Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

1: In what respect do they lack evidence?

In the respect that there is no evidence. Your only way around that is to stretch the term "evidence" so far that it lets in leprechauns too.

2: There are categoric differences between, on the one hand Thor, Dreamtime and Allah and The teapot and unicorns.
   
I wonder if you can spot what these are.

No. What are they?

3: What are your grounds for discarding?

Discarding what? Claims about gods?

Absence of evidence.

And what unfalsifiables would you not discard?

Any that had practical use.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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?

Avoidance noted.

Fun as it would be playing, "let's try guess what Vlad thinks he means this week by the term "philosophical naturalism" even though at best it would lead just to the going nuclear option", I suspect that there are more entertaining ways of passing the time.

Still, if ever you do feel like sharing then you know where we are. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Avoidance noted.

Fun as it would be playing, "let's try guess what Vlad thinks he means this week by the term "philosophical naturalism" even though at best it would lead just to the going nuclear option", I suspect that there are more entertaining ways of passing the time.

Still, if ever you do feel like sharing then you know where we are.

Hillside

Anyone can, when accused of talking from philosophical materialism about theism say suggest they don't ever do that and to prove that invite them listen to them talking about lorries''

Its just laughable.

[Stranger]

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.

Unless you are arguing that 'free will' is logically self-contradictory (not random and not deterministic), then the "gift of free will" makes no fundamental difference.

This is an example of why your 'arguments' are labelled as illogical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Fun as it would be playing, "let's try guess what Vlad thinks he means this week by the term "philosophical naturalism" even though at best it would lead just to the going nuclear option", I suspect that there are more entertaining ways of passing the time.

Hillside
Your denial of talking from philosophical naturalism about theism, and the proof of that being you talking about Eddie Stobart lorries, aside........................................................ What parts of methodological materialism disprove or indeed have anything to do with God ?
Careful now since science does not do God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Anyone can, when accused of talking from philosophical materialism about theism say suggest they don't ever do that and to prove that invite them listen to them talking about lorries''

Its just laughable.

See, the trouble here is that if you want to attempt another derail you at least need to try to express it in some kind of coherent form.

Methodological materialism gives me a model for the world I appear to occupy. It makes no deeper philosophical claim than that (and certainly not the one you attach to it) - for all I know it's all a software simulation in some celestial kid's computer game.

Then people like you and the leprechaunists pitch up and assert their various beliefs as true.

Fine. My response then is that none of these claims fit within my model. If their proponents want me to take them seriously therefore, they need either to find a way to make them fit or to propose a different model.

And that's where your (and the leprechaunists') claims collapse.

QED

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What parts of methodological materialism disprove or indeed have anything to do with God ?

And the king of the straw men is among us again.

No "parts of methodological materialism disprove or indeed have anything to do with God".

Or leprechauns.

How does that help you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

In the respect that there is no evidence. Your only way around that is to stretch the term "evidence" so far that it lets in leprechauns too.

No. What are they?

Discarding what? Claims about gods?

Absence of evidence.

Any that had practical use.

Ah,special pleading.
Since what you are saying is I would discard these things on the grounds of Absence of evidence but not these things for which there is absence of evidence.

Your nicked sunshine.

[Stranger]

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.

I don't. It was AB who used the description because he doesn't like the idea that we are ultimately deterministic (or possibly, deterministic with some random elements). The fact that there is no logical alternative seems to be something he is incapable of grasping.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Ah,special pleading.

None so far.

Since what you are saying is I would discard these things on the grounds of Absence of evidence but not these things for which there is absence of evidence.

No. At one time there was an absence of evidence for what fire was. It was still useful though.

Your nicked sunshine.

S'funny - I don't seem to be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And the king of the straw men is among us again.

No "parts of methodological materialism disprove or indeed have anything to do with God".

Or leprechauns.

How does that help you?

Proof of you waffling and red herringing. That's how.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Proof of you waffling and red herringing. That's how.

Why are you lying again?

How's that finally telling us what you think you mean by "philosophical naturalism" coming along by the way, or is that cupboard forever locked so we just have to guess?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

How's that finally telling us what you think you mean by "philosophical naturalism" coming along by the way, or is that cupboard forever locked and we just have to guess?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) and that is my final word on that.
It teaches us what to look for in any statement from philosophical/ontological naturalism and cuts through waffle.
Anybody who talks about God and the evidence for God and then switches to methodological materialism to avoid a charge of philosophical naturalism is waffling, changing the playing field, rules, game etc,

I would counsel people to read the whole thing......not just a Hillside edition.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

None so far.

No. At one time there was an absence of evidence for what fire was. It was still useful though.

S'funny - I don't seem to be.

Oh dear, They certainly don't come here to see you for logic do they.

[Stranger]

Anybody who talks about God and the evidence for God and then switches to methodological materialism is waffling, changing the playing field etc,

So, in what 'playing field' do we find any reason at all to take any of the god concepts seriously?

Are you saying that your god concept is one in which god has zero impact on the intersubjectively verifiable "world"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, in what 'playing field' do we find any reason at all to take any of the god concepts seriously?

That would be the one you guys feel the need to duck out from when you start introducing red herrings such as waffle about methodological materialism. Its called philosophy.

[Stranger]

That would be the one you guys feel the need to duck out from when you start introducing red herrings such as waffle about methodological materialism. Its called philosophy.

So what are the philosophical reasons to take any of the god concepts seriously?

And you didn't answer my second question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) and that is my final word on that.

Are you sure that’s the corner into which you want to paint yourself? After all, it says:

“Assuming naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment, called methodological naturalism.[5] The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge based on an assumed paradigm.”

I mean, it’s obviously fine for me as it supports my position (I’m quite happy with “assuming naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment") but I’m surprised you’re quite so keen to shoot yourself in the foot with it.

It teaches us what to look for in any statement from philosophical/ontological naturalism and cuts through waffle.

Anybody who talks about God and the evidence for God and then switches to methodological materialism to avoid a charge of philosophical naturalism is waffling, changing the playing field, rules, game etc,

Yikes. It’s simple enough: there is no “switching”. I’ve explained this already (and you just ignored the explanation) but I navigate the world with the model of methodological materialism. If you want to claim “God” or leprechauns alike, then you need to find a way either to make the claim engage with that model, or to come up with a different model. So far though, all you have is white noise.

I would counsel people to read the whole thing......not just a Hillside edition.

You can read as much of it as you like. It doesn’t change this though: “Assuming naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment.”

Game over I think. Thanks for trying though.

Next!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what are the philosophical reasons to take any of the god concepts seriously?

And you didn't answer my second question.

Firstly God theories are ignored because of the label God and this is a shallow reason. If you are not guilty of this I assume you would be aware of the philosophies about God.
If you are aware of them but feigning ignorance of them I have to tell you now I only have a policy to deal with only one Mind Gamer per day and the slots are already fully booked.

I have put a link to Christian philosopher Edward Feser and a read of those should give you a primer.
He is very much though against the idea that an antitheist can actually gain much from the philosophising efforts, such as they are, from the prominent new atheists.

I think this is better than discussing serious things in the bear pit/showboating lagoon which is religionethics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Are you sure that’s the corner into which you want to paint yourself? After all, it says:

“Assuming naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment, called methodological naturalism.[5] The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge based on an assumed paradigm.”

Ha Ha straight in with a Hillside edit.......which is why I counsel reading the whole piece. The section on methodological materialism can be consulted as for a definition there.

I never talk of absolute truth when concerning you guys.
1: Ducking out of commitment to it on your parts although anybody including unknown unknowns in an argument is pretty well committed to the idea of there being one.
2: You allow for the possibility of God and the unfalsifiable although talk of discarding unuseful unfalsifiables on the grounds of unfalsifiability and keeping useful ones on the grounds of utility is logical bollocks.

So you're argument is a bit of a straw man Bluey old boy.

[Outrider]

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.

I'm not 'committed to it' beyond it's effectiveness. If you were to provide an equally reliable alternate methodology, I'd accept that with the same degree of general acceptance and specific scepticism.

Our senses are one way of making sense of reality, and we've developed tools to try to minimise the inaccuracies of them and our processing of the data. There are probably others, but they are nowhere near as reliable at this stage - I'm not committed to 'methodological naturalism' so much as I'm committed to verification.

O.

[Outrider]

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.

And we all revert to 'Cogito Ergo Sum', and I have to deal with which is the worse possibility out of 'Trump is actually real' or 'Trump is a figment of my imagination'.

I've not failed to notice that science is provisional, I've just accepted that despite that provisional nature it's still the most effective means of developing any sort of coherent understanding of reality.

It's not enough to simply suggest that 'methodological naturalism' isn't perfect - you have to suggest something better, and you aren't doing that.

O.

[torridon]

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.

What makes you come on here and respond to posts ?  My money would be on the fact that you read things you disagree with and want therefore to put your counter-argument.  Cause and effect, in other words. 'Free will' would mean that whatever you posted was free of all those of all prior influences.  That would result in you writing meaningless incomprehensible random posts.

Oh, hang on a minute ....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can read as much of it as you like. It doesn’t change this though: “Assuming naturalism in working methods is the current paradigm, without the unfounded consideration of naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailment.”

Again cite where I have said the phrase ''absolute truth'' concerning your beliefs.

I will say though that anybody stating that methodological materialism is/gives you a model of reality which is adequate for them is dripping philosophical entailment since the statement is not a methodological naturalistic one, And certainly if adequacy entails using such arguments to discuss God as an inferior to philosophical materialism.

[Outrider]

1: In what respect do they lack evidence?

In the 'lacking evidence' respect - you have partisan claims after the fact from limited sources with vested interests against a complete absence of any sort of corroboration from contemporary impartial sources. Coupled with that you have extraordinary claims that would leave measurable, detectable evidence which is not found.

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.

The differences between them aren't really the point in comparison to the lack of any supporting evidence in favour. There MIGHT be categoric differences between them, but until we actually have some evidence for any of them, we can't determine anything about them in order to determine if there are any categoric differences. What there actually are, are categoric differences in the claims about them.

3: What are your grounds for discarding?

That which is asserted without any validation can be discarded on the same basis - you've failed to make a sufficient case for Thor, Allah, God, unicorns or Russell's teapot, I therefore don't need to make a case for discarding, you've not met a threshold for me to accept the notion in the first instance.

And what unfalsifiables would you not discard?

I'm not sure that anything is not open to question; I exist (though I can't demonstrate that to you) and beyond that everything is provisional - some things are, perhaps, a little less provisional than others, but that's as far as any of us can go.

O.