Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

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. 

So can we all: “faith”.

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

That would explain your desperate smoke and mirrors attempt at turning philosophical naturalism into methodological naturalism.

Philosophical materialists do not hold any default position.

And yet we have to accept it as a philosophy.

Theism is also a philosophy and an argument may be ''worked out' from premises.

So I disagree with you to a certain extent.

However encounter is different from philosophising and ,of course different from ''guessing''.

I think you are dogmatically committed to guessing. Am I right.

[BeRational]

That would explain your desperate smoke and mirrors attempt at turning philosophical naturalism into methodological naturalism.

Philosophical materialists do not hold any default position.

And yet we have to accept it as a philosophy.

Theism is also a philosophy and an argument may be ''worked out' from premises.

So I disagree with you to a certain extent.

However encounter is different from philosophising and ,of course different from ''guessing''.

I think you are dogmatically committed to guessing. Am I right.

What encounter?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That would explain your desperate smoke and mirrors attempt at turning philosophical naturalism into methodological naturalism.

There is no such need, desperate or otherwise. Presumably you’re thinking here again of your personal re-definitions of these terms rather than their actual meanings. That being so, as we’re in the hall of mirrors world of Vladism there’s no telling what anyone does or doesn’t think.

For what it’s worth though, when using the proper meanings of the terms there is no such attempt.

Philosophical materialists do not hold any default position.

Your personal definition or the actual one? If you mean the actual one – that the material is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable – then the default position is that claims outside this parameter should be treated as equally unlikely pending a method to distinguish them from just guessing.

Have you thought of such a method for your claims yet?

And yet we have to accept it as a philosophy.

If you want to call that “a philosophy”, that’s up to you.

Theism is also a philosophy and an argument may be ''worked out' from premises.

No it isn’t. Its premises collapse when you get to the bit that says, “miracle happens here”.

So I disagree with you to a certain extent.

You cannot because you don’t understand what it is you’re disagreeing with.

However encounter is different from philosophising and ,of course different from ''guessing''.

No, it’s precisely guessing. What makes you think that your guess that you had an “encounter” at all rather than something else is accurate?

Nice attempt at the reification fallacy though.

I think you are dogmatically committed to guessing.

No, that’d be you – you even give it a name I believe: “faith”.

Am I right.

Not in any of the posts you’ve attempted so far, no.

[Alan Burns]

For instance, a creator God that is defined as moral and good would not create or tolerate to exist evil, in the shape of the Devil.  Cognitive dissonance, not logic.

You seem to be very adept at knowing what God should do.  No doubt if you witnessed the crucifixion you would have been one of those telling Jesus "If you are God, get yourself down from the cross".  I do not pretend to know the mind of God, but I do know that He loves us.  And I do know that in creating beings with free will, He allows the possibility of evil to exist in the form of beings which choose evil.  But this just shows that He did not create robots. 

[Alan Burns]

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.

Susan, you do not appreciate the amazing gift of conscious awareness that has enabled us to discover all these scientific facts, and to ponder the concept of our own existence.  None of this would be possible if we were just biological robots, just reacting to events along with the rest of the material continuum of this universe.

[Enki]

You seem to be very adept at knowing what God should do.  No doubt if you witnessed the crucifixion you would have been one of those telling Jesus "If you are God, get yourself down from the cross".  I do not pretend to know the mind of God, but I do know that He loves us.  And I do know that in creating beings with free will, He allows the possibility of evil to exist in the form of beings which choose evil.  But this just shows that He did not create robots.

I can't speak for Torri but if I was faced with any cruxifixion, including that of Jesus (as related in the Gospels), my overwhelming emotions would be ones of horror and disgust at the barbarity of such punishments, at least as I see it from my position today. In exactly the same way I would be appalled at the barbarity and viciousness of 'Judas's Cradle', the 'Pear', the 'Cat's Paw' or the 'Heretic's Fork', all medieval examples of horrific punishments. The 'Pear', for instance, was meted out for such 'sins' as sodomy, adultery, incest, heresy, blasphemy and sexual union with with Satan. Such sadistic tortures were, of course, often carried out by the Roman Catholic Church of those times. Indeed, the ironically named Pope Innocent IV actually authorised such tortures in 1251, which the order of Dominican monks carried out with alacrity.

The idea of taunting Jesus would be very far from my thoughts. The compassion I would feel for his situation would, for me, be far more important than attacking him for what I would see as his delusional beliefs.

Incidentally I do not pretend to know the 'mind of God' in any way, because I have no belief in his existence. I am much more concerned with the minds of human beings, and, from that human perspective, I would wholeheartedly agree with Torri, when he said:

For instance, a creator God that is defined as moral and good would not create or tolerate to exist evil, in the shape of the Devil.  Cognitive dissonance, not logic.

[Stranger]

None of this would be possible if we were just biological robots, just reacting to events along with the rest of the material continuum of this universe.

How do you know?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#16654

That would explain your desperate smoke and mirrors attempt at turning philosophical naturalism into methodological naturalism.

There is no such need, desperate or otherwise. Presumably you’re thinking here again of your personal re-definitions of these terms rather than their actual meanings.

Vlad is correct. Let me demonstrate from your post:

Methodological materialism:

If you mean the actual one – that the material is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable …

Philosophical materialism: (emphasis mine)

… then the default position is that claims outside this parameter should be treated as equally unlikely pending a method to distinguish them from just guessing.

That last part in particular betrays your confirmation bias and illustrates the transition from a purely methodological position to one that now includes a philosophical one (alternative claims are guesses). It’s this inherent confirmation bias, addressed brilliantly by Vlad in #40 of the Saved by Faith through Grace thread that has to be dealt with before any progress can be made.

Incidentally, on your one-trick pony claim, I seem to remember it was someone called bluehillside that started the Are we done here? thread. Clearly the hundreds of responses from Christians were not enough for you; you just kept coming out with the same old same old in response. So, like I said in my previous post, just about any argument you make can be turned round and used of your own position. I make absolutely no apology for continually pointing it out.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

I note that you have a similar approach to Vlad. You post various mistakes that I take the time to rebut (see 16650). You ignore the rebuttals, go quiet for a bit, then return with a different set of mistakes as if the rebuttals to the previous ones hadn’t happened.

Why is that?

Anyways…

Vlad is correct. Let me demonstrate from your post:

Methodological materialism:

Quote
If you mean the actual one – that the material is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable …

Philosophical materialism: (emphasis mine)
Quote

… then the default position is that claims outside this parameter should be treated as equally unlikely pending a method to distinguish them from just guessing.

That last part in particular betrays your confirmation bias and illustrates the transition from a purely methodological position to one that now includes a philosophical one (alternative claims are guesses).

Try again. What I actually said was, “to distinguish them from just guessing”. You even posted the quite for me! Saying that something is a guess is an unknowable statement of fact about the status of the claim. “God”, leprechauns, whatever may or may not be guesses – for all I know one or lots of them might be true because the people who assert them have a secret method of validating the claim. On the other hand, that they offer no method “to distinguish them from just guessing” is a knowable fact because, well, no such method has been forthcoming.

That's all that's being said here, and not your straw man version of it.

It’s this inherent confirmation bias, addressed brilliantly by Vlad in #40 of the Saved by Faith through Grace thread that has to be dealt with before any progress can be made.

No it isn’t because your confirmation bias attempt has just collapsed. As for whether or not Vlad is capable of “brilliantly” doing anything I’ll leave for others to judge (are you sure you’re not him?) but given his deep confusion about the terms he attempts it seems pretty unlikely I’d have thought.

Incidentally, on your one-trick pony claim, I seem to remember it was someone called bluehillside that started the Are we done here? thread. Clearly the hundreds of responses from Christians were not enough for you; you just kept coming out with the same old same old in response.

When someone attempts repeatedly the epistemic equivalent of 2+2=5 like your “world view” error, there’s no need to riff on endless variations of the explanation of why 2+2≠5.

So, like I said in my previous post, just about any argument you make can be turned round and used of your own position.

Wrongly though, as you’d know if you’d bothered with engaging with the rebuttal of it.

I make absolutely no apology for continually pointing it out.

Then you should because your “pointing it out” is just another of your mistakes.

[SusanDoris]

Susan, you do not appreciate the amazing gift of conscious awareness that has enabled us to discover all these scientific facts, and to ponder the concept of our own existence.  None of this would be possible if we were just biological robots, just reacting to events along with the rest of the material continuum of this universe.

Firstly, you do not know what I do or do not appreciate about life; you can only make assumptions from posts on this forum. Secondly
, my consciousness is not a *gift*, it is inherent in all humans, and has been part of the evolution of our species. Thirdly, I don't think you have yet answered my question about why all the knowledge we hav is NOT enough for you. I use capitals there, in case Sots  comes along and misquotes me again!!

[SusanDoris]

I think Sots must take the first prize for arrogance! I don't think I've ever seen its like. One can't count NM as he makes no attempt at posting sense. 

[torridon]

You seem to be very adept at knowing what God should do.  No doubt if you witnessed the crucifixion you would have been one of those telling Jesus "If you are God, get yourself down from the cross".  I do not pretend to know the mind of God, but I do know that He loves us.  ....

Well if it were true that he loves us he would not create the Devil to mess us all up would he ?  This is really simple.  You are like someone insisting that Hitler loved the Jews, why, because he said so once, all the while somehow you manage to overlook all that business with the gas chambers.  Apologetics stinks with hypocrisy and double think.

[torridon]

Susan, you do not appreciate the amazing gift of conscious awareness that has enabled us to discover all these scientific facts, and to ponder the concept of our own existence.  None of this would be possible if we were just biological robots, just reacting to events along with the rest of the material continuum of this universe.

How would you know that ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

I think Sots must take the first prize for arrogance! I don't think I've ever seen its like. One can't count NM as he makes no attempt at posting sense.   

I posted recently about the relationships between “big C” Christianity and “small c” christian behaviour: the more someone is the former, the less of the latter they seem to exhibit. Sword seems to have taken that as his model – the more arrogant he is, the simpler it becomes to dismantle his attempts at argument. His latest howler (when he even quoted what I’d actually said and just before his straw man version of it) was a doozy!

What are the chances of him responding to that rather than just disappearing again do you reckon?

[wigginhall]

Well if it were true that he loves us he would not create the Devil to mess us all up would he ?  This is really simple.  You are like someone insisting that Hitler loved the Jews, why, because he said so once, all the while somehow you manage to overlook all that business with the gas chambers.  Apologetics stinks with hypocrisy and double think.

Yes, for AB's God, there have to be so many excuses.  He loves us, but lets us die in agony from diseases, lets children be bombed in wars, lets thousands of them becomes refugees, and drown in the sea, and so on.   OK, you can say that that is caused by humans, but then what is God doing?  He seems very very passive.   The old joke comes to mind - almost as if he's not there. 

[Alan Burns]

Yes, for AB's God, there have to be so many excuses.  He loves us, but lets us die in agony from diseases, lets children be bombed in wars, lets thousands of them becomes refugees, and drown in the sea, and so on.   OK, you can say that that is caused by humans, but then what is God doing?  He seems very very passive.   The old joke comes to mind - almost as if he's not there.

You seem to forget that He Himself suffered torture and death to save us from our sins.

[Alan Burns]

How would you know that ?

You may well cling on to the belief that our conscious awareness and ability to interact (rather than react) can all be explained by physical material reactions to deterministic events, but the truth is out there to be discovered.

[Alan Burns]

Firstly, you do not know what I do or do not appreciate about life; you can only make assumptions from posts on this forum. Secondly
, my consciousness is not a *gift*, it is inherent in all humans, and has been part of the evolution of our species. Thirdly, I don't think you have yet answered my question about why all the knowledge we hav is NOT enough for you. I use capitals there, in case Sots  comes along and misquotes me again!!

Human knowledge has made great strides, but it alone will never be sufficient to fully define reality.  And I am sorry that you do not appreciate that our conscious awareness is God's gift.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem to forget that He Himself suffered torture and death to save us from our sins.

That’s not a fact to forget, it’s just an article of your personal belief on the matter. You’re committing the fallacy of reification again.

You may well cling on to the belief that our conscious awareness and ability to interact (rather than react) can all be explained by physical material reactions to deterministic events, but the truth is out there to be discovered.

Accepting the evidence isn’t “clinging to a belief”, it’s just accepting the evidence. If for some reason known only to yourself you have more cogent evidence of your own that invalidates that from neuroscience in particular then why not finally tell us what it is?

Human knowledge has made great strides, but it alone will never be sufficient to fully define reality.

Sort of. More accurately, at the moment there is no means to know whether will have have “fully defined reality” – ie, the unknown unknowns problem. Science though makes no such claim in any case – rather it provides models that best fit the available data. Religious assertions like yours on the other hand are epistemically indistinguishable from just guessing about stuff.

And I am sorry that you do not appreciate that our conscious awareness is God's gift.

Something you cannot know to be true, and moreover that contradicts the evidence we do have. You have a serious case of cognitive dissonance there.

[SusanDoris]

What are the chances of him responding to that rather than just disappearing again do you reckon?

I think I'll try a bit of prophecy!!:)
 There will be an absence of several days, then Sots will compile a post consisting of quotes from other posts, and then make another statement which will, he will probably feel sure, establish his more authoritative opinion.

I might be quite wrong of course!!

[torridon]

Human knowledge has made great strides, but it alone will never be sufficient to fully define reality.  And I am sorry that you do not appreciate that our conscious awareness is God's gift.

Does that mean that meningitis is also God's gift, also Huntington's disease and sickle cell and childhood leukemia and a few thousand other conditions 'gifted' to us.  Or are you being biased, seeing only the good things and somehow not noticing the bad ones ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sort of. More accurately, at the moment there is no means to know whether will have have “fully defined reality” – ie, the unknown unknowns problem. Science though makes no such claim in any case – rather it provides models that best fit the available data. Religious assertions like yours on the other hand are epistemically indistinguishable from just guessing about stuff.

Although against that there is what Paul Davies refers to as the law of mediocrity where so far every part of the observed universe follows the laws of physics.

I wonder if you aren't straw clutching in this post.

[torridon]

You may well cling on to the belief that our conscious awareness and ability to interact (rather than react) can all be explained by physical material reactions to deterministic events, but the truth is out there to be discovered.

I don't know about 'clinging to beliefs', that is not some principle I would espouse, rather , what I suggest is keeping an open mind and being prepared to follow the evidence.  That's uncomfortable for some, perhaps most, people.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That’s not a fact to forget, it’s just an article of your personal belief on the matter. You’re committing the fallacy of reification again.

You have often compared my Christian faith to a belief in leprechauns, but in doing this you are exercising your God given gift of free will by choosing to ignore all the available evidence and eye witness accounts.

[BeRational]

You have often compared my Christian faith to a belief in leprechauns, but in doing this you are exercising your God given gift of free will by choosing to ignore all the available evidence and eye witness accounts.

What eye witness accounts?
I have 10,000 eye witness accounts that say differently.

You cannot check them of course, just like your alleged accounts cannot be checked.

It is a CLAIM of eye witness accounts not the ACTUAL accounts so they can be ignored unless you allow my greater number of 10,000 to count