Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on March 16, 2016, 11:57:02 AM
-
deleted
-
The second paragraph nails it.
-
Not everything can be reduced to iterative maths, floo.
Your second paragraph makes sense to me, that we created God in our own image. Certainly many religions seem to go along with that. However there is no explanation for personal experience and I wish Christians would stop trying to convince non believers about the existence of God because, whatever anyone says, it isn't something that can be proved objectively, scientifically. Be thankful floo that you will rarely encounter any believers who try to do that - unless you actively seek them out (I'm talking about real life, not forums).
I've had personal experience but there is no point in me recounting any of that because it could be explained in various ways and I have done it before elsewhere.
So - live your life and stop mithering about it! Life is too short, you have a decent life to enjoy. I do, however, understand why it does niggle you. I could say that God understands and will sort it all out in the end - but I won't ;D.
-
However there is no explanation for personal experience and I wish Christians would stop trying to convince non believers about the existence of God because, whatever anyone says, it isn't something that can be proved objectively, scientifically.
Not sure I understand what you mean by no explanation for personal experience? That you think that you have had a personal experience of God does not mean that you have had an experience of God. People hallucinate, that is a know natural fact, how do you rule out the possibility of that. Now if you prefer to attribute it to God then that is fine on a personal basis, it would be rude of me to questions it almost, but the issues come when said people try to insist that their interpretation is also true for me.
As for the second part would you like to take it up with Hope. He reckons he has a methodology for this sort of thing, but is reluctant to share.
-
Stephen said: "Not sure I understand what you mean by no explanation for personal experience? That you think that you have had a personal experience of God does not mean that you have had an experience of God. People hallucinate, that is a know natural fact, how do you rule out the possibility of that. Now if you prefer to attribute it to God then that is fine on a personal basis, it would be rude of me to questions it almost, but the issues come when said people try to insist that their interpretation is also true for me."
That is exactly what I said.
I do not insist that my interpretation is true for you Stephen.
-
Not everything can be reduced to iterative maths, floo.
What an odd comment - I can't see anything in what Floo said that even touched on the subject...
-
Think about it Stephen. On reflection, it's not that important, I don't want you to ponder unnecessarily. Floo was wondering about verifiable evidence is all. There is none.
-
Think about it Stephen. On reflection, it's not that important, I don't want you to ponder unnecessarily. Floo was wondering about verifiable evidence is all. There is none.
I have absolutely no argument with any Christian who has such an attitude, they are entitled to their beliefs and if it brings them comfort great I am pleased for them.
That is not what happens in most cases though is it? People with religious beliefs make claims for their beliefs that impact on others and that is unacceptable and must be challenged.
-
What an odd comment - I can't see anything in what Floo said that even touched on the subject...
My thinking too. Maths and me are an oxymoron! ;D
-
Stephen said: "Not sure I understand what you mean by no explanation for personal experience? That you think that you have had a personal experience of God does not mean that you have had an experience of God. People hallucinate, that is a know natural fact, how do you rule out the possibility of that. Now if you prefer to attribute it to God then that is fine on a personal basis, it would be rude of me to questions it almost, but the issues come when said people try to insist that their interpretation is also true for me."
That is exactly what I said.
I do not insist that my interpretation is true for you Stephen.
Thumbs up to that. :D
Let's all enjoy our own journeys.
-
If it makes people happy to believe in god and Jesus that is fine. It is when they tell others it is all TRUE, and even use threats to try to coerce them into believing as they do, when it goes very badly wrong!
-
If god and Jesus want us to believe they actually exist, why is there no verifiable evidence to support that scenario? ...
How surprising. Floo asks a question that she has asked hundreds of times over the last few years. Again, as usual, the questions are answered by various people and when there are enough answers that she doesn't like, Floo tends to flit off.
-
How surprising. Floo asks a question that she has asked hundreds of times over the last few years. Again, as usual, the questions are answered by various people and when there are enough answers that she doesn't like, Floo tends to flit off.
Hope when have you provided the slightest piece of verifiable evidence in connection with the topic?
-
Floo hasn't flitted off this time Hope :D.
Floo, there is no objective evidence, only personal experience. I think you know that very well!
-
People hallucinate, that is a know natural fact, how do you rule out the possibility of that.
Well, you can see whether there is any familial or personal history of hallucination. You can then check whether the experience actually fits with the nature of hallucination.
Now if you prefer to attribute it to God then that is fine on a personal basis, it would be rude of me to questions it almost, but the issues come when said people try to insist that their interpretation is also true for me.
The same can be said when people insist that religious people are uneducated, blind, indoctrinated and all the other phrases that are habitually used to denigrate religious belief.
As for the second part would you like to take it up with Hope. He reckons he has a methodology for this sort of thing, but is reluctant to share.
No, not reluctant to share; rather having shared it before on other forums, it tends to completely flummox those who regard the physical as the be all and end all of human existence.
-
Floo hasn't flitted off this time Hope :D.
Floo, there is no objective evidence, only personal experience. I think you know that very well!
I've known her go to several pages before doing so - and I get the impression that most of the posts thus far are ones she is comfortable with.
-
I wonder why floo is so obsessed by whether or not it can be proved God exists.
-
I don't think I am obsessed with the topic, it doesn't impinge on my real life!
-
No, not reluctant to share; rather having shared it before on other forums, it tends to completely flummox those who regard the physical as the be all and end all of human existence.
Well why not put your cards on the table here then, since several of us have asked: there are some clever people here too, so being flummoxed is unlikely, but you can expect your submission to be critiqued.
-
I don't think I am obsessed with the topic, it doesn't impinge on my real life!
I think you are obsessed with it floo and by religious belief generally. Maybe you wonder if you are backing the wrong horse and hope someone will come up with something definitive that will convince you once and for all. That will not happen. You either believe or you don't.
-
I think you are obsessed with it floo and by religious belief generally. Maybe you wonder if you are backing the wrong horse and hope someone will come up with something definitive that will convince you once and for all. That will not happen. You either believe or you don't.
Really? ;D Sure I am obsessed, NOT!
-
Sorry I got it wrong floo. Presumably you won't mention it again then.
-
Well, you can see whether there is any familial or personal history of hallucination. You can then check whether the experience actually fits with the nature of hallucination.
Why, what would that prove? People who hallucinate must have a first hallucination.
Anyway that was one hypothesis to explain the experience. Even if you could show that false you would still need to show that is was a non natural phenomena at play. Not having a natural explanation does not support a supernatural one. You would have though this would have sunk in by now.
The same can be said when people insist that religious people are uneducated, blind, indoctrinated and all the other phrases that are habitually used to denigrate religious belief.
Since that doesn't apply to me I don't see the relevance.
Some religious people are blind, uneducated and indoctrinated and so are some non religious people. I don't generalise I call it on the evidence.
No, not reluctant to share; rather having shared it before on other forums, it tends to completely flummox those who regard the physical as the be all and end all of human existence.
Two things:
- So you admit you have not shared it on this forum despite claiming so.
Stop lying with the "physical being the be all and end all" no one has asked you for a physical method to assess the supernatural. As far as I can see no one is saying that the physical is the only thing that could be.
I am not interested in what the method is as long as it can tell the difference between probably true and probably not true.
-
No, not reluctant to share; rather having shared it before on other forums, it tends to completely flummox those who regard the physical as the be all and end all of human existence.
That was on other forums (so you claim ...). This is a different forum with different people who may well not be flummoxed at all.
So try it here. No reason not to, is there? What will the feeble excuse be this time?
-
Even if you could show that false you would still need to show that is was a non natural phenomena at play. Not having a natural explanation does not support a supernatural one. You would have though this would have sunk in by now.
Not a chance. Negative proof fallacy all the way with this one.
-
Not a chance. Negative proof fallacy all the way with this one.
It's incredible how common this is. The same is true of AB with his argument that scientists haven't shown how the brain produces consciousness. Well, OK, but then AB jumps feet first into 'therefore God does it', without having to show how that works, of course!
-
Yup, that's the one.
Simply amazing how ineradicable it is in some people. You tell them that it's wrong, or more to the point explain exactly why it's wrong, and it's in one ear and out the other unhampered by anything in between and they're back using it again a day later. Bizarre.
-
Not sure I understand what you mean by no explanation for personal experience? That you think that you have had a personal experience of God does not mean that you have had an experience of God. People hallucinate, that is a know natural fact,
But then so is people not hallucinating...but I suppose that is not safe or sexy enough for your ilk.
-
But then so is people not hallucinating...but I suppose that is not safe or sexy enough for your ilk.
The point was simple enough I would have thought even for your Ilk.
People experience things and sometimes those things are clearly generated in the mind. How do you know the difference.
This is not fucking difficult.
-
How surprising. Floo asks a question that she has asked hundreds of times over the last few years. Again, as usual, the questions are answered by various people and when there are enough answers that she doesn't like, Floo tends to flit off.
Excuse my French but FUCKING HELL!! - talk bout the pot calling the kettle black!
This comment coming from you Hope is the highest possible pinnacle of hypocrisy!
-
But then so is people not hallucinating...but I suppose that is not safe or sexy enough for your ilk.
I am an experienced research scientist with publications to my name along with a long list of patents. I have been there at the birth of a few new ideas where previous understanding has been overturned. So safe?.. no
So come on then why don't you have a go at sharing your insights into how we know something is supernatural or not
-
The point was simple enough I would have thought even for your Ilk.
People experience things and sometimes those things are clearly generated in the mind. How do you know the difference.
This is fucking difficult.
Stephen if it is an hallucination what is being hallucinated.
Secondly, prove it is an hallucination.
Some people don't realise or notice things that are plain to others. Is being atheist a form of autism? Autism is a known fact you know.
-
Excuse my French but FUCKING HELL!! - talk bout the pot calling the kettle black!
This comment coming from you Hope is the highest possible pinnacle of hypocrisy!
Why the foul language? Never seen that from you before Owlswing.
From what I have seen, Hope is courteous and posts thoughtfully.
-
The point was simple enough I would have thought even for your Ilk.
People experience things and sometimes those things are clearly generated in the mind. How do you know the difference.
This is not fucking difficult.
Not just hallucinations, but also illusions, which I assume are different, and dreams. They all suggest that the brain constructs representations, which are partly based on sensory information (incoming), but also that the brain has creative powers, and is able to 'fill in' missing stuff. Change blindness seems to be another example, when we fail to perceive a change in the environment.
But on top of that, you have the question of interpretation of experiences. I see a shadow move across the wall outside - is it my neighbour, a cat, the man with the scythe, or too much booze?
-
Why the foul language? Never seen that from you before Owlswing.
I have.
-
Stephen if it is an hallucination what is being hallucinated.
Secondly, prove it is an hallucination.
Some people don't realise or notice things that are plain to others. Is being atheist a form of autism? Autism is a known fact you know.
If it's an hallucination of God then the it's an hallucination of God. What else?
I don't have to prove it. I didn't say it was an hallucination just that it is plausible that it might me. But it is irrelevant even if I didn't have any suggestions you can't just say it woz God what done it. YOU have to show that it is a supernatural experience and provide an appropriate methodology. This really is philosophy 101.
Are some atheists autistic? Well maybe. I am an atheist but I am not, so what is your point.
-
Not just hallucinations, but also illusions, which I assume are different, and dreams. They all suggest that the brain constructs representations, which are partly based on sensory information (incoming), but also that the brain has creative powers, and is able to 'fill in' missing stuff. Change blindness seems to be another example, when we fail to perceive a change in the environment.
But on top of that, you have the question of interpretation of experiences. I see a shadow move across the wall outside - is it my neighbour, a cat, the man with the scythe, or too much booze?
I agree. I was just shoeing one possible explanation, but I don't actually have to present any. Hope and Vlad are the ones that say that something supernatural is going on so it is up to them to provide the methodology.
I know you know this but it helps to get it of my chest.
The frustrating thing is I would love to hear of something new and different but alas it is never forthcoming.
-
If there were any verifiable evidence Hope do you mean to say that there wouldn't be anyone else in the whole of the world that would understand your explanation.
Why not put this notorious, mysterious, elusive, evidence of yours on Wikki it would then go all the way around the world in every known language and you would become world famous.
Their must be at least one person in the world with a brain that is quick enough to understand this knowledge that as far as we know is only available to you.
I'm really looking forward to this world shattering media event when all is revealed, it could only be announced via at least one of the Dimblbies if not both.
If it's a christian god what happens to all of the others; think of it Hope, no more atheists?
ippy
-
Why the foul language? Never seen that from you before Owlswing.
From what I have seen, Hope is courteous and posts thoughtfully.
But is also a monumental hypocrite - no wonder Owly swore.
-
I've not seen the hypocrisy Shaker, honestly.
-
See #11.
Perhaps it's a case of your not having been here long enough or to have had enough experience of Hope's standard operating procedure - wheel out assertion after assertion for which, when challenged, he provides not a scrap of evidence, typically stonewalling all and any such requests, or better yet, claiming that he's posted the evidence before at some point in the past (unspecified; no links given) either on unnamed other forums (relevance to this forum: unknown) or on this one although the posts appear not to be traceable right now for one reason or another (the mods pulled them; they disappeared in a purge, etc.). Or simply asserting that he has answered the questions (Where? "Various places" is the best you'll ever get) but the questioner simply didn't like his answers.
In other words he's the master of the unsupported assertion and the unanswered question, hypocritically criticising Floo for his very own behaviour. Projection, I think they call it. Personally I have another term for it but Gordon, long-suffering enough already, wouldn't like it.
-
I agree. I was just shoeing one possible explanation, but I don't actually have to present any. Hope and Vlad are the ones that say that something supernatural is going on so it is up to them to provide the methodology.
I know you know this but it helps to get it of my chest.
The frustrating thing is I would love to hear of something new and different but alas it is never forthcoming.
What sort of evidence would be acceptable to you?
Photos can be easily dismissed as fakes.
-
Why the foul language? Never seen that from you before Owlswing.
From what I have seen, Hope is courteous and posts thoughtfully.
Have you not read this forum?
Check back and see how many times it has been noted that Hope has been asked questions again and again and again and again and again ad infinitum ad nauseam - ask Shaker and various others how many times Hope has vanished for a week or so rather than answer a question for which he has no answer by admitting he has no answer!
The bad language? I would have thought that the very level of Hope's hupocrisy in his comment about Floo acting as he so often does would make a Cardinal kick a hole oin a stained glass window and the Pope himself use bad language.
Just do me a favour and don't turn into a Bashful Anthony on the subject.
-
See #11.
Perhaps it's a case of your not having been here long enough or to have had enough experience of Hope's standard operating procedure - wheel out assertion after assertion for which, when challenged, he provides not a scrap of evidence, typically stonewalling all and any such requests, or better yet, claiming that he's posted the evidence before at some point in the past (unspecified; no links given) either on unnamed other forums (relevance to this forum: unknown) or on this one although the posts appear not to be traceable right now for one reason or another (the mods pulled them; they disappeared in a purge, etc.). Or simply asserting that he has answered the questions (Where? "Various places" is the best you'll ever get) but the questioner simply didn't like his answers.
In other words he's the master of the unsupported assertion and the unanswered question, hypocritically criticising Floo for his very own behaviour. Projection, I think they call it. Personally I have another term for it but Gordon, long-suffering enough already, wouldn't like it.
Thanks Shaker - I wonder if your banned word is the same as the one I wanted to use!
-
Probably not entirely dissimilar, old fruit ;)
-
If god and Jesus want us to believe they actually exist, why is there no verifiable evidence to support that scenario? Making their existence merely a matter of faith is crazy in the extreme, and cruel if lack of faith has consequences! So many dogmas, doctrines and sects have sprung up attributed to Christianity, some more bonkers than others. People make assertions about what god and Jesus are thinking, when the truth of the matter is they can have no idea, lacking any evidence to back up their claims.
The most credible explanation is that god has never existed in reality, but was created by humans, and is continuously reinvented by those with vivid imaginations.
As for Jesus, who supposedly popped up to heaven after his resurrection and has stayed out of sight ever since, it is much more likely when he was executed he stayed dead! The guy's death was very unpleasant if he was crucified, but he was a bit of a WUM, where the religious mafia of the day were concerned. It is strange his family didn't seem to rate him much according to the gospel of St John.
So why would a 'loving' god not ensure that no one had any doubt that it existed?
Next time you pick up your Bible may I suggest that you meditate on Psalm 19
-
Next time you pick up your Bible may I suggest that you meditate on Psalm 19
So what - just another load of archaic gobbledegook translated no-one knows how many times and still needing a commentary for a churchman to tell the ordinary bloke in the street what it is supposed to mean - i e what the Church wants us to think that it means!
-
I have re-read all the posts on this thread, some of which I responded to, also revisited the Alpha thread which Stephen mentioned. I still cannot see how Hope has been hypocritical, merely that he puts forward his views which others cannot verify scientifically. No believer can produce hard and fast facts to back up their beliefs.
Now: am I thick? (No need to answer that one - please)
naive?
vague? (that is possible)
I wonder if I should have a little break, just a few days, as I've been posting prolifically over the past couple of weeks, and then return with a fresh approach. I really like it here and have absolutely nothing against any fellow poster.
-
I have re-read all the posts on this thread, some of which I responded to, also revisited the Alpha thread which Stephen mentioned. I still cannot see how Hope has been hypocritical, merely that he puts forward his views which others cannot verify scientifically. No believer can produce hard and fast facts to back up their beliefs.
Now: am I thick? (No need to answer that one - please)
naive?
vague? (that is possible)
I wonder if I should have a little break, just a few days, as I've been posting prolifically over the past couple of weeks, and then return with a fresh approach. I really like it here and have absolutely nothing against any fellow poster.
To see what I (and Shaker) mean about Hope being hypocritical you need to read more than just one or two threads and read them from start to finish.
I do not call anyone hypocrite without fair cause (Bashful Anthony - another Christian who would brook no argument against his religion being the one true way and anyone who was NOT Christian was delusional - I more than most as I am pagan - used the word for just about anyone who dared to argue with him or his version of his religion - as a for instance - I am a hypocrite, according to him, because, as a pagan, I send Christmas cards to my Christian friends and Yule cards to my pagan ones.) and Hope is, in calling Floo out as running away because she does not like answers given her, most certainly a hypocrite of the first water.
Try reading the "Put me out of my misery (appeal to Hope)" thread on the Christian Topic for a start!
On the subject of taking a break - I have just returned from a one month enforced (by the medical people) break in which I was able to read the posts here but not contribute. It was an eye opener.
-
Thank you. I have read the thread you mentioned (appeal to Hope). It's all a question of perception, I fear.
I really do not like calling out posters by name, have no personal objections to anyone on here.
Anyway I am off to bed now, will sleep on it and see you sine die.
I'm grateful for your reply.
Night night, Brownie
-
Thank you. I have read the thread you mentioned (appeal to Hope). It's all a question of perception, I fear.
I really do not like calling out posters by name, have no personal objections to anyone on here.
Anyway I am off to bed now, will sleep on it and see you sine die.
I'm grateful for your reply.
Night night, Brownie
Fair enough - to each their own.
I just do not like having my religioous beliefs abused by those of other religions, while being roundly condemned if I do the same to them.
The one thing that really gets me is the fact that they are terminally incapable of admitting that, like mine and everybody elses, their religious beliefs are a matter of FAITH NOT OF FACT!
I include in the above the atheists of the world who put their FAITH in the likelyhood that the various deities do not, IN FACT, exist.
-
The one thing that really gets me is the fact that they are terminally incapable of admitting that, like mine and everybody elses, their religious beliefs are a matter of FAITH NOT OF FACT!
I include in the above the atheists of the world who put their FAITH in the likelyhood that the various deities do not, IN FACT, exist.
That's incorrect, and I think you have been corrected on that misunderstanding before. Atheism is a lack of belief, a lack of faith, not a positive faith in the lack of deities. There is a difference.
-
I have re-read all the posts on this thread, some of which I responded to, also revisited the Alpha thread which Stephen mentioned. I still cannot see how Hope has been hypocritical, merely that he puts forward his views which others cannot verify scientifically. No believer can produce hard and fast facts to back up their beliefs.
Now: am I thick? (No need to answer that one - please)
naive?
vague? (that is possible)
I wonder if I should have a little break, just a few days, as I've been posting prolifically over the past couple of weeks, and then return with a fresh approach. I really like it here and have absolutely nothing against any fellow poster.
:)
Some people here have a habit of cornering others, and get frustrated when they can't get them to agree with them, the atheists here especially.
I think you are right when you say in another post, it is a matter of perception.
Looking on, it can look like some posters here are ganging up on other posters, and who thinks who is ganging up on who, is also interpreted.
Your posts are fine Brownie, and I like your approach.
You usually give posters the benefit of the doubt if they post something which could be taken in another way :)
:)
-
Atheism is a lack of belief, a lack of faith, not a positive faith in the lack of deities. There is a difference.
Exactly; you don't need faith to not believe something you just need to be unconvinced by arguments and (purported) evidence presented for it.
I find almost all god stories monumentally unconvincing.
-
What sort of evidence would be acceptable to you?
Photos can be easily dismissed as fakes.
As an agnostic atheist i don't have clue what evidence you could provide for the divine. You would need a methodology for evaluating such claims.
It is not me who is making the claim so there is no onus on me to provide anything.
I agree that photos can be faked. However I don't really see the relavence as I have not requsted any.
out of curiosity what is it you think I might like a photo of?
-
As an agnostic atheist i don't have clue what evidence you could provide for the divine. You would need a methodology for evaluating such claims.
It is not me who is making the claim so there is no onus on me to provide anything.
I agree that photos can be faked. However I don't really see the relavence as I have not requsted any.
out of curiosity what is it you think I might like a photo of?
I was thinking more along the lines of proof of the supernatural. Ghosts say.
To prove it, we would have to find proof you would accept.
-
I have re-read all the posts on this thread, some of which I responded to, also revisited the Alpha thread which Stephen mentioned. I still cannot see how Hope has been hypocritical, merely that he puts forward his views which others cannot verify scientifically. No believer can produce hard and fast facts to back up their beliefs.
Now: am I thick? (No need to answer that one - please)
naive?
vague? (that is possible)
I wonder if I should have a little break, just a few days, as I've been posting prolifically over the past couple of weeks, and then return with a fresh approach. I really like it here and have absolutely nothing against any fellow poster.
They are not just views though thet are very specific claims. It is not up to us to verify or disprove his claims. That is his job but one he always evades.
Hence the accusations of hypocrisy.
-
If god and Jesus want us to believe they actually exist, why is there no verifiable evidence to support that scenario? Making their existence merely a matter of faith is crazy in the extreme, and cruel if lack of faith has consequences!
It is clear that you neither want to believe and fear nothing of the consequences.
What does it matter to you? Surely, if you really wanted to know the truth then you would do as Christ told you.
Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you.
So many dogmas, doctrines and sects have sprung up attributed to Christianity, some more bonkers than others. People make assertions about what god and Jesus are thinking, when the truth of the matter is they can have no idea, lacking any evidence to back up their claims.
Whoosh! one foul swoop and you have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
What did Christ say... "If you obey my words you will know if the teachings come from myself or not"
Christ has told you what you need to know. You have chosen to disregard. Truth is that you don't want to know.
You see, you need to read those words and obey then you will know as Christ said where his words come from.
The most credible explanation is that god has never existed in reality, but was created by humans, and is continuously reinvented by those with vivid imaginations.
This is not about evidence... it isn't about God or Christ and their existence or even sincerely seeking the truth.
It is all about your own way of thinking and your way of thinking lacks any evidence to support what you are attempting to say.
It lacks because you don't know what Christ has said and never obeyed him. This is all about you wanting to put what you think forward to others but it lacks any tangible truth or even logical reasoning. You have not thought it out, you have not studied the word or Christ. You have done nothing but express an opinion based on nothing but your own personal thought and lacking any foundation in what it means for God to exist.
As for Jesus, who supposedly popped up to heaven after his resurrection and has stayed out of sight ever since, it is much more likely when he was executed he stayed dead! The guy's death was very unpleasant if he was crucified, but he was a bit of a WUM, where the religious mafia of the day were concerned. It is strange his family didn't seem to rate him much according to the gospel of St John.
How does the writings of John which concentrate more on what Christ actually said than did (unlike the other three gospels the
Synoptic which concentrated on more of what he did and basically say the same things) show his family not rating him?
If you are going to repeat what you read on other sites or writings of others at least check them out, first.
So why would a 'loving' god not ensure that no one had any doubt that it existed?
What has a loving God to do with you being allowed to find him for yourself have to do with anything?
You cannot be taken seriously because even the easiest of questions to answer from the bible itself are lost on you.
No one who has any knowledge of faith, free-will, freedom to choose, Sin, the World and the devil. Would actually be asking such questions in the first instance. The knowledge they would have gleamed from the bible would have explained that.
-
Fair enough - to each their own.
I just do not like having my religioous beliefs abused by those of other religions, while being roundly condemned if I do the same to them.
The one thing that really gets me is the fact that they are terminally incapable of admitting that, like mine and everybody elses, their religious beliefs are a matter of FAITH NOT OF FACT!
I include in the above the atheists of the world who put their FAITH in the likelyhood that the various deities do not, IN FACT, exist.
Atheists by and large do NOT do that though as that is NOT atheism.
-
Excuse my French but FUCKING HELL!! - talk bout the pot calling the kettle black!
This comment coming from you Hope is the highest possible pinnacle of hypocrisy!
It gobsmacking isn't it? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black where Hope is concerned! :o
-
It is clear that you neither want to believe and fear nothing of the consequences.
What does it matter to you? Surely, if you really wanted to know the truth then you would do as Christ told you.
Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you.
Whoosh! one foul swoop and you have thrown the baby out with the bath water.
What did Christ say... "If you obey my words you will know if the teachings come from myself or not"
Christ has told you what you need to know. You have chosen to disregard. Truth is that you don't want to know.
You see, you need to read those words and obey then you will know as Christ said where his words come from.
This is not about evidence... it isn't about God or Christ and their existence or even sincerely seeking the truth.
It is all about your own way of thinking and your way of thinking lacks any evidence to support what you are attempting to say.
It lacks because you don't know what Christ has said and never obeyed him. This is all about you wanting to put what you think forward to others but it lacks any tangible truth or even logical reasoning. You have not thought it out, you have not studied the word or Christ. You have done nothing but express an opinion based on nothing but your own personal thought and lacking any foundation in what it means for God to exist.
How does the writings of John which concentrate more on what Christ actually said than did (unlike the other three gospels the
Synoptic which concentrated on more of what he did and basically say the same things) show his family not rating him?
If you are going to repeat what you read on other sites or writings of others at least check them out, first.
What has a loving God to do with you being allowed to find him for yourself have to do with anything?
You cannot be taken seriously because even the easiest of questions to answer from the bible itself are lost on you.
No one who has any knowledge of faith, free-will, freedom to choose, Sin, the World and the devil. Would actually be asking such questions in the first instance. The knowledge they would have gleamed from the bible would have explained that.
Sass you and the truth are remote! ::)
-
I was thinking more along the lines of proof of the supernatural. Ghosts say.
To prove it, we would have to find proof you would accept.
t
You would need a specific example and a methodology to show that something non naturalistic had occured.
re ghosts. I don't doubt people have experienced ghosts. I have had such an experience myself. i saw someone in a room who could not have been there. Some people might say well there you go that proves an after life. However, i see no reason why that follows and so it just remains unexplained.
-
i saw someone in a room who could not have been there. Some people might say well there you go that proves an after life.
Nobody with an atom of common sense would say such a thing.
However, i see no reason why that follows and so it just remains unexplained.
Unexplained? Millions of people have 'seen' ghosts, as well as a variety of other bizarre things. The explanation is obvious ... the brain is quite capable of producing illusions. It does so every time you dream.
-
Nobody with an atom of common sense would say such a thing.
Unexplained? Millions of people have 'seen' ghosts, as well as a variety of other bizarre things. The explanation is obvious ... the brain is quite capable of producing illusions. It does so every time you dream.
I agree, my brain has played those sort of tricks a good few times! ::)
-
[quote author >:(=Leonard James link=topic=11736.msg598524#msg598524 date=1458215135]
Nobody with an atom of common sense would say such a thing.
Unexplained? Millions of people have 'seen' ghosts, as well as a variety of other bizarre things. The explanation is obvious ... the brain is quite capable of producing illusions. It does so every time you dream.
[/quote]
I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick here.
I was not supporting any supernatural phenomena I was simply pointing out that lot,s of people experience what seems like supernatural phenomena but that does not give them the right jump to supernatural conclusions.
And I will stick with unexplained because I can think of other mundane explanations than just illusion.
-
You would need a specific example and a methodology to show that something non naturalistic had occured.
I don't think that anyone here would disagree with you, Stephen. However, if a given phenomenon occurred without recourse to naturalistic means (as is likely with something non-naturalistic) requiring a naturalistic explanation and refusing any other is somewhat moot an argument.
There is a specific example in the Gospels of the New Testament, and there is a methodology outlined.
However, since this is - by its very nature - non-naturalistic, applying naturalistic methodology to it is unlikely to work.
-
I don't think that anyone here would disagree with you, Stephen. However, if a given phenomenon occurred without recourse to naturalistic means (as is likely with something non-naturalistic) requiring a naturalistic explanation and refusing any other is somewhat moot an argument.
There is a specific example in the Gospels of the New Testament, and there is a methodology outlined.
However, since this is - by its very nature - non-naturalistic, applying naturalistic methodology to it is unlikely to work.
When have I ever asked for a naturalistic method. Show me?
I have made this point several times. I don't care what the method is as long as it can distinguish between likely true and likely untrue claims.
I don't think I can make it any simpler.
-
I don't think that anyone here would disagree with you, Stephen. However, if a given phenomenon occurred without recourse to naturalistic means (as is likely with something non-naturalistic) requiring a naturalistic explanation and refusing any other is somewhat moot an argument.
There is a specific example in the Gospels of the New Testament, and there is a methodology outlined.
However, since this is - by its very nature - non-naturalistic, applying naturalistic methodology to it is unlikely to work.
Well go for it then, give the example and the methodology. In your own time it's not like you have kept us waiting or anything.
-
However, if a given phenomenon occurred without recourse to naturalistic means (as is likely with something non-naturalistic) requiring a naturalistic explanation and refusing any other is somewhat moot an argument.
I am the only one here who finds this deeply deeply dishonest?
Brownie, you could not understand why he was accused of hypocrisy. Can you see why now?
-
I don't think that anyone here would disagree with you, Stephen. However, if a given phenomenon occurred without recourse to naturalistic means (as is likely with something non-naturalistic) requiring a naturalistic explanation and refusing any other is somewhat moot an argument.
Here you are undone by your own words: how could you tell something occurred 'without recourse to naturalistic means' without a method to actually exclude the naturalistic in the first place? Seems to me you aren't applying reason to what you yourself propose.
There is a specific example in the Gospels of the New Testament, and there is a methodology outlined.
Super; what are the details?
However, since this is - by its very nature - non-naturalistic, applying naturalistic methodology to it is unlikely to work.
Hard to say since you seemingly don't want to set out the details.
-
When have I ever asked for a naturalistic method. Show me?
I have made this point several times. I don't care what the method is as long as it can distinguish between likely true and likely untrue claims.
I don't think I can make it any simpler.
Well, I believe that the recording of information that is now recognised as an indicator of death - the outpouring of both blood and 'water' is one important piece of evidence. Secondly, the sighting of a person who had been declared dead by the authorities, in a live form some days after that acknowledged death is another piece of evidence that has to be taken into account. Obviously, these are both naturalistic outcomes of a supernatural event - and therein lies the rub. How does one verify a supernatural event without taking the natural outcomes that accompany it into account? Throwing doubt on these outcomes is a common practice but in no way does that doubt invalidate the events.
I am currently reading Bart Ehrman's book 'How Jesus Became God'. In his first chapter, he seeks to show that there were plenty of 'virgin-bith' like events recorded in and around the time period of 300BC to 20AD; similarly there were a number of after-death appearances. The problem with this first chapter is that he makes it clear on more than one occasion, that the Jewish way of thinking as regards deity was very different to that of all the other people-groups in the area. Yet, he then tries to superimpoise the principles that come from studying all these other people-groups onto this one particular people-group from whih the Jesus story emerged.
Another thing he uses is the fact that in ancient times, there was no division between what we would call secular and sacred. Everything is part of a whole. However, he then argues that the division that we now have came about once the Christian church began to develop some level of influence on society - which, as far as dating is concerned, is probably true. Towards the end of this first chapter, under the title 'Jesus and the Divine Realm, Erhart writes
By the time of the 4th Christian century, some 300 years after Jesus lived, when the empire was in the proces of converting from paganism to Christianity - many of the great thinkers of the Roman world had come to believe that a huge chasm separated the divine and human realms. God was 'up there' and was the Almighty. He alone was God. There were no other gods and so there was no continuum of divinity. There was just us down here, the lowly sinners, and God up there, the supreme sovereign over all that is.
Jesus mimself eventually came to be thought of as belonging not down here with us, but up there with God. He himself was Gpd, with a capital G. But how could he be God, if God was God and there were not a number of gods, not even two gods, but only one God. How could Jesus be God and God be God and yet there only be one God? ... the more pressing and immediate question is about how this percetion started in the first place. How did Jesus move from being a human being to being God - in any sense?
Ehrman, B.: 2015. How Jesus Became God HarperOne, New York (Paperback edition) p.43.
I believe that there are some serious flaws, both of reason and historicity, in this passage. For one thing, even if we assume that Genesis 1-11 is a 6th/5th Century BC theological treatise, the idea that the Jewish God was a monolithic entity didn't hold water. After all, God is reported as saying, 'Let us make (man) in our own image'. The "royal 'we'"? Possibly, since the idea existed prior to the time of Christ; but not necessarily, since the material starts off talking about the 'Spirit of God ... hovering over the waters' and goes on to talk about 'making man and woman in his image', suggesting a multifaceted nature to a single God.
Secondly, the dividing of the divine and the human came 300-odd years after Jesus. During those 300 years, the idea that Jesus was here was very much part of the understanding of his divinity. He is reported as saying that the 'Kingdom of Heaven' is at hand (or here). Yes some flet that this was said in a temporal context; others in a 'spacial' one. I'm not sure that only one or the other is a correct reading.
-
Well, I believe that the recording of information that is now recognised as an indicator of death - the outpouring of both blood and 'water' is one important piece of evidence. Secondly, the sighting of a person who had been declared dead by the authorities, in a live form some days after that acknowledged death is another piece of evidence that has to be taken into account. Obviously, these are both naturalistic outcomes of a supernatural event - and therein lies the rub. How does one verify a supernatural event without taking the natural outcomes that accompany it into account?
Whoa whoa whoa.
You quote these claims as fact.
You need to establish them as a fact before we proceed.
Throwing doubt on these outcomes is a common practice but in no way does that doubt invalidate the events.
in your wildest dreams
-
Can I also enquire into where the methodology is? It just seems like bad history and convoluted logic to me. In other words naturalistic methods done badly.
-
Well, I believe that the recording of information that is now recognised as an indicator of death
Only by suitably qualified people on inspection of the body, where corroboration is required where cremation is intended - so it isn't a process consisting only of anecdote.
- the outpouring of both blood and 'water' is one important piece of evidence.
Only if you are qualified to make a clinical judgment, where 'blood' and 'water' would br inadequate as a cause of death unless the underlying basis for confirming clinical death were provided.
Secondly, the sighting of a person who had been declared dead by the authorities, in a live form some days after that acknowledged death is another piece of evidence that has to be taken into account.
Two problems here: that the person was actually dead, and you only have anecdotes to this effect, and that this person was seen post-death, where again there is just anecdote from potentially biased sources.
Ohbviously, these are both naturalistic outcomes of a supernatural event - and therein lies the rub. How does one verify a supernatural event without taking the natural outcomes that accompany it into account? Throwing doubt on these outcomes is a common practice but in no way does that doubt invalidate the events.
Yes it does, since you haven't excluded naturalistic explanation such as human artifice: remember if you discard naturalistic options without provide an explanation of how you did so the burden of proof in favour of the supernatural is yours.
I am currently reading Bart Ehrman's book 'How Jesus Became God'. In his first chapter, he seeks to show that there were plenty of 'virgin-bith' like events recorded in and around the time period of 300BC to 20AD; similarly there were a number of after-death appearances. The problem with this first chapter is that he makes it clear on more than one occasion, that the Jewish way of thinking as regards deity was very different to that of all the other people-groups in the area. Yet, he then tries to superimpoise the principles that come from studying all these other people-groups onto this one particular people-group from whih the Jesus story emerged.
Does he actually address the problem of how supernatural claim should be assessed? If not, then this digression is of no relevance.
Another thing he uses is the fact that in ancient times, there was no division between what we would call secular and sacred. Everything is part of a whole. However, he then argues that the division that we now have came about once the Christian church began to develop some level of influence on society - which, as far as dating is concerned, is probably true. Towards the end of this first chapter, under the title 'Jesus and the Divine Realm, Erhart writes
Ehrman, B.: 2015. How Jesus Became God HarperOne, New York (Paperback edition) p.43.
Even more super: but how does this help with how we assess supernatural claims?
I believe that there are some serious flaws, both of reason and historicity, in this passage. For one thing, even if we assume that Genesis 1-11 is a 6th/5th Century BC theological treatise, the idea that the Jewish God was a monolithic entity didn't hold water. After all, God is reported as saying, 'Let us make (man) in our own image'. The "royal 'we'"? Possibly, since the idea existed prior to the time of Christ; but not necessarily, since the material starts off talking about the 'Spirit of God ... hovering over the waters' and goes on to talk about 'making man and woman in his image', suggesting a multifaceted nature to a single God.
Secondly, the dividing of the divine and the human came 300-odd years after Jesus. During those 300 years, the idea that Jesus was here was very much part of the understanding of his divinity. He is reported as saying that the 'Kingdom of Heaven' is at hand (or here). Yes some flet that this was said in a temporal context; others in a 'spacial' one. I'm not sure that only one or the other is a correct reading.
So you are no nearer to providing a method that is appropriate to identifying supernatural interventions - no matter how interesting this ramble though cultural theology is you aren't addressing what some here have been asking you. So I'll ask again, how have you methodologically discounted the risks of mistake or fiction in the accounts you mention.
-
Exactly, it's just bad history and logic.
-
I still cannot see how Hope has been hypocritical, merely that he puts forward his views which others cannot verify scientifically. No believer can produce hard and fast facts to back up their beliefs.
You are right and if all believers were as honest about their beliefs as you are, there would be no problem.
Hope, however, is claiming his belief is founded on objective principles as sound as the scientific method. One of the main principles of the scientific method is transparency. Hope is not being transparent. Hope refuses to divulge his alleged method while taking the rest of us to task for not being able to prove a negative.
-
Hope refuses to divulge his alleged method ...
In fairness he says that he's done it before ... on other forums ... somewhere ... once ... what more do you need?
-
You are right and if all believers were as honest about their beliefs as you are, there would be no problem
What a load of cobblers .The people with a problem over beliefs is you guys!
Try getting them to fess up to believing anything which has a title. More shifty than the secret societies if you ask me.
-
What a load of cobblers .The people with a problem over beliefs is you guys!
Try getting them to fess up to believing anything which has a title. More shifty than the secret societies if you ask me.
No that is bollox^2.
As Brownie and I discussed yesterday her beliefs are hers alone and she doesn't insist they are true for me as well. Hence no problem with her beliefs.
QED
-
No that is bollox^2.
As Brownie and I discussed yesterday her beliefs are hers alone and she doesn't insist they are true for me as well. Hence no problem with her beliefs.
QED
I don't think you believe that Atheism is just true for you though do you Hot Shot?
-
I don't think you believe that Atheism is just true for you though do you Hot Shot?
I have never heard an argument for God that I found convincing. Its as simple as that.
Other people might be convinced. So what? I will defend their right to believe it, but once you try to impose it then you can expect a reaction.
-
I have never heard an argument for God that I found convincing.
There isn't one ... that's why it's called 'faith'.
-
I don't think you believe that Atheism is just true for you though do you Hot Shot?
Dear me, Vlad - have you not yet learned that atheism isn't 'true' as such: it is simply a current absence of holding any beliefs in the existence of gods, largely because the proponents of these gods have offered no good reasons for thinking otherwise, although they do specialise in bad reasons (which they seemingly never tire of).
I'm sure this has been pointed out to you many times before.
-
Dear me, Vlad - have you not yet learned that atheism isn't 'true' as such: it is simply a current absence of holding any beliefs in the existence of gods, largely because the proponents of these gods have offered no good reasons for thinking otherwise, although they do specialise in bad reasons (which they seemingly never tire of).
I'm sure this has been pointed out to you many times before.
Congratulations Gordon you've just proved reply#77
Come off it Gordon you believe there is no God and that that is true for everyone, don't you?
-
Congratulations Gordon you've just proved reply#77
Come off it Gordon you believe there is no God and that that is true for everyone, don't you?
Nope: currently I see no good reasons to take the god idea seriously because to date the arguments offered in support are so poor: but who knows, perhaps you'll come up with a new one that will convince me.
Since I'm not a philosophical naturalist I have to allow for unknown unknowns.
-
Nope: currently I see no good reasons to take the god idea seriously because to date the arguments offered in support are so poor: but who knows, perhaps you'll come up with a new one that will convince me.
Since I'm not a philosophical naturalist I have to allow for unknown unknowns.
Expertly dodged. But I think we all know you and the rest believe God probably doesn't exist and if true it would be true for all.
Other than that all you are saying on the subject is no comment.
-
Expertly dodged. But I think we all know you and the rest believe God probably doesn't exist and if true it would be true for all.
Other than that all you are saying on the subject is no comment.
I did comment though: I said that I had no beliefs about gods since I've yet to encounter a good argument in support of there being gods.
I'd have thought I was clear on that point.
-
What a load of cobblers .The people with a problem over beliefs is you guys!
Try getting them to fess up to believing anything which has a title. More shifty than the secret societies if you ask me.
Nobody is asking you!
-
I don't think you believe that Atheism is just true for you though do you Hot Shot?
Is your moniker Refuse Collecting c'cos you talk unending rubbish?
-
There isn't one ... that's why it's called 'faith'.
As I have said before - it will take one hell of a lot of work to get the Christians to admit that fact - that Christianity is FAITH NOT FACT!
Just like every single other religion on Earth - including mine!
-
Nobody is asking you!
Come on now Mr Angry........You take great exception to Christians who believe in God and who think God might be true for everyone but are silent towards atheists who don't believe in God and who think his absence might be true for everyone......in other words pure humbug from you Owlswing.
-
Is your moniker Refuse Collecting c'cos you talk unending rubbish?
Congratulations you managed a sentence without the word fuck.
-
... although you didn't.
-
... although you didn't.
Are you saying I can't write a sentence without using the word fuck?
-
Well, so far ...
-
Well, so far ...
:)
-
Come on now Mr Angry........You take great exception to Christians who believe in God and who think God might be true for everyone but are silent towards atheists who don't believe in God and who think his absence might be true for everyone......in other words pure humbug from you Owlswing.
Rubbish - the atheists are not trying to tell anyone that if they do not believe as Atheists do they are damned to Eternal Hellfire! The do not hang around in Houslow High Street trying to grab people and proselytise the hell out of them - they leave you to make up their own minds.
There is a certain logic to atheism - there is none to any religion, not even to the religion that I follow - why? - because mine, like all religions, is a matter of Faith not Fact!
-
To see what I (and Shaker) mean about Hope being hypocritical you need to read more than just one or two threads and read them from start to finish.
I do not call anyone hypocrite without fair cause (Bashful Anthony - another Christian who would brook no argument against his religion being the one true way and anyone who was NOT Christian was delusional - I more than most as I am pagan - used the word for just about anyone who dared to argue with him or his version of his religion - as a for instance - I am a hypocrite, according to him, because, as a pagan, I send Christmas cards to my Christian friends and Yule cards to my pagan ones.) and Hope is, in calling Floo out as running away because she does not like answers given her, most certainly a hypocrite of the first water.
Try reading the "Put me out of my misery (appeal to Hope)" thread on the Christian Topic for a start!
On the subject of taking a break - I have just returned from a one month enforced (by the medical people) break in which I was able to read the posts here but not contribute. It was an eye opener.
Pot calling Kettle black applies more to you and Shaker. Plus the others adding their two penneth worth.
For a start miracles done in the name of Christ do have proof including medical proof people have been healed. The fact you are all too lazy to search shows the real hypocrites around here are the atheists.
In the refusal of your own ignorance of what to have faith means you make false accusations against people like Bash and Hope. Bash not being here to defend himself. As for hypocrite .... calling yourselves open minded is a myth which is dispersed by the posts you have written about others and their beliefs in God and Christ.
We all know you cannot disprove Christ and God. But if honest and truly seeking truth and to understand believers you would be watching things like the 700 club where evidence can be obtained of healing and doctors real medical doctors who have confirmed such healing's.
The only real hypocrites around here are the one throwing stones like yourself and Shaker to name but two. Atheists who say one thing and mean another. Who talk and profess to be open minded then posts the posts that show how closed minded and how unfair they really are... Double standards and without any real basis but your own guilt being transferred onto others.
Either research the evidence available or admit, there is nothing open minded about the things you believe.
And stop trying to call Kettle black when the pot is the same colour and you are colour blind serving your own purpose.
-
Rubbish - the atheists are not trying to tell anyone that if they do not believe as Atheists do they are damned to Eternal Hellfire!
Surely that's the type of thing that only disturbs if you feel there might be something in it.
-
Pot calling Kettle black applies more to you and Shaker. Plus the others adding their two penneth worth.
For a start miracles done in the name of Christ do have proof including medical proof people have been healed. The fact you are all too lazy to search shows the real hypocrites around here are the atheists.
In the refusal of your own ignorance of what to have faith means you make false accusations against people like Bash and Hope. Bash not being here to defend himself. As for hypocrite .... calling yourselves open minded is a myth which is dispersed by the posts you have written about others and their beliefs in God and Christ.
We all know you cannot disprove Christ and God. But if honest and truly seeking truth and to understand believers you would be watching things like the 700 club where evidence can be obtained of healing and doctors real medical doctors who have confirmed such healing's.
The only real hypocrites around here are the one throwing stones like yourself and Shaker to name but two. Atheists who say one thing and mean another. Who talk and profess to be open minded then posts the posts that show how closed minded and how unfair they really are... Double standards and without any real basis but your own guilt being transferred onto others.
Either research the evidence available or admit, there is nothing open minded about the things you believe.
And stop trying to call Kettle black when the pot is the same colour and you are colour blind serving your own purpose.
Let's pretend for a moment we did have some evidence of a "miraculous" looking cure. Say you invited 10 amputees onto stage, prayed and the missing limbs grew back instantaneously. I would admit that this would be an absolutely amazing phenomena. It would be all over the world in minutes.
However, if you want to claim that the reason for the re-growing limbs is divine intervention then you need a method that allows us to investigate this type of claim.
What is it?
-
Surely that's the type of thing that only disturbs if you feel there might be something in it.
No it's hurtful.
The fact someone is nasty enough to tell you, is disturbing.
I don't believe in curses, but I would find it disturbing and hurtful if someone aimed one at me.
A poison pen letter or abusive phone call can be disturbing, there doesn't have to be any truth in it whatsoever.
It's the act.
I was disturbed when animal rights people targeted a neighbour of mine and sent poisonous letters around to all us neighbours and the police were involved, they do threaten people's lives and families and that can be disturbing.
It's the nastiness that's disturbing, and people telling you, you are going to hell if you don't believe what they believe, is nasty.
Especially if done with a sort of joyous nastiness.
You can get it from door to door and street evangelists now and again.
-
Pot calling Kettle black applies more to you and Shaker. Plus the others adding their two penneth worth.
For a start miracles done in the name of Christ do have proof including medical proof people have been healed. The fact you are all too lazy to search shows the real hypocrites around here are the atheists.
In the refusal of your own ignorance of what to have faith means you make false accusations against people like Bash and Hope. Bash not being here to defend himself. As for hypocrite .... calling yourselves open minded is a myth which is dispersed by the posts you have written about others and their beliefs in God and Christ.
We all know you cannot disprove Christ and God. But if honest and truly seeking truth and to understand believers you would be watching things like the 700 club where evidence can be obtained of healing and doctors real medical doctors who have confirmed such healing's.
The only real hypocrites around here are the one throwing stones like yourself and Shaker to name but two. Atheists who say one thing and mean another. Who talk and profess to be open minded then posts the posts that show how closed minded and how unfair they really are... Double standards and without any real basis but your own guilt being transferred onto others.
Either research the evidence available or admit, there is nothing open minded about the things you believe.
And stop trying to call Kettle black when the pot is the same colour and you are colour blind serving your own purpose.
There is NO verifiable evidence. Sass until you can provide that sort of evidence, which you can't, I advice you not to make more of a twit of yourself than you are. ::)
-
Can I also enquire into where the methodology is? It just seems like bad history and convoluted logic to me. In other words naturalistic methods done badly.
Can we have some further explanation on this matter please. Gordon and I asked some pretty straightforward questions, such as were exactly is the methodology? If you could perhaps bold the methodology explanation in your previous message it would be appreciated.
Ta
-
Can we have some further explanation on this matter please. Gordon and I asked some pretty straightforward questions, such as were exactly is the methodology? If you could perhaps bold the methodology explanation in your previous message it would be appreciated.
Ta
Stephen, I and others had provided explanations over the months and years we've been here (ad elsewhere): however, if by 'verifiable' you are excluding anything that doesn't come in a scientific/naturalistic guise, I doubt whether your request will ever be satisfied. It's tantamount to saying that you will listen to evidence, provided that it fits with your pre-existing understanding of reality.
-
Stephen, I and others had provided explanations over the months and years we've been here (ad elsewhere): however, if by 'verifiable' you are excluding anything that doesn't come in a scientific/naturalistic guise, I doubt whether your request will ever be satisfied. It's tantamount to saying that you will listen to evidence, provided that it fits with your pre-existing understanding of reality.
We don't expect it to fit naturalism, since if it did then it wouldn't be supernatural! As such you've been asked for the methodology that you use in respect of the non-natural since it is the method that determines the evidence.
It seems self-evident that you can't provide one and, therefore, what you assert about this 'god' of yours is exactly that: assertion without any supporting evidence.
-
Stephen, I and others had provided explanations over the months and years we've been here (ad elsewhere):
And yet you are never able to point to the posts in which you explained your method, nor do a repost of it.
however, if by 'verifiable' you are excluding anything that doesn't come in a scientific/naturalistic guise,
No. By "verifiable" he means the method and the results must be verifiable. You are the one who is pretending that we mean naturalistic.
-
Stephen, I and others had provided explanations over the months and years we've been here (ad elsewhere): however, if by 'verifiable' you are excluding anything that doesn't come in a scientific/naturalistic guise, I doubt whether your request will ever be satisfied. It's tantamount to saying that you will listen to evidence, provided that it fits with your pre-existing understanding of reality.
What was that old song? "Here We Go Again Happy as Can be", something like that, you've lost it again Hope.
ippy
-
And yet you are never able to point to the posts in which you explained your method, nor do a repost of it.
Indeed. With this one it's always "someplace else, another time" (as though that's relevant to this forum without a link) or, if he claims it was posted here, it's unavailable for one reason or another - it was removed in a purge, the mods deleted it, etc.
In short, a long string of feeble excuses that fools no one.
-
No it's hurtful.
The fact someone is nasty enough to tell you, is disturbing.
I don't believe in curses, but I would find it disturbing and hurtful if someone aimed one at me.
I'm sorry but I have hardly encountered street evangelists let alone nasty ones and wouldn't know where to find any so perhaps you could supply a location so we could road test them for ourselves.
When I was a non Christian I imagined that religion was being forced down my throat. I came to understand what that feeling was all about. I actually talked to a couple of Christians in a non church settings and they just calmly talked about God and kept it mainly in the context of my own newly found non specific general theism.
I think if this troubles something you should determine is whether it is the context or the content.
If it is the latter then I'm afraid to say I think you are being disturbed by God himself and have entered engagement with him.
-
Stephen, I and others had provided explanations over the months and years we've been here (ad elsewhere): however, if by 'verifiable' you are excluding anything that doesn't come in a scientific/naturalistic guise, I doubt whether your request will ever be satisfied. It's tantamount to saying that you will listen to evidence, provided that it fits with your pre-existing understanding of reality.
That is simply untrue. Two points:
1) You have not posted any method. I specifically asked you to point out where in your previous reply you highlighted a method. Your post contained a claim of a resurrection and then some discussion about the nature of Jesus. Where was the method? If you are insisting that a resurrection took place then you need to show that is was though divine intervention.
2) I have stated on several occasions that I have not insisted on a naturalistic explanation. It's out there in many posts for all to see.
Finally, it seems to me that you are simply providing a God of the gaps type argument mixed in with a shifting of the burden of proof. I/Science can't explain it therefore God! I claim God resurrected Jesus, prove he didn't!
I'm sure you're aware that that would be fallacious reasoning.
-
I think if this troubles something you should determine is whether it is the context or the content.
If it is the latter then I'm afraid to say I think you are being disturbed by God himself and have entered engagement with him.
Could you please clarify what you are saying here?
-
I'm sorry but I have hardly encountered street evangelists let alone nasty ones and wouldn't know where to find any so perhaps you could supply a location so we could road test them for ourselves.
Hounslow High Street, Hayes and Harlington Station, Piccadilly Circus, Paddington Station, the pedestrian area outside the Pavilions Mall in Uxbridge.
Do no expect to find them at any of these locations at any specific time, as they tend to get moved on by the police who get complaints from people who do not like being grabbed by the arm when they try to walk away without listening to the full blurb, or people who find prosletyising offensive.
In Hounslow High Street I do not include the JW's who stand in silence holding up their tracts and only speak if spoken to, a tactic that the Christian preachers could well do with copying!
-
We don't expect it to fit naturalism, since if it did then it wouldn't be supernatural! As such you've been asked for the methodology that you use in respect of the non-natural since it is the method that determines the evidence.
It seems self-evident that you can't provide one and, therefore, what you assert about this 'god' of yours is exactly that: assertion without any supporting evidence.
A few category errors here. Matter is not determined methodologically.
For example the existence of the 4o foot truck coming towards me does not depend on any methodology but by empirical and instrumental detection.
Matter has if you like revealed itself.
The latest methodology craze amongst your community is a craze.
Our scripture suggests that God reveals himself and is not winkled out by science.
The bible ends with an ultimate act of self revelation which will be self evident to all.
Which after all is merely how material does its stuff now.
I think it was Gonnagle last Sunday who pointed out that atheists experienced being disturbed by God. That is evidence of God
-
Hounslow High Street, Hayes and Harlington Station, Piccadilly Circus, Paddington Station, the pedestrian area outside the Pavilions Mall in Uxbridge.
Do no expect to find them at any of these locations at any specific time, as they tend to get moved on by the police who get complaints from people who do not like being grabbed by the arm when they try to walk away without listening to the full blurb, or people who find prosletyising offensive.
In Hounslow High Street I do not include the JW's who stand in silence holding up their tracts and only speak if spoken to, a tactic that the Christian preachers could well do with copying!
If it's you Owlswing we can't be sure that you didn't seek these people out and wade in with all guns blazing which solicited a Christian ninja respons.
The most aggressive street proselytiser I came across when I was out with an agnostic associate was Hari Krishna and we soon had him on ropes.
-
Oh dear,
For example the existence of the 4o foot truck coming towards me does not depend on any methodology but by empirical and instrumental detection.
No one is saying that the existence of the truck depends on a methodology. However, if someone claims that a 40 foot truck is coming down the road then we do have a method for determining if the claim is true.
In the case of the theist the claim is that God is coming down the road. The question is how do you know, what method do you use?
And before you say it no one is asking for a scientific method.
The latest methodology craze amongst your community is a craze.
It wouldn't be asked if theist didn't a) claim they had one or b) show us what it is.
Our scripture suggests that God reveals himself and is not wrinkled out by science.
The bible ends with an ultimate act of self revelation which will be self evident to all.
So is that your method then? Divine revelation.
I think it was Gonnagle last Sunday who pointed out that atheists experienced being disturbed by God. That is evidence of God
errrmm how?
-
I'm sorry but I have hardly encountered street evangelists let alone nasty ones and wouldn't know where to find any so perhaps you could supply a location so we could road test them for ourselves.
When I was a non Christian I imagined that religion was being forced down my throat. I came to understand what that feeling was all about. I actually talked to a couple of Christians in a non church settings and they just calmly talked about God and kept it mainly in the context of my own newly found non specific general theism.
I think if this troubles something you should determine is whether it is the context or the content.
If it is the latter then I'm afraid to say I think you are being disturbed by God himself and have entered engagement with him.
Ok try Taunton
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-31829498
Or Manchester
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/piccadilly-gardens-hate-preachers-council-7004510
-
Could you please clarify what you are saying here?
Could you please clarify what you are saying here?
Certainly. Rose says she is disturbed by people relating to the Gospel.
Is that because of the context namely place or style? Or is she upset by the content,the idea that all have fallen short and are in need of salvation.
ogres are dreadful and kill people but I have a level of disbelief in them not to be disturbed by them.
Many atheists don't and can't have that disbelief of God look at Dawkins himself
-
I think it was Gonnagle last Sunday who pointed out that atheists experienced being disturbed by God. That is evidence of God
That's not evidence, that's wishful thinking.
-
Thank you that is clear.
Or is she upset by the content,the idea that all have fallen short and are in need of salvation.
You would have to ask Rose.
I think that when you are walking down the street and people start telling you that you are in need of salvation, that you are a sinner, deficient in some way then some people are going to feel awkward. Trying to make people feel small and inadequate, when they are just going about their day to day business is classic bullying.
-
Oh dear,
No one is saying that the existence of the truck depends on a methodology. However, if someone claims that a 40 foot truck is coming down the road then we do have a method for determining if the claim is true
Yes based entirely on the revelation of itself.
In terms of being told that God is coming down the road, the response of an atheist is qualitatively and neurologically different to that of an atheist being told that an angry dragon is coming to despatch him. This has to be since atheists are more agnostic toward God than dragons in whom disbelief is certain. Neurology is making great strides you know.
-
You do talk a load of shit sometimes, Vlad.
-
That's not evidence, that's wishful thinking.
No it is a possible explanation for the neurological disturbance caused by reception by an atheist of the word God. Do you have a better one or do we merely have to be satisfied by your customary assertion plus aggression?
-
Yes based entirely on the revelation of itself.
You previously said.
For example the existence of the 4o foot truck coming towards me does not depend on any methodology but by empirical and instrumental detection
The empirical and instrumental detection is the methodology.
In terms of being told that God is coming down the road, the response of an atheist is qualitatively and neurologically different to that of an atheist being told that an angry dragon is coming to despatch him. This has to be since atheists are more agnostic toward God than dragons in whom disbelief is certain. Neurology is making great strides you know.
Are you sure you didn't make some typos in there? It makes no sense at all.
-
You do talk a load of shit sometimes, Vlad.
Is that all you've got?
-
Is that all you've got?
Sometimes it's all that needs to be said. Any more and you might think you had something to say worth the argument.
-
A few category errors here. Matter is not determined methodologically.
That rather depends on what 'determined methodologically' means in Vladdish - perhaps you'd explain.
For example the existence of the 4o foot truck coming towards me does not depend on any methodology but by empirical and instrumental detection.
Which implies a methodology: silly you!
Matter has if you like revealed itself.
Or is just there and we have worked out how to detect it.
The latest methodology craze amongst your community is a craze.
We are just asking reasonable questions but it seems that you guys have no reasonable answers.
Our scripture suggests that God reveals himself and is not winkled out by science.
Even if it does I doubt that its writers were all that well-versed in what we now refer to as 'science', so their views are only relevant in terms of cultural history.
The bible ends with an ultimate act of self revelation which will be self evident to all.
Every week 'Oor Wullie' ends up sitting on an upturned bucket.
http://tinyurl.com/j3kqj5h
-
You previously said.
The empirical and instrumental detection is the methodology.
I think that is both wrong and unfortunate
A: because it could be argued that in terms of detecting God we have a sense that detects God and/ or we are an instrument. Any argument that we don't all detect God can be rebuffed by God choosing who he reveals himself to or by a failure of detection ability or function which suggests repair by the engineer......I.e God.
B; because detection or observation is but part of the methodology we allude to and not a methodology itself.
-
That rather depends on what 'determined methodologically' means in Vladdish - perhaps you'd explain.
Which implies a methodology: silly you!
Or is just there and we have worked out how to detect it.
We are just asking reasonable questions but it seems that you guys have no reasonable answers.
Even if it does I doubt that its writers were all that well-versed in what we now refer to as 'science', so their views are only relevant in terms of cultural history.
Every week 'Oor Wullie' ends up sitting on an upturned bucket.
http://tinyurl.com/j3kqj5h
Detection by itself is not a methodology sorry to piss on your bonfire.
-
That rather depends on what 'determined methodologically' means in Vladdish - perhaps you'd explain.
Which implies a methodology: silly you!
Or is just there and we have worked out how to detect it.
We are just asking reasonable questions but it seems that you guys have no reasonable answers.
Even if it does I doubt that its writers were all that well-versed in what we now refer to as 'science', so their views are only relevant in terms of cultural history.
Every week 'Oor Wullie' ends up sitting on an upturned bucket.
http://tinyurl.com/j3kqj5h
Science doesn't do God Gordon.
-
Detection by itself is not a methodology sorry to piss on your bonfire.
So, having established how thermometers work as a reliable measure of temperature, sticking one into liquid so see if it is hot or not isn't a methodology?
I suppose you could stick some of your fingers in, although in your case, Vlad, only after you've removed them from your ears - but I'd go for the thermometer as the tried and tested, and also safer, method.
-
Science doesn't do God Gordon.
So, do you have a reliable alternative method?
-
A: because it could be argued that in terms of detecting God we have a sense that detects God and/ or we are an instrument. Any argument that we don't all detect God can be rebuffed by God choosing who he reveals himself to or by a failure of detection ability...
Unfortunately this could be argued, not only for all the numerous and mutually contradictory ideas of god (and gods) but also for any other imaginary friend or fairies or aliens or tree spirits or...
-
I think it was Gonnagle last Sunday who pointed out that atheists experienced being disturbed by God. That is evidence of God
This atheist has never been disturbed by any gods - just the idea of gods being taken seriously.
-
So, do you have a reliable alternative method?
Ah so when you guys talk about methodology you are talking about science the and any of your appeals for any methodology not necessarily science are in fact.........humbug.
....thought so.
Science doesn't do God and its raising in matters of God are non sequitur.
You are parading the turd that will not be polished again namely trying to subtlety link science with your beliefs.
I'm afraid it is hard to curl shit into a donut let alone forging a solid chain.
-
A: because it could be argued that in terms of detecting God we have a sense that detects God and/ or we are an instrument.
Well argue it then: assertion isn't argument.
Any argument that we don't all detect God can be rebuffed by God choosing who he reveals himself to or by a failure of detection ability or function which suggests repair by the engineer......I.e God.
Get rebuffing (sic) then, but be careful your straw doesn't catch fire.
B; because detection or observation is but part of the methodology we allude to and not a methodology itself.
Non sequitur, Vlad, and it does rather seem you are trying to redefine methodology by removing some the 'method' aspects - that just leaves you with the 'ology' bit, which doesn't seem like a sensible move on your part.
-
Science doesn't do God Gordon.
So why then are you attempting to do just that? You've made a leap from an apparent response in the brain of atheists detected on a scan to that being evidence not only of them fearing God but of there being a god to be feared.
Of course I'm not into mind reading in the way that you appear to be but you do seem increasingly desperate to shore up your beliefs with science, even at the expense of your own understanding. It smacks of insecurity.
-
Ah so when you guys talk about methodology you are talking about science the and any of your appeals for any methodology not necessarily science are in fact.........humbug.
....thought so.
Then, as usual, you'd be wrong - we've been asking you guys for an alternative to science: a method suitable for your non-natural claims - but you all seem to be in full wriggling mode.
Science doesn't do God and its raising in matters of God are non sequitur.
You are parading the turd that will not be polished again namely trying to subtlety link science with your beliefs.
I'm afraid it is hard to curl shit into a donut let alone forging a solid chain.
I guess we should give you credit for inventing 'turdology', Vlad: you are its expert exponent for sure.
-
Unfortunately this could be argued, not only for all the numerous and mutually contradictory ideas of god (and gods) but also for any other imaginary friend or fairies or aliens or tree spirits or...
Are you on the pagan site slagging them of for belief in tree spirits.
If not it is a fact that you find the Christian God disturbing in a way that you don't with others.
Given what you say about you only being disturbed by other people believing things what is special about Christianity.
I have said that atheists are more certain of their disbelief in fairies than God. Any appeal to fairies in an argument about God must be ridicule rather than equation.
-
So why then are you attempting to do just that? You've made a leap from an apparent response in the brain of atheists detected on a scan to that being evidence not only of them fearing God but of there being a god to be feared.
Of course I'm not into mind reading in the way that you appear to be but you do seem increasingly desperate to shore up your beliefs with science, even at the expense of your own understanding. It smacks of insecurity.
I am doing methodology Rhiannon not science since science cannot produce God.
No leaps have been made. Adverse reactions to the idea of God are apparent and this is neurologically evident.
That science doesn't do God doesn't stop me from sifting what is self revealed and that dear boy IS a method.
-
Well argue it then: assertion isn't argument
No it's a counter argument to that old atheist favourite God isn't obvious to all or as I believe there is antitheist keech doing the rounds about the hidden ness of God.
Wrong again Gordon
You'll have to raise your game I'm afraid.
-
If not it is a fact that you find the Christian God disturbing in a way that you don't with others.
No; it's that belief in the Christian gods (for there are many versions) is what I encounter most in the UK. It's also the religion that I know most about because of my upbringing.
I have said that atheists are more certain of their disbelief in fairies than God. Any appeal to fairies in an argument about God must be ridicule rather than equation.
No; I consider them equally without evidence and therefore equally unlikely. I chose the other examples because I didn't think a theist would be likely to take them seriously. The fact remains that your 'logic' can be applied equally well to both contradictory ideas and to many others that you don't take seriously - it is therefore flawed.
-
I am doing methodology...
I haven't seen one.
science cannot produce God.
Who said science could produce god? You're waffling.
No leaps have been made.
...just baseless assertions.
Adverse reactions to the idea of God are apparent and this is neurologically evident.
What are you talking about? By "neurologically evident", you mean people tell you they have a reaction to the idea of god?
That science doesn't do God doesn't stop me from sifting what is self revealed and that dear boy IS a method.
Asserting that god is "self revealed" is not a method - it's just an assertion.
-
I think that is both wrong and unfortunate
A: because it could be argued that in terms of detecting God we have a sense that detects God and/ or we are an instrument. Any argument that we don't all detect God can be rebuffed by God choosing who he reveals himself to or by a failure of detection ability or function which suggests repair by the engineer......I.e God.
B; because detection or observation is but part of the methodology we allude to and not a methodology itself.
You misquote me here. Why?
My previous reply was to your 40 foot truck analogy. I think you accept that there is a methodology available to determine if the claim of an approaching 40 foot truck is true. Do you not?
It is a very odd thing to say that the truck has revealed itself to us. Surely it's simply that we can determine if a 40 truck is there or not.
You then go on to talk about God and that we (well some people anyway) can detect it. Well how? How do you know that it is God that you are detecting?
-
No it's a counter argument to that old atheist favourite God isn't obvious to all or as I believe there is antitheist keech doing the rounds about the hidden ness of God.
Wrong again Gordon
You'll have to raise your game I'm afraid.
No, Vlad, it is just more assertion on your part, alongside your army of straw men.
-
I am doing methodology Rhiannon not science since science cannot produce God.
No leaps have been made. Adverse reactions to the idea of God are apparent and this is neurologically evident.
That science doesn't do God doesn't stop me from sifting what is self revealed and that dear boy IS a method.
You are not doing any kind of methodology. You need to show how you get from adverse reactions to the idea of God existing to God actually existing.
Self revealed vs delusional, how to tell the difference?
-
No; it's that belief in the Christian gods (for there are many versions) is what I encounter most in the UK. It's also the religion that I know most about because of my upbringing.
No; I consider them equally without evidence and therefore equally unlikely. I chose the other examples because I didn't think a theist would be likely to take them seriously. The fact remains that your 'logic' can be applied equally well to both contradictory ideas and to many others that you don't take seriously - it is therefore flawed.
but we cannot ignore your antipathy towards one particular formulation of God.
That seems irrational to me.
That you cite the reason of familiarity also seems a bit odd given that anybody with half an education should either know or be able to find out about other formulations.
I'm afraid you are saddled with merely being agnostic about God with a more marked disbelief in fairies aliens and tree spirits and I know that because you are talking to me.
-
You misquote me here. Why?
My previous reply was to your 40 foot truck analogy. I think you accept that there is a methodology available to determine if the claim of an approaching 40 foot truck is true. Do you not?
It is a very odd thing to say that the truck has revealed itself to us. Surely it's simply that we can determine if a 40 truck is there or not.
You then go on to talk about God and that we (well some people anyway) can detect it. Well how? How do you know that it is God that you are detecting?
The only odd thing here is a suggestion that a methodology is needed to establish a forty foot truck is there. It isn't and we have already satisfied ourselves though not universally....what about the blind?, that it is there.
Methodology does not conjur it into existence.
-
A: because it could be argued that in terms of detecting God we have a sense that detects God and/ or we are an instrument.
Oh deary me - we're not heading down the road of the sensus divinitatis bullshit beloved of William Lane Craig are we Vlad?
Any argument that we don't all detect God can be rebuffed by God choosing who he reveals himself to or by a failure of detection ability or function which suggests repair by the engineer......I.e God.
No, it can't be rebuffed at all. Why? Easy. Because it's a monumental exercise in question begging (in the true sense of the phrase; circular reasoning or petitio principii if you prefer) in that it's assuming the existence of a god without demonstration or methodology and then conjuring feeble, entirely ad hoc excuses out of thin air as to why some people don't have that alleged entity revealed to them by the entity whose existence hasn't been established in the first place.
A god stands in need of demonstration to be taken seriously as a viable part of the discussion, not merely assumed and everything proceeding from thereon.
-
You are not doing any kind of methodology. You need to show how you get from adverse reactions to the idea of God existing to God actually existing.
Self revealed vs delusional, how to tell the difference?
There is a problem here with you using the word delusional here since a delusion usually refers to people thinking that something is in fact something else.
With the so called God delusion a situation is being proposed where an absolute non existent is being mistaken for the ultimate in existence.
In other words it bears no resemblance to any medical or day to day usage of the word delusion.
And besides on that great day when the God Delusion went onto the bookshelves
I don't think any of you guys stopped to ask the question.....delusion ........or self revelation.
-
I'm afraid you are saddled with merely being agnostic about God with a more marked disbelief in fairies aliens and tree spirits and I know that because you are talking to me.
Your 'logic' about me seems every bit as flawed as your 'logic' about god...
-
You are not doing any kind of methodology. You need to show how you get from adverse reactions to the idea of God existing to God actually existing.
Neurology is making great strides etc. ha ha ha.......
-
I've never read the God Delusion, Vlad, or any other books on atheism. Not one. It's personal experience that makes 'God does not exist' real for me. Of course if God could be demonstrated I'd have a bit of a problem, but as it is...
-
The only odd thing here is a suggestion that a methodology is needed to establish a forty foot truck is there. It isn't and we have already satisfied ourselves though not universally....what about the blind?, that it is there.
Methodology does not conjur it into existence.
I'll take the latter bit first. I have already said that methodology does not conjure it into existence, so stop misrepresenting me.
You picked the 40 foot truck example. I didn't say we needed any particular methodology to determine it just that there obviously was one. I think you regret this example now because you are undermining your own position.
Claim = 40 foot truck: Methodology: Many simple ones available.
Claim = God, creator of Universe: Methodology : Vlad says so. He experiences it so it must be true.
-
Neurology is making great strides etc. ha ha ha.......
Science doesn't do God though. Isn't that what you said?
-
And besides on that great day when the God Delusion went onto the bookshelves
I don't think any of you guys stopped to ask the question.....delusion ........or self revelation.
You still haven't said how you tell the difference...
You really don't have anything but unsupported assertions, do you?
-
There is a problem here with you using the word delusional here since a delusion usually refers to people thinking that something is in fact something else.
Yes, the experience in your head being caused by God.
-
Neurology is making great strides etc. ha ha ha.......
I beg your pardon, are you quoting me?
-
You still haven't said how you tell the difference...
yep I have stated that the word ''delusion'' has a definition which is different to ''God delusion'' which would be more akin to ''ontological naturalism delusion'' in which the so called atheist puts aside his manifest disturbance by God and pretends to a commitment to full blown ontological naturalism.
Whenever I ask which other delusion atheists equate delusion of God to, they are quite unforthcoming......perhaps I will have more luck with you.
-
Yes, the experience in your head being caused by God.
............rather than?
-
Science doesn't do God though. Isn't that what you said?
Did you not notice the ha ha ha.
On the other hand......... if the same centres are found to operate in revulsion to God as say rebellion against adult authority? Hmmmm Interesting.
-
I'll take the latter bit first. I have already said that methodology does not conjure it into existence, so stop misrepresenting me.
You picked the 40 foot truck example. I didn't say we needed any particular methodology to determine it just that there obviously was one. I think you regret this example now because you are undermining your own position.
Claim = 40 foot truck: Methodology: Many simple ones available.
Claim = God, creator of Universe: Methodology : Vlad says so. He experiences it so it must be true.
To be fair the last sentence misrepresents me. I have always been at great pains to say you have to find God for yourself but I suppose you are new to this board.
Besides we are analysing antipathy to God here.
-
Besides we are analysing antipathy to God here.
... which doesn't seem to exist anywhere but in what I'm sure you like to think of as your mind.
-
yep I have stated that the word ''delusion'' has a definition which is different to ''God delusion'' which would be more akin to ''ontological naturalism delusion'' in which the so called atheist puts aside his manifest disturbance by God and pretends to a commitment to full blown ontological naturalism.
Whenever I ask which other delusion atheists equate delusion of God to, they are quite unforthcoming......perhaps I will have more luck with you.
According the the Oxford Dictionaries site, delusion means An idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
That seems to cover many versions of god.
How do you propose we equate delusions?
You still haven't told us about how we could assess the truth of claims about gods....
-
Besides we are analysing antipathy to God here.
We are? You maybe would prefer that to actually coming up with any reasoning, evidence or methodology for assessing the truth of claims of the existence of gods.
-
According the the Oxford Dictionaries site, delusion means An idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
Cant be a delusion then since any definition of reality is an ontological philosophy and rational argument has not dismissed God.
How can something though held by the majority of people in the world be labelled as a mental disorder I don't know.......(Note for dumbasses ....that is different from an argumentum ad populum.)
-
To be fair the last sentence misrepresents me. I have always been at great pains to say you have to find God for yourself but I suppose you are new to this board.
Besides we are analysing antipathy to God here.
Since when are we?
I don't have any antipathy to God as I have no reason to believe he exists.
As for finding God for ourselves, how would we know that we had found God rather than simply being mistaken?
-
How can something though held by the majority of people in the world be labelled as a mental disorder I don't know.......(Note for dumbasses ....that is different from an argumentum ad populum.)
Explain the difference between the two, by all means.
-
... which doesn't seem to exist anywhere but in what I'm sure you like to think of as your mind.
I see then Shaker that like me you never really bother with Floo's posts.
-
............rather than?
you mistakenly attributing an experience of God for early having an experience of God.
-
you mistakenly attributing an experience of God for early having an experience of God.
How could I be I mistaking it?
-
.
Whenever I ask which other delusion atheists equate delusion of God to, they are quite unforthcoming......perhaps I will have more luck with you.
Maybe because the question doesn't make any sense? What do you mean by equating delusions?
-
Explain the difference between the two, by all means.
Yes, usually something common to the majority is not referred to as a disorder Shaker.
It may be considered so in that tiny community known as antitheism but statistically they are not normal themselves...are you?
-
Maybe because the question doesn't make any sense? What do you mean by equating delusions?
The question is asking for an exemplar delusion. That is surely a simple and reasonable request.
-
How could I be I mistaking it?
Well firstly you are shifting the burden of proof. It's your claim that this experience is God, it's up to you to show how you know it?
You would need to tell me the specific details of the experience.
-
Yes, usually something common to the majority is not referred to as a disorder Shaker.
Why not?
-
Cant be a delusion then since any definition of reality is an ontological philosophy and rational argument has not dismissed God.
I said it covered many versions of god.
How can something though held by the majority of people in the world be labelled as a mental disorder I don't know.......(Note for dumbasses ....that is different from an argumentum ad populum.)
First, the definition said typically.
Second, there is no god that is believed in by the majority of people in the world. Whatever god you believe in, most people think you are wrong.
-
The question is asking for an exemplar delusion. That is surely a simple and reasonable request.
This is descending into blatant distraction tactics.
How do we assess the truth of claims of the existence of gods? Do you have an answer or not?
-
Well firstly you are shifting the burden of proof. It's your claim that this experience is God, it's up to you to show how you know it?
Yeh, or I can just relate my experience.
Still....if we're on the subject of claims,Delusion is suggested and mental illness too........go ahead.
Besides why are you guys upset, particularly, at the idea of God?
-
This is descending into blatant distraction tactics.
How do we assess the truth of claims of the existence of gods? Do you have an answer or not?
Sometimes the answer only comes after investigation.
How are you getting on with assessing the truth claims of an atheistic ontology?
-
Besides why are you guys upset, particularly, at the idea of God?
Nobody is.
-
Yeh, or I can just relate my experience.
Still....if we're on the subject of claims,Delusion is suggested and mental illness too........go ahead.
Besides why are you guys upset, particularly, at the idea of God?
You can certainly relate your experience, but it would just be that. That's not a method for showing the objectivity of God.
I didn't claim you were deluded, I suggest that it was a possibility.
You really really don't get the burden of proof do you. It's not us that have to show that's it's not God you are experiencing you need to show that it is.
I'm not upset.
-
How are you getting on with assessing the truth claims of an atheistic ontology?
What are you asking here? How the could be anything in the absence of God?
-
This is descending into blatant distraction tactics.
Stop blatantly distracting then.
Disturbance by the idea of the Christian god is evidence that there is possibly a God as described by said faith.
If you disagree explain your grounds in a way that proves Hope's criticism of your arguments wrong.
-
Sometimes the answer only comes after investigation.
How are you getting on with assessing the truth claims of an atheistic ontology?
The only truth atheism claims is that there is insufficient reason to believe in any gods. Something you are demonstrating admirably...
-
Disturbance by the idea of the Christian god is evidence that there is possibly a God as described by said faith.
That simply does not follow.
-
Disturbance by the idea of the Christian god is evidence that there is possibly a God as described by said faith.
As well as being a colossal non sequitur (as already pointed out by Stephen), you keep asserting that some mythical people are "disturbed" or "upset" by the idea of a god, yet are unable to demonstrate this. Says it all, really.
Does repeating shit time after time amount to evidence in VladWorld?
-
What are you asking here? How the could be anything in the absence of God?
No.......... show how we assess the totality of reality is natural in the commonly held sense.
-
The only truth atheism claims is that there is insufficient reason to believe in any gods. Something you are demonstrating admirably...
Since that is a claim feel free to demonstrate the truth of it.
-
No.......... show how we assess the totality of reality is natural in the commonly held sense.
I've never claimed it is.
Simply that there is a natural world around us. I'll accept the non-natural elements when someone gives me some specific examples and accompanying methodology.
-
As well as being a colossal non sequitur (as already pointed out by Stephen), you keep asserting that some mythical people are "disturbed" or "upset" by the idea of a god, yet are unable to demonstrate this. Says it all, really.
Does repeating shit time after time amount to evidence in VladWorld?
No, disturbance is manifest by contribution to this forum and the nature of that contribution. That particular focus is shown towards God as opposed to fairies, tree dwellers, paganism etc is also manifest.
You are thus seriously in denial. Not only do you not see the elephant but are refusing to see the room as well.
-
I've never claimed it is.
Then there shouldn't be a problem with theism then.
-
Then there shouldn't be a problem with theism then.
Are you incapable of reading plain English. I have said that I do not rule out the possibility of non-natural things arbitrarily it's just I have no reason to accept them until such evidence is forthcoming (and no that is not an insistence on scientific evidence before you start).
-
No, disturbance is manifest by contribution to this forum and the nature of that contribution.
The nature of the contribution to this forum is that many of those making that contribution have an intense dislike of sloppy thinking, poor reasoning and bad arguments, and say so.
That particular focus is shown towards God as opposed to fairies, tree dwellers, paganism etc is also manifest.
The forum is called Religion and Ethics so God would naturally be the focus rather than fairies; but the more pertinent reason is that people who believe in a god try to affect the daily lives of the population using said belief as a justification - the most recent example that springs to mind was the attempt of god-believers to prevent same-sex couples from marrying in a civil, secular ceremony (i.e. an action by god-believers attempting to prevent people from engaging in an activity which had nothing whatever to do with them), but there are many more. That deserves to be fought against wherever and whenever it arises.
You are thus seriously in denial. Not only do you not see the elephant but are refusing to see the room as well.
Prove it.
-
The nature of the contribution to this forum is that many of those making that contribution have an intense dislike of sloppy thinking, poor reasoning and bad arguments, and say so.
The forum is called Religion and Ethics so God would naturally be the focus rather than fairies; but the more pertinent reason is that people who believe in a god try to affect the daily lives of the population using said belief as a justification - the most recent example that springs to mind was the attempt of god-believers to prevent same-sex couples from marrying in a civil, secular ceremony (i.e. an action by god-believers attempting to prevent people from engaging in an activity which had nothing whatever to do with them), but there are many more. That deserves to be fought against wherever and whenever it arises.
Prove it.
I was just going to reply but I can't improve on that.
-
Are you incapable of reading plain English. I have said that I do not rule out the possibility of non-natural things arbitrarily it's just I have no reason to accept them until such evidence is forthcoming (and no that is not an insistence on scientific evidence before you start).
I'm sorry but that's just a fancy way of saying you do hold an ontological position on which your criterion for evidence is based......
.........Hope scoops the pool.
-
.........Hope scoops the pool.
The bottom of it, certainly.
-
I'm sorry but that's just a fancy way of saying you do hold an ontological position on which your criterion for evidence is based......
.........Hope scoops the pool.
No it's not a fancy way of saying anything. It is very simple. I DO NOT SAY THAT THE NATURAL IS ALL THAT CAN BE. Jesus wept.
-
The bottom of it, certainly.
He's got your number.
Number two ha ha ha.
-
He's got your number.
Number two ha ha ha.
Hope wouldn't have somebody's number if they handed him a card with a number on it and said "That's my number."
-
Hope wouldn't have somebody's number if they handed him a card with a number on it and said "That's my number."
We know by the brown thumb print on yours where to get a Turd Polisher in an emergency :)
-
Are you incapable of reading plain English. I have said that I do not rule out the possibility of non-natural things arbitrarily it's just I have no reason to accept them until such evidence is forthcoming (and no that is not an insistence on scientific evidence before you start).
I'm sorry but that's just a fancy way of saying you do hold an ontological position on which your criterion for evidence is based......
.........Hope scoops the pool.
Amazing. You really are incapable of understanding plain English.
-
I'm sorry but that's just a fancy way of saying you do hold an ontological position on which your criterion for evidence is based......
.........Hope scoops the pool.
Amazing. You really are incapable of understanding plain English.
sorry? what?
-
The nature of the contribution to this forum is that many of those making that contribution have an intense dislike of sloppy thinking, poor reasoning and bad arguments,
Funny that never stops them from posting though.
-
Funny that never stops them from posting though.
It certainly doesn't stop you that is for sure. ;D
-
Funny that never stops them from posting though.
Anyway maybe you could get back to demonstrating your methodology. SO far this is my favourite.
Disturbance by the idea of the Christian god is evidence that there is possibly a God as described by said faith.
Any chance of showing why that follows.
-
Anyway maybe you could get back to demonstrating your methodology. SO far this is my favourite.
Any chance of showing why that follows.
Getting a little ahead of ourselves - firstly Vlad has to back up his assertion that anybody is "disturbed" or "upset" by the idea of a god, which he has never done. His example of the contributions to this forum (by his mythical "anti-theists") fails because because people (or at least some of them, at any rate) contribute for the reasons outlined in #192.
-
Getting a little ahead of ourselves - firstly Vlad has to back up his assertion that anybody is "disturbed" or "upset" by the idea of a god, which he has never done. His example of the contributions to this forum (by his mythical "anti-theists") fails because because people (or at least some of them, at any rate) contribute for the reasons outlined in #192.
I know but even if they were. I mean, wow, non sequitur of the year surely.
-
The nature of the contribution to this forum is that many of those making that contribution have an intense dislike of sloppy thinking, poor reasoning and bad arguments, and say so.
The forum is called Religion and Ethics so God would naturally be the focus rather than fairies; but the more pertinent reason is that people who believe in a god try to affect the daily lives of the population using said belief as a justification - the most recent example that springs to mind was the attempt of god-believers to prevent same-sex couples from marrying in a civil, secular ceremony (i.e. an action by god-believers attempting to prevent people from engaging in an activity which had nothing whatever to do with them), but there are many more. That deserves to be fought against wherever and whenever it arises.
Prove it.
What a litany of cobblers.
Posting statements on God is a fulltime pastime here. Even if people believed they were in the van at challenging faulty thinking to alight on God in a complete world of faulty thinking is both focussed and unreasonable particularly when accompanied by an evaporation of common decency toward others. It smacks of ''religion as the root of all evil'' thinking, and even Dawkins gave that line up as a bad job.
To the rest of us what we see is people using ontological naturalistic arguments and denying they are doing so.
In terms of the rest not all opponents to gay marriage are religious or even heterosexual, and antitheists and pagans have ignored any claims from different sex couples who want civil partnership on this board and have completely ignored reasonable questions over assisted suicide and workers rights. But to conflate those people with atheists as you conflate certain views with all Christians is a bit slipshod.
Your chief issue forum antitheists is that you are not very skilful with categories or even with diddling the boundaries thereof.
-
Anyway maybe you could get back to demonstrating your methodology. SO far this is my favourite.
Any chance of showing why that follows.
Its one of the possibilities Stephen. The only possible disqualification is to assume ontological naturalism.
-
Its one of the possibilities Stephen. The only possible disqualification is to assume ontological naturalism.
It is not up to anyone to disqualify it. You need to demonstrate it. Why is this so hard for you to grasp.
-
To the rest of us what we see is people using ontological naturalistic arguments and denying they are doing so.
Show me where I have made an ontological naturalistic argument.
For the last time I have never said that the natural is all that can be. However, that doesn't mean that I automatically accept claims of the non-natural source.
-
It is not up to anyone to disqualify it. You need to demonstrate it. Why is this so hard for you to grasp.
I think logic dictates it is a possibility which is all I am claiming.
Since the logic of antitheists merely disliking sloppy thinking is exposable as not sound we are still posed with the question, why are people particularly upset by the claims of Christianity and express it in a particular way and this is demonstrable in their writings and behaviour and, by extension, neurologically.
That should be a question all reasonable people should ponder and not whitewash as you and others seem to be doing.
-
Show me where I have made an ontological naturalistic argument.
For the last time I have never said that the natural is all that can be. However, that does mean that I automatically accept claims of the non-natural source.
It's implicit in your definition of evidence which.... you keep failing to see....
is rooted in ontological naturalistic assumptions.
I refer you to Hope's earlier post.
-
What a litany of cobblers.
Posting statements on God is a fulltime pastime here.
On a forum called Religion and Ethics I would expect it to be.
On the BBC Good Food forum, not so much.
Even if people believed they were in the van at challenging faulty thinking to alight on God in a complete world of faulty thinking is both focussed and unreasonable particularly when accompanied by an evaporation of common decency toward others.
Name a larger, more widespread or more pernicious form of faulty thinking.
It smacks of ''religion as the root of all evil'' thinking, and even Dawkins gave that line up as a bad job.
No it doesn't. It's the root of quite a lot of evil and a great deal of pettiness, ugliness and sheer silliness that makes the everyday lives of people unhappier than would otherwise be the case.
In terms of the rest not all opponents to gay marriage are religious or even heterosexual
Straw man - I never claimed that that was the case. But the most consistent, most vocal and most organised opposition to marriage equality came from religious quarters. See also abortion and assisted suicide - opposition not universally religious; opposition overwhelmingly religious. I read the comments of a number of gay people who were against same-sex marriage, but on the basis that it was of no interest to them and/or superfluous rather than that they were set upon denying others the ability to do what they had no desire to do, which was certainly the case with the Church of England, the Catholic Church, Orthodox Judaism, the Muslim Council of Britain ...
-
Its one of the possibilities Stephen. The only possible disqualification is to assume ontological naturalism.
If a concept of god is not self-contradictory (which many are), of course it's a possibility. We don't need all the drivel you've been posting to tell us that.
The question is how do we tell if one one of these gods exist.
-
I think logic dictates it is a possibility which is all I am claiming.
I'm not sure that logic does dictate it. As for a claim though that is fair enough. All you need to do is to show it is more than a possibility if you want your objective claims to be taken seriously.
Since the logic of antitheists merely disliking sloppy thinking is exposable as not sound
You have all your work ahead of you to show why.
we are still posed with the question, why are people particularly upset by the claims of Christianity and express it in a particular way and this is demonstrable in their writings and behaviour and, by extension, neurologically.
That should be a question all reasonable people should ponder and not whitewash as you and others seem to be doing.
I'm not whitewashing anything. I am passionate about lot's of things in life, but what would expect me to argue against on a Christian thread on an R&E board?
-
It's implicit in your definition of evidence which.... you keep failing to see....
is rooted in ontological naturalistic assumptions.
I refer you to Hope's earlier post.
I have specifically stated that it is up to Hope and yourself to provide a methodology. Show me where I have ontological naturalistic assumptions.
I would suggest that the more likely reality is that you simply have no methodology and you try to shift the burden on to me by claiming I am an ontological naturalist,
-
Thank you that is clear.
You would have to ask Rose.
I think that when you are walking down the street and people start telling you that you are in need of salvation, that you are a sinner, deficient in some way then some people are going to feel awkward. Trying to make people feel small and inadequate, when they are just going about their day to day business is classic bullying.
Yes, some of them do that, grab people and treat them as if sin is something only non Christians do.
Some Christians think they are unstained by sin, because they have accepted Jesus
Unfortunately I think a high proportion of street preachers are mentally ill.
-
On a forum called Religion and Ethics I would expect it to be.
On the BBC Good Food forum, not so much.Name a larger, more widespread or more pernicious form of faulty thinking. No it doesn't. It's the root of quite a lot of evil and a great deal of pettiness, ugliness and sheer silliness that makes the everyday lives of people unhappier than would otherwise be the case.
Straw man - I never claimed that that was the case. But the most consistent, most vocal and most organised opposition to marriage equality came from religious quarters. See also abortion and assisted suicide - opposition not universally religious; opposition overwhelmingly religious. I read the comments of a number of gay people who were against same-sex marriage, but on the basis that it was of no interest to them and/or superfluous rather than that they were set upon denying others the ability to do what they had no desire to do, which was certainly the case with the Church of England, the Catholic Church, Orthodox Judaism, the Muslim Council of Britain ...
Yes this is the religionethics forum but it's not that is it........it's the time people spend here railing and raging against God.
The biggest evil is of course the love of money but I can well believe that many unlike Dawkins believe that religion is the greatest evil.
And as for secularism let us not forget that the biggest sink of offence and offenders is yes, you've guessed it, the general population.....and what do you think that means in a frankly humanist and secular nation Shaker?
Most of the laws which you perceive as being progressive were in fact drafted in by a minority in the context of a nation, including the majority who couldn't have given a shit one way or another...But then we have to put that in the context of your motives for supporting them.
-
I have specifically stated that it is up to Hope and yourself to provide a methodology. Show me where I have ontological naturalistic assumptions.
I would suggest that the more likely reality is that you simply have no methodology and you try to shift the burden on to me by claiming I am an ontological naturalist,
No you have a burden given from where you are arguing from and technically I have a burden however, As Hope says, our interpretation of evidence does not equate with yours and we have acknowledged that.
In fact we frequently and possibly unnecessarily make an admission that we have no proof for it.
You do not actually hold the default position nor are you without burden since ontological naturalism carries one. In fact it is worse for you because the lack of methodological support for your implicit position removes virtue from it.
I think you'll agree that given this you guys are playing with a few cards from a different pack.
Have a nice day.
-
No, disturbance is manifest by contribution to this forum and the nature of that contribution. That particular focus is shown towards God as opposed to fairies, tree dwellers, paganism etc is also manifest.
You are thus seriously in denial. Not only do you not see the elephant but are refusing to see the room as well.
Well, if you are right,then we can safely say that your contributions (just to this thread) suggest your disturbance, and the nature of your disturbance is particularly shown in relation to the idea of non belief in a god.
So, if, as you have already said, that "disturbance by the idea of the Christian god is evidence that there is possibly a God as described by said faith.", then the disturbance by the idea of non belief in a god is possibly evidence that there are possibly no gods at all, as professed by atheists. ;)
-
Well, if you are right,then we can safely say that your contributions (just to this thread) suggest your disturbance, and the nature of your disturbance is particularly shown in relation to the idea of non belief in a god.
So, if, as you have already said, that "disturbance by the idea of the Christian god is evidence that there is possibly a God as described by said faith.", then the disturbance by the idea of non belief in a god is possibly evidence that there are possibly no gods at all, as professed by atheists. ;)
Having experience non belief of God and belief of God I know that of the two God is the most disturbing idea. But I don't think I'm unique in that.
-
No you have a burden given from where you are arguing from
He's not arguing at all. You are claiming the existence of a certain entity. All we are saying is "OK, so show us your verifiable evidence".
That really is how simple it is.
Notice how I'm not using big words like "ontological" or "naturalistic". We just want you to tell us some fact that, if true, demonstrate the existence of your god and that we can verify for ourselves.
All this crap you are putting up is really just convincing us that you cannot do what we ask, which is fine, you are free to continue to believe in God anyway, but the crap smacks of dishonesty on your part because you cannot admit that your belief in God is based entirely on faith.
-
He's not arguing at all. You are claiming the existence of a certain entity. All we are saying is "OK, so show us your verifiable evidence".
well God is proposed not just as certain entity but in the same sense that the nature part of ontological naturalism. I believe the phrase ground of being and ultimate and necessary have been mentioned. He's not limited to some kind of big chap you know.
I think you are thinking of God as something contained and less than nature. You'd have to see someone else about something like that.
-
Yes this is the religionethics forum but it's not that is it........it's the time people spend here railing and raging against God.
I've yet to see anybody railing and raging against God. What seems to be at work here is that you're confusing this railing and raging business (which again seems to exist only inside your head) with the ability of many highly intelligent and thoughtful people here to dissect and dispense with poor reasoning and bad arguments - their ability to show up theistic arguments as very poor indeed and easily refutable. That's not "railing and raging"; that's using reason to expose sloppy thinking.
And as for secularism let us not forget that the biggest sink of offence and offenders is yes, you've guessed it, the general population.....and what do you think that means in a frankly humanist and secular nation Shaker?
I don't even know what your question means. What's a sink of offence and offenders when it's at home?
Most of the laws which you perceive as being progressive were in fact drafted in by a minority in the context of a nation
In the case of marriage equality, no - that had (and retains) majority public support. Numerous opinion polls supplied upon request. I don't know of the figures for abortion but I suspect that they're the same. And of course, we all know that there's overwhelming public support for some form of assisted suicide law - the opinion polls have never shown anything lower than 70-odd per cent support for decades and usually much more.
including the majority who couldn't have given a shit one way or another
A group which doesn't include that set of people actively and explicitly attempting to stop a particular measure, as religious bodies do with equal marriage, abortion, assisted suicide, etc.
...But then we have to put that in the context of your motives for supporting them.
Which are what?
-
well God is proposed not just as certain entity but in the same sense that the nature part of ontological naturalism. I believe the phrase ground of being and ultimate and necessary have been mentioned. He's not limited to some kind of big chap you know.
I think you are thinking of God as something contained and less than nature. You'd have to see someone else about something like that.
OK so show us your verifiable evidence that this god you propose exists.
-
well God is proposed not just as certain entity but in the same sense that the nature part of ontological naturalism. I believe the phrase ground of being and ultimate and necessary have been mentioned.
Ohhhhh you mean that sort of empty, meaningless verbiage.
-
He's not arguing at all. You are claiming the existence of a certain entity. All we are saying is "OK, so show us your verifiable evidence".
That really is how simple it is.
Notice how I'm not using big words like "ontological" or "naturalistic".
just because one didn't use the word shit...it doesn't mean one isn't full of it.
-
just because one didn't use the word shit...it doesn't mean one isn't full of it.
Well you just did use the word, so show us your verifiable evidence that your god exists.
-
Well you just did use the word, so show us your verifiable evidence that your god exists.
The peculiar reaction to the Gospel by many people of love or hatred of it is as I have said evidence of the possibility of God since it could be monitored neurologically.
The behaviours around the Gospel lift it above belief or otherwise of things like spaghetti monsters, purple unicorns, facts of science, etc.
-
Having experience non belief of God and belief of God I know that of the two God is the most disturbing idea. But I don't think I'm unique in that.
Actually, neither disturbs me in the slightest. But that wasn't the point though, was it? The point was that if you were siting disturbance at the Christian God as some sort of evidence for his existence, then the opposite, as in your case, must also logically apply for his non existence.
-
Actually, neither disturbs me in the slightest.
Really?, what brings you to these parts then since you have been affected enough by something to come to this forum?
-
Really?, what brings you to these parts then since you have been affected enough by something to come to this forum?
I thought you'd already been told, Vlad.
-
I thought you'd already been told, Vlad.
What by you?
You make a pronouncement and it's good for everyone?
Why aren't you on the Leprechaun forum?
-
What by you?
You make a pronouncement and it's good for everyone?
No, I'm just going by my experience of what others have said with regard to their reasons for coming here. Enki, for example, just yesterday, part of whose post I hope he won't mind my quoting:
I do however reserve the right to challenge any arguments that I consider suspect if I so wish, and also to challenge attitudes which consider one's beliefs to be factual or some sort of 'truth' applicable to others without either the necessary evidence, or, at the very least, some sort of intersubjective methodology which can arrive at that evidence. Also, some Christians, in particular, seem to be on a prosletysing kick which often involves so called arguments which are little more than assertions. These I am quite willing to challenge.
(http://goo.gl/z6BXZw)
Why aren't you on the Leprechaun forum?
I don't know of any, and wouldn't bother to give them much of my time if I did as leprechaun believers aren't highly organised politically (tied to the state, even), immensely wealthy and seeking to interfere in the everyday lives of ordinary people and the choices they wish to make with regard to their own happiness.
If they were, I would be.
-
No, I'm just going by my experience of what others have said with regard to their reasons for coming here. Enki, for example, just yesterday, part of whose post I hope he won't mind my quoting:
(http://goo.gl/z6BXZw)I don't know of any, and wouldn't bother to give them much of my time if I did as leprechaun believers aren't highly organised politically (tied to the state, even), immensely wealthy and seeking to interfere in the everyday lives of ordinary people and the choices they wish to make with regard to their own happiness.
Where does that happen then.
Aren't the immensely wealthy capable of influencing policy better than the CofE themselves.
The CofE has very little power. You need a reality check.
-
Vlad,
Like you I've been both sides of the fence. The most disturbing thing isn't belief or unbelief but the nagging thought that your beliefs might be wrong - once the doubts creep in they don't just evaporate and the more heavily invested you are in your faith the harder they are to ignore, hence the ever more desperate need to prove them to other people. It's not a very peaceful way of living. The elephant in the room isn't the fact that non-believers are denying god's existence, but the reason why you are so anxious to find evidence for it. Perhaps instead of making futile arguments attempting to prove the unprovable your time might be better spent facing where that anxious need to do so comes from.
-
Really?, what brings you to these parts then since you have been affected enough by something to come to this forum?
Interest. I've got all sorts of things I'm interested in. Need I go further? How about you?
I notice, with interest, that you don't make any comment on the rest of what I wrote in post 230. :)
-
Vlad,
Like you I've been both sides of the fence. The most disturbing thing isn't belief or unbelief but the nagging thought that your beliefs might be wrong - once the doubts creep in they don't just evaporate and the more heavily invested you are in your faith the harder they are to ignore, hence the ever more desperate need to prove them to other people. It's not a very peaceful way of living. The elephant in the room isn't the fact that non-believers are denying god's existence, but the reason why you are so anxious to find evidence for it. Perhaps instead of making futile arguments attempting to prove the unprovable your time might be better spent facing where that anxious need to do so comes from.
You got that wrong. I am not seeking spiritual answers from science... where are they going to come from? I've considered omega points where science and revelation coincide and dismissed them there is never going to be an intersect between methodology and ontology.
God needs to make himself manifest. We do see ripples and individuals bobbing up and down in the sea of something else though in how the Gospel affects people.
-
Where does that happen then.
I've already given you one example - marriage equality, where the established state church (and many other religious bodies, although some of the smaller ones were in full support) tried to block a proposal that didn't affect them or encroach on their territory in any way whatsoever. They were, in short, trying to sway the rules of a club they don't and don't want to belong to, which to me is pretty much the hallmark of selfish obtrusiveness and petty interference for the sake of it.
The CofE has very little power. You need a reality check.
The one needing a reality check seems to be you - the C of E is the established state church, immensely wealthy, with its fingers in all sorts of pies (including some distinctly unsavoury ones*) and owning vast amounts of land. It has bishops in the House of Lords as of right rather than merit attempting to influence the legislative process. If they have very little power, why are they still there?
* The Wonga scandal of 2013, for example.
-
You do not actually hold the default position nor are you without burden since ontological naturalism carries one. In fact it is worse for you because the lack of methodological support for your implicit position removes virtue from it.
I haven't argued for anything just asked why we should take your claims seriously.
-
Interest. I've got all sorts of things I'm interested in. Need I go further? How about you?
Well the obvious next question is why are you interested?
The reason I am here is that I am affected by God otherwise this is the last subject I would be into , in other words I probably wouldn't have given a toss about it.
I have to confess I enjoy the banter around here. Where else could one here one's place of worship referred to as a ''Left handed swivel shop'' for instance?
-
You got that wrong. I am not seeking spiritual answers from science... where are they going to come from?
I am not seeking spiritual answers from science either. Just a way of assessing claims of the divine.
I think that is called being open minded.
-
I haven't argued for anything just asked why we should take your claims seriously.
That makes it sound as though you come to it prepacked not to.
-
The peculiar reaction to the Gospel by many people of love or hatred of it is as I have said evidence of the possibility of God since it could be monitored neurologically.
Every idea that is self-consistent and is not contradicted by evidence, is a possibility. Whether some versions of god are possible is not, and never has been, the question.
There are endless baseless ideas that are possible - how do we decide which are correct? Science has done a good job at that but you say it isn't applicable to god - well, fine, but how do we then tell the difference between the merely possible and the truth? How do we tell baseless but consistent fictions from reality?
The behaviours around the Gospel lift it above belief or otherwise of things like spaghetti monsters, purple unicorns, facts of science, etc.
That will be because more people believe in gods than in those other things and the god ideas have more influence in societies. Gods seem to be the widest held baseless superstitions of them all...
-
That makes it sound as though you come to it prepacked not to.
Yes Vlad - it's called the burden of proof. Also scepticism. An idea has to win its place at the table by its internal coherence and consistency, the quantity and quality of its evidence, the strength of its methodology and so forth rather than going through on the nod and being accepted by default.
That way lies the insanity of believing absolutely everything capable of being believed - all of it, everything - by default until and unless there's explicit disconfirmatory evidence. I assume that that's not how you proceed in everyday life; some of us simply don't make a special exception and exemption for gods as you do.
-
Well the obvious next question is why are you interested?
The reason I am here is that I am affected by God otherwise this is the last subject I would be into , in other words I probably wouldn't have given a toss about it.
I have to confess I enjoy the banter around here. Where else could one here one's place of worship referred to as a ''Left handed swivel shop'' for instance?
I've always been interested in all sorts of things, music(playing and listening, ornithology, science(in the broadest sense), fossils(cue for a pun). I think it is part of my make up, a sort of innate curiosity. I also find the views of others interesting, including your own views, Vlad, from time to time, when I can decipher them.
Unlike you I have never been particularly personally affected by any god that I know of, but that still doesn't stop me being interested. I have visited temples such as karnak, Edfu, Hapshepsut etc. and found them fascinating, but I doubt that I have actually been affected by such gods as Hathor, to name but one. The only way your particular God has affected me is probably the cultural one that I grew up in.
Hope that answers your question.
-
You got that wrong. I am not seeking spiritual answers from science... where are they going to come from? I've considered omega points where science and revelation coincide and dismissed them there is never going to be an intersect between methodology and ontology.
God needs to make himself manifest. We do see ripples and individuals bobbing up and down in the sea of something else though in how the Gospel affects people.
I didn't mention science in my post.
Why the anxiety to prove to us what you cannot prove?
-
Well the obvious next question is why are you interested?
The reason I am here is that I am affected by God otherwise this is the last subject I would be into , in other words I probably wouldn't have given a toss about it.
I have to confess I enjoy the banter around here. Where else could one here one's place of worship referred to as a ''Left handed swivel shop'' for instance?
Translation - I am here as an God-Almighty Wind Up Merchant who posts damn great piles of bullshit and watches others try to make any kind of sense of the crap I write!
-
Translation - I am here as an God-Almighty Wind Up Merchant who posts damn great piles of bullshit and watches others try to make any kind of sense of the crap I write!
I have to agree with this analysis of your posts, Owl.
-
I am not seeking spiritual answers from science either. Just a way of assessing claims of the divine.
I think that is called being open minded.
Well, if that's the case, there is always personal experience, Stephen.
-
Well, if that's the case, there is always personal experience, Stephen.
Even though (as Richard Feynman put it) ourselves are the easiest people to fool?
-
Well, if that's the case, there is always personal experience, Stephen.
Which gives inconsistent answers (all the religions, cults, sects and denominations) and is therefore useless by itself.
-
Well, if that's the case, there is always personal experience, Stephen.
Personal experience of what?
I have experienced seeing huge lakes in the Sahara desert does it mean they were there?
-
That makes it sound as though you come to it prepacked not to.
Not just your claims of course. I apply to all claims regardless of their nature. Sounds a sensible way forwards to me.
-
The peculiar reaction to the Gospel by many people of love or hatred of it is as I have said evidence of the possibility of God since it could be monitored neurologically.
Do you realise that "possible" and "actually exists" are two different things?
The behaviours around the Gospel lift it above belief or otherwise of things like spaghetti monsters, purple unicorns, facts of science, etc.
So you are saying that because some people believe the gospel it must be true. Is that your best shot?
-
Another resurrected thread, great! "...verifiable evidence?" oh I love that.
"Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine." The Dicky Dawkins
I love that, cause he believes it with absolutely NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. That's right, not a shred of proof for the Dicky's SUPERHUMAN GOD-LIKE creatures. Interesting that his superhuman god-like aliens haven't found us. That doesn't bode well for all those Earthlings searching for the god-like ones.
However, what would really rock me, is if Shaker and ippy found the superhuman god-like ones and they introduced those two atheists to one that is not just god-like but actually God. But no, that's crazy, cause there is no verifiable evidence for God and an atheist only allows a total leap of faith when it has to do with Klingons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IazjpiQEw9Y
-
Another resurrected thread, great! "...verifiable evidence?" oh I love that.
"Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine." The Dicky Dawkins
I love that, cause he believes it with absolutely NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE.
"Very probably" is hardly a belief, is it now?
Unless you're going to claim that you believe that there is "very probably" a god. Do you think there "definitely" is or "very probably" is?
-
Another resurrected thread, great! "...verifiable evidence?" oh I love that.
"Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine." The Dicky Dawkins
I love that, cause he believes it with absolutely NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. That's right, not a shred of proof for the Dicky's SUPERHUMAN GOD-LIKE creatures. Interesting that his superhuman god-like aliens haven't found us. That doesn't bode well for all those Earthlings searching for the god-like ones.
However, what would really rock me, is if Shaker and ippy found the superhuman god-like ones and they introduced those two atheists to one that is not just god-like but actually God. But no, that's crazy, cause there is no verifiable evidence for God and an atheist only allows a total leap of faith when it has to do with Klingons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IazjpiQEw9Y
So, do you have any way to assess the truth of claims about god or not?
Talking about what somebody else believes is totally irrelevant.
-
Even though (as Richard Feynman put it) ourselves are the easiest people to fool?
Have you got a personal example of that or is it as usual something that only happens to other people?
-
Have you got a personal example of that or is it as usual something that only happens to other people?
I have.
See previous message on lakes in the Sahara.
-
I have to agree with this analysis of your posts, Owl.
Coming from someone who has the greatest difficulty answering a single question put to them, this comment is rich!
I have always answered questions about my beliefs honestly and fully and have accepted with a certain amout of ewquanimity the abuse heaped upon gthem by you, JC, Sassy et al and at least I am honest in that I can state that my beliefs are just that - beliefs based upon faith - you and you blind co-Christians insist that your beliefs are fact!
This, in the final analysis, is either a major exercise in self-delusion or a major attempt to delude those who disagree with you!
Do you really think that I give tinkers damn what you think of my posts - think again! Mainly, of course, because you and your co-religionists named above each tell blatant lies to the one person that no-one should lie to - namely - yourselves.
Until you can admith that your beliefs are FAITH not FACT you are fuller of bull-shit than a farmyard manure pile!
The way that you are happy to slate my beliefs but bleat unfair criticism and treatment when it is done to you is blatant cowardice of the first water.
Do you go to church on a Sunday and confess your sins of lying and pride etc? Because if you do not you should!
(Edited for typos)
-
Another resurrected thread, great! "...verifiable evidence?" oh I love that.
"Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine." The Dicky Dawkins
I love that, cause he believes it with absolutely NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. That's right, not a shred of proof for the Dicky's SUPERHUMAN GOD-LIKE creatures. Interesting that his superhuman god-like aliens haven't found us. That doesn't bode well for all those Earthlings searching for the god-like ones.
However, what would really rock me, is if Shaker and ippy found the superhuman god-like ones and they introduced those two atheists to one that is not just god-like but actually God. But no, that's crazy, cause there is no verifiable evidence for God and an atheist only allows a total leap of faith when it has to do with Klingons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IazjpiQEw9Y
It's a bit like thinking every Canadian male works with lumber, log rolling, in saw mill, singing the lumberjack song, always grows a beard, always wears a check shirt; wait a minute, we've got verifiable evidence of all those things.
Any more dispariging the honour of the Klingons I'll be drawing my cerimonial dagger and if you really annoy me I'll carve a rude word on one of your trees, so there.
ippy
-
Personal experience of what?
I have experienced seeing huge lakes in the Sahara desert does it mean they were there?
You mean the ones that can be scientifically explained? Mind you, I understand that such things can occur on very rare occasions (in the same way that dramatic rainstorms can occur very occasionally in such conditions)
-
You mean the ones that can be scientifically explained? Mind you, I understand that such things can occur on very rare occasions (in the same way that dramatic rainstorms can occur very occasionally in such conditions)
There aren't any huge lakes in the Sahara. That's the point.
-
You mean the ones that can be scientifically explained? Mind you, I understand that such things can occur on very rare occasions (in the same way that dramatic rainstorms can occur very occasionally in such conditions)
No, I mean I was in a Jeep driving across the Sahara and there was he most enormous lake to the East. I will swear on my life I saw a lake.
So you agree there was a lake then?
-
Ippy,
You're a nice guy, but chatting with you is like being alone. Cartoons have always bored me.
I doubt cartoons can get an education but here goes.
http://www.albertapcf.org/about-prairies/the-value-of-prairie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Ao-iNPPUc
-
Kind of,
"talking about what somebody else believes is totally irrelevant"
Well you just explained the irrelevance of your opinions. So you want to know what I believe cause? You don't want to talk about it? Too funny, now have a cookie.
-
No, I mean I was in a Jeep driving across the Sahara and there was he most enormous lake to the East. I will swear on my life I saw a lake.
So you agree there was a lake then?
Poor analogy since lakes exist. You are using an illusion of an existent to exemplify an illusion of a supposed non existent.
-
Poor analogy since lakes exist. You are using an illusion of an existent to exemplify an illusion of a supposed non existent.
Why don't we face a face palm emoticon?
-
No, I mean I was in a Jeep driving across the Sahara and there was he most enormous lake to the East. I will swear on my life I saw a lake.
So you agree there was a lake then?
A mirage perhaps? There are a lot of them in the Sahara
-
Why don't we face a face palm emoticon?
PLEEEEEAAAASSEEEE!
A Homer Simpson "D'oh!" perhaps?
-
Why don't we face a face palm emoticon?
You say that but there is a real category blunder being committed here.
-
Poor analogy since lakes exist.
Whereas gods don't exist. I see your point.
-
So, do you have any way to assess the truth of claims about god or not?
Talking about what somebody else believes is totally irrelevant.
Kind of,
"talking about what somebody else believes is totally irrelevant"
Well you just explained the irrelevance of your opinions. So you want to know what I believe cause? You don't want to talk about it? Too funny, now have a cookie.
I'll take that as a 'no' to my question, then.
::)
-
You say that but there is a real category blunder being committed here.
Do you actually have the first clue what all these mantras of yours actually mean ("category error", "ontological naturalism" etc.)?
-
You say that but there is a real category blunder being committed here.
Here is a hint: category mistake does not mean "your example isn't exactly the same, in every respect, to what I was talking about".
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/category-mistake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
-
Whereas gods don't exist. I see your point.
You've taken that out of context.
Were you not to misrepresent and quote the whole thing you would see that proposing mirages is another atheist category fuck up.
-
Whereas gods don't exist. I see your point.
Gods don't exist .Can you prove that assertion.
-
...another atheist category fuck up.
Another demonstration that you don't know the meanings of the terms you use.
-
Poor analogy since lakes exist. You are using an illusion of an existent to exemplify an illusion of a supposed non existent.
No just highlighting the dangers relying personal experience.
I had the experience of seeing a lake. You claim you had an experience of God.
Hope said we could use personal experience to get to the truth of the matter.
Do we each take each others word for it or do we ask for further justification? That is the point.
In the case of the lake we can easily see how my experience could be shown to be a true reflection of reality or not.
All we need now is a way of knowing if your experience of God is a true reflection of reality or not. Or in the case of God is experience as far as it goes?
-
;)
No just highlighting the dangers relying personal experience.
I had the experience of seeing a lake. You claim you had an experience of God.
Hope said we could use personal experience to get to the truth of the matter.
Do we each take each others word for it or do we ask for further justification? That is the point.
In the case of the lake we can easily see how my experience could be shown to be a true reflection of reality or not.
All we need now is a way of knowing if your experience of God is a true reflection of reality or not. Or in the case of God is experience as far as it goes?
But Stephen, your personal experience was presumably in a strange country, with strange geography, eating, probably a strange diet in a strange culture.
Had you continued in that environment the effect would have worn off.
The Jerusalem effect whereby people transform into religious leaders is more interesting because it seems closer to what you are trying to get at but fails as an analogy for permanent or transformative conversion because the syndrome WEARS OFF when the subject leaves Jerusalem.
Another point is that you saw something if as I understand it was a mirage but interpreted it as something else.
Christian experience of God I would move is transformative and repentant that is it involves a change in attitude in oneself about the need for salvation. That ifor many I would move is the hard part and the point at which a more ego friendly reinterpretation of divine encounter is sought.
-
;)But Stephen, your personal experience was presumably in a strange country, with strange geography, eating, probably a strange diet in a strange culture.
Had you continued in that environment the effect would have worn off.
The Jerusalem effect whereby people transform into religious leaders is more interesting because it seems closer to what you are trying to get at but fails as an analogy for permanent or transformative conversion because the syndrome WEARS OFF when the subject leaves Jerusalem.
Another point is that you saw something if as I understand it was a mirage but interpreted it as something else.
Christian experience of God I would move is transformative and repentant that is it involves a change in attitude in oneself about the need for salvation. That ifor many I would move is the hard part and the point at which a more ego friendly reinterpretation of divine encounter is sought.
I think you are trying to read too much into the example. It's just shows that what we experience is not always a true representation of reality.
You're other example just shows that an experience can be life changing. I don't disagree, but I don't see how that shows that the experience is real.
-
I think you are trying to read too much into the example. It's just shows that what we experience is not always a true representation of reality.
You're other example just shows that an experience can be life changing. I don't disagree, but I don't see how that shows that the experience is real.
I merely point out that examples of unreal experience are demonstrably not real or demonstrably a different interpretation and that divorces your attempt at analogy a further degree.
-
I merely point out that examples of unreal experience are demonstrably not real or demonstrably a different interpretation and that divorces your attempt at analogy a further degree.
I think that highlights your problem not mine. Mine can be demonstrated to be real or not real. You can't say the same about yours.
-
I think that highlights your problem not mine. Mine can be demonstrated to be real or not real. You can't say the same about yours.
Not really since you are incorrect.
Your examples of the unreal can never be demonstrated to be real
A category issue I'm afraid.
-
Not really since you are incorrect.
Your examples of the unreal can never be demonstrated to be real
A category issue I'm afraid.
Sighs....
Look back to the original example.
I have had an experience. Is that experience a true reflection of reality? We could put on our trunks and arm bands and go and see if it was a lake. Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.
You have had an experience of God. Is that a true reflection of reality? We could .......
-
A category issue I'm afraid.
No, it isn't. ::)
-
Sighs....
Look back to the original example.
I have had an experience. Is that experience a true reflection of reality? We could put on our trunks and arm bands and go and see if it was a lake. Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.
You have had an experience of God. Is that a true reflection of reality? We could .......
It's an interesting example, since as an hallucination (not an illusion), it can be checked empirically. In other words, as you say, you can drive in that direction to see if there really is a lake, or go up in a helicopter. In the case of illusions, it's more tricky, I think, since there is something real going on, but not exactly as per the illusion (for example, the bent stick in water).
But maybe both these examples are poor analogies to religious experience, since this claims a supernatural process or event, or whatever it's called.
I find experiences in Buddhism and other Eastern religions interesting, as there are plenty of mind-blowing experiences, which can be loosely called non-dualist, or non-ego, yet no supernatural origin is claimed for them. Well, maybe you could have a non-supernatural God, of some kind or other.
But the supernatural God cannot by definition be checked out empirically. This is a nonsense.
-
You've taken that out of context.
I missed out the second part of your post but that doesn't really change the context. You claimed it was a category error to compare something that exists with God. In that case we can reasonably infer that your meaning was that God is not in the category of things that exist.
Sorry, but the blunder was entirely yours.
-
It's an interesting example, since as an hallucination (not an illusion), it can be checked empirically. In other words, as you say, you can drive in that direction to see if there really is a lake, or go up in a helicopter. In the case of illusions, it's more tricky, I think, since there is something real going on, but not exactly as per the illusion (for example, the bent stick in water).
But maybe both these examples are poor analogies to religious experience, since this claims a supernatural process or event, or whatever it's called.
I find experiences in Buddhism and other Eastern religions interesting, as there are plenty of mind-blowing experiences, which can be loosely called non-dualist, or non-ego, yet no supernatural origin is claimed for them. Well, maybe you could have a non-supernatural God, of some kind or other.
But the supernatural God cannot by definition be checked out empirically. This is a nonsense.
Well in the case of the lake I think there is something real going on. It is to do with the hot sand, the air above it and the light passing though it.
It's just we misinterpret what our eyes are telling us.
So all I am asking is how the supernatural God can be checked out?
-
Well in the case of the lake I think there is something real going on. It is to do with the hot sand, the air above it and the light passing though it.
It's just we misinterpret what our eyes are telling us.
So all I am asking is how the supernatural God can be checked out?
Obviously, it can't. Or if you like, 'checking out a supernatural God' is an oxymoron. However, for various reasons, some Christians are reluctant to admit this, and so obfuscate like mad.
It beats me why they just can't say, this is my faith. I suppose it's science envy or philosophy envy, or something like that, so they have to think up a sciencey type argument for God, thus discrediting the whole thing.
I suppose if something really strange happened, e.g. all cancer patients in the world were healed overnight, we would wonder about it. But funnily enough, it doesn't happen.
-
Obviously, it can't. Or if you like, 'checking out a supernatural God' is an oxymoron. However, for various reasons, some Christians are reluctant to admit this, and so obfuscate like mad.
It beats me why they just can't say, this is my faith. I suppose it's science envy or philosophy envy, or something like that, so they have to think up a sciencey type argument for God, thus discrediting the whole thing.
I suppose if something really strange happened, e.g. all cancer patients in the world were healed overnight, we would wonder about it. But funnily enough, it doesn't happen.
. . . and probably never will until SCIENCE finds a cure!
-
It beats me why they just can't say, this is my faith. I suppose it's science envy or philosophy envy, or something like that, so they have to think up a sciencey type argument for God, thus discrediting the whole thing.
I've thought about this and the only explanation I can come up with is that they aren't trying to prove anything to us at all, but to themselves.
-
Obviously, it can't. Or if you like, 'checking out a supernatural God' is an oxymoron. However, for various reasons, some Christians are reluctant to admit this, and so obfuscate like mad.
It beats me why they just can't say, this is my faith. I suppose it's science envy or philosophy envy, or something like that, so they have to think up a sciencey type argument for God, thus discrediting the whole thing.
I suppose if something really strange happened, e.g. all cancer patients in the world were healed overnight, we would wonder about it. But funnily enough, it doesn't happen.
I think you are probably right but it would be very interesting if there was a different way of determining if things supernatural (whatever they might be) did exist.
I know Hope and Vlad won't believe it but it is genuinely true that I am intersted.
-
I've thought about this and the only explanation I can come up with is that they aren't trying to prove anything to us at all, but to themselves.
Hear!! Hear!!
They probably think that if they stop spouting the same old rubbish day after day after day their God will punish them for apostacy!
The sooner the better as far as I am concerned if it shuts them up!
-
Gods don't exist .Can you prove that assertion.
Vlad, you're making yourself sound like Hope, get some form of treatment, quick as you can, before it sets in permanantly.
ippy
-
Vlad, you're making yourself sound like Hope, get some form of treatment, quick as you can, before it sets in permanantly.
ippy
He's sounding more like you, ippy, than like me ;)
-
Well in the case of the lake I think there is something real going on. It is to do with the hot sand, the air above it and the light passing though it.
Yet this isn't the only way in which a lake can exist in the desert, Stephen. Wadis that have been dry for decades can suddenly be filled to overflowing by an unexpected and torrential rain storm. It may only last for a very short time, but is so torrential as to provide enough water to refill aquifers and wells.
It's just we misinterpret what our eyes are telling us.
No, in most cases, we interpret what our eyes are telling is correctly, because we know about the phenomenon of mirages. Just occasionally that understanding is what is at fault.
So all I am asking is how the supernatural God can be checked out?
I suppose in the same way as these rare but real lakes in the desert - by personal experience. Its only recently that we have been able to verify the existences of such lakes if their appearance coincides with a satellite overflying at the appropriate time.
-
I suppose in the same way as these rare but real lakes in the desert
Using a naturalistic methodology to evaluate a claim of the allegedly supernatural - are you sure?
-
Yet this isn't the only way in which a lake can exist in the desert, Stephen. Wadis that have been dry for decades can suddenly be filled to overflowing by an unexpected and torrential rain storm. It may only last for a very short time, but is so torrential as to provide enough water to refill aquifers and wells.
That wasn't the point Stephen was making though - his point is that even where reality can be deceptive: such as is this a lake or is it a mirage, both possible scenarios have naturalistic explanations whereas certain Christian claims about God/Jesus don't.
Your rather concrete digression into the wetness or otherwise of the Sahara completely misses the point.
-
I think you are probably right but it would be very interesting if there was a different way of determining if things supernatural (whatever they might be) did exist.
I know Hope and Vlad won't believe it but it is genuinely true that I am intersted.
I know that you are interested, Stephen, but you and others seem to want to limit the verification system to the physical alone. I believe that over the centuries, people have understood matters - such as the relevance of 'blood and water' to confirming whether or not someone is dead - without having a scientific basis to that understanding. They have simply observed phenomena and come to conclusions based on the totaility of thosee experienced/observed phenomena.
-
That wasn't the point Stephen was making though - his point is that even where reality can be deceptive: such as is this a lake or is it a mirage, both possible scenarios have naturalistic explanations whereas certain Christian claims about God/Jesus don't.
Your rather concrete digression into the wetness or otherwise of the Sahara completely misses the point.
Except that there are those who assume that wetness in a desert must necessarily be a mirage.
-
Except that there are those who assume that wetness in a desert must necessarily be a mirage.
Who are 'those', and even if there are some who aren't quite up to speed on all things Saharan what does that matter in relation to the point Stephen was making via this example?
-
Who are 'those', and even if there are some who aren't quite up to speed on all things Saharan what does that matter in relation to the point Stephen was making via this example?
'Thoise' doesn't refer to anyone here, as far as I'm aware, Gordon - but I do remember having a geography teacher who liked to insist that there was never any rainfall in deserts!! The relevance to Stephen's point is that, in reality, the message one's eyes are sending to the brain is sometimes correct. He seems to be concentrating purely on the occasions when it isn't
-
I know that you are interested, Stephen, but you and others seem to want to limit the verification system to the physical alone.
What alternative verification systems are there?
I believe that over the centuries, people have understood matters - such as the relevance of 'blood and water' to confirming whether or not someone is dead - without having a scientific basis to that understanding.
The you'd be wrong, since not only is 'blood and water' gloriously imprecise you haven't excluded the possibility that the 'blood and water' claim is true - and even if this did signify death back in antiquity it is surely the kind of thing people would say if they wanted to claim someone was dead when they weren't: this is a risk, since people can tell lies, so have have you excluded this risk?
They have simply observed phenomena and come to conclusions based on the totaility of thosee experienced/observed phenomena.
They may say that, and you might believe them personally, but, and again, how have you dealt with the risk that they were wrong or lying?
-
'Thoise' doesn't refer to anyone here, as far as I'm aware, Gordon - but I do remember having a geography teacher who liked to insist that there was never any rainfall in deserts!! The relevance to Stephen's point is that, in reality, the message one's eyes are sending to the brain is sometimes correct. He seems to be concentrating purely on the occasions when it isn't
You completely miss the point.
There may or may not be a lake there. We don't have to trust our eyes or our experience we can confirm it one way or another using a methodology.
What is the methodology for supernatural claims? The God experience you have may be due to an actual God or it may not. How can you confirm it one way or another?
-
The relevance to Stephen's point is that, in reality, the message one's eyes are sending to the brain is sometimes correct. He seems to be concentrating purely on the occasions when it isn't
Don't think so, and no doubt Stephen will correct me if I'm wrong.
It seemed to me that the point he was making is that although the mirage of a lake isn't the same thing as an actual lake/wadi, which you've been at pains to stress is a possibility even in the Sahara, it is the case that both the optical illusion or the possibility of actual water options have naturalistic explanations - in other words, that something is uncertain doesn't mean there is an absence of naturalistic options that would decide matters.
Contrast that with claims of divine intervention for which there is not only no naturalistic explanation but no non-naturalistic ones either (unless you guys are keeping it to yourselves).
-
They do seem remarkably coy about sharing it, don't they?
-
What's all this "they", Shaker? Aren't we all one big happy family :D?
Belief in God and the afterlife cannot be proved, we've established that.
-
Don't think so, and no doubt Stephen will correct me if I'm wrong.
It seemed to me that the point he was making is that although the mirage of a lake isn't the same thing as an actual lake/wadi, which you've been at pains to stress is a possibility even in the Sahara, it is the case that both the optical illusion or the possibility of actual water options have naturalistic explanations - in other words, that something is uncertain doesn't mean there is an absence of naturalistic options that would decide matters.
Contrast that with claims of divine intervention for which there is not only no naturalistic explanation but no non-naturalistic ones either (unless you guys are keeping it to yourselves).
Gordon,
No correcting required.
I don't think Hope fails to get it either but as always is reluctant to engage with the important point of a lack of means (naturalistic or non naturalistic) to verify supernatural phenomena.
-
How can anyone verify supernatural phenomena?
-
He's sounding more like you, ippy, than like me ;)
The standard Mandy Rice Davis answer Hope, no surprises there.
ippy
-
How can anyone verify supernatural phenomena?
We keep asking that!
-
What's all this "they", Shaker? Aren't we all one big happy family :D?
Belief in God and the afterlife cannot be proved, we've established that.
Hope claims not only that there's an appropriate methodology for evaluating supernatural claims but that he has provided this alleged methodology elsewhere which has "flummoxed" believers and non-believers alike. (I can well imagine why ...). He seems to be inordinately reluctant to share this so-called methodology here, though ...
-
The standard Mandy Rice Davis answer Hope, no surprises there.
ippy
Well he would, wouldn't he?
-
How can anyone verify supernatural phenomena?
Don't know but as Shaker has already pointed out it is Hope that has claimed that can be.
A genuine question; so what do you do in order to jump the gap from possibly true to probably true? Is it not important? is it faith, and if so what does faith mean to you?
Again, a genuine question.
-
What's all this "they", Shaker? Aren't we all one big happy family :D?
Belief in God and the afterlife cannot be proved, we've established that.
Please show me posts from Sassy, Hope, and OMW and the other Christians on here where they agree that "the afterlife cannot be proved"! You are the only one that I have seen to day this!
The afterlife is one of the very cornerstones of their belief and one of the things that are denying those of us who are not followers of their god!
-
How can anyone verify supernatural phenomena?
Don't ask us - ask Hope - he is the one stating that it is possible.
-
How can anyone verify supernatural phenomena?
Hello again,
Further to my last reply to you I also notice the on another thread you say that God is a fact to you. I find this really interesting, supernatural can't be verified but at the same time God is fact. Not trying to trip you up or anything but this is interesting and something I would like to understand more. In the way I would use language they seem contradictory to me but maybe we are using language differently. Would love to explore more.
-
Hello again,
Further to my last reply to you I also notice the on another thread you say that God is a fact to you. I find this really interesting, supernatural can't be verified but at the same time God is fact. Not trying to trip you up or anything but this is interesting and something I would like to understand more. In the way I would use language they seem contradictory to me but maybe we are using language differently. Would love to explore more.
Apologies to Brownie, I'm not seeking to answer this on their behalf but just to try and expand the discussion. If we were all to agree that what we see as 'facts' have to be generated off a common method that we use to determone them, and we can manage to carry that out then we have a way of stating what those facts are according to the methodology. But even with say a method, we make assumptions that allow is to state facts which are not 'facts' themselves by the method. So we cannot establsih that there are any other humans and we are not in the matrix but we proceed as if these are facts.
We also use a bit of an argumentum ad populum here, and wjile we can say science works, t works if we ignore the issue of hard solispsim, and use other's (who are not facts) perceptions (which are subjective) as the guide. Thus in your lake in the desert. say after you saw it, you jumped into it, felt it to be wey, and felt yourseld swimming 0 you may suffer pause if other's told you it wasn't true, but you might well nowm and while you might be deluded, so might they, and here the common methodology would just be broken.
When theists say their god is a fact, it seems to me they are expressing something clearly about their experiemces, that they feel is so clear to them, that denying it that status would mean that nothing could be argued as a fact because they, as do we. use experience as the guide of any methodology. Im addition, they aren't the only ones who say they feel the god equivalent of wet. swimmimg etc, there are lots of others too, There's a level of experience where using the phrase 'true for me' just means 'true and factual' as far as i can see within the limits we all have. Just as we cannot break out of the matrix and so assume at base that perception is fact, so does a theist but their perceptions are different.
-
Apologies to Brownie, I'm not seeking to answer this on their behalf but just to try and expand the discussion. If we were all to agree that what we see as 'facts' have to be generated off a common method that we use to determone them, and we can manage to carry that out then we have a way of stating what those facts are according to the methodology. But even with say a method, we make assumptions that allow is to state facts which are not 'facts' themselves by the method. So we cannot establsih that there are any other humans and we are not in the matrix but we proceed as if these are facts.
We also use a bit of an argumentum ad populum here, and wjile we can say science works, t works if we ignore the issue of hard solispsim, and use other's (who are not facts) perceptions (which are subjective) as the guide. Thus in your lake in the desert. say after you saw it, you jumped into it, felt it to be wey, and felt yourseld swimming 0 you may suffer pause if other's told you it wasn't true, but you might well nowm and while you might be deluded, so might they, and here the common methodology would just be broken.
When theists say their god is a fact, it seems to me they are expressing something clearly about their experiemces, that they feel is so clear to them, that denying it that status would mean that nothing could be argued as a fact because they, as do we. use experience as the guide of any methodology. Im addition, they aren't the only ones who say they feel the god equivalent of wet. swimmimg etc, there are lots of others too, There's a level of experience where using the phrase 'true for me' just means 'true and factual' as far as i can see within the limits we all have. Just as we cannot break out of the matrix and so assume at base that perception is fact, so does a theist but their perceptions are different.
Hi,
Thanks for the engagement.
Were you tying on a mobile or tablet as some of the spelling seems a little out. I have a similar problem and put it down to fat fingers :)
However, I think I can make out your points.
I agree with hard solipsism how would we know. However, it is a kind of forced assumption that we assume there is an external reality. How would we proceed, and how would it help theistic claims?
I disagree on the lake issue as we could make objective measures of it's wetness which do not depend on peoples experience. I just used swimming in it as a trivial example to show that some test could be made.
I also disagree about using experience as a guide to supporting a methodology. I am a scientist and am considered an expert in my, admittedly narrow, field. I am constantly asked to advise on the best way forwards to design programmes of research going forwards. the relevant experimental work is then carried out. I haven't done it but you could work out the value of my experience because there is a validation step i.e. you could put a percentage success rate to my predicitons. No such evaluation could be made of theistic experience because there is no validation step,
-
There are a lot of reasonable, moderate Christians who will admit that they cannot prove the existence of god etc, and that whilst the faith works for them, there has to be an element of doubt.
-
Hi,
Thanks for the engagement.
Were you tying on a mobile or tablet as some of the spelling seems a little out. I have a similar problem and put it down to fat fingers :)
However, I think I can make out your points.
I agree with hard solipsism how would we know. However, it is a kind of forced assumption that we assume there is an external reality. How would we proceed, and how would it help theistic claims?
I disagree on the lake issue as we could make objective measures of it's wetness which do not depend on peoples experience. I just used swimming in it as a trivial example to show that some test could be made.
I also disagree about using experience as a guide to supporting a methodology. I am a scientist and am considered an expert in my, admittedly narrow, field. I am constantly asked to advise on the best way forwards to design programmes of research going forwards. the relevant experimental work is then carried out. I haven't done it but you could work out the value of my experience because there is a validation step i.e. you could put a percentage success rate to my predicitons. No such evaluation could be made of theistic experience because there is no validation step,
On a phone, previously. I should add I'm not a theist, nor at any point did I make an argument that it could be justified. The validation step you add, is defeated by hard solipsism unless you accept the validation step. All predictions are validated by perception since you cannot move beyond.
-
And surely any measurements of being wet etc are perceptions. What happens if you have lots of people they agree with you that you are swimming, and that by their measurement you are wet?
Besides we are talking about the use of language here not just science, and I use language to talk about facts in not solely a scientific way. I accept the existence of other people as sentient beings but without the assumption of breaking hard solipsism it isn't an objective fact. Indeed even with scientific facts they exist only with a subjective assumption of an axiom.
-
Oh and just to add, saying that we are forced to assume an external reality, is using experience as a method.
-
I'm with NS in that I buy into the concept of not really knowing anything.
Increasingly I think that what God boils down to is not a thing, but a feeling.
-
I'm with NS in that I buy into the concept of not really knowing anything.
Increasingly I think that what God boils down to is not a thing, but a feeling.
Fine, so we agree that we don't know if God exists or not.
I suggest you take that up with Hope who disagrees.
-
Oh and just to add, saying that we are forced to assume an external reality, is using experience as a method.
Only in the sense that we assume that we experience anything. If hard solipsism is true then it's all bollox anyway.
If however, we say that maybe it isn't true then we need to rule out the likely true from not true.
-
And surely any measurements of being wet etc are perceptions. What happens if you have lots of people they agree with you that you are swimming, and that by their measurement you are wet?
Besides we are talking about the use of language here not just science, and I use language to talk about facts in not solely a scientific way. I accept the existence of other people as sentient beings but without the assumption of breaking hard solipsism it isn't an objective fact. Indeed even with scientific facts they exist only with a subjective assumption of an axiom.
No you are wrong, wet in this sense refers to moisture content. That is objective and not subject to opinion. You could drop someone into the Pacific ocean and they could say it's not wet as much as they like but they would be wrong. Otherwise language means nothing.
You can push the hard solipsism line as much as you like but all you do is close down debate as we can know nothing. Not that Hard solipsism might not be true. I have never said we can't be wrong.
-
I suggest you take that up with Hope who disagrees.
I know from long experience that slamming my fingers repeatedly in my patio doors would be more productive and less painful.
-
I know from long experience that slamming my fingers repeatedly in my patio doors would be more productive and less painful.
Hope's a very imaginative man Rhi.
ippy
-
No you are wrong, wet in this sense refers to moisture content. That is objective and not subject to opinion. You could drop someone into the Pacific ocean and they could say it's not wet as much as they like but they would be wrong. Otherwise language means nothing.
You can push the hard solipsism line as much as you like but all you do is close down debate as we can know nothing. Not that Hard solipsism might not be true. I have never said we can't be wrong.
In which case using the word objective is wrong, since it is based on a subjective perception. To be honest other than pointing out that you are the one thing to shut down argument by just waving your hands that the problems of epistemology are something you think you can ignore, I don't think it really deals with what someone is talking about when they refer to their god as a fact. It's more that for them they can see no way that their experience can be ignored rather than a claim to a proof or a method. I agree with you that Hope makes a positive claim about such a methodology, and i've never seen him produce any such thing despite asking him many hundred times.
But that's not what Brownie is saying and is using fact much more in the sense of learned experience. I also think that it's partly your investment in the idea that science is objective because of your career that stops you seeing that.
-
I know from long experience that slamming my fingers repeatedly in my patio doors would be more productive and less painful.
Fair enough.
Don't get me wrong here. It is Hope that claims there is a way of verifying the supernatural. There seem to be (at least) three possibilities.
1) Hard solipsism is true. (Don't know anyone who proceeds down this route)
Well this all pointless.
2) Material things exist / there is an external reality. (atheists and theist seem to agree).
We can tell the likely true form the likely untrue via established methods.
3) Material and supernatural things exist. (Seems the realm of theists)
We can tell the likely true for the likely true via.......
I would also like to add a not on experience.
Of course experience (data about reality modelled in the brain) can be useful. I am considered an expert in my (limited) field of science. I am often asked to recommend ways forwards in the area. Is my experience 100% predictive? No
-
Fair enough.
Don't get me wrong here. It is Hope that claims there is a way of verifying the supernatural. There seem to be (at least) three possibilities.
1) Hard solipsism is true. (Don't know anyone who proceeds down this route)
Well this all pointless.
2) Material things exist / there is an external reality. (atheists and theist seem to agree).
We can tell the likely true form the likely untrue via established methods.
3) Material and supernatural things exist. (Seems the realm of theists)
We can tell the likely true for the likely true via.......
I would also like to add a not on experience.
Of course experience (data about reality modelled in the brain) can be useful. I am considered an expert in my (limited) field of science. I am often asked to recommend ways forwards in the area. Is my experience 100% predictive? No
And all perception, method is experienced. The question raised by hard solipsism isn't about it being true but the issues it causes for claims to objectivity. You seem to be going down a route which assumes the basis of knowledge rather than justifies it. And again note this isn't about a position that makes any such assumption rather an acceptance of the limit of that knowledge.
None of this is seeking to justify Hope's claims, just expanding the discussion to try and see what others mean when they say their god is a fact to them.
-
And all perception, method is experienced. The question raised by hard solipsism isn't about it being true but the issues it causes for claims to objectivity. You seem to be going down a route which assumes the basis of knowledge rather than justifies it. And again note this isn't about a position that makes any such assumption rather an acceptance of the limit of that knowledge.
None of this is seeking to justify Hope's claims, just expanding the discussion to try and see what others mean when they say their god is a fact to them.
Actually I think we probably agree on things. I am interested in how we experience / describe things differently. Hence the reason I asked the question the Brownie.
Hopefully she will engage and an interesting discussion will proceed.
I notice that you suggest (in a previous message) that I might be trying to limit discussion. This is not intentional.
Perhaps you could help mediate such a discussion?
-
Actually I think we probably agree on things. I am interested in how we experience / describe things differently. Hence the reason I asked the question the Brownie.
Hopefully she will engage and an interesting discussion will proceed.
I notice that you suggest (in a previous message) that I might be trying to limit discussion. This is not intentional.
Perhaps you could help mediate such a discussion?
I'm sure we probably do agree substantially, and I am also sure that you do not intend to shut down discussion
I raised the question of hard solipsism because it seems to me that people use the whole 'god is a fact' to me in entirely different ways. Reading Brownie, it seems to me her statement is about experience, not a claim about methodology. There are many who, I think, dress claims up with the caveat that things are 'True for them'. This seems just an acceptance of the difficulty in establishing something while still giving it that patina of 'truth'.
-
Another point, is that while I am in some ways here, using the Going Nuclear option on relativity of knowledge as described by Stephen Law, that's because I am a relativist. Often on posts here we see those who specifically are not relativists using it, without any recognition of it being a disavowal of their own position.
-
I know that you are interested, Stephen, but you and others seem to want to limit the verification system to the physical alone.
This is a lie. Stephen and others - including me - only want to limit the verification system to that which can be verified. The clue is in the thread title.
-
Oh and just to add, saying that we are forced to assume an external reality, is using experience as a method.
Solipsism is an intellectual dead end. If you're going to claim it is a valid position we might as well give up because those of us who do not believe God exists are correct not to believe God exists, since nothing objective exists (or at least can ever be shown to exist).
The assumption that there is an objective reality is inherent in the question and, for at least some phenomena, it is possible to verify that they are part of that reality. If you aren't prepared to buy into that assumption, I suggest you limit your posts to the "Music was my first love" thread.
-
And since I haven't said solipsism is my position, perhaps you should stick to just reading the posts in that thread.
-
And since I haven't said solipsism is my position, perhaps you should stick to just reading the posts in that thread.
Sorry, I was using "you" in the "one" sense. I wasn't trying to make it personal.
-
I'm sure we probably do agree substantially, and I am also sure that you do not intend to shut down discussion
I raised the question of hard solipsism because it seems to me that people use the whole 'god is a fact' to me in entirely different ways. Reading Brownie, it seems to me her statement is about experience, not a claim about methodology. There are many who, I think, dress claims up with the caveat that things are 'True for them'. This seems just an acceptance of the difficulty in establishing something while still giving it that patina of 'truth'.
I think we are making similar points. Brownie seems to make and interesting in-between sort of claim. That's why I am interested in understanding it more.
Not in order to judge but to understand even if we don't agree.
-
If god and Jesus want us to believe they actually exist, why is there no verifiable evidence to support that scenario? Making their existence merely a matter of faith is crazy in the extreme, and cruel if lack of faith has consequences! So many dogmas, doctrines and sects have sprung up attributed to Christianity, some more bonkers than others. People make assertions about what god and Jesus are thinking, when the truth of the matter is they can have no idea, lacking any evidence to back up their claims.
The most credible explanation is that god has never existed in reality, but was created by humans, and is continuously reinvented by those with vivid imaginations.
As for Jesus, who supposedly popped up to heaven after his resurrection and has stayed out of sight ever since, it is much more likely when he was executed he stayed dead! The guy's death was very unpleasant if he was crucified, but he was a bit of a WUM, where the religious mafia of the day were concerned. It is strange his family didn't seem to rate him much according to the gospel of St John.
So why would a 'loving' god not ensure that no one had any doubt that it existed?
A while back I made a post about evidence - I'll just resurrect it....
Lots of talk about evidence here.
What about the evidence that those executed in Salem, Massachusetts were real witches practising real magic?
Altogether, 19 people were executed. The governor of Massachusetts (William Phips) was involved. A court was established with prosecutors, defenders and judges all respected pillars of the local communities.
Thorough investigations were carried out and witness were cross-examined. A lot of evidence was gathered and many people confessed. All these proceedings were documented with sworn affidavits, interviews and other court documents.
The Salem Witch Trials were fairly recent and we have the original documents, not copies of copies made centuries later. We have the sworn and signed eye-witness testimonies from the very people who observed the magical events taking place.
There are even volumes written by witnesses to the trial. The evidence and testimonies are plentiful and are far in excess of any supporting evidence there is for Jesus.
If we look at what happened in Salem the same way that we look at what happened in Jerusalem, how can those people not have been witches? How can they not have been flying through the night sky on their broomsticks and carrying out acts of magic?
-
This is a lie. Stephen and others - including me - only want to limit the verification system to that which can be verified. The clue is in the thread title.
But only using the definition of 'verified' that you are happy with. That is where the discussion flls down because you assumme that the only way something can be verified in by a naturalistic method - whereas we verify a number of elements in our lives by other means. For instance, when you fall in love, do you go though a raft of naturalistic tests to check whether this is love, as opposed to merely lust or desire? Do you refuse to acknowledge it until you have chemical tests on your bodily fluids to confirm that the right exzymes and markers that indicate 'love' are present? I doubt whether any of us do that - we simply take the experience and run with it.
-
But only using the definition of 'verified' that you are happy with. That is where the discussion flls down because you assumme that the only way something can be verified in by a naturalistic method
Which is the only 'method' we have.
- whereas we verify a number of elements in our lives by other means. For instance, when you fall in love, do you go though a raft of naturalistic tests to check whether this is love, as opposed to merely lust or desire?
Which would be biology, and therefore naturalistic in the absence of any alternative method.
Do you refuse to acknowledge it until you have chemical tests on your bodily fluids to confirm that the right exzymes and markers that indicate 'love' are present? I doubt whether any of us do that - we simply take the experience and run with it.
As far as is known all mental processes you experience are your biology doing what it does, unless to have testable alternative method to account for these mental processes.
-
But only using the definition of 'verified' that you are happy with. That is where the discussion flls down because you assumme that the only way something can be verified in by a naturalistic method - whereas we verify a number of elements in our lives by other means. For instance, when you fall in love, do you go though a raft of naturalistic tests to check whether this is love, as opposed to merely lust or desire? Do you refuse to acknowledge it until you have chemical tests on your bodily fluids to confirm that the right exzymes and markers that indicate 'love' are present? I doubt whether any of us do that - we simply take the experience and run with it.
Whether you are in love or not is subjective. If you are claiming that a god is objectively real, you need an objective verification method.
This is really simple: how can we objectively test whether there is a god or not and, if there is, which of the many on offer is the real one...?
It doesn't have to be 'naturalistic' (whatever that even means) - just objective.
-
But only using the definition of 'verified' that you are happy with. That is where the discussion flls down because you assumme that the only way something can be verified in by a naturalistic method
Wrong.
I have never asked for a verification method that must be "naturalistic". I have only ever asked for a method that works no matter who carries it out i.e. is objective.
whereas we verify a number of elements in our lives by other means. For instance, when you fall in love, do you go though a raft of naturalistic tests to check whether this is love, as opposed to merely lust or desire?
No I don't, but I've never attempted to verify objectively that anybody is in love. I can tell you that I am in love with person X, but if you asked me to verify it objectively, I couldn't.
-
Whether you are in love or not is subjective. If you are claiming that a god is objectively real, you need an objective verification method.
I thought that being in love was an objective reality for most people.
This is really simple: how can we objectively test whether there is a god or not ...
As I say, in the same way that most people believe, objectively, that they are in love
... and, if there is, which of the many on offer is the real one...?
I think the best way to look at this is to look at what they offer. Do they offer ill-health if you fail to worship them - as is the case in fatalistic Hinduism, or does god offer salvation at no price to you and I other than that we accept the offer?
It doesn't have to be 'naturalistic' (whatever that even means) - just objective.
That's easy - we treat it in the same way as we treat many aspects of our lives.
-
No I don't, but I've never attempted to verify objectively that anybody is in love. I can tell you that I am in love with person X, but if you asked me to verify it objectively, I couldn't.
Perhaps you should ask Hope if he considers the god he claims to believe in to be independently and objectively the case, a brute true-for-everyone fact, or merely his subjective true-for-him belief.
And see if you get a straight answer out of him ;)
-
I can tell you that I am in love with person X, but if you asked me to verify it objectively, I couldn't.
so, 'you' would therefore decide that you would not accept the 'fact' that you have already confirmed to 'me'? (not personalising things, by the way)
-
and, if there is, which of the many on offer is the real one...?
I think the best way to look at this is to look at what they offer. Do they offer ill-health if you fail to worship them - as is the case in fatalistic Hinduism, or does god offer salvation at no price to you and I other than that we accept the offer?
How is that the best way to determine which one is the real one?
It might determine which one you would like to be real but that doesn't actually make it so!
-
If anyone wants to compare Christianity with Hinduism and other religions may I recommend Ravi Zacharias? For instance his book 'Jesus Among Other Gods.'
-
Ravi Zacharias says: “The reality is that if religion is to be treated with intellectual respect, then it must stand the test of truth, regardless of the mood of the day. ''
That's a topic that comes up every day on this forum!
(Mr Zacharias is not biased of course ;).)
-
If anyone wants to compare Christianity with Hinduism and other religions may I recommend Ravi Zacharias? For instance his book 'Jesus Among Other Gods.'
Can you summarise it?
I can. I haven't (thankfully) read the book but (unfortunately) have heard of Ravi Zacharias so I know in advance what his conclusion is - "Jesus is the bestest God ever ever ever and all the others are silly poo poo heads."
Broadly accurate? Where do I claim my prize?
-
Brownie,
Ravi Zacharias says: “The reality is that if religion is to be treated with intellectual respect, then it must stand the test of truth, regardless of the mood of the day. ''
That's a topic that comes up every day on this forum!
(Mr Zacharias is not biased of course ;).)
Does he now? Well, fair enough then but - as no-one else here seems to be willing or able to provide it - does anyone know what "test" Mr Zacharias proposes exactly?
-
I'd never heard of him before, I just looked him up. I found this which explains what he means by explaining the truth. Haven't read it all myself yet but I might tomorrow.
http://rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-deep-questions
There's also a youtube clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAfAP0lP-ws
-
Brownie,
I'd never heard of him before, I just looked him up. I found this which explains what he means by explaining the truth. Haven't read it all myself yet but I might tomorrow.
http://rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-deep-questions
There's also a youtube clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAfAP0lP-ws
Thanks for posting. I just had a look at his home page: it's appalling. Essentially a list of assertions, logical fallacies, non sequiturs, category errors etc. Yet somehow this chap has made it into print it seems. I guess no-one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the credulous eh?
-
so, 'you' would therefore decide that you would not accept the 'fact' that you have already confirmed to 'me'? (not personalising things, by the way)
Love is a subjective feeling. I have an experience but it emanates from my own mind. It's a product of my brain just as your god is a product of yours.
-
Brownie,
Thanks for posting. I just had a look at his home page: it's appalling. . Yet somehow this chap has made it into print it seems. I guess no-one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the credulous eh?
I watched the above youtube clip and then watched three others. He is easy to listen to but somehow made me feel a bit subdued, depressed.
You said: "Essentially a list of assertions, logical fallacies, non sequiturs, category errors etc"
I can't argue with that, he doesn't really answer any questions, he just explains what he believes. I don't think anyone is able to do anything else, frankly.
Night night. x
-
I thought that being in love was an objective reality for most people.
Did you? Are you even sure any two people would mean exactly the same thing by those words? The point is that it's an internal state of mind - only you can label your own state of mind 'in love'. Even if you have strict internal criteria, other people can't objectively measure it.
As I say, in the same way that most people believe, objectively, that they are in love
If god is more than an internal state of mind, then this is absurd. It is not an objective test.
Look, this isn't so hard; if I want to know about my own state of mind (am I in love, happy, sad, excited and so on) then I can find out by simple self-examination. That method is totally inappropriate to deciding on the existence of things or beings external to me - you must be able to see that, surely? If someone tells me of something that is objectively real (they have a pet wombat or something), I can't check it by navel-gazing.
I think the best way to look at this is to look at what they offer. Do they offer ill-health if you fail to worship them - as is the case in fatalistic Hinduism, or does god offer salvation at no price to you and I other than that we accept the offer?
So, the one you like most must be real? ::)
That's easy - we treat it in the same way as we treat many aspects of our lives.
Many aspects of our lives are not objective. Doesn't mean they are not important or not real to us, but that's not the same thing as being objectively real for everybody.
-
Ravi Zacharias says: “The reality is that if religion is to be treated with intellectual respect, then it must stand the test of truth, regardless of the mood of the day. ''
Curiously, people who make the baldest claims to 'truth' are also those who are least willing to put their claims to the test ime. Maybe that is not a coincidence.
-
Curiously, people who make the baldest claims to 'truth' are also those who are least willing to put their claims to the test ime. Maybe that is not a coincidence.
No, it isn't a coincidence. It's just the fact that religious beliefs don't stand up to any reliable form of test.
-
I thought that being in love was an objective reality for most people.
As I say, in the same way that most people believe, objectively, that they are in love
I am in love with my wife. It is an emotion. When I am dead I am pretty sure I won't have emotions. Therefore, my love is not objective in the same way that your belief in God is. If you want to claim a true for yourself God that dies when you do then no problem.
-
http://rzim.org/just-thinking/think-again-deep-questions
Hilarious! Very sad that people can be taken in by this sort of drivel though.