Peanut Gallery

Support the position that what doesn't exist?

Guilty as charged!!!In the name of congeniality I will ignore the fact that you have sidestepped the question for now and simply say well done for remembering my Friday afternoon beer-o'clock policy.I am indeed sinking a few along with my colleagues. And replying to you lot in what they think are wholly necessary bouts of "IT emergency maintenance" as defined by - erm me!!!!Such are the joys of autonomy at work.Cheers.

I THINK you are right.(**Straggler opens another beer**)Ahhhhhhhhhh.

So things like the god of Young Earth Creationist biblical literalism then?

What does? Can you provide a definition of this "general" god that Subbie is supposed to have volunteered to refute?Because RAZ couldn't. Which is why that thread stopped and why RAZ's own deistic position is so hilariously incoherent. Are those who proclaim themselves to be deists with regard to something which cannot be defined exhibiting "incoherent and thus non-cognitive" beliefs? I would say they are.What do you think?

Which was how exactly? If you want Subbie to define the term "god" and then refute his own definition then I have little doubt he is able to do this. But this will have as little objective validity as RAZ defining his own colourful tables, scales and flowcharts and then insisting that his arguments are logically and evidentially sound because they meet the criteria defined by those self defined colourful tables, scales and flowcharts.Self referential circularity gone mad.....

What do you think is missing?Can you be specific (and avoid long winded stories about boxes) in your answer.

Ultimately Subbie was being challeneged to refute a concept that doesn't conceptually exist.This is patently absurd.

So RAZ has absolutely no idea what he deistically believes in he just knows he does. And you know that those who tell him this is a silly position are wrong, you just don't know why. I guess there is a sort of brotherly symmetry in that. Thomson and Thompson strike again.

It's about both. The fact that RAZ cannot tell the difference between one and the other is not Bluegenes problem. Nor is RAZ's apparent inability to comprehend the meaning of:1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. As per Message 149Doesn't RAZ even understand which aspect of objectively observable reality Bluegene's theory is designed to explain? Do you?

But RAZ how would you know? You have repeatedly demonstrated across multiple threads your utter bewilderment regarding the innate difference between inductively reasoned scientific tentative theories and statements of certitude derived from deductive logic. You wouldn't recognise a scientific theory if one sat on your lap and slapped you round the face with a wet fish. But you have demonstrated that you don't even understand the first step in this process. Structuring the steps in a colourful chart is not the same as understanding what they mean. You once again reveal that you have absolutely no idea how a scientific theory is constructed. As per Message 149So why don't you do yourself a favour and show us all that you are actually able to answer that post? I'll even give you some pointers if you ask me nicely.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What a hilarious little side topic has developed here. Rats speaking obscure human languages. EvC never ceases to amaze me. This is an example of someone speaking Xhosa. Xhosa. Are you really going to suggest that nobody would have noticed a rodent speaking in this way? Dude - Are you really suggesting that the theory that rodents do not communicate in human languages is evidentially weak?Really?

I would just like to point out that the talking rodent example is not as radically different to the god example as one might first assume. Both at root are examples of anthropomorphism. In the case of talking rodents we have a wide litany of characters such as Mickey Mouse which are essentially animals imbued with human characteristics such as the ability to speak. In the case of gods we have a litany of mythical beings responsible for various aspects of nature which are again imbued with human characteristics. Even the most ambiguously defined deistic concepts are invariably imbued with a minimum of human-like conscious intent with regard to their ability and desire to do things like creating the universe.In both the anthropomorphised rodent example and the example of aspects of nature being similarly anthropomorphised (i.e. into gods/deities) the only known source of such concepts is the human imagination. None of either have ever been demonstrated to actually exist.The primary difference between the two examples is that nobody actually has any personal attachment or belief in talking rodents whereas quite the converse is true of people and their apparent need to believe in the existence of gods.But just how different are Danger Mouse and Stuart Little to Thor and Apollo? In terms of exemplifying the human proclivity to imbue things with human characteristics to create conceptual entities which don't actually exist I would say they are very similar indeed.

Is there any evidence that conscious intent can exist without physical brains?Do universe creating gods exhibit conscious intent? Do they have physical brains?

He also said that unless a definition of god could be agreed upon rational discussion was impossible.Or did you miss that part?