Searching for GOD...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Just to point out that in saying she prefers one poster's posts above another isn't  'confessing a relativist approach to truth'.

When I'm reading but not posting, I see frequent criticisms from her of Alan Burns, Vlad, even Gabriella. Then I post and all of a sudden she now prefers Vlad's posts to mine??? What is that if not a relativist approach? Furthermore, since the truth (or otherwise) of what is posted is very rarely dealt with, what is it exactly that she is objecting to?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

What position is it that you think I have and do not defend?

Your hope of a brave new world where religious belief is absent. I think there's a strong example of it on the thread pertaining to the late Billy Graham. Which brings me to another property of truth.

The truth of X is not affected by you hoping that X is not true.

[Stranger]

It is when their hard to believe translates into claims of non-existence.

Who has done that - where?

Faith

Hilarious!

There is nothing stopping you, SusanDoris, bluehillside Retd or anyone else testing for yourself whether what Alan Burns is saying is correct or not.

As I asked before: exactly how we can test Alan's claims - in some (any) objective way? How does one 'seek' without the hint of any evidence as a starting point (or too much if we want to accept all religious claims as 'evidence')? How do we reconcile the glaring contradictions in Alan's claims?

[SusanDoris]

Faith

You are presumably referring to the 100% faith, totally lacking in any objective evidence, type of faith? If so, you have to be joking. Although you are probably not, because I haven’t seen any sign of humour from you…

There is nothing stopping you, SusanDoris, bluehillside Retd or anyone else testing for yourself whether what Alan Burns is saying is correct or not.

Please set out clearly what method we are supposed to use to do the testing.

SusanDoris in particular has made it clear on more than one occasion that she doesn't want him having the last word. What is she scared of? That he may be right?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

So how do the "arguments used by atheists here fall down" with regard to these?

Bear in mind the main "truth claim" being made by atheists here (as far as I'm aware) is that there are no good reasons to think that any of the many gods are real.

And there Stranger is an immediate violation. Good reasons is subjective. Who decides what are good reasons?

[Stranger]

And there Stranger is an immediate violation. Good reasons is subjective. Who decides what are good reasons?

My apologies but I thought that might be obvious - 'good' reasons in this context, means objective (intersubjectively verifiable) evidence and/or sound reasoning.

ETA: ...and an absence of obvious contradictions (which is a problem with most versions of Christianity in general and Alan's claims in particular).

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Floo and Rhiannon tested it. It didn't work for them. Ergo by your position and AB's your god doesn't exist.

And if your argument is used for e.g. Alan Burns or Vlad, for whom it does work, then the conclusion is that God does exist!

Thank you for illustrating your confirmation bias...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

As I asked before: exactly how we can test Alan's claims - in some (any) objective way? How does one 'seek' without the hint of any evidence as a starting point (or too much if we want to accept all religious claims as 'evidence')?

So I'm sitting at my computer wondering how can I test the claim that an aeroplane can successfully take me from Heathrow to Paris. What's the best way for me to test that claim? Take the words of others, or book a flight and get on it? The evidence is there that planes work and can fly from A to B, but in my case the proof only comes after I take the relevant steps.

[Gordon]

Erm no, otherwise what's the point of education?

It tends to equip one with a capacity for reasoned debate: I suggest get some relevant education p.d.q.

It is when their hard to believe translates into claims of non-existence.

That, old chap, is a straw man.

You ask this on Page 1106 of this thread??? I think Alan Burns has said a lot on the subject!!

Indeed he has: most of it fallacious or incoherent (I concede he is polite, eloquent and I'd happily have a pint with him).

There is nothing stopping you, SusanDoris, bluehillside Retd or anyone else testing for yourself whether what Alan Burns is saying is correct or not. Except that what does appear to be stopping you is the fact that your mind is already made up, hence the need to continually oppose what he is saying. SusanDoris in particular has made it clear on more than one occasion that she doesn't want him having the last word. What is she scared of? That he may be right?

I guess 'burden of proof' is anathema to you.

[Gordon]

So I'm sitting at my computer wondering how can I test the claim that an aeroplane can successfully take me from Heathrow to Paris. What's the best way for me to test that claim? Take the words of others, or book a flight and get on it? The evidence is there that planes work and can fly from A to B, but in my case the proof only comes after I take the relevant steps.

So, when it comes to your faith, what steps did you take, and what is it that was relevant for each step?

[Stranger]

And if your argument is used for e.g. Alan Burns or Vlad, for whom it does work, then the conclusion is that God does exist!

Thank you for illustrating your confirmation bias...

If a test only works for some people, it is clearly unreliable. When you have other claims (other religions) with similar tests that also work for some other people and the claims contradict each other (as the various religions, sects, and denominations do), the tests are clearly worthless.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

You are presumably referring to the 100% faith, totally lacking in any objective evidence, type of faith?

Erm, no. That's blind faith.

Please set out clearly what method we are supposed to use to do the testing.

You can't. You have already said  You are presumably referring to the 100% faith, totally lacking in any objective evidence, type of faith, so how can you test for something when you don't even know what you are looking for? You just end up doing a bluehillside; asking someone to swim from A to B, yet saying they can't use breaststroke, backstroke, front crawl, butterfly, etc.

[Nearly Sane]

And if your argument is used for e.g. Alan Burns or Vlad, for whom it does work, then the conclusion is that God does exist!

Thank you for illustrating your confirmation bias...

No, this was using your 'logic' not mine. So I would ve obliged if you apologised for your misrepresentation.

[Stranger]

As I asked before: exactly how we can test Alan's claims - in some (any) objective way? How does one 'seek' without the hint of any evidence as a starting point (or too much if we want to accept all religious claims as 'evidence')?

So I'm sitting at my computer wondering how can I test the claim that an aeroplane can successfully take me from Heathrow to Paris. What's the best way for me to test that claim? Take the words of others, or book a flight and get on it? The evidence is there that planes work and can fly from A to B, but in my case the proof only comes after I take the relevant steps.

You didn't answer my questions.

[Gordon]

And if your argument is used for e.g. Alan Burns or Vlad, for whom it does work, then the conclusion is that God does exist!

Thank you for illustrating your confirmation bias...

Leaving aside that you don't understand confirmation bias, especially in relation to NS in this scenario, so you owe him an apology: but what argument are you referring to? Have you established that it is the same argument where in the first case God is rejected and in the second case God is accepted?

You seem to think so - how do you know this?

[Gordon]

Erm, no. That's blind faith.
You can't. You have already said  You are presumably referring to the 100% faith, totally lacking in any objective evidence, type of faith, so how can you test for something when you don't even know what you are looking for? You just end up doing a bluehillside; asking someone to swim from A to B, yet saying they can't use breaststroke, backstroke, front crawl, butterfly, etc.

So put us out of our misery and tell us how to 'test' for 'God'.

[SusanDoris]

Erm, no. That's blind faith.

How do you tell the difference between blind faith in something and 100% faith in something totally bereft of any objective evidence?

[/quote]

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

My apologies but I thought that might be obvious - 'good' reasons in this context, means objective (intersubjectively verifiable) evidence and/or sound reasoning.

And there's your first problem Stranger...

There are things in this world that cannot be tested in this way, but human beings appear to have no problem in the main dealing with them, e.g. love. I'd like to know how many people who are in a relationship have some sort of 'sliding scale' with which to measure empirically the love of their partner.

If human beings made all decisions based on empirical evidence alone, and the only exception was religious belief, you guys would have a point. However, not only is this not the case in everyday life (e.g. does anyone her ask to see the safety inspection certificate before getting into a lift), it seems not to apply in areas of science. Anyone here got any empirical evidence for Sir David Attenborough's claim that life started in the sea billions of years ago?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

How do you tell the difference between blind faith in something and 100% faith in something totally bereft of any objective evidence?

One has no evidence, the other has evidence. It is that simple.

The problem is that you are prejudicing your deliberations by trying to say in advance what the nature of the evidence should be, i.e. it must be objective.

if you are in a relationship, what objective evidence do you have that your partner loves you?

[Nearly Sane]

As a general point evidence is defined by a methodology. There is no such thing as 'objective' evidence. There is intersubjective evidence which is based on a common acceptance of a methodology. There might be no spoon but if I stab you with it, do you not bleed?


The problem as ever for supernatural claims is the lack of a methodology. Asked it literally hundreds of times, anyone got one who makes such claims?

[Gordon]

And there's your first problem Stranger...

There are things in this world that cannot be tested in this way, but human beings appear to have no problem in the main dealing with them, e.g. love. I'd like to know how many people who are in a relationship have some sort of 'sliding scale' with which to measure empirically the love of their partner.

Good heavens! You mean that subjective stuff isn't objective after all - thank goodness you're here to let us know!

If human beings made all decisions based on empirical evidence alone, and the only exception was religious belief, you guys would have a point.

So, deciding on 'God' is much the same as deciding that planes can indeed fly - yes?

However, not only is this not the case in everyday life (e.g. does anyone her ask to see the safety inspection certificate before getting into a lift)

But, if required, evidence of testing and safety inspection can be obtained.,

it seems not to apply in areas of science. Anyone here got any empirical evidence for Sir David Attenborough's claim that life started in the sea billions of years ago?

Not personally - but do try consulting an appropriate scientist.

We've had this nonsense before: that 'faith' in religious terms is like trusting the pilot of the plane that takes you on holiday - but, as a comparison, it doesn't fly.

[Gordon]

One has no evidence, the other has evidence. It is that simple.

Only if they do indeed have evidence that stands appropriate scrutiny, which implies some kind of relevant methodology.

The problem is that you are prejudicing your deliberations by trying to say in advance what the nature of the evidence should be, i.e. it must be objective.

Nope: the claimant proposes evidence, which can then scrutinised using an appropriate method, and if there is no method then the claim of 'evidence' fails and all that is left is an unevidenced claim. 

if you are in a relationship, what objective evidence do you have that your partner loves you?

You don't, although your subjective assessment of their behaviour towards you may be sufficient to convince you they do, or do not, as the case may be. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Floo and Rhiannon tested it. It didn't work for them. Ergo by your position and AB's your god doesn't exist.

Not all relationships work out. After all it is a question of what we want. I thought Floo rejected her parents faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, this was using your 'logic' not mine. So I would ve obliged if you apologised for your misrepresentation.

What is it with this compulsion to be apologised too? I'm not getting it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As a general point evidence is defined by a methodology. There is no such thing as 'objective' evidence. There is intersubjective evidence which is based on a common acceptance of a methodology. There might be no spoon but if I stab you with it, do you not bleed?


The problem as ever for supernatural claims is the lack of a methodology. Asked it literally hundreds of times, anyone got one who makes such claims?

The methodology thing must be the biggest red herring attempt since i've been on this. Ontology trumps methodology. What methodology is involved in a relationship? That's your methodology.