From Necessary Entity to Christian God.

[Gordon]

No people don't rise from the dead, I'll never see it, but then people probably thought that about virgin births and clones.

But those are due to medical/technological progress - so not in the same category as miracle claims.

But could God do it? Sure, I believe God could.

Which is a faith claim: a belief without justification.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But those are due to medical/technological progress - so not in the same category as miracle claims.

Which is a faith claim: a belief without justification.

Naturalism is a faith claim.
"These things can't happen is a faith claim apart from things that are impossible.

That God can reorganise matter is based on the notion that he created it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But those are due to medical/technological progress - so not in the same category as miracle claims.

So it's possible for a technologically advanced operative but never for God.

Do you not see your issue is with God?

[Gordon]

So it's possible for a technologically advanced operative but never for God.

I never said it was possible: you did!

Do you not see your issue is with God?

Which bit of 'Gordon thinks that 'God' is nonsensical theobollocks' are you struggling to understand?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I never said it was possible: you did!

As an implication of naturalism.

[Nearly Sane]

As an implication of naturalism.

Are you using it as philosophical naturalism or methodological naturalism here?

[Gonnagle]

I never said it was possible: you did!

Which bit of 'Gordon thinks that 'God' is nonsensical theobollocks' are you struggling to understand?

Dear Gordon, Morning

I've got it, no problemo, you are 100% certain, got it, received and understood Captain👍 There is another mob, mostly in the good old U.S of A, they are also 100% certain, only their certainty is the complete opposite of your certainty, it's a funny old world

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you using it as philosophical naturalism or methodological naturalism here?

I am using it in the sense that naturalism has life and death as the particular state of a collection of matter in terms of arrangement, energy etc.

So, a bit of both probably.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Gordon, Morning

I've got it, no problemo, you are 100% certain, got it, received and understood Captain👍 There is another mob, mostly in the good old U.S of A, they are also 100% certain, only their certainty is the complete opposite of your certainty, it's a funny old world

Gonnagle.

Are you 100% certain there is a god? Is Gordon 100% certain that there isn"/m (note his post you replied to didn't say that).

Are you defining fundamentalist as certainty?

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon, Morning

I've got it, no problemo, you are 100% certain, got it, received and understood Captain👍 There is another mob, mostly in the good old U.S of A, they are also 100% certain, only their certainty is the complete opposite of your certainty, it's a funny old world

Gonnagle.

I never said I was 100% certain, since that would be foolish, but as things stand I see no good reasons to take 'God' seriously - but if a good reason was ever presented then I'd certainly look at that.
 
It does seem unlikely though, since it would have to be accompanied by some suitable means of confirming supernatural agency.

[Nearly Sane]

I am using it in the sense that naturalism has life and death as the particular state of a collection of matter in terms of arrangement, energy etc.

So, a bit of both probably.

I'm not sure that that is a necessary part of naturalism, and using the term in the confused way you do here, and do most times, it's difficult to follow the logic. Further even allowing that someone were to believe that death and life are states of matter, I don't think it implies that resurrection is possible.

And that's leaving aside the problems of what we mean by resurrection, life, and death.

[Gonnagle]

I never said I was 100% certain, since that would be foolish, but as things stand I see no good reasons to take 'God' seriously - but if a good reason was ever presented then I'd certainly look at that.
 
It does seem unlikely though, since it would have to be accompanied by some suitable means of confirming supernatural agency.

Dear Gordon,

My apologises, it was the words nonsensical and theobollocks that threw me.

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

My apologises, it was the words nonsensical and theobollocks that threw me.

Gonnagle.

I was perhaps being more robust than usual, since Vlad didn't seem to grasp what I was saying.

On the 100% confidence issue, I remember coming across Russell's 'Liberal Decalogue' in my teenage years and being struck by his first bit of advice - 'Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.', and I'd say that is good advice.

https://www.themarginalian.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/

[Gonnagle]

I was perhaps being more robust than usual, since Vlad didn't seem to grasp what I was saying.

On the 100% confidence issue, I remember coming across Russell's 'Liberal Decalogue' in my teenage years and being struck by his first bit of advice - 'Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.', and I'd say that is good advice.

https://www.themarginalian.org/2012/05/02/a-liberal-decalogue-bertrand-russell/

Dear Gordon,

Definitely, especially the word anything but then I had a wee look at your link, and I immediately thought oh dear! what is the world doing to my wee friend Gordon Atheist champions, oh dear God in Govan although I am quite partial to Dennett, he seems to have a calming effect on me when it comes to Atheism.

I did like his 7th commandment.

Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not sure that that is a necessary part of naturalism, and using the term in the confused way you do here, and do most times, it's difficult to follow the logic. Further even allowing that someone were to believe that death and life are states of matter, I don't think it implies that resurrection is possible.

And that's leaving aside the problems of what we mean by resurrection, life, and death.

I think you are expressing doubts over whether I've used the correct Ism here. I've talked about the role of science and technology in the reorganisation of matter.

The fact is many do not also share your doubts about definitions. Dead is dead for them. Hawking envisage just switching off. Death then is for them rooted in physicalism and naturalism and materialism. If, fo them there is more to it then for them science has found their own limits to it.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are expressing doubts over whether I've used the correct Ism here. I've talked about the role of science and technology in the reorganisation of matter.

The fact is many do not also share your doubts about definitions. Dead is dead for them. Hawking envisage just switching off. Death then is for them rooted in physicalism and naturalism and materialism. If, fo them there is more to it then for them science has found their own limits to it.

Putting in more isms randomly just adds to your confusion. I doubt that the vast majority of people ever consider any isms.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Putting in more isms randomly just adds to your confusion. I doubt that the vast majority of people ever consider any isms.

I don't agree with that notion, that if you don't think about isms, you can't be expressing one.
That's all a bit fingers crossed.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad and Sane,

Got to love this forum sometimes

https://phrontistery.info/isms.html

Omnism, might have to read Pratchetts Small Gods again.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't agree with that notion, that if you don't think about isms, you can't be expressing one.
That's all a bit fingers crossed.

Well since it's not what I said, I'm not sure of the relevance of your disagreeing with it.

I think it's pointless to use a generalisation like an ism as to what individuals think if it it doesn't tell you anything, and given you have a habit of lying about what people think, then it is both obfuscation and ignorance.


I'd suggest you would be far better dealing with what people actually say, rather then trying to fit it into isms that you seem to barely comprehend.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't agree with that notion, that if you don't think about isms, you can't be expressing one.
That's all a bit fingers crossed.

I have Vlad as Maureen Lipman here going round telling people that because they have an ism they are a philosopher. If someone thinks that a bus timetable is useful, is there a point to saying they believe in naturalism? It just seems to get in the way of examine the views.

I',d also suggest that people are hard to classify in that many of their beliefs can be contradictory when put into these sorts of isms. It's one of the reasons I am sceptical of the idea of world views.

Walt Whitman: 'Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have Vlad as Maureen Lipman here going round telling people that because they have an ism they are a philosopher. If someone thinks that a bus timetable is useful, is there a point to saying they believe in naturalism? It just seems to get in the way of examine the views.

I',d also suggest that people are hard to classify in that many of their beliefs can be contradictory when put into these sorts of isms. It's one of the reasons I am sceptical of the idea of world views.

Walt Whitman: 'Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.'

So, too cool for any philosophical school.

Walt Disney:'Hi ho!'

[Gonnagle]

I have Vlad as Maureen Lipman here going round telling people that because they have an ism they are a philosopher. If someone thinks that a bus timetable is useful, is there a point to saying they believe in naturalism? It just seems to get in the way of examine the views.

I',d also suggest that people are hard to classify in that many of their beliefs can be contradictory when put into these sorts of isms. It's one of the reasons I am sceptical of the idea of world views.

Walt Whitman: 'Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.'

Dear Sane,

Are you simply saying that man, us, us Homo Sapiens are complicated creatures.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

So, too cool for any philosophical school.

Walt Disney:'Hi ho!'

I think pretty well everyone is. Those who atrach themselves to isms, fair enough they are free to do so but it's inevitably a shorthand. Treating people as if they are monolithic in this long just seems odd, and your frequent attempts at labelling have often been at the cost of ignoring what's been said.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

Are you simply saying that man, us, us Homo Sapiens are complicated creatures.

Gonnagle.

and that when you treat people as simple labels you will fail. Further that Vald has a habit of sticking isms where they are not useful, incorrect, and occasionally lying about what people are.

[Gonnagle]

and that when you treat people as simple labels you will fail. Further that Vald has a habit of sticking isms where they are not useful, incorrect, and occasionally lying about what people are.

Dear Sane,

Simple yes or no would have sufficed, and then I would have agreed, as for Vlad lying, pass, but glad we agree we are complicated creatures.

Gonnagle.