gods) are like that - objectively non-existent, but merely an idea inside (certain) people's minds. If so, I'd agree with you as you've just described the classic notion of a man-made god, but I thought you guys thought that your god actually existed outside of people's minds.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My faith is based on encounter through revelation.

Except of course you have means to justify your belief that that's what actually happened. Your claim about that has no more epistemic value than my claim that I once bumped into a leprechaun. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Relevance?

If by “that shit” you mean your argumentum ad populum then I agree – let’s dispense with it.

I suggest you really, really should stop lying about that. If you can find even one post from the thousands I’ve made here that does conflate your belief “god” with my belief “leprechauns” rather than do precisely the opposite of that, then you’ll have a point. Until then though…

See above.

As for your reasons for your belief, if they really are the ones you listed and I kicked all around the room only for you to ignore those rebuttals, then you might want reconsider your justifications for your belief.
 
Very funny. First it’s a conjecture or a hypothesis at best, not a theory; second, even then it does not necessitate features you think to be essential for a god – supernaturalism, intervention in human affairs, singularity etc. If you really want to paint yourself into the corner of worshipping what could just be an advanced alien species though that’s a matter for you and your therapist.   

Did you know that when the Spanish and their horses first reached South America the indigenous peoples thought they were divine too – for the same reason you just assume potential universe creators would be. Short version: your “therefore” has no business being there.   

Err…does it no occur to you that none of them were real either – that is, none of them were actually divine at all?

Perhaps if you had a nice lie down with a damp towel wrapped round your head you’d feel a bit more sensible afterwards?

Your (admittedly already tenuous) grip on reason is loosening fast here. If you want to assume that the observable universe was created, and you want to assume too that it was created by an act of will, still that would have nothing to say to theism or to atheism. Theism requires a god or gods, and gods supposedly must have various properties that universe creators need not have at all.     

Your random word generator seems to be stuck onn overdrive just now – suggest you start again by looking up “burden of proof” and taking baby steps from there.

Good luck with that.   

Unfortunately, they would be the creators of this universe and it's necessary being. That gives them the divine attributes. Sorry, Game over for that brand  of atheism.

[jeremyp]

None of this is relevant to the point I was making. You implied that it is difficult to deny that Zeus was a god - not it isn't - there is no evidence that god(s) exist at all and therefore on the basis of lack of evidence I deny that Zeus was a god. Rather Zeus is a mythical character created by people who assigned divine characteristics to that character, hence they considered him to be a god. That doesn't mean he was a god, except in the minds of believers as there is no evidence to back up that belief - indeed there is no evidence to back up belief in the divine either.

Of course Zeus is a god. All the stories I've read about him say he is a god. There's no doubt.

Of course, all the stories I've read about Zeus are fiction. Zeus is a god but he is (almost certainly) not real, the same as Vlad's god. Would you deny that Hercule Poirot was a private detective? No, but you would deny that he was real. The questions of the nature of something and its being real are orthogonal.

[Stranger]

Unfortunately, they would be the creators of this universe and it's necessary being. That gives them the divine attributes. Sorry, Game over for that brand  of atheism.

Laughable, makes your faith laughable and inherently incoherent and contradictory, does nothing to dent any rational version of atheism, and doesn't address most of the post you quoted.

Forget leprechauns or reductio ad absurdum arguments, your faith, as you have expressed it here, is inconsistent and incoherent, it is therefore false. QED.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course Zeus is a god. All the stories I've read about him say he is a god. There's no doubt.

Of course, all the stories I've read about Zeus are fiction. Zeus is a god but he is (almost certainly) not real, the same as Vlad's god. Would you deny that Hercule Poirot was a private detective? No, but you would deny that he was real. The questions of the nature of something and its being real are orthogonal.

This suffers from the same issue as the Prof's. Namely the warrant philosophical empiricism has in determining what is real and what isn't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So having taken the trouble to demolish you last set of errors and misrepresentations you just ignore that and move on to another one? Does it not occur to you that someone possessed of any integrity at all would own his mistakes by trying to address their rebuttals rather than just pretend they weren’t there?

Oh well…

Unfortunately, they would be the creators of this universe and it's necessary being.

The “necessary being” part is dubious, but evidently yes: if there were/are creators of our universe then there were/are creators of our universe.

That gives them the divine attributes. Sorry, Game over for that brand  of atheism.

If there are horses they must have hooves. That gives them unicornal attributes. Sorry, game over for that brand of a-unicornism. 

Can you see anything wrong with that argument?

Anything at all?

[jeremyp]

This suffers from the same issue as the Prof's. Namely the warrant philosophical empiricism has in determining what is real and what isn't.

I've no idea what you're talking about.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

I've no idea what you're talking about.

Don't sweat it - nor has he.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've no idea what you're talking about.

You say God isnt real. Positive assertion, there is no God and all that on what do you base that assertion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You say God isnt real. Positive assertion, there is no God and all that on what do you base that assertion.

Why do you lie so much? What do you get from it? Seriously though, what? 

[jeremyp]

You say God isnt real. Positive assertion, there is no God and all that on what do you base that assertion.

I said Zeus is almost certainly not real. The Christian god, on the other hand, is a logical impossibility and the lore surrounding him is incoherent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I said Zeus is almost certainly not real. The Christian god, on the other hand, is a logical impossibility and the lore surrounding him is incoherent.

Just yesterday I saw somebody argue that you can be invisible and pink simultaneously. I confess I'd have to do a bit of research to check his argument. Nobody challenged him though.Is that because they too know how you can be invisible and pink? Or is it  because of double standards. I think you object to the notion of being fully human and fully divine.
I told you there are many things you can fully be.
There are many things you cannot fully be

So once again You can be fully God and fully human

You cannot be fully mose and fully reptile.

You can have something that is part jaguar and part Maserati.

This is because the physical must displace the physical. What then has full God got a that would displace full  humanity?

If you say that a contingent creator of this universe would be god and you have done then that puts you on my side of the argument. You can be a contingent being in the full sense while being a God in the full sense.

I shall leave it to you which argument you finally plump for.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just yesterday I saw somebody argue that you can be invisible and pink simultaneously. I confess I'd have to do a bit of research to check his argument. Nobody challenged him though.Is that because they too know how you can be invisible and pink? Or is it  because of double standards.

To a blind man a pink carnation is invisible. It’s also pink.

QED

I think you object to the notion of being fully human and fully divine.
I told you there are many things you can fully be.
There are many things you cannot fully be

So once again You can be fully God and fully human

No – the word “fully” mean there’s no part of “you” left over to be anything else.

You cannot be fully mose and fully reptile.

“Mose”?

You can have something that is part jaguar and part Maserati.

Yes, but it wouldn’t be “fully” a Jaguar or “fully” a Maserati then would it.

This is because the physical must displace the physical.

Incoherent.

What then has full God got a that would displace full  humanity?

Could you try that in English?

If you say that a contingent creator of this universe would be god…

No-one sensible says that. “Could” be is the best you could hope for, but then you’d also have to demonstrate all the other characteristics required to be divine too. You're still stuck in your "horses have hooves, so do unicorns - horses are real, therefore unicorns are too" mistake.

…and you have done then that puts you on my side of the argument.

No it doesn’t because your premise is wrong – see above.

You can be a contingent being in the full sense while being a God in the full sense.

How?

I shall leave it to you which argument you finally plump for.

I shall leave it to you actually to make an argument.

Finally. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

To a blind man a pink carnation is invisible. It’s also pink.

QED

No – the word “fully” mean there’s no part of “you” left over to be anything else.

“Mose”?

Yes, but it wouldn’t be “fully” a Jaguar or “fully” a Maserati then would it.

Incoherent.

Could you try that in English?

No-one sensible says that. “Could” be is the best you could hope for, but then you’d also have to demonstrate all the other characteristics required to be divine too. You're still stuck in your "horses have hooves, so do unicorns - horses are real, therefore unicorns are too" mistake.

No it doesn’t because your premise is wrong – see above.

How?

I shall leave it to you actually to make an argument.

Finally.

Hillside, I can understand SU acceptance overturns much of what you have believed for most of your life. The differences between gods and the simulator/s are marginal. Simulators are gods.

You are forced into the following positions

It is rational that the universe may have had an intelligent creator

It is not unreasonable to say that the creator/s can intervene in the universe.

It is not unreasonable to suggest their being is independent of
 Of anything in our universe.

It is not unreasonable to suppose the creators can produce avatars which are fully creator and fully simulated.

Atheism doesn't brook Creators of this universe Hillside it calls them gods.

In the next days , months ahead you may possibly be conflictèd
as you try to resolve this bombshell. But I shall always be on hand for you to advise as I can.

[jeremyp]

Just yesterday I saw somebody argue that you can be invisible and pink simultaneously.

So did I. A pretty good argument, I thought.

I think you object to the notion of being fully human and fully divine.

It's logically contradictory. If you're fully god, there's no part of you that is not god and yet you are arguing that Jesus was also fully human.

There are also other logical contradictions. For example, it's impossible to be both omniscient and omnipotent and omniscience is incompatible with free will. Then we've got the problem of squaring omnibenevolence, omnipotence and the Universe that actually exists. And we haven't even got to the incoherence of Christian doctrine yet.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside, I can understand SU acceptance overturns much of what you have believed for most of your life.

Why wouldn't you “understand” a lie entirely of your own making?

The differences between gods and the simulator/s are marginal.

So you think being supernatural, intervening in human affairs, being one rather than many, having omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence etc are all “marginal” differences between what’d be necessary for a universe creator and the god in which (up until now at least) you’ve told us you believe? Well, that’s a pretty radical redefinition of your god but if you wanted to call, say, smart aliens “gods” nonetheless that’d be a weirdness all of your own making. 

Simulators are gods.

Only if by “gods’ you strip the term of most of the characteristics that before now you insisted were essential to being (your) god. Wouldn’t you feel a bit stupid though bowing and scraping to a shape-shifting lizard alien only for him to tell you that he can’t in fact do any of the other stuff you thought your god could do for you – deliver you to an afterlife for example? 

You are forced into the following positions

It is rational that the universe may have had an intelligent creator

As a speculation it isn’t inherently self-contradictory, so in that sense it’s “rational” as a possibility, yes.

It is not unreasonable to say that the creator/s can intervene in the universe.

Ah, now you’re adding a non-necessary characteristic to the only necessary one. It’s also “not unreasonable” to say the creators(s) like liver and bacon for dinner of a Wednesday evening too, but there’s no reason to think that to be true either. This is just a restatement of your old burden of proof mistake – you’ve taken one necessary feature (universe creation) and you’re just shovelling on top whatever non-necessary ones happen to take your fancy. Poor thinking.       

It is not unreasonable to suggest their being is independent of
 Of anything in our universe.

They could be or they could not be – see above for why that is.

It is not unreasonable to suppose the creators can produce avatars which are fully creator and fully simulated.

Again, as above. You’re confusing “possible but completely unnecessary for the speculation as a premise” with “necessary for the speculation as a premise”.

Atheism doesn't brook Creators of this universe Hillside…

Atheism has no more to say about “creators of the universe” than it has to say about Morris dancing. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods – and, so far at least, you haven’t even tried to bridge the definitional gap between “creators of the universe” and “gods”.     

…it calls then Gods.

This is getting even more bizarre. Atheism doesn’t call anything “gods”. Atheism is simply the finding that those who would claim there to be gods cannot produce cogent reasons or evidence to justify the claim. Surely after all these, what, thousands of times of explaining this to you you should be able to grasp it by now shouldn’t you? 

In the next days , months ahead you may possibly be conflictèd
as you try to resolve this bombshell.

“This bombshell” as you put it is just your standard dog’s breakfast of baseless assertion, false reasoning and Dunning-Kruger level stupidity. If you want to produce an actual bombshell you need first to address and correct all of these problems.
 

But I shall always be on hand for you to advise as I can.

Sadly “as best you can” would for this purpose be as best as a goldfish could teach algebra to Stephen Hawking. Perhaps if you took a logic 101 class of some kind you would at least have taken the considerable step of not soiling yourself in public each time you turn up here.

Oh, and perhaps too you could try at least to do something about your pathological dishonesty. Thanks.   

[Stranger]

Hillside, I can understand SU acceptance overturns much of what you have believed for most of your life.

Comical.

The differences between gods and the simulator/s are marginal. Simulators are gods.

Comical, ridiculous, makes talking to you about the existence of god pointless, and makes your own claim that god exists utterly meaningless.

In the next days , months ahead you may possibly be conflictèd
as you try to resolve this bombshell.

Beyond absurd.