Why is the FSM absurd

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jeez, have you really not got it into your head that this is all about the reasons used to justify god claims?

Yes what reasons and why are they wrong ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes what reasons and why are they wrong ?

1. The reasons you attempt to justify you belief "god".

2. They're wrong because they're constructed as fallacies. One way to demonstrate that your reasons are fallacious is the reductio ad absurdum. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

1. The reasons you attempt to justify you belief "god".

2. They're wrong because they're constructed as fallacies. One way to demonstrate that your reasons are fallacious is the reductio ad absurdum.

Feel free to demonstrate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Feel free to demonstrate.

I have done - many, many times in fact. Never though have you shown any interest in trying to rebut those demonstrations.

Take for example the list of reasons you put up recently for your belief in "god" (a sense of wonder, texts seeming easier to read, thinking about it for two hours and various other embarrassments). Now apply the narrative "leprechauns" (or Thor or unicorns or whatever) as the explanation for them. If an argument "works" to produce the outcome "god", you cannot then deny the claim "leprechauns" when the same argument produces that outcome too. Your only way out of that is to junk the argument as false and to try something else.

I should warn you though that most of the justifications you attempt for your belief "god" are easily undone by the reductio ad absurdum.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I have done - many, many times in fact. Never though have you shown any interest in trying to rebut those demonstrations.

Take for example the list of reasons you put up recently for your belief in "god" (a sense of wonder, texts seeming easier to read, thinking about it for two hours and various other embarrassments). Now apply the narrative "leprechauns" (or Thor or unicorns or whatever) as the explanation for them. If an argument "works" to produce the outcome "god", you cannot then deny the claim "leprechauns" when the same argument produces that outcome too. Your only way out of that is to junk the argument as false and to try something else.

I should warn you though that most of the justifications you attempt for your belief "god" are easily undone by the reductio ad absurdum.   

You may have done although we only have your word for it But nobody else seems to be able to recreate the feat or want to.

Again you are saying stuff which doesn’t even state why on earth you should substitute the word God with unicorns etc. Thor is a bit different since there is a claim of the divine. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the only genuinely impossible thing here.

[Stranger]

You may have done although we only have your word for it But nobody else seems to be able to recreate the feat or want to.

Actually, several people have both seen it done and done it too.

Again you are saying stuff which doesn’t even state why on earth you should substitute the word God with unicorns etc.

This has been explained to you multiple times by many people - why do you ignore them?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the only genuinely impossible thing here.

Why is she impossible?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You may have done although we only have your word for it But nobody else seems to be able to recreate the feat or want to.

That your MO is routinely to ignore, misrepresent or divert from the arguments you’re given rather than address them doesn’t mean they’re not given to you. Try reading just a few posts back for examples.

Again you are saying stuff which doesn’t even state why on earth you should substitute the word God with unicorns etc. Thor is a bit different since there is a claim of the divine.

You should substitute them because they work equally as outcomes for some of the arguments attempted to justify the claim “god”, so those arguments are (most likely) wrong. That’s the reductio ad absurdum. 

Take just one example: the negative proof fallacy (which you rely on often by the way even though you don’t realise it). Some who would assert for the claim “god” will try, “well you can’t disprove it” as if that somehow justifies the claim. The same is true of the claim “leprechauns” though so either the argument is good and both “god” and “leprechauns” are true, or the argument is false so cannot be used to justify either claim. 

The same principle applies to many of the other arguments attempted to justify the claim “god”. 

Do you get it now?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the only genuinely impossible thing here.

Depends what you mean by “genuinely impossible” for the reason I explained to you a few posts ago and you just ignored. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If something is not absurd in actuality you cannot use it in any reduction ad adsurdum.

Sorry.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If something is not absurd in actuality you cannot use it in any reduction ad adsurdum.

Depends what you mean by "actuality". In the actuality we're capable of perceiving, leprechauns are absurd. That's all that's necessary for the reductio ad absurdum. If there are other levels of actuality we're not aware of though, all bets are off.   

Sorry.

You should be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Depends what you mean by "actuality". In the actuality we're capable of perceiving, leprechauns are absurd. That's all that's necessary for the reductio ad absurdum. If there are other levels of actuality we're not aware of though, all bets are off.   

You should be.

We are capable of seeing hyper-diminutive Irishmen in green suits with pots of gold Hillside.
Seems as though you are inventing the definition of our reality and you cannot prove what we are capable of perceiving. And indeed what would it matter if humans couldn’t perceive them anyway.

They are neither logically impossible or contradictory and therefore they offer nothing to any reductio ad absurdum.
.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

We are capable of seeing hyper-diminutive Irishmen in green suits with pots of gold Hillside.

We'd be capable of seeing burinng bushes and angels too. If gods and leprechauns alike can manifest in material forms then we should be capable of seeing either when they do.

How does that help you?

Seems as though you are inventing the definition of our reality and you cannot prove what we are capable of perceiving. And indeed what would it matter if humans couldn’t perceive them anyway.

It only seems that way for the hard of understanding. Try reading what I said for comprehension this time, only very slowly.

They are neither logically impossible or contradictory and therefore they offer nothing to any reductio ad absurdum.

You've collapsed into incoherence again. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

We'd be capable of seeing burinng bushes and angels too. If gods and leprechauns alike can manifest in material forms then we should be capable of seeing either when they do.

How does that help you?

It only seems that way for the hard of understanding. Try reading what I said for comprehension this time, only very slowly.

You've collapsed into incoherence again.

I'm afraid Hillside Reductio ad absurdum depends on the genuine impossible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm afraid Hillside Reductio ad absurdum depends on the genuine impossible.

Notwithstanding your propensity for redefining terms to suit your needs, no it doesn't. What it actually depends on is an argument reaching a conclusion that's absurd - ie, ridiculous, wildly improbable, without meaning. The clue is in the name: reductio ad absurdum. If the argument required the conclusion to be impossible, then it would be the reductio ad impossibile.

You're all over the floor on the epistemology of "impossible" too by the way, but having tried to explain that to you several times to no avail I see no point in trying again to educate the uneducable. 

[Outrider]

OK then so how are Leprechauns absurd I.e impossible or contradictory.

They aren't, inherently, any more absurd than the Abrahamic God, that's sort of the point.

And what arguments are made for God that are being made for Leprechauns bearing in mind the humour is based on them being hyper diminutive Irishmen with tiny clothes and pots of gold at the end of rainbows?

Pretty much all of them. The humour is irrelevant to the point - you take arguments for gods on faith, you take arguments for leprechauns on faith, too. You can dismiss the lack of material evidence of gods as a result of 'divinity/magic', and you can equally dismiss the lack of material evidence for leprechauns on the same basis.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They aren't, inherently, any more absurd than the Abrahamic God, that's sort of the point.

Pretty much all of them. The humour is irrelevant to the point - you take arguments for gods on faith, you take arguments for leprechauns on faith, too. You can dismiss the lack of material evidence of gods as a result of 'divinity/magic', and you can equally dismiss the lack of material evidence for leprechauns on the same basis.

O.

I don’t know much about magic and I don’t suppose many or any on this forum do eitherI suspect the magic We might mutually sneer at would be a caricature of what it fully is.

Why I think Leprechauns have a lot of people not supporting them in the ontological stakes is that there indeed should be material evidence and yet there isn’t. That is not so of God who is unfalsifiable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why I think Leprechauns have a lot of people not supporting them in the ontological stakes is that there indeed should be material evidence and yet there isn’t. That is not so of God who is unfalsifiable.

Why do you think your belief "god" is any more or less falsifiable than my belief "leprechauns"? 

[Stranger]

Why I think Leprechauns have a lot of people not supporting them in the ontological stakes is that there indeed should be material evidence and yet there isn’t.

So you've decided exactly which version of the leprechaun faith we are talking about and then attacked that. Bit like me insisting to you that 'god' has to mean the one that created the world 6000 years ago in six literal days and then telling you that there should be evidence but there isn't.

That is not so of God who is unfalsifiable.

Which particular meaning of the word 'god' are you using today (you do seem to change your mind about it just to suit whatever conversation you're having)?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you've decided exactly which version of the leprechaun faith we are talking about and then attacked that. Bit like me insisting to you that 'god' has to mean the one that created the world 6000 years ago in six literal days and then telling you that there should be evidence but there isn't.

Which particular meaning of the word 'god' are you using today (you do seem to change your mind about it just to suit whatever conversation you're having)?

I don't have to know anything about Leprechauns.
According to your Lord and master Richard Dawkins and yet here you are suggesting I have the wrong kind of Leprechauns. So apparently knowing your Leprechauns DOES matter....when it suits eh boys, when it suits.

As it happens I was talking about the Donegal leprechauns,  hyper small people, irish, dressed in green.

That'll be the divine, necessary being Leprechauns from County Cork your talking about.

[Stranger]

I don't have to know anything about Leprechauns.
According to your Lord and master Richard Dawkins and yet here you are suggesting I have the wrong kind of Leprechauns. So apparently knowing your Leprechauns DOES matter....when it suits eh boys, when it suits.

Firstly, it's you who have the Dawkins fetish, not me, and secondly, you don't need to know anything about leprechauns to dismiss them if I've not come up with any evidence or reasoning to support them (just like you and your ever-changing god). However, if you're going to make statements like there should be material evidence, then you do need to understand the specific claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly, it's you who have the Dawkins fetish, not me, and secondly, you don't need to know anything about leprechauns to dismiss them if I've not come up with any evidence or reasoning to support them (just like you and your ever-changing god). However, if you're going to make statements like there should be material evidence, then you do need to understand the specific claim.

Firstly, it's you who have the Dawkins fetish, not me, and secondly, you don't need to know anything about leprechauns to dismiss them if I've not come up with any evidence or reasoning to support them (just like you and your ever-changing god). However, if you're going to make statements like there should be material evidence, then you do need to understand the specific claim.

Even if I did have a fetish so what?

Of course theres reasoning. For starters. Simulated universe theory and it's implications. The reasonable proposal of this universe having a creator, creators who have the power of intervention and are not dependent for existence on their creation is a) reasonable. Secondly that rather damages the type of atheism you stand for.

It makes a lie out of any claim that there are no good reasons.

Lastly it gives no warrant for the statement....."This cant be your God"  which you will find is a declaration based on special pleading.

[Stranger]

Even if I did have a fetish so what?

Just don't assume that other people share it. Probably best to keep your fetishes to yourself - too much information and all that.

Of course theres reasoning. For starters. Simulated universe theory and it's implications

Lastly it gives no warrant for the statement....."This cant be your God"  which you will find is a declaration based on special pleading.

It has nothing to do with special pleading. Yet again: to the highly questionable extent that SU can be considered 'reasonable' it is based entirely on naturalistic premises. It would be nothing like the other varieties of god you've alluded to.

This just demonstrates that you are in an even worse situation than somebody who has no reasoning or evidence, you don't even have a fixed idea about what you're claiming exists. It renders all discussion about it pointless.

[Outrider]

I don’t know much about magic and I don’t suppose many or any on this forum do eitherI suspect the magic We might mutually sneer at would be a caricature of what it fully is.

Why I think Leprechauns have a lot of people not supporting them in the ontological stakes is that there indeed should be material evidence and yet there isn’t. That is not so of God who is unfalsifiable.

Why should there? Leprechauns are magical, and therefore can hide the evidence absolutely and leave no trace. God is magical and therefore can hide the evidence absolutely and leave no trace. Invisible pink unicorns are magical and therefore can hide the evidence absolutely and leave no trace. The Great JuJu is magical.... The Flying Spaghetti Monster is magical...

The absurdity comes not from the specifics of Leprechauns, or gods, or the subject of the argument, but from the fact that you can insert any subject at all that make up, and it's exactly equally as valid an argument, and therefore useless.

O.

[jeremyp]

Why should there? Leprechauns are magical, and therefore can hide the evidence absolutely and leave no trace. God is magical and therefore can hide the evidence absolutely and leave no trace. Invisible pink unicorns are magical and therefore can hide the evidence absolutely and leave no trace. The Great JuJu is magical.... The Flying Spaghetti Monster is magical...

It's The Invisible Pink Unicorn (bbhhh). There is only One.

The absurdity comes not from the specifics of Leprechauns, or gods, or the subject of the argument, but from the fact that you can insert any subject at all that make up, and it's exactly equally as valid an argument, and therefore useless.

O.

Exactly. Vlad's arguments are the same for anything at all. The absurdity is not that Vlad's arguments lead to us having to assume leprechauns exist but that they lead to us having to assume that anything you can imagine exists. Either there is a flaw in Vlad's argument or literally everything really exists. That is the absurdity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Others have dealt with your latest suites of errors, faux pas and evasions so I don't need to. As you ignored it though, any chance of telling us why you think your belief "god" is any ore or less unfalsifiable than my belief "leprechauns" as you claimed? 

[Owlswing]

Jeez, have you really not got it into your head that this is all about the reasons used to justify god claims?

He is sitting at home with a huge cheesy grin on his face at the fact that reams and reams of posts have been made responding to posts he has made that he knows full well are tonnage of bullshit and garbage.

He thinks manipulating those on here who respond to his idiotic arguments makes him cleverer than them, including you!.

Why else would he do it except that he is a wind-up merchant who wears a nappy/diaper because he is permanently pissing himself laughing at you!

Owlswing


)O(