Speaking in 'tongues'

[Spud]

That these elements of the NT are possibly a mix of exaggeration and lies are, I'd imagine, risks that you'd want to consider carefully before accepting miracle claims - so how did you do this?

Went to Church, from which the tradition has been passed down (as opposed to secular scholars who are biased). Spoke to people about the Bible, saw how their lives were changed, and found it to be trustworthy and make sense of life.

[Gordon]

That these elements of the NT are possibly a mix of exaggeration and lies are, I'd imagine, risks that you'd want to consider carefully before accepting miracle claims - so how did you do this?

Went to Church, from which the tradition has been passed down (as opposed to secular scholars who are biased). Spoke to people about the Bible, saw how their lives were changed, and found it to be trustworthy and make sense of life.

So, in addition to confirmation bias it sounds as if you may have been exposed to fallacious arguments from authority and tradition, which may then lead you to the relativist fallacy (its true for me).

That doesn't answer the problem of the risk of fictitious propaganda in the NT text: in fact, if there is fiction and exaggeration involved it has long since been incorporated into religious dogma so it could well be that what you've accepted as being true for you are the cumulative effects of fallacy piled upon fallacy.

For instance, as regards the story of Jesus walking on water, how could you exclude the risk that this particular claim is an instance of fictitious propaganda inserted by his supporters in order to promote the divine Jesus myth?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No working then Hillside......I accept your surrender.

You’re going to have to speak up a little pal – when you’ve been smashed that far out of the park, it’s almost impossible to hear you.

What’s that you say – “I see now where I’ve been going wrong all this time bluehillside, thanks for explaining it to me in a meaningful answer to my meaningless question. Would you mind posting your clear demolition of my mistake again so I can keep it close for future reference”?

No problem old son, here it is again. Can I suggest that you print and laminate it for future reference in case you’re ever tempted to go off the rails on this issue again?

1. You Vlad have decided that a universe-creating god has paid you personally a visit.
 
2. There are many naturalistic reasons that might instead explain the phenomenon you experienced, but you have no interest in understanding or eliminating any of them because you much prefer the causal explanation you find more satisfying. Nor moreover are you at all concerned by the remarkable co-incidence of the very god to which you’re most enculturated also just happening to be the only real one.

3.  So far, this is no-one’s business but your own – you’re as free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything that takes your fancy as anyone else is free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything else that takes their fancy. Next though you overreach by asserting your (but only your) subjective belief also to be an objective fact for the rest of us too.

4. This is when your problems begin. When asked why anyone should find your story to be any more credible than those of, say, the Sufi or the leprechaunist after countless times of asking you finally come up with the notion that you “intuit” this supposed objective truth. Why you think your confidence in your intuition has anything to say to objective truths is anyone’s guess, as for that matter is your misplaced confidence that – while you can apparently accurately intuit your beliefs – those with other superstitious beliefs held on the same basis must have faulty intuition. And that’s it – no method, no process, no anything to bridge the gap from the subjective to the objective.

5. When this is pointed out you try various basic logical fallacies in response but, when they’ve been unravelled, you spit the dummy and instead go nuclear by laying waste to any method to distinguish the more probably true from the more probably not true. Essentially it’s just “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” nihilism.

6. Now this causes you various further problems – even if everything is just guessing, why should your guess be privileged over any other for example? – but more fundamentally it’s wrong in principle in any case. To make the “argument” you have to misuse terms like “philosophical naturalism” so as to bend them to the conclusion you want to reach. By corrupting its meaning you then assert something like, “philosophical naturalism says that the natural is all there is but that’s a conclusion itself based on philosophical naturalism which is circular thinking, therefore you’re guessing as much as I am”. That’s the closest I can get to it anyway as your attempts to articulate it are so incoherent, but it’s near enough.

7. Now the problem here of course is that philosophical naturalism says no such thing. Philosophical naturalism is merely indifferent to claims of the supernatural – there are no cogent definitions, no means reliably or consistently to access these spooks and ghoulies, no method to distinguish the claims from guessing, nothing to test, no means of falsification etc. with which it could engage. For all the philosophical naturalist knows some or all or none of the claims of the supernatural could be true, but so far at least no-one’s ever been able to offer a method or make a case for any of them being more probably being true than not true. 

8. By contrast methodological materialism underpinned by philosophical naturalism (the real one, not your straw man version of it) does offer a method to sort the more probably true from the more probably not true: ‘planes fly, bricks don’t; medicines cure, witch doctors don’t; apples fall to the ground, magic carpets don’t levitate etc. Now all these things are of course provisional models of the way the universe works – no-one claims them to be definitive or final explanations – but through inter-subjective experience they do give us a probabilistically better grip on reality than your “whatever pops into my head is true for you too” ludicrousness.

Ooh, here’s a spooky thing by the way. You’ll recall that I also said:

In the sure and certain knowledge that you’ll never, ever respond to what’s actually being said here for the very last time it is though:

And…

Now we both know that you won’t understand any of this, or if you do that you’ll ignore it, misrepresent it, hurls abuse at it etc as is your way but there it is nonetheless. Engage with it or not as you wish, it’s up to you.

 

Wow! It’s like I have the power of foresight or something! Maybe there is something in your iron-age superstitionism after all!

Who’d have thought it eh?

Once again I accept your surrender. Your capitulation came at your inability to work out the probability of philosophical naturalism....and all that that naturally entails.

We are now therefore in need of discussing the resultant occupation.

I will take charge of the Northern section, Gonnagle will administer the south. The central zone will be run by Bashful Anthony.

All remaining Turdpolishers must be decommissioned within 30 days.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hey Vlad old son, you’re still breathing I see!

Sorry, but there’s no chance of hearing you now you’ve been smashed so far out of the park. Here’s the good news though: one of the ground staff was on his way in earlier and spotted you where you’d landed in a crumpled heap….

…Car Park Z, just next to the wheelie bins apparently. He wrote down your last gasping eructations though, so here we go then: Vlad is finally going to attempt to address an argument. Yay!

Drum roll please…

Here we go then…

Once again I accept your surrender. Your capitulation came at your inability to work out the probability of philosophical naturalism....and all that that naturally entails.

We are now therefore in need of discussing the resultant occupation.

I will take charge of the Northern section, Gonnagle will administer the south. The central zone will be run by Bashful Anthony.

All remaining Turdpolishers must be decommissioned within 30 days.

Aw no, Vladdy Straw Boy (copyright Jakswan) – what happened? It was all tee’d up for you finally to say something relevant, and all we got was yet another, “I’m desperately out of my depth again here bluehillside so I’ll duck the argument that does for me and bullshit instead” schtick.

Let’s be generous here though – maybe you didn’t have time to laminate the argument that buried you, and what with all those used teabags and potato peelings around the ink ran or something? Yeah, that must have been what happened. After all, what kind of transparently mendacious halfwit would just make himself look completely stupid by avoiding the argument yet again?

OK, so as an act of kindness here it is for you finally to read and respond to:

1. You Vlad have decided that a universe-creating god has paid you personally a visit.
 
2. There are many naturalistic reasons that might instead explain the phenomenon you experienced, but you have no interest in understanding or eliminating any of them because you much prefer the causal explanation you find more satisfying. Nor moreover are you at all concerned by the remarkable co-incidence of the very god to which you’re most enculturated also just happening to be the only real one.

3.  So far, this is no-one’s business but your own – you’re as free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything that takes your fancy as anyone else is free to hold a personal, subjective belief in anything else that takes their fancy. Next though you overreach by asserting your (but only your) subjective belief also to be an objective fact for the rest of us too.

4. This is when your problems begin. When asked why anyone should find your story to be any more credible than those of, say, the Sufi or the leprechaunist after countless times of asking you finally come up with the notion that you “intuit” this supposed objective truth. Why you think your confidence in your intuition has anything to say to objective truths is anyone’s guess, as for that matter is your misplaced confidence that – while you can apparently accurately intuit your beliefs – those with other superstitious beliefs held on the same basis must have faulty intuition. And that’s it – no method, no process, no anything to bridge the gap from the subjective to the objective.

5. When this is pointed out you try various basic logical fallacies in response but, when they’ve been unravelled, you spit the dummy and instead go nuclear by laying waste to any method to distinguish the more probably true from the more probably not true. Essentially it’s just “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” nihilism.

6. Now this causes you various further problems – even if everything is just guessing, why should your guess be privileged over any other for example? – but more fundamentally it’s wrong in principle in any case. To make the “argument” you have to misuse terms like “philosophical naturalism” so as to bend them to the conclusion you want to reach. By corrupting its meaning you then assert something like, “philosophical naturalism says that the natural is all there is but that’s a conclusion itself based on philosophical naturalism which is circular thinking, therefore you’re guessing as much as I am”. That’s the closest I can get to it anyway as your attempts to articulate it are so incoherent, but it’s near enough.

7. Now the problem here of course is that philosophical naturalism says no such thing. Philosophical naturalism is merely indifferent to claims of the supernatural – there are no cogent definitions, no means reliably or consistently to access these spooks and ghoulies, no method to distinguish the claims from guessing, nothing to test, no means of falsification etc. with which it could engage. For all the philosophical naturalist knows some or all or none of the claims of the supernatural could be true, but so far at least no-one’s ever been able to offer a method or make a case for any of them being more probably being true than not true. 

8. By contrast methodological materialism underpinned by philosophical naturalism (the real one, not your straw man version of it) does offer a method to sort the more probably true from the more probably not true: ‘planes fly, bricks don’t; medicines cure, witch doctors don’t; apples fall to the ground, magic carpets don’t levitate etc. Now all these things are of course provisional models of the way the universe works – no-one claims them to be definitive or final explanations – but through inter-subjective experience they do give us a probabilistically better grip on reality than your “whatever pops into my head is true for you too” ludicrousness.

There you go then. Now you’ve got it, obviously you won’t be so stupid as to ask exactly the odds of, say, babies coming from Mummies' tummies rather than from stork deliveries because all that’s necessary to avoid your nihilistic relativism is to show a method that points to the greater probability of one rather than the other within the constraints of the world as it appears to be. Of course, no-one says that the way the world appears to be is all there is - oh non, no, no. It does though have the signal advantage for probability purposes of providing a method of some kind, something that "whatever pops into my head is thereby factually true for you too" Vladism sadly lacks.   

Which is ironic really, given that it was the same Vlad who had the brass neck to start a thread on the burden of proof.

Ah well....

If you’d rather slope off though, we’ll understand completely. After all, you’re pretty much at your bus stop for your ride home and shooting ducks in a barrel is my least favourite sport in any case. Mind that gate behind you though - it swings in the breeze a bit and could whack you on the bum if you're not careful.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hey Vlad old son, you’re still breathing I see!

Sorry not to respond to the latest of your interminable lists. I was saving it as a snack to chew up and shit out when it was convenient...........for me.

Since you want me to 'bite' lets have a little morsel

Exhibit A:

You wrote:

7. Now the problem here of course is that philosophical naturalism says no such thing. Philosophical naturalism is merely indifferent to claims of the supernatural – there are no cogent definitions, no means reliably or consistently to access these spooks and ghoulies, no method to distinguish the claims from guessing, nothing to test, no means of falsification etc. with which it could engage. For all the philosophical naturalist knows some or all or none of the claims of the supernatural could be true, but so far at least no-one’s ever been able to offer a method or make a case for any of them being more probably being true than not true.

But philosophical naturalism is not indifferent to claims of the supernatural. It arbitrarily and definitely rules them out.

What you are describing is methodological naturalism.

Your big problem is you are confused about the two or are trying deliberately to blur the boundary.

Sorry to piss on your bonfire.

[jeremyp]

Vlad, everybody knows that you just use "philosophical naturalism" as a smoke screen to hide your intellectual impotence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, everybody knows that you just use "philosophical naturalism" as a smoke screen to hide your intellectual impotence.

You what?

[Spud]

I'd tend to see stories about natural impossibilities as being false, since by definition they are impossible. I

So if I told you that you exist, then you would tend not to believe me because by definition it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing.

[Gordon]

I'd tend to see stories about natural impossibilities as being false, since by definition they are impossible. I

So if I told you that you exist, then you would tend not to believe me because by definition it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing.

Bit on a non sequitur there, Spud, since it must be the case that I arose from something, as did you.

[jjohnjil]

I'd tend to see stories about natural impossibilities as being false, since by definition they are impossible. I

So if I told you that you exist, then you would tend not to believe me because by definition it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing.

Like to tell us how your god suddenly appeared from nothing, Spud, as you seem to accept that concept okay!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

8. By contrast methodological materialism underpinned by philosophical naturalism

Show us the pins Material Boy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdy Straw Boy –

Aw no, you missed your bus!

Oh well, let’s see the last dying gasps of your wreck of a reply shall we?

Sorry not to respond to the latest of your interminable lists. I was saving it as a snack to chew up and shit out when it was convenient...........for me.

Yeah, sorry about that. That’s the thing with an actual argument you see – you have to set out premises, establish a chain of logic, reach a well-founded conclusion etc. So much easier I know just to blurt out a “whatever pops into my head and assert it to be factually true” Vladism, but hey – I guess not all of us are made that way.

Since you want me to 'bite' lets have a little morsel

Exhibit A:

You wrote:

7. Now the problem here of course is that philosophical naturalism says no such thing. Philosophical naturalism is merely indifferent to claims of the supernatural – there are no cogent definitions, no means reliably or consistently to access these spooks and ghoulies, no method to distinguish the claims from guessing, nothing to test, no means of falsification etc. with which it could engage. For all the philosophical naturalist knows some or all or none of the claims of the supernatural could be true, but so far at least no-one’s ever been able to offer a method or make a case for any of them being more probably being true than not true.

Yup, so far so good…

But philosophical naturalism is not indifferent to claims of the supernatural. It arbitrarily and definitely rules them out.

Aw bless, and there you career off the rails again. Does architecture arbitrarily and definitely rule out morris dancing? Does knitting arbitrarily and definitely rule out cheese making? How about heavy engineering arbitrarily and definitely ruling out poetry?

You’ve never understood this – all “philosophical naturalism” is is indifferent to the claims of the supernatural, for the reasons I explained and that you fail to comprehend. We assume philosophical naturalism in our working methods to understand the universe, to derive probable truths etc because there’s no other option. There’s nothing in claims of the supernatural with which it can engage, and there’s nothing else that can engage with those claims either.   

What you are describing is methodological naturalism.

Perhaps if you tried looking up the meaning of terms like this you wouldn’t keep getting them wrong? Just a thought.

Your big problem is you are confused about the two or are trying deliberately to blur the boundary.

Actually your big problem is that you don’t understand either.

Sorry to piss on your bonfire.

“Hello? Is that the 99p Store? It is? Good…I don’t suppose you sell trousers do you? You do, great – see this chap Vlad keeps ruining his while mumbling about bonfires, so we’re gonna need a job lot or something. 

Colour? Don’t mind really – he sounds like the kind of man who’d wear sticking plaster beige, so let’s go for that.

How many? Ooh, well – let’s see. He has wet himself an awful lot in the past, and he shows no signs of stopping any time soon…let’s go with six dozen pairs for now, and we’ll see how we go.

Thanks everso.”

Incidentally Straw Boy, where do you stand on the Mummies’ tummies vs Stork delivery question?

Naturally you won’t be relying on your version of philosophical naturalism for your answer, so please show your working out for calculating the probabilities.

Oh, and by the way it just popped into my head that – er sorry, I “intuited” that Stan the King of the Storks just makes it look like Mums do it, so that must be true then.

Fun this just making shit up and insisting it to be true for everyone else too innit?

You’ll make a Vladist of me yet!

[Spud]

I'd tend to see stories about natural impossibilities as being false, since by definition they are impossible.

So if I told you that you exist, then you would tend not to believe me because by definition it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing.

Bit on a non sequitur there, Spud, since it must be the case that I arose from something, as did you.

Sorry - what I mean is: strictly speaking nothing should exist, because matter does not create itself. Something outside the laws of nature must have been operating in order for matter to come into existence. So if you accept that you exist, you should also accept that something exists outside the laws of nature, and possibly, therefore, that those laws can be interrupted, as in the case of miracles.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd tend to see stories about natural impossibilities as being false, since by definition they are impossible. I

So if I told you that you exist, then you would tend not to believe me because by definition it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing.

Bit on a non sequitur there, Spud, since it must be the case that I arose from something, as did you.

Sorry - what I mean is: strictly speaking nothing should exist, because matter does not create itself. Something outside the laws of nature must have been operating in order for matter to come into existence. So if you believe that you exist, you should also believe that something exists outside the laws of nature, and possibly, therefore, that those laws can be interrupted, as in the case of miracles.

it's logic, Jim but not as we know it

[Walt Zingmatilder]

8. By contrast methodological materialism underpinned by philosophical naturalism (the real one, not your straw man version of it) does offer a method to sort the more probably true from the more probably not true: ‘planes fly, bricks don’t; medicines cure, witch doctors don’t; apples fall to the ground, magic carpets don’t levitate etc.

He's done it again.......... tried to blur the boundaries between Philosophical and methodological naturalism.

The latter is independent of the former. You do not have to have the former to use the latter.

Secondly Hillside usually extrapolates the methodology, gussies it up, to become the philosophy. Now he is saying it goes the other way. Again the philosophical naturalism is not necessary for the methodology which is arrived by compartmentalising the material and the non material.

lastly I have no beef with the methodology as Hillside is trying to paint. It does what it says on the tin.....unless you have a tin where the label has been replaced for one saying 'Philosophical naturalism';...........

There....like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Nearly Sane]

What is the non material that is being compartmentalised?

[Gordon]

I'd tend to see stories about natural impossibilities as being false, since by definition they are impossible.

So if I told you that you exist, then you would tend not to believe me because by definition it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing.

Bit on a non sequitur there, Spud, since it must be the case that I arose from something, as did you.

Sorry - what I mean is: strictly speaking nothing should exist, because matter does not create itself. Something outside the laws of nature must have been operating in order for matter to come into existence.

Argument from personal incredulity, Spud - you really are racking up your use of fallacies.

So if you accept that you exist, you should also accept that something exists outside the laws of nature, and possibly, therefore, that those laws can be interrupted, as in the case of miracles.

Non sequitur, again.

[Spud]

I've explained why there must be a creator. How is what I said arguing from personal incredulity, please?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is the non material that is being compartmentalised?

Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.

[Nearly Sane]

What is the non material that is being compartmentalised?

Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.

No material, no such concepts. They are expressed by material things so that doesn't work. Your 'point' about Brian Cox is irrelevant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is the non material that is being compartmentalised?

Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.

No material, no such concepts. They are expressed by material things so that doesn't work. Your 'point' about Brian Cox is irrelevant.

OK then you'll have no problem telling me how wonderful the universe is.......SI units please....

Like Real Madrid against One legged arsekickers FC.

[Nearly Sane]

What is the non material that is being compartmentalised?

Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.

No material, no such concepts. They are expressed by material things so that doesn't work. Your 'point' about Brian Cox is irrelevant.

OK then you'll have no problem telling me how wonderful the universe is.......SI units please....

Like Real Madrid against One legged arsekickers FC.

Are you drunk?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is the non material that is being compartmentalised?

Things which do not owe there existence to being material e.g. beauty, wonder.......as Cox is always banging on the universe is wonderful.......are you saying he shouldn't.....or that the universe isn't wonderful.

No material, no such concepts. They are expressed by material things so that doesn't work. Your 'point' about Brian Cox is irrelevant.

OK then you'll have no problem telling me how wonderful the universe is.......SI units please....

Like Real Madrid against One legged arsekickers FC.

Are you drunk?

That's like the pot calling something untouched by fire.....Black.

[Nearly Sane]

I note Vlad's latest lie is in his latest name change.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I note Vlad's latest lie is in his latest name change.

I have clarified by adding a Dawkinsian question mark.