Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

What about yours?

[Gordon]

Right....repeat it back to me.

No thanks - I'm assuming you can still read.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No thanks - I'm assuming you can still read.

Then you can successfully argue against it then?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

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

Aw come on now – I’ve been asking him that for years and he’s always run away from it. What on earth makes you think he’d finally step up now?

So far as I can see, Vlad and Sword are following the same path:

1. You’re committed only to naturalistic evidence

2. This excludes a priori the possibility of non-naturalistic evidence

3. Therefore you’re wrong

Trouble is though:

Item 1 isn’t true

Item 2 would require them to produce something that is in any meaningful sense evidence rather than bad reasoning (see Alan Burns), wishful thinking etc. A useful test here would be to eliminate as evidence anything that worked just as well for leprechauns

Item 3 is therefore another non sequitur

Apart from that though…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Picking up on an earlier point, why do people raise unknown unknown as a defence in an argument as to whether there is a God or not.

Surely that's at most a known unknown within a philosophical materialist context.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Picking up on an earlier point, why do people raise unknown unknown as a defence in an argument as to whether there is a God or not.

Surely that's at most a known unknown within a philosophical materialist context.

They don't.

Leaving aside whether "God" can be a "known" unknown given the incoherence of the claim, what "they" actually do is to use the construction in respect of the arguments for this "God". I've never seen an argument for "God" that isn't hopeless. I have though no means to eliminate the possibility that an argument could one day be made that is cogent. As I have no idea what that argument could be, it's content would be an unknown unknown.

That's why I have to allow for the possibility at least that "God" and leprechauns alike could be. 

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

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.

I agree that there is the risk that if someone did past the test then that would seem to imply that Randi accepted that the supernatural existed. I think that it is not really about that though. It's a put your money where your mouth is challenge.

So if someone said that they could 100% predict the outcome of a coin toss because God told them the outcome and then they did 100% predict the net 50 coin tosses the Randi would have to pay out. However, whether or not Randi would then accept that is was God that told them is something you would have to ask him.

It would be very remarkable though, whatever the cause, and an indicator that something worth serious investigation was going on.

[Nearly Sane]

Except it was when it existed referred to as a paranormal challenge so in it's own specification of is looking at non naturalistic causes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Ed'A,

So if someone said that they could 100% predict the outcome of a coin toss because God told them the outcome and then they did 100% predict the net 50 coin tosses the Randi would have to pay out. However, whether or not Randi would then accept that is was God that told them is something you would have to ask him.

Unless of course that someone was the Baltimore stockbroker:

http://www.adamsfinancialconcepts.com/index.php?option=com_zoo&task=item&item_id=82&Itemid=143

[Maeght]

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

But you don't answer thequestion being asked - which is it what is the basis on which a free will choice is made if it is neither random or predetermined?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Except it was when it existed referred to as a paranormal challenge so in it's own specification of is looking at non naturalistic causes.

No I don't think so.

It might well have been called that and I agree that it was probably incorrectly called that. However, lots of the applicants, that were tested, didn't claim to have paranormal powers. The best example is dowsers, Randi doesn't think they do anything paranormal and neither do most of them. To them it is perfectly natural.

It probably should have been called the "Extraordinary Claims" challenge.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Ed'A,

Unless of course that someone was the Baltimore stockbroker:

http://www.adamsfinancialconcepts.com/index.php?option=com_zoo&task=item&item_id=82&Itemid=143

That, of course, is the whole point of the challenge. When people make extraordinary claims they are required to demonstrate them under agreed controlled conditions. So if the Baltimore stockbroker did work in the way suggested in the article he would fail any such controlled test.

[SusanDoris]

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.

In fact the  million dollar prize was withdrawn a while back; JREF ia now IS (International Skeptics). 

[Nearly Sane]

No I don't think so.

It might well have been called that and I agree that it was probably incorrectly called that. However, lots of the applicants, that were tested, didn't claim to have paranormal powers. The best example is dowsers, Randi doesn't think they do anything paranormal and neither do most of them. To them it is perfectly natural.

It probably should have been called the "Extraordinary Claims" challenge.

But what would be 'extraordinary' then? Usain Bolt running the 100 metres in 9.59 seconds is extraordinary but completely natural. I doubt they would have given him the money for that. So calling it Paranormal was surely deliberate and for a reason?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

But what would be 'extraordinary' then? Usain Bolt running the 100 metres in 9.59 seconds is extraordinary but completely natural. I doubt they would have given him the money for that. So calling it Paranormal was surely deliberate and for a reason?

It's wasn't my challenge so I can't answer for Randi. However, there was a forum where applicants could state their claims. It was then up to the foundation whether or not they thought it was worthy of the challenge.

So 9.59 probably wouldn't be eligible but a claim or 0.0000001 second probably would be. Where the dividing line was I can't say.

[Nearly Sane]

It's wasn't my challenge so I can't answer for Randi. However, there was a forum where applicants could state their claims. It was then up to the foundation whether or not they thought it was worthy of the challenge.

So 9.59 probably wouldn't be eligible but a claim or 0.0000001 second probably would be. Where the dividing line was I can't say.

Not asking you to answer for it, just discuss it. The whole problem here is that it's placed in a context of naturalism, there is an assumption there. Note I don't think this gives any benefit to those making extraordinary claims - but if evidence is defined naturalistically it is foolish to use it for non naturalistic claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

EdA',

That, of course, is the whole point of the challenge. When people make extraordinary claims they are required to demonstrate them under agreed controlled conditions. So if the Baltimore stockbroker did work in the way suggested in the article he would fail any such controlled test.

I was kidding about the Baltimore stockbroker. Mind you, in the 70s Uri Geller managed to fool some well regarded researchers who thought they were testing him in just such controlled conditions. Randi was I think one of the people who debunked him with more rigorous tests.

[Nearly Sane]

EdA',

I was kidding about the Baltimore stockbroker. Mind you, in the 70s Uri Geller managed to fool some well regarded researchers who thought they were testing him in just such controlled conditions. Randi was I think one of the people who debunked him with more rigorous tests.

one of the things that isn't really appreciated, IMO, by people that believe in non naturalism is the service Randi has done in getting rid of so many spurious claims. But still any actual claim will never be shown by Randi's methodology.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

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

My arguments are labelled logically false because I deem to include the concept of spiritual intervention in this reality we live in.  If you continue to filter out any arguments which include a spiritual dimension by labelling them as fallacious you will never come to know the truth behind our existence.

[Alan Burns]

But you don't answer thequestion being asked - which is it what is the basis on which a free will choice is made if it is neither random or predetermined?

you do not understand the power of free will

[Gordon]

My arguments are labelled logically false because I deem to include the concept of spiritual intervention in this reality we live in.  If you continue to filter out any arguments which include a spiritual dimension by labelling them as fallacious you will never come to know the truth behind our existence.

The 'truth behind our existence' sounds like the reification fallacy. You need at least one new argument Alan: a non-fallacious one that is grounded in some form of method that demonstrates this 'spiritual dimension'.

[torridon]

you do not understand the power of free will

and you don't either, clearly, since you haven't been able to offer any rationale for it, despite repeated requests

[torridon]

My arguments are labelled logically false because I deem to include the concept of spiritual intervention in this reality we live in.  If you continue to filter out any arguments which include a spiritual dimension by labelling them as fallacious you will never come to know the truth behind our existence.

That's evasive nonsense. By and large, people point out logic flaws in your posts because they are logic flaws and evidence-free to boot.  Including a 'spiritual dimension' does not magically transform illogic into something logical. Even a spiritual dimension would be subject to logic.

[Stranger]

My arguments are labelled logically false because I deem to include the concept of spiritual intervention in this reality we live in.  If you continue to filter out any arguments which include a spiritual dimension by labelling them as fallacious you will never come to know the truth behind our existence.

That is simply untrue.

Your 'arguments' are labelled logically false because they are riddled with fallacies or are actually just assertions, lacking any supporting arguments at all. Furthermore, your comments to date about 'free will' imply that the whole concept of a 'soul' is logically self-contradictory.

As for filtering out arguments because of a "spiritual dimension" - you have run away from addressing logical arguments about your 'soul' concept, even when they have conceded its existence as a staring point. That is hardly filtering them out.

Right on cue, here is an example:-

But you don't answer thequestion being asked - which is it what is the basis on which a free will choice is made if it is neither random or predetermined?

you do not understand the power of free will

[Walt Zingmatilder]

#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.

It's seems to me that any statements concerning the ''inner core'', ''the second layer'',''The outer layer'', ''The model of reality'' and even ''reality'' are philosophical not scientific. check ''reality'' out on Wikipedia.

I think it was Richard Lewontin who said to an audience that they and he had a commitment to materialism.

Watch for the blurring of the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. It's just linguistic imperialism on the part of philosophical naturalists who are, for reasons best known to themselves, trying to evade detection and is the equivalent of ''putting a white coat on''.