Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I fully understand what I am being asked, and I fully realise that my answer can't be accepted by non believers rational thinkers.

Fixed it for you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No, I am in no way suggesting that others are lying, but I do believe they are genuinely deluded by the nature of our increasingly secular society.  I am trying to help people see through the veils of deception which separate us from the love of God.

What makes you think that making logically false arguments will help people "see through" anything?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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.

Just by way of a reminder, I've told you already that I won't reply to you when you're lying. It's "model of reality", and there is no further "philosophy" required as you suggest.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just by way of a reminder, I've told you already that I won't reply to you when you're lying. It's "model of reality", and there is no further "philosophy" required as you suggest.

Hillside
I believe I have declared elsewhere that I will now only debate in the controlled environment of the formal debate board. So like others I am only here to assert and question.
If you feel there is an issue that you can debate with me in a controlled environment I would be happy to consider it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I believe I have declared elsewhere that I will now only debate in the controlled environment of the formal debate board. So like others I am only here to assert and question.
If you feel there is an issue that you can debate with me in a controlled environment I would be happy to consider it.

Well, you're here to assert all right. To what purpose though?

As for questioning, just out of interest what makes you think it's appropriate to question other people here (presumably in the expectation of some answers) but to refuse to answer questions they put to you in return?

I'm happy to debate with anyone by the way, but debate is impossible when one side is dishonest. If you can stop lying, I don't care much where the debate happens.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Vlad,

Just by way of a reminder, I've told you already that I won't reply to you when you're lying. It's "model of reality", and there is no further "philosophy" required as you suggest.

The model of reality may be the theoretical position, the philosophy behind it is what is seen in practice. It's the same with your claim

Just now though, all "we" know of that can be reliably accessed and investigated is the natural.

The implementation isn't consistent with this:

The "falsification" of that statement would be finding something other than the natural that could be reliably accessed and investigated.

As the reliably accessed and investigated assumes natural causes and explanations. This is what makes the whole approach circular.

One example: Floo on the Tomb of Jesus being opened thread:

Sadly, for both Floo and yourself, Walter, there are a number of examples where people have been pronounced dead on the evidence of modern medical equipment, but returned to life same time later.  This alone suggests that the 'As it isn't credible ...' argument is open to debate.

They obviously weren't really dead!

So when Vlad talks about the philosophy, one aspect of this is a commitment to natural-only causes and explanations. As this is neither proven or falsifiable, any implementation of it has to be circular.

[Gordon]

Sword

Odd that you quote Hope on that thread since he was roundly trounced as it progressed.

How the 'methodological supernaturalism' coming along?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Well, you're here to assert all right. To what purpose though?

As for questioning, just out of interest what makes you think it's appropriate to question other people here (presumably in the expectation of some answers) but to refuse to answer questions they put to you in return?

I'm happy to debate with anyone by the way, but debate is impossible when one side is dishonest. If you can stop lying, I don't care much where the debate happens.

Since a debate depends of a vote of confidence in propositions by other people the question of lying is non sequitur to whether to debate or not

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword

Odd that you quote Hope on that thread since he was roundly trounced as it progressed.

How the 'methodological supernaturalism' coming along?

It actually came along quite well. See formal debate section on the supernatural.

[Stranger]

As the reliably accessed and investigated assumes natural causes and explanations.

No, it doesn't. That is, unless you are admitting that only the 'natural' can be reliably accessed and investigated. If you are, then you are also admitting that we have no way to distinguish "non-natural" claims from fiction, guesses, mistakes, deception, or wishful thinking.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

The model of reality may be the theoretical position, the philosophy behind it is what is seen in practice. It's the same with your claim

Just now though, all "we" know of that can be reliably accessed and investigated is the natural.

Nope with sprinkles on. The only “theoretical” bit is the axioms on which naturalism rests – that we exist at all, that the world wasn’t created last Thursday etc. Beyond that though, it’s just practical inter-subjective experience. You and I will each hit the deck shortly afterwards if we jump out of the same window, so we agree on that that model of reality. 

The implementation isn't consistent with this:

The "falsification" of that statement would be finding something other than the natural that could be reliably accessed and investigated.

Of course it is. If you can do that, then I’ll change my model of reality.

It’s simple enough isn’t it?

As the reliably accessed and investigated assumes natural causes and explanations. This is what makes the whole approach circular.

It does no such thing, and you still don’t understand what “circular reasoning” means. All it assumes is some basic axioms, but if ever you could come up with a means reliably to access and investigate what you call the “non-natural” then I’d be perfectly open to changing my model of reality. That in other words would be the test that falsified my current model.

One example: Floo on the Tomb of Jesus being opened thread:

Quote from: Hope

Sadly, for both Floo and yourself, Walter, there are a number of examples where people have been pronounced dead on the evidence of modern medical equipment, but returned to life same time later.  This alone suggests that the 'As it isn't credible ...' argument is open to debate.
Quote from: Floo

They obviously weren't really dead!

No idea why you’re quoting Floo at me. If you want to have that discussion though, I suggest you take it up with her on the relevant thread.

So when Vlad talks about the philosophy, one aspect of this is a commitment to natural-only causes and explanations.

It probably would be if anyone actually had such a “commitment”, yes. Has anyone said they have?

As this is neither proven or falsifiable, any implementation of it has to be circular.

That’s still not what “circular”, means but if you’re trying to say it would be an unverifiable assertion then yes it would. As I understand it that’s what people called “physicalists” do, but not materialists or naturalists. As you’ve referenced Vlad, amusingly he insisted on using Wiki for his authority on naturalism and materialism meaning the absolutist position of physicalism, only to find that they actually mean pretty much the opposite of that. I quoted the relevant bits verbatim a while back if you can be bothered to look for them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since a debate depends of a vote of confidence in propositions by other people the question of lying is non sequitur to whether to debate or not.............or are you not prepared to do anything for the benefit of any other propositions other than your own for fear that they may get an airing?

If there is a cogent thought in there somewhere, could you at least try to express it in a comprehensible sentence please?

Ta.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If there is a cogent thought in there somewhere, could you at least try to express it in a comprehensible sentence please?

Ta.

Since formal debate involves a vote of confidence in one set of propositions over another any question of lying is non sequitur to the question of whether or not to debate.

Proposition of more correct points and demonstrating incorrectness on the part of someone else is part of debate.

So, ready when you are!

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Would you though. What about telepathy, what about the akashic record, what about Derren Brown?

if it turned out that Alan got it right because of telepathy that would be still be world breaking news.

So yes, I would take a correct answer to mean something very significant was going on that required my immediate attention.

He seems reluctant to take the challenge though. I wonder why that might be?

[Nearly Sane]

if it turned out that Alan got it right because of telepathy that would be still be world breaking news.

So yes, I would take a correct answer to mean something very significant was going on that required my immediate attention.

He seems reluctant to take the challenge though. I wonder why that might be?

I am with Vlad here. All that such stuff can get you to is another I Don't Know. It's the same problem I have with the Randi million for supernatural occurrences. How do you establish a supernatural cause rather than just say, sufficiently advanced aliens?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Also theologically speaking it would be a miracle and they as a rule aren't just russelled up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I am with Vlad here. All that such stuff can get you to is another I Don't Know. It's the same problem I have with the Randi million for supernatural occurrences. How do you establish a supernatural cause rather than just say, sufficiently advanced aliens?

I'd have thought the Randi Foundation would cough up even if it was aliens wouldn't they?

[floo]

The model of reality may be the theoretical position, the philosophy behind it is what is seen in practice. It's the same with your claim

Just now though, all "we" know of that can be reliably accessed and investigated is the natural.

The implementation isn't consistent with this:
As the reliably accessed and investigated assumes natural causes and explanations. This is what makes the whole approach circular.

One example: Floo on the Tomb of Jesus being opened thread:

So when Vlad talks about the philosophy, one aspect of this is a commitment to natural-only causes and explanations. As this is neither proven or falsifiable, any implementation of it has to be circular.

Sword your posts appear to show you are very confused when it comes to matters of faith!

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I'd have thought the Randi Foundation would cough up even if it was aliens wouldn't they?

Since the prize is for the supernatural or paranormal, i wouldn"t have thought aliens qualify

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Since the prize is for the supernatural or paranormal, i wouldn"t have thought aliens qualify

Dunno. As I've never heard a coherent definition of either term I guess you could populate that space with anything you like (as indeed theists often do). I take the point though: how would the Committee know that the phenomenon wasn't actually natural, only super advanced.

[Stranger]

I am with Vlad here. All that such stuff can get you to is another I Don't Know.

Strictly speaking, you are correct - but as Stephen says, it would certainly make everybody take notice. Further, if we only got reliable answers from Christians, who said it was their god who told them, that would be good evidence that they were in contact with something other than their own imaginations. Something that could definitely do extraordinary things.

But no, if their god is real, it is so shy it won't give us enough solid evidence to distinguish it from an imaginary friend...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

So when Vlad talks about the philosophy, one aspect of this is a commitment to natural-only causes and explanations.

Incidentally, this kind of daftness is why I thought you were Vlad a while back – he too relies on exactly the same falsehood for his position. There is of course no “commitment” at all in methodological naturalism. I may be committed to not crossing the road with my eyes closed for example, but there’s no commitment to relating that model of reality to some idea of the absolute.

To continue with an analogy I made earlier (albeit one lost on Vlad), any commitment I may have is entirely confined to the first layer of the onion and is indifferent to what may be at the centre of it (ie, the philosophical bit). 

I think he (and now presumably you too) do it because you have to create the straw man in order to demolish it: “Look at those naturalists/materialists – they have to rely on a philosophical commitment to validate their position, but that’s circular. Schmucks!” etc because unless you jemmy that onto what we actually say your position collapses.

Odd behaviour though.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I am with Vlad here. All that such stuff can get you to is another I Don't Know. It's the same problem I have with the Randi million for supernatural occurrences. How do you establish a supernatural cause rather than just say, sufficiently advanced aliens?

I'll comment on the Randi challenge first. As far as I remember you don't have to establish a supernatural cause i.e. predicting the outcome of a coin toss better than chance under agreed controlled conditions would win. I could have remembered incorrectly though.

On the other point, I'm not saying that it would demonstrate the existence of the Alan's God, as you say it could be due to other matters. If he did get the number correct thought it would seriously make me think that he has something to say that is very much worth listening to. It would certainly be far more convincing than the "arguments" he has deployed so far.

[Nearly Sane]

Agreed that the Randi challenge doesn't ask for a supernatural cause to be demonstrated, but it assumes it by the lack of explanation which is a category mistake. Things that aren't explained are no indication of the claim and are only being investigated by methodologies that are based on an assumption of naturalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

Incidentally, this kind of daftness is why I thought you were Vlad a while back – he too relies on exactly the same falsehood for his position. There is of course no “commitment” at all in methodological naturalism. I may be committed to not crossing the road with my eyes closed for example, but there’s no commitment to relating that model of reality to some idea of the absolute.

To continue with an analogy I made earlier (albeit one lost on Vlad), any commitment I may have is entirely confined to the first layer of the onion and is indifferent to what may be at the centre of it (ie, the philosophical bit). 

I think he (and now presumably you too) do it because you have to create the straw man in order to demolish it: “Look at those naturalists/materialists – they have to rely on a philosophical commitment to validate their position, but that’s circular. Schmucks!” etc because unless you jemmy that onto what we actually say your position collapses.

Odd behaviour though.

But Hillside I have a commitment to methodological materialism and I have made no secret of it.
Without the rest of your stuff which you have demonstrated a commitment to..........
People would think YOU were Vlad!