Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We should always question our experiences. Certainty about god being a genuine entity can be discounted. Whilst there is a remote possibility one might exist, until there is irrefutable evidence that is so, it is reasonable to disbelieve it is a fact.

You can question your experiences but I don't think a lot of that goes on here or anywhere. People are pretty unquestioning and only get round to questioning facts particularly if you've shut the door to experience which is pretty much what dogmatic agnosticism is.

The trouble is that some are proposing a philosophy...How can they do any other since the doors to experience are shut and others are talking about an experience which has philosophical ramifications.

Where the evasion is, is that the facts which are acceptable or significant are precisely those which are neutral and can be taken or left without affecting in anyway any internal comfort.

I think I understand Alan's experience IMHO Christian assurance isn't like the acceptable fact of dogmatic agnosticism......it's far, far ,far, far more concrete than that IME.
I'm not saying my experience of God is identical to Alan's but the world so far has not been able ''to put out the light'' as far as I am concerned.

Doubts can be part of a faith journey in fact if you read Bunyan Christians can doubt in a way not available to dogmatic agnosticism...but then I suppose that is probably true of hard convinced atheists as well. 

[Maeght]

Nice use of words.................Like negotiating a hopscotch grid in an articulated lorry.

Seems a fairquestion to me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

You can question your experiences but I don't think a lot of that goes on here or anywhere. People are pretty unquestioning and only get round to questioning facts particularly if you've shut the door to experience which is pretty much what dogmatic agnosticism is.

Possibly it would be if anyone ever suggested such a thing.

The trouble is that some are proposing a philosophy...How can they do any other since the doors to experience are shut and others are talking about an experience which has philosophical ramifications.

He lied. Methodological naturalism isn’t “a philosophy” at all (as you’d know if you bothered to read the RationalWiki quote you thought supported you but that blew up in your face – see below). The “doors to experience” are wide open – what’s actually shut though is your expectation that your explanatory narratives for your experiences should be taken seriously when you have only broken reasoning to support them. 

Where the evasion is, is that the facts which are acceptable or significant are precisely those which are neutral and can be taken or left without affecting in anyway any internal comfort.

Nurse! He’s fired up the random word generator again!

I think I understand Alan's experience IMHO Christian assurance isn't like the acceptable fact of dogmatic agnosticism......it's far, far ,far, far more concrete than that IME.
I'm not saying my experience of God is identical to Alan's but the world so far has not been able ''to put out the light'' as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, I feel the same about my mate Pete and his “experience” of unicorns.

So?

Doubts can be part of a faith journey…

Not if you claim “absolute certainty” as AB does they can’t.

…in fact if you read Bunyan Christians can doubt in a way not available to dogmatic agnosticism...but then I suppose that is probably true of hard convinced atheists as well.

Again with the “dogmatic agnosticism” straw man? Why bother with it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

BEEEP! Fallacy alert: another straw man.

No-one "rejects experience”.

Well excuse me but Alan's experience of absolute certainty seems to be.
Why are there people who are convicted there is no God.
Or who are absolutely certain that there is no absolute certainty?
If the cap fits and all that?

Do you accept that Alan has experienced God or not?

....and while were about it I don't think I have described a position that isn't held by some atheist somewhere....a regularly emptied forum as given of course.
........I wonder if the continual squawking of ''straw man'' is really people falling into the beguiling notion that they represent the mind of non believers.

[Maeght]

People have experiences of course. To be absolutely certian that your interpretation of thst experience is correct is the issue surely.

[Shaker]

Why are there people who are convicted there is no God.

I would imagine that they've heard all the arguments typically advanced for the existence of such a thing and found them utterly hopeless.

Do you accept that Alan has experienced God or not?

AFAIK the egregious Burns has never volunteered any information whatever on his alleged experiences such that we can pass any comment on them at all. Doesn't have the time and space, don't you know.

I have asked him how he claims to know that his alleged experience of his god actually was - which is to say, what does he claim to know about a god such that an encounter with one can be verified as such - but that's just one of many questions he's consistently reticent about answering.

Time and space again, I guess.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

Possibly it would be if anyone ever suggested such a thing.

He lied. Methodological naturalism isn’t “a philosophy” at all (as you’d know if you bothered to read the RationalWiki quote you thought supported you but that blew up in your face – see below). The “doors to experience” are wide open – what’s actually shut though is your expectation that your explanatory narratives for your experiences should be taken seriously when you have only broken reasoning to support them. 

Nurse! He’s fired up the random word generator again!

Yeah, I feel the same about my mate Pete and his “experience” of unicorns.

So?

Not if you claim “absolute certainty” as AB does they can’t.

Again with the “dogmatic agnosticism” straw man? Why bother with it?

Bluehillside
Re: Dogmatic agnosticism......I think you and Torridon have been caught 'bang to rights'. Shakers subsequent endorsement of your positions hardly helps you.

In terms of doubt......... absolute certainty of course is mediated by that which one experiences absolute certainty about.

Have a nice day and keep hydrated.

[Shaker]

In terms of doubt......... absolute certainty of course is mediated by that which one experiences absolute certainty about.

The OED just rang - they say they want an illustrative example of 'circular argument' for the next edition and they want to know if they can use that one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

People have experiences of course. To be absolutely certian that your interpretation of thst experience is correct is the issue surely.

And that is where stuff like dogmatic agnosticism, metaphysical or philosophical materialism, or philosophical naturalism etc. lack the ability and authority to overturn.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The OED just rang - they say they want an illustrative example of 'circular argument' for the next edition and they want to know if they can use that one.

Not really, a 40 ft truck smacking into you can mediate absolute certainty.

[Shaker]

Not really, a 40 ft truck smacking into you can mediate absolute certainty.

Are you sure?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you sure?

Absolutely.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Well excuse me but Alan's experience of absolute certainty seems to be.

BEEEP! Misdirection.

AB’s “experience of absolute certainty” isn’t the issue. I can feel “absolutely certain” that Laughing Alligator will win the 4.30 at Kempton Park if I feel that way. What I can’t do though is expect others to take my certainty as indicative of a truth.

Why are there people who are convicted there is no God.

“Convicted”? Presumably you were attempting “convinced” there?

Anyways, for everyday purposes people are convinced for the same reason that you’re convinced that there aren’t leprechauns – ie, the arguments for each are hopeless.

In strict epistemic terms though, atheists aren’t convinced inasmuch as they allow for the possibility of “God”, just as a-leprechaunists allow for the possibility of leprechauns.
 

Or who are absolutely certain that there is no absolute certainty?
If the cap fits and all that?

No-one says that, or at least not here – that’s just one of your many straw man arguments.

Do you accept that Alan has experienced God or not?

Of course not. Why would I?

For me to accept that he would have to provide some logic for that narrative that’s cogent.

....and while were about it I don't think I have described a position that isn't held by some atheist somewhere....a regularly emptied forum as given of course.

“…by some atheist somewhere”?

Seriously? Well fine – why don’t you try to find one such and take up your objections with him rather than misdescribe what people here actually say in order for you to attack your own straw men?

........I wonder if the continual squawking of ''straw man'' is really people falling into the beguiling notion that they represent the mind of non believers.

No, the “squawking” is just pointing out that you routinely make up and mis-ascribe positions that no-one has postulated, then attack those positions. It’s just evasion by lying, and it’s pretty much your favourite fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

BEEEP! Misdirection.

AB’s “experience of absolute certainty” isn’t the issue. I can feel “absolutely certain” that Laughing Alligator will win the 4.30 at Kempton Park if I feel that way. What I can’t do though is expect others to take my certainty as indicative of a truth.

Hillside, I'm puzzled that in the case of Alan, where he has claimed he has experienced something, you choose to use a case where something hasn't happened yet and therefore no one has experienced as an example to illustrate what he is saying.

It's not a good look since it appears like an attempt to massage readers thinking.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Re: Dogmatic agnosticism......I think you and Torridon have been caught 'bang to rights'. Shakers subsequent endorsement of your positions hardly helps you.

But you could only think that if you'd just made it up. Agnosticism is just the belief that the conjecture “God” is unknowable, but no-one argues for absolute certainty about that (or indeed about anything else). Maybe there could be a method to do that, and tomorrow someone will tell us what it is. Who can possibly say?

Perhaps then you could consider not bothering any more with this lie?

In terms of doubt......... absolute certainty of course is mediated by that which one experiences absolute certainty about.

Compete gibberish. “Absolute certainty” means being absolutely certain. Whatever doubts you may have had to get there are irrelevant – either you’re absolutely certain about you conclusion or you’re not.

And the problem with that of course is that you have no means to eliminate the possibility that your conclusion is wrong.

As the basic logic seems to be lost on you, let me express it a different way: to be absolutely certain of an “ultimate truth” you must assume both that there is an ultimate truth and that it’s amenable to our ability to identify it.

And when your beliefs require assumptions, absolute certainty is necessarily out of the game.

Capiche?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Hillside, I'm puzzled that in the case of Alan, where he has claimed he has experienced something, you choose to use a case where something hasn't happened yet and therefore no one has experienced as an example to illustrate what he is saying.

Why? The point was about the nature of claims of absolute certainty – ie, that feeling absolutely certain about something tells others nothing whatever about whether you're therefore right to be certain. Whether past or prospective makes no difference to that. 

It's not a good look since it appears like an attempt to massage readers thinking.

No it doesn’t. You’re just falling into your standard misunderstanding of what a category error entails. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

But you could only think that if you'd just made it up. Agnosticism is just the belief that the conjecture “God” is unknowable, but no-one argues for absolute certainty about that (or indeed about anything else). Maybe there could be a method to do that, and tomorrow someone will tell us what it is. Who can possibly say?

Perhaps then you could consider not bothering any more with this lie?

Compete gibberish. “Absolute certainty” means being absolutely certain. Whatever doubts you may have had to get there are irrelevant – either you’re absolutely certain about you conclusion or you’re not.

And the problem with that of course is that you have no means to eliminate the possibility that your conclusion is wrong.

As the basic logic seems to be lost on you, let me express it a different way: to be absolutely certain of an “ultimate truth” you must assume both that there is an ultimate truth and that it’s amenable to our ability to identify it.

And when your beliefs require assumptions, absolute certainty is necessarily out of the game.

Capiche?

Heavy conflation of ultimate truth and absolute certainty in your post?.............I certainly think so.

Another thing....can you have AN ultimate truth?        Is a 40 ft truck an ultimate truth?

Can you be absolutely certain of an experience......Yes.
Can the experience wear off if the stimulus is removed.......yes
Can you then reinterpret something according to what your present lights are.....yes.
Can this be peer pressured and in fact a misinterpretation.....yes
Is the analysis of an experience the experience.............No
By ultimate truth does hillside mean the total of all facts held neutrally........?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Heavy conflation of ultimate truth and absolute certainty in your post?.............I certainly think so.

That was AB's claim. If you don't like it take it up with him.

Another thing....can you have AN ultimate truth?        Is a 40 ft truck an ultimate truth?

Of course not, or at least not knowably so with certainty. Why would it be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

That was AB's claim. If you don't like it take it up with him.

Of course not, or at least not knowably so with certainty. Why would it be?

So we cannot know it is ultimately a forty foot truck?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Can you be absolutely certain of an experience......Yes.
Can the experience wear off if the stimulus is removed.......yes
Can you then reinterpret something according to what your present lights are.....yes.
Can this be peer pressured and in fact a misinterpretation.....yes
Is the analysis of an experience the experience.............No
By ultimate truth does hillside mean the total of all facts held neutrally........?

You can feel absolutely certain about anything you like if you want to. What you can't do though is rationalise that certainty because a moment's thought would tel you that it's untenable. How for example could you tell that your perception of reality isn't actually a computer simulation?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

So we cannot know it is ultimately a forty foot truck?

Of course not. "We" cannot even tell whether "we" is an ultimate reality, let alone a truck.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

You can feel absolutely certain about anything you like f you want to. What you can't do though is rationalise that certainty because a moment's thought would tel you that it's untenable. How for example could you tell that your perception of reality isn't actually a computer simulation?   

Would that be a real computer simulation?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Would that be a real computer simulation?

We'd have no way of knowing.

Are you beginning to see the problem now with claiming "absolute" this and "ultimate" that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

We'd have no way of knowing.

Are you beginning to see the problem now with claiming "absolute" this and "ultimate" that?

Not really, there is not enough to exonerate you from dogmatic agnosticism which is compounded every time you claim there is no possibility of knowing........... I see you haven't spotted where your musings could take you next.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Not really, there is not enough to exonerate you from dogmatic agnosticism which is compounded every time you claim there is no possibility of knowing........... I see you haven't spotted where your musings could take you next.

First, we’ve now established that “dogmatic agnosticism” is just a lie you made up. I’ve expressly said consistently that anything is “possible” so I don’t know why you bothered repeating the lie.

What I’ve actually said is that there is no means currently available to eliminate the possibility of an unknown unknown falsifying our certainty. However difficult to conceptualise, that says nothing about the possibility that such a method could one day be discovered. 

Second, even if you could ever find a means of eliminating the risk of an unknown unknown, that would tell you nothing whatever about whether or not your your conjecture “God” (or indeed any other conjecture) is true.