Faith vs blind faith

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You make a claim about the nature of god. That claim is untestable, and therefore could be made about anything supernatural - leprechauns, jabberwockies, yurei, abchanchu, Anzu... If an argument cannot be tested or validated (and does not spring purely from logic) then what use is it? It can be made with any other unevidenced claim in the same place with exactly the same (in)validity.

O.

Ah, but observation of Leprechauns is observation is it not. And presumably if one has been seen another could be videoed and yet another caught and examined.
The divine is not observable in the same way. If you are going to accept the principle of interconversion from the supernatural to the natural then at some point observation in the classic sense becomes possible......and somehow that has fallen under your Radar.

These, I would have thought were the rules of engagement on this board.
That there was a method for the so called physical and arguments for the philosophical and metaphysical.

I understand that this makes things hard for the physicalist but hey you pays your money and you takes your choice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The divine is not observable in the same way.

Been a while since you tried the fallacy of special pleading. Nice attempt to sneak it under the wire though. 

[Outrider]

Ah, but observation of Leprechauns is observation is it not.

Is it? More or less so than observations of Jesus in toast?

And presumably if one has been seen another could be videoed and yet another caught and examined.

Just as we could have caught and dissected the avatar of Yahweh... but nobody did, and the body conveniently disappeared just like there's no physical corpses for the leprechauns..

The divine is not observable in the same way.

Now who's guilty of  'special pleading'? What is 'divine' other than 'my preferred type of supernatural that I'd like to be treated differently'.

If you are going to accept the principle of interconversion from the supernatural to the natural then at some point observation in the classic sense becomes possible......and somehow that has fallen under your Radar.

It would appear that the 'Principe of Interconversion' has fallen under everyone's radar with regards to the supernatural, at least according to Google. You appear to be suggesting that someone, somewhere is accepting the idea that something 'supernatural' actually exists and is interacting with nature? If that were the case we'd be able to detect the interaction and test it, so if you think you've any example let the Norwegians know so that you can collect your Nobel prize.

These, I would have thought were the rules of engagement on this board. That there was a method for the so called physical and arguments for the philosophical and metaphysical.

Why would you think that? Why would you not require a reasonable method to validate ANY claims. The problem with supernatural claims is that lack of any method by which they can be verified.

I understand that this makes things hard for the physicalist but hey you pays your money and you takes your choice.

It doesn't make it difficult at all, let me show you the process flow:

supernaturalist - "Check out my spiffy* unevidenced claim!"
physicalist - "Support your claim"
supernaturalist - "No, look, unevidenced, but I really, really like it!"
physicalist - "Dismissed on the same grounds it was offered; none. Next please."

* other outdated adjectives are available.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Are The Principle of Interconversion supporting The Hexagons of Lightning, and The Pumps of Iniquity at festivals?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

At some point you’re going to have to grasp the nettle. Either you think that certain core beliefs do exist “on their own” because your faith tells you so, or you don’t. If you don’t, that’s fine by me – you can treat the “holy” texts as you would any other attempts by people to understand the world, albeit relatively primitive ones appropriate to their times. If you do though, then if everything potentially at least is up for re-interpretation what need is there for a god sitting behind it?

You are still just repeating your assertion. How does a core belief exist without a person to believe it and how does a person believe it without their brain processing the inputs and interpreting those inputs?     

It does. Are your seriously suggesting that the behaviours of theocracies for example aren’t (and haven’t always been) “problematic” for those unfortunate enough to have been subjected to them?   

Tell it to the clerics who provide the intellectual cover for ISIS.

Certain people's interpretations and behaviours are problems - but I don't hold this as a problem for theists who don't behave this way, anymore than I consider all men as a problem because of the behaviour of Harvey Weinstein.

We do, but sometimes someone will say, “X is true because god says so, and I know that because that’s my faith”. Then what?

You could I suppose shop around until you found a cleric who said instead, “Y is true because god says so, and I know that because that’s my faith” (assuming you happen to prefer Y over X) but that would just be confirmation bias – you wouldn’t have investigated anything.     

Nope. What “interpretation” could there be of the accurately worded revealed instructions of gods? Either you think everything is up for grabs (in which case the god bit is redundant) or you don’t (in which case the faith bit is the problem).

Incidentally, why too if there was a god who wanted us to know what his rules are would he make them so unclear that we’d need an eternity to re-interpret them, and even then not know whether we’d got it right? What test could we apply to know whether the current interpretation is now the correct one?   

You still haven't explained how any revealed instructions could be acted upon, accurately or otherwise, if there is no one to take the revelation into their brain and interpret it to figure out a way for it to apply to their individual circumstance. In which case it is a subjective opinion as to whether the interpretation is accurate.

What's your theory on how this accurately worded, revealed instruction is understood by the brain of a person without the need for interpretation?

[Gordon]

Ah, but observation of Leprechauns is observation is it not.

Leaving aside the tautology, it would be only if they were actually observable.

And presumably if one has been seen another could be videoed and yet another caught and examined.

You mean just like the angels people claim to have seen could be caught and examined?

The divine is not observable in the same way.

How convenient!

If you are going to accept the principle of interconversion from the supernatural to the natural then at some point observation in the classic sense becomes possible......and somehow that has fallen under your Radar.

Now we're cooking with gas: all you need do now, Vlad, is invent an 'interconvensionometer' and you can turn your principle into practice - should be interesting (and maybe worth a wee investment in the new technology).

These, I would have thought were the rules of engagement on this board.
That there was a method for the so called physical and arguments for the philosophical and metaphysical.

I understand that this makes things hard for the physicalist but hey you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Surely though your 'principle of interconversion' will resolve all (for ever and ever etc).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it? More or less so than observations of Jesus in toast?

hang on, we were comparing Leprechauns and Jesus. Where, apart from desperation, Does Jesus in toast come from?

[ippy]

Sorry if I wasn't being clear - what you're being asked for is the reasoning behind your assertion. It's your choice if you want to reveal your reasoning, I'm not telling you what to do.

If I was asserting something again,why would I say, 'it looks like', it looks like like Social pressure to me, so having stated that I meant social pressure in the same way as anyone else would mean social pressure, you're not telling me that you don't understand what social pressure amounts to?

This is becoming a set of postings about the normal use of everyday English in which I made myself very clear the first time I wrote, we may as well start on about what do you mean about, 'reveal', as it happens I'm not so don't start on that.

Please feel free Gabriella to make what you will of any post of mine I've lost interest.

Ippy

[ippy]

Ah, but observation of Leprechauns is observation is it not. And presumably if one has been seen another could be videoed and yet another caught and examined.
The divine is not observable in the same way. If you are going to accept the principle of interconversion from the supernatural to the natural then at some point observation in the classic sense becomes possible......and somehow that has fallen under your Radar.

These, I would have thought were the rules of engagement on this board.
That there was a method for the so called physical and arguments for the philosophical and metaphysical.

I understand that this makes things hard for the physicist but hey you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Laughable!

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

If I was asserting something again,why would I say, 'it looks like', it looks like like Social pressure to me, so having stated that I meant social pressure in the same way as anyone else would mean social pressure, you're not telling me that you don't understand what social pressure amounts to?

This is becoming a set of postings about the normal use of everyday English in which I made myself very clear the first time I wrote, we may as well start on about what do you mean about, 'reveal', as it happens I'm not so don't start on that.

Please feel free Gabriella to make what you will of any post of mine I've lost interest.

Ippy

Gabriella was asking why you think it is social pressure since as she explained she felt social pressure to be an atheist.

[Outrider]

hang on, we were comparing Leprechauns and Jesus. Where, apart from desperation, Does Jesus in toast come from?

You wanted to reference alleged observations of leprechauns, so I pointed out the alleged observations of Jesus (the avatar of Yahweh) as a comparison.

O.

[ippy]

Gabriella was asking why you think it is social pressure since as she explained she felt social pressure to be an atheist.

Arrr mister muddle himself having a good day are we?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now who's guilty of  'special pleading'? What is 'divine' other than 'my preferred type of supernatural that I'd like to be treated differently'.

You are the one trying to compare Leprechauns with God.
I have heard of the Historical Jesus but Historical leprechauns? What are you thinking?
You don't appear to want leprechauns just to be faeries, you want them to be divine. Thanks to your Boss RD you haven't been studying your Leprechology.

[wigginhall]

I thought that Jesus in toast is a classic example of the interconversion of the supernatural to the natural.   But then Christ on a bike might be similar.  Jesus realizes that he is invisible to many people, so chooses toast as a convenient physical manifestation.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You are still just repeating your assertion. How does a core belief exist without a person to believe it and how does a person believe it without their brain processing the inputs and interpreting those inputs?

How does any belief exist without a “brain processing the inputs and interpreting those inputs” and, if it can’t, where then would that leave beliefs about the supposed inerrant, certain, categoric words of gods?
       

Certain people's interpretations and behaviours are problems - but I don't hold this as a problem for theists who don't behave this way, anymore than I consider all men as a problem because of the behaviour of Harvey Weinstein.

So far as I know Harvey Weinstein doesn’t claim to have acted as he did because of the instructions of a god. And in any case, how are they “problems” except in the sense of, “produce outcomes I Gabriella find to be unwelcome”? If any one cleric’s faith belief is only differentiated from another’s according to what you think of the real world effect they have, that’s all about your preferences and nothing about what a god may have decided on the matter.   

You still haven't explained how any revealed instructions could be accurate or otherwise if there is no one to take the revelation into their brain and interpret it to figure out a way for it to apply to their individual circumstance. In which case it is a subjective opinion as to whether the interpretation is accurate.

That’s a non sequitur. If you want to assert there to be revealed instruction how would you also claim to know what they are if everything’s up for interpretation? And re-interpretation? And then some more re-interpretation after that?

What kind of god would on other words it be who thought, “OK, I’m going to share what my inerrant rules are in some holy books, only I’m not going to give my special creation the means ever to know for sure what they are. Mwa ha haaaar” etc? 

What's your theory on how this accurately worded, revealed instruction is understood by the brain of a person without the need for interpretation?

It’s not my theory at all. If someone wants to claim that the inerrant instructions of a god are accurately written in a book, it’s for him I’d have thought to explain how he’s ever know what the correct interpretation of them is. I’d have thought the obvious fudge would be to argue that some things are so plain that no amount of interpretation would change that, but as it’s not my problem it’s not an argument I’d have to attempt.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are the one trying to compare Leprechauns with God.
I have heard of the Historical Jesus but Historical leprechauns? What are you thinking?

But you are already making an unevidenced leap, in other words assuming that the historical Jesus is somehow God. There is no evidence for that so let's sticky to the actual point.

Comparing Leprechauns with God - seems to me that both are pretty well equivalent in terms of the credible evidence for their existence.

[Outrider]

You are the one trying to compare Leprechauns with God.

Still not what's happening. I'm comparing the bad arguments for gods to equally bad arguments for leprechauns

I have heard of the Historical Jesus but Historical leprechauns? What are you thinking?

I was thinking 'this guy just talked about making observation of leprechauns... wtf?

You don't appear to want leprechauns just to be faeries, you want them to be divine.

No, I want you to demonstrate how you tell they aren't. I want you to explain how 'divine' isn't just 'magic with extra ner-ner-nerner-ner'. In what way are claims of gods special that they require a lesser burden of proof than claims of leprechauns?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Arrr mister muddle himself having a good day are we?

ippy

Yes, and your inability to answer straight questions convinces me all must be right with this world.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The divine is not observable in the same way.

So are we just supposed to pretend now that you didn't try to sneak in that remarkable bit of special pleading?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

Still not what's happening. I'm comparing the bad arguments for gods to equally bad arguments for leprechauns

Or, even more on point, to the same bad arguments for leprechauns.

For some unexplained reason he seems to think that a bad argument for an outcome he finds to be ridiculous (leprechauns) somehow becomes a better one for an outcome he thinks is fine ("God").

Why he thinks that is anyone's guess, but it's either dimwitted or dishonest whichever way you look at it.   

[Outrider]

Outy,

Or, even more on point, to the same bad arguments for leprechauns.

For some unexplained reason he seems to think that a bad argument for an outcome he finds to be ridiculous (leprechauns) somehow becomes a better one for an outcome he thinks is fine ("God").

Why he thinks that is anyone's guess, but it's either dimwitted or dishonest whichever way you look at it.

I'm presuming he thinks he sees something different between the two; I don't see it myself, but I think to presume dishonesty is unfair, and he's obviously not dim-witted - he might be wrong, but even smart people are wrong sometimes.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

I'm presuming he thinks he sees something different between the two;...

But there isn't "the two" - there's just "the one", ie one and the same argument. Endlessly arguing that leprechauns wear green hats while god cures little Timmy of his rickets is utterly irrelevant to the point, namely that a bad argument doesn't become a good one depending on opinions about its outcome.   
 

...I don't see it myself, but I think to presume dishonesty is unfair, and he's obviously not dim-witted - he might be wrong, but even smart people are wrong sometimes.

I think you're forgetting his long history of dishonesty, such that he doesn't even bother denying it these days. Eventually after a long exchange of "I say X", "So you say Y then", "No, I said X", "So you said Y then", "No, look here's the exact quote where I said X", "So you said Y then" etc it's hard to avoid the conclusion of wilful dishonesty. His recent efforts re SU vs theism and "comparing god with leprechauns" are cases in point.   

[Outrider]

But there isn't "the two" - there's just "the one", ie one and the same argument. Endlessly arguing that leprechauns wear green hats while god cures little Timmy of his rickets is utterly irrelevant to the point, namely that a bad argument doesn't become a good one depending on opinions about its outcome.

That's my take on it, but it doesn't hurt to presume that he at least thinks there's something else. One of us is wrong, I suspect that it's him, and I keep giving him the opportunity to demonstrate that there's more to it than I can see.
 

I think you're forgetting his long history of dishonesty, such that he doesn't even bother denying it these days. Eventually after a long exchange of "I say X", "So you say Y then", "No, I said X", "So you said Y then", "No, look here's the exact quote where I said X", "So you said Y then" etc it's hard to avoid the conclusion of wilful dishonesty. His recent efforts re SU vs theism and "comparing god with leprechauns" are cases in point.

I'm far from perfect, I can't really complain if other people aren't. And, of course, I've been away for quite a while, so I'm still getting back into the swing of it again. Maybe I'll be a little less forgiving in six months time...

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

Ah, but observation of Leprechauns is observation is it not. And presumably if one has been seen another could be videoed and yet another caught and examined.
The divine is not observable in the same way. If you are going to accept the principle of interconversion from the supernatural to the natural then at some point observation in the classic sense becomes possible......and somehow that has fallen under your Radar.

Jesus caught on film...

www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping2282

www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping155

www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping

[Dicky Underpants]

But you are already making an unevidenced leap, in other words assuming that the historical Jesus is somehow God. There is no evidence for that so let's sticky to the actual point.

Very important. Difficult to keep in mind sometimes, when Vlad is attempting to argue for a 'mysterious something I know not what' that exists beyond the universe. There's a bit a gap to bridged between that nebulous 'something' and Jesus as God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.
Me, I prefer the Phoenix to leprechauns:
"Men throughout the earth marvel at its beauty. Their writings set it forth. The Phoenix, young in its dwelling, betokens the power of the Son of God, when from its ashes it rises again to the life of life."
attrib. Cynewulf (9th century)
Alleluya!