Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Watch for the blurring of the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.

FFS Vlad, give the poor straw man some rest!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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.

Presumably because you have the kind of mind that cannot process analogies.

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

That's nice. Was his "commitment" of the "not crossing the road with my eyes closed" variety, or was he one of those rare and possibly non-existent beasts of the absolutist materialist type you keep trying to paint onto all atheists (or, as you call them, antitheists)?

Watch for the blurring of the distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism.

There is no blurring - that's just something you've made up as yet another straw man.

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''.

NURSE! HE'S GONE AGAIN!

[Stranger]

So you can't think of any one, no one at all who isn't mistaking philosophy for methodology?

I think you put too many negatives in that. Anyway, you seem to be the only person confusing the two. Possibly SotS is too but it's difficult to be sure.

In that case we will never see science mentioned in the context of discussions of God again and of course no one has ever done that in the past.

Well, that rather depends on what claims are being made by theists. Science cannot falsify many god concepts but there are exceptions (YEC gods, for example). Also some theist arguments involve asserting what is or is not possible in the physical universe (AB, for example) and science may be relevant to those claims. You also referred to science in your debate on the supernatural...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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.

No, your "arguments" are "labelled" logically false because they are logically false. 2+2=5 does not become a good argument when it concerns beliefs about gods rather than numbers, however much you wish it were otherwise.

If you want to introduce the notion of "spiritual intervention" you're welcome to do so, but your next job should be to demonstrate that is exists at all. And the only way to do that is to make arguments for it that are logically sound. Then - but only then - would you be in a position to talk about about its various doings.

And that's your problem. It's not that your arguments for demonstrating your faith beliefs aren't "watertight" or some such - it's that they're flat wrong, flat wrong for exactly the same reason that 2+2=5 is flat wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's nice. Was his "commitment" of the "not crossing the road with my eyes closed" variety, or was he one of those rare and possibly non-existent beasts of the absolutist materialist type you keep trying to paint onto all atheists (or, as you call them, antitheists)?

Can you point to where I ever used the phrase ''Absolutist materialist''? Citation please.
Most of you guys on here concede that God is a possibility and yet never show any signs of taking that seriously since your arguments against are always couched in philosophical materialism. On what other ''layer'' could you possibly be disputing with them?
To keep on year after year, post after post, philosophical materialist axiom after philosophical materialism axiom, Grapefruit, followed by ham and eggs with hash browns, tomatoes with some mushrooms............to keep on with it year after year and then deny any commitment to it is either a monumental pisstake or something that needs checking out......IMHO. 

[Alan Burns]

If you want to introduce the notion of "spiritual intervention" you're welcome to do so, but your next job should be to demonstrate that is exists at all.

Can you not see that the content of this forum is packed with evidence of spiritual intervention.  Even if you disagree with the logical points I make, what do you think it is that keeps driving me to make these points?  Am I just a biological puppet driven by the strings of nature?  If so, it is nature that you are arguing with.

[Stranger]

Can you not see that the content of this forum is packed with evidence of spiritual intervention.

No. You have produced no evidence whatsoever.

Am I just a biological puppet driven by the strings of nature?

That's just using prejudicial language rather than reasoning. You are just as much (or not) a "puppet driven by strings" of determinism if you have a 'soul'...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think you put too many negatives in that. Anyway, you seem to be the only person confusing the two. Possibly SotS is too but it's difficult to be sure.

Well, that rather depends on what claims are being made by theists. Science cannot falsify many god concepts but there are exceptions (YEC gods, for example). Also some theist arguments involve asserting what is or is not possible in the physical universe (AB, for example) and science may be relevant to those claims. You also referred to science in your debate on the supernatural...

YEC maybe since they are making scientific claims and they deserve to be analysed scientifically.
Only part of this claim:

God created the universe in 4004 BC is susceptible to science in one respect I grant you.

Not sure what you mean by what is possible or not possible in a physical universe but I would counsel caution given the very success of science itself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. You have produced no evidence whatsoever.

The amount of Goddodgery does give one suspicion though.

[Alan Burns]

That's just using prejudicial language rather than reasoning. You are just as much (or not) a "puppet driven by strings" of determinism if you have a 'soul'...

Not if the soul has the gift of free will, which is driving me to make this reply.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Can you point to where I ever used the phrase ''Absolutist materialist''? Citation please.

It’s a description of what you appear to mean by “philosophical naturalism”, though to be fair what you mean by it seems to shift as the sources you cite actually turns out to contradict you. If you don’t like “absolutist” though, why not tell us what you do think you mean by it?

Most of you guys on here concede that God is a possibility and yet never show any signs of taking that seriously since your arguments against are always couched in philosophical materialism.

No they’re not. Leaving aside for now the definitional problem with the term “God” (how could white noise be a possibility?), then yes “God” is a possibility. That’s not a concession though – it’s just a recognition of the unknown unknowns phenomenon. The same is true of leprechauns, and of any other conjecture. Should we take them seriously too?

On what other ''layer'' could you possibly be disputing with them?

Say what now?

To keep on year after year, post after post, philosophical materialist axiom after philosophical materialism axiom, Grapefruit, followed by ham and eggs with hash browns, tomatoes with some mushrooms............to keep on with it year after year and then deny any commitment to it is either a monumental pisstake or something that needs checking out......IMHO.

There is no “commitment” to it – the commitment is to methodological materialism, which why we don’t cross the road with our eyes closed or jump out of windows. The philosophical materialism bit is just your straw man again. Even if you could find someone who thought that way incidentally, it would still lead you just to the dead end of going nuclear – “OK I’m guessing, but so are you”.

Which helps you with your faith claims not a jot.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Can you not see that the content of this forum is packed with evidence of spiritual intervention.

No, because you've been entirely unable to demonstrate that such a thing exists.

Start by trying to make logical cogent arguments for it existence and proceed from there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. You have produced no evidence whatsoever.

That's just using prejudicial language rather than reasoning. You are just as much (or not) a "puppet driven by strings" of determinism if you have a 'soul'...

To me that would be perceived more like having 'locked in syndrome''. Since things aren't like that for those who don't I cant see how you can consider yourself a helpless puppet on strings.

As one of the greatest puppets ever, Commander Shore from Stingray would say ''anything can happen in the next half hour''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The amount of Goddodgery does give one suspicion though.

Been a while since you tried your favourite reification fallacy.

[SusanDoris]

Can you not see that the content of this forum is packed with evidence of spiritual intervention.  Even if you disagree with the logical points I make, what do you think it is that keeps driving me to make these points?  Am I just a biological puppet driven by the strings of nature?  If so, it is nature that you are arguing with.

I mentioned your pride some way back in this thread, something about do you feel proud of makinge so many incorrect statements; and I wonder too whether you think some level of humility might be a good idea so that you could admit to the possibility that you might be wrong about God.

[Outrider]

Most of you guys on here concede that God is a possibility and yet never show any signs of taking that seriously since your arguments against are always couched in philosophical materialism.

Possible is a long, long way from plausible, likely or probable, though. I won't speak for others directly, though I suspect there are a number of similar opinions out: the notion of god remains a possibility, largely because it can't be definitively disproven, and for no other reason than that. It lies in the discard pile with Allah, the Dreamtime, Thor, Russell's teapot, unicorns and all the other claims which can only be dismissed on their lack of supporting evidence.

It's logically defensible and morally honest to concede that the notion of God has to remain a possibility because I cannot disprove it. Not being able to disprove it, though, doesn't give me any reason to accept it as even slightly plausible - there needs to be something offered in support of the notion, for that, and the only reliable methodology I've come across doesn't do that.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It’s a description of what you appear to mean by “philosophical naturalism”, though to be fair what you mean by it seems to shift as the sources you cite actually turns out to contradict you. If you don’t like “absolutist” though, why not tell us what you do think you mean by it?

No they’re not. Leaving aside for now the definitional problem with the term “God” (how could white noise be a possibility?), then yes “God” is a possibility. That’s not a concession though – it’s just a recognition of the unknown unknowns phenomenon. The same is true of leprechauns, and of any other conjecture. Should we take them seriously too?

Say what now?

There is no “commitment” to it – the commitment is to methodological materialism, which why we don’t cross the road with our eyes closed or jump out of windows. The philosophical materialism bit is just your straw man again. Even if you could find someone who thought that way incidentally, it would still lead you just to the dead end of going nuclear – “OK I’m guessing, but so are you”.

Which helps you with your faith claims not a jot.

Dearest Hillside a commitment to methodological materialism is ten a penny. Focus and keep to the point. Any commitment to methodological materialism is a philosophical choice. Any talk outside of methodological materialism is going into philosophy. Scientific realism is a philosophy. From whence have you ever argued against theism from without an ism?
Don't bother answering that was rhetorical. Even a commitment to methodological materialism is philosophical.

You are a methodological materialist, I am a methodological materialist so methodological materialism has nothing to do with our differences which are manifest for any unlucky previously mentally healthy person unfortunate to ever having read us in full argument. Methodological materialism is a red herring Hillside. Its like you stealing a white coat in a research laboratory.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Possible is a long, long way from plausible, likely or probable, though. I won't speak for others directly, though I suspect there are a number of similar opinions out: the notion of god remains a possibility, largely because it can't be definitively disproven, and for no other reason than that. It lies in the discard pile with Allah, the Dreamtime, Thor, Russell's teapot, unicorns and all the other claims which can only be dismissed on their lack of supporting evidence.
O.

Yes because you have a philosophical view of the world based on empirical five sense data and are committed to it.
That is not methodological materialism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Possible is a long, long way from plausible, likely or probable, though. I won't speak for others directly, though I suspect there are a number of similar opinions out: the notion of god remains a possibility, largely because it can't be definitively disproven, and for no other reason than that. It lies in the discard pile with Allah, the Dreamtime, Thor, Russell's teapot, unicorns and all the other claims which can only be dismissed on their lack of supporting evidence.

It's logically defensible and morally honest to concede that the notion of God has to remain a possibility because I cannot disprove it. Not being able to disprove it, though, doesn't give me any reason to accept it as even slightly plausible - there needs to be something offered in support of the notion, for that, and the only reliable methodology I've come across doesn't do that.

O.

But in saying all of that you seem to have failed to notice that methodological materialism cannot provide evidence on which you base your philosophical position.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Dearest Hillside a commitment to methodological materialism is ten a penny. Focus and keep to the point.

No problem – you finally make a point, and I’ll keep to it. Be fair though, it’s only reasonable if you give it a go too rather than shoot off into irrelevancies, attempted derails, abuse etc every time your position is undone.

Any commitment to methodological materialism is a philosophical choice. Any talk outside of methodological materialism is going into philosophy. Scientific realism is a philosophy. From whence have you ever argued against theism from without an ism?

It’s only “a philosophy” in the sense that philosophically I’d rather not be run over by an Eddie Stobart lorry. It’s certainly not a philosophy though in the sense you seem determined to jemmy onto it.

Don't bother answering that was rhetorical. Even a commitment to methodological materialism is philosophical.

See above.

You are a methodological materialist, I am a methodological materialist so methodological materialism has nothing to do with our differences which are manifest for any unlucky previously mentally healthy person unfortunate to ever having read us in full argument. Methodological materialism is a red herring Hillside. Its like you stealing a white coat in a research laboratory.

It’s not a red herring at all – it’s what I am and argue for!

The version you try to project onto others on the other hand is this thing “philosophical naturalism” or some such, though predictably I see that you’ve declined once again to tell us even what you think you mean by it.

Why is that?

As the source you cited contradicted you in any case, what are we supposed to do now – just guess at what Vlad might think philosophical materialism means, at least until he changes his mind again next Tuesday?

What?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes because you have a philosophical view of the world based on empirical five sense data and are committed to it.

Why are you lying again?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, because you've been entirely unable to demonstrate that such a thing exists.

Start by trying to make logical cogent arguments for it existence and proceed from there.

My argument starts by asking you the question:
Are you debating with me?
Or are you debating with the natural events which drive a biological puppet?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Possible is a long, long way from plausible, likely or probable, though. I won't speak for others directly, though I suspect there are a number of similar opinions out: the notion of god remains a possibility, largely because it can't be definitively disproven, and for no other reason than that. It lies in the discard pile with Allah, the Dreamtime, Thor, Russell's teapot, unicorns and all the other claims which can only be dismissed on their lack of supporting evidence.

It's logically defensible and morally honest to concede that the notion of God has to remain a possibility because I cannot disprove it. Not being able to disprove it, though, doesn't give me any reason to accept it as even slightly plausible - there needs to be something offered in support of the notion, for that, and the only reliable methodology I've come across doesn't do that.

O.

1: In what respect do they lack evidence?
2: There are categoric differences between, on the one hand Thor, Dreamtime and Allah and The teapot and unicorns on the other.
    I wonder if you can spot what these are.
3: What are your grounds for discarding? And what unfalsifiables would you not discard?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No problem – you finally make a point, and I’ll keep to it. Be fair though, it’s only reasonable if you give it a go too rather than shoot off into irrelevancies, attempted derails, abuse etc every time your position is undone.

It’s only “a philosophy” in the sense that philosophically I’d rather not be run over by an Eddie Stobart lorry. It’s certainly not a philosophy though in the sense you seem determined to jemmy onto it.

First paragraph is waffle.

second paragraph is you saying ''I never talk from philosophical materialism about theism and to give you an example here's me talking about Eddie Stobart lorries''.

Now have you got any ration coupons you want to sell me?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My argument starts by asking you the question:
Are you debating with me?
Or are you debating with the natural events which drive a biological puppet?

A question isn't an argument. Worse yet, the evidence we do have suggests strongly that "you" and "me" are useful constructs that help us navigate the world we appear to occupy by making the choices that appear to be available to us, whereas the underlying reality is that what's actually happening is the playing out of unfathomably long chains of cause and effect.

How does that help your conjectures about "spirit" and "soul" and such like?