The nomological argument for god

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Ah yes, for those who have yet to read it, eh Hillside

No - for those (whether or not they've read it) who cannot be expected to scour the document to guess which parts you may be referring to when you claim "Carroll says X", "Carroll says Y" etc. 

This is the basic protocol when critiquing arguments: if you want to discuss honestly what Carroll says then the onus is on you to tell us where he said it, preferably with quotes. When you don't do that you just invite an endless stream of "where does he say the thing you claim he says?" responses.

You really should know this by now.         

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No - for those (whether or not they've read it) who cannot be expected to scour the document to guess which parts you may be referring to when you claim "Carroll says X", "Carroll says Y" etc. 

This is the basic protocol when critiquing arguments: if you want to discuss honestly what Carroll says then the onus is on you to tell us where he said it, preferably with quotes. When you don't do that you just invite an endless stream of "where does he say the thing you claim he says?" responses.

You really should know this by now.       

Rich coming from the guy who said ''Thanks for this - it's a well-argued and persuasive paper I think.'' with no justification whatsoever.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Rich coming from the guy who said ''Thanks for this - it's a well-argued and persuasive paper I think.'' with no justification whatsoever.

You really are quite remarkably clueless aren’t you. If you find a paper to be persuasive there’s no onus on you to cite the bits you think are super persuasive. When you want to critique it though, then you need to tell us which bits you think the author has got wrong and why. Given your notoriety here for routine misrepresentation, this principle should apply to you more than most.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You really are quite remarkably clueless aren’t you. If you find a paper to be persuasive there’s no onus on you to cite the bits you think are super persuasive. When you want to critique it though, then you need to tell us which bits you think the author has got wrong and why. Given your notoriety here for routine misrepresentation, this principle should apply to you more than most.

Super persuasive is a positive statement and therefore you know what you have to do instead of trying to gaslight your way out of it.
I already have told you the bits where the author has got it wrong. You were upset at me stating Carroll's previous form and yet are quite happy to do the same here.

So then what part is super persuasive?

Your gaslighting or should I say super Gaslighting just shows how bankrupt your arguments are.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You’ve managed to pack a lot of wrong into a short post here.

Super persuasive is a positive statement and therefore you know what you have to do instead of trying to gaslight your way out of it.

Oh dear. Carroll wrote a paper – in it I find him to be correct in his reasoning and in his conclusions. That is, I can’t find fault with it so there’s nothing for me to add.

You on the other hand seem to think he’s wrong in some (so far unknown) way(s). The onus is on you therefore to bring something new to the table – ie, some reasoning supported by evidence that he said what you claim he said (especially so in this case given your notoriety for relentless straw manning).

So far though, you have nothing.     
 

I already have told you the bits where the author has got it wrong.

No you haven’t. You’ve made various and vague claims of supposed wrongness, but that’s all you’ve done.

You were upset at me…

No, I merely pointed out your poisoning of the well and use of the ad hom with no evidence at all to justify your claims. 

…stating Carroll's previous form…

You didn’t state it, you alleged it – again with no evidence at all to support the claim.

…and yet are quite happy to do the same here.

I’ve done no such thing.

So then what part is super persuasive?

I didn’t say some of it was – I merely explained the stupidity of your complaint that I hadn’t included citations as if “super persuasive” was some kind of an added component (which of course it isn’t), forgetting that even the mildest irony passes you by completely.   

Your gaslighting or should I say super Gaslighting just shows how bankrupt your arguments are.

More lying won’t get you out of the hole here.

If you think Carroll is wrong, then it’s your job to tell us why and to cite specifically the parts you think are mistaken. That’s called making an argument – something you’ve resolutely refused to do before, but nonetheless it’s what you should do if you want to be taken seriously.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You’ve managed to pack a lot of wrong into a short post here.

Oh dear. Carroll wrote a paper – in it I find him to be correct in his reasoning and in his conclusions. That is, I can’t find fault with it so there’s nothing to add.

You on the other hand seem to think he’s wrong in some (so far unknown) way(s). The onus is on you therefore to bring something new to the table – ie, some reasoning supported by evidence that he said what you claim he said (especially so in this case given your notoriety for relentless straw manning).

So far though, you have nothing.     
 
No you haven’t. You’ve made various and vague claims of supposed wrongness, but that’s all you’ve done.

No, I merely pointed out your poisoning of the well and use of the ad hom with no evidence at all to justify your claims. 

You didn’t state it, you alleged it – again with no evidence at all to support the claim.

I’ve done no such thing.

I didn’t say some of it was – I merely explained the stupidity of your complaint that I hadn’t included citations as if “super persuasive” was some kind of an added component (which of course it isn’t), forgetting that even the mildest irony passes you by completely.   

More lying won’t get you out of the hole here.

If you think Carroll is wrong, then it’s your job to tell us why and to cite specifically the parts you think are mistaken. That’s called making an argument – something you’ve resolutely refused to do before, but nonetheless it’s what you should do if you want to be taken seriously.

Let's try another way....Hillside, what was it in Carroll's paper that ''super persuaded'' you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your unqualified feelings are neither here nor there. 

But your unqualified feelings are?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Let's try another way....Hillside, what was it in Carroll's paper that ''super persuaded'' you?

Again, nothing "super persuaded" me - as ever, the mild irony I used went about 30,000 ft over your head.

Once again: I cannot fault Carroll's reasoning and conclusions, so there's nothing extra for me to bring to the table.

You on the other hand seem to think he's wrong, so it's your job to bring something new to the table - ie, your reasons and some references to what he actually said.

What you're doing here is your standard MO of avoiding justifying your claims and assertions by attempting to shift the burden of proof. It doesn't wash though.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

…all’s that’s sufficient for atheism is a “don’t know”.       

I'm talking about a reasonable atheism. ''I believe God doesn't exist because I don't know god exists'' doesn't look particularly reasonable. and that's an atheism which gives a reason for itself! Why aren't you acting as someone who doesn't know god exists?

[jeremyp]

I'm talking about a reasonable atheism. ''I believe God doesn't exist because I don't know god exists'' doesn't look particularly reasonable. and that's an atheism which gives a reason for itself! Why aren't you acting as someone who doesn't know god exists?

Why aren't you acting as somebody who doesn't know leprechauns exist. Why aren't you acting as somebody who doesn't know The Great Green Arkelseizure exists?

There's no evidence for God. We don't have to justify our non belief to you or anybody else.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm talking about a reasonable atheism. ''I believe God doesn't exist because I don't know god exists'' doesn't look particularly reasonable. and that's an atheism which gives a reason for itself! Why aren't you acting as someone who doesn't know god exists?

Oh dear - yet more Vlad twisting of definitions.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in the existence if god or gods.

I am agnostic because I do not know whether god or gods exist.

The latter is a statement of fact, and indeed is the same for everyone. The former is a statement of a lack of belief and the reason that I do not believe in god or gods is that there is insufficient evidence for their existence to support a belief in their existence. And on that basis I live my life on the basis that god or gods do not exist.

That is a perfectly reasonable set of positions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why aren't you acting as somebody who doesn't know leprechauns exist. Why aren't you acting as somebody who doesn't know The Great Green Arkelseizure exists?

There's no evidence for God. We don't have to justify our non belief to you or anybody else.

You are at liberty not to. I think we can work out the reasonableness of it ourselves.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear - yet more Vlad twisting of definitions.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in the existence if god or gods.

I am agnostic because I do not know whether god or gods exist.

I think you need to be following the thread to see what I was replying to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear - yet more Vlad twisting of definitions.

I am an atheist because I do not believe in the existence if god or gods.

I am agnostic because I do not know whether god or gods exist.

The latter is a statement of fact, and indeed is the same for everyone. .

That depends of your definition of knowledge. I suppose.

But even if say, a Christian's faith were the same manner of thing as an atheists belief, why is it right to go with an atheist belief?......particularly, after reading Carroll?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why aren't you acting as somebody who doesn't know leprechauns exist. Why aren't you acting as somebody who doesn't know The Great Green Arkelseizure exists?

If one is dodging God then one is not acting as if God doesn't exist.

[Gordon]

If one is dodging God then one is not acting as if God doesn't exist.

Then, following on from what you say, one who proceeds on the basis that there are no good reasons for thinking that 'God' does exist cannot possibly be accused of 'God dodging': you must surely be running out of feet to shoot yourself in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then, following on from what you say, one who proceeds on the basis that there are no good reasons for thinking that 'God' does exist cannot possibly be accused of 'God dodging': you must surely be running out of feet to shoot yourself in.

You don't look at the stated beliefs of someone you look at their acts and the pattern of their acts. That is how we know Hillside not to believe in leprechauns. Now he relates Leprechauns to God but weirdly is not as vehemently antileprechaun as he is antigod.

[ProfessorDavey]

That depends of your definition of knowledge. I suppose.

Not really as typically theism is based on faith or belief - if you know something exists then you don't need  faith or belief.

And of course if you know something exists then you'll be able to provide credible evidence for that existence.

[ProfessorDavey]

But even if say, a Christian's faith were the same manner of thing as an atheists belief, why is it right to go with an atheist belief?......particularly, after reading Carroll?

I'm not suggesting you do.

But the very fact that you use the term faith implies lack of knowledge, as otherwise you would need faith, merely knowledge.

So the reality is that we are all agnostic, in that we do not know that god or god exists. Some people however, believe that god exists (and are therefore agnostic theists), others do not believe that god exists (and are therefore agnostic atheists), while there are others who do not wish to come down on the side of believe or lack of belief and are merely agnostic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm talking about a reasonable atheism.

So is everyone else.

“I believe God doesn't exist…

…is not a statement atheism requires, for reasons that have been explained to you countless times before.

… because I don't know god exists'' doesn't look particularly reasonable.

No, it’s a non sequitur – which is why no atheists I know of say that.

…and that's an atheism which gives a reason for itself!

It’s not “an atheism" anyone here tries though. You're just straw morning again.

Why aren't you acting as someone who doesn't know god exists?

I do, just as I act as someone who doesn’t know that leprechauns exists. 

Do you seriously fail to grasp after all these time of it being explained to you the difference between “I do not believe that X exists” and “I believe that X does not exist”?

Seriously though? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But even if say, a Christian's faith were the same manner of thing as an atheists belief...

Atheism isn't a belief - it's the absence of a belief. You have no excuse for not knowing this by now.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You don't look at the stated beliefs of someone you look at their acts and the pattern of their acts.

Which tell you nothing at all about whether or not the objects of their beliefs are real.

That is how we know Hillside not to believe in leprechauns.

Which is not something Hillside has ever claimed to do.

Now he relates Leprechauns to God...

Just repeating one of your bigger lies does not make it less of a lie. You do know that right?

...but weirdly is not as vehemently antileprechaun as he is antigod.

It's not "antigod", it's the anti the real world effects consequent on the claim "god", and so far as I know leprechaunists do none of the damage in the name of their faith that theists do in the name of theirs.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not "antigod", it's the anti the real world effects consequent on the claim "god", and so far as I know leprechaunists do none of the damage in the name of their faith that theists do in the name of theirs.   

I welcome your conversion to moral realism.

Isn't there an argumentum ad consequentium in there as well?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I welcome your conversion to moral realism.

As you can neither argue justifications for your opinions nor it seems apply the terms you attempt correctly, you're in no position to welcome anyone to anything.

Isn't there an argumentum ad consequentium in there as well?

QED, and no.

[BeRational]

I'm not suggesting you do.

But the very fact that you use the term faith implies lack of knowledge, as otherwise you would need faith, merely knowledge.

So the reality is that we are all agnostic, in that we do not know that god or god exists. Some people however, believe that god exists (and are therefore agnostic theists), others do not believe that god exists (and are therefore agnostic atheists), while there are others who do not wish to come down on the side of believe or lack of belief and are merely agnostic.

I would disagree a little there.

You either believe something or you do not, there is no halfway house. These are direct negations so there are only 2 possibilities, no middle ground.

If you believe a god exists, you are a theist, anything would be atheist.