Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not pretend to know what purpose God intended for past life forms, but They all contributed in some way to the life as we know it today.

And if things had been different and another species had won the lottery of happenstance, then all the preceding events would have led to that outcome instead.

Try looking up "anthropic principle" to see where you're going wrong.

Oh, and while I'm here:

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TERM “LOGICAL FALLACY” MEANS AND, IF YOU DO, DOES YOUR RELIANCE ON THEM IMPLY THAT YOU THINK THAT A FALSE ARGUMENT SOMEHOW BECOMES A GOOD ONE WHEN YOU HAPPEN TO LIKE ITS OUTCOME? 

[torridon]

I do not pretend to know what purpose God intended for past life forms, but They all contributed in some way to the life as we know it today.

By and large, extinct life forms leave no legacy, no descendants, no contribution to future life.  There may be exceptions, therapod dinosaurs for instance, possibly evolved into birds, but the majority of dinosaurs were evolutionary dead ends, as have been 95% of all species by some estimates.  Some days, I think that is where we are headed too 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

Of course, the puddle was merely runoff from Vlad's many pissings on Hillside's bonfires.

Ha Ha Ha Ho Ho Ho He He He....humour worthy of the great man himself......heh Heh Heh.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course, the puddle was merely runoff from Vlad's many pissings on Hillside's bonfires all over his own trousers.

Corrected it for you.

[Rhiannon]

.... and in that moment of surprise it realises it is not a puddle but is the water temporarily in puddle form, as it ascends up to the heavens. 

Only if it has accepted Jesus on its deathbed. Erm, evaporation bed.

[Shaker]

I do not pretend to know what purpose God intended for past life forms, but They all contributed in some way to the life as we know it today.

So you don't pretend to know ... and then immediately afterwards pretend to know. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

By the way - how's the answer to bluey's (repeated) question coming along?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you don't pretend to know ... and then immediately afterwards pretend to know. Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

By the way - how's the answer to bluey's (repeated) question coming along?

Welcome back

I seem to recall your support of the statement ''we don't know what did it...but we know it wasn't God''....am I wrong on that ?

[Shaker]

Welcome back

I seem to recall your support of the statement ''we don't know what did it...but we know it wasn't God''....am I wrong on that ?

No, not wrong at all.

'God' has no explanatory power in precisely the same way that 'A giant invisible prawn called Colin' has no explanatory power. If you don't believe that the universe or indeed anything else came about through the magical action of Colin, exactly the same applies to God - and all the special pleading and fallacious arguments on the part of God's votaries (the ad populum/ numerum is the usual favourite) doesn't alter that fact one iota.

Something that can't be defined doing things you don't understand by methods that can't be explained has always been an explanatory non-starter, and remains so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, not wrong at all.

'God' has no explanatory power in precisely the same way that 'A giant invisible prawn called Colin' has no explanatory power. If you don't believe that the universe or indeed anything else came about through the magical action of Colin, exactly the same applies to God - and all the special pleading and fallacious arguments on the part of God's votaries (the ad populum/ numerum is the usual favourite) doesn't alter that fact one iota.

Something that can't be defined doing things you don't understand by methods that can't be explained has always been an explanatory non-starter, and remains so.

Well God having no explanatory power is an assertion and a positive one at that.
God is surely a non naturalistic explanatory, your use of the word ''power'' being but a piece of materialist mysticism.

Come to think of it all explanations are ultimately non natural since they depend on an eternal this, an infinite that or a ''pop into being'' other.

[Sebastian Toe]

Well God having no explanatory power is an assertion and a positive one at that.
God is surely a non naturalistic explanatory, your use of the word ''power'' being but a piece of materialist mysticism.

Come to think of it all explanations are ultimately non natural since they depend on an eternal this, an infinite that or a ''pop into being'' other.

Surrly though if for example,  "eternal" is the normal state for the universe, then that makes it completely "natural", doesn't it?

[Shaker]

Well God having no explanatory power is an assertion and a positive one at that.

That's right, and is based on the fact that God - itself a wholly unexplained concept, remember, full of logic-dodging wibble - explains nothing in the true sense of the word explain. Dreaming up ad hoc fantasy scenarios which are both unevidenced and untestable isn't explanation.

God is surely a non naturalistic explanatory

That's a contradiction in terms.

your use of the word ''power'' being but a piece of materialist mysticism.

... as is that.

Come to think of it all explanations are ultimately non natural since they depend on an eternal this, an infinite that or a ''pop into being'' other.

Certainly sounds like God 

[Gordon]

Well God having no explanatory power is an assertion and a positive one at that.

I'd say it is more of an observation than an assertion.

God is surely a non naturalistic explanatory

Which is an oxymoron.

your use of the word ''power'' being but a piece of materialist mysticism.

So is this.

Come to think of it all explanations are ultimately non natural since they depend on an eternal this, an infinite that or a ''pop into being'' other.

Which, ironically, doesn't help you God-wise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd say it is more of an observation than an assertion.

Which is an oxymoron.

So is this.

Which, ironically, doesn't help you God-wise.

You have just spouted a lot of nonsense Gordon. Naturalism is a philosophy. Only a numpty therefore would declare this: ''Which is an oxymoron.'' Oh, You did.

[Shaker]

You have just spouted a lot of nonsense Gordon. Naturalism is a philosophy. Only a numpty therefore would declare this: ''Which is an oxymoron.'' Oh, You did.

Only a numpty would state: "God is surely a non naturalistic explanatory" and not know or realise that it is indeed an oxymoron.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only a numpty would state: "God is surely a non naturalistic explanatory" and not know or realise that it is indeed an oxymoron.

Rubbish...and you know it.

[Gordon]

You have just spouted a lot of nonsense Gordon. Naturalism is a philosophy. Only a numpty therefore would declare this: ''Which is an oxymoron.'' Oh, You did.

You used the phrase 'God is surely a non naturalistic explanator' which is an oxymoron unless you have a suitable method to explain non-natural stuff. Since it seems by this statement you're setting God apart from naturalism I can't see the relevance of your subsequent 'naturalism is a philosophy' statement, which in any event seems like another of your attempts at suggesting others are subscribing to your own take on PN (which I'm not).

You seem confused (again). 

[Shaker]

Rubbish...and you know it.

It isn't, and I know no such thing.

As Gordon has just pointed out, you lot have been asked, over and over and over and over again, by multiple people innumerable times, to offer your methodology as to how so-called non-naturalistic events/entities can be demonstrated to be anything at all other than the pious guesswork it looks exactly like.

The silence to date has been positively deafening, rather irritating, and in the end pretty embarrassing.

That is why the phrase "non-naturalistic explanatory" is a contradiction in terms: because invoking "Well, it's, like, magic, innit" explains nothing. Absolutely nothing. It never has and never will. It's not even so much the failure of explanation as such as it's the total abandonment of the very concept of explanation in toto. It offers no procedural steps of any kind whatever to investigate any claim of purported non-natural existence. It's an empty concept. There's no there there.

Don't say you haven't been given innumerable opportunities to provide to us all a workable non-naturalistic methodology so that alleged non-natural claims can be examined, assessed and evaluated, because you have been asked politely - more times than can be counted. But no - zilch. Why so coy I have no idea. We (naturalists) have showed you ours (methodology); why are you so reticent about showing us yours?

It's almost as though no such thing exists and you just don't want to admit the fact.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You used the phrase 'God is surely a non naturalistic explanator' which is an oxymoron unless you have a suitable method to explain non-natural stuff. Since it seems by this statement you're setting God apart from naturalism I can't see the relevance of your subsequent 'naturalism is a philosophy' statement, which in any event seems like another of your attempts at suggesting others are subscribing to your own take on PN (which I'm not).

You seem confused (again).

Gordon............. show me a natural explanation for, er, nature.
''We don't know but we know it isn't God'' is rather prattish on several levels I think you'll find.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It isn't, and I know no such thing.

As Gordon has just pointed out, you lot have been asked, over and over and over and over again, by multiple people innumerable times, to offer your methodology as to how so-called non-naturalistic events/entities can be demonstrated to be anything at all other than the pious guesswork it looks exactly like.

The silence to date has been positively deafening, rather irritating, and in the end pretty embarrassing.

That is why the phrase "non-naturalistic explanatory" is a contradiction in terms: because invoking "Well, it's, like, magic, innit" explains nothing. Absolutely nothing. It never has and never will. It's not even so much the failure of explanation as such as it's the total abandonment of the very concept of explanation in toto. It offers no procedural steps of any kind whatever to investigate any claim of purported non-natural existence. It's an empty concept. There's no there there.

Don't say you haven't been given innumerable opportunities to provide to us all a workable non-naturalistic methodology so that alleged non-natural claims can be examined, assessed and evaluated, because you have been asked politely - more times than can be counted. But no - zilch. Why so coy I have no idea. We (naturalists) have showed you ours (methodology); why are you so reticent about showing us yours?

It's almost as though no such thing exists and you just don't want to admit the fact.

The hash of the above argument has been settled numerous times. We can sum it up in the problem that sends you guys scuttling for circular argument and non sequitur....namely finding a natural explanation for nature itself.

That trumps any problems the idea of God has as an explanatory.

Take heart from the slogan on the side of the ''Naturalism is Bollocks Bus'' namely ''Nature probably has a supernatural explanation......Now go and enjoy yourself''

[Shaker]

The hash of the above argument has been settled numerous times.

News to me - provide links.

We can sum it up in the problem that sends you guys scuttling for circular argument and non sequitur....namely finding a natural explanation for nature itself.

This is merely incoherent, suggesting strongly that you don't even understand the terms you're using.

Which, let's face it, would be very far from the first time.

That trumps any problems the idea of God has as an explanatory.

God isn't an explanatory of anything whatever - that's the issue. Ad hoc fantasy scenarios without evidential support or testability explain nothing.

Take heart from the slogan on the side of the ''Naturalism is Bollocks Bus'' namely ''Nature probably has a supernatural explanation......Now go and enjoy yourself''

Contradiction in terms time yet again. By what methodology would we, could we ever know that assertion to be the case? The floor is yours.

[Shaker]

Gordon............. show me a natural explanation for, er, nature.
''We don't know but we know it isn't God'' is rather prattish on several levels I think you'll find.

Already covered in #18384 a few hours ago.

[Gordon]

Gordon............. show me a natural explanation for, er, nature.
''We don't know but we know it isn't God'' is rather prattish on several levels I think you'll find.

Shaker dispensed with this a while back: 'God' isn't an explanation for anything since 'God' seems to be an incoherent term.

[Gordon]

Take heart from the slogan on the side of the ''Naturalism is Bollocks Bus'' namely ''Nature probably has a supernatural explanation......Now go and enjoy yourself''

Does AB know you've borrowed his fallacy-generator?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shaker dispensed with this a while back: 'God' isn't an explanation for anything since 'God' seems to be an incoherent term.

What is so incoherent about the idea of a creator. Any and every naturalist entertains the idea that nature has either ''always been'' or ''has created itself'' unless they just accept that it ''just is'' and we shouldn't ''go there'' out of blind faith.

The only thing that has supremely come out as incoherent are the arguments of Messrs Shaker, Hillside and Gordon.....Hey, that sounds good....Shaker, Hillside and Gordon Commissioners for oaths Ha Ha Ha.

[Gordon]

What is so incoherent about the idea of a creator. Any and every naturalist entertains the idea that nature has either ''always been'' or ''has created itself'' unless they just accept that it ''just is'' and we shouldn't ''go there'' out of blind faith.

Or we just say 'don't know', which isn't akin to 'blind faith' in the slightest.

The only thing that has supremely come out as incoherent are the arguments of Messrs Shaker, Hillside and Gordon.....Hey, that sounds good....Shaker, Hillside and Gordon Commissioners for oaths Ha Ha Ha.

Of course, Vlad - now how is the method suited to non-naturalistic stuff coming along?