Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just to be clear about what’s happened here. In Reply 17377 you told us:

You are confusing the two and eliminating the problems that methodological materialism poses for the philosophical aspect.

When asked what those “problems” might be, in Reply 17381 you told us:

The problems with philosophical naturalism?
It is a circular argument.
It is not demonstrated by methodological naturalism.

You were told in response that it doesn’t purport to, and then in Reply 17395 you told us that RationalWiki is your authority:

Even Rationalwiki follow mine......if it helps I shall quote them in future…

As that’s your citation, I went to that very same RationalWiki only to find:

“Science is itself a process based on methodological naturalism, i.e. treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case (even in utmost issues of philosophy), but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method)"

Let’s just savour the key parts again shall we?:

"...treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case..."

Did you see that "as if"? Not even a hint of purporting to "demonstrate" philosophical naturalism is there?

“…but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method)"

What's that you say? "Without taking stand" etc? Well, well.

See, here’s the thing: after all these years of you banging on with your complaint that methodological naturalism doesn’t demonstrate philosophical naturalism, and all these years of being told that it doesn’t purport to, you then decide to cite a source that says that (pause for drum roll etc) it doesn’t purport to!

Well who’d have thunk it eh? Do you hear that rumbling sound coming ever closer? That’ll be the walls of the castle in the air you’ve spent all this time asserting into existence crashing down around your delicate ears.

No doubt you’ll ignore this as ever and resort to insult, irrelevance, deflection etc in the hope it’ll go away but there it is nonetheless I’m afraid.     

What a time to be alive eh?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh, Flaming heck Hillside People can read the definitions for themselves.

Yes they can. And that’s your problem.

Philosophical naturalism is what we are talking about.

Trying to, yes.

You are trying to conflate methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism in the hope that it will disguise any philosophy...That's just the ''turd that will not polish''.

Well you have that arse-backwards still I see. What I did (using your citation remember) was the opposite of that – I explained that methodological naturalism does not even purport to demonstrate philosophical naturalism. The only “conflation” here is your attempt to draw the two together by complaining that philosophical naturalism is problematic because methodological naturalism doesn’t demonstrate it!

Please admit incorrectness over definition then the way is clear for us to discuss any de facto position.

Er, I think you’ll find that that’s your job.

I look forward to it!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just to be clear about what’s happened here. In Reply 17377 you told us:

When asked what those “problems” might be, in Reply 17381 you told us:

You were told in response that it doesn’t purport to, and then in Reply 17395 you told us that RationalWiki is your authority:

As that’s your citation, I went to that very same RationalWiki only to find:

“Science is itself a process based on methodological naturalism, i.e. treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case (even in utmost issues of philosophy), but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method)"

Let’s just savour the key parts again shall we?:

"...treating the world as if metaphysical naturalism was the case"

Did you see that "as if"? Not even a hint of validating philosophical naturalism is there?

“…but without actually taking a stand on matters philosophical (outside of method)"

What's that you say? "Without taking stand" etc? Well, well.

See, here’s the thing: after all these years of you banging on with your complaint that methodological naturalism doesn’t validate philosophical naturalism, and all these years of being told that it doesn’t purport to, you then decide to cite a source that says that (pause for drum roll etc) it doesn’t purport to!

Well who’d have thunk it eh? Do you hear that rumbling sound coming ever closer? That’ll be the walls of the castle in the air you’ve spent all this time asserting into existence crashing down around your delicate ears.

No doubt you’ll ignore this as ever and resort to insult, irrelevance, deflection etc in the hope it’ll go away but there it is nonetheless I’m afraid.     

What a time to be alive eh?

You say you are not equating science with atheism or methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism and yet you are happy to include this:

'' philosophical naturalism is what Richard Carrier simply describes as "science with less data",[4] operating in anticipation of scientific data where possible.''

I'm philosophically arresting your argument therefore on charge of scientism, conflating science with philosophical naturalism and conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes they can. And that’s your problem.

No it's yours because you have included this:

''Philosophical naturalism is what Richard Carrier simply describes as "science with less data",[4] operating in anticipation of scientific data where possible.''

That's what makes your argument and he ''fringe''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You say you are not equating science with atheism or methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism and yet you are happy to include this:

'' philosophical naturalism is what Richard Carrier simply describes as "science with less data",[4] operating in anticipation of scientific data where possible.''

I'm philosophically arresting your argument therefore on charge of scientism, conflating science with philosophical naturalism and conflating methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism.

First, you just ignored that your entire schtick has just come crashing around your ears.

Why is that?

Second, that’s a spectacular own goal you just scored there. Whether or not I agree with Richard Carrier, “science with less data” means not science. As you’ll be wondering where you went wrong about that now, it means “not science” for the same reason that “alternative medicine” means not medicine.

Third, I don’t know whether citizens’ arrests allow people to apprehend themselves but, if they do, I suggest therefore you start looking for the ‘cuffs asap.

Still, well done at least though for making your muffled cries heard under all that rubble! 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No it's yours because you have included this:

''Philosophical naturalism is what Richard Carrier simply describes as "science with less data",[4] operating in anticipation of scientific data where possible.''

That's what makes your argument and he ''fringe''.

At least you're not alone:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/match-reports/norwich-2-0-brighton-david-10272669

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

First, you just ignored that your entire schtick has just come crashing around your ears.

Why is that?

Second, that’s a spectacular own goal you just scored there. Whether or not I agree with Richard Carrier, “science with less data” means not science.

ROFL

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

ROFL

You do realise that the word "science" has, well, you know, a definition right?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You do realise that the word "science" has, well, you know, a definition right?

Yes. What is ''science with less data'' but science? Oh...and it is Carrier that is using Science in the same way that some refer to hokey remedies as alternative medicine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes. What is ''science with less data'' but science?

Potentially, lots of things. The point though is that it's not science because the criteria for the definition of that term are not satisfied. You can wriggle all you like, but you won't get of that hook.
 

Oh...and it is Carrier that is using Science in the same way that some refer to hokey remedies as alternative medicine.

He isn't. He's using "science with less data", presumably to distinguish it from, you know, science.

Just out of interest by the way, do you intend to keep ignoring that your "philosophical naturalism is problematic because methodological naturalism doesn't demonstrate it" schtick has just collapsed in a heap at your feet?

What will it say about you do you think if you do?

(I can send you some Savlon if that helps?)
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Potentially, lots of things. The point though is that it's not science because the criteria for the definition of that term are not satisfied. You can wriggle all you like, but you won't get of that hook.
 
He isn't. He's using "science with less data", presumably to distinguish it from, you know, science.

Oh, That'll be why he goes on to say it is science awaiting data.

Ever heard of the Halo effect, Hillside?
Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho He He He.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just out of interest by the way, do you intend to keep ignoring that your "philosophical naturalism is problematic because methodological naturalism doesn't demonstrate it" schtick has just collapsed in a heap at your feet?

How can one ignore something that hasn't happened?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh, That'll be why he goes on to say it is science awaiting data.

Yes, so still not science then. Presumably then you think that an engine is actually a car only, you know, a car awaiting a chassis, body, brakes etc.

Good luck driving to the shops in it!

Ever heard of the Halo effect, Hillside?

Yes – you’re doing it here. You seem to think that “science with less data” should influence your opinion on something being actual science.

You do you know that that’s not a good thing right?

Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho He He He.

Keep laughing through the tears old son, keep laughing through the tears.

PS Just a helpful thought for you: the next time you feel like crashing back into your “philosophical naturalism/methodological naturalism” mistake just bookmark Reply 17402 here where it all fell apart to save yourself the trouble.

And embarrassment.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How can one ignore something that hasn't happened?

As you've just ignored it, how do you know that it hasn't happened?

Amazon do a same day delivery service by the way, so hang on in there - the Savlon's on its way!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes, so still not science then. Presumably then you think that an engine is actually a car only, you know, a car awaiting a chassis, body, brakes etc.

Good luck driving to the shops in it!

Yes – you’re doing it here. You seem to think that “science with less data” should influence your opinion on something being actual science.

You do you know that that’s not a good thing right?

Keep laughing through the tears old son, keep laughing through the tears.

PS Just a helpful thought for you: the next time you feel like crashing back into your “philosophical naturalism/methodological naturalism” mistake just bookmark Reply 17402 here where it all fell apart to save yourself the trouble.

And embarrassment.

Some say that the trouble with Lawrence Olivier was that it was obvious that he was performing. A great performance but obvious.............I get the same feeling about your turdpolishing.

I consider you the Olivier of the Shitshine. I can't think of a greater compliment I can pay.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Some say that the trouble with Lawrence Olivier was that it was obvious that he was performing. A great performance but obvious.............I get the same feeling about your turdpolishing.

I consider you the Olivier of the Shitshine. I can't think of a greater compliment I can pay.

Sorry, can't hear you - you're too muffled under all that rubble.

Would I be right in thinking you've followed standard Vlad operating procedure and resorted to insult when your arguments have collapsed?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Sorry, can't hear you - you're too muffled under all that rubble.

Would I be right in thinking you've followed standard Vlad operating procedure and resorted to insult when your arguments have collapsed?

Its not resorting to anything.
The definitions of philosophical naturalism aren't your definition.
Carrier has by his own words been caught equating science with philosophical naturalism. He has said it IS science with less data, He has said it IS science awaiting data.
You were careless enough to alert us to it.
Philosophical materialism is not science.

What you are doing is classic New Atheist rearguard action '' Dr Dawkins didn't mean to suggest religion was the root of all evil''
''Dr Carrier didn't mean to say that philosophical materialism was science with less data or science awaiting data''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Sorry, can't hear you - you're too muffled under all that rubble.

Would I be right in thinking you've followed standard Vlad operating procedure and resorted to insult

I compare Hillside with Olivier...and this is the thanks I get.

Who does he want to be compared with........... Branagh?.......... Stephen Baldwin, William Shatner?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Its not resorting to anything.

That’s exactly what it was. Stop lying.

The definitions of philosophical naturalism isn't your definition.

Or Stanford University’s according to you. Suggest you take it up with them if you don’t like that they disagree with your personal version of it.

Carrier has by his own words been caught equating science with philosophical naturalism. He has said it IS science with less data, He has said it IS science awaiting data.
You were careless enough to alert us to it.
Philosophical materialism is not science.

Why are you even bothering with this stupidity? The “with less data” and “awaiting data” are the critical words there – otherwise why wouldn’t you ague that an engine “IS” a car awaiting parts?

What you are doing is classic New Atheist rearguard action '' Dr Dawkins didn't mean to suggest religion was the root of all evil'' ''Dr Carrier didn't mean to say that philosophical materialism was science with less data or science awaiting data''.

Stop lying. He presumably did mean to say that – the problem is that it doesn’t mean what you want it to mean.

Amazon just e-mailed me – your Savlon will be there some time between 4 and 6 if that’s ok. Hang on in there.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I compare Hillside with Olivier...and this is the thanks I get.

Who does he want to be compared with........... Branagh?.......... Stephen Baldwin, William Shatner?

And I compare you with Pinocchio - a great puppet, but...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s exactly what it was. Stop lying.

Or Stanford University’s according to you.

They come up with several for naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.

Unfortunately we were discussing philosophical materialism and you were foolish enough to choose Carrier's definition which was itself just another attempt to conflate science with philosophical naturalism.

I don't even have to start on the problems of philosophical materialism. You are doing a great job yourself...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And I compare you with Pinocchio - a great puppet, but...

...That's just string theory.

[ippy]

We believe w

A B, after Sparky you must be one of the most unrealistic posters here on this thread, you're always spouting about your views like the your last post to me, where you wrote, ' I do hope and pray that you too will come to see the truth', your truth I suppose?

There isn't anything to be found anywhere that would support the magical, mystical or superstition based parts of the religion that you insist on saying you believe and manage to make yourself believe, all without slightest thing that could be considered viable that might back up your words.

I know you get extra brownie points for believing in spite of the lack of viable evidence, that's about as dozy as it comes in my book.

Since there's no viable evidence to support your version of the truth, as you put it, unfortunately for you the balance of the truth has to be in the favour of non-belief in ideas like Isis, Odin or Jesus being anything more than a man.

I hope that you too will come to see the truth, only because of my distaste of how you people take advantage of very young children by planting your unfounded ideas into their innocent heads, other than that if you insist on believing nonsense, please fill your boot to your hearts content.

ippy

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

They come up with several for naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.

What you actually asked though was:

Are you able to give a citation of anybodies which share your definition of Philosophical Naturalism?....Anybody?

To which the answer was “yes”. Specifically the SEoP says:

“The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.”

This undoes your personal, absolutist version. Having asked for it, you can’t now complain because it disagrees with you.

Unfortunately we were discussing philosophical materialism and you were foolish enough to choose Carrier's definition which was itself just another attempt to conflate science with philosophical naturalism.

Why are you still lying?

Have you reached the shops yet driving your engine that “IS” a car awaiting further components?

Why not?

I don't even have to start on the problems of philosophical materialism. You are doing a great job yourself...

As your effort at identifying the supposed problems with philosophical naturalism has collapsed (with the authority of your own citation by the way) you may as well see whether you can do better with “philosophical materialism”.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What you actually asked though was:

To which the answer was “yes”. Specifically the SEoP says:

“The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”.”

This undoes your personal, absolutist version. Having asked for it, you can’t now complain because it disagrees with you.

Why are you still lying?

Have you reached the shops yet driving your engine that “IS” a car awaiting further components?

Why not?

As your effort at identifying the supposed problems with philosophical naturalism has collapsed (with the authority of your own citation by the way) you may as well see whether you can do better with “philosophical materialism”.

Unfortunately you gave a definition of philosophical naturalism, Carrier's, which states that philosophical naturalism IS ''science with less data''.....and ''science awaiting data''.

You either want to pin your case on this tripe or you don't Hillside.

If you do then it is clear you are conflating science with philosophical naturalism.
If you don't then you made a foolish mistake in making that your one specific reference to philosophical naturalism.