Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: bluehillside Retd. on June 07, 2016, 09:56:50 AM
-
There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.
Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.
In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.
Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.
What then is there left to talk about instead?
-
There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.
Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded specially respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.
In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.
Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.
What then is there left to talk about instead?
Exactly.
Wouldn't these debates on the forum have and carry over at least some worthwhile meaning if the various books about the religions they are basing these debates on could be established as stories of actual events, occurrences that really did happen etc?
ippy
-
Is that it then? Are we done here?
Pretty much.
-
bluehillside
I read your OP and decided I'd wait a bit before posting, and I see it took several hours before a response arrived. Maybe others were thinking similarly! You're right, of course, we all are pretty much aware of others' opinions on things and after years of interesting communication, it could well be that we've run into a sort of dead end with nowhere to go and it being unlikely that we'll find some totallynew topic. But to just sort of drift away and lose touch would be such a pity; I for one would really miss the company here.
I have now come to the end of 'Sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari and towards the very end he talks of Neanderthal DNA and the idea - in California somewhere, I think - that a baby could be born with half human, half Neanderthal DNA and that several women have already volunteered to carry such a child. The ethics of this could make a subject for discussion, but, here too, the situation I think would be fairly clear: that child would need many others to be born at a similar time - it would bne extremely selfish and cruel to bring him/her into the world as a one-off.
Situations and groups formed because of common interests, especially when so widely dispersed, sometimes come to a natural end, but I think I might well - maybe with Floo! - be the last one out if that happens here. :) (Or perhaps a *sad face* would be more appropriate here...
-
Quite right, Blue ... it is all much ado about nothing, which is why I seldom post now.
-
There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.
Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded specially respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.
In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.
Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.
What then is there left to talk about instead?
An excellent explanation of why this forum is not getting many, if any, new members.
The Muslim Topic appears to be dead. The Pagan one, with very rare exceptions, seems to be following it, despite the efforts of the Lady Rhi and myself to keep it alive. Anything that the two of us say is usually swamped in a tide of Fundamentalist Christian disapproval and ire and General Ignorance (with apologies to Spephen Fry and QI).
When it comes to Paganism, apart from Rhi and myself, only Shaker, Rose and Wigginhall seem to have posted anything worthwhile there.
-
Thanks all for the comments so far. Perhaps we should just leave it as an open question: does anyone with a personal belief in "God" have a method to enable them to bridge to gap to "true for you too"?
If someone wants to have a go at it, well and good; if not, well I guess we can draw our own conclusions.
-
Susan Doris: "......he talks of Neanderthal DNA and the idea - in California somewhere, I think - that a baby could be born with half human, half Neanderthal DNA".
Neanderthals were humans.
-
Susan Doris: "......he talks of Neanderthal DNA and the idea - in California somewhere, I think - that a baby could be born with half human, half Neanderthal DNA".
Neanderthals were humans.
Susan is referring to the DNA difference between Neanderthals and homo sapiens.
-
Neanderthals were a species of homo sapiens. As were Cro-magnon people who arrived a bit later. I thought Susan was quoting from someone, I'll check back. Done. Not a quote but a paraphrase of what she read.
-
There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.
Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.
In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.
Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.
What then is there left to talk about instead?
This must be the mother and father of all argumentum ad consequentium.
I knew Hillside would, after stringing so many along, go for the Big Pisstake..........and this is it.
Seek for a Bluehillsidian knock down argument for ''God Free'' and find it ye shall not! Search for what Hillside believes in and a straight answer will not be forthcoming.
Atheists and antitheists. You should be on your knees begging Hillside with the words 'Papa Smurf, Lord of all, we beseech you ''what is it we are not supposed to believe in, your Blueness.
In terms of Hillsidium this strikes the Big blue vein.
-
Neanderthals were a species of homo sapiens. As were Cro-magnon people who arrived a bit later. I thought Susan was quoting from someone, I'll check back. Done. Not a quote but a paraphrase of what she read.
I don't think homo sapiens and neanderthals had the same DNA.
-
This must be the mother and father of all argumentum ad consequentium.
Parroting of what you were (correctly) accused of elsewhere and demonstrating that you have no idea what it means. Couldn't you even be arsed to look it up?
Seek for a Bluehillsidian knock down argument for ''God Free'' and find it ye shall not!
And a classic Vladian straw man.
Is this some sort of self-parody?
-
Parroting of what you were (correctly) accused of elsewhere and demonstrating that you have no idea what it means. Couldn't you even be arsed to look it up?
And a classic Vladian straw man.
Is this some sort of self-parody?
Look....If Hillside thinks he has a knock down argument for 'God free' and his followers get it (so far it seems locked away in his head)AND wishes to move on then he is free to do so.
He would though be stupid if he thinks that nobody is going to come in with an ad hominem or even a contradictory view since that is his own modus operandii (The Trollboy affair)!!!
No one will stop his Bossist leadership of his people to some new promised land and by suggesting that he is somehow being prevented makes himself look like a parody of Brigham Young...of whom some said he was a silly Mormon...... and some kind of martyr.
If I'm to be pharaoh to his Moses I say to him ......load up your wagons and leave Egypt for the promised land.
-
There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.
Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.
In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.
Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.
What then is there left to talk about instead?
I'm sure you'll think of something.
-
This must be the mother and father of all argumentum ad consequentium.
In which - should anyone have had any lingering doubts on the matter - Trollboy demonstrates unequivocally that he doesn't have the first idea what "argumentum ad consequentiam" actually means, which is why presumably he keeps collapsing into it ("moral relativism is worthless therefore it must be objective to be real" etc) while wrongly accusing others of the same thing.
I knew Hillside would, after stringing so many along, go for the Big Pisstake..........and this is it.
Seek for a Bluehillsidian knock down argument for ''God Free'' and find it ye shall not! Search for what Hillside believes in and a straight answer will not be forthcoming.
Atheists and antitheists. You should be on your knees begging Hillside with the words 'Papa Smurf, Lord of all, we beseech you ''what is it we are not supposed to believe in, your Blueness.
In terms of Hillsidium this strikes the Big blue vein.
Followed immediately by white noise to distract from the fact that he has no rebuttal by way (finally) of an argument to take him from the subjective to the objective.
-
Look....If Hillside thinks he has a knock down argument for 'God free' and his followers get it (so far it seems locked away in his head)AND wishes to move on then he is free to do so.
He would though be stupid if he thinks that nobody is going to come in with an ad hominem or even a contradictory view since that is his own modus operandii (The Trollboy affair)!!!
No one will stop his Bossist leadership of his people to some new promised land and by suggesting that he is somehow being prevented makes himself look like a parody of Brigham Young...of whom some said he was a silly Mormon...... and some kind of martyr.
If I'm to be pharaoh to his Moses I say to him ......load up your wagons and leave Egypt for the promised land.
In which Trollboy demonstrates no only that he doesn't understand "ad hominem", but continues with the white noise distraction technique so as to make good his retreat from the argument that undoes him in the hope that no-one notices.
-
Look....If Hillside thinks he has a knock down argument for 'God free' and his followers get it (so far it seems locked away in his head)AND wishes to move on then he is free to do so.
He would though be stupid if he thinks that nobody is going to come in with an ad hominem or even a contradictory view since that is his own modus operandii (The Trollboy affair)!!!
No one will stop his Bossist leadership of his people to some new promised land and by suggesting that he is somehow being prevented makes himself look like a parody of Brigham Young...of whom some said he was a silly Mormon...... and some kind of martyr.
If I'm to be pharaoh to his Moses I say to him ......load up your wagons and leave Egypt for the promised land.
It ws not an affair and you are still a Troll, Trollboy! Your posts on this thread show this in spectacular fashion.
-
Look....If Hillside thinks he has a knock down argument for 'God free' and his followers get it (so far it seems locked away in his head)AND wishes to move on then he is free to do so.
He would though be stupid if he thinks that nobody is going to come in with an ad hominem or even a contradictory view since that is his own modus operandii (The Trollboy affair)!!!
No one will stop his Bossist leadership of his people to some new promised land and by suggesting that he is somehow being prevented makes himself look like a parody of Brigham Young...of whom some said he was a silly Mormon...... and some kind of martyr.
If I'm to be pharaoh to his Moses I say to him ......load up your wagons and leave Egypt for the promised land.
Vlad - you are ranting in a somewhat rambling manner.
Relax old chap: take a stroll near some gardens and admire all the lovely flowers - I hear the Vladioli are lovely at this time of year.
-
Gordon,
Relax old chap: take a stroll near some gardens and admire all the lovely flowers - I hear the Vladioli are lovely at this time of year.
Especially I hear in Vladivostok...
...and we've had a whip round!
-
Neanderthals were a species of homo sapiens. As were Cro-magnon people who arrived a bit later. I thought Susan was quoting from someone, I'll check back. Done. Not a quote but a paraphrase of what she read.
Actually the word 'human' is a rather loose term usually referring to our own species, Homo sapiens sapiens of the genus Homo. There is some dispute as regards neanderthals, as to whether they are a distinct species of Homo(Homo neanderthalensis) or a sub species of Homo sapiens(Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). The cro magnons were simply early Homo sapiens sapiens.
-
Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.
This seems to be held by people with no faith, as well, bh. I'd even suggest that the latter are more convinced about their position than those of faith.
In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.
The problem is that the methods used to dismiss the arguments of those with faith are based on a purely naturalistic understanding of life, which are necessarily unable to judge on matters that aren't purely naturalistic. As such, the method that such peoiple use is the one that collapses very quickly.
Is that it then? Are we done here?
I would agree with the underlying thinking here, bh. As I've said on a number of occasions, the arguments on both sides are so different in nature that all the bluster from both sides of the debate is nothing more than that. There is nothing that anyone can use to dismiss the other argument without actually taking that other side of the argument to heart. The only advantage that those like me have is that we understand the naturalistic argument, even if it is only a partial argument.
-
Wouldn't these debates on the forum have and carry over at least some worthwhile meaning if the various books about the religions they are basing these debates on could be established as stories of actual events, occurrences that really did happen etc?
ippy, the same could be asked of many of the 'stories' that the naturalistic arguments are based on.
-
ippy, the same could be asked of many of the 'stories' that the naturalistic arguments are based on.
Bet we're not going to be told what these supposedly are ...
-
Gordon,
Especially I hear in Vladivostok...
...and we've had a whip round!
Papa Smurf........Don't let me hold you up on your road to the land of milk and honey.
One thing I think your flock will continue to enjoy is "Trollboy this" and "Trollboy" that.
As Brigham Young would say on his way to the promised land........."Wagons Troll"
-
Don't let the door catch your butt on the way out.
-
Don't let the door catch your butt on the way out.
Stop talking to yourself Vlad, it is one of the first signs of madness.
-
The problem is that the methods used to dismiss the arguments of those with faith are based on a purely naturalistic understanding of life, which are necessarily unable to judge on matters that aren't purely naturalistic.
Utter, unadulterated drivel. It has been explained to you many times that any objective method to distinguish religious claims from guessing would do, but nobody has managed to come up with one (and no, I don't believe you've done so elsewhere or at another time).
These phrases of yours that accuse others of using "naturalistic" or "materialistic" methods are as empty and meaningless as Vlad's mantras about ontology and methodology.
There is nothing that anyone can use to dismiss the other argument without actually taking that other side of the argument to heart.
But you haven't even made an argument that provides a method that could distinguish religious beliefs from guesses.
The only advantage that those like me have is that we understand the naturalistic argument...
On the contrary, you have shown significant ignorance of science and total ignorance of logic.
-
Actually the word 'human' is a rather loose term usually referring to our own species, Homo sapiens sapiens of the genus Homo. There is some dispute as regards neanderthals, as to whether they are a distinct species of Homo(Homo neanderthalensis) or a sub species of Homo sapiens(Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). The cro magnons were simply early Homo sapiens sapiens.
I will happily debate this with you & anybody else who is interested, but I am going to suggest a split of this topic, to the Science Board.
-
Neanderthals were a species of homo sapiens. As were Cro-magnon people who arrived a bit later. I thought Susan was quoting from someone, I'll check back. Done. Not a quote but a paraphrase of what she read.
Yes, of course they were humans and a child born with part human, part neanderthal DNA is probably well within the range of things that could be done, but I was referring to the ethical situation of such a child being born into today's world. That child would find out he/she was born to be an experiment etc etc ... well, it just could not be done from any moral, ethical point of view.
-
I will happily debate this with you & anybody else who is interested, but I am going to suggest a split of this topic, to the Science Board.
Hi Humph, nice to hear from you.
Well that's the taxonomic position, as I understand it. However, I would be certainly interested in hearing your views, so please feel free to start a new thread on the Science Board.
-
ippy, the same could be asked of many of the 'stories' that the naturalistic arguments are based on.
You're on the boarders of your negative proof fallacy again, Hope; have the guts to admit you've no definitive way of substantiating this evidence, that I'm sure you genuinely think you have.
As you have been reminded so many times, I'll have another go, in spite of the odds, atheism is that there isn't any evidence that would demonstrate in any way that god or gods exist and in my case why believe in something as preposterous as god or gods without the necessary appropriate evidence?
Don't forget to cut and paste my post in such a way that you're able to misquote me in some way or another, again, why break a habit of a lifetime?
ippy
-
The problem is that the methods used to dismiss the arguments of those with faith are based on a purely naturalistic understanding of life, which are necessarily unable to judge on matters that aren't purely naturalistic. As such, the method that such people use is the one that collapses very quickly.
You're constantly being asked for an alternative method. No one is using a naturalistic method to dismiss those with faith - your faith is dismissed because you provide no method to investigate it.
-
You're constantly being asked for an alternative method. No one is using a naturalistic method to dismiss those with faith - your faith is dismissed because you provide no method to investigate it.
Why is it that people like Hope cannot understand that it is called "faith" becasue there IS no way of proving what anyone has "faith" in - it is only belief without any possibility of proof - hence FAITH!
Maybe I should go and explain this to the Wailing Wall - it doesn't say much, but it doesn't spout never ending bollocks either in negation either.
-
Naturalism cannot be used to dismiss theism, or any spiritual scheme. In the familiar analogy, that's like using a metal detector to argue that there is no glass in the ground.
I'm struggling to see how theists can go forward after that. Of course, they can cite their own experiences, and that of other people, and then argue that there is a commonality. However, this immediately gets shot down by the observation that plenty of people have other experiences, which are different. For example, plenty of people have no experience of God, or anything supernatural. In fact, the idea of experiencing the supernatural seems problematic - how would you know that it is supernatural?
Then you are left with Kierkegaard's leap of faith, or maybe leap to faith, I was looking for an incomprehensible quotation from him, but most of them are.
-
'People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me. '
Kierkegaard
-
Life has its own hidden forces, which you can only discover by living.
Ronnie Corbett.
-
the idea of experiencing the supernatural seems problematic - how would you know that it is supernatural?
Also, with which sensory facility might the natural detect the supernatural? Ghosts and suchlike have a convenient habit of appearing visually or making noises and so on, but I don't think God goes in for that kind of drama. I suppose a more interesting line of enquiry might by why humans ever came up with the idea of the supernatural in the first place. Perhaps as a useful source of things we can't find in the world, like verification of our special importance in the universe and the certainty of everlasting life. Or maybe it was the only place we could find a friend after we had turned our backs on nature.
-
Also, with which sensory facility might the natural detect the supernatural? Ghosts and suchlike have a convenient habit of appearing visually or making noises and so on, but I don't think God goes in for that kind of drama. I suppose a more interesting line of enquiry might by why humans ever came up with the idea of the supernatural in the first place. Perhaps as a useful source of things we can't find in the world, like verification of our special importance in the universe and the certainty of everlasting life. Or maybe it was the only place we could find a friend after we had turned our backs on nature.
Now that is an interesting point. I think there are different aspects of the supernatural. For example, the idea of a super-powerful being which causes earthquakes and tempests is a kind of pre-scientific explanations. But then there is the idea of the trans-ego, or beyond the self, which is found in many religions, including non-theistic ones. That is, there is a Self, which dominates the self, but this is transcendent, not supernatural. And so on.
-
Life has its own hidden forces, which you can only discover by living.
Ronnie Corbett.
"95% of the quotes you see on the internet are complete bullshit." - Abraham Lincoln.
-
Yes, the realisation of non-self is not actually supernatural. Then there is the Tao, which is sometimes seen as the source of all things and to that extent god-like, but I don't think it is ever considered supernatural. Tao is not normally considered separate from the 'ten thousand things' - its mode of creation is via organic growth and change, such that one is born out of the world rather than into it. I think the traditional idea of a creator God can only have arisen after human settlement led to the appearance of a world that seemed made. For the first time people would have been surrounded by manufactured artefacts and even the farmed landscape would have been 'made' by humans. One might even think of God as himself a product of domestication, as we brought the 'beyond' in from the wild and made it our own.
-
Yes, the realisation of non-self is not actually supernatural. Then there is the Tao, which is sometimes seen as the source of all things and to that extent god-like, but I don't think it is ever considered supernatural. Tao is not normally considered separate from the 'ten thousand things' - its mode of creation is via organic growth and change, such that one is born out of the world rather than into it. I think the traditional idea of a creator God can only have arisen after human settlement led to the appearance of a world that seemed made. For the first time people would have been surrounded by manufactured artefacts and even the farmed landscape would have been 'made' by humans. One might even think of God as himself a product of domestication, as we brought the 'beyond' in from the wild and made it our own.
Although the notion of Self can include creativity, this is found in some Eastern religions, e.g. Zen and advaita. I have heard people on Zen retreats exclaim: I do my being, or I love everything because I made it. The I here is not ego I, i.e. it's not saying that Wigginhall makes the universe, but that Wigginhall is himself made.
There is so much confusion here between transcendent, supernatural, and non-dualist, or whatever you call it, but it would take a book to unravel them. But as Kierkegaard said, the truth is found in living. No more books, too old and tired.
I just thought I'd add, that is why the Christian symbols make sense to me, but not as history.
-
"95% of the quotes you see on the internet are complete bullshit." - Abraham Lincoln.
Love it, ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
ippy
-
Dear Wigs
I just thought I'd add, that is why the Christian symbols make sense to me, but not as history.
Can you unravel that please, oh and some cracking posts from you and the young Brambles ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Hope,
This seems to be held by people with no faith, as well, bh. I'd even suggest that the latter are more convinced about their position than those of faith.
Then you'd suggest wrongly. First, the analogy fails because non-faith truths - about germs causing disease for example - rely for their force on methods to distinguish the claim from nonsense.
Second, it's precisely a characteristic of science in particular that it is not certain - that's why its theories include falsifiability tests, and that's why its findings are tentative. Now compare that with the terminology of the religious, with their "sure and certain" etc.
The problem is that the methods used to dismiss the arguments of those with faith are based on a purely naturalistic understanding of life, which are necessarily unable to judge on matters that aren't purely naturalistic. As such, the method that such peoiple use is the one that collapses very quickly.
No, the problem is that you've just committed another logical fallacy called the reification fallacy. Just typing the words "aren't purely naturalistic" doesn't pouffe such phenomena into existence. You need first to propose a method - any method - to distinguish the claim from white noise.
You then compound the problem by complaining that naturalistic methods aren't up to the job of investigating your assertions. Fine - it's your job then to propose a different type of method that is up the the job. The burden of proof remains in other words all yours.
I would agree with the underlying thinking here, bh. As I've said on a number of occasions, the arguments on both sides are so different in nature that all the bluster from both sides of the debate is nothing more than that. There is nothing that anyone can use to dismiss the other argument without actually taking that other side of the argument to heart. The only advantage that those like me have is that we understand the naturalistic argument, even if it is only a partial argument.
No, the problem is that - so far at least - there is no argument of any kind for the non-naturalistic. If you really think that you understand it, at least in part, why not finally tell us what it is so we can look at it for ourselves? Why so coy?
Why not for example tell us what method the authors of the alleged articles you said were rejected by scientific journals proposed so the editors could distinguish their claims from complete nonsense?
-
Yes, of course they were humans and a child born with part human, part neanderthal DNA is probably well within the range of things that could be done, but I was referring to the ethical situation of such a child being born into today's world. That child would find out he/she was born to be an experiment etc etc ... well, it just could not be done from any moral, ethical point of view.
I agree with that 100%. The idea of the deliberate conception of a 'designer child' is quite frightening.
I read somewhere fairly recently that a lot of people have some Neanderthal DNA. Not surprising really. I can't remember now where I read it but I found this bit from Wiki:
"A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia."
-
I agree with that 100%. The idea of the deliberate conception of a 'designer child' is quite frightening.
I read somewhere fairly recently that a lot of people have some Neanderthal DNA. Not surprising really. I can't remember now where I read it but I found this bit from Wiki:
"A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia."
I fear these things are being done somewhere before it comes up for discussion anywhere including here.
I share most peoples reservations held about this kind of engineering.
Another thought I have about this kind of genetic engineering, how much are the insurance companies investing into research in these areas, if not these areas have to be of considerable interest to them, then perhaps I'm just another conspiracy theorist? (Who said that)?
ippy
-
No Ippy, you are right to be concerned. I too think it is highly likely that it is being done somewhere quietly and privately, many other things too. However if we and the public generally (including scientists and doctors) are against such things and voice our concerns, at least it will be kept 'small'. We hope.
-
No Ippy, you are right to be concerned. I too think it is highly likely that it is being done somewhere quietly and privately, many other things too. However if we and the public generally (including scientists and doctors) are against such things, at least it will be kept 'small'. We hope.
I don't have any answers, it needs some very involved discussion in the open.
ippy
-
No, the problem is that you've just committed another logical fallacy called the reification fallacy. Just typing the words "aren't purely naturalistic" doesn't pouffe such phenomena into existence. You need first to propose a method - any method - to distinguish the claim from white noise.
I see your reification fallacy and raise you another one that he's just committed - begging the question. "Matters that aren't purely naturalistic" is begging the question - assuming the existence of such things in the absence not only of any evidence for them but also any methodology for becoming aware of them - as you pointed out.
What a car crash ::)
-
Wiggs,
I have heard people on Zen retreats exclaim: I do my being, or I love everything because I made it.
You must have found a higher class of Zen retreat than I ever did! To the best of my recall the usual exclamations on such retreats tend to be along the lines of "God, my fucking knees hurt" or "When can we go home?" There was one I particularly remember where a mangy dog who lived in the premises patrolled the meditation room and periodically attempted coitus with someone's back. The exclamations during those sessions were silent but not generally charitable.
-
Wiggs,
You must have found a higher class of Zen retreat than I ever did! To the best of my recall the usual exclamations on such retreats tend to be along the lines of "God, my fucking knees hurt" or "When can we go home?" There was one I particularly remember where a mangy dog who lived in the premises patrolled the meditation room and periodically attempted coitus with someone's back. The exclamations during those sessions were silent but not generally charitable.
Very good. I do remember 'my back hurts' as a kind of choral refrain.
I knew John Crook, who ran Western Zen Retreats at his farm in Wales. He became a 'dharma heir' in Zen.
http://www.westernchanfellowship.org/lib/wcf////the-buddhist-legacy-of-john-crook/
-
I never met John Crook but I know he was very highly regarded. The Western Zen retreat centre in Wales is still running, I understand. I used to be hungry for such things but that fire's gone out now. The old knees wouldn't take it these days and I'd rather be outside listening to the birds.
-
I never met John Crook but I know he was very highly regarded. The Western Zen retreat centre in Wales is still running, I understand. I used to be hungry for such things but that fire's gone out now. The old knees wouldn't take it these days and I'd rather be outside listening to the birds.
Yeah, me too. Too tired. I still do a regular afternoon of it, with other knackered geriatrics.
John was an amazing guy, incredible energy. He was a Reader at Bristol Uni, did treks into the Himalayas, met tons of gurus and Tibetan teachers, and of course, flew over to NY regularly for retreats. Blimey, I'm looking forward to Versailles on telly tonight, that's my excitement.
-
Hi Wiggs,
I just thought I'd add, that is why the Christian symbols make sense to me, but not as history.
I find that sentence intriguing - I'd be interested to hear you unpack it a little too if you wanted to. You and Bramble are clearly more immersed in this stuff than I am, but I'm relaxed at the notions of self and non-self, of our conscious beings just being occasional assemblages from an underlying network of information, a bit like bulges in an over-filled inner tube. I don't even care much if some want to label "the Universe" as "God" if they find it helpful, but the overreach for me is the jump to a sentient causal agency that decided one day to create a universe, to knock up our species (or at least one of us ;)), to meddle in human affairs when the mood suits etc. It all seems terribly mediaeval to me - a simple and simplistic explanation of cause and effect when reality is so much more nuanced that "God did it".
Incidentally, did you hear Marcus du Sautoy on "A Life Scientific" the other morning? I was only half listening and need to hear it again, but he mentioned I think a mathematical formula that suggests the point at which a neural network becomes self-aware, or conscious. I'll have another listen to try to grasp the basics a bit better, but it was an interesting thought.
-
Re: Post one.
Hope: Hopeless (and I really do mean hopeless logic + lies).
Sassy: Lie: as long as it defends a believer.
Vlad: Watch out for all the straw. Basically you either agree with me or you are lying to yourself (AKA God Dodger).
I am certainly done around here (For the time being).
-
I hope you don't mean that ST!
-
Stephen,
I am certainly done around here (For the time being).
Aw, don't say that. Look, I've even written a tag line for you: Stephen Taylor - fighting ignorance since 1989 (it's taking longer than he thought).
See, how can you possibly be done now?
-
Re: Post one.
Hope: Hopeless (and I really do mean hopeless logic + lies).
Sassy: Lie: as long as it defends a believer.
Vlad: Watch out for all the straw. Basically you either agree with me or you are lying to yourself (AKA God Dodger).
I am certainly done around here (For the time being).
Show a bit of resilience man and stick with it.
-
Show a bit of resilience man and stick with it.
You are one of the reasons listed for him leaving. You are also one of the main reasons why new people do not join.
The others are those listed in his post!
-
Have people actually said they are leaving the forum because of those three posters (apart from Stephen of course)?
-
You are one of the reasons listed for him leaving. You are also one of the main reasons why new people do not join.
The others are those listed in his post!
Why did Johnny Canoe go?
-
You are one of the reasons listed for him leaving. You are also one of the main reasons why new people do not join.
The others are those listed in his post!
I detected that Stephen Taylor was here for a bit of trying to persuade people AKA hopefully bag a couple of conversions.
You of course have stated you are not so given the tone and content of your posts one wonders if you are here just to criticise in a particular way.
-
Have people actually said they are leaving the forum because of those three posters (apart from Stephen of course)?
Most people who leave do not say why, they just quietly disappear.
Vlad is a troll who has added absolutely zilch of any real value to any thread on which he has posted.
The others are total thread killers - particularly Sassy who posts reams of "cut and paste" from the Bible which reduces any thread to as never-ending stream of posts trying to understand just how the quotes have any relevance to the subject of the thread.
Hope knows everything and eveyone and yet manages to post absolute nonsensical fallacious arguments on just about every subject.
This gets boring and people who read it either don't join or leave.
-
Why did Johnny Canoe go?
He left because he took very personally a comment in a post that was, in all probability, not actually addressed to him.
You are a troll and the sooner that you realise that not everyone finds you in the least amusing or your comments interesting the better.
-
I find it difficult to believe that anyone would leave the forum because of a couple of posters, unless the posters tried to take over and dominate the forum, something I have seen on other forums but not here thankfully.
-
I find it difficult to believe that anyone would leave the forum because of a couple of posters, unless the posters tried to take over and dominate the forum, something I have seen on other forums but not here thankfully.
Hi Brownie,
And I find it difficult to believe that people are still taken in by religious bullshit. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop it being true.
-
Re: Post one.
Hope: Hopeless (and I really do mean hopeless logic + lies).
Sassy: Lie: as long as it defends a believer.
Vlad: Watch out for all the straw. Basically you either agree with me or you are lying to yourself (AKA God Dodger).
I am certainly done around here (For the time being).
If those posters weren't here there would nothing much to discuss, same goes for Johnny Canoe who is no longer here.
Every time someone leaves because of one reason or another the less this message board has to discuss.
Unless you want a messageboard made up of like minded non challenging people who agree all the time.
Those posters keep this board alive.
You need a few outrageous statements for people to react to.
-
There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.
Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.
In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.
Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.
What then is there left to talk about instead?
Because things come up on the news there is always something to talk about.
" my God is your God too" is a natural statement of someone who believes their God to be part of what ultimately is.
Some can see that their interpretation may not be the correct one ( or that it is impolite to force your reality on others) , but even an Athiest thinks his reality is true for everyone else too.
He can't objectively prove it either.
Because no one knows.
-
Because things come up on the news there is always something to talk about.
" my God is your God too" is a natural statement of someone who believes their God to be part of what ultimately is.
Some can see that their interpretation may not be the correct one ( or that it is impolite to force your reality on others) , but even an Athiest thinks his reality is true for everyone else too.
He can't objectively prove it either.
Because no one knows.
No, I don't as an atheist think my reality is true for everyone, everyone, don't even think it's true for me. Note there are plenty of theists who could also say that.
-
Hi Brownie,
And I find it difficult to believe that people are still taken in by religious bullshit. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop it being true.
Oooh Len! So you believe religious bs is true. Put out the flags, we have a religious conversion here, serendipitous or what? ;)
There are far more non-religious than religious on this board and the 'nons-Rs' post more frequently than the Rs. On an R&E forum, one expects a small proportion of posters to adhere to a religion.
-
Rose,
Some can see that their interpretation may not be the correct one ( or that it is impolite to force your reality on others) , but even an Athiest thinks his reality is true for everyone else too.
Well, this atheist at least thinks that there are no arguments for a 'true for you too" god that aren't logically fallacious, and that that is the case for everyone - that is, there aren't logically sound arguments for a "true for you too" god that are available to theists, but that they've kept to themselves.
I don't though claim any special privileges for my opinion, let alone that I'd be offended if people disagreed, that I'd like special schools to teach it, that atheists should by right have seats in the legislature etc. I'm also aware that "no logically sound arguments" should have a "so far" at then end of it. If ever one was produced, then I'd have to change my position. I'm not sure that many theists would take an equivalent position though.
But yes, I do think that "there are no logically sound arguments for it, at least so far" is a truth for everyone.
-
I agree that there are no logically sound arguments for a "true for you god" I don't think that means that anything is "done and dusted". It makes no difference.
Science and logic is great for analysing and understanding the universe and operating in it. However it doesn't resolve (though of-course will ultimately explain) the need for meaning. The experience of life itself. The subjective, emotional and instinctual universe. How it feels to be alive.
People can share their subjective worlds through art, music and so on, culture including religion. They have empathy so can imagine each others views and positions. They create mythologies that give meaning to living. Some of these mythologies gain strength from including the "whole of humanity", the "whole universe" etc, absolutism.
I think the argument will go on forever ... until human life (or maybe even life itself) is extinct.
-
... but even an Athiest thinks his reality is true for everyone else too.
Not true.
-
Not true.
Agreed.
This applies to pagans and I would have thought most Buddhists.
-
Rose,
Well, this atheist at least thinks that there are no arguments for a 'true for you too" god that aren't logically fallacious, and that that is the case for everyone - that is, there aren't logically sound arguments for a "true for you too" god that are available to theists, but that they've kept to themselves.
I don't though claim any special privileges for my opinion, let alone that I'd be offended if people disagreed, that I'd like special schools to teach it, that atheists should by right have seats in the legislature etc. I'm also aware that "no logically sound arguments" should have a "so far" at then end of it. If ever one was produced, then I'd have to change my position. I'm not sure that many theists would take an equivalent position though.
But yes, I do think that "there are no logically sound arguments for it, at least so far" is a truth for everyone.
Hi Blue
I don't really understand your argument re 'true for you too'. Don't you think that if you believed in a God that created everything and everyone you couldn't also believe it was 'true for me only'?
I think it's almost impossible for an atheist to argue on equal terms with a believer. We are not emotionally involved. If you and I were debating as to whether or not my mother was a good woman, you could look at it logically, I couldn't.
Your arguments ring true for every one of us who have no belief in any god but I don't think you should expect real believers to see your POV.
-
Agreed.
This applies to pagans and I would have thought most Buddhists.
Some Buddhists might question whether there is a reality, and whether there is everyone else. Ha!
This is a bit like NS's comment; is my reality true for me? Quite often it isn't, but then you have probabilistic leanings.
-
I hope you don't mean that ST!
Pardon? :-\
-
Hi jj,
I don't really understand your argument re 'true for you too'. Don't you think that if you believed in a God that created everything and everyone you couldn't also believe it was 'true for me only'?
I think it's almost impossible for an atheist to argue on equal terms with a believer. We are not emotionally involved. If you and I were debating as to whether or not my mother was a good woman, you could look at it logically, I couldn't.
Your arguments ring true for every one of us who have no belief in any god but I don't think you should expect real believers to see your POV.
Oh I'm sure that - if you believed in a universe-creating god - then you'd think too that that was a truth for everyone, as indeed presumably would be the characteristics and behaviours you ascribe to that god. My point though was to do with what you do with that belief. You might for example insist that it should be afforded the rights and privileges in the pubic square you think it deserves, but if you realise at least that you have no logically coherent argument for your opinion about a "true for you too" god then you just might be more inclined to accept that other people are right to treat your personal opinion only as that - a personal opinion – and so you'll be more circumspect about the public square bit.
Something like that anyway.
-
Dear jj,
Same here, I don't understand the argument, I keep going back to, how can I make Blue walk the walk, I simply can't, but it's a two way street, I can't see the world/Universe through Blue's eyes, every time I look I see God, every time Blue looks he see's no need for God.
I understand the secular stuff, level playing field for everyone, no privileges, but for me that is not a black and white question, it needs work from both sides of the divide, in this country religion plays a large part in society, it is everywhere, Monarchy, House of Lords, charities, organisations and that's just the Christian part, here in Glasgow our skyline now has, Sikh, Hindu and Muslims towers, believers are not going away, we all have to sit down and look for a way forward for everyone.
So to answer Blue's question, no we are not done, we have a long way to go if we want to accommodate everyone.
Dear Septic toe,
Shaker means Stephen Taylor, the world does not revolve around Sebastian Toe ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Hi Gonners,
Same here, I don't understand the argument, I keep going back to, how can I make Blue walk the walk, I simply can't, but it's a two way street, I can't see the world/Universe through Blue's eyes, every time I look I see God, every time Blue looks he see's no need for God.
I understand the secular stuff, level playing field for everyone, no privileges, but for me that is not a black and white question, it needs work from both sides of the divide, in this country religion plays a large part in society, it is everywhere, Monarchy, House of Lords, charities, organisations and that's just the Christian part, here in Glasgow our skyline now has, Sikh, Hindu and Muslims towers, believers are not going away, we all have to sit down and look for a way forward for everyone.
Try this: would you accept special privileges for personal beliefs I had and really, really, really thought were true for you too but that I couldn't muster a cogent argument to support? And if your answer is "no", why would you expect other people to accept special privileges for the personal beliefs you really, really, really think to be true but can't muster a cogent argument to support either?
That's all really. I merely suggest that theists who demand such privileges (not you personally by the way) should accept that others will apply the same standards to their demands that they apply when epistemically equivalent propositions are put to them that they're expected to treat seriously.
So to answer Blue's question, no we are not done, we have a long way to go if we want to accommodate everyone.
But that wasn't the question. Quite happy to "accommodate" - ie, leave alone to practice whatever faiths they happen to have - anyone (well, pretty much anyone) but what I was asking was whether we're done seeking a logically sound argument to demonstrate "true for you too-ism" that elevates it above personal, subjective opinion.
-
Agreed.
This applies to pagans and I would have thought most Buddhists.
Most definitely it applies to this Pagan and to those that I have met personally or 'talked' to on the net. The rest I cannot speak for.
-
Dear jj,
Same here, I don't understand the argument, I keep going back to, how can I make Blue walk the walk, I simply can't, but it's a two way street, I can't see the world/Universe through Blue's eyes, every time I look I see God, every time Blue looks he see's no need for God.
Dear Gonnagle, I think the problem is substantially in knowing what you actually mean when you use the word God. It's a Humpty-Dumpty word that tends to mean whatever the user wants it to mean. Often, it seems, users are none too sure themselves and commonly use it mean different things according to circumstance and context, apparently unaware that they are doing so. It's certainly been my experience that it's a waste of time trying to get believers (apart from the Biblical literalists, of course) to explain what they mean. Frequently, they come across as evasive and even disingenuous, though I don't think this is what they intend. To someone genuinely curious this can be extremely frustrating. Who knows whether Blue sees your God in the world or not? He may just not use the same word to describe it. Alternatively, it may be that your two brains simply function in quite different ways and neither of you will ever fathom the other. This is why this conversation will never stop.
-
Yes, I don't know what 'God' means to different people. I know people in eastern religions who say that this moment is divine - but what do they mean? Dunno. They don't seem to mean a kind of Superman who causes earthquakes and plagues. But then I don't think Christians mean that usually. I suppose it has been useful for theists precisely because it has a floating meaning or no meaning, one size fits all, but therefore empty.
-
Dear jj,
Same here, I don't understand the argument, I keep going back to, how can I make Blue walk the walk, I simply can't, but it's a two way street, I can't see the world/Universe through Blue's eyes, every time I look I see God, every time Blue looks he see's no need for God.
I understand the secular stuff, level playing field for everyone, no privileges, but for me that is not a black and white question, it needs work from both sides of the divide, in this country religion plays a large part in society, it is everywhere, Monarchy, House of Lords, charities, organisations and that's just the Christian part, here in Glasgow our skyline now has, Sikh, Hindu and Muslims towers, believers are not going away, we all have to sit down and look for a way forward for everyone.
So to answer Blue's question, no we are not done, we have a long way to go if we want to accommodate everyone.
Dear Septic toe,
Shaker means Stephen Taylor, the world does not revolve around Sebastian Toe ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
Hi Gonners
My problem is I see both views as valid arguments. Yes, religion has played a large part in our history (lesser as we go along though) and therefore in our culture, Having a few religious leaders in the HofL isn't wholly bad - although I think that number should include a few other Faiths instead of all CofE. The HofL is only a debating chamber and can only ask the HofC to think again about certain matters.
Atheist arguments have no emotional feel about them, we look on the whole business as a long dead idea that was needed long ago but had no real foundation outside of Man's imagination. Believers, like yourself, have a very real emotional attachment and therefore can't see the logic in our arguments. I don't see any way of resolving this and all we have done is go over and over the same arguments for years on end.
The only reason I think this forum has any worth is to counter such extremists as Sassy and TW, who if not challenged could influence the young and vulnerable.
I like a lot of the Christion posters here, even though I disagree with their arguments. I even like the way some believers come out with irrational replies that they must know are irrational (Hope, for instance) just because they feel they have to defend their 'Lord' no matter what.
Like Susan, I hope this forum goes on, even though I rarely participate these days.
-
...every time I look I see God...
But what does that mean?
Obviously, you don't mean it in the normal English sense of the words, like "every time I look out the window, I see the house across the road" sort of thing. Honestly, I can make no sense of the phrase without further elaboration. What is "god" and how are you "seeing" it?
-
...every time I look I see God...
But what does that mean?
Obviously, you don't mean it in the normal English sense of the words, like "every time I look out the window, I see the house across the road" sort of thing. Honestly, I can make no sense of the phrase without further elaboration. What is "god" and how are you "seeing" it?
I can't see how it can mean anything. Where's the contrast when god is seen everywhere? What isn't god?
-
Yes, I don't know what 'God' means to different people. I know people in eastern religions who say that this moment is divine - but what do they mean? Dunno. They don't seem to mean a kind of Superman who causes earthquakes and plagues. But then I don't think Christians mean that usually. I suppose it has been useful for theists precisely because it has a floating meaning or no meaning, one size fits all, but therefore empty.
Good points. Also, religions can't be too choosy what their followers hang on the God peg or they might find their numbers in free-fall. I often suspect that behind a lot of God talk is what Huston Smith called the 'more':
“…the finitude of mundane existence cannot satisfy the human heart completely. Built into the human makeup is a longing for a ‘more’ that the world of everyday experience cannot requite. This outreach strongly suggests the existence of the something that life reaches for in the way that the wings of birds point to the reality of air.”
This might explain why God can appear in so many guises! I once came across the blog of someone describing themselves as a Christian mystic - in her bio she explained that to her the proof of God lay in the existence of snowboarding and sailing, which she evidently enjoyed. In that case I'll go with Bruce Chatwin:
"I haven’t got any special religion this morning. My God is the God of Walkers. If you walk hard enough, you probably don’t need any other god."
Wow, I can do it too! Where do I sign up...
-
I have heard Sufis say that - I have never seen anything that was not God. It's always puzzled me how you could have the reverse - there must be places or things which are not God in orthodox Christianity? But God is everywhere, isn't he?
One of the interesting things about the Orthodox view of hell is that is means being with God, well, some Orthodox views. But many Protestants argue that hell means being without God!
-
There is also the Via Negativa of St Thomas Aquinas and Meister Eckhart "We cannot know what God is but rather what he is not."
-
Dear Blue,
Been looking at your post for the past ten minutes trying to figure out the heart of it, it's that cogent argument bit, a convincing argument, but that just goes winging back to what I was saying, I can't see the Universe through your eyes and you can't see it through my eyes.
The special privilege bit, that kind of floors me, I would give special privilege to anyone who is in the business of making this world a better place, or maybe the word I am looking for is respect, but then we might disagree on who or what and by which method they are employing to make this world a better place, and that is why I say we should all, atheist and theist sit down and talk about a way forward.
Gonnagle.
-
jj,
My problem is I see both views as valid arguments. Yes, religion has played a large part in our history (lesser as we go along though) and therefore in our culture, Having a few religious leaders in the HofL isn't wholly bad - although I think that number should include a few other Faiths instead of all CofE. The HofL is only a debating chamber and can only ask the HofC to think again about certain matters.
Yes, lots of religions have played large arts in lots of societies but that says nothing about whether there's any truth to their various claims of fact. As for religious leaders in the H of L, I disagree - it is bad inasmuch as it legitimises faith beliefs affecting the rest of us by right rather than by having those claims tested. That's not to say that a given bishop may not be admirably qualified for the job, but his (and it is a "his" by the way) personal opinions abut the existence of "God" are not themselves a qualification for it.
Atheist arguments have no emotional feel about them, we look on the whole business as a long dead idea that was needed long ago but had no real foundation outside of Man's imagination. Believers, like yourself, have a very real emotional attachment and therefore can't see the logic in our arguments. I don't see any way of resolving this and all we have done is go over and over the same arguments for years on end.
The resolution is to take the emotion out of it and to consider dispassionately the logic an reason each "side" uses. Logic is logic - either those who believe in gods can rely on it or they can't, but it can't "not be seen" other that wilfully.
The only reason I think this forum has any worth is to counter such extremists as Sassy and TW, who if not challenged could influence the young and vulnerable.
If only! ;)
I like a lot of the Christion posters here, even though I disagree with their arguments. I even like the way some believers come out with irrational replies that they must know are irrational (Hope, for instance) just because they feel they have to defend their 'Lord' no matter what.
Like Susan, I hope this forum goes on, even though I rarely participate these days.
I like some of them too.
-
I have heard Sufis say that - I have never seen anything that was not God. It's always puzzled me how you could have the reverse - there must be places or things which are not God in orthodox Christianity? But God is everywhere, isn't he?
Yes, that's the problem with saying what God is. If he's good then we get the problem of evil, but if we don't want that problem what do we do about God? Some theologians seem to have been ground down by this. Towards the end of his life Aquinas famously admitted everything he'd written about God was just straw. Then there's Jung: '“Religion is a defense against the experience of God.” It's often seemed to me that for the most part religions sell idols, not God, but I guess that's what sells. Selling that Sufi God would be like selling sand to the Arabs. Maybe that pretty much sums us up as a species. We don't want what we have, we just want different or more, and God will provide, at least if we believe so.
-
Gonners,
Been looking at your post for the past ten minutes trying to figure out the heart of it, it's that cogent argument bit, a convincing argument, but that just goes winging back to what I was saying, I can't see the Universe through your eyes and you can't see it through my eyes.
But you can - and do in fact. You wouldn't for example pay me lots of dosh because I offered to sell London Bridge to you. Why not? Because you'd apply certain tests of reason and logic to my claim to have it for sale, and you'd find my claim to be wanting. I apply the same kinds of tests to the claims of those who would arrogate to themselves special rights for their personal beliefs because they claimed them to be objective truths for me too, and I'd find them wanting too.
The special privilege bit, that kind of floors me, I would give special privilege to anyone who is in the business of making this world a better place, or maybe the word I am looking for is respect, but then we might disagree on who or what and by which method they are employing to make this world a better place, and that is why I say we should all, atheist and theist sit down and talk about a way forward.
By and large, I think most people do think their actions will make the world a better place. The problem though is that "most people" includes for example the 9/11 hijackers. "I want to make the world a better place" as a goal is about as controversial as motherhood and apple pie, but if we don't apply various tests and checks to the methods some would use to get there then any manner of dangerous nonsense will get through.
-
Bramble,
I think the problem is substantially in knowing what you actually mean when you use the word God.
Quite so, which is why the appropriate response to theism I think is ignosticism - ie, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" (and nor do you) and so I respond to your claim as I would to any other white noise pending clarification".
The closest some here have come to answering that is to provide a CV - "God created the universe and cured Aunty Madge of her chilblains" for example, but nothing so far about what this god might actually be. At best this is a god about whom nothing could be said I guess - ie, deism - but why not instead then just say "the universe"?
-
Dear Blue,
God is the Universe, what is the Universe?
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Blue,
God is the Universe, what is the Universe?
Gonnagle.
That big thing you live in, and interact with to stay alive.
-
Blue,
Indeed. I suppose the Christian God - if one can speak of such a thing - would minimally have to include the characteristic of having created the universe. But in what sense can someone then say that wherever they look they see God? At best they can say that every time they look they draw an inference about ultimate causes, but that's not quite the same thing.
-
Dear Blue,
God is the Universe, what is the Universe?
Gonnagle.
Is it? Do you really see them as synonymous, or is god the universe + X?
-
On the subject of bishops: I'd really like to hear direct from, say, AofC, how he tells children that the God he believes in is real and true and that it is so for them too.
-
Dear Andy,
Plus X.
Gonnagle.
-
...what is the Universe?
This can actually be answered in a number of ways but most obviously along the lines of: all of space-time and the stuff that resides therein.
The main thing about the universe, though, is that we all live there and share the experience. It is intersubjective.
God is the Universe...
So what's the point of the word "God"?
-
Dear Stranger,
It only has three letters, I am a man of small words, Love, Hate, Joy, small words that mean lots of things, just like God.
Gonnagle.
PS: I forgot Faith and Hope. ;)
-
It only has three letters, I am a man of small words, Love, Hate, Joy, small words that mean lots of things, just like God.
As far as I can see "God" means so many different, and often contradictory things, that, without explanation, it actually means nothing at all...
-
Dear Stranger,
As far as I can see "God" means so many different, and often contradictory things, that, without explanation, it actually means nothing at all...
Oooh! that is like saying Beetlejuice three times, it conjures up a Wigginhall. :o
Gonnagle.
-
As far as I can see "God" means so many different, and often contradictory things, that, without explanation, it actually means nothing at all...
Quite! Everybody is trying to say what he thinks "God" is, and the fact that nobody really knows the answer (if there is one) doesn't seem to enter their minds.
-
Dear Leonard,
God is a Leonard James post laced with visions of Beckham, God is not visions of his good lady Victoria, poor Lass needs a good feed. ???
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Leonard,
God is a Leonard James post laced with visions of Beckham, God is not visions of his good lady Victoria, poor Lass needs a good feed. ???
Gonnagle.
"God" is anything you like to say he is. Don't let the fact that nobody knows anything about him stop you! :)
-
My creation of god has to listen to me witter on and not answer back. :D
-
Then you are left with Kierkegaard's leap of faith, or maybe leap to faith, I was looking for an incomprehensible quotation from him, but most of them are.
Here's a comprehensible one which gave me a chuckle:
The lowest depth to which people can sink before God is defined by the word 'journalist'. If I were a father and had a daughter who was seduced I should despair over her; I would hope for her salvation. But if I had a son who became a journalist and continued to be one for five years, I would disown him.
-
Dear Stranger,
It only has three letters, I am a man of small words, Love, Hate, Joy, small words that mean lots of things, just like God.
Gonnagle.
PS: I forgot Faith and Hope. ;)
Don't you like big girls - what about Charity?
-
Rose,
Well, this atheist at least thinks that there are no arguments for a 'true for you too" god that aren't logically fallacious, and that that is the case for everyone - that is, there aren't logically sound arguments for a "true for you too" god that are available to theists, but that they've kept to themselves.
So now we've got that out of the way Hillside.
Your conclusion that the universe is God free is about as useful as the term Goddidit...................unless you actually want to suggest something instead of naysaying everything............
Mind you it would help if we actually knew what your knock down argument for GodFree was.
-
Your conclusion that the universe is God free is about as useful as the term Goddidit...................unless you actually want to suggest something instead of naysaying everything............
Mind you it would help if we actually knew what your knock down argument for GodFree was.
Vlad - burden of proof; burden of proof - Vlad.
I'm sure you two will have lots to talk about - have a Twiglet or two. Vol-au-vents later.
-
Re: Post one.
Hope: Hopeless (and I really do mean hopeless logic + lies).
Sassy: Lie: as long as it defends a believer.
Vlad: Watch out for all the straw. Basically you either agree with me or you are lying to yourself (AKA God Dodger).
I am certainly done around here (For the time being).
Great......so any antitheism that possesses any faults is a strawman now is it?
-
Vlad - burden of proof; burden of proof - Vlad.
I'm sure you two will have lots to talk about - have a Twiglet or two. Vol-au-vents later.
I think a God free universe is a positive enough assertion to warrant a burden of proof.
-
Bet we're not going to be told what these supposedly are ...
Well, you've listed them often enough, Shakes. Perhaps you need to review your own posts, rather than asking others to precis them.
-
My creation of god has to listen to me witter on and not answer back. :D
I am in sympathy with that concept floo :D.
-
Well, you've listed them often enough, Shakes.
News to me. So remind me of what, according to you, these "'stories' that the naturalistic arguments are based on" are. Which 'stories'? What are they? And where, specifically, have I listed them?
Let me guess - they'll be in hiding along with (as per yet another of your assertions) all those occasions when, as asserted by you, I've used the negative proof fallacy more than you have (as though that was humanly possible ...).
Evidence for which claim still mysteriously unforthcoming nearly a year on.
Perhaps you need to review your own posts, rather than asking others to precis them.
I'm asking you to substantiate your assertion.
The exemplar of the phrase 'hiding to nothing', admittedly ...
-
I think a God free universe is a positive enough assertion to warrant a burden of proof.
Vlad, for goodness sake give the world's stock of straw a chance to recover! Saying that "there are no arguments for a 'true for you too' god that aren't logically fallacious" is not the same as saying that there is a "god free universe".
This looks like a reasonable introduction to logic, why not take the trouble to learn something?
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/120/9-logic.htm
-
So now we've got that out of the way Hillside.
Your conclusion that the universe is God free is about as useful as the term Goddidit...................unless you actually want to suggest something instead of naysaying everything............
Mind you it would help if we actually knew what your knock down argument for GodFree was.
In which Trollboy posts a mistake of such buttock-clenching doziness that even an ISIS guerilla rolling out the fuse wire to the detonator prior to blowing up the dirty mags shop would roll his one good eye and mutter, "Oh gawd he hasn't made the old "no evidence for god = god free" cock up again has he? Again? Jeez, this guy really is giving even us jihadist theists a bad name in the thinking straight game..."
-
There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.
Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.
In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.
Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.
What then is there left to talk about instead?
And some people who claim not to believe that the deity exists wastes an awful lot of time spouting nonsense and trying to look clever when in fact it just shows how ignorant and unfounded their words really are because they spout about proof but cannot provide any to support themselves.
Guess you were done before you got started. A bit of a kid thinking they have knowledge to prove no God.
All words and bluster without one shred of evidence to support his words.
That is the basic point between you and GOD,. Gods words come true. A messiah...Jesus Christ.... and you, you are all bluster our words cannot come true and you cannot prove your claims.
We are done here...well, at least you are.
-
Sassy,
And some people who claim not to believe that the deity exists wastes an awful lot of time spouting nonsense and trying to look clever when in fact it just shows how ignorant and unfounded their words really are because they spout about proof but cannot provide any to support themselves.
Guess you were done before you got started. A bit of a kid thinking they have knowledge to prove no God.
All words and bluster without one shred of evidence to support his words.
That is the basic point between you and GOD,. Gods words come true. A messiah...Jesus Christ.... and you, you are all bluster our words cannot come true and you cannot prove your claims.
We are done here...well, at least you are.
So, rambling incoherence aside, do you finally have anything to say to the question that's actually being asked? What method would you propose to take you from your subjective opinion about "God" to a fact for the rest of us too without collapsing straight back into the circularity of your standard "the Bible is accurate because God made it so/God exists because the Bible says so" response?
-
And some people who claim not to believe that the deity exists wastes an awful lot of time spouting nonsense and trying to look clever when in fact it just shows how ignorant and unfounded their words really are because they spout about proof but cannot provide any to support themselves.
Guess you were done before you got started. A bit of a kid thinking they have knowledge to prove no God.
All words and bluster without one shred of evidence to support his words.
That is the basic point between you and GOD,. Gods words come true. A messiah...Jesus Christ.... and you, you are all bluster our words cannot come true and you cannot prove your claims.
We are done here...well, at least you are.
What real evidence do you have god exists, the Bible is NOT evidence?
-
Sassy,
So, rambling incoherence aside, do you finally have anything to say to the question that's actually being asked? What method would you propose to take you from your subjective opinion about "God" to a fact for the rest of us too without collapsing straight back into the circularity of your standard "the Bible is accurate because God made it so/God exists because the Bible says so" response?
Is that ALL you have?
Come back when you have something plausible to offer.
A little kid whose trying to be an adult and failing so miserably.
Rather immature trash by all accounts.
-
Sassy,
Is that ALL you have?
Come back when you have something plausible to offer.
A little kid whose trying to be an adult and failing so miserably.
Rather immature trash by all accounts.
It was just a question. I'll take your reply as a "no" then.
-
Sassy,
So, rambling incoherence aside, do you finally have anything to say to the question that's actually being asked? What method would you propose to take you from your subjective opinion about "God" to a fact for the rest of us too without collapsing straight back into the circularity of your standard "the Bible is accurate because God made it so/God exists because the Bible says so" response?
bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events, etc. - in much the same way that it is difficult to use the rules of rugby to referee a football match, or using anthropology to explain geographical issues.
-
bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events
Are there any, then?
-
Hope,
bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events, etc. - in much the same way that it is difficult to use the rules of rugby to referee a football match, or using anthropology to explain geographical issues.
You have said it before, and you were as wrong then to do so as you are now. First, you want just to assume "supernatural events" to be real (that's called the fallacy of reification by the way) and then attempt to argue that the problem with verifying them is the nature of naturalistic methods.
Your problem though is to establish that these supposed "supernatural events" exist at all, and the burden of proof is with you to establish a means to do so. There are plenty of alternative - and natural - explanations for what you perceive to be the supernatural, and it's for you to demonstrate why your version of events is the correct one.
Second, you attempt a false analogy - no-one disputes that football or "geographical issues" exist, so applying the wrong methods to them doesn't change that. By contrast though, the whole issue here is that you provide no reason of any kind for someone else to think that the supernatural exists, so it remains your job to do so by whatever method you can provide that distinguishes the claim from just a strongly-held opinion.
-
bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events, etc. - in much the same way that it is difficult to use the rules of rugby to referee a football match, or using anthropology to explain geographical issues.
oh ffs, no one is asking you to do that - so stop with the straw. You have been asked repeatedly for a methodology to evidence your claims, not been asked to use science. So please provide your method and stop trying to hide your continual evasion on this by lying about what has been said.
-
bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events, etc.
So now you can actually tell us what methods you think are applicable to investigating non/supra-naturalistic events: right?
-
I think you have to find something it effects and be able to record X ( what normally happens + X = different outcome.)
Then you have to be able to reproduce it again and again.
You don't need to define X or have an idea of what' it is.
If the supernatural doesn't influence our world/universe in any way, we wouldn't know it exists and the question is irrelevant.
It must touch somewhere, for it to be relevant. ( even if it's just seeing/hearing something)
The only way we could even know about it, is if it does.
Therefore I think if something is there, it should be possible to measure its effects.
It's finding a way of doing it, which might be innovative, but must show X makes a difference to something else.
-
I think you have to find something it effects and be able to record X ( what normally happens + X = different outcome.
Then you have to be able to reproduce it again and again.
You don't need to define X or have an idea of what' it is.
If the supernatural doesn't influence our world/universe in any way, we wouldn't know it exists and the question is irrelevant.
It must touch somewhere, for it to be relevant. ( even if it's just seeing/hearing something)
The only way we could even know about it, is if it does.
Therefore I think if something is there, it should be possible to measure its effects.
It's finding a way of doing it, which might be innovative, but must show X makes a difference to something else.
Oh the Christian God makes a difference, but in the vast majority of cases those to whom it makes the difference cannot agree upon what that difference is. The difference their God makes is usually personal to each of them.
-
bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events, etc. - in much the same way that it is difficult to use the rules of rugby to referee a football match, or using anthropology to explain geographical issues.
Who in the right mind would think a deity and the method he chooses to reveal himself can be compared to a human beings way of thinking regarding RULES for a rugby match and a football match.
Start with God and using the rules of Satan and evil being used by man to judge GOD.
You see God told you the way to know him and if he is true.
But it comes right back to your own pride and refusal or you not wanting to know the truth.
If you don't want know the truth and therefore do not do as God tells you to do.
Then you lacking proof and remaining ignorant is simply down to your own choice.
Because you have to want to know God and the truth. If you choose to remain ignorant due to your own pride then no one else can be held accountable. Because God tells you that you have to seek him first.
As you won't do that then no one else is going to do it for you.
As Abraham tells Dives...
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Even Christ, or someone raising from the dead would persuade you. Because as Dives mind was closed to the truth in life so is yours. And after death it is too late hence the reason people tell you whilst alive that Jesus is the Son of God and his death and resurrection was to save you.
The thing is you have to accept the truth a truth which changes your life and gives you the facts about loving your neighbour as yourself. Had Dives loved Lazarus he would have had mercy on him and provided for him sharing his food and binding his wounds.
Christianity is for people who love God and love Truth so love others. Something you would need to get rid of your pride to understand.
-
(((((Christianity is for people who love God and love Truth so love others. Something you would need to get rid of your pride to understand.)))))
Oh Sass you take the biscuit you really do! You accuse others of not understanding, yet your posts are more often than not muddled to say the least. You seem to take a pride in not seeing the wood from the trees. As for having love for others, your statements give the impression you fall well short of that. You need to take a leaf out of the book of Alan Burns, I will never see religion from his perspective, but I believe him to be a thoroughly decent guy who genuinely does his best to show love to others.
-
Hope,
You have said it before, and you were as wrong then to do so as you are now. First, you want just to assume "supernatural events" to be real (that's called the fallacy of reification by the way) and then attempt to argue that the problem with verifying them is the nature of naturalistic methods.
I do love the way that you and others use the fancy terms, possibly because they give you that sense of superiority - but as I've already said, you can use the rules of soccer to referee a rugby match, but you'll end up with a wonderful mess of a game.
Your problem though is to establish that these supposed "supernatural events" exist at all, and the burden of proof is with you to establish a means to do so. There are plenty of alternative - and natural - explanations for what you perceive to be the supernatural, and it's for you to demonstrate why your version of events is the correct one.
I've used several examples of events and situations that don't fit the scientific methodology over the months I've been a member of the board, and haven't yet seen an answer that deals with them satisfactorily. Most of the time the argument from your side of the debate has been opinion, as opposed to concrete evidence, meaning that they are no more valid than anyone else's posts. I'll just give one example here: the issue of right and wrong. Science doesn't deal in that aspect of real life (and lest you want to disagree with that, I'm only repeating what many people here and within scientific fields have said); generally, the idea is judged by personal opinion and social custom.
Second, you attempt a false analogy - no-one disputes that football or "geographical issues" exist, so applying the wrong methods to them doesn't change that. By contrast though, the whole issue here is that you provide no reason of any kind for someone else to think that the supernatural exists, so it remains your job to do so by whatever method you can provide that distinguishes the claim from just a strongly-held opinion.
Whereas you dispute that reality goes beyond the sceintific realm, as it were. Do you have any evidence for that claim. Remember that this isn't a fallacious argument on my part because I have used said examoples in the past which have yet to be refuted. You are claiming that aspects of life and reality that go beyond the scientific realm - which include the supernatural - don't really exist. You now need to provide evidence to that effect.
-
I do love the way that you and others use the fancy terms, possibly because they give you that sense of superiority - but as I've already said, you can use the rules of soccer to referee a rugby match, but you'll end up with a wonderful mess of a game.
I've used several examples of events and situations that don't fit the scientific methodology over the months I've been a member of the board, and haven't yet seen an answer that deals with them satisfactorily. Most of the time the argument from your side of the debate has been opinion, as opposed to concrete evidence, meaning that they are no more valid than anyone else's posts. I'll just give one example here: the issue of right and wrong. Science doesn't deal in that aspect of real life (and lest you want to disagree with that, I'm only repeating what many people here and within scientific fields have said); generally, the idea is judged by personal opinion and social custom.
Whereas you dispute that reality goes beyond the sceintific realm, as it were. Do you have any evidence for that claim. Remember that this isn't a fallacious argument on my part because I have used said examoples in the past which have yet to be refuted. You are claiming that aspects of life and reality that go beyond the scientific realm - which include the supernatural - don't really exist. You now need to provide evidence to that effect.
Wibble, ending in the good old NPF.
-
Wibble, ending in the good old NPF.
Good to see you evading the question, Gordon. Perhaps you can now act sensibly and respond to the perfectly valid, non-fallacious point that has been made. The more you 'wibble', as you call it, the more I (and no doubt some others) are forced to believe that you have no answers.
-
Good to see you evading the question, Gordon. Perhaps you can now act sensibly and respond to the perfectly valid, non-fallacious point that has been made. The more you 'wibble', as you call it, the more I (and no doubt some others) are forced to believe that you have no answers.
Nope; wibble was an accurate critique of your earlier post, and you've yet to make a point that isn't fallacious. I certainly don't have answers to fallacious question since by definition they don't merit an answer.
Perhaps you might try posing a question that isn't inherently fallacious and doesn't contain an invitation to commit the NPF. I'm not holding my breath though.
-
Good to see you evading the question, Gordon. Perhaps you can now act sensibly and respond to the perfectly valid, non-fallacious point that has been made. The more you 'wibble', as you call it, the more I (and no doubt some others) are forced to believe that you have no answers.
Hope
Just about everybody on this Forum is a expert at "evading questions"!
Let'sface it, we learnt how from a Master - YOU!
-
Your problem though is to establish that these supposed "supernatural events" exist at all, and the burden of proof is with you to establish a means to do so. There are plenty of alternative - and natural - explanations for what you perceive to be the supernatural, and it's for you to demonstrate why your version of events is the correct one.
I've used several examples of events and situations that don't fit the scientific methodology over the months I've been a member of the board, and haven't yet seen an answer that deals with them satisfactorily. Most of the time the argument from your side of the debate has been opinion, as opposed to concrete evidence, meaning that they are no more valid than anyone else's posts. I'll just give one example here: the issue of right and wrong. Science doesn't deal in that aspect of real life (and lest you want to disagree with that, I'm only repeating what many people here and within scientific fields have said); generally, the idea is judged by personal opinion and social custom.
This is totally irrelevant.
These "events and situations that don't fit the scientific methodology" go no way towards demonstrating the existence of the 'supernatural'. Nobody disputes that your god exists as an opinion in your mind (just like your opinions about right and wrong).
There are some things that are not objectively decidable. You reiterating this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters and hide the fact that you have no method to distinguish your god claim from guessing.
If you are saying that your god is an objective reality, true for everybody, and that you have a methodology that can demonstrate this, then the fact that some things are not is totally irrelevant. If your god is like a value judgement (for example, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly), then it isn't objectively real and true for everybody - and you can't possibly have an objective methodology to establish that this god exists (because it wouldn't objectively exist).
You seem to think that saying that science can't explain all aspects of life* (either because they are inherently subjective or because we don't know enough yet), is enough to establish the idea of an objectively real god.
That would be one of the silliest arguments for god I have yet encountered.
* It should be noted that even the subjective is potentially within the realm of science in the sense that it can examine and seek to explain why we have (for example) a sense of morality. What science doesn't do is detect things like 'rightness' or 'beauty' out in the world, because that isn't where they are - they are in our minds.
-
bh, as I and others have said before, it is difficult to use naturalistic methods to prove non- or supra-naturalistic events, etc. - in much the same way that it is difficult to use the rules of rugby to referee a football match, or using anthropology to explain geographical issues.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx
I do not see your problem here Hope.
Let us just take just one of the claims that you have made here over the years, less forcefully than in the old BBC days it's true but still you make it.
You repeatedly insist that there is some sort of link between healing and faith/prayer.
This should be easy enough to demonstrate. These days all sorts of organisations keep and publish records about patient illnesses and recovery rates. None of them show any such link at all. In fact the only actual scientific research into this in relation to heart patients in America actually showed that patients who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse than others, perhaps because it added extra anxiety to their situation some suggested. One hundred years research into Lourdes Pilgrims seeking cures shows no difference in the spontaneous recovery rates between them and that observed in the general public.
If there were ANY EVIDENCE at all that prayer/faith had a health advantage it would be jumped upon, if for no other reason that it might save money. There is non.
But still you push this outright lie and cover up by saying such things cannot be measured. Yes they can and are. There is no link.
Although prayer and faith might help some feel a bit better in their minds. It makes no difference at all to the actual outcome of the illness.
Stop deceiving yourself and others.
-
Good post, john - you've more patience than I have.
-
Good post as well from Stranger, showing for the nth time that if science cannot describe certain things such as beauty, morality, and so on (itself highly debatable), this does not promote any argument for the supernatural. It's a busted flush, in other words. There is no argument for the supernatural, that's it. That is why we get the usual conglomeration of reversing the burden of proof, negative proof, and other fallacies, which are ways of avoiding the lack of argument for the supernatural, and hence theism. If I don't have an argument for my position, I might try to fool you by asking for arguments for your position.
-
Yes, I'd just like to say that I would align myself wholeheartedly with both john's and Stranger's last posts.
-
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx
I do not see your problem here Hope.
Let us just take just one of the claims that you have made here over the years, less forcefully than in the old BBC days it's true but still you make it.
You repeatedly insist that there is some sort of link between healing and faith/prayer.
Not sure that I posted much on that topic in the 'BBC days'. I only visited the boards a dozen or so times.
This should be easy enough to demonstrate. These days all sorts of organisations keep and publish records about patient illnesses and recovery rates. None of them show any such link at all.
OK, lets look at that suggestion. About 2 years ago, one of the members of the church I attend was diagnosed with cancer and given 2 - 4 weeks to live. She was placed on a palliative regime of medication, with no attempt to treat the condition. At the morning service the next Sunday, the congregation - about 200-225 strong that day - was asked to get into groups of 4 or 5 and to pray for her and a number of other issues that concerned the church (including the global political situation of the time). Which of your 'all sorts of organisations' would have kept records of that, I wonder.
Not only did the lady concerned have a clean bill of health in a subsequent check-up when she had lived beyond the 2-4 weeks period, but she is still alive and a recent check-up confirmed that she was still clear. I accept that, as with many conditions, a complete recovery may well be impossible, hence the phrase 'being in remission' or 'recovering' as in conditions such as alcoholism. That doesn't mean that healing/spontaneous recovery hasn't taken place, especially when 2-4 weeks turns into 2 years and still going strong.
In fact the only actual scientific research into this in relation to heart patients in America actually showed that patients who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse than others, and perhaps because it added extra anxiety to their situation some suggested.
and how do the researchers know whether the people know that they are being prayed for, unless they were hovering around themselves, possibly adding to the stress and tension in the first place? By the way, 'Some suggested' doesn't sound a particularly reliable phrase in scientific terms.I would suggest that the vast majority of prayer for healing is done without any of the oranisations that you refer to having the slightest clue that its taking place, making any findings thay come up with, open to question.
One hundred years research into Lourdes Pilgrims seeking cures shows no difference in the spontaneous recovery rates between them and that observed in the general public.
But then, 'spontaneous recovery' is no more than a convenient term for scientifically unexplained/inexplicable healings, thus making that statistic somewhat moot.
If there were ANY EVIDENCE at all that prayer/faith had a health advantage it would be jumped upon, if for no other reason that it might save money. There is non.
Perhaps that is why NHS trusts are rushing to do away with their chaplains.
But still you push this outright lie and cover up by saying such things cannot be measured. Yes they can and are. There is no link.
If anyone is lying, it is you because it is you who are catagorical in your claim. All I have ever done is state that there are scientifically inexplicable 'recoveries/healings' and say that timings and other circumstances suggest that prayer can and does have a positive impact - at least, I have seen enough examples of the combination of prayer and inexplicable healings to suggest that they aren't mere coincidences.
Although prayer and faith might help some feel a bit better in their minds. It makes no difference at all to the actual outcome of the illness.
Again, without far more material than the medical profession is willing to release, this is only an opinion - not a sceintifically proven truth.
Stop deceiving yourself and others.
I'll do that when you stop trying to make opinion out as fact.
By the way, to mirror Shakes thanks in regard to your patience, you are possibly the first person to have laid out an argument that has been so easy to refute. Others have laid out arguments that are so complex and pretentious as to make any attempt at a rebuttal sound just as pretentious.
-
groups of 4 or 5 and to pray for her and a number of other issues that concerned the church (including the global political situation of the time).
Was there a favourable outcome regarding the 'global political situation of the time'?
-
Was there a favourable outcome regarding the 'global political situation of the time'?
Some, but not all - but then, I'm not sure exactly what political topics the 50+ groups prayed for at the time. If conversations I had regarding the Scottish Referendum that followed a month or two later reflected the views of church members, and they prayed for that, then you could probably answer that topic in the affirmative.
-
All I have ever done is state that there are scientifically inexplicable 'recoveries/healings' and say that timings and other circumstances suggest that prayer can and does have a positive impact - at least, I have seen enough examples of the combination of prayer and inexplicable healings to suggest that they aren't mere coincidences.
You can suggest all you like, but what method did you use to exclude both coincidence and your own bias, and also demonstrate any cause and effect between prayer and remission that is statistically significant? I suspect you cant, since you seem woefully uninformed regarding research methodology and statistical analysis (the type of stuff that occupied a large part of my professional career).
Again, without far more material than the medical profession is willing to release, this is only an opinion - not a sceintifically proven truth.
You're right there: the problem being your opinion is no more than ill-informed nonsense of the conspiracy variety. Your credulity is showing, again.
-
FFS, I try to give this up but your amateur arse about face reasoning drags me back in.
If anyone is lying, it is you because it is you who are catagorical in your claim. All I have ever done is state that there are scientifically inexplicable 'recoveries/healings' and say that timings and other circumstances suggest that prayer can and does have a positive impact - at least, I have seen enough examples of the combination of prayer and inexplicable healings to suggest that they aren't mere coincidences.
So what value of p did you arrive at in your analysis? Let's see the raw data and how you calculated it.
Again, without far more material than the medical profession is willing to release, this is only an opinion - not a sceintifically proven truth.
In which case we should accept the null hypothesis (ignoring that science only deals with provisional truths).
The irony of all this though is that after telling us we will only accept evidence that fits a scientific outlook (something, of course, that no one has actually asked) your evidence regarding prayer is exactly one that fits the scientific framework.
You observe that someone is ill. Prayers are said for them. They get better. You formulate a hypothesis that they got better as a results of prayer.
So far no problem.
The problem comes because you are hopeless at science.
You need to show a correlation between healing and prayer (not based on just your experience/opinion). The you need to demonstrate causation. Further to that you need to show that the causation was due to something non-naturalistic.
Good luck with all that. So far 0/10.
-
Some, but not all - but then, I'm not sure exactly what political topics the 50+ groups prayed for at the time. If conversations I had regarding the Scottish Referendum that followed a month or two later reflected the views of church members, and they prayed for that, then you could probably answer that topic in the affirmative.
You really don't understand the basic difference between cause and effect and association, never mind the use of statistical tests, do you!
No wonder you are so prone to using fallacies.
-
Some, but not all - but then, I'm not sure exactly what political topics the 50+ groups prayed for at the time. If conversations I had regarding the Scottish Referendum that followed a month or two later reflected the views of church members, and they prayed for that, then you could probably answer that topic in the affirmative.
Are you saying that the result of the Scottish referendum was due to your group praying for that outcome?
-
Some, but not all - but then, I'm not sure exactly what political topics the 50+ groups prayed for at the time. If conversations I had regarding the Scottish Referendum that followed a month or two later reflected the views of church members, and they prayed for that, then you could probably answer that topic in the affirmative.
Are they praying for a result on Thursday?
What is it, so I can nip off to the bookies for a big punt!? ::)
-
Hope
God is certainly an egoistic deity, isn't he? Of all the millions he allows to die of the dreaded C, he cures one because your church gathered round and asked him to. Does he work it like a lottery, answering one prayer in a hundred or what? I'm sure every week you pray for someone or other and yet, over the years, this is the only one you care to relate to us.
There should be hundreds by now - unless it's pure co-incidence, of course.
-
Hope
stop making things up and open your eyes to the truth
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.06/05-prayer.html
It is a fact that people who knew they were being prayed for did less well than those that weren't.
Researchers think one of the reasons for this might be the extra anxiety knowing they were prayed for put on them.
The truth is out there just listen to it!
Then Google "Faith Healing Success rates at Lourdes" there are hundreds of articles none of which support your lies.
-
God isn't just egotistic, but mean. He is supposed to heal one person with cancer, but apparently neglects thousands of others, not to mention those with ebola, zika, and so on. I guess they didn't pray hard enough.
-
God isn't just egotistic, but mean. He is supposed to heal one person with cancer, but apparently neglects thousands of others, not to mention those with ebola, zika, and so on. I guess they didn't pray hard enough.
Unrepented sin/ Satan leading them astray/ all part of god's plan etc etc etc.
-
Hope,
I do love the way that you and others use the fancy terms, possibly because they give you that sense of superiority - …
Ah, the old “Get you an' yer fancy edumacation” defence eh?” Look, it’s simple enough – logically false arguments are always wrong arguments, and when you collapse into them all that’s necessary therefore it to show that they are logically false. It happened that in this case the mistake has a name – “reification” – which I mentioned deliberately in parenthesis so as not to deflect from the central point.
Why then focus on the terminology rather than address where you went off the rails?
…but as I've already said, you can use the rules of soccer to referee a rugby match, but you'll end up with a wonderful mess of a game.
And as I’ve already explained that’s an entirely false analogy because all parties agree that both rugby and soccer exist. You on the other hand have all your work ahead of you still finally to demonstrate that “the supernatural” exists at all, and moreover (also finally) to propose a method to test that claim.
I've used several examples of events and situations that don't fit the scientific methodology over the months I've been a member of the board, and haven't yet seen an answer that deals with them satisfactorily.
That’s not true. “Satisfactorily” in this case means “to my, Hope’s, satisfaction” but you need at least a basic grounding in science (and maths and logic too) to grasp whether the explanations are in fact “satisfactory” within the context of the various methods these disciplines bring to the table.
If on the other hand you want to abandon those disciplines in favour of – well, what? Anecdote? Assertion? Wishful thinking? – then finally propose a method to allow your claims to be examined and tested.
Most of the time the argument from your side of the debate has been opinion, as opposed to concrete evidence, meaning that they are no more valid than anyone else's posts.
Also not true. “Evidence” is for the person making the claim (that’s called the “burden of proof” by the way), and you should no more demand from me evidence to disprove your conjecture about “God” than I should demand from you evidence that disproved my claim about pixies (you favourite negative proof fallacy in other words).
Oh, and arguments that are logically robust are qualitatively “more valid” than whatever pops into your head pending a method of any kind to validate it, unless you really want to allow in too whatever pops into anyone else’s heads – about anything – on the same epistemic footing as your “God”.
I'll just give one example here: the issue of right and wrong. Science doesn't deal in that aspect of real life (and lest you want to disagree with that, I'm only repeating what many people here and within scientific fields have said); generally, the idea is judged by personal opinion and social custom.
Depends what you mean by “deals with”. Science does deal some aspects of “right and wrong” – by mapping for example the parts of the brain that “light up” when dealing with moral questions, especially when those question are complex and different parts of the brain are involved.
If though you mean something more like, ”science can’t tell us what’s right and what’s wrong” then yes, but so what? “Right” and “wrong” are judgments, and we exercise a mix of instinct and opinion about these matters to the best of our abilities but with no claim to objective truths. They are in other words what we make them (which is why they can change so much over time for example) whereas an apple will always fall to the ground regardless of the opinions of the person dropping it, and regardless of when in history they happen to do it.
Whereas you dispute that reality goes beyond the sceintific realm, as it were. Do you have any evidence for that claim.
It’s not my claim. Rather the “claim” – which in this case happens to factually true – is that, so far at least, no-one has managed to provide a coherent argument to indicate that there is a “reality beyond the scientific” (whatever that means). That’s not to say that there necessarily isn’t one – that would be overreaching – but it is to say that no-one been able to demonstrate it, or even for that matter to define what they mean by it. That is, the assertion "supernatural" is “not even wrong”.
Remember that this isn't a fallacious argument on my part…
Yes it is – it’s a straw man in fact.
…because I have used said examoples in the past which have yet to be refuted.
None that I’m aware of. The only examples I’ve seen you attempt have been so riddled with bad thinking as to be effectively self-refuting. If though you seriously think you have a non-refutable example, then by all means post it here.
You are claiming that aspects of life and reality that go beyond the scientific realm - which include the supernatural - don't really exist.
Again, no: what I’m claiming is that there’s no reason to think that they do exist – a very different thing.
You now need to provide evidence to that effect.
Evidence for your straw man version of what I do say?
Nope. As ever if you seriously think there to be an interventionist “God” then the burden of proof remains with you.
-
Hope,
OK, lets look at that suggestion. About 2 years ago, one of the members of the church I attend was diagnosed with cancer and given 2 - 4 weeks to live. She was placed on a palliative regime of medication, with no attempt to treat the condition. At the morning service the next Sunday, the congregation - about 200-225 strong that day - was asked to get into groups of 4 or 5 and to pray for her and a number of other issues that concerned the church (including the global political situation of the time). Which of your 'all sorts of organisations' would have kept records of that, I wonder.
Not only did the lady concerned have a clean bill of health in a subsequent check-up when she had lived beyond the 2-4 weeks period, but she is still alive and a recent check-up confirmed that she was still clear. I accept that, as with many conditions, a complete recovery may well be impossible, hence the phrase 'being in remission' or 'recovering' as in conditions such as alcoholism. That doesn't mean that healing/spontaneous recovery hasn't taken place, especially when 2-4 weeks turns into 2 years and still going strong.
Can I suggest a book that'll explain better than I can why your thinking here is so catastrophically wrong? Try Jordan Ellenberg's "How Not to be Wrong: The Hidden Maths of Everyday Life".
It's very readable, and it deals very well with the mistakes you keep making when you seek to generalise from the anecdotal. The clue if that very surprising things happen all the time - looking at them from the wrong end of the telescope and ignoring the remainder of the sample that did not get better is leading you astray (as indeed is failing to grasp the basic maths involved).
-
Was there a favourable outcome regarding the 'global political situation of the time'?
Some, but not all - but then, I'm not sure exactly what political topics the 50+ groups prayed for at the time. If conversations I had regarding the Scottish Referendum that followed a month or two later reflected the views of church members, and they prayed for that, then you could probably answer that topic in the affirmative.
...and if they'd prayed for the opposite, then you would conclude that prayer doesn't work after all? Likewise if the woman with cancer had sadly not recovered? How many times have you prayed for sick people who have not 'miraculously' recovered?
What is blindingly obvious to those of us on the outside of all this, is that no matter what actually happens, those who believe in prayer will go on thinking it has results (all the lame excuses like 'no' being an answer and god knowing best).
It is a blind belief that is totally impervious to anything at all that might actually happen. It is deeply sad to see humans trapped by such nonsense...
-
...and if they'd prayed for the opposite, then you would conclude that prayer doesn't work after all?
As I said, conversations I had with folk in the church suggested that a large majority were for Scotland to remain in the UK (albeit the fact that we had no say in the matter). If they prayed for that outcome, then I'd say that there was a favourable one.
Likewise if the woman with cancer had sadly not recovered? How many times have you prayed for sick people who have not 'miraculously' recovered?
Surprisingly few. For instance, once peole reach their 80s and 90s, we often don't pray for them to be returned to the level of health they enjoyed when they were 40, because we acknowledge that at 80 or 90 they are coming towards the end of life. Prayers are therefore for other matters, such as peace, pain reduction, an understanding perhaps even reconciliation within the family, and - in many cases that is as much a matter of healing as is the medical type.
What is blindingly obvious to those of us on the outside of all this, is that no matter what actually happens, those who believe in prayer will go on thinking it has results (all the lame excuses like 'no' being an answer and god knowing best).
Whereas those on the 'inside' to use your terminology will continue to see those on the 'outside' use terminology like 'spontaneous recovery' as euphemisms for recoveries that neither they, nor science, can explain. Its all a bit like avoiding the iussue.
It is a blind belief that is totally impervious to anything at all that might actually happen. It is deeply sad to see humans trapped by such nonsense...
And, of course, you have large amounts of evidence that aren't tainted by the Hawthorne Effect to show that nothing ever happens.
-
As I said, conversations I had with folk in the church suggested that a large majority were for Scotland to remain in the UK (albeit the fact that we had no say in the matter). If they prayed for that outcome, then I'd say that there was a favourable one.
As I said when you mentioned this nonsense yesterday you clearly don't understand the difference between cause and effect and association.
Surprisingly few. For instance, once peole reach their 80s and 90s, we often don't pray for them to be returned to the level of health they enjoyed when they were 40, because we acknowledge that at 80 or 90 they are coming towards the end of life. Prayers are therefore for other matters, such as peace, pain reduction, an understanding perhaps even reconciliation within the family, and - in many cases that is as much a matter of healing as is the medical type.
Whereas those on the 'inside' to use your terminology will continue to see those on the 'outside' use terminology like 'spontaneous recovery' as euphemisms for recoveries that neither they, nor science, can explain. Its all a bit like avoiding the iussue.
What issue, since all we see here is just your imprecise anecdotal rambling.
And, of course, you have large amounts of evidence that aren't tainted by the Hawthorne Effect to show that nothing ever happens.
Now the 'Hawthorne Effect' is something I'm familiar with, since my own research work involved direct observation, and is something that dates from research conducted in the early part of the last century. Do you really think that researchers working to academic standards aren't aware of it when they design their research methods?
However, since you mention it now, on what basis have you determined that it has 'tainted' anything specific, since to make this claim you'd need to have some specific critiques of the methods used in specific studies - so what are these? If you can't support your criticism with these details then you are in effect accusing unnamed researchers of incompetence, and in doing so you are revealing your own!
My money is on you flying a kite about something you really don't understand in the hope that nobody notices, the problem being that some here do have practical experience in these areas (such as research methods) and can easily spot your ill-informed amateur fumblings.
-
As I said, conversations I had with folk in the church suggested that a large majority were for Scotland to remain in the UK (albeit the fact that we had no say in the matter). If they prayed for that outcome, then I'd say that there was a favourable one.
You didn't answer my question. You seem perfectly happy to think that if what is prayed for happens, then it's a demonstration of prayer working but seem unable to comprehend that, if it doesn't happen, then it's an example of prayer not working.
You can't claim one as evidence and dismiss the other.
Surprisingly few. For instance, once peole reach their 80s and 90s, we often don't pray for them to be returned to the level of health they enjoyed when they were 40, because we acknowledge that at 80 or 90 they are coming towards the end of life. Prayers are therefore for other matters, such as peace, pain reduction, an understanding perhaps even reconciliation within the family, and - in many cases that is as much a matter of healing as is the medical type.
Evasion again. Either your prayers have a perfect success rate (in which case, I suggest praying for a cure for cancer for everyone, rather than just one person) or there will be occasions where what you prayed for didn't happen.
Individual anecdotes are meaningless as evidence. That's why drugs have to go through proper placebo controlled, randomized trials. As has been pointed out, prayer doesn't work when subjected to proper testing.
Any quackery you care to mention will be supported by some anecdotes of 'miraculous' recovery.
Whereas those on the 'inside' to use your terminology will continue to see those on the 'outside' use terminology like 'spontaneous recovery' as euphemisms for recoveries that neither they, nor science, can explain. Its all a bit like avoiding the iussue.
It's not avoiding the issue at all. There are some things we don't understand. What you are totally failing to do is offer a credible explanation yourself. You have established no link to prayer or 'divine intervention'.
And, of course, you have large amounts of evidence that aren't tainted by the Hawthorne Effect to show that nothing ever happens.
You are totally missing the point. It isn't that nothing ever happens, it does (unexpected things happen), but we have no evidence that prayer makes any difference at all.
The point I was actually making is that you will interpret anything as an answer. Hence your refusal even to contemplate that a prayer that doesn't have the desired outcome would be just as much evidence that prayer doesn't work as your anecdotes are that it does.
-
Hope,
Whereas those on the 'inside' to use your terminology will continue to see those on the 'outside' use terminology like 'spontaneous recovery' as euphemisms for recoveries that neither they, nor science, can explain. Its all a bit like avoiding the iussue.
Just to note that this is very, very bad thinking. Science has always included "don't knows" when that's the honest answer - but that says nothing to whatever you may want to drop in as an explanation instead. Your effort ("Mrs X was poorly, the doctors said she was done for, we prayed, Mrs X got better, therefore god") is the epistemological equivalent of a norse man saying, "we heard thunder, science can't explain it, therefore Thor".
You're still struggling badly too with the idea that very unusual things happen all the time. If you shuffle a deck of cards and deal it randomly, the chances of that particular sequence occurring is 52! (ie, 52 factorial) - an unimaginably huge number. Yet decks of cards are dealt all the time with just that unlikelihood of outcome!
If though you were to say something like, "we prayed for this sequence of cards before the hand was dealt and that's what we got" you'd still have further issues to address, but the facts would at least merit some attention. What you actually do though is post rationalise - you tell us after the event of the outcome you desired and just ignore the countless times other people with the same diagnosis were also prayed for but did not get better.
Suppose for example that at great expense I set up a website that claimed that, provided you sent me ten pounds and danced round your living room naked with a stick of rhubarb up your fundament, you'd come into an unexpected inheritance. Provided enough people did it, the chances are that one of them would come into an unexpected inheritance - only of course that would have happened anyway. It gets worse than that though: guess who will post his testimonial on my website? Yup, the chap who got the inheritance - rhubarbupmebumworks!524 would tell us it's a terrific scheme, and many visitors to the site who read that would never stop to think of the 999,999 who'd ruined a perfectly good crop of rhubarb but had inherited nothing. The tenners would be rolling in after that!
To put it bluntly, by sharing your anecdote you are rhubarbupmebumworks!524.
-
Hope,
Just to note that this is very, very bad thinking. Science has always included "don't knows" when that's the honest answer - but that says nothing whatever to whatever you may want to drop in as an explanation instead. Your effort ("Mrs X was poorly, the doctors said she was done for, we prayed, Mrs X got better, therefore god") is the epistemological equivalent of a norse man saying, "we heard thunder, science can't explain it, therefore Thor".
Superb analogy ;D
As for the rest of your typically excellent post, bluey, great work but wasted. Fallacious reasoning is so deeply ingrained in Hope that he either can't break out of it or simply doesn't care that he rolls out one fallacy after another almost every post.
I still haven't decided which.
-
Hi Shakes,
Superb analogy ;D
As for the rest of your typically excellent post, bluey, great work but wasted. Fallacious reasoning is so deeply ingrained in Hope that he either can't break out of it or simply doesn't care that he rolls out one fallacy after another almost every post.
I still haven't decided which.
You're far too kind my friend. As for Hope and his fellow fallacy fans, I've posted this before but I've concluded that the truth is that they just don't care. Not a jot. No matter how bad the argument – and no matter how often the badness is explained to them – they post the fallacies over and over again nonetheless. See, they know - really, really know - that their conjectures must also be facts because, well, they just must be, so what does it matter that the arguments to validate that claim are all broken?
Of course it matters a great deal to those they hope to persuade, but for themselves - nah. Pretty much any fallacy you can think of will populate the playbook with not a care for how that fatally undermines their position, so round and round we go.
Fun innit?
-
As I said, conversations I had with folk in the church suggested that a large majority were for Scotland to remain in the UK (albeit the fact that we had no say in the matter). If they prayed for that outcome, then I'd say that there was a favourable one.
Why would God intervene in the Scottish Referendum due to a small group of people praying for it?
-
Maeght,
Why would God intervene in the Scottish Referendum due to a small group of people praying for it?
Presumably because "He" isn't a democrat?
-
Maeght,
Presumably because "He" isn't a democrat?
And "He" definitely can't be an Englishman!
-
Hi jj,
And "He" definitely can't be an Englishman!
Or at least not a stubborn one. It's such a strange notion isn't it - a God who knows everything, can do anything and must behave morally well can be persuaded to change his mind provided the right pleas and propitiations are made. It also seems pretty unfair to me - why when the other candidates are as (or even more) deserving would this god favour someone else in the running race or the job interview just because that person went on bended knee to tip the outcome in his favour?
Weird.
-
Maeght,
Presumably because "He" isn't a democrat?
:)
-
Bluehillside
Thunder = Thor
Ruhbarbupthebumworks524
Brilliant mate..... Cant do smileys
-
I bet there's a you tube somewhere with a comic view of God's opinions on the EU referendum! The discussion on SofF has been serious, sensible and interesting, so I have refrained from asking what God advises!!
-
Hi jj,
Or at least not a stubborn one. It's such a strange notion isn't it - a God who knows everything, can do anything and must behave morally well can be persuaded to change his mind provided the right pleas and propitiations are made. It also seems pretty unfair to me - why when the other candidates are as (or even more) deserving would this god favour someone else in the running race or the job interview just because that person went on bended knee to tip the outcome in his favour?
Weird.
Hi Blue
I'm beginning to see God as a lesser Donald Trump!
Bow down to him and he might do you a favour ... on the other hand though ....
-
As I said, conversations I had with folk in the church suggested that a large majority were for Scotland to remain in the UK (albeit the fact that we had no say in the matter). If they prayed for that outcome, then I'd say that there was a favourable one.
So if the decision to remain in the UK was a result of God intervening as a result of prayer, how exactly did God achieve this?
Did he alter the positions of the crosses on the ballot sheets after they had been placed in the box?
Did he change peoples minds?
Did he equip the stay politicians with better debating skill or arguments than they would have had if he had not intervened?
It is a very interesting question because in the first case he would have committed electoral fraud. In the second case he deprived people of their free will (not something I necessarily accept exists), that is usually trotted out by theists as a defence for the problem of evil. In the third case why not pray for all atheist to become believers, then he can implant the knowledge of his existence into our minds in the same way that he placed better arguments in the minds of the stay advocates'.
Or is there some other option?
-
Hope,
Incidentally, if you do read the book I recommended to you you'll understand the terms "null hypothesis" and "p values" that Stephen referred to, and hopefully too therefore you'll see why they demolish your attempt to use personal anecdote to derive universal truths.
-
Hope,
Incidentally, if you do read the book I recommended to you you'll understand the terms "null hypothesis" and "p values" that Stephen referred to, and hopefully too therefore you'll see why they demolish your attempt to use personal anecdote to derive universal truths.
Honest Blue. haven't you yet realised that Hope will never, even should he live for a thiusand years, see anything negative with regard to his God, his religion, his arguments in favour of that religion or to that bloody stupid book.
Even to the point that he dismisses the OT as irrelevant to the Chritian religion yet Sassy quotes th OT interminably to justify it and its views and rules.
How this man was ever allowed to teach, with a facility for fallacious reasoning like his, is seriously beyond me.
It would be interesteing to interview some of his students but I doubt if many would admit to having been under his tutelage.
Plus which, of course, he has spent so much of his life travelling in just about every country in the world that he probably has precious few students fromn the UK.
-
Some, but not all - but then, I'm not sure exactly what political topics the 50+ groups prayed for at the time. If conversations I had regarding the Scottish Referendum that followed a month or two later reflected the views of church members, and they prayed for that, then you could probably answer that topic in the affirmative.
...and another thing.
Do you think that there were no, none, zero - honest and earnest Christians in Scotland who were hoping for the reverse result to occur.
And that none of them had a wee prayer to that effect?
And as their prayers were therefore not 'answered' would that then probably answer that topic in exact opposite to your response above?
:-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
...and another thing.
Do you think that there were no, none, zero - honest and earnest Christians in Scotland who were hoping for the reverse result to occur.
And that none of them had a wee prayer to that effect?
And as their prayers were therefore not 'answered' would that then probably answer that topic in exact opposite to your response above?
:-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Ah, but then, you see, the reason that their prayers were not answered was that they were praying for the wrong result - the result that God did not want.
-
There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.
Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.
In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.
Is that it then? Are we done here? Fun as it may be discussing personal opinions and fascinating as some of the byways can be, the core premise of "my god is your god too" seems to be a busted flush – or at least it is insofar as no-one here is able cogently to argue for it.
What then is there left to talk about instead?
But there is also the call on us from respective philosophical positions of which your post is but one.
There is also the call from various moral standpoints and standpoints of morality.
The insistence of holding the default position on everything discussed on this board is IMHO pathological.
Of course God seems to appear in all sorts of philosophical debates and that could explain your need to reduce that role to mere wearer of green jackets, smoker of upside down pipes and keeper of gold pots at the end of rainbows.....................top of the morning to you.
-
Vlad,
But there is also the call on us from respective philosophical positions of which your post is but one.
There is also the call from various moral standpoints and standpoints of morality.
There is also the "call" from flat-earthers and the "call" from creationists too. You're just going nuclear again. You can conjecture anything you like, but unless you're prepared to accept all of them as probably true then, finally, you need to provide a method to sort the probably true from the probably not true. And no, "faith" is not a method.
The insistence of holding the default position on everything discussed on this board is IMHO pathological.
Then, as so often, your opinion is wrong. That's why you treat the "the lift is more probably the safer way to the ground than jumping out of the window" as your default too. If you really want to promote a conjecture to something else without the tools of reason and inter-subjective experience, what method would you propose instead to do the job?
Of course God seems to appear in all sorts of philosophical debates...
Yes, or at least the idea of "God" has done so. So far as I'm aware those who think they have philosophical arguments for "God" now though are considered by most who've engaged with these arguments to be either demonstrably wrong or not even wrong. WLC's flakey five for example are readily undone. There are more nuanced theistic thinkers - Don Cupitt comes to mind - who may have interesting things to say but none of them has provided anything sufficiently persuasive to change the Zeitgeist.
... and that could explain your need to reduce that role to mere wearer of green jackets, smoker of upside down pipes and keeper of gold pots at the end of rainbows.....................top of the morning to you.
And again you make the same mistake as ever about what I actually do. (Wearily) - Bluehillside's fourth maxim: "If an argument for "God" works equally well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument". The characteristics and properties of "God" and of leprechauns alike are utterly irrelevant for this purpose
Why is this simple point sooo difficult for you to grasp?
-
Vlad,
There is also the "call" from flat-earthers and the "call" from creationists too. You're just going nuclear again. You can conjecture anything you like, but unless you're prepared to accept all of them as probably true then, finally, you need to provide a method to sort the probably true from the probably not true. And no, "faith" is not a method.
Then, as so often, your opinion is wrong. That's why you treat the "the lift is more probably the safer way to the ground than jumping out of the window" as your default too. If you really want to promote a conjecture to something else without the tools of reason and inter-subjective experience, what method would you propose instead to do the job?
Yes, or at least the idea of "God" has done so. So far as I'm aware those who think they have philosophical arguments for "God" now though are considered by most who've engaged with these arguments to be either demonstrably wrong or not even wrong. WLC's flakey five for example are readily undone. There are more nuanced theistic thinkers - Don Cupitt comes to mind - who may have interesting things to say but none of them has provided anything sufficiently persuasive to change the Zeitgeist.
And again you make the same mistake as ever about what I actually do. (Wearily) - Bluehillside's fourth maxim: "If an argument for "God" works equally well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument". The characteristics and properties of "God" and of leprechauns alike are utterly irrelevant for this purpose
Why is this simple point sooo difficult for you to grasp?
Crikey...................immediate comparison with flat earthers.
Now that is what I call going nuclear ...but I suppose that's another phrase the antitheists have stolen to support Laws inconsequential bollocks.
Using flat earthers straight away eh, surrender accepted......reparation terms.......I will graciously allow your withdrawal from the board to ease your embarrassment.
-
I will graciously allow your withdrawal from the board to ease your embarrassment.
Since when was it in your gift to "allow" anyone to withdraw from this board?
Just what do you think that you can do to prevent someone withdrawing from this board?
-
Since when was it in your gift to "allow" anyone to withdraw from this board?
Just what do you think that you can do to prevent someone withdrawing from this board?
Don't worry about that.
Vlad sometimes feels funny and soon after that wears off - he posts something.
There a re many examples of that littered all over this forum.
Maybe you haven't noticed?
-
Vlad,
Crikey...................immediate comparison with flat earthers.
Now that is what I call going nuclear ...but I suppose that's another phrase the antitheists have stolen to support Laws inconsequential bollocks.
Using flat earthers straight away eh, surrender accepted......reparation terms.......I will graciously allow your withdrawal from the board to ease your embarrassment.
Blimey, when you shoot yourself in the foot you really give it both barrels don't you. The point was that it matters not a jot which faith belief you happen to be punting; if the argument for it is bad then the argument for it is bad regardless. Absent a method to distinguish one badly argued faith claim from any other badly argued faith claim, do you propose to accept all of them as true or none of them?
It's no good saying, "but this one is ridiculous" as if your opinion on that somehow renders your one not ridiculous. If the argument you attempt for your faith belief and that someone else attempts for his faith belief is the same argument, then in epistemological terms there's no difference between them. Why then would you you think that theology "makes a call" on us whereas, say, faith in a flat earth does not?
For once try to focus here - really, really try: If an argument for "God" works equally well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument.
Really, that's it. Your standard tactic ("yeah but I end up at God that way, but you end up at leprechauns and your output is ridiculous") doesn't work: you can't take one outcome of a bad argument and somehow think that that outcome renders it a good argument, whereas a different outcome does not. Only when (if?) you finally grasp this will you realise the enormity of your mistake...
..and it's never a good idea to cling to a mistake just because you've invested heavily in making it.
-
Vlad,
Blimey, when you shoot yourself in the foot you really give it both barrels don't you. The point was that it matters not a jot which faith belief you happen to be punting; if the argument for it is bad then the argument for it is bad regardless. Absent a method to distinguish one badly argued faith claim from any other badly argued faith claim, do you propose to accept all of them as true or none of them?
It's no good saying, "but this one is ridiculous" as if your opinion on that somehow renders your one not ridiculous. If the argument you attempt for your faith belief and that someone else attempts for his faith belief is the same argument, then in epistemological terms there's no difference between them. Why then would you you think that theology "makes a call" on us whereas, say, faith in a flat earth does not?
For once try to focus here - really, really try: If an argument for "God" works equally well for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument.
Really, that's it. Your standard tactic ("yeah but I end up at God that way, but you end up at leprechauns and your output is ridiculous") doesn't work: you can't take one outcome of a bad argument and somehow think that that outcome renders it a good argument, whereas a different outcome does not. Only when (if?) you finally grasp this will you realise the enormity of your mistake...
..and it's never a good idea to cling to a mistake just because you've invested heavily in making it.
When you equate flat earth with God you have made a hole in the bottom of the barrel.
Why because flat earth is a scientific proposition easily dismissed by science and empirical observation.
You are struggling to show that God is probabilistic let alone his probability.
You've fucked up and ruined your reputation for clear thought...........but not for cheeky piss taking which, let's face it makes the vast majority on this forum "moist".
But don't just take my word for it.......the Internet is replete with sceptic boards that do recognise the Leprechaun approach as an unpolishable turd.
-
Vlad,
When you equate flat earth with God you have made a hole in the bottom of the barrel.
I genuinely can't tell whether this is deeply stupid or deeply dishonest. Or both.
Again: I HAVE NOT AND DO NOT "EQUATE FLAT EARTH WITH GOD".
See, I even put it in bold and in capitals so you don't have to lie about it any more.
What I actually do though is to equate the ARGUMENT for each when the argument is the SAME ARGUMENT.
Thus, "you can't disprove God, therefore God is real" and "you can't disprove the flat earth/leprechauns/whatever, therefore the flat earth/leprechauns/whatever is real" is the same argument (Hope's favourite in fact) so - just for the purpose of that argument - they have the same epistemological standing.
Dear god but this is hard work.
Why because flat earth is a scientific proposition easily dismissed by science and empirical observation.
Yeah, all fakes of course by the global spherical earth conspiracy and besides doesn't science rest on axioms so, um, a flat earth is just as valid a hypothesis as a round one then isn't it (copyright V.Lad).
You are struggling to show that God is probabilistic let alone his probability.
Wrong: any truth claim is "probabilistic". Some though we treat as more probably true than others on the basis of the reasoning for them and the inter-subjective experience of engaging with them. That's why we both (presumably) think that gravity is the more probable explanation for apples falling from the tree than invisible elves pulling them down with very thin strings. And there's no need to show the "working out" for how much less probable elf theory is for that purpose.
You've fucked up and ruined your reputation for clear thought...........but not for cheeky piss taking which, let's face it makes the vast majority on this forum "moist".
Oh dear. Perhaps if you had a lie down with a wet towel round your head while you consider the error of your ways?
But don't just take my word for it.......the Internet is replete with sceptic boards that do recognise the Leprechaun approach as an unpolishable turd.
I don't take your word for anything given your history of pathological mendacity, and as you clearly can't falsify Bluehillside's fourth maxim perhaps you could try producing some of these alleged internet sources that can do so?
I won't hold my breath mind.
-
Don't worry about that.
Vlad sometimes feels funny and soon after that wears off - he posts something.
There a re many examples of that littered all over this forum.
Maybe you haven't noticed?
I had, but this self-elevation to God-level seemed a bit much.
-
bluehillside
In all fairness, and much as it pains me to do so, (:)) I must put in a word for Vlad here. When it came to the referendum, he was on the right side as far as I'm concerned and although I didn't agree with every word he said, I did read all his posts in those topics!
-
Hi Susan,
In all fairness, and much as it pains me to do so, (:)) I must put in a word for Vlad here. When it came to the referendum, he was on the right side as far as I'm concerned and although I didn't agree with every word he said, I did read all his posts in those topics!
Even a busted clock is right twice a day ;)
-
Hi Susan,
Even a busted clock is right twice a day ;)
Unless it is a busted 24 hour digital clock!
Vlad would be more like one of those if you had to make that comparison. ;)
-
Plenty worse than Vlad! At least he is interesting (if you can get your head around what he is saying ???), has the odd swear and drops a few witticisms. A rather - unusual - Christian which goes to show that God likes a bit of diversity. (Sorry for talking about you Vlad but couldn't resist, no offence.)
-
Dear Brownie,
A rather - unusual - Christian which goes to show that God likes a bit of diversity.
There's a usual type, what like!! good old TW, oh yeah! He is very usual, what about our Sass, a send all the immigrants home kind of Christian, what about the saintly Wigs, that guy is so out there we are talking light years to reach him.
Funny but when I think of Vlad I don't think Christian ( although I do think he has a deep thoughtful faith ) I think of his sense of humour, and I won't gain any friends when I say, Vlad, Shaker, and old Blue are all in the same mold, that is their sense of humour, very dry, very sarcastic, those three guys have had me in fits of laughter over the years, God Bless them all. :P
Gonnagle.
-
And those Christian types don't even included the skewed hopeful gentle comic stylings of Gonnagle, and the slightly mother hen but straining not to giggle approach of Brownie. To link to another thread the More United approach is not just about the harsh game of politics.
-
Agree with both of the above posts and again I say, God obviously loves diversity and wants us to be individuals.
I especially liked this from the ever courteous and gentle Gonnagle: Vlad, Shaker, and old Blue are all in the same mold, that is their sense of humour, very dry, very sarcastic, those three guys have had me in fits of laughter over the years, God Bless them all. :P
-
There are some people who think there to be a "God", and some of them think too that they've been contacted by this deity. Some of these people think that their convictions about this are not only personal opinions, but also are reliable guides to objective truths for the rest of us if only we could see it.
Moreover, on the basis of these opinions some of these people think their beliefs should be afforded special respect, and that their institutions should enjoy various privileges in the public domain.
In the course of countless exchanges here many theists have been asked for a method to distinguish their personal beliefs from just guessing about stuff so that the rights and privileges they arrogate to themselves can be evaluated, yet - so far as I recall - none has either offered a method or has offered a method that doesn't collapse very quickly when it's examined with reasoned argument.
Is that it then? Are we done here?
Nope :) All you have illustrated is what happens when you try and solve a problem using an incorrect approach.
You express your dissatisfaction with the answers provided by those of religious belief. But you could try and demonstrate the opposite, namely that as all things have a natural explanation, there is no need for a supernatural/non-natural causes, etc., because that is the basis for your worldview, the one used to examine the evidence for non-natural phenomena. Seeing the problem yet???
I am a Maths teacher. If a student gets a question wrong, I can either
a) Show them where their working out is incorrect (ideally, get them to see if for themselves)
b) Show them why the converse is correct.
You can either disprove religious belief, or prove the converse.
The problem arises, because neither is being done. So perhaps someone could present their proof for all causes having natural explanations, (or at least show how it can be falsified) and then there would be no need for religious belief of any kind!
-
Nope :) All you have illustrated is what happens when you try and solve a problem using an incorrect approach.
You express your dissatisfaction with the answers provided by those of religious belief. But you could try and demonstrate the opposite, namely that as all things have a natural explanation, there is no need for a supernatural/non-natural causes, etc., because that is the basis for your worldview, the one used to examine the evidence for non-natural phenomena. Seeing the problem yet???
I am a Maths teacher. If a student gets a question wrong, I can either
a) Show them where their working out is incorrect (ideally, get them to see if for themselves)
b) Show them why the converse is correct.
You can either disprove religious belief, or prove the converse.
The problem arises, because neither is being done. So perhaps someone could present their proof for all causes having natural explanations, (or at least show how it can be falsified) and then there would be no need for religious belief of any kind!
Hi Sword, welcome to the RE Forum.
Have a look at :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof)
The claim that there is a god is a positive claim requiring justification. All we get is anecdotes, assertions and fallacious arguments, none of which would stand up as justification in any other context. Your attempt to reverse the burden of proof is merely a sleight of hand, and it won't wash around here.
-
SwordoftheSpirit wrote:
The problem arises, because neither is being done. So perhaps someone could present their proof for all causes having natural explanations, (or at least show how it can be falsified) and then there would be no need for religious belief of any kind!
You can't prove that all things have natural causes, and atheists don't need to do that. As torridon said, that is reversing the burden of proof. It's up to those who argue for the supernatural, to demonstrate it, or argue for it, at least.
-
Hi Sword – sorry I missed this before.
Nope All you have illustrated is what happens when you try and solve a problem using an incorrect approach.
No. I’ve just showed what happens when you misuse the only approach available that’s distinguishable from just guessing: reason. If you have either cogent reasoning or another way of verifying a religious claim though, then by all means share.
You express your dissatisfaction with the answers provided by those of religious belief. But you could try and demonstrate the opposite, namely that as all things have a natural explanation, there is no need for a supernatural/non-natural causes, etc., because that is the basis for your worldview, the one used to examine the evidence for non-natural phenomena. Seeing the problem yet???
No, because you’ve just shifted the burden of proof. If you think a conjecture about a supernatural god to be true, then it’s your job to make an argument for it. See “Russell’s teapot” for a shorthand explanation of where you’ve gone wrong.
I am a Maths teacher. If a student gets a question wrong, I can either
a) Show them where their working out is incorrect (ideally, get them to see if for themselves)
b) Show them why the converse is correct.
Not if the student writes “787uh9 + 753g30 = P)&^gy8” you can’t. All you can say in response it, “this is just white noise”. If on the other hand the student says "2+2=5" (the mathematical equivalent of the various logical fallacies we see so often here) then it's a straightforward matter to explain where he's gone wrong.
You can either disprove religious belief, or prove the converse.
No, because religious beliefs are set up from the get-go to be unfalsifiable even conceptually. That’s not a strength though – so are leprechaunal beliefs.
The problem arises, because neither is being done. So perhaps someone could present their proof for all causes having natural explanations, (or at least show how it can be falsified) and then there would be no need for religious belief of any kind!
No, the problem arises because neither can be done because religious conjectures are what science calls “not even wrong”. Again, your problem here is that the burden of proof is yours and not that of your interlocutor. That's why the atheist doesn’t say, “there is no god”; rather he says, “there’s no reason to think that there is a god” – a very different position.
-
Wiggs,
You can't prove that all things have natural causes, and atheists don't need to do that. As torridon said, that is reversing the burden of proof. It's up to those who argue for the supernatural, to demonstrate it, or argue for it, at least.
And if the latter, to do so without recourse to fallacious reasoning.
-
Nope :) All you have illustrated is what happens when you try and solve a problem using an incorrect approach.
You express your dissatisfaction with the answers provided by those of religious belief. But you could try and demonstrate the opposite, namely that as all things have a natural explanation, there is no need for a supernatural/non-natural causes, etc., because that is the basis for your worldview, the one used to examine the evidence for non-natural phenomena. Seeing the problem yet???
I am a Maths teacher. If a student gets a question wrong, I can either
a) Show them where their working out is incorrect (ideally, get them to see if for themselves)
b) Show them why the converse is correct.
You can either disprove religious belief, or prove the converse.
The problem arises, because neither is being done. So perhaps someone could present their proof for all causes having natural explanations, (or at least show how it can be falsified) and then there would be no need for religious belief of any kind!
Other than some people think they need religion of some kind or another, there is no actual need for religion, life without gods would be the same as it already is.
Like blue says it's for you to anchor down anything you can find to prove gods exist; you've got a long thankless task ahead of you Sword.
If you do manage to find anything give my regards to Zeus while you're there.
ippy
-
Hi Sword, welcome to the RE Forum.
Thank you. 8)
Have a look at :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof)
The claim that there is a god is a positive claim requiring justification. All we get is anecdotes, assertions and fallacious arguments, none of which would stand up as justification in any other context. Your attempt to reverse the burden of proof is merely a sleight of hand, and it won't wash around here.
I was merely suggesting an alternative approach. If a statement xyz is true, then one can either try and demonstrate it directly (what I assume all the Christians who have been posting here have tried to do), or show that the converse is false. Since it appears that not a single post by any other Christian who has been posting here since this forum's inception has had any real breakthrough, I'm taking a different approach.
The problem as I see it is in the approach being taken: If one takes a scientific approach then the worldview used assumes natural causes and explanations. How can such a worldview then be used to examine evidence of a non-natural cause? So I'm not attempting to reverse the burden of proof, I'm asking that your worldview be subject to the same criteria that you are expecting from those of religious belief. If your worldview could be proven, there would be no need for any religious belief; end of debate. Since your worldview is not proven, it should at least be falsifiable, and faith is required to hold to it.
The worldview used is based on a naturalistic philosophy. So when anything is presented that contradicts it, it must be disproved. That's the problem, and that is why I've suggested an alternative approach. The reality is that both sides are doing the same thing; presenting their case using their worldviews and seeking to disprove anything that contradicts it. That is why no progress is being made, and indeed cannot be made.
-
Sword,
I was merely suggesting an alternative approach. If a statement xyz is true, then one can either try and demonstrate it directly (what I assume all the Christians who have been posting here have tried to do), or show that the converse is false.
Provided that is the statement is a coherent one. The conjecture “God” is incoherent, so ignosticism is a legitimate response.
Anyways…
Since it appears that not a single post by any other Christian who has been posting here since this forum's inception has had any real breakthrough, I'm taking a different approach.
Well, that could be because the proposition isn’t true at all of course but I’m all for a different approach. Go for it!
The problem as I see it is in the approach being taken: If one takes a scientific approach then the worldview used assumes natural causes and explanations.
But that’s a problem for the theist rather than for the sceptical enquirer. If the former doesn’t want to take a naturalistic approach, then it’s for him to propose another method to distinguish his claims from just guessing about stuff. Many here have been asked for it, but none has been forthcoming
How can such a worldview then be used to examine evidence of a non-natural cause? So I'm not attempting to reverse the burden of proof,…
Actually that’s exactly what you were doing, but let’s start fresh nonetheless…
I'm asking that your worldview be subject to the same criteria that you are expecting from those of religious belief. If your worldview could be proven, there would be no need for any religious belief; end of debate. Since your worldview is not proven, it should at least be falsifiable, and faith is required to hold to it.
What do you mean here by “worldview”, and in what way is it not “proven”? I would say for example that the naturalistic worldview could be shown to be more reliably true than the non-naturalistic one when the former posits leaving a tall building by a lift and the latter by jumping out of the window. Just try each one (I’d suggest the lift option first) and then compare notes.
The worldview used is based on a naturalistic philosophy. So when anything is presented that contradicts it, it must be disproved. That's the problem, and that is why I've suggested an alternative approach. The reality is that both sides are doing the same thing; presenting their case using their worldviews and seeking to disprove anything that contradicts it. That is why no progress is being made, and indeed cannot be made.
No, that’s not the problem at all. The naturalistic “worldview” is investigable and testable by reference to the world as it appears to be (see above). Your problem here is that I can line up before breakfast ten people, each with different “worldviews”: one believes in the Christian god; the next believes in the Roman gods; the next believes in leprechauns; then next believes the royal family to be shape-shifting lizards; the next etc. None of them believe in the worldviews of any of the others, yet all insist their claims to be true for me too on the basis of their personal faith.
How then would you propose that I distinguish the claims of any one of them from any other?
And that’s the real problem. You're asking us just to adopt the un-evidenced and un-argued worldview of the proponent of a non-natural something, and moreover to pick one from the bewildering variety of options available with no means of any kind to distingsuish between them.
-
Thank you. 8)
I was merely suggesting an alternative approach. If a statement xyz is true, then one can either try and demonstrate it directly (what I assume all the Christians who have been posting here have tried to do), or show that the converse is false. Since it appears that not a single post by any other Christian who has been posting here since this forum's inception has had any real breakthrough, I'm taking a different approach.
The problem as I see it is in the approach being taken: If one takes a scientific approach then the worldview used assumes natural causes and explanations. How can such a worldview then be used to examine evidence of a non-natural cause? So I'm not attempting to reverse the burden of proof, I'm asking that your worldview be subject to the same criteria that you are expecting from those of religious belief. If your worldview could be proven, there would be no need for any religious belief; end of debate. Since your worldview is not proven, it should at least be falsifiable, and faith is required to hold to it.
The worldview used is based on a naturalistic philosophy. So when anything is presented that contradicts it, it must be disproved. That's the problem, and that is why I've suggested an alternative approach. The reality is that both sides are doing the same thing; presenting their case using their worldviews and seeking to disprove anything that contradicts it. That is why no progress is being made, and indeed cannot be made.
Using the term 'worldview' is blurring an otherwise straightforward point of logic. 'Worldviews' can be neither proved nor disproved, they defy easy definition, tending to be an amalgam of personal prejudices and dispositions. Formal logic however is not personal, 2 plus 2 still equals 4 even on a bad hair day or in the centre of the sun, and likewise the burden of proof still lies with the maker of a positive claim, as it is unreasonable to expect sceptics to prove the negative. If I go to Devon on holiday and see a golden eagle, I take photo as evidence to back up my claim, I do not expect my disbelieving ornithologist colleagues to set off with cameras to monitor all parts of Devon 24/7 to prove the continuous absence of eagles. Likewise with the existence of God it is not reasonable or practical or feasible for sceptics to prove the non-existence of God, it is up to those who claim existence to justify that claim. And in my experience, attempts at justification are usually claims of personal experience, which cannot be shared. There is no photo of an eagle, there is nothing obective. What exactly would my local ornithology club make of a continuous stream of thousands of people claiming to have seen eagles in Devon and yet not even one of them can ever produce a single photo to prove it ? They'd think something seriously fishy was going on.
-
Sword,
Provided that is the statement is a coherent one. The conjecture “God” is incoherent
And in that one statement Hillside shuts down all argument........
..........Funny he is never done though.
-
Using the term 'worldview' is blurring an otherwise straightforward point of logic. 'Worldviews' can be neither proved nor disproved, they defy easy definition, tending to be an amalgam of personal prejudices and dispositions. Formal logic however is not personal, 2 plus 2 still equals 4 even on a bad hair day or in the centre of the sun, and likewise the burden of proof still lies with the maker of a positive claim, as it is unreasonable to expect sceptics to prove the negative. If I go to Devon on holiday and see a golden eagle, I take photo as evidence to back up my claim, I do not expect my disbelieving ornithologist colleagues to set off with cameras to monitor all parts of Devon 24/7 to prove the continuous absence of eagles. Likewise with the existence of God it is not reasonable or practical or feasible for sceptics to prove the non-existence of God, it is up to those who claim existence to justify that claim. And in my experience, attempts at justification are usually claims of personal experience, which cannot be shared. There is no photo of an eagle, there is nothing obective. What exactly would my local ornithology club make of a continuous stream of thousands of people claiming to have seen eagles in Devon and yet not even one of them can ever produce a single photo to prove it ? They'd think something seriously fishy was going on.
Oh dear.
equating logic and reason with atheism again?
-
Vlad,
And in that one statement Hillside shuts down all argument........
..........Funny he is never done though.
If you think you do have a coherent definition of your god, by all means share it. A Templeton prize may well await you if you manage it.
-
Vlad,
Oh dear.
equating logic and reason with atheism again?
One leads unavoidably to the other. If though you seriously think there to be a cogent argument in reason or logic for "God", by all means be the first to share it.
I'll alert the Templeton Prize Committee again just in case your previous definitional effort fails.
-
Oh dear.
equating logic and reason with atheism again?
Is it even possible to believe in something illogical ? Here is tonight's homework assignment for you : I drew a five sided triangle just now. Can you believe me, if you try really really hard ?
-
The naturalistic “worldview” is investigable and testable by reference to the world as it appears to be (see above).
As it appears to be. So, right from the outset, there is the assumption that only natural causes/explanations are available! There's your problem :) To use Torridon's example in their post: Imagine trying to work out the sum of the internal angles of a five-sided triangle? You can't because the starting premise is flawed. It must be modified to either cater for a 5-sided shape (pentagon) or a 3-sided shape (triangle).
Not everything that happens in the world can be explained by natural causes. For example: what about all the things human beings are responsible for? Clearly then, a test is needed that can consider the possibility of both a natural and non-natural cause.
-
As it appears to be. So, right from the outset, there is the assumption that only natural causes/explanations are available! There's your problem :) To use Torridon's example in their post: Imagine trying to work out the sum of the internal angles of a five-sided triangle? You can't because the starting premise is flawed. It must be modified to either cater for a 5-sided shape (pentagon) or a 3-sided shape (triangle).
Not everything that happens in the world can be explained by natural causes. For example: what about all the things human beings are responsible for? Clearly then, a test is needed that can consider the possibility of both a natural and non-natural cause.
At present not everything can be explained by natural causes, but as scientific knowledge advances, it is possible what is not explainable at present will be explained.
-
what about all the things human beings are responsible for?
Err....last time I looked human beings were natural entities. Ergo anything they are responsible for has a natural cause.
-
At present not everything can be explained by natural causes, but as scientific knowledge advances, it is possible what is not explainable at present will be explained.
Which is fine, if that is what you want to believe, but it is a statement of faith, and requires a precommitment to natural causes being the only explanation. Again, fine if this is what you want to believe, but then your approach is no different to those of religious belief.
-
Which is fine, if that is what you want to believe, but it is a statement of faith, and requires a precommitment to natural causes being the only explanation. Again, fine if this is what you want to believe, but then your approach is no different to those of religious belief.
For me, I only want to believe things that are likely to be true.
That's why evidence and reason are so important, and preference if of zero importance.
I have zero faith, and regard believing anything by faith is absurd.
-
Clearly then, a test is needed that can consider the possibility of both a natural and non-natural cause.
Go on then, what test have you got that can do that?
-
Sword,
As it appears to be. So, right from the outset, there is the assumption that only natural causes/explanations are available!
Oh dear. No, the only assumption is that we can only investigate that which we can observe and that we have the tools to map to a model of reality.
There's your problem :) To use Torridon's example in their post: Imagine trying to work out the sum of the internal angles of a five-sided triangle? You can't because the starting premise is flawed. It must be modified to either cater for a 5-sided shape (pentagon) or a 3-sided shape (triangle).
Try responding to my last post to you. How would you propose that someone modify his "world view" to investigate claims about a five-sided triangle, or about leprechauns for that matter? That's the real problem here, and it's yours.
Not everything that happens in the world can be explained by natural causes. For example: what about all the things human beings are responsible for? Clearly then, a test is needed that can consider the possibility of both a natural and non-natural cause.
What are you trying to say - that human behaviour isn't natural? Why would you think that?
-
Not everything that happens in the world can be explained by natural causes.
What things, and what explanations are these?
For example: what about all the things human beings are responsible for?
As far as I can see none of these 'responsibilities' are non-natural.
Clearly then, a test is needed that can consider the possibility of both a natural and non-natural cause.
Got one?
-
Not everything that happens in the world can be explained by natural causes. For example: what about all the things human beings are responsible for? Clearly then, a test is needed that can consider the possibility of both a natural and non-natural cause.
Human are natural beings and everything humans do is therefore explicable in terms of natural causes. There is no reason to suppose there is a supernatural-anything - we can investigate any phenomenon but any such would be natural as evidence is a naturalist concept. If there were any such thing as 'supernatural' then it would be incomprehensible by definition - there would be no way we could possibly recognise it as a phenomenon.
-
torridon,
Human are natural beings and everything humans do is therefore explicable in terms of natural causes. There is no reason to suppose there is a supernatural-anything - we can investigate any phenomenon but any such would be natural as evidence is a naturalist concept. If there were any such thing as 'supernatural' then it would be incomprehensible by definition - there would be no way we could possibly recognise it as a phenomenon.
Quite so. Sword seems to me to be falling into the same trap that Vlad occupies - if something can't be described in naturalistic terms, then it must be supernatural. Leaving aside the huge definitional problems with "supernatural", the conflation is in treating "that which the available tools and methods of naturalism do not describe" with "that which is inherently forever outwith the remit of naturalism to describe". There are countless examples of the former, but there's no reason to assume the latter.
It's an odd position, not least because when science in particular does catch up presumably the supernatural would at that time have to magic itself into the natural.
-
torridon,
Quite so. Sword seems to me to be falling into the same trap that Vlad occupies - if something can't be described in naturalistic terms, then it must be supernatural. Leaving aside the huge definitional problems with "supernatural", the conflation is in treating "that which the available tools and methods of naturalism do not describe" with "that which is inherently forever outwith the remit of naturalism to describe". There are countless examples of the former, but there's no reason to assume the latter.
It's an odd position, not least because when science in particular does catch up presumably the supernatural would at that time have to magic itself into the natural.
Oh no Hillside has invoked Argumentum ad Vlad. Stop the clocks, put down the phones etc.....and the whole world turned to grey.
PS the only thing which can observe an eternal universe or one popping into existence out of nothing is an eternal being.......To put it in your own
overdramatic Eastwoodian terms......Do you really want to go down that route....well do you?.......really?
I think i'll let the category ballsup archeologists discover your defeat and my victory.........
Ciao.
-
Vlad,
Oh no Hillside has invoked Argumentum ad Vlad. Stop the clocks, put down the phones etc.....and the whole world turned to grey.
PS the only thing which can observe an eternal universe or one popping into existence out of nothing is an eternal being.......To put it in your own
overdramatic Eastwoodian terms......Do you really want to go down that route....well do you?.......really?
I think i'll let the category ballsup archeologists discover your defeat and my victory.........Not being investigable with the available tools and methods of science does no make something "supernatural".
Ciao.
And again he crashes and burns. Write this down a hundred times until it sinks in:
Not being investigable with the available tools and methods of science does not make something "supernatural".
Not being investigable with the available tools and methods of science does not make something "supernatural".
Not being investigable with the available tools and methods of science does not make something "supernatural".
Not being investigable with the available tools and methods of science does not ..." etc.
-
Vlad,
And again he crashes and burns. Write this down a hundred times until it sinks in:
Not being investigable with the available tools and methods of science does not make something "supernatural".
Not being investigable with the available tools and methods of science does not make something "supernatural".
Not being investigable with the available tools and methods of science does not make something "supernatural".
Not being investigable with the available tools and methods of science does not ..." etc.
Oh, good grief...............Hillsides resorted to hypnosis.
-
Vlad,
Oh, good grief...............Hillsides resorted to hypnosis.
Well, as simple logic doesn't work for you what's the alternative?
-
torridon,
Quite so. Sword seems to me to be falling into the same trap that Vlad occupies - if something can't be described in naturalistic terms, then it must be supernatural.
Nope. I'm not saying that, and I suspect neither is anyone else; more an assumption that this is what someone thinks.
All I'm trying to show is that your worldview (of assuming natural causes & explanations) is not falsifiable by scientific standards. I keep on reading things along the lines of, "there's no reason to consider xyz, etc", but that's not science. That's a precommitment!
-
Nope. I'm not saying that, and I suspect neither is anyone else; more an assumption that this is what someone thinks.
All I'm trying to show is that your worldview (of assuming natural causes & explanations) is not falsifiable by scientific standards. I keep on reading things along the lines of, "there's no reason to consider xyz, etc", but that's not science. That's a precommitment!
You are confusing method with philosophical outlook. Thus scientific method does not represent a worldview; this is why religious people can be scientists, since the assumption of natural causes in their work is separate from their private beliefs about reality.
The reason that people say that there's no reason to consider the supernatural, is that no-one, as far as I can see, has yet demonstrated what it is. For example, it's possible that gravity is controlled by some supernatural force - OK, now let this be demonstrated explicitly.
-
Sword,
Nope. I'm not saying that, and I suspect neither is anyone else; more an assumption that this is what someone thinks.
That's exactly what's been said, albeit with varying degrees of directness. If you don't think the inability to explain something in naturalistic terms has anything to say to the phenomenon being "supernatural' though then fair enough.
All I'm trying to show is that your worldview (of assuming natural causes & explanations) is not falsifiable by scientific standards.
And all I'm trying to say is that my "worldview" (if I have such a thing) does not "assume" any such thing. Rather it takes the only model available - the universe as it appears to be investigated and mapped to a model of reality, mediated by intersubjective experience - as my working determination of what probabilistically is and isn't true. That's not for one moment to suggest that something else entirely might not be true, but it is to say that - so far at least - those who posit such things offer no means to distinguish their claims from just guessing about stuff. One man's "god" is epistemically equivalent to the next man's leprechauns for this purpose. One man's "let's take the lift" on the other hand is not epistemically equivalent another man's, "let's jump out of the window instead".
I keep on reading things along the lines of, "there's no reason to consider xyz, etc", but that's not science. That's a precommitment!
No-one claims it is "science". It is though logic - and inescapable logic at that. If I am to accept a priori one man's "worldview" - for example, about "God" - then on what basis should I reject a priori another man's "worldview" about leprechauns?
Only when you can address that will you see where you've gone off the rails.
-
No-one claims it is "science". It is though logic - and inescapable logic at that. If I am to accept a priori one man's "worldview" - for example, about "God" - then on what basis should I reject a priori another man's "worldview" about leprechauns?
Why do you need to accept anyone else's worldview? Why not investigate for yourself?
Surprisingly, the Christian religion is more falsifiable (by scientific standards) than the pre-commitment to natural causes and explanations (can't speak for other religions). If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, no Christian faith!! So it comes down to whether or not one believes this happened. Now, if one starts of by assuming natural causes and explanations, there is no way they can even begin to consider this, or anything that is presented as evidence of this. Hardly an objective search for truth, in my opinion.
-
Sword,
Why do you need to accept anyone else's worldview? Why not investigate for yourself?
You're the one telling me I'm using the wrong "world view"! How would you propose that I investigate the competing claims of the supernatural without using the naturalistic tools of reason and logic?
Surprisingly, the Christian religion is more falsifiable (by scientific standards) than the pre-commitment to natural causes and explanations (can't speak for other religions). If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, no Christian faith!! So it comes down to whether or not one believes this happened. Now, if one starts of by assuming natural causes and explanations, there is no way they can even begin to consider this, or anything that is presented as evidence of this. Hardly an objective search for truth, in my opinion.
So what alternative do you propose to gauge the veracity or otherwise of the resurrection story?
-
So what alternative do you propose to gauge the veracity or otherwise of the resurrection story?
Investigate it. Look into it in detail. What are the claims? What things support it? What things don't support it? Are there any counter-claims, etc. Good luck!
-
Sword,
Investigate it. Look into it in detail. What are the claims? What things support it? What things don't support it? Are there any counter-claims, etc. Good luck!
Oh right - so use the tools of naturalism then. Fair enough.
Oh hang on though, didn't you say that naturalism is the wrong "world view" for this purpose?
You seem to have painted yourself into a bit of a corner here old son. Do you actually have a "world view" other than the naturalistic one to propose in order to get yourself out of it?
Something?
Anything?
-
Vlad,
Well, as simple logic doesn't work for you what's the alternative?
It turns out that you are equally as shit at simple logic and hypnosis.
-
Sword,
You're the one telling me I'm using the wrong "world view"! How would you propose that I investigate the competing claims of the supernatural without using the naturalistic tools of reason and logic?
That's just you Hillside being intellectually imperialistic and claiming reason and logic for atheism.
After 3
Hooray, for Hilly and Shakes, hooray for Hilly and Shakes, Hooray for Hilly and Shakes..........
-
Vlad,
It turns out that you are equally as shit at simple logic and hypnosis.
Only in your head Trollboy, only in your head.
Any news by the way on the various questions you've been asked but keep running away from?
Something?
Anything?
Ah well.
-
Vlad,
That's just you Hillside being intellectually imperialistic and claiming reason and logic for atheism.
After 3
Hooray, for Hilly and Shakes, hooray for Hilly and Shakes, Hooray for Hilly and Shakes..........
I'll add "imperialist" to the ever-growing list of words you don't understand then. There's nothing "imperialist" about identifying that Sword has driven himself into a cul-de-sac. He tells me that my naturalistic "world view" is the wrong one to employ when investigating certain claims, and then proposes that I use a naturalistic method to do so "instead"!
And that my ever-bewildered pal is logic, not imperialism.
-
Sword,
Oh right - so use the tools of naturalism then. Fair enough.
Why should naturalism have a monopoly on these tools and techniques?
You seem to have painted yourself into a bit of a corner here old son. Do you actually have a "world view" other than the naturalistic one to propose in order to get yourself out of it?
My worldview allows for natural explanations and non-natural explanations, so I'm not stuck in a corner :) If I conclude non-natural and it can be shown that there is a natural explanation, I can change. Similarly, if I concluded natural and it can be shown that there is a non-natural explanation, I can change. Your position however cannot offer this flexibility, as you have to assume natural causes and there is no way of falsifying your position!
-
Why should naturalism have a monopoly on these tools and techniques?
My worldview allows for natural explanations and non-natural explanations, so I'm not stuck in a corner :) If I conclude non-natural and it can be shown that there is a natural explanation, I can change. Similarly, if I concluded natural and it can be shown that there is a non-natural explanation, I can change. Your position however cannot offer this flexibility, as you have to assume natural causes and there is no way of falsifying your position!
how do you conclude something is non-naturak or show that there us such an explanation that has any validity? You need a method here, please outline it.
-
Sword,
Why should naturalism have a monopoly on these tools and techniques?
Because that's what the word means.
My worldview allows for natural explanations and non-natural explanations, so I'm not stuck in a corner :).
Yes you are. In what sense do you have a non-natural "explanation" rather than just a claim or an assertion? How would you test it?
If I conclude non-natural and it can be shown that there is a natural explanation, I can change. Similarly, if I concluded natural and it can be shown that there is a non-natural explanation, I can change.
You need to back up there. What would a "non-natural explanation" even mean in this context?
Your position however cannot offer this flexibility, as you have to assume natural causes and there is no way of falsifying your position!
Of course there is - try the lift vs defenestration experiment I suggested.
And my position "cannot offer this flexibility" because the flexibility is illusory, and will remain so until you come up with a method to differentiate your non-natural "explanation" from just guessing, mistake, delusion etc.
That's your problem. If your complaint is that I approach claims of the supernatural with a naturalistic "world view" then fair enough. The job is all yours though to propose an alternative means of testing the claims that isn't a naturalistic one.
-
how do you conclude something is non-naturak or show that there us such an explanation that has any validity? You need a method here, please outline it.
Why can't you come up with a method yourself? If you can't, it means that your worldview is not falsifiable. Why are you then holding religious belief up to a standard you can't meet yourself?
-
And my position "cannot offer this flexibility" because the flexibility is illusory, and will remain so until you come up with a method to differentiate your non-natural "explanation" from just guessing, mistake, delusion etc.
That's your problem.
Erm, it's your problem. Otherwise you will have to concede that you are using a worldview that is not falsifiable. Not only that, it appears that you have no way of being able to do so. Therefore, why are those of religious belief being held to a standard that its opponents cannot match?
-
Sword,
Why can't you come up with a method yourself?
That's the burden of proof fallacy again. You're the one making the claim ("supernatural entity X"), you come up with a method to test it.
If you can't, it means that your worldview is not falsifiable.
It means no such thing. Rather it means that your world view - gods, dragons, shape-shifting lizards, whatever - isn't falsifiable because you offer no means to falsify it.
Why are you then holding religious belief up to a standard you can't meet yourself?
He isn't. When your premise fails, so does you conclusion.
-
Sword,
Erm, it's your problem.
This burden of proof thing really has got you foxed hasn't it.
Is it your problem to come up with a world view to falsify my claims about leprechauns?
Why not?
Otherwise you will have to concede that you are using a worldview that is not falsifiable.
Don't be daft. Again, try the lift vs defenestration experiment and then tell me that it's not falsifiable.
Not only that,...
There is no "not only", but ok...
...it appears that you have no way of being able to do so. Therefore, why are those of religious belief being held to a standard that its opponents cannot match?
Are you feeling unwell or something? I've given you a method of falsification - several times in fact. What equivalent method would you propose to falsify, say, "God"?
-
Sword,
That's the burden of proof fallacy again. You're the one making the claim ("supernatural entity X"), you come up with a method to test it.
Nope. I'm asking you to substantiate your worldview that all causes have natural explanations and how it can be falsified.
-
Don't be daft. Again, try the lift vs defenestration experiment and then tell me that it's not falsifiable.
I missed this, sorry. Can you provide a link to it?
-
Nope. I'm asking you to substantiate your worldview that all causes have natural explanations and how it can be falsified.
Has anyone claimed that to be a fact?
-
Sword,
Nope. I'm asking you to substantiate your worldview that all causes have natural explanations and how it can be falsified.
That's called the fallacy of the straw man. I don't say that at all. What I do say though is that - so far at least - no-one's ever managed to come up with a method to distinguish claims of the supernatural from just guessing about stuff, so I have no cogent reason to believe in the supernatural.
-
Sword,
I missed this, sorry. Can you provide a link to it?
Person A says: "My world view indicates that taking the lift will more reliably deliver you safely to the ground."
Person B says: "My world view indicates that jumping out of the 20th storey window will more reliably deliver you safely to the ground".
Now test these claims and write down the results (I suggest you try A before B).
-
Maeght,
Has anyone claimed that to be a fact?
No - it's a straw man. I think he might be Vlad's kid brother.
-
Sword,
That's called the fallacy of the straw man. I don't say that at all. What I do say though is that - so far at least - no-one's ever managed to come up with a method to distinguish claims of the supernatural from just guessing about stuff, so I have no cogent reason to believe in the supernatural.
We know that the universe is here because of a supernatural event.
You want your lovely naturalism but have to borrow at least one miracle ha ha.
You have a juvenile scientism in my humble opinion.
-
There must be a Christian college, which trains people in important fallacies, and how to use them. The negative proof fallacy, straw-manning, reversal of burden of proof, with a side-dish of the problem of induction.
Is there a degree in it?
-
We know that the universe is here because of a supernatural event.
You want your lovely naturalism but have to borrow at least one miracle ha ha.
You have a juvenile scientism in my humble opinion.
A supernatural event is an oxymoron.
-
Vlad,
We know that the universe is here because of a supernatural event.
We know no such thing. We don't even know whether "supernatural" has any sort of cogent meaning.
You want your lovely naturalism but have to borrow at least one miracle ha ha.
No it doesn't.
You have a juvenile scientism in my humble opinion.
Then your (rarely humble) opinion is wrong, not least because it relies entirely on your personal re-definition of the word "scientism".
Are you and Sword related by any chance? You seem to be making exactly the same mistakes.
-
Wiggs,
There must be a Christian college, which trains people in important fallacies, and how to use them. The negative proof fallacy, straw-manning, reversal of burden of proof, with a side-dish of the problem of induction.
Is there a degree in it?
I think there must be - it's breaking out all over the place!
-
Or perhaps more and more Christians are realising (finally) that secular philosophy, when scrutinized with the same kind of tests required of religious belief, are to be found wanting. :)
-
Sword,
Or perhaps more and more Christians are realising (finally) that secular philosophy, when scrutinized with the same kind of tests required of religious belief, are to be found wanting. :)
No-one claims "secular philosophy" (whatever that means) to be perfect or complete. That though no more validates Chrstianity than it validates leprechaunism.
You are Vlad aren't you - same logical errors, same straw men, same non sequiturs, same etc. Gawaaaan - you can tell us!
-
There must be a Christian college, which trains people in important fallacies, and how to use them. The negative proof fallacy, straw-manning, reversal of burden of proof, with a side-dish of the problem of induction.
Yes, Here are the details.
The Divine College of Wigginhall's imagination.
Lower Wigginhall's Brain Street
Wigtown
Scotland.
-
Yes, Here are the details.
The Divine College of Wigginhall's imagination.
Lower Wigginhall's Brain Street
Wigtown
Scotland.
dont you mean;
The High Church of the Venerable Straw Man
Hay Drive
Vladivostok
Russia
-
dont you mean;
The High Church of the Venerable Straw Man
Hay Drive
Vladivostok
Russia
Vladivostok?
Surely you mean Hay on Why.
-
Vladivostok?
Surely you mean Hay on Why.
Twatt.
-
Seb, re: Vlad; he's from Transylvania.
-
Seb, re: Vlad; he's from Transylvania.
Is he a transvestite? :-\
-
Is he a transvestite? :-\
Sweet.
-
Sweet.
It's just a jump to the right....
-
Sebastian Toe 15/09/16:
Quote from: Brownie on September 15, 2016, 03:24:17 PM
Seb, re: Vlad; he's from Transylvania.
Is he a transvestite? :-\
It's more about transfusions.
-
It's just a jump to the right....
Let's do....
-
Or perhaps more and more Christians are realising (finally) that secular philosophy, when scrutinized with the same kind of tests required of religious belief, are to be found wanting. :)
For the atheist... it is all words but words without power which debilitate and destroy.
The believer does not rely on the words of men but the words of God given unto men and the power which is God which makes those words truth.
Men of God act on the words of God, knowing that the Almighty Father behind them makes the outcome possible in truth.
In truth the believers receives hope, assurance and life. They receive by power all the promises of God and know God loves them.
Men say and do things to tear down the truth of the word for themselves who disbelieve.
But they are blind to the damage they do themselves.
But the seed of the word in those who believe grows and bears fruit.
Christians don't doubt their God or his truth.
They just fail to see how other men in ignorance could fail even by earthly wisdom to want to test it and know God and his goodness.
-
Sassy,
For the atheist... it is all words but words without power which debilitate and destroy.
The believer does not rely on the words of men but the words of God given unto men and the power which is God which makes those words truth.
Men of God act on the words of God, knowing that the Almighty Father behind them makes the outcome possible in truth.
In truth the believers receives hope, assurance and life. They receive by power all the promises of God and know God loves them.
Men say and do things to tear down the truth of the word for themselves who disbelieve.
But they are blind to the damage they do themselves.
But the seed of the word in those who believe grows and bears fruit.
Christians don't doubt their God or his truth.
They just fail to see how other men in ignorance could fail even by earthly wisdom to want to test it and know God and his goodness.
Of course Sassy, of course. Now all you have to do - finally - it tell us why these people think there to be a "God" at all rather than just jump straight to the assertion that they know what "his" words are.
And no, "because it says so in the Bible" isn't an argument.
Good luck with it!
-
Now all you have to do - finally - it tell us why these people think there to be a "God" at all rather than just jump straight to the assertion that they know what "his" words are.
I wonder how many times this question has been answered by Christians posting here over the years, indeed even in the short time I've been here. Then all I ever see from you is a response telling them why what they have said is invalid. For example:
And no, "because it says so in the Bible" isn't an argument.
Your approach is like asking someone to swim from A to B, but they can't use freestyle, breast-stroke, back-stroke, butterfly, ...
-
I wonder how many times this question has been answered by Christians posting here over the years, indeed even in the short time I've been here. Then all I ever see from you is a response telling them why what they have said is invalid.
That is because "because it says so in the Bible" isn't an argument. It's a fallacy, more specifically its an appeal to authority
-
That is because "because it says so in the Bible" isn't an argument. It's a fallacy, more specifically its an appeal to authority
You missed the point of my post. Bluehillside is always effectively asking Christians to walk from A to B without moving their feet! This was part of his question:
Now all you have to do - finally - it tell us why these people think there to be a "God"
The operative word being think. It doesn't matter whether their reasons for belief are valid or not, never mind someone's subjective opinion on them!
-
Sword,
I wonder how many times this question has been answered by Christians posting here over the years, indeed even in the short time I've been here.
So far, not once.
Then all I ever see from you is a response telling them why what they have said is invalid. For example:
Quote from: You
And no, "because it says so in the Bible" isn't an argument.
That’s because circular arguments are bad arguments. If a theist wants to answer the question he has to break out of the loop of “God is real because it says so in the Bible/The Bible is accurate because God made it that way”.
Sassy, Sparky et al just ignore the problem, but it’s a problem nonetheless.
Your approach is like asking someone to swim from A to B, but they can't use freestyle, breast-stroke, back-stroke, butterfly, ...
No, it’s like asking someone to swim from A to B but they can’t say that Poseidon will do it for them.
Anyways, it’s high time I found something more productive to do so I wish all and sundry here farewell and bon chance.
-
Hooray, for Hilly and Shakes, hooray for Hilly and Shakes, Hooray for Hilly and Shakes..........
Hooray for Vlad, Hooray at last, Hooray for Vlad, he's a horse's arse!
-
Hooray for Vlad, Hooray at last, Hooray for Vlad, he's a horse's arse!
Crikey, A Humbug that can type!
-
moderator please do not derail thread with a set of insults
-
moderator please do not derail thread with a set of insults
I suppose one insult was OK....yes. I see it was.
-
Sassy,
Of course Sassy, of course. Now all you have to do - finally - it tell us why these people think there to be a "God" at all rather than just jump straight to the assertion that they know what "his" words are.
And no, "because it says so in the Bible" isn't an argument.
Good luck with it!
I see you haven't understood a word I said...
Come back when you know what you are talking about. Because the above doesn't relate to anything I said.
-
Sword,
So far, not once.
I'd agree, blue. Anchorman, alone, answered it several times: others have answered it on many occaions as well. So, not once if definitely true.
That’s because circular arguments are bad arguments.
Which is why I find you so difficult to understand; your arguments are amongst some of the most circular.
If a theist wants to answer the question he has to break out of the loop of “God is real because it says so in the Bible/The Bible is accurate because God made it that way”.
Sassy, Sparky et al just ignore the problem, but it’s a problem nonetheless.
Whereas you seem to believe that those kinds of answers are the only ones that count - because they are amongst the easiest to dismiss - even for a believer. The more complex answers such as Anchorman and others have given are all to often dismissed because they AREN'T the "God is real because it says so in the Bible/The Bible is accurate because God made it that way" that you seem to require.