Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I have no idea why BHS wants to turn it  into a thesis - but if that's what he enjoys discussing....

BHS doesn't. A short question about how statement A relates to statement B isn't a "thesis" (though your answers about statement A could be).

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

'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".

What's curious to me though is that it seems to rest on a double-whammy of wrongness - first she decides that an incoherent proposition ("supernatural") is possibility apt, then she reasons that how beneficial she finds belief in it to be has something to do with whether or not it's a fact, albeit a fact only for her.

Odd stuff indeed, but as it seems to upset her when she's questioned about it perhaps it's time to desist.   

[SusanDoris]

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.

Yes, certainly that too!

Ippy and Shaker: I nod in agreement.

[floo]

I don't find Gabriella's take on her faith particularly edifying.

[jjohnjil]

ipster,

What's curious to me though is that it seems to rest on a double-whammy of wrongness - first she decides that an incoherent proposition ("supernatural") is possibility apt, then she reasons that how beneficial she finds belief in it to be has something to do with whether or not it's a fact, albeit a fact only for her.

Odd stuff indeed, but as it seems to upset her when she's questioned about it perhaps it's time to desist.   

Blue

To her and most religious people, supernatural means they cannot see any way that somethings come naturally and so they made up a word that conveys that and satisfies the problem.  Yes, it could be called jftkjjdin or anything else, that doesn't matter. 

God is exactly the same, it's a word for whatever the supernatural is caused by.

Once you are in that mind-set, I can see how you can take a leap of faith, as Gabriella calls it..   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

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

Yes it does, if not ruling out the supernatural means that I have adopted the position that anything supernatural is a possibility.

“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.

Ok. And what's your point? I weighed up the pros and cons. That doing so doesn't tell me if something is a fact or not is irrelevant to me because there is no methodology to establish fact when it comes to supernatural claims so I do not waste my time trying to establish something that can't be done. A fact is something that can be demonstrated in some way using evidence.

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.

If you can't understand and I can't explain my thinking in a way that you can understand, then it will have to remain a mystery to you.

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.

What supposed fact? A fact is something that can be demonstrated to be true. A god or the supernatural cannot be demonstrated to be true. Therefore statements about gods or the supernatural cannot come within the category of facts, any more than feelings of love can come within  the category of a 100% deductible enhanced capital allowance. If it is a true for me belief - it is subjective, based on experiences - that I can't demonstrate as true to anyone else. 

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

You're wrong - it does me lots of favours. I don't need to waste my time writing out a response to his post if he can't be bothered to write out an argument as to why NPF applies to my post. Which means I have time to read other posts and threads. What favour is it that you think I require apart from the time to read and respond to what I wish? 

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

Ok - so you don't accept my answer. Not much point continuing on this particular point then, unless you want to go back to yes/no.

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.

Ok so you understand the leap of faith answer? You asked what I meant by my statement, and I have clarified what I meant.   

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

I have no idea what you mean by "how so". If you mean you want me to explain that statement, it means I am adopting the position that it is possible that there is something outside of natural laws. Of course I am not aware of any method to investigate or demonstrate something outside the natural world as anything related to the word "method" that I am aware of relates to the natural world.

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 it's the proposition itself that's incoherent a priori.

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

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.   

What fact?

[bluehillside Retd.]

jj,

To her and most religious people, supernatural means they cannot see any way that somethings come naturally and so they made up a word that conveys that and satisfies the problem.  Yes, it could be called jftkjjdin or anything else, that doesn't matter.

That’s called the argument from personal incredulity – a basic logical error. Not being able to see a natural explanation tells you nothing about whether there necessarily isn't one, let alone about whether an (incoherent) alternative provides a meaningful explanation instead.   

God is exactly the same, it's a word for whatever the supernatural is caused by.

Once you are in that mind-set, I can see how you can take a leap of faith, as Gabriella calls it..

Perhaps, but that “mind-set” is itself unsupportable for the reasons I explained. It’s not that some conjectures cannot be falsified; rather it’s that some conjectures are incoherent to begin with and so are not falsification apt.     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

ipster,

What's curious to me though is that it seems to rest on a double-whammy of wrongness - first she decides that an incoherent proposition ("supernatural") is possibility apt, then she reasons that how beneficial she finds belief in it to be has something to do with whether or not it's a fact, albeit a fact only for her.

Odd stuff indeed, but as it seems to upset her when she's questioned about it perhaps it's time to desist.   

Thanks f or your concern but I'm not upset. You seem upset though - so if it's all getting too much for you and you want to stop that's up to you. But if you're not upset, let's keep going. Like Ippy accurately put it, I'm like a dog with a bone. Let's see if we can keep going for another 20 pages at least, and then review where we are.

[Rhiannon]

Blue

To her and most religious people, supernatural means they cannot see any way that somethings come naturally and so they made up a word that conveys that and satisfies the problem.  Yes, it could be called jftkjjdin or anything else, that doesn't matter. 

God is exactly the same, it's a word for whatever the supernatural is caused by.

Once you are in that mind-set, I can see how you can take a leap of faith, as Gabriella calls it..

I've been in a very similar position to Gabriella and I'm not sure it is 'this is something I don't know so it must be supernatural and I'll call it god'. It's more a thought or feeling that there is something that exists that isn't 'natural'. You don't need to look for 'and this is why' to make it fit.

I have a lot of things that happen in my life that are currently unexplained and don't fall into the 'natural' category, but to me they are entirely natural, just not all explained yet.

[Robbie]

Thanks f or your concern but I'm not upset. You seem upset though - so if it's all getting too much for you and you want to stop that's up to you. But if you're not upset, let's keep going. Like Ippy accurately put it, I'm like a dog with a bone. Let's see if we can keep going for another 20 pages at least, and then review where we are.

Please not with a 'dog with a bone' attitude tho' - you're far from the only one on this thread who does that in fact you are the least likely! Anyone coming to the thread with new eyes would think there was a lot of petty infighting & we don't get much of that on other threads. plus i 'get' what Rhiannon says after you.100%.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

jj,

That’s called the argument from personal incredulity – a basic logical error. Not being able to see a natural explanation tells you nothing about whether there necessarily isn't one, let alone about whether an (incoherent) alternative provides a meaningful explanation instead.   

Perhaps, but that “mind-set” is itself unsupportable for the reasons I explained. It’s not that some conjectures cannot be falsified; rather it’s that some conjectures are incoherent to begin with and so are not falsification apt.     

Some individuals seem to understand what they mean by supernatural so it is not incoherent to them individually. They can even discuss it with others and find shared understandings. They have a conviction or faith it exists based on personal experiences or feelings. Some of them accept that there is no way to demonstrate  the supernatural as they cannot rule out the possibility that there is a natural explanation that has just not been discovered/ tested/ established/ widely accepted. So that leaves faith. It's really not that difficult to get your head around the position such people are adopting.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Yes it does, if not ruling out the supernatural means that I have adopted the position that anything supernatural is a possibility.

No it doesn’t. “Supernatural” is neither possible nor not possible – it’s just incoherent.   

Ok. And what's your point? I weighed up the pros and cons. That doing so doesn't tell me if something is a fact or not is irrelevant to me because there is no methodology to establish fact when it comes to supernatural claims so I do not waste my time trying to establish something that can't be done. A fact is something that can be demonstrated in some way using evidence.

My point is that what you think to be a fact (albeit just for you) cannot be demonstrated (even just for you) solely on the basis of how “meaningful” or “beneficial” you find it to be. There’s no nexus between the two.   

If you can't understand and I can't explain my thinking in a way that you can understand, then it will have to remain a mystery to you.

I can understand. What I understand is that you’ve talked a lot about statement A, but not about how statement A leads to statement B – which is what you were asked.

What supposed fact?

A fact is something that can be demonstrated to be true. A god or the supernatural cannot be demonstrated to be true. Therefore statements about gods or the supernatural cannot come within the category of facts, any more than feelings of love can come within  the category of a 100% deductible enhanced capital allowance. If it is a true for me belief - it is subjective, based on experiences - that I can't demonstrate as true to anyone else.

You think the statement “God exists” to be factually true. That you have no means to demonstrate that to anyone else (or indeed to yourself) is a separate matter. More to the point though, how ”beneficial” etc you find the belief to be takes you not one step in that direction.   

You're wrong - it does me lots of favours. I don't need to waste my time writing out a response to his post if he can't be bothered to write out an argument as to why NPF applies to my post. Which means I have time to read other posts and threads. What favour is it that you think I require apart from the time to read and respond to what I wish?

I meant that it does you no favours if you want others to treat your posts on the basis of their reasoning rather than their vitriol. If that does you “favours” in your head though, so be it.     

Ok - so you don't accept my answer. Not much point continuing on this particular point then, unless you want to go back to yes/no.

You do this a lot – imply that I “don’t like” something rather than acknowledge that I’ve pointed out a fact (ie, that you didn’t ask the question I actually asked). It just makes you look evasive.

Ok so you understand the leap of faith answer? You asked what I meant by my statement, and I have clarified what I meant.

You’re really struggling here aren’t you. All your “leap of faith” stuff is about statement A. It tells me nothing about how statement A is derived from statement B though. No matter – if you don’t want to answer that, so be it.   

I have no idea what you mean by "how so". If you mean you want me to explain that statement, it means I am adopting the position that it is possible that there is something outside of natural laws. Of course I am not aware of any method to investigate or demonstrate something outside the natural world as anything related to the word "method" that I am aware of relates to the natural world.

But you posit a “something” (“supernatural”) that’s incoherent. What would that “thing” be even if it was outside the realm of the natural?
 

What fact?

God.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Please not with a 'dog with a bone' attitude tho' - you're far from the only one on this thread who does that in fact you are the least likely! Anyone coming to the thread with new eyes would think there was a lot of petty infighting & we don't get much of that on other threads. plus i 'get' what Rhiannon says after you.100%.

Don't worry Robinson. I just wanted to let BHS know I was happy to carry on the discussion and there was no need to stop picking apart my statement because of any concern about my feelings. Time might be an issue - but the great thing about this forum is that I can come back after a break and find the same discussions going on 50 pages later and dip right back in.

For example BHS and I have had the same discussion about whether religion was the sole cause of the the Soviet-Afghan war or any other war etc etc and I have always disagreed with his position that law-abiding theists are a cover from criminal theists.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

No it doesn’t. “Supernatural” is neither possible nor not possible – it’s just incoherent.   

My point is that what you think to be a fact (albeit just for you) cannot be demonstrated (even just for you) solely on the basis of how “meaningful” or “beneficial” you find it to be. There’s no nexus between the two.   

I can understand. What I understand is that you’ve talked a lot about statement A, but not about how statement A leads to statement B – which is what you were asked.

You think the statement “God exists” to be factually true. That you have no means to demonstrate that to anyone else (or indeed to yourself) is a separate matter. More to the point though, how ”beneficial” etc you find the belief to be takes you not one step in tat direction.   
I meant that it does you no favours if you want others to treat your posts on the basis of their reasoning rather than their vitriol. If that does you “favours” in your head though, so be it.     

You do this a lot – imply that I “don’t like” something rather than acknowledge that I’ve pointed out a fact (ie, that you didn’t ask the question I actually asked). It just makes you look evasive.

You’re really struggling here aren’t you. All your “leap of faith” stuff is about statement A. It tells me nothing about how statement A is derived from statement B though. NO matter – if you don’t want to answer that, so be it.   

But you posit a “something” (“supernatural”) that’s incoherent. What would that “thing” be even if it was outside the realm of the natural?
 

God.

I have not claimed that God is a fact - a belief in God is based on faith. Facts are things that can be demonstrated as true.

ETA: The rest of your stuff is just a rehash of what I have already answered -  but we can do no you haven't / yes I have for another 20 pages if you want.

As regards vitriol - hahaha. This is a message board. Vitriol goes with the territory from what I can see.

[ippy]

Thanks f or your concern but I'm not upset. You seem upset though - so if it's all getting too much for you and you want to stop that's up to you. But if you're not upset, let's keep going. Like Ippy accurately put it, I'm like a dog with a bone. Let's see if we can keep going for another 20 pages at least, and then review where we are.

Arr, now putting words into my mouth that I didn't say, ('I'm like a dog with a bone'), not guilty, I didn't say that, or even nibble around the edges.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I have not claimed that God is a fact - a belief in God is based on faith. Facts are things that can be demonstrated as true.

You've certainly implied that you believe it to be a fact though, rather than that you think "God" to be a fictional character like Harry Potter.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Arr, now putting words into my mouth that I didn't say, ('I'm like a dog with a bone'), not guilty, I didn't say that, or even nibble around the edges.

ippy

You are right. I apologise - my mistake. You said "Once you get your teeth in you don't give up, do you Gabriella."

ETA: That was a pretty funny comment by the way Ippy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You've certainly implied that you believe it to be a fact though, rather than that you think "God" to be a fictional character like Harry Potter.

Facts are things that can be demonstrated to be true. Faith is something you believe without any evidence to be able to demonstrate the truth of it. What is it you find difficult to comprehend about that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Facts are things that can be demonstrated to be true. Faith is something you believe without any evidence to be able to demonstrate the truth of it. What is it you find difficult to comprehend about that?

That its wrong mostly. Your “faith” tells you that “God” is a fact, albeit one you have no method to demonstrate to yourself or to others.

So far as I can tell you don’t instead think that “God” is a fictional character who happens to appear in a book, some of which you like.

Am I right about that or not?

The “meaningful”, “beneficial” stuff is all window dressing to that central claim.   

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella

I thinkit would help quite a lot if you did not sort of translate what others have said into what you think they have said, or what they meant - as illustrated by Ippy's post.

Edited to add that I do hope you answer bluehillside's question about whether you think God is a character in a book, like Harry Potter.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

That its wrong mostly. Your “faith” tells you that “God” is a fact, albeit one you have no method to demonstrate to yourself or to others.

So far as I can tell you don’t instead think that “God” is a fictional character who happens to appear in a book, some of which you like.

Am I right about that or not?

The “meaningful”, “beneficial” stuff is all window dressing to that central claim.

You're wrong. Per Susan's advice:

"I think it would help quite a lot if you did not sort of translate what others have said into what you think they have said, or what they meant - as illustrated by Ippy's post."

Fiction is where you know something is made up - it's a positive claim.

[Robbie]

Gabriella

I thinkit would help quite a lot if you did not sort of translate what others have said into what you think they have said, or what they meant - as illustrated by Ippy's post.

Edited to add that I do hope you answer bluehillside's question about whether you think God is a character in a book, like Harry Potter.

p'raps would help if   Ippy did not feel he has to respond to posts when his knowledge is limited!
Why do some people find it so bleedin' difficult to say that something is beyond them? I don't (intricacies of music theory, advanced maths as example), sure you don't. No-one thinks any less of them.

[Rhiannon]

Gabriella,

You say that you believe in a god that can't be defined. Do you then believe your god to be the right one ('true') or is it that you think you have an understanding of god that works for you but that others (Christian, Hindu, pagan etc) are equally valid?

[SusanDoris]

p'raps would help if   Ippy did not feel he has to respond to posts when his knowledge is limited!
Why do some people find it so bleedin' difficult to say that something is beyond them? I don't (intricacies of music theory, advanced maths as example), sure you don't. No-one thinks any less of them.

Well that is an interpretation of Ippy's post that has not occurred to me at all.

[floo]

Well that is an interpretation of Ippy's post that has not occurred to me at all.

Nor me, either. I am sure he can speak for himself.