Secular Nativity

[Nearly Sane]

Wish fulfilment.

And, on cue,  there's an illustration of why

[jeremyp]

I’m not sure where to start with “The probability of God” thing. How do you propose to calculate it. Empirical evidence required? That makes one a philosophical empiricist doesn’t it and that is a circular argument. That way lies Scientism.

Why would I want to? There's no evidence for any god.

Can you give a comparable delusion?

Why?

You claim you have encountered God. I think you are mistaken and your "encounter" is a product of your own mind. Why would I need to produce something comparable to that?

I think you are wrong though since you do not know God doesn’t exist you don’t know that people cannot encounter him.

I claimed your encounter is indistinguishable from delusion. That doesn't mean it is not real, only that you cannot demonstrate to anybody else that it is real. Why should I believe you when there are millions of other people claiming to have had encounters, but with different gods.

Since I am not an empiricist I am open to arguments for an against God. Where as you are open only one.

I can't parse that. Can you rewrite it in English please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why would I want to? There's no evidence for any god.
Why?

You claim you have encountered God. I think you are mistaken and your "encounter" is a product of your own mind. Why would I need to produce something comparable to that?I claimed your encounter is indistinguishable from delusion. That doesn't mean it is not real, only that you cannot demonstrate to anybody else that it is real. Why should I believe you when there are millions of other people claiming to have had encounters, but with different gods.
I can't parse that. Can you rewrite it in English please.

If someone says God probably doesn't exist they usually IME go quiet when you ask what the probability is and to show their working out.

If they say God is a delusion, what is a comparable delusion?

[SteveH]

If they say God is a delusion, what is a comparable delusion?

An atheist would no doubt reply "ghosts, horoscopes, spiritualism, etc."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An atheist would no doubt reply "ghosts, horoscopes, spiritualism, etc."

Unless you've taken Dawkin's shilling, Steve, no atheist has stepped up to say so.

[Gordon]

Unless you've taken Dawkin's shilling, Steve, no atheist has stepped up to say so.

I'll happily step up and say so: ghosts, spiritualism and horoscopes are on an par with 'God' - not a serious proposition as things stand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll happily step up and say so: ghosts, spiritualism and horoscopes are on an par with 'God' - not a serious proposition as things stand.

But the definition of Delusion is a belief held against incontrovertible contrary evidence. What is the evidence against God.? Note, evidence against God.

[SteveH]

But the definition of Delusion is a belief held against incontrovertible contrary evidence. What is the evidence against God.? Note, evidence against God.

Again, an atheist would say the existence of suffering and of bad design in nature

[Gordon]

But the definition of Delusion is a belief held against incontrovertible contrary evidence. What is the evidence against God.? Note, evidence against God.

Nope - a delusion is a false or unjustified belief that is held despite contrary evidence or no supporting evidence.

As ever the philosophical burden of proof is yours alone.

[Nearly Sane]

Again, an atheist would say the existence of suffering and of bad design in nature

That only applies to certain claims about gods. In theory a 'god' could be a bit shite and a bit mean. Part of the problem that has been raised in this thread is the definition of god is all over the place. Vlad has been ruling out pantheons but previously has used the idea of simulation hypothesis to propose that multiple spotty teenagers in bedrooms could be 'gods. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Again, an atheist would say the existence of suffering and of bad design in nature

Those aren’t though actually atheistic arguments. They might point to a morally bad God and a bad designer but arguments for no God, I’m not sure.
And that’s the second point.Are these arguments or evidence that satisfy empirical evidence? I would say the latter.

Let us remind ourselves of the definition of Delusion. Delusion is a false belief in something which has incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Which opens the question of falsification as well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That only applies to certain claims about gods. In theory a 'god' could be a bit shite and a bit mean. Part of the problem that has been raised in this thread is the definition of god is all over the place. Vlad has been ruling out pantheons but previously has used the idea of simulation hypothesis to propose that multiple spotty teenagers in bedrooms could be 'gods.

I think, since it is ages since we covered this, my main observation is that once we accept a creator external to the universe how can we possibly say that creator is not the final, ultimate creator since there is nothing in our acceptance that guarantees a chain

The other thing of course is that the spotty teenage thing is horses laugh.

[Gordon]

Those aren’t though actually atheistic arguments. They might point to a morally bad God and a bad designer but arguments for no God, I’m not sure.
And that’s the second point.Are these arguments or evidence that satisfy empirical evidence? I would say the latter.

Let us remind ourselves of the definition of Delusion. Delusion is a false belief in something which has incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Which opens the question of falsification as well.

Don't be silly; nobody is required to falsify an incoherent claim. It is for the claimant, in this case you, to provide supporting evidence to incovertibly show why your claim of 'God' isn't delusional.

You should know this by now!

[Nearly Sane]

I think, since it is ages since we covered this, my main observation is that once we accept a creator external to the universe how can we possibly say that creator is not the final, ultimate creator since there is nothing in our acceptance that guarantees a chain

The other thing of course is that the spotty teenage thing is horses laugh.

No, it's about you using one idea of a god to back up your contradictory position by begging the question yet again. Your sloppy definitions and logical incohetence make your posting here a sad parody of logical argument which is why I can't shake the idea that you are an atheist wum, particularly given your obsession about Dawkins.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly; nobody is required to falsify an incoherent claim. It is for the claimant, in this case you, to provide supporting evidence to incovertibly show why your claim of 'God' isn't delusional.

You should know this by now!

No to prove a delusion you have to provide incontrovertible evidence against. Against Gordon. The onus is on you this time
You look like a one trick pony.
Claiming incoherence is a positive assertion Gordon. You know what you have to do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it's about you using one idea of a god to back up your contradictory position by begging the question yet again. Your sloppy definitions and logical incohetence make your posting here a sad parody of logical argument which is why I can't shake the idea that you are an atheist wum, particularly given your obsession about Dawkins.

Evidence ?
The chief contradiction though is accepting the idea of an external creator independent of the universe it creates....unless the proposer is called William Lane Craig.

[Gordon]

No to prove a delusion you have to provide incontrovertible evidence against. Against Gordon. The onus is on you this time
You look like a one trick pony.
Claiming incoherence is a positive assertion Gordon. You know what you have to do.

That is sheer idiocy, Vlad, and I suspect you already know that. My comment about incoherence is a critique of your idiocy and not a claim.

[Nearly Sane]

Evidence ?
The chief contradiction though is accepting the idea of an external creator independent of the universe it creates....unless the proposer is called William Lane Craig.

Evidence of what?

And the possibility that there is acreator in terms of simulation hypothesis tells you nothing about the claim that there is a being that is a creator that isn't itself created. You, and Craig,  attempt an Indian rope trick in logic claiming that things need to be created apart from the thing that doesn't. This is a basic logical contradiction.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is sheer idiocy, Vlad, and I suspect you already know that. My comment about incoherence is a critique of your idiocy and not a claim.

If you think there is no onus on you as the person claiming delusion Gordon, you are deluded.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidence of what?

And the possibility that there is acreator in terms of simulation hypothesis tells you nothing about the claim that there is a being that is a creator that isn't itself created. You, and Craig,  attempt an Indian rope trick in logic claiming that things need to be created apart from the thing that doesn't. This is a basic logical contradiction.

Yes, it is possible there may be a chain of creators which would be one in the eye for the single Godders. But how does there then being several gods help atheism?

By the creator being independent of it’s creation I mean independent for its own existence. Who knows what you were thinking about?

[Gordon]

If you think there is no onus on you as the person claiming delusion Gordon, you are deluded.

Of course, Vlad - but then the key claim here is 'God', which is yours and not mine, and if you can't offer reasons to support it then I'd say 'delusion' was fair comment.

I seem to remember you and BHS often discussed leprechauns, which iirc you didn't take seriously (and neither did BHS). Presumably though you did take the trouble to falsify the leprechaun claim - or did you decide it was delusional nonsense (like 'God')?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course, Vlad - but then the key claim here is 'God', which is yours and not mine, and if you can't offer reasons to support it then I'd say 'delusion' was fair comment.

I seem to remember you and BHS often discussed leprechauns, which iirc you didn't take seriously (and neither did BHS). Presumably though you did take the trouble to falsify the leprechaun claim - or did you decide it was delusional nonsense (like 'God')?

Key claim?
Gordon has a magic get out of jail free card folks. It doesn't work like that. Positive assertions need justification.

Let's look at the definition of Delusion again. (I shall capitalise those affecting your ONUs.

A delusion is a false BELIEF which has INCONTRAVERTABLE EVIDENCE which is contrary.

Your onus to provide is plain.

KEY CLAIM INDEED.

[Gordon]

Key claim?
Gordon has a magic get out of jail free card folks. It doesn't work like that. Positive assertions need justification.

Let's look at the definition of Delusion again. (I shall capitalise those affecting your ONUs.

A delusion is a false BELIEF which has INCONTRAVERTABLE EVIDENCE which is contrary.

Your onus to provide is plain.

KEY CLAIM INDEED.

There is incontrovertible evidence that people who have been dead for around three days stay dead: ask any undertaker. So there is incontrovertible evidence that the core claim in Christianity is bollocks. To believe otherwise would therefore be a false belief, but since you do believe otherwise then the burden of proof is yours. 

Now stop being silly, and learn the difference between a claim and a critique of a claim.

[SteveH]

Positive assertions need justification.

Exactly - and the positive assertion here is that God exists. The onus is thus on you to demonstrate that God's existence is at least more likely than not.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, it is possible there may be a chain of creators which would be one in the eye for the single Godders. But how does there then being several gods help atheism?

By the creator being independent of it’s creation I mean independent for its own existence. Who knows what you were thinking about?

So when you said god had to be the ultimate you're now saying it doesn't. Again your sloppy definition means that means that you end up contradicting yourself. A d circular definitions don't help you out of your approach that things need creators apart from what doesn't.