Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

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

Yes, I've offered a material explanation as a possibility for your description. Now you need to suggest the methodology by which you'd attempt to determine why your explanation is valid.

O.

[Outrider]

But alas and alack it is still faith and your special pleading for it is counter to previous claims that science is provisional.

Special pleading is saying something is a different case without justifying that - I justified the difference.

Any statement of either ''faiths'' is not science.

And two camels is a caravan... so what?

Also we have to examine your implied claim that religious experience, mine or any body elses doesn't provide consistency.

Yes, yes we do. And as soon as you provide a methodology for examining them, we can start to do that.

And finally evidence. Your definition is predicated on a belief in psychological incompetency.

Competency is not in question. Mental conditions are not caused by mental incompetency, though occasionally they result in it.

We know this because you have asserted Hallucination (without so far demonstrating it ).

Again, as previously explained, no, but don't let being wrong stop you this time when you've so admirably ignored it before.

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 you admit that it's an assertion. You, a fallible human, have an experience that you cannot give any justification for presuming is anything other than a recurrent or persistent hallucination (not an unheard of condition).

Thanks, you could merely have said that in the first place. You believe it, I accept that, but I see no reason why your believing it should carry any weight as an argument.

O.

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.
[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

Yes, I've offered a material explanation as a possibility for your description. Now you need to suggest the methodology by which you'd attempt to determine why your explanation is valid.

O.

1; You suggest that I had an empirical perception of God. I never.
So you your theory of hallucination seems to be unfounded.

2;Spiritual experience is not susceptible to scientific verification. So far only science has a ''methodology'' which is great for matter/energy but inconvenient for all other domains e,g, philosophy........Look at poor old philosophical naturalism for example.....so close and yet so far.

[Outrider]

1; You suggest that I had an empirical perception of God. I never. So you your theory of hallucination seems to be unfounded.

You said you had 'an experience'. The only experiences of which I'm aware are empirical - if you have another type, just explain what it is and how you differentiate the two.

2;Spiritual experience is not susceptible to scientific verification. So far only science has a ''methodology'' which is great for matter/energy but inconvenient for all other domains e,g, philosophy........Look at poor old philosophical naturalism for example.....so close and yet so far.

Fine, so explain your non-naturalistic methodology, explain your non-scientific method of verification of your claim, or it's just an assertion.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you admit that it's an assertion. You, a fallible human, have an experience that you cannot give any justification for presuming is anything other than a recurrent or persistent hallucination (not an unheard of condition).

You don't seem to understand what an hallucination is. It is an empirical perception with no empirical cause. Clearly I am not a medical case of hallucination.........You seem to be wishful thinking.

I have to say....I think you might be deluded in claiming superior psychological competence.

Secondly you are assuming psychological incompetence/ mental illness in me yet excusing it in yourself. Given that your belief set in the human population is actually statistically much smaller, on what warrant do you hold that assumption.

[Gordon]

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.

You aren't paying attention Vlad - I'm saying that current scientific knowledge is sufficient to refute the resurrection claim in the absence of any alternative method offered by proponents of the claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1; You suggest that I had an empirical perception of God. I never. So you your theory of hallucination seems to be unfounded.

You said you had 'an experience'. The only experiences of which I'm aware are empirical - if you have another type, just explain what it is and how you differentiate the two.

2;Spiritual experience is not susceptible to scientific verification. So far only science has a ''methodology'' which is great for matter/energy but inconvenient for all other domains e,g, philosophy........Look at poor old philosophical naturalism for example.....so close and yet so far.

Fine, so explain your non-naturalistic methodology, explain your non-scientific method of verification of your claim, or it's just an assertion.

O.

My definition of assertion is a statement made without qualification or attempted justification.

I gave grounds, warrant and motivation. Whether you accept that is down to you.

Your definition seems to be anything stated outside the realms of scientific study.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

You aren't paying attention Vlad - I'm saying that current scientific knowledge is sufficient to refute the resurrection claim in the absence of any alternative method offered by proponents of the claim.

Well Gordon you are just plain wrong... You haven't paid attention to the fact that Popper, myself and outrider agree that to say something will happen because it has happened any number of times in the past isn't science but faith me darling.

[Outrider]

You don't seem to understand what an hallucination is. It is an empirical perception with no empirical cause. Clearly I am not a medical case of hallucination.........You seem to be wishful thinking.

I'm afraid it's not 'clear' at all that you aren't hallucinating - you claim to have 'an experience' (of an as yet indeterminate nature) and you cannot suggest an origin for that.

I have to say....I think you might be deluded in claiming superior psychological competence.

I don't recall claiming it.

Secondly you are assuming psychological incompetence/ mental illness in me yet excusing it in yourself.

I've tried to avoid the stigma of asserting mental illness - hallucinations are a symptom, and they can be a symptom of many things. Or they can simply be hallucinations - if they aren't impacting unduly on your life then they aren't a mental illness, they are just something that happens to you.

Given that your belief set in the human population is actually statistically much smaller, on what warrant do you hold that assumption.

I'm afraid I can't make sense of that sentence at all. My 'belief set in the human population'... I'm not grasping your intent with that phrase.
O.

[Gordon]

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.

You aren't paying attention Vlad - I'm saying that current scientific knowledge is sufficient to refute the resurrection claim in the absence of any alternative method offered by proponents of the claim.

Well Gordon you are just plain wrong... You haven't paid attention to the fact that Popper, myself and outrider agree that to say something will happen because it has happened any number of times in the past isn't science but faith me darling.

So, next time I ride my motorcycle should I be worried about the possibility that the wheels might turn into wings or should I expect to stay on the road?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't seem to understand what an hallucination is. It is an empirical perception with no empirical cause. Clearly I am not a medical case of hallucination.........You seem to be wishful thinking.

I'm afraid it's not 'clear' at all that you aren't hallucinating - you claim to have 'an experience' (of an as yet indeterminate nature) and you cannot suggest an origin for that.

I have to say....I think you might be deluded in claiming superior psychological competence.

I don't recall claiming it.

Alright then.......you are applying it like a good'un.

[Outrider]

My definition of assertion is a statement made without qualification or attempted justification.

Having an attempted justification is not sufficient to stop a claim being an assertion. I can claim that the moon is made of cheese because it's round - that's a justification, but it's not a sufficient one, and so the claim is still an assertion. Like your suggestion that you've had 'an experience of god', in the absence of an adequate justification for thinking that, is still an assertion.

I gave grounds, warrant and motivation. Whether you accept that is down to you.

You made a claim. You've avoided any sort of attempt at justifying it, and put a great deal of effort into trying to get other people to disprove your claim, and the false equivocation of trust in the established track record of the scientific method with religious faith in the absence of, or in defiance of, available evidence.

Your definition seems to be anything stated outside the realms of scientific study.

My definition of what? I'm not going to accept something from outside of that without sufficient justification, which means an accepted declaration of the assumptions of your philosophy, the methodology deriving from that, and the basis for accepting that combination as valid.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

You aren't paying attention Vlad - I'm saying that current scientific knowledge is sufficient to refute the resurrection claim in the absence of any alternative method offered by proponents of the claim.

Well Gordon you are just plain wrong... You haven't paid attention to the fact that Popper, myself and outrider agree that to say something will happen because it has happened any number of times in the past isn't science but faith me darling.

So, next time I ride my motorcycle should I be worried about the possibility that the wheels might turn into wings or should I expect to stay on the road?

Just continue in your faith, brother, continue in your faith.........

[Outrider]

Well Gordon you are just plain wrong... You haven't paid attention to the fact that Popper, myself and outrider agree that to say something will happen because it has happened any number of times in the past isn't science but faith me darling.

Not quite. I suggested that the consistency of cause and effect was the presumption on which philosophical naturalism was founded, and that the practical application of the scientific method over centuries to deliver the body of scientific evidence was a provisional validation of that presumption.

We have a track record of achievement which is a warrant to trust the presumption of cause and effect.

Faith, as in the religious variety, is assigning a similar sense of 'trust' to claims that lack the same demonstrable track record.

O.

[Gordon]

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.

You aren't paying attention Vlad - I'm saying that current scientific knowledge is sufficient to refute the resurrection claim in the absence of any alternative method offered by proponents of the claim.

Well Gordon you are just plain wrong... You haven't paid attention to the fact that Popper, myself and outrider agree that to say something will happen because it has happened any number of times in the past isn't science but faith me darling.

So, next time I ride my motorcycle should I be worried about the possibility that the wheels might turn into wings or should I expect to stay on the road?

Just continue in your faith, brother, continue in your faith.........

As they say Vlad, in the time-honoured manner, evasion noted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My definition of assertion is a statement made without qualification or attempted justification.

Having an attempted justification is not sufficient to stop a claim being an assertion. I can claim that the moon is made of cheese because it's round - that's a justification, but it's not a sufficient one, and so the claim is still an assertion. Like your suggestion that you've had 'an experience of god', in the absence of an adequate justification for thinking that, is still an assertion.

I gave grounds, warrant and motivation. Whether you accept that is down to you.

You made a claim. You've avoided any sort of attempt at justifying it, and put a great deal of effort into trying to get other people to disprove your claim, and the false equivocation of trust in the established track record of the scientific method with religious faith in the absence of, or in defiance of, available evidence.

Your definition seems to be anything stated outside the realms of scientific study.

My definition of what? I'm not going to accept something from outside of that without sufficient justification, which means an accepted declaration of the assumptions of your philosophy, the methodology deriving from that, and the basis for accepting that combination as valid.

O.

what I say in justification just needs to be reasonable.

[Outrider]

what I say in justification just needs to be reasonable.

No, it needs to be sufficient. It isn't.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

You aren't paying attention Vlad - I'm saying that current scientific knowledge is sufficient to refute the resurrection claim in the absence of any alternative method offered by proponents of the claim.

Well Gordon you are just plain wrong... You haven't paid attention to the fact that Popper, myself and outrider agree that to say something will happen because it has happened any number of times in the past isn't science but faith me darling.

So, next time I ride my motorcycle should I be worried about the possibility that the wheels might turn into wings or should I expect to stay on the road?

Just continue in your faith, brother, continue in your faith.........

As they say Vlad, in the time-honoured manner, evasion noted.

Lie.
You go out on your motorbike in the faith that things will happen as they always have.
No evasion.
You are just mistaken in thinking science is not provisional.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

what I say in justification just needs to be reasonable.

No, it needs to be sufficient. It isn't.

O.

No, it needs to be reasonable.

[Outrider]

No, it needs to be reasonable.

People are sometimes wrong. Vlad is presumably a person.

"Therefore Vlad is wrong" is reasonable, but not sufficient.

Vlad has consistently failed to supply a methodology to justify his assertion that what he believes is an experience of a god actually is. "Therefore Vlad is wrong" is both reasonable AND sufficient.

O.

[Gordon]

Lie.
You go out on your motorbike in the faith that things will happen as they always have.
No evasion.
You are just mistaken in thinking science is not provisional.

I've always accepted science is provisional: have said so often. Have also ridden motorcycles often (did so today in fact) and I reckon that I can be virtually certain that that as much as it is fast and fun to ride it isn't aerodynamic enough (scientifically speaking) to ever fly.

So when it comes to matters of science it isn't 'faith' you need but the confidence borne of both knowledge and experience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it needs to be reasonable.

People are sometimes wrong. Vlad is presumably a person.

"Therefore Vlad is wrong" is reasonable, but not sufficient.

Vlad has consistently failed to supply a methodology to justify his assertion that what he believes is an experience of a god actually is. "Therefore Vlad is wrong" is both reasonable AND sufficient.

O.

yes it's a reasonable assertion. We were talking about justifications though.

[Outrider]

Lie.

Really? Lie? He couldn't be mistaken, he couldn't have a different interpretation?

You go out on your motorbike in the faith that things will happen as they always have.

Expectation, based on previous experience and the documented history of other people's experience.

No evasion. You are just mistaken in thinking science is not provisional.

Not really. I know science is provisional, but I still take the stairs rather than step out of the second floor window, because I have an expectation that gravity will still be working as it always has been*.

That's not faith in the same sense as maintaining a belief in a god in the absence of any consistent basis for thinking that it's a valid deduction.

O.

* relationship with the rapidly expanding universe during the Big Bang meaning that 'as it always has been' doesn't mean a necessarily constant value

[Outrider]

yes it's a reasonable assertion. We were talking about justifications though.

From 'Philosophical Naturalism' ad infinitum to 'I know you are, but what am I'... oh how the mighty have fallen.

Well, not fallen, obviously, because we can't be holding truck with mere 'faith' in gravity. Oh how the mighty have inexplicably had an 'experience of getting even lower'...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lie.
You go out on your motorbike in the faith that things will happen as they always have.
No evasion.
You are just mistaken in thinking science is not provisional.

I've always accepted science is provisional: have said so often. Have also ridden motorcycles often (did so today in fact) and I reckon that I can be virtually certain that that as much as it is fast and fun to ride it isn't aerodynamic enough (scientifically speaking) to ever fly.

So when it comes to matters of science it isn't 'faith' you need but the confidence borne of both knowledge and experience.

OK so carry out in the confidence.....that still leave's faith that it can never happen.