I feel as though I need to clarify something.

I agree. As prase also noted, please clarify why counterfactuals are allowed in your criteria, yet rejected in mine. How is this not special pleading? To refresh your memory:

On the other hand, the rejection of counterfactuals seems to me a bit unfair. Ebonmuse, you've yourself written for example this: "If the Bible, for example, said, 'On the first day of the first month in the year two thousand and ten, the pillars of the earth will shake and a great part of the New World will be lost to the sea,' and then January 1, 2010 comes and a tremendous earthquake sends California to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, I would become a believer." This is a typical counterfactual (something that we know with reasonable certainty is false). There is nothing in the Bible like this. If somebody asked me what would convince me that the Earth is flat, I am not sure that I would be able to list one thing that couldn't be classified as counterfactual. Does it mean that I am closed-minded? (prase)

Well?

There's no need to agree with theists or deists or agnostics that gods' non-existence can not be established. When they refer to god(s) to what (if anything) are they referring?

That is, the statement 'the god X exists' can be shown to be false. It's up to claimants to specify just what concept of god they're playing with. (Dealing with an irrationalist or a mystic requires different approaches not discussed here.)

Some concepts are simply inconsistent. For example is the concept of god X just like the concept of the round-square? "The" round-square does not exist because its (supposed) concept is incoherent.

In the Middle Ages an attempt was made to explicate "the" concept of God's omnipresence by recourse to an analogy drawn from plane geometry. God is like . . . a circle whose circumference is nowhere and whose center is everywhere. Clever stuff.

But there can be no such circle. Among closed plane figures, the circle shares the property of always being finite. The analogy backfires -- well if God's omnipresence is like that; then, there can be no such God.

A different approach to showing conceptual limits of any concept of God also comes from the Middle Ages. "Can an omnipotent God create a stone too big for Him to lift?" To say either yes or no immediately implies that God is not omnipotent. And, consequently, not the god of the so-called big 3 monotheisms.

Language here is being misused. Adjectives are always relative to some context. A context free absolute adjective describes nothing. Stretching language past it limits is a commonplace in discourse about gods. A related gambit is to claim that the word 'good' when applied to some alleged divinity does not mean the same thing as 'good' when applied to human acts.

Obviously, most theists or deists won't immediately offer up lucid concepts of god. Though the panto-divinity: all powerful, all knowing, all merciful, will often make His (Her, Its) appearance. This conjunction of attributes is easy to undermine. Epicurus did so 300 years BCE -- that is, two thousand three hundred years ago. Too bad Jesus didn't get a proper education in philosophy.

Xianity has spent so much time trying to shore up a failed pantocrator that there's even a name for this branch of theological special pleading, theodicy.

Can the negation of an existential claim be proved. Sure. Yaweh, God, and Allah simply do not exist because they can not exist.

bipolar2

As for Chet's argument, you should be embarrassed because of your bravado. In fact, I already said that. Again, we find you doing what you accuse others of doing.

As for ID, the point you still don't get is that if one posits "evidence" that doesn't actually support one's point, then one is not actually using evidence to support the position. I understand that you are claiming that no evidence supports ID, so when you make the statement that people do use evidence to support ID, you are incorrect.

Post hoc reasoning - If you want to explain yourself better, that's fine, but the first sentence where you are talking about when to interpret literally vs. metaphorically sure makes it sound as though you are claiming what I said. But, hey, you can keep harping on stuff that I had dropped long ago if you like.

Finally, thank you for showing that you do understand subjective claims. I was wrong that you don't understand them. But, you are wrong as well to claim that you were correct from the beginning. Even though Chet is making the claim, it's still not subjective. He's not making a subjective claim at all.

Now, can you stop whining and get a life?

In the following, I critique 15 statements you made against me that I feel were not justified.

In short, you've took me to task for 1) Not understanding Chet's argument; 2) Not understanding subjectivity; 3) Stating that "People use evidence to support ID"; and 4) You alleged that regarding the Bible, I said "the parts that are right are from God and the parts that are wrong aren't." This is all incorrect, though I did make at least two genuine but minor errors here, one with Justin and yes, the other with you. I'll get to those, and there's also the whole "logically flawed" thing I'll get to as well, but let's address the main complaints first.

Ready?

1) CHET'S ARGUMENT.

I did understand Chet's argument, as evidenced by our ability to reach common ground, something that occurs somewhat rarely in these types of debates, and which I correctly foreshadowed in my comment to Chet November 20, 2008, 3:54 pm:

Please, let's see this interesting dialog to the end, because we've both invested much and I think we're really close to common ground. (cl to Chet)

Consider the following six claims, each belittling me because you did not think I understood Chet's argument. Any observer can note that at the time of your comments here, I had already correctly articulated Chet's argument in the thread, yet you persisted:

...you've still not figured out Chet's rather straight-forward argument. (OMGF, November 18, 2008, 4:48 pm)

Let me tell you what else you don't understand, and that's Chet's argument. It's pretty straight-forward too. The fact that you can't grasp it should be embarrassing for you, considering that it's that easy to grasp. I'm actually laughing at you for flailing so badly and being completely unable to figure out how badly he's exposed your argument. (OMGF, November 20, 2008, 4:17 pm)

Stop being so full of yourself, because you still don't get it... [Y]ou still haven't grasped Chet's simple argument. Man, you must feel really embarrassed now...at least you should. (OMGF, November 20, 2008, 7:45 pm)

Quite a mouthful; six separate charges, to be exact.

There's a few aspects that I don't think we got to the bottom to (and therefore I don't think you took my meaning as clearly as I would like), but I see them as minor points. For the most part I think you got the gist of it just fine... (ital. mine)

Besides, even if I was misunderstanding Chet, why should I be embarrassed? I've stated I'm here to learn. At any rate, all six of those charges are false, as I did understand Chet's argument.

2) ID, FALSIFIABILITY

After your first two comments, and sensing the magnetic pull away from anything relevant to the OP, one of the first things I said was:

To argue over whether ID is falsifiable or not is sort of to start off on the wrong foot...

Note that you persisted, although I expressed clear and justifiable disinterest in discussing ID or falsifiability. At any rate, let's look at the first phrase of mine you took issue with in this respect:

People use evidence to demonstrate ID. (cl)

Your response was,

No, actually they don't. ID is nothing more than "goddidit" in a cheap tuxedo with faux-empirical backing. Real biologists do work and then the ID people swoop in and post hoc claim that it somehow supports their religious ideals. (OMGF)

Correct, but slow down a second. I was talking to Justin, who offered the following as his definition of falsifiability:

If you use evidence for your claims, then your claims are falsifiable. (Justin)

I replied that I disagreed, because that is not the definition of falsifiability. Falsifiable claims are not claims "you use evidence for" - as ID'ers verify, you can 'use' (as in bastardize) evidence for any claim. A falsifiable claim is a claim that can be proven false, or that has already been proven false.

So, when I said, "People use evidence to support ID," such was not support for ID, nor a claim that any evidence for ID exists, because I don't support ID and as of today I don't think any evidence for ID exists. When I said,

People use evidence to support ID

it was to Justin, and in the limited, hypothetical context of ID as a falsifiable claim, which it is not, but was only proffered as such to demonstrate that Justin's definition of falsifiability could not be tenable.

IOW, if Justin's definition of falsifiability was correct, then ID is falsifiable, because people use evidence they say supports ID all the time. The evidence, however, does not support ID. To this end, you note correctly,

"When you falsify my claim that the moon was made of green cheese, it does not mean that ID is somehow falsifiable..."

Of course! But I've not posited that ID was falsifiable, except hypothetically to demonstrate that Justin's definition of falsifiability was untenable. In the context Justin and I were in, I made a correct statement, and again, you come along, read it hastily, and misunderstand a very delicate context, thus missing the central point as John D correctly pointed out and obfuscating the entire rest of the discussion.

3) POST HOC REASONING:

Your third comment comes November 17, 2008, 10:43 am. You appear to have made it without noticing my response to you, which also indicates haste as John D notes. The evidence for this is that your fourth comment comes only 7 minutes after your third, which shows you decided to harp on yet another new topic before even listening to what I had replied about your first ones.

In response to the following (which I said in a question Brad asked me that had nothing to do with you),

I'm not really sure when it is appropriate to maintain a literal vs. metaphorical interpretation of scripture. I do count the instances where a basic Bible statement is corroborated by reality as evidence supporting the claim scripture is "God-breathed." I also count the (logical disconnects) as evidence supporting the claim that not all scripture is God-breathed. (paren. mine)

You interjected,

This is post hoc reasoning. It's easy to say, "The parts that are right are from god and the parts that are wrong are not from god," but it's hardly compelling.

Well sure, it would be easy to say that. Too bad that's not what I've said, though, and again, classic OMGF, take your opponents position, state it incorrectly, and knock it down.

In my opinion, the Bible is inspired by God in its entirety as it suggests, or it is not. I believe that the type of claim made in 2 Timothy is an objective claim - it says "all scripture is god breathed..." Note - all. So, the Bible itself argues that its entirety is inspired by God. It seems to be an all-or-nothing claim, and that's how I've always interpreted it. I've never once said, argued, or wrote that, "The parts that are right are from god and the parts that are wrong are not from god." Again, classic OMGF, paraphrase his opponent, tweek his claim ever-so-slightly, then attack without relent.

What I said was,

I do count the instances where a basic Bible statement is corroborated by reality as evidence supporting the claim scripture is "God-breathed." I also count the instances such as 2 as evidence supporting the claim that not all scripture is God-breathed. (cl)

IOW, either all scripture is God-breathed or it is not. I'm still weighing and collecting evidence. I put evidence that does not directly challenge a biblical statement in one pile, and I put evidence that does directly challenge a biblical statement in another pile.

And again I've shown how you caricaturize your opponent in a way that obscures his or her actual position.

4) SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE CLAIMS

You persisted rather strongly again, making at least 6 other claims related to this issue:

...concepts that you've shown not to understand....you don't know what subjective is...if you don't know what "subjective" means, don't use it...you've demonstrated that you don't know what subjective is...instead of making blow-hard noises and banging your drum as loudly as you can, you should correct your mistake and learn from it...you keep making the same elementary errors and saying erroneous things.

I offer the following as evidence that I have clearly and undeniably understood the difference since the nineties, and at least since 2003, when the book the following passage was contained in was published:

"If I state, 'my favorite place to ride a skateboard is a smooth, empty asphalt parking lot,' that statement can be true for me but untrue for another, whose favorite place to ride a skateboard may very well be the Santa Monica boardwalk. It is absolutely true that in this author's opinion ice cream is the best dessert, but it is not absolutely true that ice cream is the best dessert, because the matter of the best dessert is subjective in that it will inevitably vary from one individual to the next. Now on the other hand, the existence of ice cream is not open to either opinion or debate, and thus cannot be classified as subjective; that ice cream exists is an absolutely true statement regardless of any human position either for or against it." (cl, 2003)

Now - I grant that although this falsifies your claims that I don't understand subjectivity vs. objectivity, such does not entail that I've used the term correctly in this thread, so let us get to that now.

OMGF, you assumed I used the phrase 'subjective claims' in reference to the intrinsic nature of Chet's claims, when I did not. I used the phrase 'subjective claims' to describe the manner in which Chet was advancing his claims, which themselves are actually objective. Do you see the difference? You read 'subjective claims' and thought innocently but mistakenly that I was implying Chet's claims over the existence of infinity or omnipotence were intrinsically subjective. See, OMGF, in the context I was in, 'Chet' was the subject of the sentence; not 'claims' - but in the context of the sentence you were in, the 'claims' were the subject. I meant not that the claims were subjective, but that Chet made them subjectively, ie, proffered his opinion that such things did not exist.

In philosophy, a subject is a being which has subjective experiences. Chet claimed omnipotence and infinity did not exist. That omnipotence and infinity do not exist are Chet's subjective experiences. That's what I meant, and I know the difference between a subjective and objective claim just fine. But, again, thanks for giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, you'll probably still persist that I don't understand subjectivity, and you'll probably still persist that I don't understand Chet's argument, and you'll probably still persist that I claim the correct parts of the Bible are from God while the bad parts are not... Who knows.

Funny thing is, even if you were correct, which I maintain you are not, your strongest point against me would still only amount to disagreement over the specific manner in which I used a word that I proved I understood beforehand, in a conversation you weren't even involved with in the first place.

I think OMFG expected you to be blown away by it, maybe, but I guess only you can decide that.

Actually, I can't decide that. For me to posit whether OMGF thought I would be blown away by the bleem analogy would be to speak presumably for another. I could simply ask OMGF whether he thought, but getting a simple 'Yes' or 'No' from the man has, thus far, proven to be elusive.

Feel free to shamelessly plagiarize me on other websites. (Or this one, for that matter.)

There's a few aspects that I don't think we got to the bottom to (and therefore I don't think you took my meaning as clearly as I would like), but I see them as minor points. For the most part I think you got the gist of it just fine even if you, personally, weigh its significance differently than I do.

I think OMFG expected you to be blown away by it, maybe, but I guess only you can decide that.

That's fair enough. You've reversed my opinion by that admission.

Right on man, glad we see eye-to-eye at least on this, and that neither of us accuses the other of jacked logic anymore. Feels great to have a clean slate.

...the only thing I can do is wonder if you're really aware of all the evidence (or perhaps you weigh it differently than I do); but teasing out what you may or may not know is somewhat beyond the scope of this thread. It'll have to wait for another opportunity... Plus I think you need the concentration back. OMGF still has a few bones to pick with you, looks like... I think he has some good points, though, and is really guilty of nothing but a brevity of style that comes off as abrupt.

I welcome your criticisms any time. They are a challenge and a benefit. I would say I'm aware of much, I have several ideas of my own that I don't see too much of, and of course I weigh things differently than the next man - we all walk a different walk. Regarding OMGF, I think almost all of his points against me on this thread would be %100 spot-on if he made them in appropriate context. And yes, I will explain and show with evidence exactly what I allude to, so feel free to sit back in the sidelines if you wish.

Funny, usually I'm the guy everyone accuses of acting like a total asshole in these threads.

If you say so! No, but I don't think that, and I don't think OMGF is an asshole, or even mean. Mean people are the type that try to stab you, so I'm not trippin' off OMGF. And at least with me, in this thread, you've not acted like an asshole at all. Contrary, you had patience, you gave me credit when you thought it was due, and you didn't just 'attack, tear down, denigrate, attack, tear down, denigrate.' I respect you and your candor.

Thank you, no hard feelings, I'm just glad we did hit a common ground. That's happened with myself and a few others a few other times lately. I could tell you weren't the type of guy to waste our time, I didn't want to waste our time, and I'm glad we stuck it out. BTW, just so I can be sure, did I demonstrate that I actually did understand your analogy, like when I tried to explain it back to you? IMO, we worked through a pretty severe logical clash, only to find we were both actually quite logical.

That's fair enough. You've reversed my opinion by that admission.

In truth I don't know where we can go from here. If you can accept the issues I've raised as evidence against God, then that's probably as convincing as I'd ever have hoped my argument to be. If you really do weight the breadth and the scope of the available evidence and, nonetheless, find it more consistent than inconsistent with the existence of a God (especially as described by Christianity) then the only thing I can do is wonder if you're really aware of all the evidence (or perhaps you weigh it differently than I do); but teasing out what you may or may not know is somewhat beyond the scope of this thread. It'll have to wait for another opportunity.

I hope so, 'cuz my brain hurts.

Let's leave it for now, in this place of brief mutual understanding, since such places are rare on the internet. (Wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.)

Plus I think you need the concentration back. OMGF still has a few bones to pick with you, looks like. (Funny, usually I'm the guy everyone accuses of acting like a total asshole in these threads. I think he has some good points, though, and is really guilty of nothing but a brevity of style that comes off as abrupt.)