Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on June 21, 2015, 02:03:23 PM
-
deleted
-
Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.
-
Some Christians claim they have evidence that the deity and an afterlife exist. However, when asked to reveal it, they fail to do so. WHY?
I think the reality is that they have "evidence" that convinces them, but the rest of us don't find it so.
-
Some Christians claim they have evidence that the deity and an afterlife exist. However, when asked to reveal it, they fail to do so. WHY?
Because there isn't any.
-
Some Christians claim they have evidence that the deity and an afterlife exist. However, when asked to reveal it, they fail to do so. WHY?
Because there isn't any.
Sorry, there is evidence, just not evidence that fits a scientific definition of evidence - but then, of course, that applies for several other aspects of life.
-
Can you say what this evidence is in your opinion?
-
Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.
No, Shaker, they don't believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence. They just believe that a scientific definition of evidence isn't the only legitimate definition of the word.
-
Better check with Alien to see if he'd agree with you there.
-
Can you say what this evidence is in your opinion?
I can, but as it won't fit into a scientific definition, why bothe since the likes of you have made it clear that they only accepted explanations that fit into a scientific definition.
May I remind you that no-one has yet managed to provide me with any evidence for the existence of emotions - all they have done is point to chemical actions that are the result of or symptoms of such things - not the things themselves.
-
Better check with Alien to see if he'd agree with you there.
In a previous discussion, he seemd to agree with me.
-
Sorry, there is evidence, just not evidence that fits a scientific definition of evidence
What other kind of evidence is there?
-
I can, but as it won't fit into a scientific definition, why bothe since the likes of you have made it clear that they only accepted explanations that fit into a scientific definition.
Indeed, but I'm interested to see what you regard as evidence.
-
Sorry, there is evidence, just not evidence that fits a scientific definition of evidence
What other kind of evidence is there?
OK, jeremy, what evidence is there for human emotions? I am not referring to the symptoms which result from them - ie, the chemical reactions.
-
It's looking that way.
-
May I remind you that no-one has yet managed to provide me with any evidence for the existence of emotions - all they have done is point to chemical actions that are the result of or symptoms of such things - not the things themselves.
I'm not sure what exactly you are asking for, Hope. There is a mass of evidence for the existence of these emotions.
-
I'm not sure what exactly you are asking for, Hope. There is a mass of evidence for the existence of these emotions.
Go on then, what are they? The only evidence put forward by anyone here when I posed a very similar question about 'love' a couple of months ago, was from Horsethorn (iirc) and referred to the chemical reactions/actions that are a 'symptom' of love, not love itself.
-
A cop out on the part of Hope! ::)
Why would you suggest that, floo? Perhaps you can give us the benefit of your wisdom - something you failed to do last time this came up in discussion a couple of months back.
-
Why would you suggest that, floo?
Because you've been asked to state what in your opinion constitutes evidence and have failed to do so (despite claiming that you can do so, before sharply swerving into a burden-of-proof-shifting, discussion-derailing and wholly irrelevant point about emotions).
-
Sorry, there is evidence, just not evidence that fits a scientific definition of evidence
What other kind of evidence is there?
OK, jeremy, what evidence is there for human emotions? I am not referring to the symptoms which result from them - ie, the chemical reactions.
That is a totally nonsensical response to my challenge.
Me: "show me your non scientific evidence"
You: "well there's no evidence for emotions"
You're supposed to be providing examples of non scientific evidence, not telling me there is no evidence for some stuff.
Incidentally, as well as actually answering my question, you can also have a shot at telling me why the physical symptoms of emotions are not scientific evidence for emotions.
-
I'm not sure what exactly you are asking for, Hope. There is a mass of evidence for the existence of these emotions.
Go on then, what are they? The only evidence put forward by anyone here when I posed a very similar question about 'love' a couple of months ago, was from Horsethorn (iirc) and referred to the chemical reactions/actions that are a 'symptom' of love, not love itself.
Why should love be anything more than the effect of chemical reactions/activity on our brain and nervous system?
-
Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.
Gratitude to Shaker for reminding us that his definition of evidence is very much rooted in philosophical naturalism.......for which there is no evidence which would satisfy that definition.
Ciao.
-
Evidence has to be scientifically verifiable, which clearly theirs isn't!
There you go. Is philosophical naturalism scientifically verifiable? er, nope.
-
Sorry, there is evidence, just not evidence that fits a scientific definition of evidence
What other kind of evidence is there?
OK, jeremy, what evidence is there for human emotions? I am not referring to the symptoms which result from them - ie, the chemical reactions.
You've got it the wrong way around Hope. The chemical reactions are the cause, what we describe as emotions are effectively 'symptoms' of those chemical reactions. So the point is that what we describe as our human emotions are just that - the manifestations of responses to a series of complex chemical reactions. That is the evidence.
That we find those symptoms of those particular chemical reactions so powerful and important is a product of our underlying physiology (including neurology) and evolution. But all is effectively complex chemistry.
-
I'm not sure what exactly you are asking for, Hope. There is a mass of evidence for the existence of these emotions.
Go on then, what are they? The only evidence put forward by anyone here when I posed a very similar question about 'love' a couple of months ago, was from Horsethorn (iirc) and referred to the chemical reactions/actions that are a 'symptom' of love, not love itself.
Why should love be anything more than the effect of chemical reactions/activity on our brain and nervous system?
And there are, of course, all sorts of substances that are used to alter those chemical reactions and in doing so alter our emotion.
Some are mind altering drugs used for thousands of years, without (until recently) an understanding of how they actually function. Others are more modern therapeutic drugs - a good example being selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors used to treat depression.
-
Hope seems to think that the definition of emotion is something separate to the signs of emotion - that there's an extra link in the chain. I don't get this at all - it seems obvious to me that emotion is inseparable from the signs of emotion, and that it makes sense to regard that as what emotion means.
That said, it's quite clear that we're only discussing this at all since Hope introduced it into the thread as as diversion from having to produce evidence of his own.
-
Hope seems to think that the definition of emotion is something separate to the signs of emotion - that there's an extra link in the chain. I don't get this at all - it seems obvious to me that emotion is inseparable from the signs of emotion, and that it makes sense to regard that as what emotion means.
That said, it's quite clear that we're only discussing this at all since Hope introduced it into the thread as as diversion from having to produce evidence of his own.
You seem to be ignoring external stimulus in causing release of chemicals.
-
No, I think that that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand (which is itself irrelevant).
-
Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.
Gratitude to Shaker for reminding us that his definition of evidence is very much rooted in philosophical naturalism.......for which there is no evidence which would satisfy that definition.
Ciao.
Are you saying that PN is unfalsifiable?
-
Go on then, what are they? The only evidence put forward by anyone here when I posed a very similar question about 'love' a couple of months ago, was from Horsethorn (iirc) and referred to the chemical reactions/actions that are a 'symptom' of love, not love itself.
The evidence is staring you in the face! Everybody demonstrates that they feel love, hate, fear so they must exist ... what more evidence do you want.
I fear I have misunderstood the question, because the answer is so obvious.
-
Evidence has to be scientifically verifiable, which clearly theirs isn't!
No,it doesn't. Here is the OED definition of "evidence":
noun
1 The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
e.g. the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination
1.1 Law Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court:
e.g. without evidence, they can’t bring a charge
1.2 Signs or indications of something:
there was no obvious evidence of a break-in
-
Better check with Alien to see if he'd agree with you there.
I do agree with Hope.
-
Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.
Gratitude to Shaker for reminding us that his definition of evidence is very much rooted in philosophical naturalism.......for which there is no evidence which would satisfy that definition.
Ciao.
Are you saying that PN is unfalsifiable?
Yep.
-
Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.
Gratitude to Shaker for reminding us that his definition of evidence is very much rooted in philosophical naturalism.......for which there is no evidence which would satisfy that definition.
Ciao.
Are you saying that PN is unfalsifiable?
Yep.
Then for all intents and purposes you agree with Shaker. See, if you actually had evidence for the supernatural then you would falsify PN in a heartbeat. Way to piss on your own bonfire, Vlad.
Now I expect that any further contribution to this thread from you will be to tell any other theists that they don't have evidence for the supernatural? It's that or just don't bother with it anymore.
-
Better check with Alien to see if he'd agree with you there.
I do agree with Hope.
An interesting, though wholly unsurprising, dodge there. I've lost count of the number of times on the number of threads that you've been asked by a number of different posters to provide a methodology for the supernatural which you claim to believe exists (that is, both the supernatural and a methodology for being made aware of it) - requests which you've also consistently dodged.
-
Typically because they mistakenly believe that there's such a thing as supernatural evidence, whereas that's a contradiction in terms.
Gratitude to Shaker for reminding us that his definition of evidence is very much rooted in philosophical naturalism.......for which there is no evidence which would satisfy that definition.
Ciao.
Are you saying that PN is unfalsifiable?
Yep.
Then for all intents and purposes you agree with Shaker. See, if you actually had evidence for the supernatural then you would falsify PN in a heartbeat. Way to piss on your own bonfire, Vlad.
Not at all....... falsifiability is a test or way of seeing whether something is in the purvue of science. A philosophy is not that's why it's er, philosophy. We do not give up a philosophy just because it is unfalsifiable. We treat philosophies in a different way. The same with religion although those can overlap several domains or magisteria.
I don't know what it is about your arguments but I genuinely don't get them, where as I merely disagree or agree with others.
-
falsifiability is a test or way of seeing whether something is in the purvue of science.
Wrong. Something is falsifiable if you can perform a test that, in principle could show it to be false. The General Theory of Relativity is falsifiable because it makes predictions that can be tested. If the tests show the prediction is wrong, GR is false.
If you claim that philosophical naturalism is not falsifiable, you claim there is no evidence for the supernatural. In fact you claim there can be no evidence for the supernatural because if there were evidence for the supernatural, philosophical naturalism is falsified.
-
falsifiability is a test or way of seeing whether something is in the purvue of science.
Wrong. Something is falsifiable if you can perform a test that, in principle could show it to be false. The General Theory of Relativity is falsifiable because it makes predictions that can be tested. If the tests show the prediction is wrong, GR is false.
If you claim that philosophical naturalism is not falsifiable, you claim there is no evidence for the supernatural. In fact you claim there can be no evidence for the supernatural because if there were evidence for the supernatural, philosophical naturalism is falsified.
I think the following from the American humanist, scientist and self professed Philosophical materialist Eugenie. C. Scott is a timely reminder to those who think their position is falsifiable or in the purvue of science.
Jezzer, Philosophical Naturalism is unfalsifiable on it's own terms without invoking the supernatural and the reverse is true.
http://ncse.com/religion/science-religion-methodology-humanism
-
Go on then, what are they? The only evidence put forward by anyone here when I posed a very similar question about 'love' a couple of months ago, was from Horsethorn (iirc) and referred to the chemical reactions/actions that are a 'symptom' of love, not love itself.
The evidence is staring you in the face! Everybody demonstrates that they feel love, hate, fear so they must exist ... what more evidence do you want.
I fear I have misunderstood the question, because the answer is so obvious.
I haven't read the whole thread but it appears from the above that you have misunderstood the question.
People assert that they feel love or hate in the same way that they assert they feel the presence of the supernatural. They or others attach labels to certain behaviours and call it love or hate but different people have different definitions of love and hate - there is no objective definition that is testable. For example indulging your child's every whim is considered to be a demonstration of love by some people or child abuse by certain psychologists.
-
falsifiability is a test or way of seeing whether something is in the purvue of science.
Wrong. Something is falsifiable if you can perform a test that, in principle could show it to be false. The General Theory of Relativity is falsifiable because it makes predictions that can be tested. If the tests show the prediction is wrong, GR is false.
If you claim that philosophical naturalism is not falsifiable, you claim there is no evidence for the supernatural. In fact you claim there can be no evidence for the supernatural because if there were evidence for the supernatural, philosophical naturalism is falsified.
I think the following from the American humanist, scientist and self professed Philosophical materialist Eugenie. C. Scott is a timely reminder to those who think their position is falsifiable or in the purvue of science.
Jezzer, Philosophical Naturalism is unfalsifiable on it's own terms without invoking the supernatural and the reverse is true.
http://ncse.com/religion/science-religion-methodology-humanism
jeremyp replied well enough for me not to bother with the previous post.
Who here is thinking that 1. they are a PNist and 2. that it is falsifiable?
You're way missing the point here and run off in a completely different direction. This thread is a request for supernatural evidence, and you've indirectly said there can't be any. One of my main aims here is to try and weed out common ground, so I only see it as a positive to find some with you here.
-
falsifiability is a test or way of seeing whether something is in the purvue of science.
Wrong. Something is falsifiable if you can perform a test that, in principle could show it to be false. The General Theory of Relativity is falsifiable because it makes predictions that can be tested. If the tests show the prediction is wrong, GR is false.
If you claim that philosophical naturalism is not falsifiable, you claim there is no evidence for the supernatural. In fact you claim there can be no evidence for the supernatural because if there were evidence for the supernatural, philosophical naturalism is falsified.
I think the following from the American humanist, scientist and self professed Philosophical materialist Eugenie. C. Scott is a timely reminder to those who think their position is falsifiable or in the purvue of science.
Jezzer, Philosophical Naturalism is unfalsifiable on it's own terms without invoking the supernatural and the reverse is true.
http://ncse.com/religion/science-religion-methodology-humanism
jeremyp replied well enough for me not to bother with the previous post.
Who here is thinking that 1. they are a PNist and 2. that it is falsifiable?
You're way missing the point here and run off in a completely different direction. This thread is a request for supernatural evidence, and you've indirectly said there can't be any. One of my main aims here is to try and weed out common ground, so I only see it as a positive to find some with you here.
There cannot be evidence for the supernatural if the definition of evidence is completely within the definitions of methological materialism. And by the same token there cannot be evidence for philosophical naturalism.
-
There cannot be evidence for the supernatural if the definition of evidence is completely within the definitions of methological materialism. And by the same token there cannot be evidence for philosophical naturalism.
I agree, but do you believe that there can be evidence not within the definitions of methodological materialism? If so, I'd like to see some examples of the kind of evidence you mean.
-
First off, can you stop interchanging naturalism and materialism as if they're the same thing. They're not.
That evidence is defined within the confines of MN is the point Shaker was making. If you want it to mean something else, then it's your problem to do so and make it meaningful within a given context. However, I say you have all your work ahead of you to provide such a meaning without it being contaminated by the natural world you use in order to explain it.
-
There cannot be evidence for the supernatural if the definition of evidence is completely within the definitions of methological materialism. And by the same token there cannot be evidence for philosophical naturalism.
I agree, but do you believe that there can be evidence not within the definitions of methodological materialism? If so, I'd like to see some examples of the kind of evidence you mean.
If you agree how do you end up being a philosophical naturalist? Yes there can be evidence outside MM but to avoid confusion many refer to ''grounds'' or ''motivation''. Also we know how to deal with philosophies which inevitably take into account questions of the self, the ultimate, the ground, existence, value, virtue, morals etc.
To get back to your being PN there are grounds and motivations of you being so. We can discuss these and then we come eventually to experience, virtue, decision and commitment.
-
First off, can you stop interchanging naturalism and materialism as if they're the same thing. They're not.
That evidence is defined within the confines of MN is the point Shaker was making. If you want it to mean something else, then it's your problem to do so and make it meaningful within a given context. However, I say you have all your work ahead of you to provide such a meaning without it being contaminated by the natural world you use in order to explain it.
What do you mean by naturalism and how do you think it is distinguishable from materialism?
-
First off, can you stop interchanging naturalism and materialism as if they're the same thing. They're not.
That evidence is defined within the confines of MN is the point Shaker was making. If you want it to mean something else, then it's your problem to do so and make it meaningful within a given context. However, I say you have all your work ahead of you to provide such a meaning without it being contaminated by the natural world you use in order to explain it.
What do you mean by naturalism and how do you think it is distinguishable from materialism?
I'm not interested in discussing it on this thread. Stay on task.
-
First off, can you stop interchanging naturalism and materialism as if they're the same thing. They're not.
That evidence is defined within the confines of MN is the point Shaker was making. If you want it to mean something else, then it's your problem to do so and make it meaningful within a given context. However, I say you have all your work ahead of you to provide such a meaning without it being contaminated by the natural world you use in order to explain it.
What do you mean by naturalism and how do you think it is distinguishable from materialism?
I'm not interested in discussing it on this thread. Stay on task.
The task must always leave room for enquiries concerning definition of terms. You raised the matter in the first place by claiming there was confusion between naturalism and materialism going on. The burden is therefore on you to demonstrate.
-
First off, can you stop interchanging naturalism and materialism as if they're the same thing. They're not.
That evidence is defined within the confines of MN is the point Shaker was making. If you want it to mean something else, then it's your problem to do so and make it meaningful within a given context. However, I say you have all your work ahead of you to provide such a meaning without it being contaminated by the natural world you use in order to explain it.
What do you mean by naturalism and how do you think it is distinguishable from materialism?
I'm not interested in discussing it on this thread. Stay on task.
The task must always leave room for enquiries concerning definition of terms. You raised the matter in the first place by claiming there was confusion between naturalism and materialism going on. The burden is therefore on you to demonstrate.
Then create a new thread or something if you want to make an issue of it.
-
If you agree how do you end up being a philosophical naturalist?
If it's unfalsifiable, it follows that the supernatural is unfalsifiable. However, PN is the parsimonious position.
Yes there can be evidence outside MM but to avoid confusion many refer to ''grounds'' or ''motivation''.
You mean there can't be evidence outside of MM.
Also we know how to deal with philosophies which inevitably take into account questions of the self, the ultimate, the ground, existence, value, virtue, morals etc.
If it's not falsifiable, we have no means of determining if it is correct or not. But the fact that we don't like not knowing doesn't make it any the less unfalsifiable.
-
The task must always leave room for enquiries concerning definition of terms.
Are you in any confusion over what the deity and the afterlife is?
Show us the evidence.
-
If you agree how do you end up being a philosophical naturalist?
If it's unfalsifiable, it follows that the supernatural is unfalsifiable. However, PN is the parsimonious position.
Yes there can be evidence outside MM but to avoid confusion many refer to ''grounds'' or ''motivation''.
You mean there can't be evidence outside of MM.
Also we know how to deal with philosophies which inevitably take into account questions of the self, the ultimate, the ground, existence, value, virtue, morals etc.
If it's not falsifiable, we have no means of determining if it is correct or not. But the fact that we don't like not knowing doesn't make it any the less unfalsifiable.
No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.
-
JeremyP said:
''If it's unfalsifiable, it follows that the supernatural is unfalsifiable. However, PN is the parsimonious position.''
Parsimony, JeremyP, is a virtue of empirical theories but not necessarily of philosophical theories.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2008.569.x/abstract
-
No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.
Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'. What is beauty; what is love; what is being human? Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.
-
No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.
Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'. What is beauty; what is love; what is being human? Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.
It is all biochemistry, Hope: nothing more and nothing less. Doesn't mean it isn't often wonderful, and often not so wonderful, to be human since our biochemistry is fitted to allow us to think abstractly.
-
No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.
Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'. What is beauty; what is love; what is being human? Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.
Marinate therefore god hmmmm....
-
No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.
Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'. What is beauty; what is love; what is being human? Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.
You're confusing science with its human application. The method has the potential, it's us with our limitations that finds it hard.
-
No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.
Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'. What is beauty; what is love; what is being human? Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.
You seem to think that these things are not amenable to scientific investigation (and always in the background, unspoken but ever-present, is the implication that if science can't currently provide a comprehensive explanation for X, the immediate recourse as an explanation for X is woo of some sort), but I don't see any reason why not.
-
No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.
Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'. What is beauty; what is love; what is being human? Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.
You're confusing science with its human application. The method has the potential, it's us with our limitations that finds it hard.
Anybody?
-
No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.
Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'. What is beauty; what is love; what is being human? Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.
You seem to think that these things are not amenable to scientific investigation (and always in the background, unspoken but ever-present, is the implication that if science can't currently provide a comprehensive explanation for X, the immediate recourse as an explanation for X is woo of some sort), but I don't see any reason why not.
Philosophical naturalism is not science.
-
I wasn't talking about philosophical naturalism, Vlad.
Do a search for philosophical naturalism and I'd be mightily surprised if anyone else has or had ever mentioned it independently - when I say independently I mean not in response to any post of yours. Only you do that, boringly, tediously, endlessly, obsessively so on and on and on and on and fucking on, even or especially when it has nothing whatever to do with the discussion at hand because you're woefully intellectually limited and it's your own private monomania, and because of that you simply don't know how to contribute to an online forum - this one, certainly - without it.
-
No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.
Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'. What is beauty; what is love; what is being human? Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.
You're confusing science with its human application. The method has the potential, it's us with our limitations that finds it hard.
Anybody?
I must be doing something right if you don't understand me.
-
I wasn't talking about philosophical naturalism, Vlad.
Do a search for philosophical naturalism and I'd be mightily surprised if anyone else has or had ever mentioned it independently - when I say independently I mean not in response to any post of yours. Only you do that
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Philosophical_naturalism
STPOYB
-
Gibberish.
-
No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.
If it is not falsifiable, there's no way to be confident it is true.
-
Parsimony, JeremyP, is a virtue of empirical theories but not necessarily of philosophical theories.
It's basically "don't believe stuff exists unless there is evidence that it does".
-
No. If it is not falsifiable it is not science.....and that's as far as it goes.
Which is why so much of life isn't 'science'. What is beauty; what is love; what is being human? Science finds it very hard to explain these pretty subjective ideas.
Aha you're back.
You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.
-
You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.
It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy. The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there. After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer. You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.
-
You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.
It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy. The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there. After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer. You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.
Well for a start I'm not aware that many scientists use the term 'proof', in that they regard scientific findings as being provisional, although in some cases their aggregated findings are so significant that they are unlikely to be wrong although there are still subject to revision if the evidence requires it. There is also the aspect of being clear about the methodologies they use to identify, analyse and extrapolate from the available evidence.
All you guys need do now is present a similar level of discipline in respect of your faith views without resorting to either the usual mish-mash of fallacies or by trying to misrepresent science.
-
:-\
You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.
It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy. The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there. After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer. You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.
Apart from the rather bizarre interchanging in this context of evidence and proof, the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
-
... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted.
Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.
Gordon:
All you guys need do now is present a similar level of discipline in respect of your faith views without resorting to either the usual mish-mash of fallacies or by trying to misrepresent science.
There is probably a comparable body of work/level of discipline produced over the years by academics and theologians - so why would you believe any of us here over them?
After all, even science is understood through the filter of human experience. Over the years, people have proposed ideas and come up with what they regard to be conclusive evidence for those ideas. It has only been when another person has thought in a different way that that conclusivity has been questioned.
-
:-\You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.
It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy. The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there. After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer. You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.
Apart from the rather bizarre interchanging in this context of evidence and proof, the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
Nearly Sane looking at this thread and most threads that the Atheist and Secularist or what ever latest fad you call yourselves.I see you want evidence for a creator and something supernatural well although I find these threads boring.
Why not look at the Earth then compare it with life on the Moon and life on Mars and Life if you can find it any where else,then you might see the Earth is a miracle and supernatural.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
So you are without excuse,stop tying to make excuse's for each other.
~TW~
-
... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted.
Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.
Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.
And yet again you refuse to provide any. AGAIN.
-
:-\You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.
It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy. The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there. After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer. You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.
Apart from the rather bizarre interchanging in this context of evidence and proof, the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
Nearly Sane looking at this thread and most threads that the Atheist and Secularist or what ever latest fad you call yourselves.I see you want evidence for a creator and something supernatural well although I find these threads boring.
Why not look at the Earth then compare it with life on the Moon and life on Mars and Life if you can find it any where else,then you might see the Earth is a miracle and supernatural.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
So you are without excuse,stop tying to make excuse's for each other.
~TW~
And the argument by incredulity makes an early morning appearance
-
Gordon:
All you guys need do now is present a similar level of discipline in respect of your faith views without resorting to either the usual mish-mash of fallacies or by trying to misrepresent science.
There is probably a comparable body of work/level of discipline produced over the years by academics and theologians - so why would you believe any of us here over them?
After all, even science is understood through the filter of human experience. Over the years, people have proposed ideas and come up with what they regard to be conclusive evidence for those ideas. It has only been when another person has thought in a different way that that conclusivity has been questioned.
So lets have the evidence for the supernatural presented alongside the methodology used to identify why this evidence can be safely assumed to empirically sound, where the method(s) can be shown to be robust enough to exclude naturalistic alternatives, such as human artifice.
That scientists are prepared to revise their theories in the light of new evidence or better techniques is one of it strengths: science, unlike religion, isn't a tablet of stone.
-
:-\You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.
It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy. The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there. After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer. You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.
Apart from the rather bizarre interchanging in this context of evidence and proof, the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
Nearly Sane looking at this thread and most threads that the Atheist and Secularist or what ever latest fad you call yourselves.I see you want evidence for a creator and something supernatural well although I find these threads boring.
Why not look at the Earth then compare it with life on the Moon and life on Mars and Life if you can find it any where else,then you might see the Earth is a miracle and supernatural.
20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
So you are without excuse,stop tying to make excuse's for each other.
~TW~
And the argument by incredulity makes an early morning appearance
Yes :) and you are left potless without an answer as per usual ::)
~TW~
-
I note Hope's reference to academics and theologians. Given this I am sure he will supply me of details of a recognised university course in the UK where there is a methodology provided that allows evaluating supernatural evidence?
-
Your 'point' was answered, TW. Just all you heard was 'whoosh', yet again
-
Your 'point' was answered, TW. Just all you heard was 'whoosh', yet again
You never answer any points you just sit back and hope your mates will back you up,with the same daft answers you give.And in most cases they are daft enough to do it :)
~TW~
-
Your 'point' was answered, TW. Just all you heard was 'whoosh', yet again
You never answer any points you just sit back and hope your mates will back you up,with the same daft answers you give.And in most cases they are daft enough to do it :)
~TW~
I forgive you
-
It seems that what some people struggle with here (and that's theists and atheists) is what it means to assess something that is a) claimed to be outside of nature, and b) to be the reason that nature exists. This means that all natural phenomena that occurs can be traced back to the source of nature, so there is nothing that exists in nature that can't be evidence for the supernatural. This leaves us with no contrast, like a universe where temperature is the same everywhere yet people think they can make sense of hot and cold.
Also, this problem is compounded by nature holding no constraints over this supernatural thing. Even if it wasn't claimed to be the reason nature exists, you still couldn't fathom where the supernatural had intervened and where it hadn't, as no matter where on the spectrum the natural phenomena is, whether it's at the outlandish or mundane end, the temperature is the same.
-
I note Hope's reference to academics and theologians. Given this I am sure he will supply me of details of a recognised university course in the UK where there is a methodology provided that allows evaluating supernatural evidence?
Hope would give you that info but you'll have to wait he's put it away with the evidence he has that would prove for once and all that god does exist and he can't find that.
ippy
-
What is the methodology for philosophical naturalism, or physicalism or any of the 'isms held by all those demanding a methodology from religion?
-
What is the methodology for philosophical naturalism, or physicalism or any of the 'isms held by all those demanding a methodology from religion?
Oh and Vlad tries avoidance AGAIN. Since I am not a philosophical naturalist your attempt at misdirection is badly based. Nor am I asking anything from 'religion', just a methodology for supernatural claims, as I have done over years and hundreds of times. The above adds another time to you not answering. AGAIN
-
What is the methodology for philosophical naturalism, or physicalism or any of the 'isms held by all those demanding a methodology from religion?
Oh and Vlad tries avoidance AGAIN. Since I am not a philosophical naturalist your attempt at misdirection is badly based. Nor am I asking anything from 'religion', just a methodology for supernatural claims, as I have done over years and hundreds of times. The above adds another time to you not answering. AGAIN
No. I have said there is no ''methodology'' for the supernatural experience.
Now I want you or anybody to have the moral courage to tell us what the methodology is for establishing their cosmic philosophy including ''Not God'', ''Don't know'' and ''can't know''.
There is nothing unreasonable in wanting that, only you guys' historical response of ''No answer, came the stern reply''.
-
... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted.
Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.
Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.
You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.
-
What is the methodology for philosophical naturalism, or physicalism or any of the 'isms held by all those demanding a methodology from religion?
Oh and Vlad tries avoidance AGAIN. Since I am not a philosophical naturalist your attempt at misdirection is badly based. Nor am I asking anything from 'religion', just a methodology for supernatural claims, as I have done over years and hundreds of times. The above adds another time to you not answering. AGAIN
No. I have said there is no ''methodology'' for the supernatural experience.
Now I want you or anybody to have the moral courage to tell us what the methodology is for establishing their cosmic philosophy including ''Not God'', ''Don't know'' and ''can't know''.
There is nothing unreasonable in wanting that, only you guys' historical response of ''No answer, came the stern reply''.
No methodology, and now admitted by you. Next!
-
... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted.
Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.
Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.
You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.
I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you? Why is is it that you won't entertain an honest position? Why are you seemingly driven to lie so continually and to lie so frequently and to lie so brazenly about what people say?
-
What is the methodology for philosophical naturalism, or physicalism or any of the 'isms held by all those demanding a methodology from religion?
Oh and Vlad tries avoidance AGAIN. Since I am not a philosophical naturalist your attempt at misdirection is badly based. Nor am I asking anything from 'religion', just a methodology for supernatural claims, as I have done over years and hundreds of times. The above adds another time to you not answering. AGAIN
No. I have said there is no ''methodology'' for the supernatural experience.
Now I want you or anybody to have the moral courage to tell us what the methodology is for establishing their cosmic philosophy including ''Not God'', ''Don't know'' and ''can't know''.
There is nothing unreasonable in wanting that, only you guys' historical response of ''No answer, came the stern reply''.
No methodology, and now admitted by you. Next!
No......I said no ''methodology''.....not no methodology.
-
What is the methodology for philosophical naturalism, or physicalism or any of the 'isms held by all those demanding a methodology from religion?
Oh and Vlad tries avoidance AGAIN. Since I am not a philosophical naturalist your attempt at misdirection is badly based. Nor am I asking anything from 'religion', just a methodology for supernatural claims, as I have done over years and hundreds of times. The above adds another time to you not answering. AGAIN
No. I have said there is no ''methodology'' for the supernatural experience.
Now I want you or anybody to have the moral courage to tell us what the methodology is for establishing their cosmic philosophy including ''Not God'', ''Don't know'' and ''can't know''.
There is nothing unreasonable in wanting that, only you guys' historical response of ''No answer, came the stern reply''.
No methodology, and now admitted by you. Next!
No......I said no ''methodology''.....not no methodology.
I have not restricted it, merely asked for it and how it works. Your pusallinimous use of quotes to further avoid and lie about this would be pathetic if it now was not simply boring because again and again you run away and lie.
-
... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted.
Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.
Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.
You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.
I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?
No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.
Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.
-
When requesting for a method for supernatural claims, it's hypothetically accepted that the supernatural exists. You are not comparing like with like with your erroneous burden switch.
-
... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted.
Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.
Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.
You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.
I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?
No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.
Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.
The above post from does not make any sense. At least it isn't lying (as far as one can tell)
-
When requesting for a method for supernatural claims, it's hypothetically accepted that the supernatural exists. You are not comparing like with like with your erroneous burden switch.
Again, explanation needed please.
Everything outside methodological materialism carries burden of proof and everything in it for that matter. Otherwise you are just specially pleading.
-
And do we really have to do the whole thing again that agnostic is about knowledge and atheist is about belief?
-
... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted.
Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.
Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.
You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.
I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?
No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.
Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.
The above post from does not make any sense. At least it isn't lying (as far as one can tell)
Evasion noted.
-
When requesting for a method for supernatural claims, it's hypothetically accepted that the supernatural exists. You are not comparing like with like with your erroneous burden switch.
Again, explanation needed please.
Everything outside methodological materialism carries burden of proof and everything in it for that matter. Otherwise you are just specially pleading.
that isn't coherent, since if as you claim the statement is everything needs proving, there can be no special pleading. It may be that you didn't manage to write anything that you were meaning?
-
... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted.
Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.
Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.
You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.
I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?
No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.
Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.
The above post from does not make any sense. At least it isn't lying (as far as one can tell)
Evasion noted.
No evasion, I just stated that it appeared not to make any sense. Why is it you want to represent your beliefs by lying? Why is it you want to represent yourself by lying? What is it that you feel the need to lie so frequently? What is this need you have to lie?
-
When requesting for a method for supernatural claims, it's hypothetically accepted that the supernatural exists. You are not comparing like with like with your erroneous burden switch.
Again, explanation needed please.
Everything outside methodological materialism carries burden of proof and everything in it for that matter. Otherwise you are just specially pleading.
Ugh, no-one is asking for a methodology for determining philosophical supernaturalism (PS), so when you attempt to shift the burden to requesting a methodology for determining PN, you are not making a valid comparison.
A methodology is being requested for determining when a supernatural occurrence has taken place, but to do this is to hypothetically accept the supernatural exists.
I'd love to know what I'm making a special pleading case for...
-
... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted.
Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.
Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.
You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.
I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?
No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.
Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.
The above post from does not make any sense. At least it isn't lying (as far as one can tell)
Evasion noted.
No evasion, I just stated that it appeared not to make any sense. Why is it you want to represent your beliefs by lying? Why is it you want to represent yourself by lying? What is it that you feel the need to lie so frequently? What is this need you have to lie?
I have been completely upfront about my beliefs and my knowledge.
-
... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted.
Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.
Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.
You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.
I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?
No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.
Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.
The above post from does not make any sense. At least it isn't lying (as far as one can tell)
Evasion noted.
No evasion, I just stated that it appeared not to make any sense. Why is it you want to represent your beliefs by lying? Why is it you want to represent yourself by lying? What is it that you feel the need to lie so frequently? What is this need you have to lie?
I have been completely upfront about my beliefs and my knowledge.
I am not judging about that. You have continually lied about others positions and lied about them and continue to do so
-
You still need to provide this alternative evidence that you think exists.
It has been being presented for the last 2000 years, jeremy.
OK I understand, you don't have it. It is a figment of your imagination.
The fact that it doesn't fit into the neat category that is called 'scientific proof' doesn't mean it isn't there.
But it isn't there. You've been repeatedly asked to present this non scientific evidence, but you don't have it.
After all, 'scientific proof' is a relatively modern concept, whilst 'proof' has been around for much longer. You need to show that 'scientific proof' is the be-all and end-all of the concept.
Why are you suddenly talking about proof instead of evidence?
Why do you think something only starts existing when we find a name for it? Scientific evidence is merely another name for "evidence that can be verified". Did verifiable evidence suddenly pop into existence during the Enlightenment?
-
... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.
I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted.
Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.
Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.
You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.
I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?
No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.
Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.
The above post from does not make any sense. At least it isn't lying (as far as one can tell)
Evasion noted.
No evasion, I just stated that it appeared not to make any sense. Why is it you want to represent your beliefs by lying? Why is it you want to represent yourself by lying? What is it that you feel the need to lie so frequently? What is this need you have to lie?
I have been completely upfront about my beliefs and my knowledge.
I am not judging about that. You have continually lied about others positions and lied about them and continue to do so
Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?
-
No......I said no ''methodology''.....not no methodology.
Is this really meant to be a serious contribution to the thread? You're hiding behind scare quotes. Utterly pathetic.
-
No......I said no ''methodology''.....not no methodology.
Is this really meant to be a serious contribution to the thread? You're hiding behind scare quotes. Utterly pathetic.
Have you ever on this forum asked for the methodology for Philosophical Naturalism?
-
Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?
This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism. In case you had forgotten, we have a method for determining the probable truth of claims about the natural world. That's settled; it's called science and it's been quite successful.
On this thread we are asking for a method to determine the probable truth of supernatural claims. Hope is convinced it exists but he's not telling. In the circumstances, people can be forgiven for thinking he is talking bollocks. Do you know what this fabled method is?
-
No......I said no ''methodology''.....not no methodology.
Is this really meant to be a serious contribution to the thread? You're hiding behind scare quotes. Utterly pathetic.
Have you ever on this forum asked for the methodology for Philosophical Naturalism?
Off topic.
-
This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism.
They rarely, if ever, are, but if they're not by God Vlad will make them about it.
-
Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?
This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism. In case you had forgotten, we have a method for determining the probable truth of claims about the natural world. That's settled; it's called science and it's been quite successful.
It isn't philosophical naturalism though.
-
Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?
This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism. In case you had forgotten, we have a method for determining the probable truth of claims about the natural world. That's settled; it's called science and it's been quite successful.
It isn't philosophical naturalism though.
So what? Have you got anything to say about the other paragraph in that post?
-
Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?
This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism. In case you had forgotten, we have a method for determining the probable truth of claims about the natural world. That's settled; it's called science and it's been quite successful.
It isn't philosophical naturalism though.
So you understand the difference between MN and PN, but when someone requests MS you equate that with PS and then play a round of shift the burden and request an M for PN. Like I said, that doesn't compare. It would only compare with an M for PS and I think you know it, yet don't expect anyone else to notice.
-
Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?
This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism. In case you had forgotten, we have a method for determining the probable truth of claims about the natural world. That's settled; it's called science and it's been quite successful.
It isn't philosophical naturalism though.
So you understand the difference between MN and PN, but when someone requests MS you equate that with PS and then play a round of shift the burden and request an M for PN. Like I said, that doesn't compare. It would only compare with an M for PS and I think you know it, yet don't expect anyone else to notice.
I'm sorry Andy, I'm genuinely lost on what you are trying to say.
-
Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism. It's a kind of giant tu quoque. 'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should explain yours'. Maybe science-envy also?
-
author=wigginhall link=topic=10480.msg532496#msg532496 date=1435098289]
Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism. It's a kind of giant tu quoque. 'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should
"Some Christians," "Christians," "a Christian." So you've canvassed all Christians, or some, or any, have you.? No. You just think that's what they say. Your comment is a worthless generalisation.
-
Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism. It's a kind of giant tu quoque. 'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should explain yours'. Maybe science-envy also?
1: I'm not sure it's a proper tu coque.
2: Philosophical naturalists seem to be running an inquisition. It's fair to ask ''on what authority.''
3: I have opened the question about methodology for philosophical naturalism on another board............or are you saying some questions should not be asked?
4: There is no science envy since science is not philosophical naturalism.
-
Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?
This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism. In case you had forgotten, we have a method for determining the probable truth of claims about the natural world. That's settled; it's called science and it's been quite successful.
It isn't philosophical naturalism though.
So you understand the difference between MN and PN, but when someone requests MS you equate that with PS and then play a round of shift the burden and request an M for PN. Like I said, that doesn't compare. It would only compare with an M for PS and I think you know it, yet don't expect anyone else to notice.
I'm sorry Andy, I'm genuinely lost on what you are trying to say.
I'm describing what you're doing. You can keep track of what you're doing, can't you?
-
Gordon:
All you guys need do now is present a similar level of discipline in respect of your faith views without resorting to either the usual mish-mash of fallacies or by trying to misrepresent science.
There is probably a comparable body of work/level of discipline produced over the years by academics and theologians - so why would you believe any of us here over them?
After all, even science is understood through the filter of human experience. Over the years, people have proposed ideas and come up with what they regard to be conclusive evidence for those ideas. It has only been when another person has thought in a different way that that conclusivity has been questioned.
So lets have the evidence for the supernatural presented alongside the methodology used to identify why this evidence can be safely assumed to empirically sound, where the method(s) can be shown to be robust enough to exclude naturalistic alternatives, such as human artifice.
That scientists are prepared to revise their theories in the light of new evidence or better techniques is one of it strengths: science, unlike religion, isn't a tablet of stone.
Bon soir Gordon,
What we have as a methodology is a cross-examination of the witnesses. This has been done by the very first skeptics. They ran into difficulty because the more the witnesses insisted they had met the risen Jesus, the more the irate cross-examiners beat them up trying to force them to recant. Eventually they had very few witnesses left to cross-examine because they had killed most of them. The point is that their sacrifice- submitting to persecution and death rather than deny their Lord (in contrast with dying blowing unbelievers up, by the way) was the very evidence people back then needed to know they were telling the truth. And so the gospel has changed the lives of many since. A prime example recently is the son and daughter of the lady shot while at the prayer meeting in South Carolina. They knew that love is more powerful than hate, and so were able to forgive the gunman immediately.
-
Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism. It's a kind of giant tu quoque. 'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should explain yours'. Maybe science-envy also?
I agree. It is clear some Christians prefer a supernatural explanation in preference to a much more logical natural one.
A supernatural explanation for what?
-
Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism. It's a kind of giant tu quoque. 'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should explain yours'. Maybe science-envy also?
I agree. It is clear some Christians prefer a supernatural explanation in preference to a much more logical natural one.
A supernatural explanation for what?
An empty tomb perhaps.
Or maybe a purported virgin birth.
No need to go anywhere near supernatural explanations to explain these claimed phenomena.
-
This is not a methodology. People die all the time for what they believe in, not necessarily by blowing people up, though discounting such is simply a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Many times the thing they will die for will be diametrically opposed to what someone else will die for.
-
author=wigginhall link=topic=10480.msg532496#msg532496 date=1435098289]
Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism. It's a kind of giant tu quoque. 'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should
"Some Christians," "Christians," "a Christian." So you've canvassed all Christians, or some, or any, have you.? No. You just think that's what they say. Your comment is a worthless generalisation.
"Some Christians" means "some Christians". Wiggi doesn't have to canvass all Christians - the likely inference is that some here fit the description. And doubtless others he has met may do so. Wiggi has told us that he has in-depth conversations with some Catholic Christians (not all - not even you with your superhuman powers, BA, could do that).
And wiggi is far better informed about Christianity than you are - and world religion in general.
As for worthless generalisations - well, you're supremely skilled about making them about atheists, as if they all exactly alike. I'm sorry if this sounds irritable, but I've been reading quite a few of your recent posts, and they have not impressed.
-
Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism. It's a kind of giant tu quoque. 'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should explain yours'. Maybe science-envy also?
I agree. It is clear some Christians prefer a supernatural explanation in preference to a much more logical natural one.
A supernatural explanation for what?
An empty tomb perhaps.
Or maybe a purported virgin birth.
No need to go anywhere near supernatural explanations to explain these claimed phenomena.
An empty tomb or the empty tomb? As far as I know the empty tomb would be meaningless in any case as the standalone idea you've tried to portray it as. Unfortunately for you there are the other resurrection accounts.
A virgin birth? Well nobody apart from God had the technology in those days....Nowadays it is different.
-
What we have as a methodology is a cross-examination of the witnesses. This has been done by the very first skeptics. They ran into difficulty because the more the witnesses insisted they had met the risen Jesus, the more the irate cross-examiners beat them up trying to force them to recant. Eventually they had very few witnesses left to cross-examine because they had killed most of them.
Firstly let's recognise that just because a person is prepared to die for some belief doesn't mean that belief is actually true.
But also where is you evidence of a mass execution of purported eye witnesses to the claimed resurrection of Jesus. I don't think there is any evidence for this, even in the bible (which is a non partial record). Paul sees to claim 500 eye witnesses, and then goes on to claim that most of these are still living at the time he was writing (some 20 years after the purported event). So even Paul doesn't support your claim that the purported eye witnesses were rapidly killed off.
-
An empty tomb or the empty tomb? As far as I know the empty tomb would be meaningless in any case as the standalone idea you've tried to portray it as. Unfortunately for you there are the other resurrection accounts.
But don't forget first that the earliest gospel, Mark, originally ended with nothing more than the empty tomb. So anything about visions, eye witnesses etc is likely embellishment to fit an agenda.
But even if you accept the basic narrative, it can easily be explained in a completely non supernatural manner through any combination of:
Jesus not being actually dead (which isn't implausible at all particularly given the much poorer understanding of physiology in those days)
Mistaken recollection (again not an unreasonable assumption). Ask a bunch of witnesses to a car crash and you'll straight away get many differing accounts
Exaggeration and embellishment (just think of recent historical events that we have really good accounts of and how rapidly stories arise that are embellishments what happened or completely fabricated, whether due to mistaken recollection or deliberate misrepresentation for a purpose).
A virgin birth? Well nobody apart from God had the technology in those days....Nowadays it is different.
If a woman has a baby and her husband knows he hasn't had intercourse with her I don't think virgin birth is likely to be the cause. I think something rather more naturalistic is going to be the reason!
-
An empty tomb or the empty tomb? As far as I know the empty tomb would be meaningless in any case as the standalone idea you've tried to portray it as. Unfortunately for you there are the other resurrection accounts.
But don't forget first that the earliest gospel, Mark, originally ended with nothing more than the empty tomb. So anything about visions, eye witnesses etc is likely embellishment to fit an agenda.
But even if you accept the basic narrative, it can easily be explained in a completely non supernatural manner through any combination of:
Jesus not being actually dead (which isn't implausible at all particularly given the much poorer understanding of physiology in those days)
Mistaken recollection (again not an unreasonable assumption). Ask a bunch of witnesses to a car crash and you'll straight away get many differing accounts
Exaggeration and embellishment (just think of recent historical events that we have really good accounts of and how rapidly stories arise that are embellishments what happened or completely fabricated, whether due to mistaken recollection or deliberate misrepresentation for a purpose).
A virgin birth? Well nobody apart from God had the technology in those days....Nowadays it is different.
If a woman has a baby and her husband knows he hasn't had intercourse with her I don't think virgin birth is likely to be the cause. I think something rather more naturalistic is going to be the reason!
I think the truth of the matter is that any merely historical fact loses it's impact with time.
So had the resurrection merely been an historical event it's value in perpetuating faith would have tailed off . However Christians have there own experience of the resurrected Jesus and it is that which makes the account of the empty tomb resonate.
Somebody living within and committed to an arid philosophical materialism isn't necessarily going to appreciate either aspect of the resurrection unless the reinforced titanium doors are prized apart.
-
An empty tomb or the empty tomb? As far as I know the empty tomb would be meaningless in any case as the standalone idea you've tried to portray it as. Unfortunately for you there are the other resurrection accounts.
But don't forget first that the earliest gospel, Mark, originally ended with nothing more than the empty tomb. So anything about visions, eye witnesses etc is likely embellishment to fit an agenda.
But even if you accept the basic narrative, it can easily be explained in a completely non supernatural manner through any combination of:
Jesus not being actually dead (which isn't implausible at all particularly given the much poorer understanding of physiology in those days)
Mistaken recollection (again not an unreasonable assumption). Ask a bunch of witnesses to a car crash and you'll straight away get many differing accounts
Exaggeration and embellishment (just think of recent historical events that we have really good accounts of and how rapidly stories arise that are embellishments what happened or completely fabricated, whether due to mistaken recollection or deliberate misrepresentation for a purpose).
A virgin birth? Well nobody apart from God had the technology in those days....Nowadays it is different.
If a woman has a baby and her husband knows he hasn't had intercourse with her I don't think virgin birth is likely to be the cause. I think something rather more naturalistic is going to be the reason!
I think the truth of the matter is that any merely historical fact loses it's impact with time.
So had the resurrection merely been an historical event it's value in perpetuating faith would have tailed off . However Christians have there own experience of the resurrected Jesus and it is that which makes the account of the empty tomb resonate.
Somebody living within and committed to an arid philosophical materialism isn't necessarily going to appreciate either aspect of the resurrection unless the reinforced titanium doors are prized apart.
I agree that the 'myth' can become more resonant in terms of its longevity than the actual factual truth of what actually happened. And much more so when aligned with a combination of:
1. Embedding the myth in a religious belief with its own customs, traditions, mechanisms for passing belief in the myth from one generation to another.
2. Imbuing belief in the myth as an element of cultural identity (with links to 1) and
3. That the myth is based on events that happened at a time when the ability to collect verified and verifiable evidence for what actually happened was much poorer than today and
4. That the historical events which gave rise to the myth happened at a time when the distinctions between historical reality and myth/legend were culturally blurred.
The events that lead to christian belief fit with all of these.
However none of this alters that fact that the all of the claims within the gospels can be easily explained away without resort to the supernatural.
And the notion that for a christian a personal belief in the resurrection, even a belief in the actual veracity of the resurrection is deeply, deeply important to that person doesn't mean it actually happened.
-
This is not a methodology. People die all the time for what they believe in, not necessarily by blowing people up, though discounting such is simply a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Many times the thing they will die for will be diametrically opposed to what someone else will die for.
Can you give examples? Often they die fighting for their country, or defending themselves or their family or friend. How about being tortured until dead with no retaliation, you would think at least one of the twelve would have resisted or said 'it was all a fake'?
-
But also where is you evidence of a mass execution of purported eye witnesses to the claimed resurrection of Jesus. I don't think there is any evidence for this, even in the bible (which is a non partial record). Paul sees to claim 500 eye witnesses, and then goes on to claim that most of these are still living at the time he was writing (some 20 years after the purported event). So even Paul doesn't support your claim that the purported eye witnesses were rapidly killed off.
Book of Acts.
-
This is not a methodology. People die all the time for what they believe in, not necessarily by blowing people up, though discounting such is simply a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Many times the thing they will die for will be diametrically opposed to what someone else will die for.
Can you give examples? Often they die fighting for their country, or defending themselves or their family or friend. How about being tortured until dead with no retaliation, you would think at least one of the twelve would have resisted or said 'it was all a fake'?
and they may have done. who knows see propaganda.
And again why dismiss dying fighting, other than the no true Scotsman fallacy?
As for dying in pain
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thich_Quang_Duc
-
But also where is you evidence of a mass execution of purported eye witnesses to the claimed resurrection of Jesus. I don't think there is any evidence for this, even in the bible (which is a non partial record). Paul sees to claim 500 eye witnesses, and then goes on to claim that most of these are still living at the time he was writing (some 20 years after the purported event). So even Paul doesn't support your claim that the purported eye witnesses were rapidly killed off.
Book of Acts.
nope, next
-
An empty tomb or the empty tomb? As far as I know the empty tomb would be meaningless in any case as the standalone idea you've tried to portray it as. Unfortunately for you there are the other resurrection accounts.
But don't forget first that the earliest gospel, Mark, originally ended with nothing more than the empty tomb. So anything about visions, eye witnesses etc is likely embellishment to fit an agenda.
But even if you accept the basic narrative, it can easily be explained in a completely non supernatural manner through any combination of:
Jesus not being actually dead (which isn't implausible at all particularly given the much poorer understanding of physiology in those days)
Mistaken recollection (again not an unreasonable assumption). Ask a bunch of witnesses to a car crash and you'll straight away get many differing accounts
Exaggeration and embellishment (just think of recent historical events that we have really good accounts of and how rapidly stories arise that are embellishments what happened or completely fabricated, whether due to mistaken recollection or deliberate misrepresentation for a purpose).
A virgin birth? Well nobody apart from God had the technology in those days....Nowadays it is different.
If a woman has a baby and her husband knows he hasn't had intercourse with her I don't think virgin birth is likely to be the cause. I think something rather more naturalistic is going to be the reason!
I think the truth of the matter is that any merely historical fact loses it's impact with time.
So had the resurrection merely been an historical event it's value in perpetuating faith would have tailed off . However Christians have there own experience of the resurrected Jesus and it is that which makes the account of the empty tomb resonate.
Somebody living within and committed to an arid philosophical materialism isn't necessarily going to appreciate either aspect of the resurrection unless the reinforced titanium doors are prized apart.
I agree that the 'myth' can become more resonant in terms of its longevity than the actual factual truth of what actually happened. And much more so when aligned with a combination of:
1. Embedding the myth in a religious belief with its own customs, traditions, mechanisms for passing belief in the myth from one generation to another.
2. Imbuing belief in the myth as an element of cultural identity (with links to 1) and
3. That the myth is based on events that happened at a time when the ability to collect verified and verifiable evidence for what actually happened was much poorer than today and
4. That the historical events which gave rise to the myth happened at a time when the distinctions between historical reality and myth/legend were culturally blurred.
The events that lead to christian belief fit with all of these.
However none of this alters that fact that the all of the claims within the gospels can be easily explained away without resort to the supernatural.
And the notion that for a christian a personal belief in the resurrection, even a belief in the actual veracity of the resurrection is deeply, deeply important to that person doesn't mean it actually happened.
But the more important aspect is to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself. Not merely to believe in the historicity of it or the value of it as myth or even the human charisma of the resurrected(that would mean you would want him back as a charismatic human).
And that's aside from the debateable aspects of your theory of myth and belief.
-
But the more important aspect is to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself. Not merely to believe in the historicity of it or the value of it as myth or even the human charisma of the resurrected(that would mean you would want him back as a charismatic human).
And that's aside from the debateable aspects of your theory of myth and belief.
But you then run into the issue of objectivity vs subjectivity.
If by 'to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself' you mean that in a purely subjective manner, i.e. that the notion of the resurrected christ is subjectively important to you, and therefore 'real' to you but is not necessary objectively real, then I have no problem.
But as soon as theists claim the resurrected christ to be objectively real - not just real to you or other believers but actually real then that's where the problems arise.
There are all sorts of 'real to me' subjectivities but that doesn't make them objectively true.
-
But also where is you evidence of a mass execution of purported eye witnesses to the claimed resurrection of Jesus. I don't think there is any evidence for this, even in the bible (which is a non partial record). Paul sees to claim 500 eye witnesses, and then goes on to claim that most of these are still living at the time he was writing (some 20 years after the purported event). So even Paul doesn't support your claim that the purported eye witnesses were rapidly killed off.
Book of Acts.
Where?
Noting that according to Paul (who I guess you think isn't telling porkies) there were hundreds of witnesses - were they all (or nearly all executed as you claim - because if you are claiming that you are refuting Paul who claims most were still alive when he was writing.
-
But the more important aspect is to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself. Not merely to believe in the historicity of it or the value of it as myth or even the human charisma of the resurrected(that would mean you would want him back as a charismatic human).
And that's aside from the debateable aspects of your theory of myth and belief.
But you then run into the issue of objectivity vs subjectivity.
If by 'to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself' you mean that in a purely subjective manner, i.e. that the notion of the resurrected christ is subjectively important to you, and therefore 'real' to you but is not necessary objectively real, then I have no problem.
But as soon as theists claim the resurrected christ to be objectively real - not just real to you or other believers but actually real then that's where the problems arise.
There are all sorts of 'real to me' subjectivities but that doesn't make them objectively true.
It's importance is neither here nor there.
Indeed for St Paul and many others the very thing whose non existence is or becomes the most important thing is experienced anyway. It looks as though you have mistaken the New Testament and other Christian testimony as sentimental wish fulfilment. Take another look.
Now, If I was the only one claiming an experience like this I might agree with you. As I'm not I cannot take your theory as ''Gospel''.
-
But the more important aspect is to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself. Not merely to believe in the historicity of it or the value of it as myth or even the human charisma of the resurrected(that would mean you would want him back as a charismatic human).
And that's aside from the debateable aspects of your theory of myth and belief.
But you then run into the issue of objectivity vs subjectivity.
If by 'to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself' you mean that in a purely subjective manner, i.e. that the notion of the resurrected christ is subjectively important to you, and therefore 'real' to you but is not necessary objectively real, then I have no problem.
But as soon as theists claim the resurrected christ to be objectively real - not just real to you or other believers but actually real then that's where the problems arise.
There are all sorts of 'real to me' subjectivities but that doesn't make them objectively true.
It's importance is neither here nor there.
Indeed for St Paul and many others the very thing whose non existence is or becomes the most important thing is experienced it anyway. It looks as though you have mistaken the New Testament and other Christian testimony as sentimental wish fulfilment. Take another look.
Now, If I was the only one claiming an experience like this I might agree with you. As I'm not I cannot take your theory as ''Gospel''.
Plenty of people can believe something is real to them and important to them in a subjective manner - that has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is real in a objective manner.
That you choose to believe in one set of supernatural mythical claims yet chose not to believe in all the others betrays the nature of your subjectivity. The only reason you have to belief in the life after death claims in the gospels while rejecting the others in thousands of mythological stories throughout the ages, which are also often written as historical, is entirely down to subjectivity - it is real to you, it is important to you. But people have claimed that for the miracles of deities since people started inventing them. None have ever had any evidence to support their 'objectively real' rather than 'subjectively real to me' nature.
-
Now, If I was the only one claiming an experience like this I might agree with you. As I'm not I cannot take your theory as ''Gospel''.
Group think is a very strong influence on people.
Don't forget that at the time of Jesus people throughout the mediterranean believed in all sorts of gods, no doubt through their own experience (or rather the upbringing and culture). If the notion that many people currently believe in the resurrection means it must be objectively true then surely the notion that many people at the time of Jesus believed that Theseus killed a minotaur must mean that that is also objectively true and that minotaurs actually existed (or at least did a couple of thousand years ago). The objective truth is not a popularity content - that is the world of subjectivity.
-
But the more important aspect is to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself. Not merely to believe in the historicity of it or the value of it as myth or even the human charisma of the resurrected(that would mean you would want him back as a charismatic human).
And that's aside from the debateable aspects of your theory of myth and belief.
But you then run into the issue of objectivity vs subjectivity.
If by 'to experience the resurrected Christ personally yourself' you mean that in a purely subjective manner, i.e. that the notion of the resurrected christ is subjectively important to you, and therefore 'real' to you but is not necessary objectively real, then I have no problem.
But as soon as theists claim the resurrected christ to be objectively real - not just real to you or other believers but actually real then that's where the problems arise.
There are all sorts of 'real to me' subjectivities but that doesn't make them objectively true.
It's importance is neither here nor there.
Indeed for St Paul and many others the very thing whose non existence is or becomes the most important thing is experienced it anyway. It looks as though you have mistaken the New Testament and other Christian testimony as sentimental wish fulfilment. Take another look.
Now, If I was the only one claiming an experience like this I might agree with you. As I'm not I cannot take your theory as ''Gospel''.
Plenty of people can believe something is real to them and important to them in a subjective manner - that has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is real in a objective manner.
That you choose to believe in one set of supernatural mythical claims yet chose not to believe in all the others betrays the nature of your subjectivity. The only reason you have to belief in the life after death claims in the gospels while rejecting the others in thousands of mythological stories throughout the ages, which are also often written as historical, is entirely down to subjectivity - it is real to you, it is important to you. But people have claimed that for the miracles of deities since people started inventing them. None have ever had any evidence to support their 'objectively real' rather than 'subjectively real to me' nature.
I don't know of many other myths presented as history rather than being philosophies delivered in story form. Please name some.
In terms of life after death I think you are confusing eternal divinity which is what we experience in the resurrected Christ with a mere human being with some post mortem existence.
I'm not sure that the eternal divinity can be nicely categorised in or out of the boxes of objective and subjective as you understand them.
-
Now, If I was the only one claiming an experience like this I might agree with you. As I'm not I cannot take your theory as ''Gospel''.
Group think is a very strong influence on people.
Don't forget that at the time of Jesus people throughout the mediterranean believed in all sorts of gods, no doubt through their own experience (or rather the upbringing and culture). If the notion that many people currently believe in the resurrection means it must be objectively true then surely the notion that many people at the time of Jesus believed that Theseus killed a minotaur must mean that that is also objectively true and that minotaurs actually existed (or at least did a couple of thousand years ago). The objective truth is not a popularity content - that is the world of subjectivity.
A debateable sociological theory based on a debateable theory of myth.
If one becomes convinced of the need for personal salvation can one equate the resurrection with any old myth plucked out of the air which doesn't in itself even claim to touch on personal salvation.?
-
A debateable sociological theory based on a debateable theory of myth.
Not really - are you really claiming that believers in ancient religions and their gods didn't really believe in them at all. That appears to be what you are suggesting. I am suggesting that ancient people believed in their gods, their importance (including to them), their miraculous stories, just the same as christians do today about their god and miraculous stories.
If one becomes convinced of the need for personal salvation can one equate the resurrection with any old myth plucked out of the air which doesn't in itself even claim to touch on personal salvation.?
Which has exactly nothing to do with objective evidence. There are plenty of people who are convinced of all sorts of things which are not objectively true, but are greatly important to them and therefore true to them in a subjective manner.
So there are people who are convinced that a black cat is lucky and they aren't going to pluck out of the air any other old 'lucky' superstition, nor accept any other colour of cat will do. Nope has to be this good luck superstition and that colour of cat. Does it actually mean that the notion that a black cat is objectively true or real. Nope, of course it doesn't, merely that they believe it in a subjective manner.
-
A debateable sociological theory based on a debateable theory of myth.
Not really - are you really claiming that believers in ancient religions and their gods didn't really believe in them at all. That appears to be what you are suggesting. I am suggesting that ancient people believed in their gods, their importance (including to them), their miraculous stories, just the same as christians do today about their god and miraculous stories.
If one becomes convinced of the need for personal salvation can one equate the resurrection with any old myth plucked out of the air which doesn't in itself even claim to touch on personal salvation.?
Which has exactly nothing to do with objective evidence. There are plenty of people who are convinced of all sorts of things which are not objectively true, but are greatly important to them and therefore true to them in a subjective manner.
So there are people who are convinced that a black cat is lucky and they aren't going to pluck out of the air any other old 'lucky' superstition, nor accept any other colour of cat will do. Nope has to be this good luck superstition and that colour of cat. Does it actually mean that the notion that a black cat is objectively true or real. Nope, of course it doesn't, merely that they believe it in a subjective manner.
You are just trivialising the idea of God by equating it with things you shouldn't. Where is your warrant. When last I looked lucky black cats were not studied to degree level, nor seem to meet deep needs, nor were studied in the context of neo-platonic thought.
By objectively real you mean physical of course. Then we are straight back into the physical evidence of physicalism.
I'm afraid Bluehillside got the accusation of argumentum ad ridiculum. If the great man was thus challenged the only thing that will spare a lesser mortal will be that I'm just off to get my cocoa.
-
If one becomes convinced of the need for personal salvation can one equate the resurrection with any old myth
But interestingly the notion of both personal salvation - i.e. that adherence to a particular religious belief and worship of a particular deity is linked to salvation is common currency in many, many religions old and new.
And resurrection myths are ten a penny in religions old and new and mythology associated with deities. It seems that pretty well every religion has one (or more). So ..
Dionysus, Persephone, Osiris, Odin, Ganesha, Lemminkainen, Tammuz, Krishna, Quetzalcoatl, Attis etc ... and of course Jesus.
It ma be of course that the basis premise of the resurrection mythology is inextricably linked to the older still need for early humans to recognise the importance of the natural world around them, and in particular the annual cycles of seasons that naturally goes through cycles of death and re-birth.
So I wouldn't get too hung up on the unique importance of your own resurrection mythology - it isn't unique by a long stretch of the imagination.
-
You are just trivialising the idea of God by equating it with things you shouldn't. Where is your warrant. When last I looked lucky black cats were not studied to degree level, nor seem to meet deep needs, nor were studied in the context of neo-platonic thought.
The problem that you have here is the same problem that everyone has who attempts to mount the same argument and make the same case (case in point: the dreadful Alister McGrath). The problem is that it's a massive exercise in question-begging in the true sense of that phrase, which is to say, assuming the prior truth of the very thing which you're attempting to prove.
Firstly, who decides who shouldn't equate God with this, that or the other? What sort of things shouldn't God be equated with, and who decides this, and on what warrant? Who says, in other words?
Secondly, and more importantly: your invocation of 'degree level studies,' 'deep needs' and so forth are, as I said, monumental examples of question begging. You are trying to impress us with the fact that some people inexplicably decide to study theology to degree level, that the belief in a god meets 'deep needs' (whose? not mine) and that gods are studied in the context of neo-Platonic thought. This is supposed to be some sort of rationale for our taking the concept of a god seriously and lucky black cats not-seriously. Nope, sorry. Doesn't work. You are assuming that your audience is as impressed by the concept of a god as you appear to be. Well, many of us are not, not even remotely. Many of us want to know exactly why we are supposed to give the idea of a god any more head-room than the idea of lucky black cats. You need to make your case, to argue it coherently, cogently and rationally, not just take it as read that God is different just because you say so, which at present is all that you're doing.
Arguments of this kind always fundamentally rely on the same fallacious rhetorical ploys. Firstly, they assume that people will be impressed by antiquity (humans have believed in gods for thousands of years; that's the argumentum ad antiquitatem if you prefer your fallacies comfortably couched in Latin) and secondly that they'll be impressed by sheer numbers (the argumentum ad populum/ad numerum). Sorry, but no. If we are to give the concept of a god, any god, all gods, more credence than the concept of leprechauns and tooth fairies, you're going to have to argue your corner and say precisely and exactly why we should do so, in a way that doesn't depend upon an argumentum ad populum/ad numerum already referred to and which doesn't rely on facts of human psychology (most people are afraid of death; they will tend to believe anything which purports to promise them that in some sense they won't meet total and utter oblivion when they die) which are entirely explicable within a sceptical, rationalist and naturalistic worldview. Lucky black cats do not provide human beings with a narrative story which purports to give objective meaning, value and purpose to their lives; lucky black cats do not purport to provide an ultimate and absolute grounding to morality; lucky black cats do not offer the hope of the continuation of personality/consciousness after death. Gods do. That this is why gods are believed in in far greater numbers than lucky black cats falls well within the remit of human psychology and anthropology and what-have-you, with absolutely no woo required. It is not an argument that gods exist or an argument that we should take the existence of gods seriously. If such arguments even exist - I've never seen one but hey, you might be the first - it's up to you to provide one. The spluttering righteous indignation that seems to overcome some theists when they come across their god being compared to airborne pasta-comprised creatures and the like merely masks a needle-sharp point; the paucity of any reason to take the one seriously (and on the the flimsiest of bases) and not the other.
Simple bald assertion is Alan Burns's job on this forum; you need to demonstrate, not merely assert, why the concept of a god has a coherent definition and should be taken more seriously than lucky black cats, cash-dispensing fairies and garage-dwelling dragons. The idea of gods is as trivial, and remains as trivial, as the other examples I've given until and unless you can mount a sound case otherwise.
Good luck with that; nobody else has ever done it.
-
You are just trivialising the idea of God by equating it with things you shouldn't. Where is your warrant. When last I looked lucky black cats were not studied to degree level, nor seem to meet deep needs, nor were studied in the context of neo-platonic thought.
By objectively real you mean physical of course. Then we are straight back into the physical evidence of physicalism.
I'm afraid Bluehillside got the accusation of argumentum ad ridiculum. If the great man was thus challenged the only thing that will spare a lesser mortal will be that I'm just off to get my cocoa.
I don't think it is for you to dictate what I should or should not equate god to.
But nonetheless it was not my intention to trivialise, merely to make a comparison. I could of course have used a comparison with belief and customs within another modern or ancient religion. This simply seemed a rather easier comparison because I think it might have been easier for you to understand the issues of belief and custom and its relation (or rather its lack of relation) to objective truth or things that are objectively real.
And that something is studied extensively is no indication of its veracity, more an indication of its subjective importance to people. The ancient Greeks extensively studied their gods and religion. Does that make their religion objectively true or they gods objectively real ... nope.
-
you would think at least one of the twelve would have resisted or said 'it was all a fake'?
How do you know they didn't. For all we know, Peter went to his death screaming "it's not true, I made it all up".
-
But also where is you evidence of a mass execution of purported eye witnesses to the claimed resurrection of Jesus. I don't think there is any evidence for this, even in the bible (which is a non partial record). Paul sees to claim 500 eye witnesses, and then goes on to claim that most of these are still living at the time he was writing (some 20 years after the purported event). So even Paul doesn't support your claim that the purported eye witnesses were rapidly killed off.
Book of Acts.
Not a reliable document.
-
You are just trivialising the idea of God by equating it with things you shouldn't. Where is your warrant. When last I looked lucky black cats were not studied to degree level, nor seem to meet deep needs, nor were studied in the context of neo-platonic thought.
The problem that you have here is the same problem that everyone has who attempts to mount the same argument and make the same case (case in point: the dreadful Alister McGrath). The problem is that it's a massive exercise in question-begging in the true sense of that phrase, which is to say, assuming the prior truth of the very thing which you're attempting to prove.
Firstly, who decides who shouldn't equate God with this, that or the other? What sort of things shouldn't God be equated with, and who decides this, and on what warrant? Who says, in other words?
Secondly, and more importantly: your invocation of 'degree level studies,' 'deep needs' and so forth are, as I said, monumental examples of question begging. You are trying to impress us with the fact that some people inexplicably decide to study theology to degree level, that the belief in a god meets 'deep needs' (whose? not mine) and that gods are studied in the context of neo-Platonic thought. This is supposed to be some sort of rationale for our taking the concept of a god seriously and lucky black cats not-seriously. Nope, sorry. Doesn't work. You are assuming that your audience is as impressed by the concept of a god as you appear to be. Well, many of us are not, not even remotely. Many of us want to know exactly why we are supposed to give the idea of a god any more head-room than the idea of lucky black cats. You need to make your case, to argue it coherently, cogently and rationally, not just take it as read that God is different just because you say so, which at present is all that you're doing.
Arguments of this kind always fundamentally rely on the same fallacious rhetorical ploys. Firstly, they assume that people will be impressed by antiquity (humans have believed in gods for thousands of years; that's the argumentum ad antiquitatem if you prefer your fallacies comfortably couched in Latin) and secondly that they'll be impressed by sheer numbers (the argumentum ad populum/ad numerum). Sorry, but no. If we are to give the concept of a god, any god, all gods, more credence than the concept of leprechauns and tooth fairies, you're going to have to argue your corner and say precisely and exactly why we should do so, in a way that doesn't depend upon an argumentum ad populum/ad numerum already referred to and which doesn't rely on facts of human psychology (most people are afraid of death; they will tend to believe anything which purports to promise them that in some sense they won't meet total and utter oblivion when they die) which are entirely explicable within a sceptical, rationalist and naturalistic worldview. Lucky black cats do not provide human beings with a narrative story which purports to give objective meaning, value and purpose to their lives; lucky black cats do not purport to provide an ultimate and absolute grounding to morality; lucky black cats do not offer the hope of the continuation of personality/consciousness after death. Gods do. That this is why gods are believed in in far greater numbers than lucky black cats falls well within the remit of human psychology and anthropology and what-have-you, with absolutely no woo required. It is not an argument that gods exist or an argument that we should take the existence of gods seriously. If such arguments even exist - I've never seen one but hey, you might be the first - it's up to you to provide one. The spluttering righteous indignation that seems to overcome some theists when they come across their god being compared to airborne pasta-comprised creatures and the like merely masks a needle-sharp point; the paucity of any reason to take the one seriously (and on the the flimsiest of bases) and not the other.
Simple bald assertion is Alan Burns's job on this forum; you need to demonstrate, not merely assert, why the concept of a god has a coherent definition and should be taken more seriously than lucky black cats, cash-dispensing fairies and garage-dwelling dragons. The idea of gods is as trivial, and remains as trivial, as the other examples I've given until and unless you can mount a sound case otherwise.
Good luck with that; nobody else has ever done it.
What assertion?. In your quote I only mention the idea of God.
How can you say you don't have deep needs, you might have and be unaware or suppressing them only for them to surface in communications like this.
Is perfectly sensible to suggest that an equation is wrong and your cack handed equations are.
Leprechauns only equated with God when The Master, Bluehillside changed the definition to God.
-
But also where is you evidence of a mass execution of purported eye witnesses to the claimed resurrection of Jesus. I don't think there is any evidence for this, even in the bible (which is a non partial record). Paul sees to claim 500 eye witnesses, and then goes on to claim that most of these are still living at the time he was writing (some 20 years after the purported event). So even Paul doesn't support your claim that the purported eye witnesses were rapidly killed off.
Book of Acts.
Where?
Noting that according to Paul (who I guess you think isn't telling porkies) there were hundreds of witnesses - were they all (or nearly all executed as you claim - because if you are claiming that you are refuting Paul who claims most were still alive when he was writing.
Sorry- I mixed up the massacre of Christians by Nero with the great persecution that began after the stoning of Stephen, Acts 8:1. My point should have been that the twelve apostles were flogged for preaching yet they continued, 'rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the name', Acts 4 & 5. A 'turn the other cheek' ethos sealed their testimony, as this blog describes:
http://tinyurl.com/ocfrkfd
-
My point should have been that the twelve apostles were flogged for preaching yet they continued,
What are your sources for this assertion?
'rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonour for the name', Acts 4 & 5. A 'turn the other cheek' ethos sealed their testimony, as this blog describes:
http://tinyurl.com/ocfrkfd
Just Acts? Got anything reliable?
-
It is so pathetic to watch these anti-religionists talking any old rot, not in serious debate, but only to debunk and deride. I wonder what a psychiatrist would make of them?
-
Just because people are prepared to suffer for their belief systems doesn't mean they have any credibility! Look at suicide bombers who are more than happy to be killed for their faith!
Nor is there any reason for believing that the accounts of their martyrdom are true simply because they come from the Bible. They are just as open to doubt as many other Bible claims.
-
Just because people are prepared to suffer for their belief systems doesn't mean they have any credibility!
If, as the early church recorded (not the Bible, except in Stephen and James' case, pay attention Leonard), none of them recanted while being killed, we can say they definitely believed they had met Jesus alive after his death.
If they were right, that would mean Jesus is alive now.
That would mean he could be contacted; it would be up to each individual to make the effort to contact him.
-
Just because people are prepared to suffer for their belief systems doesn't mean they have any credibility!
If, as the early church recorded (not the Bible, except in Stephen and James' case, pay attention Leonard), none of them recanted while being killed, we can say they definitely believed they had met Jesus alive after his death.
If they were right, that would mean Jesus is alive now.
That would mean he could be contacted; it would be up to each individual to make the effort to contact him.
I am paying attention, Spud, it is you who are not doing so.
As I keep pointing out, no matter whose version of the events you take, they are all second-hand (at least) accounts of the facts, and should therefore be treated with the greatest scepticism.
-
It is so pathetic to watch these anti-religionists talking any old rot, not in serious debate, but only to debunk and deride. I wonder what a psychiatrist would make of them?
Well BA until someone comes up with something that could realistically validate any of the superstitious mythical and magical stuff in your manual, debunking and deriding, what do you expect?
My family debunked and derided me until I proved to them that Star Trek was real and it was them that were getting it wrong.(Get the parallel)?
ippy
-
It is so pathetic to watch these anti-religionists talking any old rot, not in serious debate, but only to debunk and deride. I wonder what a psychiatrist would make of them?
Well BA until someone comes up with something that could realistically validate any of the superstitious mythical and magical stuff in your manual, debunking and deriding, what do you expect?
My family debunked and derided me until I proved to them that Star Trek was real and it was them that were getting it wrong.(Get the parallel)?
ippy
Argumentum ad ridiculum. Think up of something ridiculous, put the word God in there, hope some of the halo of ridiculousness rubs off.
-
...
Just because people are prepared to suffer for their belief systems doesn't mean they have any credibility!
Do have a think before you post, Floo. It clearly had some credibility in their eyes at least. It doesn't thereby mean they were correct to believe it though.Look at suicide bombers who are more than happy to be killed for their faith!
Yes, it is credible in their eyes. "Credible" means, "Able to be believed; convincing." They are seemingly convinced by it. They are able to believe it.
-
Just because people are prepared to suffer for their belief systems doesn't mean they have any credibility! Look at suicide bombers who are more than happy to be killed for their faith!
Nor is there any reason for believing that the accounts of their martyrdom are true simply because they come from the Bible.
Which accounts? They are just as open to doubt as many other Bible claims.
Why?
-
The gospels etc were written a long time after Jesus was dead, so their accuracy has to be in grave doubt especially where the less than credible events are concerned.
Not every sentence has to have "less than credible" or "God is evil" in it, Floo. Do give it a try sometime.
I wonder how many actual historical events have been recorded with total accuracy?
What do you mean by total accuracy? Covering every detail?
-
Just because people are prepared to suffer for their belief systems doesn't mean they have any credibility! Look at suicide bombers who are more than happy to be killed for their faith!
Nor is there any reason for believing that the accounts of their martyrdom are true simply because they come from the Bible.
Which accounts? They are just as open to doubt as many other Bible claims.
Why?
Because they are all of human origin, despite claims of "God guided", and humans are prone to mistakes and self-deception.
-
Just because people are prepared to suffer for their belief systems doesn't mean they have any credibility!
If, as the early church recorded (not the Bible, except in Stephen and James' case, pay attention Leonard), none of them recanted while being killed,
Where are these fabled non Biblical early church records?
we can say they definitely believed they had met Jesus alive after his death.
No we can't. These records, if they exist, are probably fiction or lies.
If they were right, that would mean Jesus is alive now.
If if if if if if iffity if.
That would mean he could be contacted; it would be up to each individual to make the effort to contact him.
What's his Twitter name?
-
Just because people are prepared to suffer for their belief systems doesn't mean they have any credibility! Look at suicide bombers who are more than happy to be killed for their faith!
Nor is there any reason for believing that the accounts of their martyrdom are true simply because they come from the Bible.
Which accounts? They are just as open to doubt as many other Bible claims.
Why?
Because they are all of human origin, despite claims of "God guided", and humans are prone to mistakes and self-deception.
Since your post is of human origin, you'll be OK with me thinking it being due to you making a mistake or being self-deceived then.
-
The gospels etc were written a long time after Jesus was dead, so their accuracy has to be in grave doubt especially where the less than credible events are concerned.
Not every sentence has to have "less than credible" or "God is evil" in it, Floo. Do give it a try sometime.
I wonder how many actual historical events have been recorded with total accuracy?
What do you mean by total accuracy? Covering every detail?
I prefer to use the word 'evil' to describe the less than credible deity featured in the Bible. I don't like swearing but if I did there is not enough vile swear words in the world to use where it is concerned!
That's not what I asked, Floo. What do you mean by total accuracy? Covering every detail?
-
The gospels etc were written a long time after Jesus was dead, so their accuracy has to be in grave doubt especially where the less than credible events are concerned.
Not every sentence has to have "less than credible" or "God is evil" in it, Floo. Do give it a try sometime.
I wonder how many actual historical events have been recorded with total accuracy?
What do you mean by total accuracy? Covering every detail?
I prefer to use the word 'evil' to describe the less than credible deity featured in the Bible. I don't like swearing but if I did there is not enough vile swear words in the world to use where it is concerned!
That's not what I asked, Floo. What do you mean by total accuracy? Covering every detail?
What I said!
No, you didn't. What do you mean by "total accuracy"?
-
Look up the definition on wiki!
And the page is where?
-
It is so pathetic to watch these anti-religionists talking any old rot, not in serious debate, but only to debunk and deride. I wonder what a psychiatrist would make of them?
Well BA until someone comes up with something that could realistically validate any of the superstitious mythical and magical stuff in your manual, debunking and deriding, what do you expect?
My family debunked and derided me until I proved to them that Star Trek was real and it was them that were getting it wrong.(Get the parallel)?
ippy
Oh, I get it, though I had to ask for help.. The thing I don't get, is why you are just banging on and on about this; and I can't get a believable answer for that phenomenon.