Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: bluehillside Retd. on June 26, 2017, 01:06:23 PM
-
Well, obviously.
-
Well, obviously.
Does it implytherefore, a naturalistic explanation?
Your Flannel time starts......Now.
-
Which part of "If we don't know, we don't know and shouldn't pretend we do by plugging the gap with any old guff" don't you get, Vlad?
Also, in the phrase 'naturalistic explanation' the first word is, strictly speaking, redundant.
-
Which part of "If we don't know, we don't know and shouldn't pretend we do by plugging the gap with any old guff" don't you get, Vlad?
How do you know it's old guff in anyway that isn't a circular argument.
Your opinion is merely based on preference and nothing else.
If you disagree make the case you have been shiteing yourself over having to produce these many years.
-
How do you know it's old guff in anyway that isn't a circular argument.
Your opinion is merely based on preference and nothing else.
If you disagree make the case you have been shiteing yourself over having to produce these many years.
Stop lying
-
How do you know it's old guff in anyway that isn't a circular argument.
Absence of evidence.
Your opinion is merely based on preference and nothing else.
Yes - my preference that beliefs are grounded in fact and not fantasy.
If you disagree make the case you have been shiteing yourself over having to produce these many years.
I wouldn't have thought I'd have had to - I'd have hoped that having had it explained to you by so many different people so many times for so long you'd get it by now.
But seeing as it's you ... guess not.
-
Vlad,
Does it implytherefore, a naturalistic explanation?
Your Flannel time starts......Now.
No. All it implies is that you have no naturalistic explanation. It implies nothing whatever about whether an explanation is therefore supernatural, about whether it's therefore natural and one day we'll know what it is, or about whether it's natural and we'll never know what it is.
It's simple enough reasoning I'd have thought.
-
Vlad,
No. All it implies is that you have no naturalistic explanation. It implies nothing whatever about whether an explanation is therefore supernatural, about whether it's therefore natural and one day we'll know what it is, or about whether it's natural and we'll never know what it is.
It's simple enough reasoning I'd have thought.
Well ... one would have thought so, but ...
-
Vlad,
Your opinion is merely based on preference and nothing else.
No, his "opinion" is based on sound reasoning. The argument, "if there is no natural explanation the cause must therefore be supernatural" is entirely false, and therefore is itself "any old guff". What you happen to populate its outcome with is neither here nor there - a bad argument is a bad argument is a bad argument.
-
Stop lying
I'm sorry but it looked as though Shaker had reached the bottom line of New Atheist argument namely ''It seems Guff to me''.
To ask him or if not he then body of the New atheist fraternity to justify once, twice or ad infinitum isn't unreasonable in my book.
If I'm upsetting some kind of ''this is an atheist forum and if theism is to have any spokesperson that would be an atheist'' ambience here, I apologise.
-
Vlad,
"if there is no natural explanation the cause must therefore be supernatural" is entirely false
Are you sure you should be saying that?
-
Vlad,
Are you sure you should be saying that?
Yes. Why is this difficult for you?
-
I'm sorry but it looked as though Shaker had reached the bottom line of New Atheist argument namely ''It seems Guff to me''.
To ask him or if not he then body of the New atheist fraternity to justify once, twice or ad infinitum isn't unreasonable in my book.
If I'm upsetting some kind of ''this is an atheist forum and if theism is to have any spokesperson that would be an atheist'' ambience here, I apologise.
Stop lying
-
Vlad,
I'm sorry but it looked as though Shaker had reached the bottom line of New Atheist argument namely ''It seems Guff to me''.
To ask him or if not he then body of the New atheist fraternity to justify once, twice or ad infinitum isn't unreasonable in my book.
If I'm upsetting some kind of ''this is an atheist forum and if theism is to have any spokesperson that would be an atheist'' ambience here, I apologise.
Why are you lying again? Having no naturalistic explanation to hand tells you one thing, and one thing only - that you have no explanation to hand. That's basic reasoning - nothing to do with "it seems guff to me". "No naturalistic explanation implies a supernatural explanation" guff to anyone possessed of a functioning intellect.
-
Interesting that Vlad uses the word 'preference'.
We naturalists are, I fear, apt to become a little boring on the subject of methodology; however, there's a very good reason for that, namely that having a set of tools with which to assess, examine and evaluate claims is absolutely crucial.
Naturalism has a methodology; supernaturalism doesn't. (Goodness knows we've asked enough times!). So, this being the case - with no methodology for assessing claims - it's actually the supernaturalist who is forced into choosing whichever unevidenced, untested and even in principle untestable pseudo-explanation he happens to prefer.
-
Well, obviously.
I second that.
-
Shakes,
Interesting that Vlad uses the word 'preference'.
We naturalists are, I fear, apt to become a little boring on the subject of methodology; however, there's a very good reason for that, namely that having a set of tools with which to assess, examine and evaluate claims is absolutely crucial.
Naturalism has a methodology; supernaturalism doesn't. (Goodness knows we've asked enough times!). So, this being the case - with no methodology for assessing claims - it's actually the supernaturalist who is forced into choosing whichever unevidenced, untested and even in principle untestable pseudo-explanation he happens to prefer.
Quite so. It's even worse than that though in a way. Vlad seems to think he does have a method - ie, that the absence of a naturalistic explanation therefore implies a supernatural one – only that method turns out to be just a very bad piece of reasoning.
-
Vlad,
Yes. Why is this difficult for you?
If it's not natural and it's not supernatural then what is it?
If you are saying ''I don't know but it isn't supernatural'' then you are back to the turd that has to be frantically and continually polished....surely.
We could list your possible position......none of them put your ''reasonableness'' in a decent light.
Appeals to pre naturalistic positions on thunder and Thor don't help you much.
-
Interesting that Vlad uses the word 'preference'.
We naturalists are, I fear, apt to become a little boring on the subject of methodology; however, there's a very good reason for that, namely that having a set of tools with which to assess, examine and evaluate claims is absolutely crucial.
Yes Love of tools would explain the mutual admiration you hold for each other.
Knowing when your tool isn't doing the job and is in fact f***ing things up is absolutely crucial.
-
Shakes,
Quite so. It's even worse than that though in a way. Vlad seems to think he does have a method - ie, that the absence of a naturalistic explanation therefore implies a supernatural one – only that method turns out to be just a very bad piece of reasoning.
Terms like natural and supernatural were introduced by atheists. I'm quite happy using other terms for the non natural.
You still seem stuck with the ''There is no natural explanation and therefore there is a natural explanation''problem.
-
Terms like natural and supernatural were introduced by atheists. I'm quite happy using other terms for the non natural.
You still seem stuck with the ''There is no natural explanation and therefore there is a natural explanation''problem.
And what exactly do you mean by, 'non natural'?
-
Terms like natural and supernatural were introduced by atheists. I'm quite happy using other terms for the non natural.
You still seem stuck with the ''There is no natural explanation and therefore there is a natural explanation''problem.
oh Jesus crist !
-
Terms like natural and supernatural were introduced by atheists. I'm quite happy using other terms for the non natural.
You still seem stuck with the ''There is no natural explanation and therefore there is a natural explanation''problem.
No he isn't; and the regularity with which you repeat this bespeaks either terminal obtuseness or dishonesty.
-
Vlad,
If it's not natural and it's not supernatural then what is it?
And there he goes with the fallacy of the false binary. What makes you think that not having a naturalistic explanation available implies that the explanation must therefore be non-natural?
For that to work you’d have to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every possible naturalistic explanation there is or ever could be.
If you are saying ''I don't know but it isn't supernatural'' then you are back to the turd that has to be frantically and continually polished....surely.
And then he goes for the old one-two with a straw man fallacy to follow. No-one says''I don't know but it isn't supernatural''. What the rationalist actually says is that the absence of a natural explanation tells you nothing whatever about whether a non-natural explanation must therefore be the correct one.
We could list your possible position......none of them put your ''reasonableness'' in a decent light.
Appeals to pre naturalistic positions on thunder and Thor don't help you much.
Of course they do. Your big mistake here is to assume that our current level of knowledge of possible naturalistic causes tells us anything about what naturalistic causes there might be, whether or not we ever discover them. Yours is the identical reasoning of the Thor-ist – he didn’t have a natural explanation for thunder, so he invoked a non-natural one to plug the gap.
It’s just very bad thinking.
Again.
-
Vlad,
Terms like natural and supernatural were introduced by atheists. I'm quite happy using other terms for the non natural.
No they weren't, but it doesn't matter much either way. Use "supernatural" or "non natural" as you please.
You still seem stuck with the ''There is no natural explanation and therefore there is a natural explanation''problem.
Spectacularly wrong - that's only a "problem" because it's a straw man of your invention. What's actually said is, "There is no natural explanation and therefore we don't know".
One possible answer is that there is a natural answer and we'll find it in due course.
Another possible answer is that there is a natural answer, but we'll never have the wit or the tools to know what it is.
Another possible answer is that the explanation is non-natural (albeit that any such claim would be so beset with definitional problems that it's hard t see how it could ever be demonstrated).
You're really struggling with this aren't you.
-
Well, obviously.
What if white was black and black was white?
Why is there no natural explanation for why we call white, white and black, black?
It does not require a supernatural explanation in the light or lack of a natural explanation.
Something are just what they are.
But if you are applying the term to the earth and the atmosphere around the earth.
What explanation is there for it to exist in a space which is devoid of all life that we can see?
Truth is man does not hold on to the truths which matter. As man procreated he forgot to remember.
-
Sassy,
Why is there no natural explanation for why we call white, white and black, black?
There is - language is a naturalistic phenomenon.
You're very confused.
It does not require a supernatural explanation in the light or lack of a natural explanation.
Tell Vlad that.
But if you are applying the term to the earth and the atmosphere around the earth.
Eh? It was a discussion about logic.
What explanation is there for it to exist in a space which is devoid of all life that we can see?
Lots of reasons, all well understood. So?
Truth is man does not hold on to the truths which matter. As man procreated he forgot to remember.
That's not "Truth" - it's just your personal truth.
-
What explanation is there for it to exist in a space which is devoid of all life that we can see?
It is quite possible there is life on other planets, just because we haven't made contact yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Earth is just a small planet in this vast universe.
-
Of course they do. Your big mistake here is to assume that our current level of knowledge of possible naturalistic causes tells us anything about what naturalistic causes there might be, whether or not we ever discover them. Yours is the identical reasoning of the Thor-ist – he didn’t have a natural explanation for thunder, so he invoked a non-natural one to plug the gap.
I don't think a Thor-ist would be your kind of person Hillside. He was not a naturalist waiting for a natural explanation. That's just projecting a version of thee sen.
I on the other hand am a methodological naturalist and recognise that as a tool for analysing the material and er, that's it.
You look upon methodological naturalism and see the key to all the reality there can possibly be. You are the romantic fool here... Hillside. You are the one in La La Land HO HO HO HE HE HE.
-
Vlad,
I don't think a Thor-ist would be your kind of person Hillside. He was not a naturalist waiting for a natural explanation. That's just projecting a version of thee sen.
And another straw man. No-one suggested that he would have been “a naturalist waiting for a natural explanation”. He’d have been pretty much the opposite of that in fact – “Thor” was all the answer he needed, just as "God" is for you. And for the same reason - absence of an alternative explanation.
I on the other hand am a methodological naturalist and recognise that as a tool for analysing the material and er, that's it.
All very nice, but it says nothing about your basic mistake of thinking that the absence of a natural explanation implies that there must therefore be a non-natural one.
It doesn’t.
You…
Why do I sense another straw man coming on?
… look upon methodological naturalism and see the key to all the reality there can possibly be. You are the romantic fool here... Hillside. You are the one in La La Land HO HO HO HE HE HE.
Bingo!
And you are a flat out liar of the first order, possibly pathologically so.
I’ve told you over and over again that I think no such thing, so why even bother lying about it again? What I actually say (and have always said) is that naturalism/materialism provides a working explanatory model for the way the universe appears to be. That's it - no more, no less.
It tells you nothing whatever about conjectures concerning the non-natural/non-material that may or may not exist (whatever “exist” would mean in that context). Your problem though is that nor can anything else – so all you have is conjecture which, for reasons known only to yourself, you choose to reify on the back of a series of logically false arguments.
So do you fancy actually attempting to tackle your problem here, or is lying the only tactic you have left?
-
I don't think a Thor-ist would be your kind of person Hillside. He was not a naturalist waiting for a natural explanation. That's just projecting a version of thee sen.
I on the other hand am a methodological naturalist and recognise that as a tool for analysing the material and er, that's it.
All good so far; I would have said that the next question would be "What tool(s) do you have for analysing what you regard as the non-material?" except that that's question-begging and already, even at this stage, assumes too much. The next question is: "What reasons do you have for supposing that there's any such thing as the 'non-material' in the first place?" If those reasons stand up to scrutiny, then we start asking questions about how you can examine such claims.
-
Vlad,
No they weren't, but it doesn't matter much either way. Use "supernatural" or "non natural" as you please.
Spectacularly wrong - that's only a "problem" because it's a straw man of your invention. What's actually said is, "There is no natural explanation and therefore we don't know".
One possible answer is that there is a natural answer and we'll find it in due course.
Another possible answer is that there is a natural answer, but we'll never have the wit or the tools to know what it is.
Another possible answer is that the explanation is non-natural (albeit that any such claim would be so beset with definitional problems that it's hard t see how it could ever be demonstrated).
At last.
Although there is still something to clear up....let's call it the agnostic's conceit. That would be the ''WE'' don't know part.
-
Vlad,
At last.
"At last" what?
You're committing the fallacy of the vacuous truth here. Calling a conjecture "non-natural" or "supernatural" makes no difference to the point under discussion, namely the very bad reasoning you attempted about the absence of a naturalistic explanation implying a non-natural/supernatural one.
Although there is still something to clear up....let's call it the agnostic's conceit. That would be the ''WE'' don't know part.
No, the only thing to "clear up" is for you either to counter-argue the falsification of your claim, or to withdraw it.
If you could do either without the relentless lying that would be good too.
-
Natural vs supernatural
You can't assume but...........
What happens if science finds God? Or that the universe was started by God with the help of the Minions using a special energy that cannot exist in our universe.
Do we move the goalposts and decide God and his minions are perfectly natural? And that the energy that can't belong in our universe is perfectly natural too, for where it is?
Even if something existed outside our universe and our known natural laws, it doesn't mean it isn't natural for where it is.
Scientists play with ideas of multiverses where the natural laws may be different to what is familiar to us.
That raises the question, how high do we set the bar before deciding something is supernatural?
Or does the bar not actually exist? Just our classification.
-
It strikes me that 'supernatural' as a concept performs a similar function to the word 'tomorrow' - we never actually get to tomorrow because when the referent of tomorrow is reached it's today, and tomorrow keeps rolling on out of sight over the horizon.
Similarly, if something is posited as supernatural but then we discover something about it through scientific/empirical means, then it's a natural phenomenon at least to some extent.
-
Which part of "If we don't know, we don't know and shouldn't pretend we do by plugging the gap with any old guff" don't you get, Vlad?
Erm ... the bit that claims to know something about that which we don't know?
-
Erm ... the bit that claims to know something about that which we don't know?
So you think Vlad is talking nonsense.
-
It strikes me that 'supernatural' as a concept performs a similar function to the word 'tomorrow' - we never actually get to tomorrow because when the referent of tomorrow is reached it's today, and tomorrow keeps rolling on out of sight over the horizon.
Similarly, if something is posited as supernatural but then we discover something about it through scientific/empirical means, then it's a natural phenomenon at least to some extent.
Yes I think you are right, it's very much like tomorrow :D
-
Erm ... the bit that claims to know something about that which we don't know?
Which is what bit?
Claiming to know something about which we don't know seems to be the preserve of the God-invokers.
-
Erm ... the bit that claims to know something about that which we don't know?
You seem to be using the word 'know' in a ridiculous manner.
-
It is like the EM spectrum. Only a small range of phenomena are visible to our eyes.
Similarly, only a small band of phenomena in the universe could be sensed by us and our instruments. There could be a large range of phenomena that lie outside our senses.
If and when we find some of these phenomena influencing our lives we tend to think of them as 'supernatural. They are no more supernatural than Gamma Rays and Cosmic rays. They are perfectly natural but are not available for direct scrutiny by us.
-
My personal opinion ( which isn't worth a lot, I know 😉) is that science doesn't rule out some of the things thought of as supernatural.
An example would be people seeing ghosts, or occasionally reporting seeing past battles or scenes from the future ( which would also explain ufo's maybe)
If you put all the superstitions and beliefs aside for a moment, with this interpretation of time where the past present and future may not be as we perceive them, we can't rule out under very rare circumstances we perceive an anomaly.
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/plus/timeless.cfm
It would explain a lot.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140624-the-man-who-saw-time-freeze
It could be just the brain, but what if it allows us to see something about time which our brains usually filter so our world makes sense to us?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-452833/Is-REALLY-proof-man-future.html
This one is interesting
http://coolinterestingstuff.com/time-slip-mystery-flight-into-the-future
This kind of links in to the time thread elsewhere, but I thought it was more relevant here.
If time isn't as we think it is, how do we know ( under very rare circumstances) that people are not actually experiencing an anomaly and getting a glimpse of things we are not normally aware of?
This sort of explains how time could be a lot of how's 😁
http://www.sciencefocus.com/feature/black-holes/incredible-truth-about-time
Just wildly speculating here 😉💐
-
http://www.sciencefocus.com/feature/black-holes/incredible-truth-about-time
It makes the point that time could be a series of nows.
-
http://www.sciencefocus.com/feature/black-holes/incredible-truth-about-time
It makes the point that time could be a series of nows.
Thank you for this.
Smolin used the shelving of the concept of time from mainstream physics to outline that physicists became governed more by maths than seeking data and experimentation.
The knock on effect has been the ignorance of key events in cosmology by non physicist naturalists. Dawkins is able to skate over possible events at the beginning.
Antitheists feel themselves able to casually introduce ideas of infinite universes into their stock of arguments including 'This is the way the universe is no explanation needed' because time is an unnecessary consideration
The irony is that Smolin appears in The God Delusion as a NeoDarwinian hero of Dawkins.
-
Dawkins - check.
Antitheists - check.
Please amend your post to insert Stalinist equally pointlessly somewhere so that we have the full set of Vladdisms.
-
Thank you for this.
Smolin used the shelving of the concept of time from mainstream physics to outline that physicists became governed more by maths than seeking data and experimentation.
The knock on effect has been the ignorance of key events in cosmology by non physicist naturalists. Dawkins is able to skate over possible events at the beginning.
Antitheists feel themselves able to casually introduce ideas of infinite universes into their stock of arguments including 'This is the way the universe is no explanation needed' because time is an unnecessary consideration. An attitude Stalin may have approved of.
The irony is that Smolin appears in The God Delusion as a NeoDarwinian hero of Dawkins.
-
The hat trick of bullshit and creepily obsessive bullshit at that - thank you.
-
The hat trick of bullshit and creepily obsessive bullshit at that - thank you.
Surely he deserves a doggy treat for performing?