Searching for GOD...

[floo]

Do others get the impression Vlad is using big words for the sake of using them, without fully comprehending their meaning?

[Shaker]

Do others get the impression Vlad is using big words for the sake of using them, without fully comprehending their meaning?

I couldn't possibly comment

[Outrider]

No, you say it's an hallucination. That is a positive claim. I look forward to your proof.

No, you say it happened - that's a  positive claim. I say it sounds like an hallucination, that's a characterisation of your claim.

In terms of my points that the supernatural is unfalsifiable scientifically, that unique historical events like miracles are not susceptible to scientific investigation, that numerous people were convinced that jesus had been resurrected, that reductionist materialists tend to cordon off the resurrection on philosophical grounds and not make a very close examination of the NT accounts I have done by philosophical argument and citation.

I accept that 'miracles' are not susceptible to scientific enquiry - in the  methodology I cited for science I stated that the presumption was that cause and effect were consistent, and 'miracle' implicitly requires a breach of that.

However, you have to give a more demonstrable justification for ignoring that methodology than 'I think this is a miracle'. The most we can justify from 'we can't explain this using known methods' is 'we don't know'. You can't go beyond that to 'therefore miracle'.

A large number of people may have believed at the time - more people believe now. People can be wrong. A large number of people don't believe, so one group or the other has to be wrong.

I can see how you'd think 'reductionist materialists' would ideologically refute your claim, but I think you have it the wrong way round. I'm a reductionist materialist because no-one's shown sufficient reason to think there's anything else. You can make the claim, but your 'evidence' is purely internal (and therefore unverifiable as extistent, let alone correctly interpreted) and you accept it as much on faith as by demonstrating any reasonable confidence that your interpretation is correct.

There is bags more argument to be had but that is enough to be getting on with considering the failed analysis by your team and it's refusal to provide an alternative history.

We don't need to provide an alternative history. You are making the claim, we are saying 'we don't know'. And in the absence of knowledge we're not going to accept an extreme claim with no other corroboration.

So all you have to do is to demonstrate your positive assertion that religion is hallucination.

How come an alternate explanation for the resurrection account - of which there are many - is enough, but an alternate explanation for your 'experience' isn't?

I've provided an alternate explanation for your claim of an 'experience of a god'. You've got to demonstrate how you determine it's your previously unevidenced explanation that's right, rather than the well-established, well-documented, repeatedly-studied, entirely natural phenomenon.

You are making the claim of an 'experience of god'. I'm suggesting you need to justify that claim because there are other, more likely, possibilities.

O.

[Shaker]

Superb post, Big O 

[Andy]

There's a false dichotomy here that it's either an experience of god or an hallucination. A showing of that latter doesn't falsify the former, which again is just another highlighting of the issue of needing a method to do so.

[Outrider]

There's a false dichotomy here that it's either an experience of god or an hallucination. A showing of that latter doesn't falsify the former, which again is just another highlighting of the issue of needing a method to do so.

I don't believe so. I'm not saying it's definitively an hallucination, and I'm certainly not saying that the only two options are genuine experience of a god or hallucination.

I'm saying that it sounds like an hallucination, and that unless some methodology can be suggested which allows us to confirm or refute the claim of an experience of a god - what we're (still!) looking for is that methodology - we cannot accept the claim.

We'd need to do other tests to confirm or refute the possibility that it's an hallucination.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you say it's an hallucination. That is a positive claim. I look forward to your proof.

No, you say it happened - that's a  positive claim. I say it sounds like an hallucination, that's a characterisation of your claim.

In terms of my points that the supernatural is unfalsifiable scientifically, that unique historical events like miracles are not susceptible to scientific investigation, that numerous people were convinced that jesus had been resurrected, that reductionist materialists tend to cordon off the resurrection on philosophical grounds and not make a very close examination of the NT accounts I have done by philosophical argument and citation.

I accept that 'miracles' are not susceptible to scientific enquiry - in the  methodology I cited for science I stated that the presumption was that cause and effect were consistent, and 'miracle' implicitly requires a breach of that.

However, you have to give a more demonstrable justification for ignoring that methodology than 'I think this is a miracle'. The most we can justify from 'we can't explain this using known methods' is 'we don't know'. You can't go beyond that to 'therefore miracle'.

A large number of people may have believed at the time - more people believe now. People can be wrong. A large number of people don't believe, so one group or the other has to be wrong.

I can see how you'd think 'reductionist materialists' would ideologically refute your claim, but I think you have it the wrong way round. I'm a reductionist materialist because no-one's shown sufficient reason to think there's anything else. You can make the claim, but your 'evidence' is purely internal (and therefore unverifiable as extistent, let alone correctly interpreted) and you accept it as much on faith as by demonstrating any reasonable confidence that your interpretation is correct.

There is bags more argument to be had but that is enough to be getting on with considering the failed analysis by your team and it's refusal to provide an alternative history.

We don't need to provide an alternative history. You are making the claim, we are saying 'we don't know'. And in the absence of knowledge we're not going to accept an extreme claim with no other corroboration.

So all you have to do is to demonstrate your positive assertion that religion is hallucination.

How come an alternate explanation for the resurrection account - of which there are many - is enough, but an alternate explanation for your 'experience' isn't?

I've provided an alternate explanation for your claim of an 'experience of a god'. You've got to demonstrate how you determine it's your previously unevidenced explanation that's right, rather than the well-established, well-documented, repeatedly-studied, entirely natural phenomenon.

You are making the claim of an 'experience of god'. I'm suggesting you need to justify that claim because there are other, more likely, possibilities.

O.

You are trying to exonerate yourself from your positive assertion that religious experience is hallucination. And are basically saying a theist always has to have burden of proof when making a positive assertion but an antitheist does not. That is clearly special pleading.

I am not against an alternative account of the period covered by the resurrection experience, in fact I invited one that invitation is still open. All I am saying is that the previous attempts have been inadequate and that objections in your team are still based around philosophy and not history. Indeed the approaches suggest cordon throwing rather than analysis.

I am afraid If you suggest a history is wrong you de facto suggest an alternative since there must be a history. There can be no absence of history as there can be an absence of God.

You have asserted an alternative an alternative, Hallucination.
That is a positive assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Superb post, Big O 

Shaker. I think your computer has been hijacked by Churchill the insurance Pet as there seems to be a nodding dog going ''Ohhh yezz'' at your keyboard.

[floo]

No, you say it's an hallucination. That is a positive claim. I look forward to your proof.

No, you say it happened - that's a  positive claim. I say it sounds like an hallucination, that's a characterisation of your claim.

In terms of my points that the supernatural is unfalsifiable scientifically, that unique historical events like miracles are not susceptible to scientific investigation, that numerous people were convinced that jesus had been resurrected, that reductionist materialists tend to cordon off the resurrection on philosophical grounds and not make a very close examination of the NT accounts I have done by philosophical argument and citation.

I accept that 'miracles' are not susceptible to scientific enquiry - in the  methodology I cited for science I stated that the presumption was that cause and effect were consistent, and 'miracle' implicitly requires a breach of that.

However, you have to give a more demonstrable justification for ignoring that methodology than 'I think this is a miracle'. The most we can justify from 'we can't explain this using known methods' is 'we don't know'. You can't go beyond that to 'therefore miracle'.

A large number of people may have believed at the time - more people believe now. People can be wrong. A large number of people don't believe, so one group or the other has to be wrong.

I can see how you'd think 'reductionist materialists' would ideologically refute your claim, but I think you have it the wrong way round. I'm a reductionist materialist because no-one's shown sufficient reason to think there's anything else. You can make the claim, but your 'evidence' is purely internal (and therefore unverifiable as extistent, let alone correctly interpreted) and you accept it as much on faith as by demonstrating any reasonable confidence that your interpretation is correct.

There is bags more argument to be had but that is enough to be getting on with considering the failed analysis by your team and it's refusal to provide an alternative history.

We don't need to provide an alternative history. You are making the claim, we are saying 'we don't know'. And in the absence of knowledge we're not going to accept an extreme claim with no other corroboration.

So all you have to do is to demonstrate your positive assertion that religion is hallucination.

How come an alternate explanation for the resurrection account - of which there are many - is enough, but an alternate explanation for your 'experience' isn't?

I've provided an alternate explanation for your claim of an 'experience of a god'. You've got to demonstrate how you determine it's your previously unevidenced explanation that's right, rather than the well-established, well-documented, repeatedly-studied, entirely natural phenomenon.

You are making the claim of an 'experience of god'. I'm suggesting you need to justify that claim because there are other, more likely, possibilities.

O.

What we are unable to explain today in scientific terms, is likely to be answered eventually, as human knowledge continues to expand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, you say it's an hallucination. That is a positive claim. I look forward to your proof.

No, you say it happened - that's a  positive claim. I say it sounds like an hallucination, that's a characterisation of your claim.

In terms of my points that the supernatural is unfalsifiable scientifically, that unique historical events like miracles are not susceptible to scientific investigation, that numerous people were convinced that jesus had been resurrected, that reductionist materialists tend to cordon off the resurrection on philosophical grounds and not make a very close examination of the NT accounts I have done by philosophical argument and citation.

I accept that 'miracles' are not susceptible to scientific enquiry - in the  methodology I cited for science I stated that the presumption was that cause and effect were consistent, and 'miracle' implicitly requires a breach of that.

However, you have to give a more demonstrable justification for ignoring that methodology than 'I think this is a miracle'. The most we can justify from 'we can't explain this using known methods' is 'we don't know'. You can't go beyond that to 'therefore miracle'.

A large number of people may have believed at the time - more people believe now. People can be wrong. A large number of people don't believe, so one group or the other has to be wrong.

I can see how you'd think 'reductionist materialists' would ideologically refute your claim, but I think you have it the wrong way round. I'm a reductionist materialist because no-one's shown sufficient reason to think there's anything else. You can make the claim, but your 'evidence' is purely internal (and therefore unverifiable as extistent, let alone correctly interpreted) and you accept it as much on faith as by demonstrating any reasonable confidence that your interpretation is correct.

There is bags more argument to be had but that is enough to be getting on with considering the failed analysis by your team and it's refusal to provide an alternative history.

We don't need to provide an alternative history. You are making the claim, we are saying 'we don't know'. And in the absence of knowledge we're not going to accept an extreme claim with no other corroboration.

So all you have to do is to demonstrate your positive assertion that religion is hallucination.

How come an alternate explanation for the resurrection account - of which there are many - is enough, but an alternate explanation for your 'experience' isn't?

I've provided an alternate explanation for your claim of an 'experience of a god'. You've got to demonstrate how you determine it's your previously unevidenced explanation that's right, rather than the well-established, well-documented, repeatedly-studied, entirely natural phenomenon.

You are making the claim of an 'experience of god'. I'm suggesting you need to justify that claim because there are other, more likely, possibilities.

O.

What we are unable to explain today in scientific terms, is likely to be answered eventually, as human knowledge continues to expand.

Since you guys tend to think antitheism is the equivalent of science any of you hot shots wish to pick this up?

[Outrider]

You are trying to exonerate yourself from your positive assertion that religious experience is hallucination. And are basically saying a theist always has to have burden of proof when making a positive assertion but an antitheist does not. That is clearly special pleading.

No, you're still trying to put the onus on anyone else to disprove your unsubstantiated contention 'god'.

I am not against an alternative account of the period covered by the resurrection experience, in fact I invited one that invitation is still open. All I am saying is that the previous attempts have been inadequate and that objections in your team are still based around philosophy and not history. Indeed the approaches suggest cordon throwing rather than analysis.

And you're still trying to create the false dichotomy spoken of above - it doesn't matter how many alternative possibilities are suggested and/or refuted. You need a basis to support your contention or it can be ignored.

I am afraid If you suggest a history is wrong you de facto suggest an alternative since there must be a history. There can be no absence of history as there can be an absence of God.

No, we can quite happily say 'I don't know'. Something happened, we don't have to pretend we know for sure what it was.

You have asserted an alternative an alternative, Hallucination.That is a positive assertion.

I have provided an alternative explanation to your assertion. You need to explain why you've decided your explanation is the better one.

O.

[jjohnjil]

Superb post, Big O 

Shaker. I think your computer has been hijacked by Churchill the insurance Pet as there seems to be a nodding dog going ''Ohhh yezz'' at your keyboard.

Shaker is simply speaking for us all.

Theist and atheist alike can see you are desperately blustering away in a sad attempt to pretend you have an argument. 

Give your fingers a rest and try putting your 'brain' into gear for a change! 

[Andy]

There's a false dichotomy here that it's either an experience of god or an hallucination. A showing of that latter doesn't falsify the former, which again is just another highlighting of the issue of needing a method to do so.

I don't believe so. I'm not saying it's definitively an hallucination, and I'm certainly not saying that the only two options are genuine experience of a god or hallucination.

I'm saying that it sounds like an hallucination, and that unless some methodology can be suggested which allows us to confirm or refute the claim of an experience of a god - what we're (still!) looking for is that methodology - we cannot accept the claim.

We'd need to do other tests to confirm or refute the possibility that it's an hallucination.

O.

I know you're not definitively saying it's an hallucination, but something along the lines of that under current understanding it is the most reasonable thing to believe.

I'm saying that even if it is an hallucination and you could even convince Vlad to believe the same, that doesn't mean that it isn't a god creating the hallucination. I think we are on the same page here as the request to confirm that it is an hallucination is a red herring in the face of having a method to confirm or refute whether a god is involved or not either way.

[Gordon]

What we are unable to explain today in scientific terms, is likely to be answered eventually, as human knowledge continues to expand.

In which case you will have a naturalistic explanation, since science is naturalistic. This also means that if you want to demonstrate 'miracle' claims that there is enough current naturalisitic knowledge to refute with confidence then you'll need a method specific to 'explain' these 'miracles': and there ain't one.

Although science doesn't claim certainty we can inductively conclude that some things are known to be much more certain than others. For example, the science behind aviation provides enough information to conclude that planes capable of flying today will not suddenly lose the ability to fly tomorrow because the scientific laws behind aviation no longer apply, and also that as of today we can be sure that all humans who have ever been alive, are alive today, or will be alive in future have died or will die, and that once clinically dead will remain permanently dead.
 

 

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are trying to exonerate yourself from your positive assertion that religious experience is hallucination. And are basically saying a theist always has to have burden of proof when making a positive assertion but an antitheist does not. That is clearly special pleading.

No, you're still trying to put the onus on anyone else to disprove your unsubstantiated contention 'god'.

This guy isn't going to explain why he asserts religion is hallucination.....
Can anybody?

[Outrider]

I'm saying that even if it is an hallucination and you could even convince Vlad to believe the same, that doesn't mean that it isn't a god creating the hallucination. I think we are on the same page here as the request to confirm that it is an hallucination is a red herring in the face of having a method to confirm or refute whether a god is involved or not either way.

I don't have any real doubts that's what's going on.

As to the idea it could be a god-induced hallucination, well they all could be, it's true. It's just another reason to need that methodology

O.

[Outrider]

You are trying to exonerate yourself from your positive assertion that religious experience is hallucination. And are basically saying a theist always has to have burden of proof when making a positive assertion but an antitheist does not. That is clearly special pleading.

No, you're still trying to put the onus on anyone else to disprove your unsubstantiated contention 'god'.

This guy isn't going to explain why he asserts religion is hallucination.....
Can anybody?

Sounds like... smells like... tastes like... straw, man...

I didn't 'assert' anything, and certainly not about 'religion' in its entirety.

You asserted that it was valid to accept an 'experience of god' as a justification for believing in god. I asked, in amongst innumberable other requests from myself and others, how you would differentiate between that claim and an hallucination.

I did not say religion was an hallucination, nor did I even say definitively your purported experience of a god was an hallucination, though if pressed I'd say it's a viable explanation.

The onus is still on you, as the person who claimed the 'experience of god' to justify that claim, or at the very least to posit a methodology by which it could be done.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What we are unable to explain today in scientific terms, is likely to be answered eventually, as human knowledge continues to expand.

In which case you will have a naturalistic explanation, since science is naturalistic. This also means that if you want to demonstrate 'miracle' claims that there is enough current naturalisitic knowledge to refute with confidence then you'll need a method specific to 'explain' these 'miracles': and there ain't one.

Although science doesn't claim certainty we can inductively conclude that some things are known to be much more certain than others. For example, the science behind aviation provides enough information to conclude that planes capable of flying today will not suddenly lose the ability to fly tomorrow because the scientific laws behind aviation no longer apply, and also that as of today we can be sure that all humans who have ever been alive, are alive today, or will be alive in future have died or will die, and that once clinically dead will remain permanently dead.
 

You cannot be scientifically confident about unique historical events since science depends on repeatability.

You seem to have ignored popperian philosophy which states that observation is important for science and that even though something happens a million times there is no guarantee that it will happen the millionth and first time.
To depend on it happening is technically faith.

My argument is that your argument then is philosophically faith and not scientific. This is why we have history. Therefore you need to give a counter to the history which is on offer.

[Nearly Sane]

Except, of course, that the study of history is methodologically naturalistic.

[Outrider]

You cannot be scientifically confident about unique historical events since science depends on repeatability.

At the same time, you've yet to give us a methodology for demonstrating that they're unique...

You seem to have ignored popperian philosophy which states that observation is important for science and that even though something happens a million times there is no guarantee that it will happen the millionth and first time. To depend on it happening is technically faith.

Depends on how you choose to define 'faith'. I've seen it defined as 'trust', based on the millenia of consistency for which we have records, as opposed to 'faith' which is the maintenance of a belief in the absence of, or in defiance of, available evidence.

My argument is that your argument then is philosophically faith and not scientific. This is why we have history. Therefore you need to give a counter to the history which is on offer.

Wherease, my argument is that we're still waiting for you to give us your methodology for determining the validity of extra-material claims - why should we jump through your hoops all the time. You're making the claim, we don't have to 'prove' an alternative to dismiss your claim, you need to validate it.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are trying to exonerate yourself from your positive assertion that religious experience is hallucination. And are basically saying a theist always has to have burden of proof when making a positive assertion but an antitheist does not. That is clearly special pleading.

No, you're still trying to put the onus on anyone else to disprove your unsubstantiated contention 'god'.

This guy isn't going to explain why he asserts religion is hallucination.....
Can anybody?

Sounds like... smells like... tastes like... straw, man...

I didn't 'assert' anything, and certainly not about 'religion' in its entirety.

You asserted that it was valid to accept an 'experience of god' as a justification for believing in god. I asked, in amongst innumberable other requests from myself and others, how you would differentiate between that claim and an hallucination.

I did not say religion was an hallucination, nor did I even say definitively your purported experience of a god was an hallucination, though if pressed I'd say it's a viable explanation.

The onus is still on you, as the person who claimed the 'experience of god' to justify that claim, or at the very least to posit a methodology by which it could be done.

O.

1:Please state why you think religious experience is hallucination or needs a new classification of hallucination.

2: I have justified the claim by saying I have eliminated naturalistic ''explanations'' and a subsequent trust in God would be a strange thing for either an evil leprechaun or a Satan to put into someone. You assert
that hallucination explains the experience. Please state why.
Since all positive assertions need at least some justification.

[Outrider]

1:Please state why you think religious experience is hallucination or needs a new classification of hallucination.

It sounds like one: "A hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus..." (Wikipedia page on 'Hallucination', accessed 19/08/15)

2: I have justified the claim by saying I have eliminated naturalistic ''explanations''

No, you've challenged us to give you alternative explanations, thereby putting the onus on us to disprove your assertion

and a subsequent trust in God would be a strange thing for either an evil leprechaun or a Satan to put into someone.

Strange things happen. That you think it's strange says something about you, perhaps, but not a great deal about the claim.

You assert: that hallucination explains the experience. Please state why. Since all positive assertions need at least some justification.

I've asserted nothing. I've characterised your claim, I'm still waiting for you to supply a methodology that allows you to determine between the two options on the current (not exhaustive) list, which will be the first step towards your establishing a methodology whereby we could possible validate or refute your extra-natural claim.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You cannot be scientifically confident about unique historical events since science depends on repeatability.

At the same time, you've yet to give us a methodology for demonstrating that they're unique...

You seem to have ignored popperian philosophy which states that observation is important for science and that even though something happens a million times there is no guarantee that it will happen the millionth and first time. To depend on it happening is technically faith.

Depends on how you choose to define 'faith'. I've seen it defined as 'trust', based on the millenia of consistency for which we have records, as opposed to 'faith' which is the maintenance of a belief in the absence of, or in defiance of, available evidence.

But alas and alack it is still faith and your special pleading for it is counter to previous claims that science is provisional. Any statement of either ''faiths'' is not science. Also we have to examine your implied claim that religious experience, mine or any body elses doesn't provide consistency. And finally evidence. Your definition is predicated on a belief in psychological incompetency. We know this because you have asserted Hallucination (without so far demonstrating it ). I would say that my religious experience is not because of the consistency. Something I cannot share with you, just as I cannot share my qualia or perception with you. All I can share is ideas about it which I have and am doing.

So let's get back to Gordon. His objections do not fall within science because he rejects provisionality and rejects any observation, nor is his historical analysis up to scratch since he has not provided an alternative just an assumption that there is one.

He needs to justify his contention and challenge of the evidence of resurrection and you my friend need to demonstrate I am having hallucinations.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1:Please state why you think religious experience is hallucination or needs a new classification of hallucination.

It sounds like one: "A hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus..." (Wikipedia page on 'Hallucination', accessed 19/08/15)

Yes that would be empirical perception sight, sound, touch, etc.
Is God ''external''? I don't know that sounds like a location to me.

[Andy]

1:Please state why you think religious experience is hallucination or needs a new classification of hallucination.

It sounds like one: "A hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus..." (Wikipedia page on 'Hallucination', accessed 19/08/15)

Yes that would be empirical perception sight, sound, touch, etc.
Is God ''external''? I don't know that sounds like a location to me.

Yet every time you try to describe your experience, you're inadvertently saying you have a means to bridge the gap between empirical perception and god.