Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Who is trying to use testimony to demonstrate any objective facts? Given testimony can't demonstrate a fact.

AB is – tell it to him! Despite claims to evidence and logic, testimony (though only testimony that relates to his favourite god) is all he has in fact.       

Testimony is presented as evidence of experiences and beliefs - it then becomes the prerogative of anyone listening to the evidence to accept or reject it. That's how testimonial evidence works. It's not just a matter of relating what someone saw or heard.

What someone “saw or heard” is “experiences”, and personal beliefs tend to be given short shrift as forensic evidence in any case. Moreover, the fact remains that no amount of testimony can be used to establish objective facts about the world (eg, “god is”). That’s the point.

 

If there is no way of testing or proving it how did it become a claim of objective fact rather than his belief?

Ask him – it’s his claim, not mine.

Someone insisting that their belief is true doesn't obviate the need for a way to test something for it to become objectively true.

Thanks for repeating my point. Now if you could just explain that to AB…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Steve H,

Presumably that survivor bias is an unreliable mistress.

How does survivor bias fit in with Darwinianism.

In one case you are arguing, presumably, that even the shittest could survive and then wearing your earnest anticreationist evolutionists hat you'll be arguing that ONLY the fittest survive.

Are your contradictions going into some kind of portfolio of turdpolishing or something?

[floo]

How does survivor bias fit in with Darwinianism.

In one case you are arguing, presumably, that even the shittest could survive and then wearing your earnest anticreationist evolutionists hat you'll be arguing that ONLY the fittest survive.

Are your contradictions going into some kind of portfolio of turdpolishing or something?

You poor dear, is nursie assisting you as you type your posts? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You poor dear, is nursie assisting you as you type your posts? 

Taking the piss out of the disabled and elderly. Typical, heartless.

[floo]

Taking the piss out of the disabled and elderly. Typical, heartless.

Are you old and disabled?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you old and disabled?

There is no excuse for such language.

[floo]

There is no excuse for such language.

Oh dear, I was joking as you well know. If you were genuinely old and disabled of course I wouldn't have said anything like that. Besides which, some of your posts aren't  exactly sweetness and light when referring to other posters, are they?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh dear, I was joking as you well know. If you were genuinely old and disabled of course I wouldn't have said anything like that. Besides which, some of your posts aren't  exactly sweetness and light when referring to other posters, are they?

Example?

[floo]

Example?

Are your contradictions going into some kind of portfolio of turdpolishing or something?


Is that polite?

[bluehillside Retd.]

How does survivor bias fit in with Darwinianism.

In one case you are arguing, presumably, that even the shittest could survive and then wearing your earnest anticreationist evolutionists hat you'll be arguing that ONLY the fittest survive.

Are your contradictions going into some kind of portfolio of turdpolishing or something?

In which Vladdo demonstrates that he has no idea what survivorship bias actually entails:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Nor incidentally has he resiled from his latest howler about the appeal to ridicule.

And nor for that matter has be bothered to address his egregious misquoting of Neil deGrasse Tyson.

All pretty scummy really.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm not suggesting that everybody should agree or that you can't say what you want on the forum - I just find it odd that you seem to want to tell us what another poster thinks rather than what you think.

What I think about gods? I'm a theist, a Muslim so I believe in a monotheistic concept of God. But your problem is not with people stating their beliefs but with the idea that Alan says he is sure or knows God exists. Hence I am addressing what I think Alan is saying, which is making a statement of faith. 

It's not something I'd feel comfortable doing - even if I thought I knew. I'd be answering the points from my own perspective.

It can only really be my perspective - I'm just giving my perspective of what someone might mean when they say they "know" in relation to something that can't be objectively proved.

It's not that his view has gaps and is incomprehensible, it's that he said it was based on logic and has not only failed to back it up with any, he has failed to respond to the logical argument that his proposal is logically incoherent.

I agree.

It isn't a specifically religious misunderstanding but Alan is making it a central part of his 'argument' for his favourite god.

Yeah - I don't find his concept of free will convincing and I'm not sure if it is an argument for his concept of god. I see him arguing for or trying to explain his concept of free will, and interjecting the explanations or 'don't knows' with his beliefs about this free-will coming from his concept of god. 

I gave three reasons why it falls as evidence for an objectively existing god, even as legal evidence. You wouldn't convict based on witnesses' own interpretation of events, that was self-contradictory, and contradicted by other witnesses.

I am just not seeing how you see his statements as capable of making an "objective" claim, when it comes to something that can't be tested or proved. It can only be a belief claim if it can't be tested in any way. Surely, based on how we use the English language, to describe it as a claim for something to exist objectively, the method to test it needs to be demonstrated first. Failing that method test, it can only be a belief.

He said he had "overwhelming evidence" and a "logical analysis". The witness 'evidence' is neither.

I understood that to mean that the testimony and experience is overwhelming evidence for him, rather than it being in the category of objective evidence. Yeah - I'm not seeing his analysis as logical.

You wouldn't expect that if these people are really able to clearly communicate with an objectively real god.

Which people? How often are they claiming to communicate directly with a god? Even with communication (not sure what you mean by clear) ideas can get misunderstood or misapplied - I don't see how you can eradicate the human capacity to err or just perceive things subjectively based on nature/nurture.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

AB is – tell it to him! Despite claims to evidence and logic, testimony (though only testimony that relates to his favourite god) is all he has in fact.       

What someone “saw or heard” is “experiences”, and personal beliefs tend to be given short shrift as forensic evidence in any case. Moreover, the fact remains that no amount of testimony can be used to establish objective facts about the world (eg, “god is”). That’s the point.

 
Ask him – it’s his claim, not mine.

Thanks for repeating my point. Now if you could just explain that to AB…

I think you all did explain it can't be objective fact if he can't prove it objectively, and therefore remains a belief that various people do/ don't find credible. I'm not seeing him dispute that God can't be proved objectively i.e. through science. I'm reading his use of the word "evidence" as testimony and personal experience rather than forensic or science-based evidence. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Alan tests the antitheism around here since they will not fully state their beliefs preferring to hide behind science etc, unknowing, which although is unforgivable in a theist becomes a noble thing in an antitheist.Goddodging.

[Stranger]

What I think about gods? I'm a theist, a Muslim so I believe in a monotheistic concept of God.

Yes, I know but I still don't get why you want to tell me what Alan's thinking is.

But your problem is not with people stating their beliefs but with the idea that Alan says he is sure or knows God exists. Hence I am addressing what I think Alan is saying, which is making a statement of faith.

Well, you're telling me that he's making a statement of faith but he's telling me that he has overwhelming evidence and logic on his side - which is not the sort of thing I would expect somebody to say if they were just telling me about their personal faith belief, rather than objective facts.

This is the problem with you trying to read Alan's mind - if he wants to tell me I've misunderstood and he's not claiming overwhelming objective evidence and actual logical analysis at all - he's free to do so.
 

Which people? How often are they claiming to communicate directly with a god? Even with communication (not sure what you mean by clear) ideas can get misunderstood or misapplied - I don't see how you can eradicate the human capacity to err or just perceive things subjectively based on nature/nurture.

Again - I'm going on what Alan has said (although he's far from alone) about his god expecting us to search for it because it has an important message and we need to make an important choice. He says he's found god and knows all this stuff, so I assume he thinks he's received a clear message.

Anyway, if Alan wants to clarify in the light of what you've said that's fine - and if you want to put forward your own ideas, that's fine too. However, I'm really not interested in continuing to discuss what you think Alan is thinking.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I think you all did explain it can't be objective fact if he can't prove it objectively, and therefore remains a belief that various people do/ don't find credible.

Yes. But as his claim is that it is an objective fact, that’s all that’s necessary. 

I'm not seeing him dispute that God can't be proved objectively i.e. through science.

Then you haven’t read anything he’s posted. He’s claimed (multiple times in fact) to have evidence and logic for his beliefs being objective facts about the world – ie, they are “proveable”.

That he has neither evidence nor logic (or at least none that he’s prepared to present here) is a different matter.   

I'm reading his use of the word "evidence" as testimony and personal experience rather than forensic or science-based evidence.

You’re the one who introduced forensics into the conversation (a category error) but in any case he clearly does think that these things in some way mean we should privilege his beliefs as describing objective facts about the world. Why he thinks that is anyone’s guess, but that’s what he thinks nonetheless.

[Stranger]

...antitheism... ...Goddodging.

zzzzzzzzzzz

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alan tests the antitheism around here since they will not fully state their beliefs preferring to hide behind science etc, unknowing, which although is unforgivable in a theist becomes a noble thing in an antitheist.Goddodging.

Feeding time! Any volunteers?

He's under the third bridge after the traffic lights if anyone is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gabriella,

Yes. But as his claim is that it is an objective fact, that’s all that’s necessary. 

But the great mistake is to suggest that it therefore isn't. How would you know?

It is scientifically unfalsifiable..........and that's it. That's all you have. The Outer limit and twilight zone of atheism thank you and good night.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Feeding time! Any volunteers?

He's under the third bridge after the traffic lights if anyone is.

You've been at the alphabet soup again haven't you? Funny how it gets through the system so quickly.

[Stranger]

It is scientifically unfalsifiable..........and that's it.

Just like leprechauns.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Yes. But as his claim is that it is an objective fact, that’s all that’s necessary. 

Then you haven’t read anything he’s posted. He’s claimed (multiple times in fact) to have evidence and logic for his beliefs being objective facts about the world – ie, they are “proveable”.

That he has neither evidence nor logic (or at least none that he’s prepared to present here) is a different matter.   

You’re the one who introduced forensics into the conversation (a category error) but in any case he clearly does think that these things in some way mean we should privilege his beliefs as describing objective facts about the world. Why he thinks that is anyone’s guess, but that’s what he thinks nonetheless.

It would help if you refer me to a post where he claims he has objective proof of God. Stuff that can be tested. Did he explain how it would be tested? If yes please let me know some post numbers so I can have a read.

Also, can you refer me to the post where I introduced forensics into the conversation as I thought I had been talking about testimony as evidence that other people may/may not find credible, so not sure what I am supposed to have said about forensics. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Just like leprechauns.   

And orbiting teapots.

Still, it's been a while since he's tried the negative proof fallacy so that's some relief at least.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Are you old and disabled?

If I described something as gay, and meant it pejoratively, does a person have to be gay in order to challenge the use of that term in that way?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

It would help if you refer me to a post where he claims he has objective proof of God.

You want me to go back to find the times he’s said he has evidence (and lots of it apparently)?. Do it yourself!

Stuff that can be tested.

Yes, that is indeed what the “evidence” would entail if ever he could produce any.

Did he explain how it would be tested?

Of course not. He hasn’t even told us what this much-vaunted evidence might even be, let alone how it would be tested.

If yes please let me know some post numbers so I can have a read.

See above.

Also, can you refer me to the post where I introduced forensics into the conversation as I thought I had been talking about testimony as evidence that other people may/may not find credible, so not sure what I am supposed to have said about forensics.

Certainly – it began in 27428 and you repeated it several times thereafter.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes, I know but I still don't get why you want to tell me what Alan's thinking is.

I think what I'm trying to tell you is how I think statements of faith work from my perspective as a theist.

Well, you're telling me that he's making a statement of faith but he's telling me that he has overwhelming evidence and logic on his side - which is not the sort of thing I would expect somebody to say if they were just telling me about their personal faith belief, rather than objective facts.

Like I said, I took "evidence" to mean experience and testimony, which is a form of evidence but one that isn't in the category of objective evidence. I think the logic is a separate issue - I haven't seen him present any logic, just lots of don't knows and statements of faith.

This is the problem with you trying to read Alan's mind - if he wants to tell me I've misunderstood and he's not claiming overwhelming objective evidence and actual logical analysis at all - he's free to do so.
 
Again - I'm going on what Alan has said (although he's far from alone) about his god expecting us to search for it because it has an important message and we need to make an important choice. He says he's found god and knows all this stuff, so I assume he thinks he's received a clear message.

Anyway, if Alan wants to clarify in the light of what you've said that's fine - and if you want to put forward your own ideas, that's fine too. However, I'm really not interested in continuing to discuss what you think Alan is thinking.

I've given you my take as a theist on the clarity of messages. Alan may well have a different take on this.