Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, That's up to what it is.

A bad hand at scrabble?

Alphabet soup?

What are you even trying to say here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

-  a person would be subject to possible observation, but there’s no means to know that a resurrected person had been observed; and

The last part is non sequiter. The first part is agreement. Anything which is scientifically observable....er....is observable and therefore the techniques can be used by naturalist and non naturalist alike.

In fact naturalists have looked at the evidence...and have supported it.
So much for forbidding Theists ''The methods''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A bad hand at scrabble?

Alphabet soup?

What are you even trying to say here?

Let me put it like this then.......Sometimes when you describe Naturalism the description includes philosophical entailment.

When you say that natural methods cannot be used on supernatural things it involves what you class as supernatural. That entails philosophy.

A method cannot assume that what it is working on is all there is no more than Brobat toilet cleaner can assume anything. That entails a philosophy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The last part is non sequiter.

No it isn’t not least because that’s not what "non sequitur" means. Would it really kill you to look it up (and while you're there to find out how to spell it)?

The first part is agreement. Anything which is scientifically observable....er....is observable and therefore the techniques can be used by naturalist and non naturalist alike.

No. Why do you think assertions about non-naturalistic phenomena could be investigated using naturalistic methods?

In fact naturalists have looked at the evidence...and have supported it.

So much for forbidding Theists ''The methods''.

What evidence do you think “naturalists” have looked at and “supported”, and why doesn’t anyone else know about this remarkable discovery of yours?

Let me put it like this then.......Sometimes when you describe Naturalism the description includes philosophical entailment.

“Philosophical entailment” is your phrase, not mine. What do you even think you mean by it?

When you say that natural methods cannot be used on supernatural things it involves what you class as supernatural. That entails philosophy.

No, it entails logic. Call logic a “philosophy” if you like, but it’s still logic. If you want to posit non-natural phenomena, then you need to explain why they should be amenable to testing using naturalistic means.

A method cannot assume that what it is working on is all there is no more than Brobat toilet cleaner can assume anything. That entails a philosophy

No, it entails you making a mistake. What the method actually assumes is that the natural is all there is that’s accessible and investigable – it says nothing about "all there is" in total. I really don’t know why you keep lying about this, but presumably you find the lie to be comforting or something?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. Why do you think assertions about non-naturalistic phenomena could be investigated using naturalistic methods?

I don't know what is transferable.
What I do know is that you are not recognising the problem of you, yes, you, Hillside being the arbiter of what is natural and what is supernatural.

You have agreed that a resurrected person is observable to science. That is implicit in the term physically resurrected. One would presumably also have a diagnosis of physical death.
You have not distinguished between or given a method of distinguishing an improbable natural event from a supernatural event and therefore have no right to pontificate on what can be investigate and what can't.

I, on the other hand, have said that a physically resurrected person is observable by science which you agreed with but that a divine cause cannot be.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't know what is transferable.

Why then just a couple of posts ago (16228) did you tell us apparently with complete confidence (“therefore”) that you did know that?:

“Anything which is scientifically observable....er....is observable and therefore the techniques can be used by naturalist and non naturalist alike.”

I think perhaps you need to take a moment to decide what it is here that you do think.

What I do know is that you are not recognising the problem of you, yes, you, Hillside being the arbiter of what is natural and what is supernatural.

Dear God, this is like wading through treacle. I’m the one saying that I see no reason to think there is a supernatural remember? I’m hardly in a position therefore to say anything about it. It’s your conjecture – you tell us what you mean by it.

What I do know though as a matter of semantics only is that it must mean, “other than natural” and yet for some reason you seem to think it must also be just natural enough to be susceptible to naturalistic methods of investigation, like reason and evidence.

Or something.

Dunno.

See, this is the kind of incoherence you fall into when you posit this stuff. 

You have agreed that a resurrected person is observable to science.

I’ve agreed no such thing. Stop lying.

What I actually agreed was only that a person is “observable to science”. Whether he’d been resurrected by some magic means or by some naturalistic means not yet apparent to the methods of science is a different matter entirely, and a process not “observable to science” at all. 

That is implicit in the term physically resurrected.

No it isn’t. How would you know whether he’d been resurrected at all?

One would presumably also have a diagnosis of physical death.

“One” would, though certainty about that was much less available 2,000 years ago.

You have not distinguished between or given a method of distinguishing an improbable natural event from a supernatural event and therefore have no right to pontificate on what can be investigate and what can't.

Now that is a proper non sequitur. Whether a supernatural resurrection or a natural one that we don’t have the science to understand, it’s still the case that there’s no way to investigate the claim. 

I, on the other hand, have said that a physically resurrected person is observable by science which you agreed with but that a divine cause cannot be.

Why are you lying again? I’ve agreed with no such thing, as you well know. The resurrection bit isn’t observable to anything, whether it occurred naturally or supernaturally.

[Nearly Sane]

It is noted that as foretold in the Book of Irrelevation, this thread has reached the Number of the Beastie in terms of pages, and since this means the unlocking of the Seventh Penguin, and the emergence of the Auntie Morag who shall wander the earth in search of Trumpageddon but shall find it in brussel sprouts, that the Floo shall leave and there will be a gnashing of artichokes and much wailing, mainly by the Daily Mail about grooming of teenagers while publishing pictures of celebrities' pubescent children having a nip slip, that the End Is Bill Nighy, and the board, the universe and even that feeling that someone is watching you will cease at the appointed time, subject to timetable changes by Southern Rail.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is noted that as foretold in the Book of Irrelevation, this thread has reached the Number of the Beastie in terms of pages, and since this means the unlocking of the Seventh Penguin, and the emergence of the Auntie Morag who shall wander the earth in search of Trumpageddon but shall find it in brussel sprouts, that the Floo shall leave and there will be a gnashing of artichokes and much wailing, mainly by the Daily Mail about grooming of teenagers while publishing pictures of celebrities' pubescent children having a nip slip, that the End Is Bill Nighy, and the board, the universe and even that feeling that someone is watching you will cease at the appointed time, subject to timetable changes by Southern Rail.

...And for viewers in Scotland.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It is noted that as foretold in the Book of Irrelevation, this thread has reached the Number of the Beastie in terms of pages, and since this means the unlocking of the Seventh Penguin, and the emergence of the Auntie Morag who shall wander the earth in search of Trumpageddon but shall find it in brussel sprouts, that the Floo shall leave and there will be a gnashing of artichokes and much wailing, mainly by the Daily Mail about grooming of teenagers while publishing pictures of celebrities' pubescent children having a nip slip, that the End Is Bill Nighy, and the board, the universe and even that feeling that someone is watching you will cease at the appointed time, subject to timetable changes by Southern Rail.

Makes more sense than the last few posts I've replied to here.

[Gordon]

...And for viewers in Scotland.

Makes complete sense to me, Vlad: I'm sure you must have read the Book of Irrelevation (just like a true Scotsman should).

[Ricky Spanish]

It is noted that as foretold in the Book of Irrelevation, this thread has reached the Number of the Beastie in terms of pages.

Weird..  My count says 333..  Must have mine on a different setting??

I was going to add a screenshot, but you don't allow photo's on here I see. Can't be arsed creating an account on a sharing page to link on here for one photie!!

[Nearly Sane]

It is noted that as foretold in the Book of Irrelevation, this thread has reached the Number of the Beastie in terms of pages.

Weird..  My count says 333..  Must have mine on a different setting??

Heathen

[Ricky Spanish]

 

[torridon]

It is noted that as foretold in the Book of Irrelevation, this thread has reached the Number of the Beastie in terms of pages, and since this means the unlocking of the Seventh Penguin, and the emergence of the Auntie Morag who shall wander the earth in search of Trumpageddon but shall find it in brussel sprouts, that the Floo shall leave and there will be a gnashing of artichokes and much wailing, mainly by the Daily Mail about grooming of teenagers while publishing pictures of celebrities' pubescent children having a nip slip, that the End Is Bill Nighy, and the board, the universe and even that feeling that someone is watching you will cease at the appointed time, subject to timetable changes by Southern Rail.

Brilliant   

[Anchorman]

Brilliant! On a par with Adrian Plass' take on the Prodigal Son from his "Sacred Diaries".

[SusanDoris]

Brilliant   

Definitely agree!!!

[Sebastian Toe]

...And for viewers in Scotland.

Fannybaws?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

AB
I am quite content to bea a deterministic biological being, since all humans have been that since we evolved to be so and have very successfully survived as a species without knowing the scientific facts!!  Being aware of the scientific, biological facts behind our humanity makes it far more exciting to realise what advances we have made and to understand the backward steps that have also been made.

Why is that not enough for you? To know that we, as a species, have done all that we have, whether good or bad, because of our evolved brains plus language is just about the most excellent thing of all to think about. Humans take all the credit and the responsibility; no hiving it off to some other imagined entity.

You asked, “Why is that enough for you?”. My answer to this question is that you are asking me to exchange one position which I believe but cannot prove, for another one for which elements have to be believed in the absence of proof.

On here, I can read the posts of my fellow Christians and see why they believe as they do. They show their working. I can read posts of those of other religious beliefs (e.g. Sriram) and see what he believes and why. However, when it comes to those who adopt your position, then with the exception of Torridon, I see very little to no working.

For example: You say in your post, “no hiving it off to some other imagined entity”. Is this your opinion, your belief, or is it a statement of fact? If the latter, then where is the proof? If it is your belief, fair enough, but then I could argue á là bluehillside and say, “what makes your belief true for me too as opposed to just true for you?”. You will often challenge me on my alleged certainty in my posts, but where does the certainty in your post to Alan Burns come from?

You see, pretty any argument that is used here against religious belief can be turned round and asked of your position. Yet whereas those of religious belief are expected to always provide not only answers, but answers deemed suitable, those on the other side don’t. So those of religious belief are expected to give up their position for something that cannot, and does not stand up to scrutiny.

[SusanDoris]

You asked, “Why is that enough for you?”.

No, I asked why is that NOT enough for you?

[BeRational]

You asked, “Why is that enough for you?”. My answer to this question is that you are asking me to exchange one position which I believe but cannot prove, for another one for which elements have to be believed in the absence of proof.

On here, I can read the posts of my fellow Christians and see why they believe as they do. They show their working. I can read posts of those of other religious beliefs (e.g. Sriram) and see what he believes and why. However, when it comes to those who adopt your position, then with the exception of Torridon, I see very little to no working.

For example: You say in your post, “no hiving it off to some other imagined entity”. Is this your opinion, your belief, or is it a statement of fact? If the latter, then where is the proof? If it is your belief, fair enough, but then I could argue á là bluehillside and say, “what makes your belief true for me too as opposed to just true for you?”. You will often challenge me on my alleged certainty in my posts, but where does the certainty in your post to Alan Burns come from?

You see, pretty any argument that is used here against religious belief can be turned round and asked of your position. Yet whereas those of religious belief are expected to always provide not only answers, but answers deemed suitable, those on the other side don’t. So those of religious belief are expected to give up their position for something that cannot, and does not stand up to scrutiny.

You like many theists seem to forget that YOU are making a claim that a god or gods exist. YOU then have the need to demonstrate that.

The DEFAULT position is that no god or gods exist, until shown to do so.

As an atheist I have NO burden of proof as I am NOT making a claim.

Do you understand and appreciate this?

[ippy]

You asked, “Why is that enough for you?”. My answer to this question is that you are asking me to exchange one position which I believe but cannot prove, for another one for which elements have to be believed in the absence of proof.

On here, I can read the posts of my fellow Christians and see why they believe as they do. They show their working. I can read posts of those of other religious beliefs (e.g. Sriram) and see what he believes and why. However, when it comes to those who adopt your position, then with the exception of Torridon, I see very little to no working.

For example: You say in your post, “no hiving it off to some other imagined entity”. Is this your opinion, your belief, or is it a statement of fact? If the latter, then where is the proof? If it is your belief, fair enough, but then I could argue á là bluehillside and say, “what makes your belief true for me too as opposed to just true for you?”. You will often challenge me on my alleged certainty in my posts, but where does the certainty in your post to Alan Burns come from?

You see, pretty any argument that is used here against religious belief can be turned round and asked of your position. Yet whereas those of religious belief are expected to always provide not only answers, but answers deemed suitable, those on the other side don’t. So those of religious belief are expected to give up their position for something that cannot, and does not stand up to scrutiny.

I have to second B R's explanation to you Sword, what is it you that find so difficult to understand about posts like this latest one of B R's.

By the way I'm a non-stamp collector as well as being classified as an atheist by religionist people like yourself, see if you can work that one out as well.

ippy

[Gordon]

You see, pretty any argument that is used here against religious belief can be turned round and asked of your position.

Don't think so: I don't argue against religion since all I need do is point out the deficiencies in your arguments.

Yet whereas those of religious belief are expected to always provide not only answers, but answers deemed suitable, those on the other side don’t.

Wrong again on both counts: since you are making invalid arguments to start with your 'answers' are irrelevant, and I'm not offering 'answers' by pointing out the deficiencies in your arguments.

So those of religious belief are expected to give up their position for something that cannot, and does not stand up to scrutiny.

Nobody has asked you to give up anything for anything: you can hold to any position you like but any arguments you present in support of that will be critiqued. Perhaps you should consider offering better arguments.

[SusanDoris]

I wonder if I will get an apology from Sots for his mis-quoting of my post?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

You asked, “Why is that enough for you?”. My answer to this question is that you are asking me to exchange one position which I believe but cannot prove, for another one for which elements have to be believed in the absence of proof.

You’re abusing the term “proof” here, and no-one’s asking you exchange anything: you’re free to be as irrational as you like. 

On here, I can read the posts of my fellow Christians and see why they believe as they do.

So can we all: “faith”.

They show their working.

No they don’t. There is no working in “faith”.

I can read posts of those of other religious beliefs (e.g. Sriram) and see what he believes and why. However, when it comes to those who adopt your position, then with the exception of Torridon, I see very little to no working.

Then you’re not looking. The only working necessary is to falsify the arguments made by theists for their gods – a relatively simple thing to do.

For example: You say in your post, “no hiving it off to some other imagined entity”. Is this your opinion, your belief, or is it a statement of fact? If the latter, then where is the proof? If it is your belief, fair enough, but then I could argue á là bluehillside and say, “what makes your belief true for me too as opposed to just true for you?”. You will often challenge me on my alleged certainty in my posts, but where does the certainty in your post to Alan Burns come from?

It’s a statement of the default position in the absence of cogent logic or evidence to the contrary, just as that’s your position in respect of claims about, say, leprechauns. Strictly speaking the working should have been something like, “…hiving it off to some other claim that’s indistinguishable from the imaginary” but the sentiment is clear if not the strict epistemology.   

You see, pretty any argument that is used here against religious belief can be turned round and asked of your position.

That’s not true. The arguments used “against religious beliefs” are in fact arguments that falsify the arguments for religious beliefs, a very different matter.

Yet whereas those of religious belief are expected to always provide not only answers…

Just cogent logic would be fine actually.

…but answers deemed suitable…

Only if by “suitable” you mean, “not logically false”.

…those on the other side don’t.

That’s not true either. An argument to falsify an argument for a religious belief must itself be logically cogent if it is to have force.

So those of religious belief are expected to give up their position for something that cannot, and does not stand up to scrutiny.

First, those of a religious belief are not expected to give up anything. All that’s being asked is that they don’t overreach into thinking that their beliefs should be privileged above just guessing.

Second, when a falsifying argument is logically cogent then it precisely does stand up to scrutiny – that’s what “logically coherent” means.

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside

Super post as usual! I did try responding to Sots's post but gave up when I was about half-way through and wrote just the one line instead!