Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

Big W, wouldn't it be a good starting point for you if you were to take a bit more of a look into Astrology and Tarot?

Perhaps they're a bit more like a science to you when compared to religious myth and superstition or would the Astrology and Tarot be too realistic?

ippy

Ippy I have done, they are ''Pseudoscientific'' IMHO.

If they, as you say Mr W, Astrology and Tarot are"Pseudoscientific", what does that make out the religions to be?

Only Astrology and Tarot are equally as credible as any of the religions they have the same amount of evidence to support them as any of the religions have.

oippy

Religions are not trying to be a science Astrology and Tarot are.......that's what we have science for, see?

Astrology and tarot trying to be science?

They certainly dwell within your realms of reality Big W.

ippy

[Andy]

I'm talking about the ''rock solid'' certainty of conclusion you appear to be infusing and what Popper is getting at with the ''No guarantee of no difference with the millionth and one''.

That puts us in region of 'miracle' occurrence I would say. The point is a popperian universe where rare exceptions cannot be ruled out ''accomodates'' an interventionist God in terms of the level of likelihood claimed.

In the Popperian universe we can be very reasonably certain that we will not see such an event and I believe we are not likely to see a miracle.

We are bound though not to say that events never, ever will happen.

I suppose Polkinghorne would argue that I am off the mark and say that God's miracles are really God's use of very unlikely events.

'Extremely rare' does not equal 'miraculous', it equals 'extremely rare'. The difference is philosophical. Rare events will occur naturally by virtue of probability, that does not imply some supernatural intervention breaking natural law has taken place.

I think what Polkinghorne is saying is that have been referred to as miracles are in fact not things which are impossible but things which
are extremely unlikely and that when they happen in a cluster and apparently centred on a person then that points us to God.

Except that when it's also believed that all the likely events are contingent on a god too, then you're left with special pleading.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Big W, wouldn't it be a good starting point for you if you were to take a bit more of a look into Astrology and Tarot?

Perhaps they're a bit more like a science to you when compared to religious myth and superstition or would the Astrology and Tarot be too realistic?

ippy

Ippy I have done, they are ''Pseudoscientific'' IMHO.

If they, as you say Mr W, Astrology and Tarot are"Pseudoscientific", what does that make out the religions to be?

Only Astrology and Tarot are equally as credible as any of the religions they have the same amount of evidence to support them as any of the religions have.

oippy

Religions are not trying to be a science Astrology and Tarot are.......that's what we have science for, see?

Astrology and tarot trying to be science?

They certainly dwell within your realms of reality Big W.

ippy

You don't know what you are talking about.
Some things are susceptible to science some not.
If something happens one should and does try to see if it can be explained naturally. If it can't then to shoehorn it into Philosophical naturalism is to play the twat......In my humble opinion.

[torridon]

Some things are susceptible to science some not.
If something happens one should and does try to see if it can be explained naturally. If it can't then to shoehorn it into Philosophical naturalism is to play the twat......In my humble opinion.

There are many things we don't understand yet.  Putting a 'God' or 'supernatural' label on such things is a failure, a cop out.  It means we've reached the point where we give up trying to understand, and fall back onto superstition. Understanding comes slowly through perserverence.

[Outrider]

Some things are susceptible to science some not.

... he asserted.

If something happens one should and does try to see if it can be explained naturally.

Fair enough.

If it can't then to shoehorn it into Philosophical naturalism is to play the twat......In my humble opinion.

Unless you don't have any other reliable methodology - which you don't. There is no 'shoe-horning' in science - you hypothesise, and if you can test (in theory) then fair enough. If it's not testable, you've not conjectured a valid hypothesis.

To presume supernatural explanation because 'I don't know' is to fall prey to a false dichotomy.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some things are susceptible to science some not.

... he asserted.

If something happens one should and does try to see if it can be explained naturally.

Fair enough.

If it can't then to shoehorn it into Philosophical naturalism is to play the twat......In my humble opinion.

Unless you don't have any other reliable methodology - which you don't. There is no 'shoe-horning' in science - you hypothesise, and if you can test (in theory) then fair enough. If it's not testable, you've not conjectured a valid hypothesis.

To presume supernatural explanation because 'I don't know' is to fall prey to a false dichotomy.

O.

Nope, Outrider you shouldn't be shoehorning anything.

SJ Gould has described the process of shoehorning in science with phyla and evolution.

Besides I talk about shoehorning into science itself demonstrated admirably by S Hawking when he suggested science had replaced philosophy.

[Outrider]

SJ Gould has described the process of shoehorning in science with phyla and evolution.

S J Gould of the 'non-overlapping magesteria' nonsense? Whilst the argument shouldn't be dismissed because of who's making it, I hope this one makes better sense than that one did.

Besides I talk about shoehorning into science itself demonstrated admirably by S Hawking when he suggested science had replaced philosophy.

And within the context of cosmology and 'how did we come to be here' it pretty much has. In the absence of any reason out of centuries of philosophy to think that there is a 'why', how is what we need to answer, and cosmology has made immense strides into answering that.

O.
[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SJ Gould has described the process of shoehorning in science with phyla and evolution.

S J Gould of the 'non-overlapping magesteria' nonsense? Whilst the argument shouldn't be dismissed because of who's making it, I hope this one makes better sense than that one did.

Besides I talk about shoehorning into science itself demonstrated admirably by S Hawking when he suggested science had replaced philosophy.

And within the context of cosmology and 'how did we come to be here' it pretty much has. In the absence of any reason out of centuries of philosophy to think that there is a 'why', how is what we need to answer, and cosmology has made immense strides into answering that.

O.

[/quote]
What was wrong with non overlapping magisteria?

I know Dawkin's ranted against it....but that's hardly conclusive and indeed Dawkin's views are a bit of a kiss of death.


The ''immense strides in cosmology'' as the death knell of philosophy is pushing it a bit. Since it is highly likely that much of it isn't science BUT philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some things are susceptible to science some not.
If something happens one should and does try to see if it can be explained naturally. If it can't then to shoehorn it into Philosophical naturalism is to play the twat......In my humble opinion.

There are many things we don't understand yet.  Putting a 'God' or 'supernatural' label on such things is a failure, a cop out.  It means we've reached the point where we give up trying to understand, and fall back onto superstition. Understanding comes slowly through perserverence.

I disagree. All you are doing is to make Philospophical materialism
mystical.

[Nearly Sane]

Some things are susceptible to science some not.
If something happens one should and does try to see if it can be explained naturally. If it can't then to shoehorn it into Philosophical naturalism is to play the twat......In my humble opinion.

There are many things we don't understand yet.  Putting a 'God' or 'supernatural' label on such things is a failure, a cop out.  It means we've reached the point where we give up trying to understand, and fall back onto superstition. Understanding comes slowly through perserverence.

I disagree. All you are doing is to make Philospophical materialism
mystical.

Come up with any methodological non materiliasm yet, Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some things are susceptible to science some not.
If something happens one should and does try to see if it can be explained naturally. If it can't then to shoehorn it into Philosophical naturalism is to play the twat......In my humble opinion.

There are many things we don't understand yet.  Putting a 'God' or 'supernatural' label on such things is a failure, a cop out.  It means we've reached the point where we give up trying to understand, and fall back onto superstition. Understanding comes slowly through perserverence.

I disagree. All you are doing is to make Philospophical materialism
mystical.

Come up with any methodological non materiliasm yet, Vlad?

I don't understand why a method is important for experience.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't understand why a method is important for experience.

Because if this is used we have your expereince of god as true, other's contradictory experience of god as true and my non expereince as true. - Which mean that something is both true and non true which is logically impossible.

[Outrider]

What was wrong with non overlapping magisteria?

Apart from the special pleading, you mean? Science is free to investigate any and all alleged phenomena, unless they're a specially selected group of superstitions then they should be left alone.

I know Dawkin's ranted against it....but that's hardly conclusive and indeed Dawkin's views are a bit of a kiss of death.

And, again, an argument doesn't stand or fall based on who made it.

The ''immense strides in cosmology'' as the death knell of philosophy is pushing it a bit. Since it is highly likely that much of it isn't science BUT philosophy.

Not philosophy as a whole, but within the context of - specifically - the origins of what we perceive as reality...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't understand why a method is important for experience.

Because if this is used we have your expereince of god as true, other's contradictory experience of god as true and my non expereince as true. - Which mean that something is both true and non true which is logically impossible.

No, you might have been on big Thunder Mountain on Disneyland and I haven't. Both your experience and my non experience are valid.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What was wrong with non overlapping magisteria?

Apart from the special pleading, you mean? Science is free to investigate any and all alleged phenomena, unless they're a specially selected group of superstitions then they should be left alone.

I know Dawkin's ranted against it....but that's hardly conclusive and indeed Dawkin's views are a bit of a kiss of death.

And, again, an argument doesn't stand or fall based on who made it.

The ''immense strides in cosmology'' as the death knell of philosophy is pushing it a bit. Since it is highly likely that much of it isn't science BUT philosophy.

Not philosophy as a whole, but within the context of - specifically - the origins of what we perceive as reality...

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't understand why a method is important for experience.

Because if this is used we have your expereince of god as true, other's contradictory experience of god as true and my non expereince as true. - Which mean that something is both true and non true which is logically impossible.

No, you might have been on big Thunder Mountain on Disneyland and I haven't. Both your experience and my non experience are valid.

Then it simply becomes entirely relative and fails to avoid the issue of hard solipsism. If all 'experiences' are valid, it is merely descriptive of the experience, you end up from your position of not being able to claim there is anything other than you and you cannot use the Bible or comments from other theists as anything other than 'experience' for you.

You not only have no way to talk about truth and no methodology to support your claims, you have chopped off the tree branch that you were sitting on and so cannot even attempt a discussion

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What was wrong with non overlapping magisteria?

Apart from the special pleading, you mean? Science is free to investigate any and all alleged phenomena, unless they're a specially selected group of superstitions then they should be left alone.

I think NOMA would still remain even if that clause were removed
(it strikes me as a whining New atheists addition after all).

Tell me; How would science decide what was right or wrong rather than turn out a mere description of behaviour and the factors that led to it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't understand why a method is important for experience.

Because if this is used we have your expereince of god as true, other's contradictory experience of god as true and my non expereince as true. - Which mean that something is both true and non true which is logically impossible.

No, you might have been on big Thunder Mountain on Disneyland and I haven't. Both your experience and my non experience are valid.

Then it simply becomes entirely relative and fails to avoid the issue of hard solipsism. If all 'experiences' are valid, it is merely descriptive of the experience, you end up from your position of not being able to claim there is anything other than you and you cannot use the Bible or comments from other theists as anything other than 'experience' for you.

You not only have no way to talk about truth and no methodology to support your claims, you have chopped off the tree branch that you were sitting on and so cannot even attempt a discussion

Then really in your schema the non experiencer is saying ''Big Thunder Mountain does not exist because I have not experienced it
I will not go to big thunder mountain because it does not exist''.

Which in fact is the line taken by non believers when you suggest they put themselves in the place of not assuming there is or isn't a God.( They can't get away from assuming there isn't ).

I talk about what I want to. It is up to you to decide to accept it as valid or not. If I'm not talking truth then I'm talking lies but I think you prefer me to be some state in between in some kind of ''No action, No commitment needed tray''.

[Outrider]

I think NOMA would still remain even if that clause were removed (it strikes me as a whining New atheists addition after all).

What clause? That's the description of NOMA. All phenomena that are human experiences are within the remit of science, science is the naturalistic investigation of phenomena. To declare some of them somehow off-limits because gods is to expect a particular form of human experience to be considered special without any justification. It's special pleading.

Tell me; How would science decide what was right or wrong rather than turn out a mere description of behaviour and the factors that led to it?

Who says that right and wrong are any more than that? That's, of course, a philosophical question, but not one about the origins of the universe.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think NOMA would still remain even if that clause were removed (it strikes me as a whining New atheists addition after all).

What clause? That's the description of NOMA.

Shrill, New Atheist bollocks.

Here is a perfectly reasonable description of NOMA.....

It is the expectation that science will not be able to decide what is right or wrong since neither moral realism nor moral irrealism can be established scientifically and science describes mere behaviour.

 A description of mere behaviour is not morality since there is no description nor necessity to make any moral judgment or statement.

There.

If science finds what is right and wrong then that establishes a moral realism. That will fuck you guys who have been arguing there isn't one up a bit.

[Nearly Sane]

[Then really in your schema the non experiencer is saying ''Big Thunder Mountain does not exist because I have not experienced it
I will not go to big thunder mountain because it does not exist''.

No, because it isn't my schema - remember, it's me asking you for one. I'm merely poiting out the issues with the idea that if experince is valid.

Which in fact is the line taken by non believers when you suggest they put themselves in the place of not assuming there is or isn't a God.( They can't get away from assuming there isn't ).

I don't even have a clue what you are attempting to say here other than an obviously lazy generalisation. I have no way of assuming there is or is not a thing which I have not seen a valid definition of.

I talk about what I want to. It is up to you to decide to accept it as valid or not. If I'm not talking truth then I'm talking lies but I think you prefer me to be some state in between in some kind of ''No action, No commitment needed tray''.

Again you seem to get lost in a weird morass of relativism here which is a tad ironic. If something is logically invalid which is what I am suggesting then either that would be correct, or you are suggesting that we cannot ever evaluate anything.

Further, someone could spak somethng unture but it doesn't mean they are lying - ever heard of a mistake?

As to the bit about some state I might prefer you to be - not a clue what you mean again.

[Outrider]

Shrill, New Atheist bollocks.

1 - How can an internet post be 'shrill'?
2 - What's the difference between 'New Atheist' and just 'Atheist'? Is that we aren't prepare to shut up and stay in our place?
3 - You'd have been better off actually making your argument rather than launching with an ad hominem, but never mind.

Here is a perfectly reasonable description of NOMA.....

It is the expectation that science will not be able to decide what is right or wrong since neither moral realism nor moral irrealism can be established scientifically and science describes mere behaviour.

 A description of mere behaviour is not morality since there is no description nor necessity to make any moral judgment or statement.

There.

That's a perfectly reasonable description of something, yes. You can even call it NOMA if you wish, but that will get confusing when people presume you mean the same thing that Gould did, seeing as how you cited him and all.

If science finds what is right and wrong then that establishes a moral realism. That will fuck you guys who have been arguing there isn't one up a bit.

It would, but that's not likely to happen given that scientific findings are only ever provisional. What science is likely to do, at some point, is come up with statistically verified measures of which moral precepts best achieve certain pre-determined goals.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shrill, New Atheist bollocks.

1 - How can an internet post be 'shrill'?
2 - What's the difference between 'New Atheist' and just 'Atheist'? Is that we aren't prepare to shut up and stay in our place?

Now that IS shrill New Atheist paranoid Bollocks.

Given that New Atheists think that people who fail the Dawkins atheist test as described in ''The God Delusion'' should not only ''shut up but disappear''....The opposition merely expecting you to stay in your place ( Wherever you think that might be ) is comparatively charitable.

You guys can be as loud, rude, doctrinaire philosophically materialist patronising, ignorant and bigoted as you like........ just don't expect the rest of us to come in our pants every time your around. ( You may laugh but one woman reported in an edition of the Radio Times how she was overcome when Dawkins came into the studio.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

[Then really in your schema the non experiencer is saying ''Big Thunder Mountain does not exist because I have not experienced it
I will not go to big thunder mountain because it does not exist''.

No, because it isn't my schema - remember, it's me asking you for one. I'm merely poiting out the issues with the idea that if experince is valid.

Which in fact is the line taken by non believers when you suggest they put themselves in the place of not assuming there is or isn't a God.( They can't get away from assuming there isn't ).

I don't even have a clue what you are attempting to say here other than an obviously lazy generalisation. I have no way of assuming there is or is not a thing which I have not seen a valid definition of.

Maybe Richard Lewontin puts the situation better than I. Here is a quote from him.

“We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

[Outrider]

Now that IS shrill New Atheist paranoid Bollocks.

So no explanation of how that qualifies as shrill, just a repeat of the allegation...

Given that New Atheists think that people who fail the Dawkins atheist test as described in ''The God Delusion'' should not only ''shut up but disappear''....The opposition merely expecting you to stay in your place ( Wherever you think that might be ) is comparatively charitable.

I wasn't aware there was an 'atheist test' - you either believe or you don't. Professor Dawkins, by the way, isn't the start and finish of atheism for at least some of us, possibly most of us.

Generally speaking, the Professor doesn't think that religious people should shut up all of the time, he just thinks they should accept that their religious viewpoint has no hold on anyone else.

You guys can be as loud, rude, doctrinaire philosophically materialist patronising, ignorant and bigoted as you like........ just don't expect the rest of us to come in our pants every time your around. ( You may laugh but one woman reported in an edition of the Radio Times how she was overcome when Dawkins came into the studio.)

Wow... thank you for your permission to exercise the right of free speech, it makes all the difference. You, equally, by the way, have the right to peddle whatever baseless assertions and anecdotal nonsense you'd like.

As a piece of practical advice, though, you might want to try to actually make a point rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks.

O.