Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

Unfortunately you keep lying about what these expressions mean.

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

I don't if by "tripe" you mean your dishonest representations about what he says. Happy though to "pin my case" on what the SEoP actually says on the matter.   

If you do then it is clear you are conflating science with philosophical naturalism.

Only if we accept your lies.

I don't.

If you don't then you made a foolish mistake in making that your one specific reference to philosophical naturalism.

Perhaps if you stopped lying for a bit it would help things along here? If you seriously think that "science awaiting data" "IS" science etc then on what basis could you argue that an engine isn't a car awaiting components, an egg isn't an omelette awaiting cooking, a dictionary isn't a novel awaiting writing?

Now if you want a proper example of a foolish mistake, have a look at the RationalWiki citation you referenced that detonated precisely your "philosophical naturalism is problematic because methodological naturalism doesn't demonstrate it" ludicrousness.

Did the Savlon arrive by the way? You'll be needing it.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Unfortunately you keep lying about what these expressions mean.

I don't if by "tripe" you mean your dishonest representations about what he says. Happy though to "pin my case" on what the SEoP actually says on the matter.   

Only if we accept your lies.

I don't.

Perhaps if you stopped lying for a bit it would help things along here? If you seriously think that "science awaiting data" "IS" science etc then on what basis could you argue that an engine isn't a car awaiting components, an egg isn't an omelette awaiting cooking, a dictionary isn't a novel awaiting writing?

Now if you want a proper example of a foolish mistake, have a look at the RationalWiki citation you referenced that detonated precisely your "philosophical naturalism is problematic because methodological naturalism doesn't demonstrate it" ludicrousness.

Did the Savlon arrive by the way? You'll be needing it.   

Hillside I think anybody who is following this ( No one) will see that the vast bulk of your input on this is ad hominem and conflation and confusion, with handwaving and smoke and mirrors on your part.

We can settle this here and now with you making an admission that science is not philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism is not philosophical naturalism and does not support philosophical naturalism.

Somehow...I don't think you can bring yourself to do this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside I think anybody who is following this ( No one) will see that the vast bulk of your input on this is ad hominem and conflation and confusion, with handwaving and smoke and mirrors on your part.

That's one way to describe the arguments that undo you I suppose. Not very honest though is it?

We can settle this here and now with you making an admission that science is not philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism is not philosophical naturalism.

What "admission"? I’m quite happy to tell you (yet again) that I go with “the great majority of contemporary philosophers” here, namely: 

“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”.”

(SEoP)

My position is and has always been that science is indeed “one possible route” but “not necessarily the only one” despite the absolutist tag you’re so desperate to paste onto me and onto others.. 

As for “admitting” that “methodological naturalism is not philosophical naturalism”, given that I’ve always said as much and that you’ve constantly complained that philosophical naturalism is problematic because methodological naturalism doesn’t “demonstrate” it that's just bizarre. Why on earth would methodological naturalism do that or need to do that for it to stand as it is? Philosophical naturalism as fine on it’s own thanks provided you don’t lie about what it means, and methodological naturalism takes no position at all on it. 

Somehow...I don't think you can bring yourself to do this.

Still lying then?

Oh well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's one way to describe the arguments that undo you I suppose. Not very honest though is it?

What "admission"? I’m quite happy to tell you (yet again) that I go with “the great majority of contemporary philosophers” here, namely: 

“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”.”

(SEoP)

My position is and has always been that science is indeed “one possible route” but “not necessarily the only one” despite the absolutist tag you’re so desperate to paste onto me and onto others.. 

As for “admitting” that “methodological naturalism is not philosophical naturalism”, given that I’ve always said as much and that you’ve constantly complained that philosophical naturalism is problematic because methodological naturalism doesn’t “demonstrate” it that's just bizarre. Why on earth would methodological naturalism do that or need to do that for it to stand as it is? Philosophical naturalism as fine on it’s own thanks provided you don’t lie about what it means, and methodological naturalism takes no position at all on it. 

Well we have made progress....presumably it will also take a number of years and category confusion to find out what this means:

 Philosophical naturalism as fine on it’s own thanks.

Since you reject Carrier's definition, Wikipedia's definition and Rationalwiki's definition it might be a start to define what you mean by it.

Somehow I don't think you can bring yourself to do that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

“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”.”

That's still a conflation of philosophical and methodological naturalism not least by using the umbrella term ''naturalism''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well we have made progress....presumably it will also take a number of years and category confusion to find out what this means:

Philosophical naturalism as fine on it’s own thanks.

Well it may do, though cock-eyed optimist that I am I live in hope that your confusion will eventually lift. Doubtless I’ll have to say this many times in the face of you misrepresenting it in future, but “philosophical naturalism is fine on it’s own thanks” just means that it’s not problematic because methodological naturalism doesn’t demonstrate it. This is the assertion you’ve made countless times (including recently here) but maybe – finally – the very authority you thought supported you but that actually falsified you will have shown you the error of your ways.

Since you reject Carrier's definition…

No I don’t – why are you lying again? What I reject is your misrepresentations of it, which is a different matter entirely.

Wikipedia's definition and Rationalwiki's definition it might be a start to define what you mean by it.

Somehow I don't think you can bring yourself to do that.

Definitions of what? If you think you have a point here, tell us what it is.

Surely you’ve now abandoned your “something without its requisite parts is still the same something” effort haven’t you?

Haven’t you?

 

That's still a conflation of philosophical and methodological naturalism not least by using the umbrella term ''naturalism''.

Of course it isn’t. It makes no reference to these things. Why are you lying again?

Suggest you take a deep breath, start with what RationalWiki actually says, and go from there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Well it may do, though cock-eyed optimist that I am I live in hope that your confusion will eventually lift. Doubtless I’ll have to say this many times in the face of you misrepresenting it in future, but “philosophical naturalism is fine on it’s own thanks” just means that it’s not problematic because methodological naturalism doesn’t demonstrate it.

Great. So we will never again hear or read you defend any position against theism or for philosophical naturalism which depends on any appeal to science or methodological naturalism......
....so I guess that's goodbye from you then...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On Carrier I stated you rejected his definition of philosophical naturalism. You replied:

No I don’t – why are you lying again?

So you don't reject this then:

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

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Great. So we will never again hear or read you defend any position against theism or for philosophical naturalism which depends on any appeal to science or methodological naturalism......

....so I guess that's goodbye from you then...

Ah, the hall of mirrors reasoning of Vladism. After what, tens? hundreds? thousands of times maybe of patiently explaining not only that I do not think science equals atheism but also why I don’t think science equals atheism only for you to pretend otherwise, now you have the front to tell me to never “again” to take a position against theism with an appeal to science?

Dear god man – do you even realise what you’re doing here?

As I have never said, “theism is wrong because of science” I can see no reason why I would do so in future. Of course on the other hand Deepak if a theist wants to defend or proselytise for his theism by playing on science’s turf, then of course I’ll fee free to explain where he’s crashed and burned.

As for philosophical naturalism depending on methodological naturalism, again why are you persisting with this lie? Seriously, why? Pretty much every time the subject has come up I’ve said the opposite of that, and it’s you who’s tried to yoke them together by asserting that the former is problematic because it isn’t demonstrated by the latter?

Remember now?

Good.

So presumably you’ll remember too that the very citation you thought you could rely on for support actually blew you out of the water won’t you.

Won’t you?

Good.

So...and speaking of retirements, as you’ve invested massively in the same mistake that’s been well and truly ransacked, dhansacked and thrown against a wall now can we assume that this is now the last we’ll hear of you?   

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

No. So you don’t deny pretending that “science with less data” is the same thing as science then?

I’d throw you a lifebelt if only out of a vague sense of pity, but frankly when you’re this dead in the water I don’t see much point.

Enjoy your retirement though.

[Alan Burns]

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

 

Dear Ippy, 
There is no such thing as my truth.  There is only one truth and we have only one lifetime to find it.

[BeRational]

Dear Ippy, 
There is no such thing as my truth.  There is only one truth and we have only one lifetime to find it.

Then please demonstrate that it is true without  assertions and arguments with fallacies.
The fact you cannot believe something is NOT evidence that something is not true.

You claim you understand logic, so please start being logical.

For a start the default position is that there is no such thing as a soul.

That is the default position. Do you understand that?

[Alan Burns]

Not ironic, really.

Our free will is apparent, but the idea is undermined by evidence and reason.

Another creature's inner sentience is apparent, from its outward behaviours, and there are no contraindications from evidence to suggest otherwise, so we assume what is apparent.

Both these positions are true to the principals of evidence and reason.

Since your position always seems to be diametrically opposed to mine, that would suggest that 'searching for God' is simultaneously, the abandonment of evidence and reason. Maybe that is what God is, the enemy of reason.

But in comparing our conscious behaviour with that observed in animals you need to address the fact that human behaviour is vastly more unpredictable than animals', suggesting that humans may well posses something to facilitate such behaviour which animals do not have.  And our ability to reason is another trait for which animals do not appear to show any evidence.  So far from being the enemy of reason, should we not thank our Creator for this gift of being able to reason?

[Alan Burns]

Then please demonstrate that it is true without  assertions and arguments with fallacies.
The fact you cannot believe something is NOT evidence that something is not true.

You claim you understand logic, so please start being logical.

For a start the default position is that there is no such thing as a soul.

That is the default position. Do you understand that?

The default position is that I am conscious of my own existence.  A fundamental truth which science can't explain.

[BeRational]

The default position is that I am conscious of my own existence.  A fundamental truth which science can't explain.

Fine.

Then it remains unexplained.

No souls required.

Not knowing is absolutely fine.

What is not fine, is inventing an answer and pretending it is fact.

The default position is that souls do not exist.

[ippy]

Dear Ippy, 
There is no such thing as my truth.  There is only one truth and we have only one lifetime to find it.

How come you're not persuing the truth then A B?

Ever heard of evidence? It could be taken as a clue the fact that you haven't got any of the viable stuff, A B.

Have a word with Sriram about that one lifetime reference of yours.

ippy

[ippy]

Fine.

Then it remains unexplained.

No souls required.

Not knowing is absolutely fine.

What is not fine, is inventing an answer and pretending it is fact.

The default position is that souls do not exist.

Love it, a hole in one, ten out of ten B R.

lppy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Love it, a hole in one, ten out of ten B R.

lppy

Noooooooo!

We have no explanation therefore no souls required?

That's saying we have no idea.....but it can't be souls.
He's contradicted himself and your drinking it in Ippy.

This is what comes when you start thinking stuff like as an atheist I am smarter and nicer than others.

[torridon]

But in comparing our conscious behaviour with that observed in animals you need to address the fact that human behaviour is vastly more unpredictable than animals', suggesting that humans may well posses something to facilitate such behaviour which animals do not have. 

Yes, I'd probably agree with that but would probably differ on what that something is.  See my bolding, here you seem to accept there is a spectrum of predictability across species, it is not an either/or binary. Faced with danger a hedgehog rolls up into a ball, a predictable behaviour because it is instinctive.  However many other animals do not just run on instinctive behaviour, they learn, usually from their parents.  Humans are probably the least predictable of all species, but we are not completely unpredictable.   An individual that was totally unpredictable would end up restrained in a secure psychiatric unit. A species that was completely unpredictable would go extinct in no time at all.  What that something is that gives us apparent freedom, is really a greater degree of sophistication of insight, allowing us greater degrees of freedom in our responses. That is, to repeat, a greater degree of freedom.  Total freedom. as in complete free will, would be utter chaos

[torridon]

  And our ability to reason is another trait for which animals do not appear to show any evidence.  So far from being the enemy of reason, should we not thank our Creator for this gift of being able to reason?

Yes, again, I'd agree with you in that we have in most respects, though not all, superior capacities for abstraction compared to other species.  Thanking a creator for that is a non-sequitur, though, here again you have succumbed to the allure of logical fallacies.  Your desire to thank someone is not evidence for their existence; it is in all likelihood a widespread culturally induced cognitive bias.  The bias is further highlighted by concentrating on the good and ignoring the bad.  If a creator made everything then he is also responsible for Huntington's syndrome and spina bifida and leukeamia and psychopaths and thousands of heritable afflictions that are written into human DNA.  The overlooking of the bad illustrates the bias inherent in 'thanking the creator'.

[SusanDoris]

Maybe for once, just once, AB will explain why his idea of a creator included spina bifida etc etc. in human DNA. The blinkers he wears are probably too firmly in place though.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad (Retd.),

Noooooooo!

We have no explanation therefore no souls required?

That's saying we have no idea.....but it can't be souls.
He's contradicted himself and your drinking it in Ippy.

This is what comes when you start thinking stuff like as an atheist I am smarter and nicer than others.

See whether you can work out where you went wrong there.

What he's actually saying is, "we do not know the answer, but it can't be an explanation that actually has no explanatory value whatever".

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is no such thing as my truth.  There is only one truth and we have only one lifetime to find it.

Of course there is such a thing. If you think there's a "God", that's your truth; if I think there are leprechauns, that's my truth. Sometimes these truths coalesce into common truths - generally when the evidence for them and the intersubjective experience of them cause sufficient traction to create a consensus.

"Truth" itself though is a nebulous term - you cannot claim such a thing as "the" truth in absolutist terms because it's probabilistic - the risk of unknown unknowns tells you that.

[Alan Burns]

Maybe for once, just once, AB will explain why his idea of a creator included spina bifida etc etc. in human DNA. The blinkers he wears are probably too firmly in place though.

Of course I can't explain this because I can't see the full picture.  But the reality is that we live in a world where suffering and pain exist, and there will be suffering and pain in everyone's life.  However if we were to be born straight into a world without pain, would we just take everything for granted and become self centred, because we have no need of anyone's help?  If a child was born completely self sufficient, would the loving parent-child relationship exist?  Would any love exist?  The question of suffering is a very big topic and has been well discussed over time, and it would be very naive to use suffering as a reason not to believe in God.  CS Lewis devotes a whole book on the subject in "The Problem of Pain".  And we need to remember that Jesus suffered torture and death in order to redeem our souls.

[BeRational]

Of course I can't explain this because I can't see the full picture.  But the reality is that we live in a world where suffering and pain exist, and there will be suffering and pain in everyone's life.  However if we were to be born straight into a world without pain, would we just take everything for granted and become self centred, because we have no need of anyone's help?  If a child was born completely self sufficient, would the loving parent-child relationship exist?  Would any love exist?  The question of suffering is a very big topic and has been well discussed over time, and it would be very naive to use suffering as a reason not to believe in God.  CS Lewis devotes a whole book on the subject in "The Problem of Pain".  And we need to remember that Jesus suffered torture and death in order to redeem our souls.

We have already agreed that the default position is that souls do not exist. That is the null hypothesis.
To move from the default position you have to demonstrate a soul.

For example. The default position is that grass does not exist.
You then walk on your or someone elses lawn, and the null hypothesis is destroyed as you have demonstrated grass.

If you cannot demonstrate a soul, then by default you lose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And we need to remember that Jesus suffered torture and death in order to redeem our souls.

You can't "remember" something that hasn't been shown to have happened. What you meant there was, "And we need to remember that I believe that Jesus suffered torture and death in order to redeem our souls.".