Author Topic: Searching for GOD...  (Read 3870696 times)

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5680
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15025 on: February 15, 2017, 05:54:15 PM »
the first two definitions are not saying anything about being 'in denial' which was Alan's phrasing. Only 1.3 does

In denial does not mean that you know something is true and are lying, it means you won't consider it, you are blocking it out. Deep down you may know it is possibly true but you won't even think about it.

Alan seemd to be suggesting that you wouldn't consider searching for God. I don't think he meant that you know God exists but lie to say God doesn't.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64304
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15026 on: February 15, 2017, 06:05:11 PM »
In denial does not mean that you know something is true and are lying, it means you won't consider it, you are blocking it out. Deep down you may know it is possibly true but you won't even think about it.

Alan seemd to be suggesting that you wouldn't consider searching for God. I don't think he meant that you know God exists but lie to say God doesn't.
No, I disagree. He didn't seem to be suggesting that st all and indeed that makes no sense as an interpretation as he suggests that people are searching by posting on the thread but are in denial that they are doing so.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15027 on: February 15, 2017, 06:22:22 PM »
Vlad,

Quote
No no no

Yes yes yes.

Quote
It isn't about what is the centre of anything Hillside.

It's about turning a methodology into a philosophy.

It’s no such thing – at least it’s not if you want to make that philosophy absolutist in nature. The only “philosophy” that’s necessary here is the reasoning that models of reality can be parochial and still provide working truths, with no necessity for also claiming those truths to be absolute or universal. That kind of overreaching I leave to theists.

Quote
Take empiricism for example.

The real meaning or your personal re-definition of it?

Quote
It is a philosophy which merely defines the meaningful and the non meaningful according to its philosophical position.

It’s no such thing. As you’re so fond of Wiki, here’s what it says it means:

Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism, empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions;[2] empiricists may argue however that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.[3]

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification."[4] One of the epistemological tenets is that sensory experience creates knowledge. Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method.


Now focus on these bits:

“…empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas…”

“Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence…”

"…knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification…"[

“…sensory experience creates knowledge
….”

Do you see the key words there: “emphasizes”; “based on”; "tentative and probabilistic”; “creates knowledge”?

Your need to jemmy a different meaning onto it such that it supposedly reaches for absolute truths may be pathological, but it's still entirely false.

Quote
Nothing about centres or layers there.

It was an analogy which – as so often – seems to have been entirely lost on you.

Quote
To suggest that atheists do not have a philosophy for how the universe is is making atheism in your own image.

Stop lying. A-theism just means “without gods”. “How the universe is” for atheists collectively is just the conclusion that there’s been nothing to observe in it so far at least that leads to the conclusion “god(s)”. Beyond that, there are as many opinions on “the universe” as there are atheists to have them.
 
Quote
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.

Only because you don’t understand those terms.

First, I didn’t say that there isn’t a centre.

Second, there’s no logical path to eliminate the risk of unknown unknowns so we couldn't know that it is the centre, even if we found it. Whether there ever could be such logic is a different matter, but just now that’s the problem for people and gods alike: how would even an omniscient god know that he was omniscient?

Quote
You merely plucked a statement on methodological materialism in Wikipedia and put it in your own context.

No I didn’t. I actually quoted verbatim from the entry on naturalism because you refrenced it, and I showed that it actually says pretty much the opposite of what you claimed it to say. As indeed does the entry on materialism (see above).
 
Quote
Since you are a methodological materialist and I am why do you keep crashing into what I post?

Because what you post consistently lies about what I and others say and think. Stop lying and I won't need to correct you.

Quote
The answer is of course that we disagree philosophically.

No we don’t, because you have no “philosophy” to support you. Mendacity, straw men, logical fallacies etc do not constitute a philosophy, however much you may wish it otherwise.

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

Your efforts are “philosophy free”. As you fail to understand or misrepresent the very terms on which you rely, how could it be otherwise?

Quote
That you think you might be is just arrogant delusion.

You're trying to be ironic right?.

Quote
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.

Of course it doesn’t for the reasons I’ve explained to you several times now. Methodological materialism is complete enough of itself to provide working, pragmatic models of reality. I don’t need to “get from” there to anywhere for that to be so. You on the other hand on the outer layer of the onion with “God” epistemically alongside Ra, Zeus and the leprechauns really do have to get from there to firmer ground if you want your claims and assertions to be taken seriously.

Good luck with it though.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 07:02:32 PM by bluehillside »
"Don't make me come down there."

God

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19469
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15028 on: February 15, 2017, 06:25:51 PM »
Vlad,

Quote
...although I expect either a retraction of many of its elements or for Blue to take a little leave.

Now your'e definitely trying to be ironic right?
"Don't make me come down there."

God

Jack Knave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8690
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15029 on: February 15, 2017, 07:14:40 PM »
In denial does not mean that you know something is true and are lying, it means you won't consider it, you are blocking it out. Deep down you may know it is possibly true but you won't even think about it.

Alan seemd to be suggesting that you wouldn't consider searching for God. I don't think he meant that you know God exists but lie to say God doesn't.
I would have thought the obvious answer to that would be that we have looked into the issue of God and essentially found nothing of note. If there is a God then It would know we were looking and so give us a heavy nudge in the right direction or give us something positive. But many here have found the cupboard bare or more accurately non-existent.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15030 on: February 15, 2017, 07:21:16 PM »
Hillside

Are you starting off with philosophy in your piece or not.
Yes because of your talk of centres and ultimate reality.
None of which is proved. We don't know..............ok but that is dogmatic agnosticism.
How does that lead to "we don't know but we know it isn't God"

So we are to ignore the ultimate reality.  But somehow the next layer is matter and forces.
And we have a pragmatic view........not so. You are as dogmatic a physicalist as it comes. More than that how do you demonstrate your contention that matter and force are a model of reality?...reality.........which you dispensed with at the first layer. It is of course a model of matter and forces. If it is as you say a model of reality a philosophical decision has to be made to say that.

All you are saying or asserting is forget reality. My experiences are more superior than yours.
And why is that?
You can't avoid putting your philosophy higher since you have nothing to raise your model of matter/forces above being a model of matter/forces.

Your problem here is of course is your use of the word experience and your use of the word reality as equating matter/force. With the former your invalidation of religious experience draws on the very philosophical position you deny you hold.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 07:41:40 PM by Emergence-The musical »

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15031 on: February 15, 2017, 07:30:42 PM »
I would have thought the obvious answer to that would be that we have looked into the issue of God and essentially found nothing of note. If there is a God then It would know we were looking and so give us a heavy nudge in the right direction or give us something positive. But many here have found the cupboard bare or more accurately non-existent.
I didn't.

Jack Knave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8690
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15032 on: February 15, 2017, 07:38:00 PM »
I didn't.
So where was this cupboard of yours? How did you know it was real? And what was in it?

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15033 on: February 15, 2017, 07:48:02 PM »
How does that lead to "we don't know but we know it isn't God"

Who do you think takes this view?
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15034 on: February 15, 2017, 07:49:25 PM »
So where was this cupboard of yours? How did you know it was real? And what was in it?
Here are some pointers.
The circularity of materialism/ physicalism
The arbitrary limits of naturalism,
The moral argument
Existentialism

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15035 on: February 15, 2017, 07:52:23 PM »
Who do you think takes this view?
Well Shaker at least would own up to it.
Of course how can you allow even a maybe there is a God since further thought would be promoted by that.....or the philosophical decision to blank such an imperative.

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5680
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15036 on: February 15, 2017, 07:56:59 PM »
No, I disagree. He didn't seem to be suggesting that st all and indeed that makes no sense as an interpretation as he suggests that people are searching by posting on the thread but are in denial that they are doing so.

Okay.

Alan, what did you mean?

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5680
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15037 on: February 15, 2017, 07:58:48 PM »
I would have thought the obvious answer to that would be that we have looked into the issue of God and essentially found nothing of note. If there is a God then It would know we were looking and so give us a heavy nudge in the right direction or give us something positive. But many here have found the cupboard bare or more accurately non-existent.

Not sure I asked a question - and if I did I think you've answered a different one anyway.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15038 on: February 15, 2017, 08:00:44 PM »


Of course it doesn’t for the reasons I’ve explained to you several times now. Methodological materialism is complete enough of itself to provide working, pragmatic models of reality.
Game set and match to me.

As I may or may not have explained to before...You are of the Rene Artois school of Debate......when your argument is caught with it's trousers down just shout ''you stoopid woman'' vey loudly.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 08:13:43 PM by Emergence-The musical »

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15039 on: February 15, 2017, 08:09:05 PM »
Well Shaker at least would own up to it.

That (even if true) is rather irrelevant to the recent discussion here.

Of course how can you allow even a maybe there is a God since further thought would be promoted by that.....or the philosophical decision to blank such an imperative.

The point is that god might be true, or more accurately one or more of the countless number of gods that humans believe, or have believed in, might be true - but nobody has yet produced an argument, or any evidence, that would make any one (or more) of them more likely to be true than any other evidence and rationality free story.

Not being falsifiable is not, in itself, a reason to give anything further thought. No need for any philosophical decision to blank anything.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15040 on: February 15, 2017, 08:16:45 PM »
That (even if true) is rather irrelevant to the recent discussion here.

The point is that god might be true, or more accurately one or more of the countless number of gods that humans believe, or have believed in, might be true - but nobody has yet produced an argument, or any evidence, that would make any one (or more) of them more likely to be true than any other evidence and rationality free story.

Not being falsifiable is not, in itself, a reason to give anything further thought. No need for any philosophical decision to blank anything.
It is true and it is relevant to your question ''who around here says that?''

Ok .....you have decided God may be true. Where are you going to go from here?
Take the philosophical step of equating God with Leprechauns perhaps?

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15041 on: February 15, 2017, 08:17:36 PM »
Of course it doesn’t for the reasons I’ve explained to you several times now. Methodological materialism is complete enough of itself to provide working, pragmatic models of reality.
Game set and match to me.

Guess you must have missed the "working, pragmatic models of..." eh? You really don't do yourself any favours...
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15042 on: February 15, 2017, 08:24:06 PM »


Not being falsifiable is not, in itself, a reason to give anything further thought. No need for any philosophical decision to blank anything.
But it is no longer a question of falsifiability. It is a question of you deciding that God might be real and what your next step is.

If you are not going to give the matter further thought that is another philosophical decision.....

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15043 on: February 15, 2017, 08:26:56 PM »
Game set and match to me.


Guess you must have missed the "working, pragmatic models of..." eh? You really don't do yourself any favours...
Guess you missed the ''reality'' bit.....oh....You did.

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15044 on: February 15, 2017, 08:36:06 PM »
It is true and it is relevant to your question ''who around here says that?''

Shaker hasn't been part of the discussion recently and I'm not taking your word for his position.

Ok .....you have decided God may be true. Where are you going to go from here?

As I explained - not being falsifiable is not a reason to give anything further thought.

Take the philosophical step of equating God with Leprechauns perhaps?

That isn't a philosophical step. It is noting a practical reality: there is exactly the same amount of reasoned argument and objective evidence for leprechauns as there is for any of the many gods on offer. Hence the conclusion above.

But it is no longer a question of falsifiability. It is a question of you deciding that God might be real and what your next step is.

Might be real is identical to not falsifiable.

If you are not going to give the matter further thought that is another philosophical decision.....

Drivel. Why should the god claims be taken seriously (as opposed to any of the other unfalsifiable stories)?
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15045 on: February 15, 2017, 08:39:55 PM »
Guess you missed the ''reality'' bit.....oh....You did.

"Working, pragmatic models of reality" does not mean "reality".

 ::)
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15046 on: February 15, 2017, 08:50:43 PM »
Shaker hasn't been part of the discussion recently and I'm not taking your word for his position.

As I explained - not being falsifiable is not a reason to give anything further thought.

That isn't a philosophical step. It is noting a practical reality: there is exactly the same amount of reasoned argument and objective evidence for leprechauns as there is for any of the many gods on offer. Hence the conclusion above.

Might be real is identical to not falsifiable.

Drivel. Why should the god claims be taken seriously (as opposed to any of the other unfalsifiable stories)?
I think you are confusing ''unfalsifiable'' with ''completely ridiculous'' here.

Again several philosophical steps have been taken here particularly the choice to equate matter/force with the words adequate and reality as Hillside has done.

I would move that you have evaded other lines of thought, again based on philosophical choices. And inescapably philosophical naturalism.

Leprechauns may exist. Next step, so what? or that may impact on me.
God may exist Next step, so what....That may impact on me.

If you think these are invalid responses you need to demonstrate why...and how the choice to believe that is not in itself philosophical naturalism.

Again Bluehillsides problem comes with the use of the idea that methodological materialism is an adequate view of reality. Something methodological naturalism doesn't actually provide evidence for.......and you, by virtue of the location of your nose have been dragged along with him.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15047 on: February 15, 2017, 08:52:59 PM »
"Working, pragmatic models of reality" does not mean "reality".

 ::)
Hint.....it is the use of the words adequate and reality.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33187
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15048 on: February 15, 2017, 09:08:12 PM »

 there is exactly the same amount of reasoned argument and objective evidence for leprechauns as there is for any of the many gods on offer.
Show your working.

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8236
  • Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #15049 on: February 15, 2017, 09:13:36 PM »
I think you are confusing "unfalsifiable" with "completely ridiculous" here.

No, I am equating "not falsifiable with no supporting reasoning or evidence" with "not worth taking seriously".

Again several philosophical steps have been taken here particularly the choice to equate matter/force with the words adequate and reality as Hillside has done.

I never even mentioned matter and force...

I would move that you have evaded other lines of thought, again based on philosophical choices. And inescapably philosophical naturalism.

I am so not interested in your movements.

Leprechauns may exist. Next step, so what? or that may impact on me.
God may exist Next step, so what....That may impact on me.

If the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure and somebody claims they can avert the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief, that might impact me too (and it has exactly the same amount of supporting evidence and reasoned arguments as the many god claims).

If you think these are invalid responses you need to demonstrate why...and how the choice to believe that is not in itself philosophical naturalism.

See above. Baseless stories are baseless stories - even if they might impact on me. No need to consult any sort of philosophy.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))