Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

You are altering the argument.
What you guys are saying is We don't know but we know it isn't God'' or it's brother ''We don't know but it must be natural''. When you piously and sanctimoniously say we don't know it is the most unconvincing ''we don't know'' imaginable and actually fellers,comes over more as a we don't wanna know....and some even persist in the turdpolishing by invoking unknown unknowns....it isn't it's a known unknown.
You are scuttling for a non sequitur.....again.

[Shaker]

You are altering the argument.
What you guys are saying is We don't know but we know it isn't God'' or it's brother ''We don't know but it must be natural''.

Run that methodology for assessing non-naturalistic claims past us one more time, Vladdychops, there's a good lad - I must have missed it when you posted it before.

You did, didn't you.

Didn't you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Run that methodology for assessing non-naturalistic claims past us one more time, Vladdychops, there's a good lad - I must have missed it when you posted it before.

You did, didn't you.

Didn't you?

Run it youself Ha Ha Ha.

[Gordon]

You are altering the argument.
What you guys are saying is We don't know but we know it isn't God'' or it's brother ''We don't know but it must be natural''. When you piously and sanctimoniously say we don't know it is the most unconvincing ''we don't know'' imaginable and actually fellers,comes over more as a we don't wanna know....and some even persist in the turdpolishing by invoking unknown unknowns....it isn't it's a known unknown.
You are scuttling for a non sequitur.....again.

'God' is not an item of knowledge, so there is nothing to 'know' about it until such times as its advocates firm up on a method they can use to acquire knowledge of this 'God' thing. How's that going by the way? 

[Shaker]

Run it youself Ha Ha Ha.

I don't think there is any such thing so I can't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think there is any such thing so I can't

It depends what you mean by methodology. If you are saying run a science of material/natural things for non material/supernatural things then you are making a loaded circular argument aren't you.

Similarly if you are saying that there is a natural reason for existing eternally then you are misunderstanding the term natural and likewise with the idea of nature naturally popping up out of nothing. In fact you must be saying this in order to endorse the ''crock''statement ''We don't know but we know it isn't God.''

 

[Gordon]

It depends what you mean by methodology. If you are saying run a science of material/natural things for non material/supernatural things then you are making a loaded circular argument aren't you.

Which he isn't, so you're in strawman territory yet again.

Similarly if you are saying that there is a natural reason for existing eternally then you are misunderstanding the term natural and likewise with the idea of nature naturally popping up out of nothing.

Which he isn't, so you're in strawman territory yet again.

In fact you must be saying this in order to endorse the ''crock''statement ''We don't know but we know it isn't God.''

Because we can't 'know' God in the absence of some means of acquiring knowledge about it.

[Shaker]

Because we can't 'know' God in the absence of some means of acquiring knowledge about it.

... and it's that means we're asking you to provide Vladster, duck, dodge, bob, weave, distract, evade and prevaricate how you may.

[Shaker]

It depends what you mean by methodology.

The same as is usually meant by it - a system of procedures/protocols for examining, assessing and evaluating claims.

If you are saying run a science of material/natural things for non material/supernatural things then you are making a loaded circular argument aren't you.

A loaded circular argument like the one that assumes there are such things as non-material/supernatural entities to begin with, you mean.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The same as is usually meant by it - a system of procedures/protocols for examining, assessing and evaluating claims.
A loaded circular argument like the one that assumes there are such things as non-material/supernatural entities to begin with, you mean.

methodology is not ontology.
Methodology does not conjur material. Material is experienced then analysed. The analysis is not the material.
One does not experience a ''claim'' as such.
If a claim concerns experience then obviously one puts themselves in a position where they could get that experience. If you do not see that as part of the evaluation then you haven't evaluated the claim.

I am in the position where I started aby assuming naturalism and experiencing something rather different. I could have bailed out and retreated from ''the procedure'' and at one time did want to flee badly and existentially and I believe many of you guys to in that position. Whether you are or not is only something you can answer.

The protocol then is that if it does not fit with philosophical naturalism then it is supernatural.

[Shaker]

methodology is not ontology.

No it isn't; but a proper, fully functioning methodology is a means of investigating it.

Methodology does not conjur material. Material is experienced then analysed. The analysis is not the material.
One does not experience a ''claim'' as such.

You do in the sense that if you have the procedural tools you can examine/investigate/assess any particular claim and see if it has any validity. Or not.

I am in the position where I started aby assuming naturalism and experiencing something rather different. I could have bailed out and retreated from ''the procedure'' and at one time did want to flee badly and existentially and I believe many of you guys to in that position. Whether you are or not is only something you can answer.

Here's my personal answer: utter cobblers.

The protocol then is that if it does not fit with philosophical naturalism then it is supernatural.

How would you know? That seems premature to say the least, on the following basis: the list of things believed to have a supernatural origin subsequently being shown to be entirely natural is very long, whereas the list of things being explained - actually and properly explained - by recourse to the supernatural is nonexistent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

Yes. What you should claim is something like, "God has explanatory power for me", just as I might claim “leprechauns have explanatory power for me”, or for that matter just as someone else might claim, “87y087-8y has explanatory power for me”.

If you want to make a case for “God” explaining anything in an objective sense then (finally) you’ll have to attempt at least a coherent definition for the term, and then a method to distinguish your assertion from just guessing. Until then, you’ll remain in the same camp as those who think Thor has explanatory power about thunder. 

This is the point at which you always disappear over the hills remember?

God is surely a non naturalistic explanatory, your use of the word ''power'' being but a piece of materialist mysticism.

No, “God” is just white noise. If you think it has a meaning though then you’ll need to tell us what it is, and if you think it explains anything you’ll need to describe the method you used to test that speculation.   

[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.

No they don’t but, even if they did, neither would in any case be “non natural”.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What is so incoherent about the idea of a creator.

The incoherent bit comes when you try to address the question of what created this creator of yours. "It's magic innit" is incoherent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Gordon............. show me a natural explanation for, er, nature.

What do you think you're even trying to ask here? 

Show me the supernatural "explanation" for, er, the supernatural.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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.

Stop lying. If you’re trying to ask how nature came bout, there are various hypotheses about that. If you’re trying to ask what caused nature, that’s begging the question. If you’re trying to ask something else, do it without using terms you clearly don’t understand. 

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

Er, as it’s yet another of your straw men then no it doesn’t.

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''

Except of course you have no idea what you even mean by “supernatural”, let alone an argument to suggest that it exists. Much fun as you seem to be having with your unwitting attempt at an argument from personal incredulity, it’s dull stuff for the rest of us.

[Sassy]

No! It is because having finally erased the last vestiges of a God belief from my brain many years ago, I have known since then the feeling of absolute completeness and wholeness of me as a human being. I always knew that no God did  anything anyway, so why imagine it is there at all?! The thought of being even minimally trapped in even the lightest, weakest belief in a non-existent God/god/s is something I would not tolerate.

The truth is Susan you were born in a blessed position in life, a life that has not really experienced an occasion where your beliefs have been put to the test.  A dead conscience is not freedom it is the ability not to care if God exists or not.
The truth is you can never know as an atheist if God is real or not. You never experience that which your conscience, heart and mind have died to.

[torridon]

I am in the position where I started aby assuming naturalism and experiencing something rather different. I could have bailed out and retreated from ''the procedure'' and at one time did want to flee badly and existentially and I believe many of you guys to in that position. Whether you are or not is only something you can answer.

How can anyone experience anything non-natural ?  Experience, implies natural, it implies empirical, in the most fundamental sense of the word.  If there were anything supernatural then we wouldn't be able to experience it, by definition.

[Nearly Sane]

How can anyone experience anything non-natural ?  Experience, implies natural, it implies empirical, in the most fundamental sense of the word.  If there were anything supernatural then we wouldn't be able to experience it, by definition.

This reads like a text book example of begging the question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

The truth is Susan you were born in a blessed position in life, a life that has not really experienced an occasion where your beliefs have been put to the test.

That’s not “the” truth it’s just your personal truth, and moreover how on earth would you know whether or not Susan’s beliefs have been “put to the test”?

A dead conscience…

Did you mean to imply that another poster here has "a dead conscience”? Given your antipathy so, say, equal marriage some might say that the charge fits you better than those on whom you would presume to hang it.

... is not freedom it is the ability not to care if God exists or not.

What makes you think that Susan (or anyone else for that matter) would not care "if God exists or not”? If one or many gods did exist, that would I’d have thought be something to care about. The problem though is that, so far at least, no-one has been able to construct a cogent argument to indicate that such things do exist.

The truth is you can never know as an atheist if God is real or not.

What makes you think that, as a theist, you can know that either?

All atheism requires if the rationality to find that assertions and arguments made for “God” are epistemically hopeless. Find an argument that isn’t hopeless though and I’ll be first in line to sign up. For all I (or you) know, Susan might be tap dancing next to me too.

You never experience that which your conscience, heart and mind have died to.

Conscience would be an argument from consequences, hearts are muscles, and it’s the minds of some of us at least that allow us to conclude that woo merchants like yourself have it wrong.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes. What you should claim is something like, "God has explanatory power for me", just as I might claim “leprechauns have explanatory power for me”, or for that matter just as someone else might claim, “87y087-8y has explanatory power for me”.

If you want to make a case for “God” explaining anything in an objective sense then (finally) you’ll have to attempt at least a coherent definition for the term, and then a method to distinguish your assertion from just guessing. Until then, you’ll remain in the same camp as those who think Thor has explanatory power about thunder. 

This is the point at which you always disappear over the hills remember?

No, “God” is just white noise. If you think it has a meaning though then you’ll need to tell us what it is, and if you think it explains anything you’ll need to describe the method you used to test that speculation.   

No they don’t but, even if they did, neither would in any case be “non natural”.

First part. God has no explanatory power is a positive assertion and has a proof burden.
Secondly God/definition is incoherent is a positive assertion and has a proof burden.
Thirdly God is the creator There is nothing incoherent about that statement just like there is nothing incoherent in the statement the universe created itself.
Fourthly to be eternal or to create oneself are supernatural i.e. not penetrable by science.

God is that which creates nature. Nothing incoherent in that definition.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you’re trying to ask what caused nature, that’s begging the question.

How?
Since Nature has always been or nature caused itself are OK with you...and they are answers.
It seems to me humbug on your part since you think the question ''what caused God'' is OK.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except of course you have no idea what you even mean by “supernatural”, let alone an argument to suggest that it exists. Much fun as you seem to be having with your unwitting attempt at an argument from personal incredulity, it’s dull stuff for the rest of us.

What that I cannot believe nature is here without God? Since you personally believe that aren't you arguing it from personal credulity?
Oh dear, looks like another incoherent bollock from the House of Hillside

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

First part. God has no explanatory power is a positive assertion and has a proof burden.

Which is simple. “Explanatory” actually means something – and it’s not “whatever white noise takes my fancy”. If want to argue for explanatory power, then you need to show some working. “God has no explanatory power” is merely the observation that you’ve never managed to provide any. The same is true for leprechauns and for 873yr378y3.

Secondly God/definition is incoherent is a positive assertion and has a proof burden.

You really don’t understand this burden of proof thing do you.

When someone asserts “God” that’s the "positive assertion". Pointing out that you have no coherent definition for it is merely an observation of fact.

Thirdly God is the creator There is nothing incoherent about that statement just like there is nothing incoherent in the statement the universe created itself.

Of course there is. I have no idea what you mean by “God” (and nor have you), and it’s incoherent because even the conjecture is beset by the same objection you attempt for a naturalistic universe. If you think you personal incredulity about the universe is a rationale for inserting a necessary causal god, then I can use my personal incredulity about “God” to assert something else as its necessary cause.

And that’s your infinite regression problem right there. 

Fourthly to be eternal or to create oneself are supernatural i.e. not penetrable by science.

And he rounds of with a non sequitur. “Supernatural” and “not penetrable by science” are not synonyms. 

God is that which creates nature. Nothing incoherent in that definition.

Except, you know, it completely is. Look, I’ll show you: “Colin the Nabob of the leprechauns is that which created God”.

Nothing incoherent in that definition is there…

Is there?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What that I cannot believe nature is here without God?

Pretty much. That you personally “cannot believe” something tells you nothing about whether you’ve created an explanatory gap for anyone else, let alone about whether whatever conjecture most appeals to you fills it. At one time people couldn’t believe that thunder was a natural phenomenon either remember?

Since you personally believe that aren't you arguing it from personal credulity?

And the king of the straw men is among us again. What I actually “personally believe” is that I’ve never heard an argument for a “God” that’s logically cogent. That doesn’t mean that such a thing is impossible, but it does mean that – so far at least – the arguments attempted for it are hopeless. Which leaves you with guessing (or as you would put it, "faith").
 

Oh dear, looks like another incoherent bollock from the House of Hillside

And of course irony is something you’ve never managed to grasp either.

Oh well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Which is simple. “Explanatory” actually means something – and it’s not “whatever white noise takes my fancy”.

God has no explanatory power is a positive assertion and has a proof burden now go and prove it. Just slipping in the words ''It's white noise'' doesn't do it. God is that which creates the universe. There is a universe so the first statement is not incoherent.

But hey that'll teach me to waste my time with your good self the arch question Begger 'isself..