Prev: Objectives tree (non mathematical)
Next: Struggling poet needs cash. Please help.
From: huge on 19 Apr 2010 07:56
TehGhodTrole :

> nemo_outis wrote:
>
>> Greendistantstar <Greendistantstar(a)iinet.net.au> wrote in
>> news:_amdnRCd8s_TnFHWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au:
>>
>>
>> ...
>>> Well, I don't disagree with much if any of that, but will play Devil's
>>> Advocate for a bit, so at least to remove the nutter/ad hominem aspect
>>> that usually characterizes such debates.
>>>
>>> A theist might retort that ontologically, the very fact of existence
>>> provides sufficient evidence of God's existence.
>>
>> Ontological arguments carry exactly zero weight in an empirical matter.
>> They are, quite literally, meaningless from an empirical POV.
>
> That may be true, but it is even more meaningless to apply an empirical
> POV to non-empirical Metaphyscal X's.

That any non-physical things exist at all, excepting
formal systems and mathematics, is completely unverified and unsupported
by any rational argument.

You are *assuming* that they do exist at the very outset of your rather
long winded and torturous argument, which I can now snip.
Your whole argument is really circular, basing one unproven
metaphysical entity on another.

<snippage>
>As for the assumption, most religions, both Eastern and Western, have
>their Metaphysical X as existing for all eternity, without beginning and
>without end. If you are analysing the Metaphysical X of traditional
>religions then that assumption must be granted.

The fact that religions all over the world believe in metaphysical beings
is nothing more than a bandwagon argument; it does not imply any kind
of factuality. The qualities you ascribe to unverified objects are of no
value at all.

In exactly the same way you assume a "first cause." It is as unverified as
your gods are.

<snippage>

--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: TehGhodTrole on 19 Apr 2010 08:20
huge wrote:

> TehGhodTrole :
>
>> nemo_outis wrote:
>>
>>> Greendistantstar <Greendistantstar(a)iinet.net.au> wrote in
>>> news:_amdnRCd8s_TnFHWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au:
>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>> Well, I don't disagree with much if any of that, but will play
>>>> Devil's Advocate for a bit, so at least to remove the nutter/ad
>>>> hominem aspect that usually characterizes such debates.
>>>>
>>>> A theist might retort that ontologically, the very fact of existence
>>>> provides sufficient evidence of God's existence.
>>>
>>> Ontological arguments carry exactly zero weight in an empirical
>>> matter. They are, quite literally, meaningless from an empirical POV.
>>
>> That may be true, but it is even more meaningless to apply an empirical
>> POV to non-empirical Metaphyscal X's.
>
> That any non-physical things exist at all, excepting formal systems and
> mathematics, is completely unverified

Yes, I don't disagree. The question of gods is then a philosophical
question, not an empirical one.

> and unsupported by any rational argument.

Wrong. What you really mean is that you will not accept any rational
argument.

> You are *assuming* that they do exist

Bullshit. I was very clear. You must've snipped it all for that very
reason. Intellectual perfidy becomes you.

> at the very outset of your rather
> long winded and torturous argument, which I can now snip. Your whole
> argument is really circular, basing one unproven metaphysical entity on
> another.

Rubbish. I put no argument for any metaphysical entity. You also have
halitosis of the intellect.

> <snippage>
>>As for the assumption, most religions, both Eastern and Western, have
>>their Metaphysical X as existing for all eternity, without beginning and
>>without end. If you are analysing the Metaphysical X of traditional
>>religions then that assumption must be granted.
>
> The fact that religions all over the world believe in metaphysical
> beings is nothing more than a bandwagon argument; it does not imply any
> kind of factuality.

Nobody said it does. Read that section you are replying to just one more
time. See if you can find the word "if".

In the context: If - noun, a supposition; uncertain possibility.

> The qualities you ascribe to unverified objects
> are of no value at all.

"If you are analysing the Metaphysical X of traditional religions..."

> In exactly the same way you assume a "first cause."

Where did I make such an assumption? You snipped the text because you
know full well I made no such assumption.

> It is as unverified as your gods are.

My gods? What gods would they be?

You are unscrupulous, untrustworthy and mendacious. You create piles of
bullshit then make believe it's somebody else's bullshit. You must be so
proud of your infinite irrelevance to any exercise involving analytical
reasoning. What do you for a living? Bum loose change at the bus shelter?

--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
From: huge on 19 Apr 2010 08:30
TehGhodTrole :

> huge wrote:
>
>> TehGhodTrole :
>>
>>> nemo_outis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Greendistantstar <Greendistantstar(a)iinet.net.au> wrote in
>>>> news:_amdnRCd8s_TnFHWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>> Well, I don't disagree with much if any of that, but will play
>>>>> Devil's Advocate for a bit, so at least to remove the nutter/ad
>>>>> hominem aspect that usually characterizes such debates.
>>>>>
>>>>> A theist might retort that ontologically, the very fact of existence
>>>>> provides sufficient evidence of God's existence.
>>>>
>>>> Ontological arguments carry exactly zero weight in an empirical
>>>> matter. They are, quite literally, meaningless from an empirical POV.
>>>
>>> That may be true, but it is even more meaningless to apply an
>>> empirical POV to non-empirical Metaphyscal X's.
>>
>> That any non-physical things exist at all, excepting formal systems and
>> mathematics, is completely unverified
>
> Yes, I don't disagree. The question of gods is then a philosophical
> question, not an empirical one.
>
>> and unsupported by any rational argument.
>
> Wrong. What you really mean is that you will not accept any rational
> argument.

Then give it!

>
>> You are *assuming* that they do exist
>
> Bullshit. I was very clear. You must've snipped it all for that very
> reason. Intellectual perfidy becomes you.

The whole thing is still in the thread. If you have something
that counters that, just quote it.

>
>> at the very outset of your rather
>> long winded and torturous argument, which I can now snip. Your whole
>> argument is really circular, basing one unproven metaphysical entity on
>> another.
>
> Rubbish. I put no argument for any metaphysical entity. You also have
> halitosis of the intellect.
>
>> <snippage>
>>>As for the assumption, most religions, both Eastern and Western, have
>>>their Metaphysical X as existing for all eternity, without beginning
>>>and without end. If you are analysing the Metaphysical X of traditional
>>>religions then that assumption must be granted.
>>
>> The fact that religions all over the world believe in metaphysical
>> beings is nothing more than a bandwagon argument; it does not imply any
>> kind of factuality.
>
> Nobody said it does. Read that section you are replying to just one more
> time. See if you can find the word "if".
>
> In the context: If - noun, a supposition; uncertain possibility.
>
>> The qualities you ascribe to unverified objects are of no value at all.
>
> "If you are analysing the Metaphysical X of traditional religions..."
>
>> In exactly the same way you assume a "first cause."
>
> Where did I make such an assumption? You snipped the text because you
> know full well I made no such assumption.
>
>> It is as unverified as your gods are.
>
> My gods? What gods would they be?
>
> You are unscrupulous, untrustworthy and mendacious. You create piles of
> bullshit then make believe it's somebody else's bullshit. You must be so
> proud of your infinite irrelevance to any exercise involving analytical
> reasoning. What do you for a living? Bum loose change at the bus
> shelter?





--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: nemo_outis on 19 Apr 2010 12:18
TehGhodTrole <anon(a)no.email> wrote in news:3mdvni.vhv.17.1(a)news.alt.net:

Once again, liars like you really should have better memories - you
continue to embarrass yourself flip-flopping on your previous positions.

While examinining the question of the existence of God from an empirical
POV I asserted:

1. If God exists there must be empirical evidence of its existence.

To which you objected (and I quote verbatim):

"Empiricism wrt any Metaphysical X necessarily carries an inherent logical
fallacy of hypostatisation. Your logic above failed at step 1 for that very
reason, therefore your conclusion is illogical and faulty."

But your own previous words give you the lie! You have *already accepted*
that the question of God's existence *can be settled* using the empirical
method. In fact, it was *you* who *proposed* using it!
(I quote you verbatim at (1) below my "Regards" to refresh your failing
memory.)

You have already said you *would accept* an *entirely physical* basis for
disproof of God's existence with *no metaphysical* elements required.
Oh yes, you tried to be cute in saying *how much* physical proof you would
require, but you asked only for physical proof - nothing metaphysical.

It's a little late to reverse yourself now with bullshit about
"Metaphysical X" and "Hypostatization."

Regards,

(1) "That assertion is illogical and irrational. In order for you you to
prove such an irrational assertion you would not only have had to inspect
the entire three-dimensional universe, atom by atom, you would have had to
exit the universe to inspect it from the outside, and also inspected the
entirety of the remaining eight spatial dimensions predicted by current
scientific thinking in M-Theory."

["That assertion" immediately above refers to "There is no God." - nemo
outis]
From: TehGhodTrole on 19 Apr 2010 17:44
huge <huge(a)nomailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:wvudnY9GYLBo0VHWnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com:

> TehGhodTrole :
>
>> huge wrote:
>>
>>> TehGhodTrole :
>>>
>>>> nemo_outis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Greendistantstar <Greendistantstar(a)iinet.net.au> wrote in
>>>>> news:_amdnRCd8s_TnFHWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Well, I don't disagree with much if any of that, but will play
>>>>>> Devil's Advocate for a bit, so at least to remove the nutter/ad
>>>>>> hominem aspect that usually characterizes such debates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A theist might retort that ontologically, the very fact of
>>>>>> existence provides sufficient evidence of God's existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ontological arguments carry exactly zero weight in an empirical
>>>>> matter. They are, quite literally, meaningless from an empirical
>>>>> POV.
>>>>
>>>> That may be true, but it is even more meaningless to apply an
>>>> empirical POV to non-empirical Metaphyscal X's.
>>>
>>> That any non-physical things exist at all, excepting formal systems
>>> and mathematics, is completely unverified
>>
>> Yes, I don't disagree. The question of gods is then a philosophical
>> question, not an empirical one.
>>
>>> and unsupported by any rational argument.
>>
>> Wrong. What you really mean is that you will not accept any rational
>> argument.
>
> Then give it!

There's no point. You already declared your hand, "completely...unsupported
by any rational argument."

Prejudice does that.

>>> You are *assuming* that they do exist
>>
>> Bullshit. I was very clear. You must've snipped it all for that very
>> reason. Intellectual perfidy becomes you.
>
> The whole thing is still in the thread. If you have something
> that counters that, just quote it.

Now why would I do that? You'll only snip it, create a pile of bullshit then
make believe it's not your bullshit.

>>> at the very outset of your rather
>>> long winded and torturous argument, which I can now snip. Your whole
>>> argument is really circular, basing one unproven metaphysical
>>> entity on another.
>>
>> Rubbish. I put no argument for any metaphysical entity. You also have
>> halitosis of the intellect.

Note, no response.

>>> <snippage>
>>>> As for the assumption, most religions, both Eastern and Western,
>>>> have their Metaphysical X as existing for all eternity, without
>>>> beginning and without end. If you are analysing the Metaphysical X
>>>> of traditional religions then that assumption must be granted.
>>>
>>> The fact that religions all over the world believe in metaphysical
>>> beings is nothing more than a bandwagon argument; it does not imply
>>> any kind of factuality.
>>
>> Nobody said it does. Read that section you are replying to just one
>> more time. See if you can find the word "if".
>>
>> In the context: If - noun, a supposition; uncertain possibility.

Note, no response.

>>> The qualities you ascribe to unverified objects are of no value at
>>> all.
>>
>> "If you are analysing the Metaphysical X of traditional religions..."
>>
>>> In exactly the same way you assume a "first cause."
>>
>> Where did I make such an assumption? You snipped the text because you
>> know full well I made no such assumption.

Note, no response.

>>> It is as unverified as your gods are.
>>
>> My gods? What gods would they be?

Note, no response.

>> You are unscrupulous, untrustworthy and mendacious. You create piles
>> of bullshit then make believe it's somebody else's bullshit. You
>> must be so proud of your infinite irrelevance to any exercise
>> involving analytical reasoning. What do you for a living? Bum loose
>> change at the bus shelter?

--
TehGhodTrole: Trolling, for God's sake.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Objectives tree (non mathematical)
Next: Struggling poet needs cash. Please help.