Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

it also means that any statemeny made about their god is meaningless

That's an old saw of mine (Saw IV?): even if you were persuaded by the cosmological argument or some such of the need for a god, on what possible basis would you be able to say anything about that god unless you also claimed to know what "He" really thought?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Who are we to question why God does things the way He does?  I humbly submit that my human brain is no match for God's wisdom.

You may as well hoist the white flag now, Alan - with this you've confirmed that your personal incredulity is such that it places you outside the scope of any rational discussion.

Totally missing the point here ...

You are not asking the question to elicit information, to try and learn. If you were, it may even dawn on you that you could ask God yourself if you're so interested in the answer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

Ah the defence of theists through the ages when the critical mass of the contradictions in their claims".

When was this and what happened?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

You may as well hoist the white flag now, Alan - with this you've confirmed that your personal incredulity is such that it places you outside the scope of any rational discussion.

To be fair to Alan, I'm pretty sure he's been outside the scope of rational discussion from the get go.

[Nearly Sane]

Totally missing the point here ...

You are not asking the question to elicit information, to try and learn. If you were, it may even dawn on you that you could ask God yourself if you're so interested in the answer.

But Alan has  stated any answer would be incomprehensible in any sense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

You are not asking the question to elicit information, to try and learn. If you were, it may even dawn on you that you could ask God yourself if you're so interested in the answer.

He didn't ask a question.

How's that boning up on what "circular reasoning" means coming along by the way?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

How's that boning up on what "circular reasoning" means coming along by the way?

Are you still holding to the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable ?

Tell me: If this is your hypothesis, how is it falsified?

[Gordon]

Totally missing the point here ...

You are not asking the question to elicit information, to try and learn. If you were, it may even dawn on you that you could ask God yourself if you're so interested in the answer.

Don't be silly: I didn't ask a question and simply noted Alan's fallacious reasoning.

In any event Alan's approach implies (for the sake of argument) that I couldn't ever comprehend any answer from 'God'.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

But Alan has  stated any answer would be incomprehensible in any sense.

No, he didn't. He said

Who are we to question why God does things the way He does?

As opposed to asking the question Why. The two are not the same.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Are you still holding to the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable ?

Tell me: If this is your hypothesis, how is it falsified?

How on earth is that relevant to the question, "How's that boning up on what "circular reasoning" means coming along by the way?"

Oh, and you don't understand the concept of falsification either by the way. The statement, "there's no cogent evidence we know of for leprechauns" for example would not require an investigation of every statement ever made to be functionally true. The clue is the "that we know of" bit.   

[Nearly Sane]

No, he didn't. He said
As opposed to asking the question Why[/u]. The two are not the same.

And he added  ' I humbly submit that my human brain is no match for God's wisdom' but you dishonestly quote mined and left that out. Why did you lie in this way?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

No, he didn't. He said

"Who are we to question why God does things the way He does?"

As opposed to asking the question Why[/u]. The two are not the same.

Here's the bit you just chopped out restored to what he actually said:

Who are we to question why God does things the way He does?  I humbly submit that my human brain is no match for God's wisdom.

You're welcome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

Ah the defence of theists through the ages when the critical mass of the contradictions in their claims makes even the most convoluted of defences impossible: "It's a mystery innit".

Aren't you just projecting ''contradiction of claim'', something which happens to all sorts of people, onto theists? I think I read a sociological study critical about the traits of the new Atheists and their theist detractors which identified projection by New atheists onto theists of any characteristics they didn't like. Hence people in dictatorships show ''religious fervour'', Stalin shows his seminary attitudes, Hitler was a typical Christian etc.
Unfortunately I read this book in a library in Kent so I shan't be whipping back there in a hurry ...and certainly not before some twat has had the opportunity of making an arse of themselves by accusing me of lying.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

How on earth is that relevant to the question, "How's that boning up on what "circular reasoning" means coming along by the way?"

It's a simple question bluehillside...

Are you still holding to the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable ?

If you are, you have to assume that whatever you are applying this framework to has a natural explanation, therefore your approach is circular. More so, because, given the opportunity to state how it is falsifiable, you can't (or won't).

So, once again it is evident that you are requiring from theists what you are unable to do yourself.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

And he added  ' I humbly submit that my human brain is no match for God's wisdom' but you dishonestly quote mined and left that out. Why did you lie in this way?

No dishonesty or lying. In fact, someone with that approach is more likely to ask God why, rather than try and presume that they know better.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

It's a simple question bluehillside...

No, it's a simple avoidance (that you've just repeated). What does this kind of dishonesty say about you do you think?

Are you still holding to the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable ?

If you are, you have to assume that whatever you are applying this framework to has a natural explanation, therefore your approach is circular. More so, because, given the opportunity to state how it is falsifiable, you can't (or won't).

So, once again it is evident that you are requiring from theists what you are unable to do yourself.

You really don't have the first clue about this kind of thing do you.

There is no such "assumption" - if you think there's a non-natural means of investigation then tell us what it is. I'd be perfectly open to it if you did. If on the other hand you think that "investigation" is itself a purely naturalistic concept, then you'll just have landed yourself with the problem of explaining how anyone should distinguish claims of the non-natural from white noise.

Feel free to try again once you've got a handle on the basics though. As you know, I'm here to help. 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

Here's the bit you just chopped out restored to what he actually said:

Who are we to question why God does things the way He does?  I humbly submit that my human brain is no match for God's wisdom.

You're welcome.

Unfortunately for you, Alan Burns didn't say

Who are we to ask the question why God does things the way He does? I humbly submit that my human brain is no match for God's wisdom

He did say

Who are we to question why God does things the way He does?  I humbly submit that my human brain is no match for God's wisdom.

i.e. who are we to presume that we know better than God? Someone who humbly submit that my human brain is no match for God's wisdom is not precluded from asking with a view to learn more. In fact, the humility demonstrated, along with its result is more likely to get somewhere!

[Nearly Sane]

No dishonesty or lying. In fact, someone with that approach is more likely to ask God why, rather than try and presume that they know better.

You quotemined, you lied

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Aren't you just projecting ''contradiction of claim'', something which happens to all sorts of people, onto theists?

No. Lots of dogmatic beliefs are inherently contradictory, not just religious ones.

I think I read a sociological study critical about the traits of the new Atheists and their theist detractors which identified projection by New atheists onto theists of any characteristics they didn't like. Hence people in dictatorships show ''religious fervour'', Stalin shows his seminary attitudes, Hitler was a typical Christian etc.

Unfortunately I read this book in a library in Kent so I shan't be whipping back there in a hurry ...and certainly not before some twat has had the opportunity of making an arse of themselves by accusing me of lying.

Well you don’t have to be a “twat” to identify your lying, but in my experience the references to Hitler/Stalin and religiosity tend to be in response to the stupidity of the “look where atheism leads” line. Stalin for example was no more a monster in his later life because he was an atheist than because he was a theist in his earlier one.

Anyway, none of that has anything to do with the use of the get out of jail free card of “it’s a mystery” when, say, the problem of a beneficent god and babies dying of cancer comes up.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

No, it's a simple avoidance (that you've just repeated).

No, the avoidance is on your part. If you want to hold to the claim

the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable.

fine if it is applied to things it is appropriate for. However, if it is going to be applied to everything (including any non-natural claims), then by your own scientific standards, it should be falsifiable.

What you do however is get round stating how your position is falsifiable by shifting the responsibility on to others to come up with it, which then allows you to just sit back and state why you think they are wrong without ever having to justify your own position.

[Gordon]

No, the avoidance is on your part. If you want to hold to the claim

the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable.

fine if it is applied to things it is appropriate for. However, if it is going to be applied to everything (including any non-natural claims), then by your own scientific standards, it should be falsifiable.

What you do however is get round stating how your position is falsifiable by shifting the responsibility on to others to come up with it, which then allows you to just sit back and state why you think they are wrong without ever having to justify your own position.

It seems you really struggle with anything remotely philosophical.

Your 'However, if it is going to be applied to everything (including any non-natural claims), then by your own scientific standards, it should be falsifiable' is an example of your fallacious muddled thinking since it includes a straw man: nobody is proposing that methods appropriate to methodological naturalism are applicable to non-natural claims. It is certainly the case that a specific naturalistic claim may be falsified by new and conflicting naturalistic evidence (the emergence of germ theory being a good example) so it is axiomatic that the naturalistic methods apply only to naturalistic phenomena - being those that are amenable to investigation using these methods.

Indeed it has been frequently asked of theists such as yourself to provide a method (and all that this would entail) that would be suited to whatever this 'non-natural' allegedly is, but so far none has been offered. Even if you did though this wouldn't falsify methodological naturalism since you'd have produced a entirely separate methodology that would be suited to phenomena that was out-of-scope for methodological naturalism - so you'd have 'methodological super-naturalism', which as things stand sounds like an oxymoron until such times as you guys put your method where your mouth is.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It seems you really struggle with anything remotely philosophical.

Your 'However, if it is going to be applied to everything (including any non-natural claims), then by your own scientific standards, it should be falsifiable' is an example of your fallacious muddled thinking since it includes a straw man: nobody is proposing that methods appropriate to methodological naturalism are applicable to non-natural claims. It is certainly the case that a specific naturalistic claim may be falsified by new and conflicting naturalistic evidence (the emergence of germ theory being a good example) so it is axiomatic that the naturalistic methods apply only to naturalistic phenomena - being those that are amenable to investigation using these methods.

Indeed it has been frequently asked of theists such as yourself to provide a method (and all that this would entail) that would be suited to whatever this 'non-natural' allegedly is, but so far none has been offered. Even if you did though this wouldn't falsify methodological naturalism since you'd have produced a entirely separate methodology that would be suited to phenomena that was out-of-scope for methodological naturalism - so you'd have 'methodological super-naturalism', which as things stand sounds like an oxymoron until such times as you guys put your method where your mouth is.

You could have just said there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.
There was I believe though some argument from Hillside to say that methodological materialism was a ''valid, pragmatic model for reality.'' I seem to recall that you and others pushed the boat out to defend him in what looks like a tricky attempt at gussying up a methodology into a philosophy and hoping we wouldn't notice.
 

[Nearly Sane]

You could have just said there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.
There was I believe though some argument from Hillside to say that methodological materialism was a ''valid, pragmatic model for reality.'' I seem to recall that you and others pushed the boat out to defend him in what looks like a tricky attempt at gussying up a methodology into a philosophy and hoping we wouldn't notice.
 

Lying again

[Gordon]

You could have just said there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.

I could, but I didn't - but then you knew that!

There was I believe though some argument from Hillside to say that methodological materialism was a ''valid, pragmatic model for reality.'' I seem to recall that you and others pushed the boat out to defend him in what looks like a tricky attempt at gussying up a methodology into a philosophy and hoping we wouldn't notice.

What you 'believe' and 'recall' isn't, given previous experience, necessarily reliable.

[Alan Burns]

    Who are we to question why God does things the way He does?  I humbly submit that my human brain is no match for God's wisdom.

Ah the defence of theists through the ages when the critical mass of the contradictions in their claims makes even the most convoluted of defences impossible: "It's a mystery innit".

No doubt when you meet God you can tell Him where He went wrong and how He should have done things.