Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Robinson,

Far too many accusations of lying. Lying has to be deliberate. In other words with full knowledge.

So what should I call it when I consistently tell someone, "I think X" and he replies, "you think Y"?

[SusanDoris]

I apologise for typing this, but when reading Sots's posts, the phrase 'special little cup-cake' pops into my mind!

On the other hand, as a result of his contributions (and Vlad's of course), I get to read such interesting responses.

[torridon]

Your response above: Why should one consider reports of a physical resurrection and evidence of a (subsequent at least) community that believed it to be true as any more accurate than There are reports of a physical resurrection and evidence of a community with an experience of this. How do you know what their experience of it was? It's obvious that you are starting from a position that such things cannot happen, whilst giving the impression in your exchanges with Vlad that a lack of testable evidence is the problem.

Like Gordon and Floo, you really need to sort out your worldview.

What has worldview got to do with anything ?

It is a well established principle, and a wise one, that fantastic claims require fantastic evidence and inconsistent records of anecdotal claims and alleged personal testimony from antiquity hardly constitute fantastic evidence.  It is wisdom gained through experience, rather than a worldview, that cautions us to be sceptical of fantastic claims.  That people in those times might have believed such stories is not surprising; on the other hand dead people actually coming back to life definitely is.

[floo]

Just because a person has an experience, which seems very real to them, doesn't mean it works for others. One size doesn't fit all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

What has worldview got to do with anything ?

Nothing whatever - it's just a piece of nonsense Sword has introduced and now clings to come what may.

First you can have whatever world view you like, but when reality contradicts it then world view is wrong.

Second, if he thinks nonetheless that a world view has anything to tell us about us about epistemic truth, then by introducing his world view "God" he's also opened the same door to any other world view too - leprechauns included.

Third, the only time he's tried to demonstrate his world view schtick (with sums in different bases) it turns out he was using the same world view all along of logic.

It would be amusing if it wasn't so desperate.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

Just because a person has an experience, which seems very real to them, doesn't mean it works for others. One size doesn't fit all.

The problem here is this word “experience”. I don’t doubt that Vlad and others like him have had episodes of some kind – that is, I’m fairly sure that in general most at least don’t deliberately say, “I’m just going to make this story up”. Where it falls apart though is when they reach for a narrative to explain what caused the episode. There are lots of reasons why, but here are a few:

First, there are lots of possible reasons for episodes of this kind, only one of which involves the divine. They can be induced artificially for example. There is though no means to eliminate the naturalistic (but less exciting perhaps) ones, or even to assign a probabilistic value to “God” versus the others.

Second, “God” answers nothing – it’s just white noise. There’s no method, not process, no anything to explain the event – a bit like the cartoon torri posted with the big formula on the blackboard and in the middle the words, “miracle happens here”.

Third, there have been countless beliefs in countless gods in countless places over the millennia. Yet those who have “experiences” always seem to reach for the one that’s most proximate and to which they’re most enculturated. The Amazonian tribesman reaches for whatever god he believes in, the Sumerian reached for his god, Vlad reached for the Christian god etc. It’s not a knock down argument, but you’d think it would at least give pause to the people who claim these things to consider the astonishing co-incidence of the one true god just happening to be the very one at the time and place they happened to have their “experience”.

By contrast, if instead a previously undiscovered tribe was found that had the details and particulars of a god from a particular faith other than their indigenous one then at least there’d be cause to wonder how that happened if not for the god in question paying a visit. 

Fourth, the arguments attempted for why it must have been their god are always hopeless – “this in not what I wanted” etc, as if somehow a conflict between the conscious and unconscious mind validates the claim.

Fifth…well you get the idea I’m sure. The list could go on and on, but essentially causality is the big problem for those who claim “experiences”.

[floo]

Floo,

The problem here is this word “experience”. I don’t doubt that Vlad and others like him have had episodes of some kind – that is, I’m fairly sure that in general most at least don’t deliberately say, “I’m just going to make this story up”. Where it falls apart though is when they reach for a narrative to explain what caused the episode. There are lots of reasons why, but here are a few:

First, there are lots of possible reasons for episodes of this kind, only one of which involves the divine. They can be induced artificially for example. There is though no means to eliminate the naturalistic (but less exciting perhaps) ones, or even to assign a probabilistic value to “God” versus the others.

Second, “God” answers nothing – it’s just white noise. There’s no method, not process, no anything to explain the event – a bit like the cartoon torri posted with the big formula on the blackboard and in the middle the words, “miracle happens here”.

Third, there have been countless beliefs in countless gods in countless places over the millennia. Yet those who have “experiences” always seem to reach for the one that’s most proximate and to which they’re most enculturated. The Amazonian tribesman reaches for whatever god he believes in, the Sumerian reached for his god, Vlad reached for the Christian god etc. It’s not a knock down argument, but you’d think it would at least give pause to the people who claim these things to consider the astonishing co-incidence of the one true god just happening to be the very one at the time and place they happened to have their “experience”.

By contrast, if instead a previously undiscovered tribe was found that had the details and particulars of a god from a particular faith other than their indigenous one then at least there’d be cause to wonder how that happened if not for the god in question paying a visit. 

Fourth, the arguments attempted for why it must have been their god are always hopeless – “this in not what I wanted” etc, as if somehow a conflict between the conscious and unconscious mind validates the claim.

Fifth…well you get the idea I’m sure. The list could go on and on, but essentially causality is the big problem for those who claim “experiences”.

Good explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let me ask Bible enthusiasts again: bearing the mind the uncertain provenance and that these Gospel texts weren't produced until decades after the events portrayed, how have you eliminated the risks of bias, mistake, lies or propaganda in these texts?

I notice this was answered by me in the subsequent post and yet you plead later that your question wasn't answered. Why did you do that?

But to add what is already been said.
All these could have been eliminated by jewish and roman authorities at the time or near after since there was sufficient motivation.
There is no reason other than just general disbelief that there was a witnessing community of 500 that Paul felt he could draw on. Already that is a pretty big conspiracy.
There is no reason apart from the genetic fallacy i.e. ''They would wouldn't they'' to suppose more people became Christians at the time.

A conspiracy that large would be going the other way over time.

Next I have to ask you have how YOU HAVE eliminated the risks of bias, mistake, lies or propaganda in these texts? or is your argument just a general one.

Of course there have been attempts at showing these in the case of the texts which do not seem to have gained traction. Could this be because they have the same inherent problems as your approach? On the other hand atheists have come at this and have come out in favour of the story.

To return to you though, you are implying a conspiracy theory. In fact not just a conspiracy but what CS Lewis describes as the biggest con in history. Since that is the mother and father of assertions we need you not arrogantly to get some grunt to do your leg work because you are feeling managerial. You need to establish that yourself.

Finally having suggested bias, mistake, lies or propaganda you have to see the implications of
that for anything you examine....although there is no evidence of anything being examined rather than assumed. Extrordinary claims needing extraordinary proof being I'm afraid an as yet unscrutinised soundbite from a celebrity antitheist to an audience who don't seem to have checked for bias, mistake, lies or propaganda.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Floo,

The problem here is this word “experience”. I don’t doubt that Vlad and others like him have had episodes of some kind – that is, I’m fairly sure that in general most at least don’t deliberately say, “I’m just going to make this story up”. Where it falls apart though is when they reach for a narrative to explain what caused the episode. There are lots of reasons why, but here are a few:

First, there are lots of possible reasons for episodes of this kind, only one of which involves the divine. They can be induced artificially for example. There is though no means to eliminate the naturalistic (but less exciting perhaps) ones, or even to assign a probabilistic value to “God” versus the others.

Second, “God” answers nothing – it’s just white noise. There’s no method, not process, no anything to explain the event – a bit like the cartoon torri posted with the big formula on the blackboard and in the middle the words, “miracle happens here”.

Third, there have been countless beliefs in countless gods in countless places over the millennia. Yet those who have “experiences” always seem to reach for the one that’s most proximate and to which they’re most enculturated. The Amazonian tribesman reaches for whatever god he believes in, the Sumerian reached for his god, Vlad reached for the Christian god etc. It’s not a knock down argument, but you’d think it would at least give pause to the people who claim these things to consider the astonishing co-incidence of the one true god just happening to be the very one at the time and place they happened to have their “experience”.

By contrast, if instead a previously undiscovered tribe was found that had the details and particulars of a god from a particular faith other than their indigenous one then at least there’d be cause to wonder how that happened if not for the god in question paying a visit. 

Fourth, the arguments attempted for why it must have been their god are always hopeless – “this in not what I wanted” etc, as if somehow a conflict between the conscious and unconscious mind validates the claim.

Fifth…well you get the idea I’m sure. The list could go on and on, but essentially causality is the big problem for those who claim “experiences”.

The simple yet brutal question mark over these assertions is again a failure by you to distinguish between the claims of Gods and religions.

For example, God A may want an existential commitment, God B may want a loving parental relationship God C may not want either but demand unswerving obedience to it's book of commandments and God D may just like to be evoked once in a while.

Your posts on these boards never show any thought about what God they are attacking and every sign of coming from an attitude which starts from '' It's all a load of bollocks so it doesn't matter what you say''.

It seems to get worse if there isn't a theist about.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I notice this was answered by me in the subsequent post and yet you plead later that your question wasn't answered. Why did you do that?

But to add what is already been said.

All these could have been eliminated by jewish and roman authorities at the time or near after since there was sufficient motivation.

Surely the “motivation” was in the opposite direction wasn’t it – it would have been in the interests of both to big up the stories.

There is no reason other than just general disbelief that there was a witnessing community of 500 that Paul felt he could draw on. Already that is a pretty big conspiracy.

There weren’t "500". That was just whatever the small number concerned said there were, and that tells you nothing about the attribution of cause in any case.

There is no reason apart from the genetic fallacy i.e. ''They would wouldn't they'' to suppose more people became Christians at the time.

No, there’s good reason – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. Such evidence as we have is hopeless for that purpose, and moreover no more credible than that for miracle claims from different faiths entirely. Do you think Mohammed on his winged horse was a “pretty big fallacy” too?

Why not?

A conspiracy that large would be going the other way over time.

No it wouldn’t – also sorts of memes catch the wind and increase in popularity over time. You’re committing the survivor fallacy here.

Next I have to ask you have how YOU HAVE eliminated the risks of bias, mistake, lies or propaganda in these texts? or is your argument just a general one.

He doesn’t need to. The claim is yours, so the burden of proof is yours too.

Of course there have been attempts at showing these in the case of the texts which do not seem to have gained traction. Could this be because they have the same inherent problems as your approach? On the other hand atheists have come at this and have come out in favour of the story.

What are you trying to say here?

To return to you though, you are implying a conspiracy theory. In fact not just a conspiracy but what CS Lewis describes as the biggest con in history. Since that is the mother and father of assertions we need you not arrogantly to get some grunt to do your leg work because you are feeling managerial. You need to establish that yourself.

No, he’s implying that there are various naturalistic explanations that you have no means of eliminating. “Conspiracy theory” implies intent, when none would be necessary for the story to survive.

Finally having suggested bias, mistake, lies or propaganda you have to see the implications of
that for anything you examine....although there is no evidence of anything being examined rather than assumed.

He didn’t suggest that – he just asked how you’d eliminate these things. So far though, answer have you none.

Extrordinary claims needing extraordinary proof being I'm afraid an as yet unscrutinised soundbite from a celebrity antitheist to an audience who don't seem to have checked for bias, mistake, lies or propaganda.

No, it’s a rational response – and precisely the one you’d demand for extraordinary claims other than your own. If, say, I said that the tooth fairy was real what evidence would you ask for to support the assertion – just the fact of the 50p being there in the morning, or something more "extraordinary"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The simple yet brutal question mark over these assertions is again a failure by you to distinguish between the claims of Gods and religions.

First, that’s not a question – it’s an assertion.

Second, you’ve fallen straight back into the same mistake you keep making of trying to retro-fit the content of the claim with its likely truthfulness. You can distinguish them all you like, but that tells you nothing about the credence we should give to a story about one miracle versus another.

For example, God A may want an existential commitment, God B may want a loving parental relationship God C may not want either but demand unswerving obedience to it's book of commandments and God D may just like to be evoked once in a while.

None of which would tell you anything whatever about whether any of these gods exist at all. You really are in thrall to the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy aren’t you.

Your posts on these boards never show any thought about what God they are attacking…

Because that’s entirely irrelevant to the argument.

… and every sign of coming from an attitude which starts from '' It's all a load of bollocks so it doesn't matter what you say''.

To the contrary, what you say matters a lot. The trouble is, so far at least what you say is “a load of bollocks” – ie, logically false. Try an argument that isn’t fallacious though and I’ll change my mind about that.

It seems to get worse if there isn't a theist about.

No, there need to be “a theist about” to make the argument that’s falsifiable.

[Stranger]

For example, God A may want an existential commitment, God B may want a loving parental relationship God C may not want either but demand unswerving obedience to it's book of commandments and God D may just like to be evoked once in a while.

What difference does make to whether any of these gods exist or not? At the moment you seem to be relying on some old texts, that weren't written until well after the events and then specifically selected by people with a particular religion, being accurate, and some personal experiences that you interpreted as connected to (by a staggering coincidence) the dominate religion of your culture.

It's not exactly overwhelming evidence. Is this really the best your god can do...?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Surely the “motivation” was in the opposite direction wasn’t it – it would have been in the interests of both to big up the stories.

There weren’t "500". That was just whatever the small number concerned said there were, and that tells you nothing about the attribution of cause in any case.

No, there’s good reason – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that. Such evidence as we have is hopeless for that purpose, and moreover no more credible than that for miracle claims from different faiths entirely. Do you think Mohammed on his winged horse was a “pretty big fallacy” too?

Why not?

No it wouldn’t – also sorts of memes catch the wind and increase in popularity over time. You’re committing the survivor fallacy here.

He doesn’t need to. The claim is yours, so the burden of proof is yours too.

What are you trying to say here?

No, he’s implying that there are various naturalistic explanations that you have no means of eliminating. “Conspiracy theory” implies intent, when none would be necessary for the story to survive.

He didn’t suggest that – he just asked how you’d eliminate these things. So far though, answer have you none.

No, it’s a rational response – and precisely the one you’d demand for extraordinary claims other than your own. If, say, I said that the tooth fairy was real what evidence would you ask for to support the assertion – just the fact of the 50p being there in the morning, or something more "extraordinary"?

Again no examination of the texts here or the claims. Just general held principles from you.

Also a general blurring of religious claims here ISLAM and Christianity?....it's all the same.

Explain the relevance of the inclusion of the mohammad story.

What do you think this story means? Did the story have a community built around it......No

It seems to me ISLAM can function without it.

Again you are starting from a position of ''it's all bollocks anyway''.

Finally you are assuming my position on it anyway.

Category blunder after category blunder.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What difference does make to whether any of these gods exist or not?

It's not their existence it's the claims.
If you are saying the claims are all the same then you are palpably wrong.

And Hillside is wrong because he turns every God he talks about into a Jesus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, it’s a rational response – and precisely the one you’d demand for extraordinary claims other than your own. If, say, I said that the tooth fairy was real what evidence would you ask for to support the assertion – just the fact of the 50p being there in the morning, or something more "extraordinary"?

No it's an unscrutinised soundbite. What do we mean by extraordinary?, extraordinary proof?what is that?

What I am proposing is that the dismissal of the gospel story is on general principles without real and proper scrutiny of the claims...extraordinary proof just sounds like another appeal to general principle.

If you are going to propose a giant conspiracy or even an alternative history you had better jolly show how it fits in subsequent history.

What you and Gordon are doing is the antithesis of that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Again no examination of the texts here or the claims. Just general held principles from you.

Yes – the principle being that logically false arguments are wrong arguments. You can study the texts all you like – you need something more than that though to support the contention that their content is also true.

Also a general blurring of religious claims here ISLAM and Christianity?....it's all the same.

It is “all the same” inasmuch as a bad argument for one does not become a good argument for the other because you happen to prefer the content of one over the other

Explain the relevance of the inclusion of the mohammad story.

The relevance is that the evidential basis for the stories is the same – a small number of post facto witnesses reporting a large number of contemporary witnesses, no examination of alternative causal explanations, a complete absence of evidence or even of a method to test the evidence for extraordinary claims etc. Yet nonetheless you choose to believe one and not the other – specifically you believe the one to which you happen to be most enculturated (as for that matter does the muslim). 

Why?

What do you think this story means? Did the story have a community built around it......No

What it means and whether it has “a community built around it” tells you nothing about it’s truthfulness or otherwise. Perhaps if you looked up argmentum ad consequentiam you’d see where you keep going wrong here?

It seems to me ISLAM can function without it.

True or not, it’s still epistemically irrelevant.

Again you are starting from a position of ''it's all bollocks anyway''.

Again, I just told you where I start from so why bother lying about that?

Finally you are assuming my position on it anyway.

No, you’re telling us your position – credulous belief supported by broken arguments.

Category blunder after category blunder.

And another false claim to round off. What category blunder do you think has been committed, given that you should by now finally understand that the categories of miracle X vs miracle Y are entirely irrelevant for the purpose of the issue under discussion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


To the contrary, what you say matters a lot. The trouble is, so far at least what you say is “a load of bollocks” – ie, logically false.

No evidence of logical falsehood i'm afraid. If so let's have the logic now...or are you just using the word logic as some kind of spell here?

[Stranger]

It's not their existence it's the claims.
If you are saying the claims are all the same then you are palpably wrong.

Of course the claims are different. The sheer variety of god claims (even within a single religion) is yet another reason to doubt their veracity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


No, you’re telling us your position – credulous belief supported by broken arguments.

No Hillside you assumed my position on the horse.

Whatever else that means it is poor methodology. What other blunders are you making.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course the claims are different. The sheer variety of god claims (even within a single religion) is yet another reason to doubt their veracity.

But how would you know the sheer variety if one thinks they are all like Jesus?
You are confusing the variety of Gods with the variety of claims.....and indeed the variety of claims and the claims themselves.

It doesn't help with a starting premise of not needing any expertise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No it's an unscrutinised soundbite. What do we mean by extraordinary?, extraordinary proof?what is that?

No it isn’t. If I said that a milkman delivered my milk every day and I know that because milk is on my doorstep, you’d probably think “OK fine", and accept the claim.

On the other hand, if I said that the Tooth Fairy is real and I know this because there’s a 50p under my pillow whenever I lose a tooth you wouldn’t accept that at all – the bar (your bar) for evidence and proof would be set way higher.

You on the other hand seem to accept stories about a resurrection and such like on the basis of evidence equivalent to “there’s a 50p under my pillow, therefore Tooth Fairy”. 

What I am proposing is that the dismissal of the gospel story is on general principles without real and proper scrutiny of the claims...extraordinary proof just sounds like another appeal to general principle.

Then you’re proposing wrongly. Again.

First, it’s actually dismissed on the grounds that the arguments made to support the contention are false arguments.

Second, (yet again) “scrutiny of the claims” is the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy. You might think the claims to be thrilling, but that tells you nothing whatever about whether or not they’re true.

Thirdly, there’s nothing wrong with an appeal to a general principle. If you want to abandon that principle for your claims though then you have no choice but to abandon it for other claims too – the 50p and Tooth Fairy included.

If you are going to propose a giant conspiracy…

No-one has. That’s your (and presumably CS Lewis’s) mistake.

…or even an alternative history…

It’s alternative cause, not history – and there are plenty of those available.

…you had better jolly show how it fits in subsequent history.

Why? “Subsequent history” tells you nothing whatever about whether the story was true in the first place. All it tells you is that some people were persuaded that it was true, and acted accordingly.

What you and Gordon are doing is the antithesis of that.

Well yes – because it’s epistemically irrelevant.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No evidence of logical falsehood i'm afraid. If so let's have the logic now...or are you just using the word logic as some kind of spell here?

Just astonishing. You try fallacy after fallacy after fallacy, and now you say there's no evidence of you doing so!

Seriously?

Look back over your last few posts, and count how many times you've tried the argumentum ad consequntiam. Half a dozen maybe?

That's a fallacy.

QED

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just astonishing. You try fallacy after fallacy after fallacy, and now you say there's no evidence of you doing so!

Seriously?

Look back over your last few posts, and count how many times you've tried the argumentum ad consequntiam. Half a dozen maybe?

That's a fallacy.

QED

Extraordinary accusations demand extraordinary evidence .........

Well no any evidence will do........Be nice to have some from you Hilly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No Hillside you assumed my position on the horse.

Whatever else that means it is poor methodology. What other blunders are you making.

No, all I "assumed" was that you meant what you said - essentially that you accept as evidence stories for the faith in which you believe, and reject as evidence the stories for the faiths in which you don't believe. Whether Mohammed and his winged horse, the Tooth Fairy or Poseidon doesn't matter for this purpose.

And if you don't like "blunders", stop making them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Extraordinary accusations demand extraordinary evidence .........

Well no any evidence will do........Be nice to have some from you Hilly.

I just explained it you re the milkman and the Tooth Fairy examples. Why have you just ignored it?