Searching for GOD...

[Robbie]

That's all right with me Rob, we don't agree, fairnuf and that's not likely to alter, well on this subject.

Not that chippy I've painted two ceilings in my little bungalow this morning, it's a job that always gives me a crick in the neck, it was the second coat on one and I should get the second coat on the other a bit later, I did chippy in the new Kitchen and the decorating is the last job.

Regards ippy.

You're quite a skilled artisan ippy.
(Artisan is a buzz word atm, artisan bread, sandwiches, etc.. Everywhere you go you see little sandwich shops & cafes offering artisan fare. It means they should make and design the stuff themselves.
No more tiger bread from Morrisons! That's so last decade.)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Robinson,

Do you not detect any aggression in sentences like these?:

“If you don't like my choices, tough - that's your problem. I plan to continue in responding to Ippy in that way if he cannot be bothered to type an explanation of how the thought experiment relates to my post and you can get in the middle of that if you want but your assertions about my conversation with Ippy would still be wrong.”

As I said to Gabriella, it doesn’t bother me much but it seems to me to get in the way of discussion she might want to have rather than to enhance it.

[ippy]

You're quite a skilled artisan ippy.
(Artisan is a buzz word atm, artisan bread, sandwiches, etc.. Everywhere you go you see little sandwich shops & cafes offering artisan fare. It means they should make and design the stuff themselves.
No more tiger bread from Morrisons! That's so last decade.)

Not really I'm into damage limitation.

Sorry I don't fit that particular mold, I never read the sport section of any paper, I don't buy the Sun, I'm a five veg with most meals, eat very little fried food either, tea can be too strong for me, only the occasional small beer, read lots of books, never been into a betting shop, love museums and art gallery's.

ippy

[ippy]

Robinson,

Do you not detect any aggression in sentences like these?:

“If you don't like my choices, tough - that's your problem. I plan to continue in responding to Ippy in that way if he cannot be bothered to type an explanation of how the thought experiment relates to my post and you can get in the middle of that if you want but your assertions about my conversation with Ippy would still be wrong.”

As I said to Gabriella, it doesn’t bother me much but it seems to me to get in the way of discussion she might want to have rather than to enhance it.

Ref my post 21321, Watch this space.

ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

I don’t have the time (or frankly the inclination) to engage in an ever-expanding dialogue, so I’ll just bullet point if that’s ok.

That's fine.

That’s disingenuous. By inviting him to talk about teapots you were missing the point of Russell’s teapot. The point was and is Russell’s argument, not the object used to illustrate it.

Of course I wasn't sincerely engaging in a discussion with Ippy. There was no sincerity in his post of wanting to engage in a discussion IMO. It was a series of one liners and I was not inclined to engage with a one liner.

No – people use phrases like “Russell’s teapot”, “needle in a haystack” etc as a shorthand way to explain a point, not as a “quip” as you put it. If you thought you weren’t attempting the negative proof fallacy (which Russell’s teapot illustrates) then you could easily have said, “I’m not attempting a NPF because…”. What you’re doing here is just throwing sand at missing the point of the thought experiment.

I could have said what you want me to say but frankly I wasn't inclined to say that (hope you don't mind me using your phrasing as Ippy seems to like it) any more than he was inclined to expand on his point. And yes people do use short-hand and when they use short-hand in a quip, which is what he did as is the way he often posts, no one is under any obligation to engage with it. If I want to throw sand as you put it, that's my prerogative or as you like to say, frankly I was inclined to throw sand at it. Ippy and I were aware of what was going on - if the situation went over your head, it went over your head.

That’s debatable at best. Once you’d given us the non sequitur that after you’d eliminated the impossibility of “God” believing in that god wasn’t difficult then the NPF component was fairly obvious I’d have thought (because non-falsifiability tells you nothing about probability) – if you felt it had to be spelled out though, then that’s up to you.

And as I have explained - I did not assign a probability so it was not an NPF. 

Ippy has commented on what he perceives as your sometimes aggressive posting style. This is an example of it I think – you set up the straw man (“if you don’t like my choices”), then you wave your fists at it (“tough”) and you finish with telling me that if I said the thing I haven’t said then I have “a problem”. It doesn’t bother me overmuch by the way – I just see it as a case of “she protesteth too much” that deflects from any argument you might have had, but it does you no favours.

Your imagination has made an incorrect assumption. When I say "tough" it's with a shrug, not a waving of a fist and pretty much means "I'm not overly bothered or it's your problem". That's how I've grown up using the phrase "tough". Unless someone is issuing a threat or swearing at someone, aggression is conveyed in a tone of voice or body language. Message boards don't convey tone or body language.

A straw man is not a sign of aggression on a message board. Neither is telling someone that if they have a problem, it's their problem. But you can view it as a sign of aggression if you want as it doesn't bother me overmuch. Again I am using your phrasing if that helps you not see it as aggressive. Or I've an even better idea, why don't I PM you my posts and you can re-write them using the phrases you would normally use and PM them back to me and I'll post them as me - then you and Ippy will both be happy? He was hoping to see my posting style change so you would really be doing him a solid if you did that.

That’s not the object of the “must” though. Rather it’s the suggestion that non-falsifiability must makes a “"God that can't be defined" not that difficult” as you put it. Whether you actually take that “leap of faith” from “not that difficult” to belief is a different matter.

You're not making sense. You just used the word "must" again. I didn't use the word "must". What are we to make of your need to insert the word "must" where I have not used it.

Yet again: “I find the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in, once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely”. Why is belief in “God” more probable (ie, less difficult) when it’s unfalsifiable?

It isn't more probable - I did not use the word "probable" or assign a probability. Again, what are we to make of your need to insert the word "probable"? There is only the statement "I find the concept of a God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in...". For it to become a "probable" it needs to be something that is repeated multiple times and a probability can then be assigned as to how often it happens. It hasn't been repeated multiple times. It's happened once - to me.

You conflated the method of a teacher with the content of factual clams in a book.

Actually the book says parts of it should be taken literally and parts of it should be taken metaphorically and only the author knows for sure which parts are literal and which parts are metaphorical. But that's beside the point - even if the book makes certain claims as factual, that does not make the claims factual. For me to believe the claims I would have to take a leap of faith because we have no methodology to test whether the claims are factual or not.

Nope – see above. You might find the Koran to tell you all sorts of beneficial things about how to live your life. That still tells you nothing though about the veracity or otherwise of its claims of fact.

See above. 

I’m not sure that yes/no/yes here is helpful. A straw man is a straw man – you’re not as given to it as some here, but it’s something you do sometimes nonetheless.

We'll just have to disagree about the straw man point.

That’s circular (“If it’s possible then it’s possible”) and it’s not what you said in any case – what you actually said was that “God” becomes “not that difficult to believe in” – a qualitatively different claim from “possible”. That leprechauns are possible does make them “not that difficult to believe in”. Why do you think otherwise for “God”?

What I actually said was "I find the concept.....not that difficult to believe in"  and that is not a claim, it's a personal statement.

No, you made a conditional statement – that realising that a conjecture is unfalsifiable makes it not that difficult to believe in. Much as you duck and dive, all I was questioning was the conjunction of those two statements. If you have other reasons for believing either good or bad is a separate matter.

Not sure of the actual point you are arguing. I don't know if the problem is that you have inserted "makes it" which is a true for everyone statement, whereas I said "I find it" which is a true for me statement. Or if the problem is that you are taking the sentence out of the context of the conversation I was having with Rhiannon, where we were discussing if it possible to assess the pros and cons of belief in God vs atheism, which means that the pros and cons are part of the journey to belief.   

To summarise:

1. Ippy’s point was about the argument of Russell’s teapot, not about its illustrative object.

2. As you‘ve been unable to provide one (or even to engage with the question) I think we have to conclude that you have no argument to link unfalsifiability with making “your leap of faith” “not that difficult”.

3. Incidentally, the “supernatural” stuff collapses very quickly anyway. It doesn’t even get its trousers off as an argument that’s truth apt – ie, that’s falsifiable or not. It’s just incoherent – equivalent to the white noise of 7yy78O&T*&^T. The moment you want to break that by saying something about this supposed supernatural then you’re forced into naturalistic claims.

In response to your summary:

1. Ippy needs to make an argument in his post without the quips and then I might feel inclined to respond to his post with more than a focus on the teapot. If you can't accept that this is how I intend to continue posting to him in future, tough. If you can accept that, great.

2.Not sure what you are trying to pretend I said. My statement that you keep quoting and sometimes misquoting was in the context of my conversation with Rhiannon about my faith and moreover that it was easier for me to believe in something undefined compared to objects that are defined that I could dismiss. Not sure what you mean by having an argument - I can only tell you the reasons behind my belief, which have been mentioned many times in the last few pages of this thread. I do not have an argument why everyone who can't falsify something must believe in it - that is not an argument I ever made.

3. White noise as a description is fine. I know the supernatural is unfalsifiable. I have been saying the same thing. That's what the leap of faith is about.

ETA: And given all the aggression on this board hidden behind the ridicule of posters, which is something you often engage in, frankly if you are inclined to view my posts as aggressive, I'm not overly bothered, tough.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm watching and waiting.

ippy

I'm very happy for you. Enjoy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You still seem to me to be avoiding and misrepresenting (for example by separating the “not difficult to believe” from the “once you get past the non-falsifiable” and banging away at the former when I’ve said clearly several times now that it was the conjunction of the two that I questioned, and not either of the parts), though whether wilfully or not I can’t tell. Let’s cut to the chase though and focus on the key issues. If you think that by so doing I’ve missed something important, tell me what it is and I’ll respond to it. 

1. Ippy needs to make an argument in his post without the quips and then I might feel inclined to respond to his post with more than a focus on the teapot. If you can't accept that this is how I intend to continue posting to him in future, tough. If you can accept that, great.

Ippy didn’t make a “quip” – rather he cited a well-known illustration of the mistake (the NPF) he thought you made. Whether I can “accept” how you respond is irrelevant. When you focus on the wrong part of the illustration for your response though then you must expect people to say, “you’re focusing on the wrong part of the illustration for your response”. And when you keep doing it, you’ll keep being told that.

2.Not sure what you are trying to pretend I said. My statement that you keep quoting and sometimes misquoting was in the context of my conversation with Rhiannon about my faith and moreover that it was easier for me to believe in something undefined compared to objects that are defined that I could dismiss. Not sure what you mean by having an argument - I can only tell you the reasons behind my belief, which have been mentioned many times in the last few pages of this thread. I do not have an argument why everyone who can't falsify something must believe in it - that is not an argument I ever made.

None of which is relevant to the point, as I suspect you know. The point rather was to question your conjunction of “I find the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in…” with, “once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely”.

Again, why is the concept “God”  “not that difficult” “once you get to the point…” etc?

If you don’t want to answer that, just say so. Endlessly answering something else that I haven’t asked though (ie, why you believe in “God”) is doing you no credit. 
 

3. White noise as a description is fine. I know the supernatural is unfalsifiable. I have been saying the same thing. That's what the leap of faith is about.

You’re not getting it still. If you want to enter your nag into the falsifiability stakes you need to buy a ticket of coherence for it to be falsifiability apt. That’s why Russell’s teapot doesn’t reference the supernatural at all (contrary to your understanding of it by the way) – the all-too material teapot is eminently falsifiable in principle, only there aren’t telescopes available to see it. “Supernatural” on the other hand means – well what? The problem with it and with UY**&RD£$^&^& alike for that matter is that they’re not even falsification apt – they’re incoherent.

You may as well have told us that four-sided triangles are "not that difficult to believe in".

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You still seem to me to be avoiding and misrepresenting (for example by separating the “not difficult to believe” from the “once you get past the non-falsifiable” and banging away at the former when I’ve said clearly several times now that it was the conjunction of the two that I questioned, and not either of the parts), though whether wilfully or not I can’t tell. Let’s cut to the chase though and focus on the key issues. If you think that by so doing I’ve missed something important, tell me what it is and I’ll respond to it.

What I was telling Rhiannon in the context of the conversation about either you believe or you don't, is that "I don't find it particularly hard to see a world without a god in it" in #21557. If I adopt the position that there is no God or God does not exist, then I cannot at the same time also claim I believe in a God. Whereas having got to the point where I didn't take the position that there is no God i.e. a world without a god in it (which incidentally was the position I used to hold), it became possible for me to claim I believe in a God. It was not the sole reason I believed in a God, but if I hadn't shifted my position there is no way I could have believed in a God and at the same time believed God did not exist. That is why the context of my statement is relevant - the conversation was about me and how my position shifted and therefore why I could weigh up the pros and cons because I could imagine Gods do not exist and then I could change and imagine that God may exist.

Ippy didn’t make a “quip” at all – rather he cited a well-known illustration of the mistake (the NPF) he thought you made. Whether I can “accept” how you respond is irrelevant. When you focus on the wrong part of the illustration for your response though then you must expect people to say, “you’re focussing on the wrong part of the illustration for your response”. And when you keep doing it, you’ll keep being told that.

I think he did make a quip, which I believe included a reference to Star Trek. I think that is the way he likes to post - by trying to ridicule other posters. And my response to that is to not engage by focusing on the wrong part of the illustration until he bothers to make an actual argument. And as I said previously, if you want to get in the middle of that and point it out, that's up to you - I didn't tell you that you couldn't, I didn't complain about it, feel free to jump in whenever you want when Ippy and I are refusing to engage with each other if it works for you. I'll still keep refusing to engage with his post, until he changes his posting style, and you can keep telling me I am wrong to do so. It can be like this routine the 3 of us have going on here on this forum. Other people might get sick of it though.

None of which is relevant to the point, as I suspect you know. The point rather was to question your conjunction of “I find the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in…” with, “once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely”.

Again, why is the concept “God”  “not that difficult” “once you get to the point…” etc?

See above.

If you don’t want to answer that, just say so. Endlessly answering something else that I haven’t asked though (ie, why you believe in “God”) is doing you no credit.

I think I am answering it but it is difficult to pin down what your problem with my answer is. My answer makes sense to me because it appears to be how it happened in my head. Clearly what I think happened in my head does not make sense to you.
 

You’re not getting it still. If you want to enter your nag into the falsifiability stakes you need to buy a ticket of coherence for it to be falsifiability apt. That’s why Russell’s teapot doesn’t reference the supernatural at all (contrary to your understanding of it by the way) – the all-too material teapot is eminently falsifiable in principle, only there aren’t telescopes available to see it. “Supernatural” on the other hand means – well what? The problem with it and with UY**&RD£$^&^& alike for that matter is that they’re not even falsification apt – they’re incoherent.

You may as well have argued that four-sided triangles "not that difficult to believe in".

If I understand you correctly you seem to be saying there is not only no method to falsify the supernatural, it is impossible to even know what the word "supernatural" means before you even get to the point of a method to falsify it. Is that what you are trying to say? In which case I agree. It still doesn't change my statement. At one point I can imagine a world with no god in it - i.e. adopt the position that there is no god because I refused to accept the supernatural is possible or even a thing and then I can imagine a world with God in it i.e. that I can't rule out the supernatural whatever that word means and then adopt belief through a leap of faith, based on other factors.

ETA: "because I refused to accept the supernatural is possible or even a thing" and "that I can't rule out the supernatural whatever that word means" in the last para.

[SusanDoris]

Yes I would say those posts convey aggression to me, not in any specific expressions of oughtright aggression, more in the overall text of her posts.

I don't mind the aggression I see conveyed in her writings but I don't think it encourages much in the way of a positive response.

ippy

I know what you mean. I was thinking about this the other day and I think there is anelement of high-handedness  which is conveyed in a somewhat  impatient manner. Don't know.

Second edit: I have now read through all the intervening posts. I wonder whether it is that the verb 'argue' applies to Gabriella's posts rather than 'discuss'... Hmmmm.

At least I haven't been given the 'This page can't be displayed' while catching up here!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I know what you mean. I was thinking about this the other day and I think there is anelement of high-handedness  which is conveyed in a somewhat  impatient manner. Don't know.

I also know what you mean Susan. I think you come across as high-handed and smug and superior. I wouldn't describe you as impatient though. I do think you are biased against theists. I remember ages ago when I first started posting here, you had a problem with something, possible to do with the technical workings of the forum, and some of us chipped in with technical help and you thanked all the atheists and ignored the theists who had offered advice on the technical aspects.

Maybe we should start a new thread critiquing every poster's posting style so we can do this properly. No point any of us missing out on some feedback.

[Robbie]

Robinson,

Do you not detect any aggression in sentences like these?:

“If you don't like my choices, tough - that's your problem. I plan to continue in responding to Ippy in that way if he cannot be bothered to type an explanation of how the thought experiment relates to my post and you can get in the middle of that if you want but your assertions about my conversation with Ippy would still be wrong.”

As I said to Gabriella, it doesn’t bother me much but it seems to me to get in the way of discussion she might want to have rather than to enhance it.

No I do not detect aggression. Neither do I detect aggression in Ippy but it's obvious now there's some irritation.

Us and them going on about it means we are getting into tit for tat on this thread, which is how it is a lot of the time anyway (you said/she said/hesaid), yet it seemed better over the past couple of days apart from the above. It's so petty!

They're great posters. Better to walk away and rejoin the thread at a later date. By which time some others will be to-ing and fro-ing with same old.....

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

What I was telling Rhiannon in the context of the conversation about either you believe or you don't, is that "I don't find it particularly hard to see a world without a god in it" in #21557. If I adopt the position that there is no God or God does not exist, then I cannot at the same time also claim I believe in a God. Whereas having got to the point where I didn't take the position that there is no God i.e. a world without a god in it (which incidentally was the position I used to hold), it became possible for me to claim I believe in a God. It was not the sole reason I believed in a God, but if I hadn't shifted my position there is no way I could have believed in a God and at the same time believed God did not exist. That is why the context of my statement is relevant - the conversation was about me and how my position shifted and therefore why I could weigh up the pros and cons because I could imagine Gods do not exist and then I could change and imagine that God may exist.

No doubt, but that’s just a repetition of the, “if something is possible then it’s possible” circularity. 

What you were asked though was how you got from “once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely” to "the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in". I don’t see the relationship between those two parts of the single statement – surely all "it's possible" gives you is, well, "it's possible" isn't it? But maybe that's just me.   

I think he did make a quip, which I believe included a reference to Star Trek. I think that is the way he likes to post - by trying to ridicule other posters. And my response to that is to not engage by focusing on the wrong part of the illustration until he bothers to make an actual argument. And as I said previously, if you want to get in the middle of that and point it out, that's up to you - I didn't tell you that you couldn't, I didn't complain about it, feel free to jump in whenever you want when Ippy and I are refusing to engage with each other if it works for you. I'll still keep refusing to engage with his post, until he changes his posting style, and you can keep telling me I am wrong to do so. It can be like this routine the 3 of us have going on here on this forum. Other people might get sick of it though.

Using the Russell’s teapot thought experiment to falsify an attempt at the NPF isn’t ridiculing. That’s the same mistake Vlad kept making by the way – he too kept his focus on the ridiculousness of the teapot, and away from the force of the argument it illustrated. 

See above.

I did. It didn’t answer the question you were actually asked though.

I think I am answering it but it is difficult to pin down what your problem with my answer is. My answer makes sense to me because it appears to be how it happened in my head. Clearly what I think happened in my head does not make sense to you.

What you’re answering is an un-asked question about why you believe what you believe. What you’re not answering is the question about the relationship between why you find what you believe “not difficult to believe” once you get “to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely…” etc.   
 

If I understand you correctly you seem to be saying there is not only no method to falsify the supernatural, it is impossible to even know what the word "supernatural" means before you even get to the point of a method to falsify it. Is that what you are trying to say?

No and yes – it’s what I actually said rather than tried to say, but ok…

In which case I agree. It still doesn't change my statement.

But it renders null any discussion of falsifiability.

At one point I can imagine a world with no god in it - i.e. adopt the position that there is no god because I refused to accept the supernatural is possible or even a thing and then I can imagine a world with God in it i.e. that I can't rule out the supernatural whatever that word means and then adopt belief through a leap of faith, based on other factors.

But again you’re using terms here like “possible” and “not possible”. That’s overreaching I think – what is it that would be either possible or not possible? Is "UY*&*^*^T67880" for example possible or not possible?

That’s the point – when the conjecture is incoherent, it’s not truth (or “possible”) apt. Is a four-sided triangle for example possible or not possible, or is the proposition meaningless before you even get to that question?

[ippy]

I know what you mean. I was thinking about this the other day and I think there is anelement of high-handedness  which is conveyed in a somewhat  impatient manner. Don't know.

Second edit: I have now read through all the intervening posts. I wonder whether it is that the verb 'argue' applies to Gabriella's posts rather than 'discuss'... Hmmmm.

At least I haven't been given the 'This page can't be displayed' while catching up here!

Now that's a could be Susan, all I can say is her posts come over, when most of her posts are taken as a whole, they seem aggressive to me.

It's not so much a gather up your skirts, scream and run off type of aggression, more an oh dear, (depressing), here comes another load, here we go again.

Regards, ippy

[Shaker]

It's not so much a gather up your skirts, scream and run off type of aggression, more an oh dear, (depressing), here comes another load, here we go again.

Ipples, you gone and gone done it again. Bless you 

[Udayana]

Hmm... really? To me it looks more like failing to answer reasonable posts by turning to denigration of the character or style of the poster.

[Robbie]

There's a defensiveness which you see when people are out of their depth.

[ippy]

Hmm... really? To me it looks more like failing to answer reasonable posts by turning to denigration of the character or style of the poster.

It's hardly my fault that my answer wasn't the one wanted or apparently not welcome.

ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

No doubt, but that’s just a repetition of the, “if something is possible then it’s possible” circularity. 

What you were asked though was how you got from “once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely” to "the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in". I don’t see the relationship between those two parts of the single statement – surely all "it's possible" gives you is, well, "it's possible" isn't it? But maybe that's just me.

And your point is?

I answered how I got from ruling out the supernatural to not ruling out the supernatural, which then makes anything supernatural a possibility. A God that can't be defined is in the category of the supernatural therefore it becomes a possibility, and once I have allowed the possibility it then allows me to evaluate the pros and cons of belief in that particular supernatural entity. I could also evaluate the pros and cons of belief in the FSM, once I allow the FSM to be a possibility and then take a leap of faith to believe in the FSM. But the FSM is not what Rhiannon and I were discussing. We were discussing if we could evaluate the pros and cons of a belief in God.

You have still failed to make any point that has relevance to my personal statement to Rhiannon. This has nothing to do with the teapot illustration, which merely says that the burden of proof is on me to prove a true for you claim that I make rather than on the skeptic to falsify my claim, otherwise it is reasonable for the skeptic to dismiss my claim. I never made a true for you claim and I think it is perfectly reasonable for the skeptic to dismiss my claim and i do not think it is up to the skeptic to falsify my claim so over to you to do a line by line analysis of Russell's burden of proof illustration and say how each line applies to the statement I made.

Using the Russell’s teapot thought experiment to falsify an attempt at the NPF isn’t ridiculing. That’s the same mistake Vlad kept making by the way – he too kept his focus on the ridiculousness of the teapot, and away from the force of the argument it illustrated.

It's not the use of Russell's teapot that I consider ridiculing, it is that Ippy, unlike you with Vlad, does not explain how it applies to any statement made. I suspect Ippy is depressed by my posts because he is incapable of that much thought or analysis and just tries to ride on your coat-tails by throwing out the term without much understanding of why it does or does not apply to the post he is responding to, and without putting in any of the effort you put in. Therefore, due to his poor effort I refuse to engage in his point - it is my prerogative to deal with foolish posts that way. He must try harder and try to rub together some of those creaking grey cells in his head if he wants to me to take him seriously and take the time to respond to his posts with anything other than sand. But if you feel inclined to take him seriously and respond to his posts seriously, be my guest - no one is stopping you. Just so long as we're clear that you can want really really really badly for me to respond to Ippy seriously, but it just isn't going to happen. 

I did. It didn’t answer the question you were actually asked though.

I did answer the question. You won't accept my answer either because you can't understand the answer or you just don't want to. There is no point going back and forth with did/ didn't so where does that leave us?

What you’re answering is an un-asked question about why you believe what you believe. What you’re not answering is the question about the relationship between why you find what you believe “not difficult to believe” once you get “to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely…” etc.

I have answered that question - it was there in the original statement and in subsequent responses to you and Robinson also understood my statement a few posts back, and now my answer is there again 3 paras above. You refused to accept my answer that my statement said I did not rule out the supernatural and therefore I did not rule out anything that comes within the category of supernatural, and then I took a leap of faith to believe in an undefined God in order to evaluate the pros and cons of that belief.

So if you refuse to accept that this is how it happened in my head, and you don't want to know why I believe in an undefined God as opposed to leprechauns or fairies, you need to come up with a new point to discuss instead. Because my statement was not all that deep so there really isn't anything more to it then the above. There is no hidden 3rd meaning that you seem to be searching for and if you want the NPF teapot illustration to apply, by all means break it down and state where it applies rather than repeating the name of it like your own personal mantra.
 

But it renders null any discussion of falsifiability.

What discussion of falsifiability did you want to have? Be specific.

But again you’re using terms here like “possible” and “not possible”. That’s overreaching I think – what is it that would be either possible or not possible? Is "UY*&*^*^T67880" for example possible or not possible?

That’s the point – when the conjecture is incoherent, it’s not truth (or “possible”) apt. Is a four-sided triangle for example possible or not possible, or is the proposition meaningless before you even get to that question?

It really isn't that difficult. "Supernatural" is a word invented by English speaking humans to describe anything that is attributed to something that can't be determined by science and where the laws of the natural don't apply. God, another word invented by English-speaking people, has been put in this category. It is impossible to falsify something if the laws of the natural don't apply because to falsify something we need a methodology and there is no non-natural methodology that we currently know of. We do not  have any agreed definition of the "that to which the laws of the natural don't apply" as there is no methodology to define that phrase. So we just have people's concepts using a natural framework or vocabulary to describe the non-natural, much like we use the words "non-natural" or "that to which the laws of nature do not apply" to get that concept across. And then we have people's concepts of something they have put in this category, namely God. And then we have threads discussing what God means to people and why.

So what would you like to say about "UY*&*^*^T67880"? What does it mean to you? Perhaps you would like to start a thread to discuss what it means to you and anyone who is interested can join in and agree or disagree or say what "UY*&*^*^T67880" means to them and why they incorporate "UY*&*^*^T67880" into their lives.

[ekim]

What you were asked though was how you got from “once you get to the point where you can't rule out the supernatural entirely” to "the concept of a "God that can't be defined" not that difficult to believe in". I don’t see the relationship between those two parts of the single statement – surely all "it's possible" gives you is, well, "it's possible" isn't it? But maybe that's just me.   

I think Gabriella is just saying that she changed from being closed to the possibility of a God to being open to the possibility.  From this possibility she has the opportunity to explore further through her particular religious method and has derived benefits of what she calls 'spiritual or emotional well-being'.  In associating those benefits with the 99 attributes of God, she doesn't find it difficult to believe in a God which cannot be intellectually defined in essence. 

I don't think that she is being aggressive.  She is probably being staunchly defensive against what she sees as being needled by another poster.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Thanks Ekim. Yes that pretty much sums up what my short statement to Rhiannon was about. I have no idea why BHS wants to turn it  into a thesis - but if that's what he enjoys discussing....

I just feel like this is getting boring for everyone else. Ippy's post was perfunctory and idiotic and he failed to show how it applied to my statement so I decided not to engage in a discussion about it with Ippy if he couldn't be bothered or was incapable of the effort of writing an argument that applied to my post.

[jjohnjil]

I think Gabriella is just saying that she changed from being closed to the possibility of a God to being open to the possibility.  From this possibility she has the opportunity to explore further through her particular religious method and has derived benefits of what she calls 'spiritual or emotional well-being'.  In associating those benefits with the 99 attributes of God, she doesn't find it difficult to believe in a God which cannot be intellectually defined in essence. 

I don't think that she is being aggressive.  She is probably being staunchly defensive against what she sees as being needled by another poster.

I agree with you entirely here, Ekim.  Gabriella's posts are a refreshing change and it's a shame the thread has descended into the usual argumentative tit-for-tat that bores the pants off everyone.

For the first time on here, I've understood how someone can take a leap of faith as opposed to initially having a belief in god.  I never thought it possible before but Gabriella has convinced me that it can.

[Rhiannon]

I still don't get how a god that cannot be defined can sit within a religion such as Islam, or Christianity for that matter. But that's just me, I don't like being told what to think.

I think posters need to bear in mind that assertion and aggression aren't the same thing.

[ippy]

I agree with you entirely here, Ekim.  Gabriella's posts are a refreshing change and it's a shame the thread has descended into the usual argumentative tit-for-tat that bores the pants off everyone.

For the first time on here, I've understood how someone can take a leap of faith as opposed to initially having a belief in god.  I never thought it possible before but Gabriella has convinced me that it can.

'For the first time on here, I've understood how someone can take a leap of faith as opposed to initially having a belief in god.  I never thought it possible before but Gabriella has convinced me that it can', or teapots, unicorns and even "UY*&*^*^T67880".

ippy

[Rhiannon]

People do take a leap of faith and believe in unicorns, dragons and fairies. What of it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

And your point is?

I answered how I got from ruling out the supernatural to not ruling out the supernatural, which then makes anything supernatural a possibility.

Actually no it doesn’t, for the reasons I explained but OK…

A God that can't be defined is in the category of the supernatural therefore it becomes a possibility…

Oh dear. Like four-sided triangles are “a possibility” you mean?

…and once I have allowed the possibility it then allows me to evaluate the pros and cons of belief in that particular supernatural entity. I could also evaluate the pros and cons of belief in the FSM, once I allow the FSM to be a possibility and then take a leap of faith to believe in the FSM. But the FSM is not what Rhiannon and I were discussing. We were discussing if we could evaluate the pros and cons of a belief in God.

“Weighing up the pros and cons” as you put it is epistemically worthless though. However warm and cuddly believing in a claim of fact makes you feel, that on its own tells you nothing about whether that claim is correct.

My point was that I didn’t understand how you thought statement A led to statement B. In reply you’ve given me several fairly lengthy dispositions about statement A. Fair enough – that’s your choice, albeit that I remain none the wiser about the question I actually asked you. 

You have still failed to make any point that has relevance to my personal statement to Rhiannon. This has nothing to do with the teapot illustration, which merely says that the burden of proof is on me to prove a true for you claim that I make rather than on the skeptic to falsify my claim, otherwise it is reasonable for the skeptic to dismiss my claim. I never made a true for you claim and I think it is perfectly reasonable for the skeptic to dismiss my claim and i do not think it is up to the skeptic to falsify my claim so over to you to do a line by line analysis of Russell's burden of proof illustration and say how each line applies to the statement I made.

See above. As I’ve said several times, when the reasoning for a “true for you claim” is broken then it’s also broken for a “true for me only claim” when both claims are about supposed facts, but the latter is no-one’s business but your own. If it works for you nonetheless though, knock yourself out.

It's not the use of Russell's teapot that I consider ridiculing, it is that Ippy, unlike you with Vlad, does not explain how it applies to any statement made. I suspect Ippy is depressed by my posts because he is incapable of that much thought or analysis and just tries to ride on your coat-tails by throwing out the term without much understanding of why it does or does not apply to the post he is responding to, and without putting in any of the effort you put in. Therefore, due to his poor effort I refuse to engage in his point - it is my prerogative to deal with foolish posts that way. He must try harder and try to rub together some of those creaking grey cells in his head if he wants to me to take him seriously and take the time to respond to his posts with anything other than sand. But if you feel inclined to take him seriously and respond to his posts seriously, be my guest - no one is stopping you. Just so long as we're clear that you can want really really really badly for me to respond to Ippy seriously, but it just isn't going to happen.

Again, he was just referencing a well-trodden thought experiment and your patronising of him in response does you no favours.   

I did answer the question. You won't accept my answer either because you can't understand the answer or you just don't want to. There is no point going back and forth with did/ didn't so where does that leave us?

No – the question was about how statement A lead to statement B. What you actually answered (at length) concerned only statement A. 

I have answered that question - it was there in the original statement and in subsequent responses to you and Robinson also understood my statement a few posts back, and now my answer is there again 3 paras above. You refused to accept my answer that my statement said I did not rule out the supernatural and therefore I did not rule out anything that comes within the category of supernatural, and then I took a leap of faith to believe in an undefined God in order to evaluate the pros and cons of that belief.

That wasn’t your statement. Your new version is that not being able to rule out the supernatural (albeit wrongly) then opened the door to the possibility of a “leap of faith”. Your pervious version though (ie, the one I asked you about) concerned not ruling out the supernatural making your belief in a god “not difficult” to do.     

So if you refuse to accept that this is how it happened in my head, and you don't want to know why I believe in an undefined God as opposed to leprechauns or fairies, you need to come up with a new point to discuss instead. Because my statement was not all that deep so there really isn't anything more to it then the above. There is no hidden 3rd meaning that you seem to be searching for and if you want the NPF teapot illustration to apply, by all means break it down and state where it applies rather than repeating the name of it like your own personal mantra.

Nope – see above.
 

What discussion of falsifiability did you want to have? Be specific.

I was – the one when you said that you couldn’t rule out the possibility of the supernatural. How so?

It really isn't that difficult.

It seems to be for you.

"Supernatural" is a word invented by English speaking humans to describe anything that is attributed to something that can't be determined by science and where the laws of the natural don't apply. God, another word invented by English-speaking people, has been put in this category. It is impossible to falsify something if the laws of the natural don't apply because to falsify something we need a methodology and there is no non-natural methodology that we currently know of. We do not  have any agreed definition of the "that to which the laws of the natural don't apply" as there is no methodology to define that phrase. So we just have people's concepts using a natural framework or vocabulary to describe the non-natural, much like we use the words "non-natural" or "that to which the laws of nature do not apply" to get that concept across. And then we have people's concepts of something they have put in this category, namely God. And then we have threads discussing what God means to people and why.

You’re still not getting it. To get to the point even of considering whether or not you could have a method(ology), the proposition itself has to be coherent. You can’t for example complain that our butterfly nets and magnifying glasses just aren’t up to the job of demonstrating four-sided triangles because the proposition itself is incoherent a priori.

I’m sorry, but I’m not sure I can put this any more plainly.   

So what would you like to say about "UY*&*^*^T67880"? What does it mean to you? Perhaps you would like to start a thread to discuss what it means to you and anyone who is interested can join in and agree or disagree or say what "UY*&*^*^T67880" means to them and why they incorporate "UY*&*^*^T67880" into their lives.

And you finish by going off the rails again with your “meaning” irrelevance. Whether or not I happen to find something “meaningful”, “beneficial” or anything else is epistemically worthless when the object involves a claim of fact. Philosophy? That’s fine. Claims of objective fact (whether just for you or in general)? Nope with sprinkles on.

Sorry, but there it is.