Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

So what argument would you use to reject the idea that you were brought into being by an intelligent Creator?

It's just a story for which there is no evidence and no supporting arguments.

[Stranger]

Unfortunately no counter arguments have been forwarded by your side which do not end with "we don't know" or "science will one day show".

For there to be a counterargument there first has to be an argument. Where is there an argument for a god that isn't obviously flawed?

[Gordon]

Unfortunately no counter arguments have been forwarded by your side which do not end with "we don't know" or "science will one day show".

Antitheists seem to be given to inventing fallacies and straw men vis Courtiers reply, Going nuclear etc. Which just cover ignorance and show special pleading.

By now I'd have thought you'd know better, Vlad: you don't need a counter-argument to reject a fallacious argument - the latter simply fails.
 
As far as I can see there is no need to invent fallacies, since the common or garden variety are so regularly peddled by some (but not all) theists here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

By now I'd have thought you'd know better, Vlad: you don't need a counter-argument to reject a fallacious argument - the latter simply fails.
 
As far as I can see there is no need to invent fallacies, since the common or garden variety are so regularly peddled by some (but not all) theists here.

You need to demonstrate fallaciousness Gordon not just chuck the word around shamanically.

[Nearly Sane]

You need to demonstrate fallaciousness Gordon not just chuck the word around shamanically.

and you need to stop lying

[Enki]

So what argument would you use to reject the idea that you were brought into being by an intelligent Creator?

I don't reject the idea that I was brought into being by an intelligent creator. It remains a possibility. However, like Gordon, I find that the arguments made in support of an intelligent creator lack substance, often being little more than assertion and statements of personal belief. I would also suggest that there is no evidence for the existence of this intelligent creator, so why should I believe that it exists(or existed)?

[Gordon]

You need to demonstrate fallaciousness Gordon not just chuck the word around shamanically.

I'd say I've regularly pointed out fallacies - including your own penchant for the straw man. I can only presume you haven't been reading for comprehension.

[Rhiannon]

You need to demonstrate fallaciousness Gordon not just chuck the word around shamanically.

Stop using the word 'shamanically' in such a pointless and inaccurate manner. It looks silly.

[Rhiannon]

I don't get that from Alan at all.

What methodology did you use to conclude that there is no Christ and that Alan can be blamed/ or has a deficiency as his experience does not match yours.

You really don't need me to point out the problem with this, do you?

[Maeght]

I think to be in denial you have to know it's true. Otherwise you are just making a mistake.

Not according to any definition I've seen. It is purely not accepting a statement, belief or proposition and doesn't include whether you know it is true or not. If you refused to accept something that you knew was true it would be lying of course - so you would say someone was lying not in denial.

[Maeght]

So what argument would you use to reject the idea that you were brought into being by an intelligent Creator?

Bit confused here aren't you Alan.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's the hard problem of materialism, physicalism and naturalism Hillside.............how do you get from the methodological to the philosophical?

Oh dear. No it isn’t.

Think of reality as an epistemic onion. At the centre is an “ultimate” reality – the be all and end all final explanation for everything. Whether there is such a thing, let alone how you, I or even a god would know we’ve found it is another matter but go with it.

The next layer out is the material – matter and forces. We know about it because we appear at least to experience it, and what’s more we agree on its content because it’s investigable with intersubjective experience. Thus if one of us clams that an apple will fall downwards and the other that it’ll fly sideways we can wait until Autumn and see who’s right.

Thus we have a pragmatic, working model for reality that in turn gives us mobile ‘phones and jumbo jets and medicines. There is though no need to validate that model by finding a path to the centre of the onion – it works just fine as it is, and no-one (except apparently the physicalist) would bother to claim otherwise (which is essentially the straw man you attempt at this point).

Now picture another epistemic layer out – the immaterial. On that layer sits your god, the Muslim god, Ra, leprechauns, and any other unfalsifiable conjecture anyone may care to believe in. The reason they sit outside the first layer is that they’re not investigable with intersubjective experience – they’re just claims. Your claim for what “God” thinks and does is as valid or invalid as anyone else’s, as it would be for Ra. There is other words no way to connect that layer to the next layer in.

Importantly by the way, a key difference is in the claims that can be excluded from each layer. On the first, material layer, the claim "the apple will fly sideways" can be excluded. On the second layer though, there's no way to exclude any claim. If you think, "but that's my faith" is a good reason for including your belief, then it must also be a good reason for including any other belief too. 

What actually happens though is that those who populate that layer with their faith beliefs typically then proceed to skip the next layer in, and to go straight to the centre with claims of ultimate truths – “the ground of all being” and all that.

In other words, the “hard problem” you think you’ve identified is only a hard problem if you want to position materialism/naturalism at the centre of the onion. Not only does no-one much do that though, it’s not necessary to establish the epistemic difference between the first layer and the second one.
 
And that’s why the Wiki citation you thought would help you actually blew you out of the water. As you just ignored it, here it is again:

“Assuming naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment, called methodological naturalism.[ The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge based on an assumed paradigm.

Did you notice the “without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment” and the, “The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge based on an assumed paradigm” there?

That’s the point, and that’s where you keep going wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

Not according to any definition I've seen. It is purely not accepting a statement, belief or proposition and doesn't include whether you know it is true or not. If you refused to accept something that you knew was true it would be lying of course - so you would say someone was lying not in denial.

No, it's not accepting something that is true. How can a mistake be a denial?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh dear. No it isn’t.

Think of reality as an epistemic onion. At the centre is an “ultimate” reality – the be all and end all final explanation for everything. Whether there is such a thing, let alone how you, I or even a god would know we’ve found it is another matter but go with it.

The next layer out is the material – matter and forces. We know about it because we appear at least to experience it, and what’s more we agree on its content because it’s investigable with intersubjective experience. Thus if one of us clams that an apple will fall downwards and the other that it’ll fly sideways we can wait until Autumn and see who’s right.

Thus we have a pragmatic, working model for reality that in turn gives us mobile ‘phones and jumbo jets and medicines. There is though no need to validate that model by finding a path to the centre of the onion – it works just fine as it is, and no-one (except apparently the physicalist) would bother to claim otherwise (which is essentially the straw man you attempt at this point).

Now picture another epistemic layer out – the immaterial. On that layer sits your god, the Muslim god, Ra, leprechauns, and any other unfalsifiable conjecture anyone may care to believe in. The reason they sit outside the first layer is that they’re not investigable with intersubjective experience – they’re just claims. Your claim for what “God” thinks and does is as valid or invalid as anyone else’s, as it would be for Ra. There is other words no way to connect that layer to the next layer in.

Importantly by the way, a key difference is in the claims that can be excluded from each layer. On the first, material layer, the claim "the apple will fly sideways" can be excluded. On the second layer though, there's no way to exclude any claim. If you think, "but that's my faith" is a good reason for including your belief, then it must also be a good reason for including any other belief too. 

What actually happens though is that those who populate that layer with their faith beliefs typically then proceed to skip the next layer in, and to go straight to the centre with claims of ultimate truths – “the ground of all being” and all that.

In other words, the “hard problem” you think you’ve identified is only a hard problem if you want to position materialism/naturalism at the centre of the onion. Not only does no-one much do that though, it’s not necessary to establish the epistemic difference between the first layer and the second one.
 
And that’s why the Wiki citation you thought would help you actually blew you out of the water. As you just ignored it, here it is again:

“Assuming naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment, called methodological naturalism.[ The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge based on an assumed paradigm.

Did you notice the “without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment” and the, “The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge based on an assumed paradigm” there?

That’s the point, and that’s where you keep going wrong.

No no no
It isn't about what is the centre of anything Hillside.
It's about turning a methodology into a philosophy.
Take empiricism for example.
It is a philosophy which merely defines the meaningful and the non meaningful according to its philosophical position.
Nothing about centres or layers there.
To suggest that atheists do not have a philosophy for how the universe is is making atheism in your own image.
I would challenge you though to state how you know there isn't a centre or that we can never know a centre. That strikes me as dogmatic agnosticism.
You merely plucked a statement on methodological materialism in Wikipedia and put it in your own context.
Since you are a methodological materialist and I am why do you keep crashing into what I post?
The answer is of course that we disagree philosophically.
.

That doesn't mean you are what you wish us to believe here....ie.......philosophy free

That you think you might be is just arrogant delusion.

How you get from methodological materialism to where you are remains the hard problem of materialism..........and you have an extra one. How you get from science to scientism.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Well, at least I suppose you are consistent - you never answer a question, but always - I presume you think, cleverly - respond in the way you do.

To which I can reply

Well, at least I suppose you are consistent - you never answer a question, but always - I presume you think, cleverly - respond in the way you do.

[wigginhall]

Vlad wrote:

I would challenge you though to state how you know there isn't a centre or that we can never know a centre. That strikes me as dogmatic agnosticism.

It strikes me as connected to Kant, especially the ideas of noumena and phenomena.   We can make observations about the latter but not the former.   In fact, I was taught something like this in post-grad studies - that scientists make observations about appearances, and don't attempt to decide what those appearances actually are.

[Sassy]

That's not comparing like with like.  It is the contention that your truth is valid for everyone that is clearly not borne out by the evidence; it fails to recognise the diversity within human minds.  Most people look for deeper meaning or understanding in life at some point, when they are ready; but not everyone arrives at the same conclusions; it that were the case then humanity would be of a single mind, effectively, but we aren't; there is considerable diversity across time and culture.

You must have missed this post.

So if you use that measure can't you say the same about them and yourself about us? Wouldn't you be calling us liars?

No! it isn't acceptable. Because the bible tells us in Christ teachings about the sower and the seed that not all will bear fruit and will fall away.
So it is not about lying or calling others liars.  We know that Christ has warned all who come to God through him that not all bear fruit.

So the answer is a resounding and clear NO to your suggestion.

The bible explains the outcome of both sides.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

In fact, I was taught something like this in post-grad studies - that scientists make observations about appearances, and don't attempt to decide what those appearances actually are.

Except that an assumption has to be made about the nature of the cause of those appearances. Circularity cannot be avoided here.

[Nearly Sane]

Except that an assumption has to be made about the nature of the cause of those appearances. Circularity cannot be avoided here.

no, it doesn't. You don't understand methodological naturalism.

[ekim]

if it is determined, there is no choice. It will happen the way it happens . my not believing in god(s) is just as determined as Alan's position but he believes that to be some kind of failing. It's an illogical, even if determined, position

Yes, what will happen will happen, but choice could be used in an attempt to influence what happens.  If, for instance, I could be conscious that I had two options to resolve a dispute, where one could be determined by physical aggression (because of the angry revengeful emotional state I am in) and the other determined by reasoned diplomacy (because I did not want bloodshed) then there is the possibility of choice between two determining factors.  Yes, your position is just as determined as Alan's and it may be that yours is determined by logic and intellectual thought and his by emotion like, say, compassion or love.  If this is so then I suspect that he is trying to use a language better suited to logic to explain what is illogical and irrational and which is better suited to poetry and myth.

[wigginhall]

Except that an assumption has to be made about the nature of the cause of those appearances. Circularity cannot be avoided here.

Incorrect.   This is the point of the pragmatism that bluehillside was talking about in his post above.   And this is why Christians can do science, since it doesn't commit them philosophically. 

In fact, noumena are by definition unknowable, although of course, some philosophers have attacked the whole idea;  as far as I can see, Berkeley would say that there cannot be stuff which is not mind-created. 

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, what will happen will happen, but choice could be used in an attempt to influence what happens.  If, for instance, I could be conscious that I had two options to resolve a dispute, where one could be determined by physical aggression (because of the angry revengeful emotional state I am in) and the other determined by reasoned diplomacy (because I did not want bloodshed) then there is the possibility of choice between two determining factors.  Yes, your position is just as determined as Alan's and it may be that yours is determined by logic and intellectual thought and his by emotion like, say, compassion or love.  If this is so then I suspect that he is trying to use a language better suited to logic to explain what is illogical and irrational and which is better suited to poetry and myth.

If determinism applies, there isn't influencing, since any influence is already determined. Alan is making a statement that is logically contradictory. IG he thinks it"s just poetry then that's fine but I see no indication that he does think this.

[Maeght]

No, it's not accepting something that is true.

Nope. As ever there are various meanings of denial. According to the Oxford English Dictionary for example

1[mass noun] The action of denying something:
‘she shook her head in denial’

    1.1[count noun] A statement that something is not true:
    ‘his pious denials of responsibility’

1.2 The refusal of something requested or desired:
‘the denial of insurance to people with certain medical conditions’
1.3 Refusal to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defence mechanism:
‘I was an addict in denial’
1.4
short for self-denial
1.5 Refusal to acknowledge someone as one's leader.

Only 1.3 says that it is not accepting a truth. The others just say not accepting something. If someone says the moon is made of cheese and you say no it isn't and I won't accept what you are saying, then you are denying that the moon is made of cheese.

How can a mistake be a denial?

Because it is about the act of not accepting something and does not imply you know what you are not accepting is true.
Denial just means to not accept something. You can be mistaken in not accepting something. You can be mistaken for not accepting something.

[torridon]

You must have missed this post.

So if you use that measure can't you say the same about them and yourself about us? Wouldn't you be calling us liars?

No! it isn't acceptable. Because the bible tells us in Christ teachings about the sower and the seed that not all will bear fruit and will fall away.
So it is not about lying or calling others liars.  We know that Christ has warned all who come to God through him that not all bear fruit.

So the answer is a resounding and clear NO to your suggestion.

The bible explains the outcome of both sides.

So I think that comes to the same position, just by way of slightly different wording. Alan's contention that "All who seek shall find" is contradicted by the above scripture passage.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope. As ever there are various meanings of denial. According to the Oxford English Dictionary for example

1[mass noun] The action of denying something:
‘she shook her head in denial’

    1.1[count noun] A statement that something is not true:
    ‘his pious denials of responsibility’

1.2 The refusal of something requested or desired:
‘the denial of insurance to people with certain medical conditions’
1.3 Refusal to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defence mechanism:
‘I was an addict in denial’
1.4
short for self-denial
1.5 Refusal to acknowledge someone as one's leader.

Only 1.3 says that it is not accepting a truth. The others just say not accepting something. If someone says the moon is made of cheese and you say no it isn't and I won't accept what you are saying, then you are denying that the moon is made of cheese.

Because it is about the act of not accepting something and does not imply you know what you are not accepting is true.
Denial just means to not accept something. You can be mistaken in not accepting something. You can be mistaken for not accepting something.

the first two definitions are not saying anything about being 'in denial' which was Alan's phrasing. Only 1.3 does