Searching for GOD...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#15398

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.

That may be the case in theory, in intention. It is most certainly not the case in practice! Floo’s post once again:

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!

And that’s the problem!! A statement like that cannot be made unless one is prepared to consider only natural causes and explanations.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But Hillside I have a commitment to methodological materialism and I have made no secret of it.

I know you do - that's why you don't jump out of windows either.

Without the rest of your stuff which you have demonstrated a commitment to..........

There is no more "stuff" - that's your straw man.

People would think YOU were Vlad!

Some of us can only aspire...

[Gordon]

#15398
That may be the case in theory, in intention. It is most certainly not the case in practice! Floo’s post once again:
And that’s the problem!! A statement like that cannot be made unless one is prepared to consider only natural causes and explanations.

Why do you keep quoting unsubstantiated drivel posted by Hope?

[floo]

#15398
That may be the case in theory, in intention. It is most certainly not the case in practice! Floo’s post once again:
And that’s the problem!! A statement like that cannot be made unless one is prepared to consider only natural causes and explanations.

As that is all we have to go on as there is no evidence to substantiate anything else. You certainly haven't come up with any.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

That may be the case in theory, in intention. It is most certainly not the case in practice!

It’s precisely the case in practice. In practice I don’t cross the road with my eyes closed. That’s the only kind of “commitment” my naturalism/materialism entails.

Floo’s post once again:

Again, why are you quoting Floo at me?

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!

And that’s the problem!! A statement like that cannot be made unless one is prepared to consider only natural causes and explanations.

Actually that’s not the problem at all – truth is probabilistic (as is the universe by the way). It would only be the problem if she’d said, “it’s categorically impossible in any circumstance at they were really dead” or some such. It’s the difference between strict epistemic usage and everyday terms.

Again though, if you’re talking to me then why not stick to what I’ve said?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I know you do - that's why you don't jump out of windows either.

There is no more "stuff"

well you would be committed to that... and that would constitute a philosophical commitment.....of empiricism or scientism.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

As that is all we have to go on as there is no evidence to substantiate anything else. You certainly haven't come up with any.

And because of your circular approach, you cannot consider any.

On the one hand, you are claiming lack of evidence as your reason to go with natural-only explanations.
On the other hand, when presented with an example by Hope, you said

They obviously weren't really dead!

So your commitment to natural-only explanations results in you rejecting the claim.

So tell me: How is someone supposed to present anything as evidence when you reject anything that doesn't accord with your naturalistic precommitment?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I know you do - that's why you don't jump out of windows either.

What about people who do?

Hillside's Logic.

He jumped out of the window therefore he was not a methodological materialist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

well you would be committed to that...

Yes.

... and that would constitute a philosophical commitment....

No - that's a non sequitur (proper meaning). The only commitment isa practical one, not a philosophical one - and certainly not the philosophical one you're so desperate to jemmy on to what's actually being said.

..of empiricism or scientism.

Real meanings or your personal re-definitions? Why for example is not crossing the road with your eyes closed putting undue weight on the findings of science (ie scientism)?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

And because of your circular approach, you cannot consider any.

She didn't say that she wouldn't consider any at all. What she said is that there isn't any.

Are you sure you aren't Vlad?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What about people who do?

What about them?

Hillside's Logic.

He jumped out of the window therefore he was not a methodological materialist.

That's weird.

Hillside logic:

He jumped out of the window.

He hit the deck shortly afterwards.

His belief that he could fly was thereby falsified.

The end.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

She didn't say that she wouldn't consider any at all. What she said is that there isn't any.

So if she is saying that there isn't any, she has already made her mind up, so she cannot consider anything as evidence!

She cites lack of evidence, but the deduction (based on a naturalistic precommitment) leads to the conclusion that there is no evidence, the same lack of evidence on which the conclusion is supposedly based. There's your circularity ... again!

[Gordon]

So if she is saying that there isn't any, she has already made her mind up, so she cannot consider anything as evidence!

She cites lack of evidence, but the deduction (based on a naturalistic precommitment) leads to the conclusion that there is no evidence, the same lack of evidence on which the conclusion is supposedly based. There's your circularity ... again!

Nope - how's the method for non-natural stuff?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes.

No - that's a non sequitur (proper meaning). The only commitment isa practical one, not a philosophical one - and certainly not the philosophical one you're so desperate to jemmy on to what's actually being said.

Real meanings or your personal re-definitions? Why for example is not crossing the road with your eyes closed putting undue weight on the findings of science (ie scientism)?

Hillside if philosophical materialism and theism occupy the centre ground or whatever you called it then any mention of them, any attempt to locate them in a non physical space as you did is a philosophical act as is your attempt to identify methodological materialism as the ''next layer''. This falsifies your claim that with you there is methodological materialism and no extra stuff.

That one does not step out of a window is not anything to do with mere methodological materialism since it does not tell you whether you should jump or not. That is to do with the value you put on your life.

So I think we can all see you have a lot of ''stuff'' going on.
So whether you are taking the widdle here or something else is going on i'm afraid I'm going to have to say that you and I are done and I shall have to be giving other people a chance.

Of course none of that need apply in a formal debate setting so until and unless..... then this is ''so long.'' 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - how's the method for non-natural stuff?

see the formal debate on the supernatural.

[Stranger]

So if she is saying that there isn't any, she has already made her mind up, so she cannot consider anything as evidence!

She cites lack of evidence, but the deduction (based on a naturalistic precommitment) leads to the conclusion that there is no evidence, the same lack of evidence on which the conclusion is supposedly based. There's your circularity ... again!

Seriously? You are obsessing with a very silly comment 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.

...and a blunt response to it.

I can only assume your obsession with such a mundane exchange is because you actually haven't got anything more credible to offer...

[Stranger]

Nope - how's the method for non-natural stuff?

see the formal debate on the supernatural.

In which you comprehensively fail to provide such a method...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

So if she is saying that there isn't any, she has already made her mind up, so she cannot consider anything as evidence!

Of course not. All she's saying is that there isn't any. That's it. Really. Nothing more. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

She cites lack of evidence, but the deduction (based on a naturalistic precommitment) leads to the conclusion that there is no evidence, the same lack of evidence on which the conclusion is supposedly based. There's your circularity ... again!

Spectacular nonsense. I just went to look for a biscuit in my larder. There were none there. I had no "pre-commitment" about that of any kind. There is therefore no evidence for biscuits in my larder.

If on the other hand you want me to consider something else to be evidence for biscuits, then by all means explain why that something else is evidence rather than just, say, wishful thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

see the formal debate on the supernatural.


In which you comprehensively fail to provide such a method...

The range of alternatives for how the universe either came about or eternally is was given. None are susceptible to scientific investigation and are therefore supernatural.

That seems to cover everything. Care to disagree without getting into the circularity of scientism?

[Stranger]

The range of alternatives for how the universe either came about or eternally is was given. None are susceptible to scientific investigation and are therefore supernatural.

Yes, you spent some time quibbling about the definition of the word supernatural and then trying to get the unknown origin of the universe (another ill-defined concept) to fit. All semantics, no substance.

More to the point, you totally failed to provide a methodology for "non-natural" claims in general.

That seems to cover everything.

Nowhere near.

Care to disagree without getting into the circularity of scientism?

Straw man.             

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside if philosophical materialism…

You’ll need to tell us what you mean by that term as – as we now know – it’s probably not the same thing as the definition even in the sources you cite.

…and theism occupy the centre ground or whatever you called it then any mention of them,

Theism – or at least its objects are on the outer layer.

…any attempt to locate them in a non physical space as you did is a philosophical act as is your attempt to identify methodological materialism as the ''next layer''.

I know you’re trying to communicate something at least here. Take a deep breath, try to come up with a cogent thought and then try to express it in a comprehensible sentence. Ta.

This falsifies your claim that with you there is methodological materialism and no extra stuff.

Gibberish doesn’t falsify anything. My “claim” as you put it was that materialism provides a working model of reality that serves me well enough without the need to overreach into additional claims of absolute truths. That’s just your straw man again, and I leave that territory to the theists in any case with their “sure and certains” and so on.   

That one does not step out of a window is not anything to do with mere methodological materialism since it does not tell you whether you should jump or not. That is to do with the value you put on your life.

That’s a different conversation entirely, and one that’s nothing to do with what methodological materialism and naturalism actually entail. If you want to divert into a discussion about value judgments though, by all means start a thread on it to avoid derailing this one even more than you have already.

So I think we can all see you have a lot of ''stuff'' going on.

Not in the sense that you posited the claim I haven’t.

So whether you are taking the widdle here or something else is going on i'm afraid I'm going to have to say that you and I are done and I shall have to be giving other people a chance.

A chance for you to lie about their posts too? Well, it’s up to you I guess. If ever you feel like engaging with what I’ve actually said though, by all means give it a go.

Of course none of that need apply in a formal debate setting so until and unless..... then this is ''so long.''

None of what? Your near pathological dishonesty? Thanks but no thanks.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

None are susceptible to scientific investigation and are therefore supernatural.

Just wondering - is that the most egregious non sequitur we've ever had here?

[Gordon]

see the formal debate on the supernatural.

Seen it thanks: now about this method for non-natural stuff, how's it progressing?

[Gordon]

The range of alternatives for how the universe either came about or eternally is was given. None are susceptible to scientific investigation and are therefore supernatural.

That seems to cover everything. Care to disagree without getting into the circularity of scientism?

Candidate for daftest post of the month - possibly of the year. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seen it thanks:

Right....repeat it back to me.