Clutch

Hmm, let's try again:

"the central facts:

1) IPU arguments are not about claiming that "IPU" and "Yahweh" have the same definition.

2) IPU arguments typically aim to illustrate special pleading on evidence.

3) You have mistakenly pursued the former idea and failed to understand the latter.

4) To the nearest approximation, everything specific you have said about infinity and logic, in the course of pursuing that overall mistake, has been wrong at the most elementary level. "

Can you respond to any of this?

For example, I pointed out earlier that infinity and boundedness are consistent, to the detriment of one of your claims, but you called this an ad hominem too. When you say "ad hominem", do you just mean, "pointing out one of my errors"?

Philosoft

You seem to be able to tell us a great deal about what the supernatural isn't. However, statements of the sort, 'supernatural existence lacks the property of locality' advance my understanding not at all.

xian

"1) IPU arguments are not about claiming that "IPU" and "Yahweh" have the same definition. "

Agreed.

"IPU arguments typically aim to illustrate special pleading on evidence. "

Disagree. Although they are used for that purpose, they are also used to create the problem of infinite deities, which argues in this form:

"Ok, fine, lets assume for a moment there IS a supernatural realm and that God(s) exist. Well, which one then? How do you know YOUR God and not another? Maybe its the IPU? What makes you think it would be your JDG?"


It is this usage of the IPU argument that I am referring to, not the usage you are describing.

"3) You have mistakenly pursued the former idea and failed to understand the latter. "

I understand both ideas. But you are applying far too stringent of a definition to the very broadly used IPU argument plastered all over the internet. Perhaps you only use the IPU argument in an evidential sense, but that is most certainly not an exclusive use of it.

"4) To the nearest approximation, everything specific you have said about infinity and logic, in the course of pursuing that overall mistake, has been wrong at the most elementary level. "

how so?



"For example, I pointed out earlier that infinity and boundedness are consistent, to the detriment of one of your claims"

I responded to this yesterday. An actual infinite set does not exist in this universe- at least one has not been shown to exist. The only infinite sets that can be shown to co-exist are conceptual ones. GIven a finite volume of space, it is simply mathematically impossible that any actual infinite set of finite measurable things could exist. Only abstract conceptual infinite sets could.

" but you called this an ad hominem too. When you say "ad hominem", do you just mean, "pointing out one of my errors"? "

I mean your attempt to belittle me. When you talk about how I "dodge demolitions of your claims" as if your intellect is superior to me. Even though I am not dodging anyone but you...somehow that equates to me dodging "demolitions of" my claims. I see this as an insult to other people in here. Since I am only dodging you....and since I am also apparantly dodging "demolitions of" my claims, this means that all those who I am not dodging are not good enough to demolish my claims. It means that you are the only one here with superior reasoning, thwarting and massaccaring the irrational xian with your "supreme intellect." That is how I react to your little jabs and ad-hominem stabs.

yea, that was a bit sarcastic of me, but it illustrates that I do not acknowledge that kind of belittling. I don't care if you think you are rationally superior to me and better than me on various evolutionatry levels. That is fine. It is your right to view yourself in that light. To a certain extent, you can even get away with stating some of it on these forums. But if you want me to respond to you, it would be wise to restrain yourself from expressing it.

Hawkingfan

Genesis 6
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

The above personal dissatisfaction of his own personal creation is the very reason god sends the great flood. His reasons for the flood must have been for some kind of personal gratification, because there would be no other reason for it. If Jesus was with him since the beginning, and he had man's salvation through Christ planned from the start, then the only reason to kill everyone without mercy would be to gratify his own personal desires.

Hawkingfan

But you have not given an objective definition of GPB at all. You say it is objective, but it is not.

xian

well locality, as we understand it to mean, loses meaning when we make it a requirement of a supernatural being.

I am not empirically saying that a supernatural being (if one exists) cannot have the property of locality. I am saying that I do not think one can logically necessitate that property.

xian

the GPB is defined as a being, for which there is no being that could possibly be greater.

i am not sure what you are asking? That definition is fully objective.

Jinto

So, IPU arguments are used to show special pleading on evidence, but IPU arguments are not used to show special pleading on evidence. Huh?

I think that there is a misunderstanding regarding the latter argument. What it asks is why you hold that the evidence supports YOUR god when the same evidence could also be used under the same logic to show the existence of other gods. It in no way implies that there are multiple gods.

xian

i am not the one who uses IPU arguments. Atheists do. If those arguments are illogical or inherently fallicious, well....

Are you here claiming to me right now that atheists do not use the IPU arguments in the manner that I described?

Jinto

Where did I say that the argument was fallacious?

I fail to see why an atheist would use IPU arguments to demonstrate polytheism.