Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wrong again. Calculating what the probability is may require a calculator, but the axiomatic principle that guesses are less likely to be correct than non-guesses does not.

QED. Again.

Rubbish. That there is no God is itself a guess in your logic

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Rubbish. That there is no God is itself a guess in your logic

Straw mannng again isn't helping you here either. You asked for a justification of "there probably is no god" (which is what you were given), not "there is no God" (which is your straw man).

Your attempt at derailing from your screw up re the CR isn't going unnoticed either. 

[Alan Burns]

Control is a reaction.

No
We cannot control reactions.
control implies a controller.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No
We cannot control reactions.
control implies a controller.

No. The experience of "control" does not invalidate the underlying reality of determinism for the reasons that have been explained to you countless times now but that you will not or cannot address. 

[Stranger]

No
We cannot control reactions.

Did you have no control over this reaction to my post?

control implies a controller.

And........?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad and Blue,

I am trying to bring something to this debate ( I really am ) but Leprechaunism, I have never understood this argument, it seems to me a hoodwink, keep your eye on the right hand don't look at what the left hand is doing.

Wee green men, I see wee green men every match day here in Glasgow, so that bit is true.

But it is the magical wee green men we are talking about, the wee guy with the pot of gold that sits at the end of the rainbow wee guy, in Cornwall he is a Pixie, I don't believe or disbelieve in any of those two guys, they are a Myth " ah you have been touched by the Leprechaun" which could mean good or bad luck.

Scientifically tested, you can't do that with a myth, a myth is to make you think, to pause, to bring you out of yourself, are Leprechauns a good Myth, try arguing that with millions of Irishmen throughout the world, you will get yer shamrock stuck where the sunshine's not.

So sorry Gentlemen, carry on, just the Havering's of a old Theist.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gonners,

Dear Vlad and Blue,

I am trying to bring something to this debate ( I really am ) …

Your boyish charm is more than enough for me…

but Leprechaunism, I have never understood this argument, it seems to me a hoodwink, keep your eye on the right hand don't look at what the left hand is doing.

No – it’s a reductio ad absurdum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

It tells you that if an argument for one proposition (eg, God) works equally for another proposition that’s plainly absurd (eg leprechauns) then the argument is probably wrong. If for example someone said, “god is real because believing that gives my life meaning” then someone else could equally say that of their belief in leprechauns. This tells you that the former has a bad argument for his objective claim “God”.   

Vlad by the way routinely gets this wrong by misdescribing an argumentum ad absurdum (which is a legitimate rhetorical device) with what he calls “the horse’s laugh fallacy" (which isn’t).

Wee green men, I see wee green men every match day here in Glasgow, so that bit is true.

But it is the magical wee green men we are talking about, the wee guy with the pot of gold that sits at the end of the rainbow wee guy, in Cornwall he is a Pixie, I don't believe or disbelieve in any of those two guys, they are a Myth " ah you have been touched by the Leprechaun" which could mean good or bad luck.

Scientifically tested, you can't do that with a myth, a myth is to make you think, to pause, to bring you out of yourself, are Leprechauns a good Myth, try arguing that with millions of Irishmen throughout the world, you will get yer shamrock stuck where the sunshine's not.

So sorry Gentlemen, carry on, just the Havering's of a old Theist.

You’re looking at the wrong thing here. The point is not the properties of gods/leprechauns, it’s the justifying argument made for them that’s comparable. Consider for example the statement “a good man is as hard to find as a needle in a haystack”. You would not then say, “but a needles and good men are completely different types of entity, so the analogy fails” because it’s irrelevant. The point here is that the two have the same justifying argument - ie, being hard to find.

This is something Vlad has never understood either by the way.

Hope that helps.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Gonners,

Your boyish charm is more than enough for me…

No – it’s a reductio ad absurdum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

It tells you that if an argument for one proposition (eg, God) works equally for another proposition that’s plainly absurd (eg leprechauns) then the argument is probably wrong. If for example someone said, “god is real because believing that gives my life meaning” then someone else could equally say that of their belief in leprechauns. This tells you that the former has a bad argument for his objective claim “God”.   

Vlad by the way routinely gets this wrong by misdescribing an argumentum ad absurdum (which is a legitimate rhetorical device) with what he calls “the horse’s laugh fallacy" (which isn’t).

You’re looking at the wrong thing here. The point is not the properties of gods/leprechauns, it’s the justifying argument made for them that’s comparable. Consider for example the statement “a good man is as hard to find as a needle in a haystack”. You would not then say, “but a needles and good men are completely different types of entity, so the analogy fails” because it’s irrelevant. The point here is that the two have the same justifying argument - ie, being hard to find.

This is something Vlad has never understood either by the way.

Hope that helps.

"I'm not taking the Piss" said Hillside pisstakingly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

"I'm not taking the Piss" said Hillside pisstakingly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Yet again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yet again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Sorry son'you're nicked.

[Stranger]

Sorry son'you're nicked.

You've repeatedly failed to understand the difference between ridicule and reductio ad absurdum. You should go educate yourself, instead of posting silly inanities. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry son'you're nicked.

More lying here isn't helping you either. Can you really not see the difference between this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

and this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule#:~:text=Appeal%20to%20ridicule%20(also%20called,not%20worthy%20of%20serious%20consideration

Really though?

Nothing?

Zip?

Nada?

Nothing at all?

Ah well...'twas always thus I guess. 

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Here's Vlad confirming (without realising it) that he doesn't understand the difference between the argumentum ad absurdum and an appeal to ridicule:

"I'm not taking the Piss" said Hillside pisstakingly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

[Gonnagle]

Hi Gonners,

Your boyish charm is more than enough for me…

No – it’s a reductio ad absurdum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

It tells you that if an argument for one proposition (eg, God) works equally for another proposition that’s plainly absurd (eg leprechauns) then the argument is probably wrong. If for example someone said, “god is real because believing that gives my life meaning” then someone else could equally say that of their belief in leprechauns. This tells you that the former has a bad argument for his objective claim “God”.   

Vlad by the way routinely gets this wrong by misdescribing an argumentum ad absurdum (which is a legitimate rhetorical device) with what he calls “the horse’s laugh fallacy" (which isn’t).

You’re looking at the wrong thing here. The point is not the properties of gods/leprechauns, it’s the justifying argument made for them that’s comparable. Consider for example the statement “a good man is as hard to find as a needle in a haystack”. You would not then say, “but a needles and good men are completely different types of entity, so the analogy fails” because it’s irrelevant. The point here is that the two have the same justifying argument - ie, being hard to find.

This is something Vlad has never understood either by the way.

Hope that helps.

Dear Blue,

Boyish charm, I will take that all day Matthew 18:3

The point here is that the two have the same justifying argument - ie, being hard to find.

Hard to find, I see God everywhere, even in your posts.

You do point out comparisons, man and needle, but God and Leprechauns, pleeeaase!!

God is universally accepted, Leprechauns, awaaay!

Sorry but reductio ad absurdum, in this case I will only accept the absurd part, as in absurd to use God and Leprechauns.

Further! there are thousands of Myths surrounding God and we have been arguing about them since we stepped out of the caves, Leprechauns? over to you Blue.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Hard to find, I see God everywhere, even in your posts.

Only because it's your own personal assumption. I see no God anywhere and you have given neither objective evidence nor sound reasoning to support your assumption.

You do point out comparisons, man and needle, but God and Leprechauns, pleeeaase!!

God is universally accepted, Leprechauns, awaaay!

Sorry but reductio ad absurdum, in this case I will only accept the absurd part, as in absurd to use God and Leprechauns.

Further! there are thousands of Myths surrounding God and we have been arguing about them since we stepped out of the caves, Leprechauns? over to you Blue.

God is not "universally accepted" by a very, very long way, and even those who do accept some version of 'God' often believe in totally different things.

But you're entirely missing the point. It's not that God is like leprechauns, or even that the beliefs are similar, it's that the supposed 'arguments' used to support God could just as well be used for leprechauns. The fact that leprechauns are not like God and are mostly considered to be absurd, is the whole point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Dear Blue,

Boyish charm, I will take that all day Matthew 18:3

The point here is that the two have the same justifying argument - ie, being hard to find.

Hard to find, I see God everywhere, even in your posts.

The “hard to find” part referred to the common factor with needles and good men in the analogy. 

You do point out comparisons, man and needle, but God and Leprechauns, pleeeaase!!

No – I did exactly the opposite of that. You’re making the same mistake that Vlad makes. There is no claim of a comparison between gods and leprechauns, just as in the analogy there is no claim of a comparison between needles and good men. The comparison is only with the same justifying arguments – ie, being had to find and the belief giving meaning to the believer respectively. That’s the point.   

God is universally accepted, Leprechauns, awaaay!

Irrelevant – see above.

Sorry but reductio ad absurdum, in this case I will only accept the absurd part, as in absurd to use God and Leprechauns.

Try reading the wiki link I gave you re what the reductio ad absurdum entails. The absurdity part means that when an argument for a god works equally as an argument for a plainly absurd conclusion – eg, leprechauns – then it’s probably a bad argument for both. I’ve given up trying to explain this to Vlad - he’s either too hard of understanding or too dishonest to get it, but there it is nonetheless.     

Further! there are thousands of Myths surrounding God and we have been arguing about them since we stepped out of the caves, Leprechauns? over to you Blue.

Again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[ProfessorDavey]

You do point out comparisons, man and needle, but God and Leprechauns, pleeeaase!!

I know, needles are inanimate metallic objects while people are living organisms - so I see your problem with comparing them. But god and leprechauns, well the comparisons are easy - both mythical entities claimed to exist by (some) people.

God is universally accepted,

Wrong - if god were universally accepted then you wouldn't be discussing this with people who ... err ... don't accept that god exists.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger and Prof,

God is not "universally accepted" by a very, very long way,

Unless you are willing to accept that you are in a very, very small minority ( not saying you are wrong ) then the conversation is over.

Dear Blue,

Wiki, I did scan it, but wiki is wiki, I am very wary of wiki as I am of the whole internet experience, I suppose I am talking about agendas, not saying your link has one, just wary, I prefer to fish around and try and make sense using my own built in computer, my God given brain✝️ ( just for Stranger )

The same justifying arguments, I think I did argue quite eloquently against that argument but keep your hair on, Rome was not built in a day, I am not averse to returning and saying, sorry got you, see beginning of this very thread.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Stranger and Prof,

God is not "universally accepted" by a very, very long way,

Unless you are willing to accept that you are in a very, very small minority ( not saying you are wrong ) then the conversation is over.

Oh dear - there you go again with your anthropocentric blinkers on again gonners. What you seem to be saying is that god is universally accepted by humans. Well even then, that isn't true. But why should something claimed to be err ... universal, restrict acceptance to just humans.

Why not all other species on earth now and from the start of life. And what about any living thing that may exist elsewhere in the universe.

And if god is cosmically supreme then why should we restrict ourselves to living things (in of itself a rather arbitrary and athropocentric definition) why not anything and everything in the universe. Now then that would actually be universally accepted - but firstly there is no evidence that god is universally accepted by a rock on a small planet orbiting a random star in another galaxy. Indeed the very concept of acceptance by something inanimate makes no sense at all.

But I guess when people make up human-like gods they are already most of the way down their anthropocentric rabbit-holes.



 

[Alan Burns]

Did you have no control over this reaction to my post?

Of course I had control - over how I chose to react to your post.
My reply involved conscious control, which enabled me to consciously contemplate your post and consciously compose my reply.
I also had the option to consciously choose to have ignored it if I so wished.

I am not driven by reactions alone, over which I can have no conscious control.
Unavoidable reactions to past events do not indicate control.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

God is not "universally accepted" by a very, very long way,

Unless you are willing to accept that you are in a very, very small minority ( not saying you are wrong ) then the conversation is over.

But “God” clearly isn’t universally accepted. There have been countless gods over the millennia, all accepted by some portion of the contemporaneous populations that happened to believe in them. The same goes for your god now too.

Wiki, I did scan it, but wiki is wiki, I am very wary of wiki as I am of the whole internet experience, I suppose I am talking about agendas, not saying your link has one, just wary, I prefer to fish around and try and make sense using my own built in computer, my God given brain✝️ ( just for Stranger   )

This isn’t about Wiki. The reductio ad absurdum is a well-understood and well-documented logical fallacy. Even if it wasn’t though, you could just as readily work it out for yourself. If I were to give you a justifying argument for a god I happened to believe in, you’d be quite capable of a, “hang on though. That same argument also works just as well for a conclusion we agree to be absurd. Therefore you have a bad argument for your god. QED"

In fact the reductio ad absurdum is a useful filter for any theistic justifying argument. Just ask yourself in response: “does this argument work just as well for leprechauns?” and, when it does, you can dismiss the argument immediately and ask for something with more substance.     

The same justifying arguments, I think I did argue quite eloquently   against that argument but keep your hair on, Rome was not built in a day, I am not averse to returning and saying, sorry got you, see beginning of this very thread.

It's simple. Take any argument you like that a theist attempts to justify his claim “God”. Ask yourself whether the same argument would just as well to justify the claim “leprechauns”. If the answer is “yes”, then dismiss the argument and ask the theist what else he has. Please note here too that this exercise does not require you to compare the god with leprechauns – hereafter known as "the Vlad screw up".       

[Alan Burns]

But I guess when people make up human-like gods they are already most of the way down their anthropocentric rabbit-holes.

The divine revelations of scripture indicate that we are god-like humans.

[Stranger]

God is not "universally accepted" by a very, very long way,

Unless you are willing to accept that you are in a very, very small minority ( not saying you are wrong ) then the conversation is over.

Not all that small. And remember, whatever God or gods, you believe in, most people in the world think you are wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The divine revelations of scripture indicate that we are god-like humans.

So what? The "revelations" part of that is a faith claim, not a fact.

[Stranger]

Of course I had control - over how I chose to react to your post.
My reply involved conscious control, which enabled me to consciously contemplate your post and consciously compose my reply.
I also had the option to consciously choose to have ignored it if I so wished.

I am not driven by reactions alone, over which I can have no conscious control.
Unavoidable reactions to past events do not indicate control.

FALLACY: Argument by assertion.

And you are still making the utterly dim-witted mistake of confusing 'conscious control' with your mad, impossible version of 'free will'.

The divine revelations of scripture indicate that we are god-like humans.

This supposed 'divine revelation' of scripture is an incoherant, self-contradictory mess. If it is really is a 'divine revelation' from some God, then it's some crazy mixed up deity.