January 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #99, then please supply some noun for my position. I will adopt it (no, you morons, I will not adopt anything like ‘moron’) so we can finish that part of the problem.

    But I asked you this before. I have no confidence you will read it now…

    #98, “That is foolish or disingenuous – your call.” – how could an agnost evaluate an atheist’s proof?

    “One may be interested in aspect A but not in aspect B.”
    Depends on the relation between the aspects. If the relation is intricate the interest is bizarrely broken.
    If you are interested in my approach to the subject you’ll have to be interested in the core of the subject. These are inseparable.

    Scattered around this thread, rather tattered by having to duck from or return Wow’s barrages in particular, actually a lot can be found re my approach to the matter. E.g. my approach is a different one from Russel’s rationalism, different van empiricist/evidence-based thinking, and I came up with a lot of motivation for this approach too.

  2. #2 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #1 – scuse me, I will also not accept ‘gnostic atheist’ for reasons I gave above – it is a tautology for the case (me) at hand.

  3. #3 Lotharsson
    January 22, 2014

    Depends on the relation between the aspects.

    That does not justify your quote-mine here. Contrary to your (once more) over-confident assertion, the two are separable because you have misinterpreted what FrankD means by “your approach”.

  4. #4 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “#99, then please supply some noun for my position”

    Moronic.

  5. #5 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “#1 – scuse me, I will also not accept ‘gnostic atheist’ for reasons I gave above”

    Humpty Dumpty thought that was a knock-down/drag-out argument too.

  6. #6 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #3, the two are inseparable because I say so.
    But perhaps there is a typo and FrankD meant ‘subjects’ instead of subject? In that case, the two ARE separable.

    #4, #5, more spam.

  7. #7 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “#3, the two are inseparable because I say so.”

    They aren’t because that’s the definition of the word given.

    “Reality? How does that work?” huh?

  8. #8 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #100, politeness, you moron.

  9. #9 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #7, “I have not attempted to, because the core of your claim is of zero interest to me. [..] My interest – stated several times – is in your approach to the argument [..]”
    Said FrankD.

    This is a statement about my approach to the argument/subject/core/whatever.

    The two are inseparable because I say so.

  10. #10 FrankD
    January 22, 2014

    If you are interested in my approach to the subject you’ll have to be interested in the core of the subject. These are inseparable.”

    *sigh* – does this really need to be spelled out further?

    By “approach to the argument” I mean the rhetorical techniques and logical structures you have used in prosecuting your case. I don’t really care about your comparison of your position with Russell’s, but I have been interested in your use of projection, quote-mining, evasion and so on.

    If there was any ambiguity in my use of the word “approach”, that was amply clarified by the explanatory content of my posts, eg; #32 on the last page.

    If you believe that the approach to/method of/techniques used in arguing a case and the substantive case itself are the same, then you think that content and technique are the same, which is an embarrassingly lame position. Good luck showing that, if that is what you think.

  11. #11 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “#100, politeness, you moron.”

    Calling you a moron IS being polite, you fuckwit!

    Why?

    Because that’s what I mean by polite!

  12. #12 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    And more definitional problems from our denier’s mirror image, Kampie.

    noun: Spam

    1.
    irrelevant or unsolicited messages sent over the Internet, typically to large numbers of users, for the purposes of advertising, phishing, spreading malware, etc.

  13. #13 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #10, I have had virtually no chance of prosecuting my case. The retorics, then, depend on the constant barrage of one fruitcake in particular. I do not take kindly to being called ‘moron’ etc somewhere in a second or third reply already. If none of you realized that it is just too bad. I am simply reflecting what you and Wow in particular are doing with me. If you think Wow’s approach is the correct one for arguing a case then I happily oblige.

    #11, I’m aware, idiot.

  14. #14 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #12, ‘spreading malware, etc.’ nails it.

  15. #15 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “#10, I have had virtually no chance of prosecuting my case.”

    Just like Stevie Wonder had no chance winning his Bird Spotter’s badge for scouts.

    You didn’t TRY to.

    “They are inseperable because I say so!” is NOT prosecuting your case.

    PS seems you need to know what malware means, dear.

    Word things not working good for you, as Homer would say.

  16. #16 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #15, tsss. TRY – wot, for you?
    But I did, except I decided to drag you along the way as far as I could (1.5 nm I think) instead of presenting the case following my ‘amusement post’.

    You come up with Homer. Well, lol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeric_simile

  17. #17 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “#15, tsss. TRY – wot, for you?”

    So when you complained that you haven’t been able to, you mean you don’t want to try.

    Why not say that, then?

  18. #18 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #17, But I did _try_, except I decided to drag you along the way as far as I could (1.5 nm I think) instead of presenting the case following my ‘amusement post’.

    And well, why say such to a moron?

  19. #19 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “#17, But I did _try_,”

    No you didn’t, as explained by the meaning of try given in #15.

    And if you did try but also tried to say you wouldn’t try to try, what the hell is the point of your posts?

  20. #20 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #19, there is and was, after your ‘moron’post, likely no point to my posts for you. Otoh there was for me. It is utter fascination with the incredible resistance apparently evoked by my approach to deity existential problems.
    This happens mostly if not exclusively with anglo-speaking citizens, particularly US Americans but also some British (remember where empiricism came from). I meet nothing like that with my continental-euro discussion partners. They simply understand what I’m saying even if they don’t agree with my position on the existential question.

    In all truth, I’d rather analyse my methodology together. But this seems out of the question somehow.

  21. #21 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “#19, there is and was, after your ‘moron’post, likely no point to my posts for you.”

    Nope, I asked a specific.

    That you retreat to a generic victimhood mentality to construct an alternative scenario of what was asked indicates that you’re still incapable of rationality.

  22. #22 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #21, victims don’t boot fruitcakes around the room.

    Apart from the ‘moron’thing, I took me a while to fully get the fact that my interpretation of ‘atheist’ was so strange to you – or rather my use of the word ‘atheist’-sec for that position.

    In the beginning Betty called herself “atheist”. That’s where I replied stating that atheists, to be called: ‘atheists’ hence, could be just another type of believers too (I was thinking of those ‘atheists’, yes quotes, whose god is an ideology or a nationalism). And act like fundibelievers like Betty seems to do (frankly I haven’t delved too much in her/his stuff yet).

    At that point you surprised me. I had expected a battle with Betula instead for whom I’d not have spared that beautiful 4-point method-suggestions post at all – that was for those I do respect including you.

  23. #23 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #22, I need to mention the in between: my ‘explanation’ (now retracted!) for Dawkins’ zeal. In hindsight that remark WAS quite gratuite. Otoh that was shown to me in unmistakable terms, and I thought of Mann’s zeal, et cetera.
    Having conceded that point I’d hoped the discussion on the subject would either fade away or become interesting, but well we had already advanced a page or so.

  24. #24 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    Need to go. Prof Methodology who’s close family in da house for a visit. CU tomorrow maybe, godspeed :)

  25. #25 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “#21, victims don’t boot fruitcakes around the room.”

    What you do in the privacy of your own home with comestibles is your own business.

    re #24, Walter Mitty life, now, Kampie?

  26. #26 Wow
    January 22, 2014

    “Otoh that was shown to me in unmistakable terms, and I thought of Mann’s zeal, et cetera.”

    Oh, so now you’re moving to denier troll?

    Lubos-style luke warmism?

  27. #27 cRR Kampen
    January 22, 2014

    #25, correct again.

    #26, if you don’t read my posts then please do not reply. Bye.

  28. #28 BBD
    January 22, 2014

    Now can we talk about cats, FFS?

  29. #29 Betula
    January 22, 2014

    Did Kampen really just say godspeed?

    “Middle English god speid, from the phrase God spede you God prosper you”

    Oh boy.

  30. #30 chek
    January 22, 2014

    Now can we talk about cats, FFS?

    In tests, eight out of ten god owners (who expressed a preference) said their gods attracted chum.
    And right on schedule …

  31. #31 bill
    January 22, 2014

    Dogs have owners, cats have staff.

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2014

    This is a statement about my approach to the argument/subject/core/whatever.

    The two are inseparable because I say so.

    This is a perfect example of two of your repeated failures of argument.

    1. You assert what someone else meant (despite it apparently being clear to most readers that was not what the author meant).

    2. You assert a property of your argument “because you say-so” rather than establishing any good reason based on evidence and/or logic for anyone else to believe your assertion.

    “Because I say so” is a valid backing for an assertion of one’s opinion or of intention, but it does not validly rebut critiques of the structure/logic of, or data used in one’s argument.

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2014

    I have had virtually no chance of prosecuting my case.

    What a load of tosh.

    No-one is stopping you, other than you. Several people gave you a lot of time and provided a lot of interaction with your case as you chose to present it.

    What has been presented has often been badly argued as several people have pointed out, and their critiques have virtually all been brushed aside rather than robustly addressed.

  34. #34 FrankD
    January 23, 2014

    Shorter cRR (#13): “My logic is faulty because Wow was mean to me”.

    I do not take kindly to being called ‘moron’ …I am simply reflecting what you and Wow in particular are doing with me.

    I’m not Wow. I’ve not called you anything, just your supporting arguments/logic fails etc. So including me as “doing [something] with you, when I’m simply pointing out illogic is, itself, illogical. That’s down to you.

    If you think Wow’s approach is the correct one for arguing a case then I happily oblige.

    Wow does what Wow does. That’s not my problem. What I think of his approach is not really the issue, but since you ask, I find Wow usually has his target ranged, bracketted and looking for cover while I’m still trying to work out if its worth returning fire. Whether you try to tough it out or beat a retreat is up to you, but having been in the sights occasionally, I can tell you if his style distresses you, its really up to you to lift your game.

  35. #35 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    When the cat is gone the rats dance on the table singing “when the cat is gone the rats dance on the table”.

    #33 “No-one is stopping you” but ignorance. Thinking the deity existential can be resolved by empiristic means including e.g. the concept of falsifiability. A statement like ‘God exists’ is not falsifiable, of course. But these terms are void for this problem (if not, deities are physical objects or relations and can be tackled by scientific, not metaphysical, means).
    It does NOT mean it is not decidable.

    #34, no, you have not called names at all, and your contributions were among the more constructive.
    Personally I find Wow a muddlehead and perhaps somewhat damaged goods. Steering clear of that one on this subject. Let him do his job on CAGW he’s good there.

  36. #36 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    “#26, if you don’t read my posts”

    How do you think I quote things if I don’t read any of your posts?

    Just because you’re too idiotic to do something as “complex” as decide two different things on two different objects doesn’t mean we’re all equally handicapped.

  37. #37 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    “#34, no, you have not called names at all”

    But it doesn’t stop you from accusing him of doing so if it’ll provide cover for your insanity, will it, Kampie?

  38. #38 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #36, your #26 is clear.

    #37, luv, that is none of your business.

  39. #39 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #34, to continue – all your contributions have been businesslike, no name-calling involved and I didn’t mean to accuse you of that at all. But there was a little more said. I said this: “I am simply reflecting what you and Wow in particular are doing with me.”
    In your case I do not take kindly to your wholesale dismissal of the core subject instead focusing on ‘my approach’ et cetera. This results in broken communication on your part and my reflecting that, because the two – subject matter and approach to the subject matter – are inseparable.
    While my approach to the subject matter is debatable it was only marginally debated.
    But my approach to your responses and those of some others – let’s say: my approach to the ‘subjects’ – is explainable, has been explained and is not debatable.

    If you wish to connect, and I couldn’t call this ‘reconnect’, then get to the core and analyse what I just reiterated:

    Thinking the deity existential can be resolved by empiristic means including e.g. the concept of falsifiability. A statement like ‘God exists’ is not falsifiable, of course. But these terms are void for this problem (if not, deities are physical objects or relations and can be tackled by scientific, not metaphysical, means).
    It does NOT mean it is not decidable.

  40. #40 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #39 – and so, in the variant by Lotharsson:
    “- “No, this [positive proof of non-existence of deities, cRR] is a logic error when applied to atheism. The analogy with a mathematical statement does not hold.”

    To which I replied: “You will need to back up this hypothesis.”
    Because, well, you have to. I recall some handwaving about that being ‘an axiom’, not good enough.

  41. #41 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    Thinking the deity existential can be resolved by empiristic means including e.g. the concept of falsifiability. A statement like ‘God exists’ is not falsifiable, of course. But these terms are void for this problem

    OK, so English isn’t your first language, but care to use something that doesn’t sound like Swahili converted through babelfish?

  42. #42 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    To which I replied: “You will need to back up this hypothesis.”

    Really.

    Why?

    You make the claim that mathematical analogy holds. By fiat statement.

    (PS Lotharsson did back his statement up. But you don’t care to remember that)

  43. #43 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #42, do I make that claim? O yes, I did. True. Backed it up, too, and not with some fantasy axiomatics.

    Why was Bertrand Russel unsure about Pi being a transcendent number?

  44. #44 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #41, no.

  45. #45 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    “do I make that claim? O yes, I did.”

    Do you often ask yourself questions then answer them?

    No wonder most people find your diatribes boring and content free.

  46. #46 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    PS no, you merely claim it is true, this is not backing it up, that’s doubling down on the stupid.

  47. #47 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #45, yes resp. so what.

    #46, how could an agnost like you assess the proof of an atheist like me?

  48. #48 BBD
    January 23, 2014

    What this blog needs is a deputy.

    :-)

  49. #49 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2014

    Thinking the deity existential can be resolved by empiristic means including e.g. the concept of falsifiability.

    I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say. Did you mean “empirical” rather than “empiristic”? Were you

    A statement like ‘God exists’ is not falsifiable, of course.

    Firstly, I never said that such a statement, unqualified and unclarified, was. (I note, wandering into FrankD’s interest in your interaction style, that you appear to have misrepresented what I said in order to slay yet another strawman.)

    Secondly, how amusing that you now admit that the existence of some deities is not falsifiable, given that when I first pointed out that fact you swore black and blue earlier that no such deity definition existed. (I suspect now that you were really saying that all deity’s existence claims can be logically excluded from possibility using your “proof” rather than falsified, but failed to make the distinction clear.)

    Thirdly, a statement that “God – by which I mean X, Y and Z – exists” may quite obviously be falsifiable, for the reasons I previously explained and which you – in yet another move that broke my latest irony meter – either ignored or failed to comprehend. When X, Y and Z directly or indirectly have implications that conflict with the evidence, then that definition of “God” is falsified by empirical means.

    Hence your blanket statement:

    But these terms are void for this problem…

    …if false. The terms may be void for some definitions of “God”, ironically including the definitions you previously said did not exist, but they are not automatically void when discussing deity existence claims.

    You are very poor at this, and yet eminently convinced of your excellent skillz. Dunning and Kruger are double facepalming somewhere right now.

    To which I replied: “You will need to back up this hypothesis.”

    To resort to terminology that you use (although other explanations can’t be ruled out) you obviously didn’t comprehend my response. It wasn’t a hypothesis, it was a logical argument demonstrating that your logic as presented back then was broken in the presence of unfalsifiable deities.

  50. #50 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    “What this blog needs is a deputy.”

    And a big iron!

  51. #51 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    Thirdly, a statement that “God – by which I mean X, Y and Z – exists” may quite obviously be falsifiable

    E.g. Helios: a god that drives the sun across the sky.

    If the earth is spinning, not the sun moving across the sky, then that god doesn’t exist.

  52. #52 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #49 Lotharsson –

    ‘empiristic’ or ‘empirical’ e.g. “Em`pi`ris´tic
    a. 1. (Physics) Relating to, or resulting from, experience, or experiment; following from empirical methods or data” from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Empiristic.

    Remember from the suggestions ( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/01/02/january-2014-open-thread/comment-page-4/#comments ):

    God is either part of reality, or God is reality, or God is outside the realm of reality.

    Before going on, you said: “Firstly, I never said that such a statement, unqualified and unclarified, was.”
    But my statement was generic, not personally directed and not any rebuttal of anything at all.
    Most general: any statement of the kind ‘A exists’ cannot be falsified.
    But the analysis does not finish there. Not being falsifiable does not mean: not being undecidable.

    Okay, continue: If a deity is reality, or part of reality, it is open to empirical/empiricist methods of research.

    But if a deity is outside ‘the realm of reality’, empirical methods for analysing the existence of this God are void.
    No statement about such a deity can be falsifiable. Moreover, no statement about such a deity can be verified.
    This does not mean such a statement is undecidable (and in the 4-suggestions piece I jumped to my verdict in the very next line).

    I tend to concentrate on deities who are thought as somehow residing ‘outside the realm of reality’, somehow impervious to verification, somehow impervious to logic (careful: trap here).
    First, because deity concepts always contain such constructs (disagree this, you are obliged to define the deity in physical terms and I will show this deity to be just another name for some part of reality: redundant).
    Second because such a deity is hardest to analyse by any means precisely for vagueness of definition reasons.

    Whatever. Define God, define deity. If this is not done none of us know what we’re talking about. I am surprised at the resistance put up against this dead simple requirement.

  53. #53 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    But if a deity is outside ‘the realm of reality’

    So your claim has morphed from “Gods cannot be disproved empirically” to “Certain types of gods cannot be disproved empirically, if you set the god up so it has no effect”.

    Which was Lotharsson’s point, really.

  54. #54 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #53, except I made NONE of those claims.

    The single claim I make is: deities can be proven to not exist.

    Ways to build this proof depend on definitions of deities, for which we have identified three different general kinds that cover all deity definitions (better, they cover all definitions of anything). Of these, one case is trivial, one case is almost trivial, and the last is not so trivial – apparently.

    As a reminder of the main case to attack:
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/god
    e.g.
    1. God
    a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
    b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
    2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
    3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
    (there are three more definitions given in this lemma, but those are merely name-calling real objects like money, despots and cRR).

  55. #55 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    “#53, except I made NONE of those claims. ”

    Ah, yes, the past. A mystical realm where nothing happened.

  56. #56 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2014

    Most general: any statement of the kind ‘A exists’ cannot be falsified.

    Yes, it can, as I already demonstrated. Did you not comprehend a fairly simple explanation, or did you simply deny it because it was inconvenient?

    Not being falsifiable does not mean: not being undecidable.

    I think you meant “unfalsifiable does not mean undecidable”. That observation is precisely why I mentioned the concept of “logically excluded from possibility”, as opposed to “empirically falsified”.

    No statement about such a deity can be falsifiable.

    Bravo! That’s what I indicated several days ago, and you flat out denied that such a deity definition existed.

    Shame you built up such a reputation for being a bullshitter by arguing the opposite for several days.

    I am surprised at the resistance put up against this dead simple requirement.

    You again assert this fallacy. It’s not a requirement to demonstrate that your argument is logically broken. You have misplaced the onus here!

    And your insistence on this misplaced onus (“requirement”) shows that you have either failed to comprehend the objections to your argument that people have raised (or being very generous, perhaps you have simply omitted key parts of your argument without which it does not hold).

    Your argument has to cover any deity definition anyone suggests, in the past, right now or in the future. You cannot demonstrate that your argument covers the entire set simply by saying “give me a definition” and dealing with that. You have to show that your argument covers all possible definitions, and so far you have spectacularly failed to do that.

    More specifically, your observation that without a definition “none of us know what we’re talking about” is not a deficiency in your critics’ critiques, it is a deficiency in your own argument because it asserts that all definitions are either falsified or logically excluded from possibility. How can you assert that if you don’t know what the definitions are in the first place (and you’ve given no indication of having a robust meta-definition of deity on which you can logically or empirically operate)?

    I tend to concentrate on deities who are thought as somehow residing ‘outside the realm of reality’,…

    Concentrate all you like, but your argument still has to cover all possible definitions. And it’s not sufficient for your argument to note that some deity operates “within reality” therefore it’s theoretically falsifiable. Your position asserts that all deities are falsified, not that they are falsifiable

    Now maybe you’re the first person in history to have rigorously achieved what your argument asserts. But if I were a betting person, even if I hadn’t seen your performance over the last few days, I wouldn’t be putting my money on it…

  57. #57 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2014

    The single claim I make is: deities can be proven to not exist.

    Goalpost shift, or very poor explanation of your single claim in the past.

    I don’t think anyone here disagrees with that, because all one has to show is that there are at least two deities whose existence can be ruled out, either on empirical or logical grounds. This is dead easy.

    But that’s not what you previously claimed, is it?

  58. #58 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #56, gibberish.

    I repeat: no statement of the form ‘A exists’ is falsifiable.

    ” .. an isolated existential statement is never falsifiable; but if taken in context with other statements, an existential statement may in some cases add to the empirical content of the whole context: it may enrich the theory to which it belongs, and may add to its degree of falsifiability or testability. In this case, the theoretical system including the existential statement in question is to be described as scientific rather than metaphysical.”
    (Popper, LSD)

    So, before we go on, please check carefully that no statement of the form ‘A exists’ is falsifiable, that is, the part of Popper’s quote saying ” .. an isolated existential statement is never falsifiable;”.
    THEN, we might proceed e.g. with the rest of that quote.
    FINALLY we may look at those theories called ‘non-scientific but meaningful nevertheless’ by Popper, and we might make a start on analysing the meaning of ‘meaningful’ in such cases. For now, forget it. You need the tools first as I told you over and over.

  59. #59 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #57, “I don’t think anyone here disagrees with that, because all one has to show is that there are at least two deities whose existence can be ruled out…”

    What is a deity? What are you talking about?
    Remember I mentioned, as kind of Homer simile (thanks Wow) the NP-Complete problem group?
    Try for yourself whether ruling out one deity would rule out all.
    Be careful: define ‘deity’ first. I don’t give damn how you do.

    Btw, Wow, Helios-example is just name calling. No deity there.

  60. #60 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    “I repeat: no statement of the form ‘A exists’ is falsifiable.”

    Yes it is.

    A=An elephant under my bed.

  61. #61 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #60, you are now under your bed?

  62. #62 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    ???

  63. #63 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    So you’re claiming you don’t exist, Kampie?

  64. #64 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2014

    I’m not discussing what Popper called “isolated existential statements”, cRR. I explicitly pointed out that certain deity existence claims don’t fit that definition.

    And if you were, then you should have said so – which would means that you were not addressing a whole class of deity definitions. And you must address them all.

    What is a deity? What are you talking about?

    As I already explained you need to define the terms you’re using in your argument, not me. And you need to do it to cover all definitions of deity if that’s what you claim to have disproved.

    So please proceed…

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2014

    (…or short cut to the chase and point us to your Nobel Prize nomination, or at least your peer-reviewed paper which has survived professional scrutiny ;-)

  66. #66 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #62, so: the statement ‘An elephant exists under my bed’ is not falsifiable.
    It is argued that a statement like that could be falsifiable if and only if by direct observation (actually intersubjective direct observation is necessary), but it is not that easy either: the elephant may be hiding in the hollows of your knees all the time as you are physically checking the space under your bed.

    Definition of elephant could help you tie him down some. But you may need to resort to the following: ‘An elephant is something all of us observe all the time because it has to be observable all the time (by definition) AND all observers are actually observing it all the time’… rendering the existential dangerously circular (= meaningless).

  67. #67 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    “#62, so: the statement ‘An elephant exists under my bed’ is not falsifiable.”

    Is that your claim?

  68. #68 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #64, “And you must address them all.” – of course.
    One by one annex showing the list is exhaustive, that is the assignment.

    “And you need to do it to cover all definitions of deity… ”
    We need to be clearer on this. E.g.
    / A deity is a kiwi on my desk / is a definition of (a) deity.
    / A deity is a transcendent number / is another definition of a deity.
    How acceptable are such definitions? Many of them are of the same nonvalue as the following definition of a kiwi:
    / A kiwi is a hair from Nietszches whiskers /.

    So: / A deity/kiwi could be anything /-kind of definitions are undefinitions.

  69. #69 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #65, there is no Nobel Prize for mathematics, logic, philosophy or metaphysics. Though there is the Fields Medal for the first of these. But that is for mathematical work, not for work done with the help of mathematical methods.

    #67, I have more claims, but that is my claim #155.2a, yes.

  70. #70 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #68, finally, after 22 years, I’ve managed to fu ‘Nietzsche’. But it makes that definition slightly less interesting, even.

  71. #71 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    “#62, so: the statement ‘An elephant exists under my bed’ is not falsifiable.”

    Is that your claim?

  72. #72 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #65, o, what are your credentials re the subject at hand?
    This: ” I have ministers in the last three generations of my family.”?

    Then: how do such credentials change the substance, value, truth, falsifiability or verifiability of what you say?
    Or: how would your knowing I am the famous machine called MultiVac change the above re statements I utter?

    If doctor A is a smoker and tells you smoking is hazardous, and doctor B is a non-smoker and tells you smoking is hazardous, would you tend to believe one of either more than the other? Two cases: you know smoking is hazardous; you do not know that smoking is hazardous.

  73. #73 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    #62, so: the statement ‘An elephant exists under my bed’ is not falsifiable

    Is that your claim?

  74. #74 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    Or is this your latest wheeze to never be wrong: Never make a statement?

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2014

    …what are your credentials re the subject at hand?

    I don’t assert any because it is unnecessary to my critique, just like I don’t need climate science credentials to point out glaring holes in many climate science denialists’ arguments. I’m not the one asserting that my argument is valid, and I’m especially not the one asserting that my argument is valid but is apparently quite uncelebrated in the professions which construct and critique such arguments for a living. The latter strongly suggests, just like climate science denialists arguments failure to set climate science alight suggests, that the argument is either (a) exceedingly novel, and will electrify the field if it stands up to scrutiny or (more likely) will fail under scrutiny, or (b) not novel and failed to impress the professionals for good reason.

    Like I said, if I were prone to betting I wouldn’t be betting on your argument.

    We need to be clearer on this.

    No, we don’t. You do. You asserted you can disprove them all.

    Given the previous absence of a definition accompanying your argument, I would expect your definition, should it actually be proffered, to encompass both standard and specialist usage of the term and thus at least include all deities defined by all theists and all theologians & philosophers.

  76. #76 Betula
    January 23, 2014

    “What this blog needs is a deputy”

    Good one.

  77. #77 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    and I’m especially not the one asserting that my argument is valid

    Note that Kampie is now retreating to a stance of never making any assertions, merely pretending others have made one.

  78. #78 Betula
    January 23, 2014

    “So you’re claiming you don’t exist, Kampie?”

    Proving Kampie doesn’t exist is not falsifiable.

  79. #79 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    “Proving Kampie doesn’t exist is not falsifiable.”

    Double negative and irrelevant to Kampies’ “claims” that “Claims of the form A exists are not falsifiable” dear.

    DO try to keep up, petal.

  80. #80 Betula
    January 23, 2014

    It was a joke.

  81. #81 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    No, it wasn’t, betty.

  82. #82 Betula
    January 23, 2014

    Not to you of course. Understandable.

  83. #83 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    No, it wasn’t a joke, betty.

  84. #84 Betula
    January 23, 2014

    Proving it wasn’t a joke is not falsifiable.

  85. #85 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #75, “I don’t assert any because it is unnecessary to my critique…”
    Exactly, so that’s done with.

    “Given the previous absence of a definition accompanying your argument…”
    See #54.

    “I would expect your definition, should it actually be proffered, to encompass both standard and specialist usage of the term and thus at least include all deities defined by all theists and all theologians & philosophers.”

    Sure. Like I defined ‘atheist’ and you guys can decree ‘wrong wrong wrong!’ or something again. Over to you mate. Define ‘deity’ and I will show you how to kill it. You have because I might only come up with obviously killable definitions (they will, e.g., all possess the attribute ‘omnipotence’).

    #84, to return to the wisely procrastrinated moment you stepped in for a moment for a moment: ‘godspeed’ when I used that was a cynical joke (it was neither irony nor sarcasm).

    (
    – there was a moment you stepped in;
    – you stepped in for a moment;
    – I’m returning to that for a moment.
    Have I all? Yup. It’s good.
    )

  86. #86 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #85, for clarity adding ‘to,': You have TO, because I might only come up with obviously killable definitions… /erratum

  87. #87 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #77, note how the terrain I retreated from for the time being remains void for all that time. Wise. Mines everywhere.

  88. #88 BBD
    January 23, 2014

    [Picks up six-shooter (Colt .45 'Peacemaker'). Considers it thoughtfully and looks around the room. Presses to *own* head and pulls trigger. Hollow click: weapon misfires.]

  89. #89 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    “Proving it wasn’t a joke is not falsifiable.”

    Let go of the pretension, betty.

  90. #90 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    BBD, that bullet KNOWS it belongs in Kampie’s cranium. That’s why it refused to go anywhere else.

  91. #91 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    Sure. Like I defined ‘atheist’

    You REDEFINED atheist to suit your own agenda, dear. Then we pointed out that the word doesn’t MEAN what you claim.

    Now you’re all butthurt and even less coherent in an attempt to “squidink” an escape.

  92. #92 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    and you guys can decree ‘wrong wrong wrong!’ or something again.

    So when the Alabama board defined Pi as 3, you weren’t all “WRONG WRONG WRGONG!”, right?

    Oh, no, you weren’t.

    Why?

  93. #93 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #90 LOL

    #91, It won’t happen again. Define deity.

    #92, IOLO.

  94. #94 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    “Define deity.”

    I just did: Helios is a god.

    And I disproved experimentally its existence.

  95. #95 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #94, “And I disproved experimentally its existence.” nice oxymoron (no pun intended).

  96. #96 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    Ah, is this another “Kampie definition” where you don’t actually know how “oxymoron” applies, but will throw it out there in the fervent belief that this will suffice?

    An oxymoron (plural oxymora or oxymorons) (from Greek ὀξύμωρον, “sharp dull”) is a figure of speech that juxtaposes apparently contradictory elements

    Helios is a god. It cannot exist because the definition of helios as a god is: rides the sun across the sky. Since the sun does not ride across the sky, but in fact the earth spins on its axis, there is no job for Helios, therefore Helios as defined cannot exist.

    I’ve disproved experimentally its existence.

    Or are you trying for “If it doesn’t exist, you can’t prove it doesn’t exist, since it doesn’t exist to see it doesn’t exist” form of insanity plea?

  97. #97 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    #92, IOLO.

    Why is it that “IOLO” is an “answer” (really isn’t, merely a reply, empty of all content, much like Kampies brain-pan), but only when you do it?

    and you guys can decree ‘wrong wrong wrong!’ or something again.

    Well IOLO.

  98. #98 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #96, prove and disprove are mathematical concepts. Incompatible with verification by experiment.

    Your disproof is by reasoning, not experimentation. The argument is more like metaphysical than it it scientific.
    But – it the kind of argumentation I consider the more appropriate for deity existential problems. In this case I’m quite inclined to agree with you that you killed Helios (as defined).

    I have one question on your example though.”in fact the earth spins on its axis” – how are we sure it is not the universe revolving around the earth, or whether not both of earth-spinning and universe-revolving are true?
    Related discussion/material: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument .

  99. #99 cRR Kampen
    January 23, 2014

    #97, I find the better known acronym ‘YOLO’ too unfalsifiable.

    Anyway, I’ve answered this several times, pardon me if I was not clear or if you didn’t read those lines.

    There are many ‘moral’ battles to fight and many could be lost devastatingly to the hordes of believers. Hordes! I pick my battles and the places to wage them.
    If I knew I stood a chance of winning protesting such an Alabama Board, I would join the fray big-time. Generally though, as history has shown, within such local situations to fight the hordes is just about suicidal. There is no fighting from out of body bags or dungeons. So I go somewhere else, can maybe try from there, maybe not (how many Soviet dissidents punched any hole in the USSR?).

    Apart from this, and moreover, I consider myself entitled to a life free from brutal authoritarianism and liars. ‘I only live once’ means I wish to be tender and loving with this ‘asset’, my life. At this point you may think of me as a ‘gutless coward’ again. If the choice be between a protracted battle of years and years inside and against a school that is teaching me nonsens half the time, and attending a school that develops my knowledge and other skills, chances are high that I will consider the latter way to spend my precious years preferable.

  100. #100 Wow
    January 23, 2014

    “#96, prove and disprove are mathematical concepts”

    Really? Prove it.

    “Incompatible with verification by experiment.”

    Does not follow on from being mathematical concepts.

    “Your disproof is by reasoning, not experimentation.”

    Nope, you can totally do it by experimenting. You don’t seem to comprehend either reason nor experimentation.

    A Woo-mancer through and through, like the worst of the Plato cabal, that caused science and technology to stagnate for nearly 2000 years.

    But I’d expect no better than that from a frothing lunatic with no higher brain function evident.

    I have one question on your example though.”in fact the earth spins on its axis” – how are we sure it is not the universe revolving around the earth,

    The distance to the nearest stars would mean a faster than light transit for those stars and a centripetal acceleration that would rip them apart like soggy tissue paper.

    Oh, and the Foucault Pendulum for the experimentalists.

Current ye@r *