Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

Yes - the "get out of jail free"  card when presented with anything which is impossible to explain in purely materialistic terms is "we don't know" - which explains nothing.
Then when presented with a non material explanation you (or others) will attempt to ridicule this using words like "magic" or "leprechauns" or bringing up silly emojis instead of engaging in reasonable dialogue.
The bottom line is that there is more, much more to reality than can be explained in purely material terms.

Maybe you can explain how people who have never heard of Jesus or your god, make it (or can't) into heaven?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hume was against cause and effect.

No he wasn’t.

He was Acausist.

No he wasn’t.

Does that means he lacks a belief?

No. It means the belief he had wasn’t as you mis-state it to have been.

Has no burden of proof, holds the default position?

The “burden of proof” he had was to provide a sound argument to support his actual position, which he did.

Or does he have an Alternative philosophy which needs grounds?

No. Simple reason was good enough – what he actually said (as opposed to your corruption of it) was that if, say, you saw a schoolboy throw a stone at your greenhouse and a window broke immediately after while the causal relationship between the two events would be a reasonable conclusion to draw, you cannot rule out the possibility at least that something other than the stone broke the window. In other words, "true" causality is unknowable.

He wasn’t an “acausist” at all – he was actually more like an “a-with-absolute-certainty-causist”, which is a very different thing.

This incidentally is related to your endless fuck up re the meanings of “philosophical materialism” and such like. It's not “all is necessarily material”, it’s just “the material is all that so far at least we’ve been able to verify by reference to the solutions it produces”.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No he wasn’t.

No he wasn’t.

No. It means the belief he had wasn’t as you mis-state it to have been.

The “burden of proof” he had was to provide a sound argument to support his actual position, which he did.

No. Simple reason was good enough – what he actually said (as opposed to your corruption of it) was that if, say, you saw a schoolboy throw a stone at your greenhouse and a window broke immediately after while the causal relationship between the two events would be a reasonable conclusion to draw, you cannot rule out the possibility at least that something other than the stone broke the window. In other words, "true" causality is unknowable.

He wasn’t an “acausist” at all – he was actually more like an “a-with-absolute-certainty-causist”, which is a very different thing.

This incidentally is related to your endless fuck up re the meanings of “philosophical materialism” and such like. It's not “all is necessarily material”, it’s just “the material is all that so far at least we’ve been able to verify by reference to the solutions it produces”.     

I’m treating your post as a potential ego boosting experiment in dishing out cobblers and seeing who buys it. Hume was sceptical of causation and committed atheists similarly inclined like Sean M Carroll take great comfort from that. I haven’t just plucked appeal to Humes resistance to causation out of the air.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I’m treating your post as a potential ego boosting experiment in dishing out cobblers and seeing who buys it. Hume was sceptical of causation and committed atheists similarly inclined like Sean M Carroll take great comfort from that. I haven’t just plucked appeal to Humes resistance to causation out of the air.

You're just wrong again here. Hume wasn't 'sceptical of causation" - he was sceptical of certain causation, and rightly so. It’s the problem of induction that Russell’s chicken describes – the fact that the farmer has fed the chicken every morning so far doesn’t guarantee that it’ll be fed tomorrow.     

[Stranger]

Hume was sceptical of causation and committed atheists similarly inclined like Sean M Carroll take great comfort from that. I haven’t just plucked appeal to Humes resistance to causation out of the air.

What the fuck are you wittering on about now? Carroll referred to Hume's objections to a 'necessary entity', which basically have bugger all to do with causality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What the fuck are you wittering on about now? Carroll referred to Hume's objections to a 'necessary entity', which basically have bugger all to do with causality.

Carroll on Causation and a critique of Carroll on causation


http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2016/05/quote-of-day-sean-carroll-on-how.html?m=1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5990655/

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Carroll on Causation and a critique of Carroll on causation

What point do you think you're making here?

PS Any news by the way on whether you've managed yet to untangle the difference between "I have insufficient grounds to accept that X exists (though it still might exist)" and "X doesn't exist"?

Anything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What point do you think you're making here?

PS Any news by the way on whether you've managed yet to untangle the difference between "I have insufficient grounds to accept that X exists (though it still might exist)" and "X doesn't exist"?

Anything?

Certainl.The latter is what Atheist Claim the default position is. The former is what they say when the latter is challenged..

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Certainl.The latter is what Atheist Claim the default position is. The former is what they say when the latter is challenged..

Ah, so you're still lying about that then. Thought so. Just for funsies though, can you think of a time when any atheist here has ever actually claimed the latter and not the former?

Ever?

Just once?

Or are you now so invested in this epic straw man of your own making that lying about it to preserve it is all you have left?

[Stranger]

Carroll on Causation and a critique of Carroll on causation


http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2016/05/quote-of-day-sean-carroll-on-how.html?m=1

Bog-standard science. Of course causality isn't fundamental. For it even to make sense you need to be embedded in space-time. I think I've said this more than once.

Certainl.The latter is what Atheist Claim the default position is. The former is what they say when the latter is challenged..

You seem to have lost the plot completely. This is nothing to do with default positions. It's just science according to current evidence.

[Gordon]

Certainl.The latter is what Atheist Claim the default position is. The former is what they say when the latter is challenged..

Stop lying please.

[Maeght]

Certainl.The latter is what Atheist Claim the default position is. The former is what they say when the latter is challenged..

No, the default position is that you don't believe there is a God. You need to be convinced of the proposition that God or gods exist to be able to say that you believe in God. If you aren't convinced then the default position is that you don't believe in God.

[Outrider]

Certainl.The latter is what Atheist Claim the default position is. The former is what they say when the latter is challenged.

Atheism isn't a statement of fact, it's a statement of (lack of) belief. Gnosticism is about whether claims of gods can be definitively proven or disproven - do you see many Gnostics here?

O.

[torridon]

Yes - the "get out of jail free"  card when presented with anything which is impossible to explain in purely materialistic terms is "we don't know" - which explains nothing.

Saying we don't know is the honest response in the absence of an explanation.

It is better to be honest, it is better than making stuff up.  Admitting we don't know keeps the mind open for new discoveries and shows the humility that is required for learning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Saying we don't know is the honest response in the absence of an explanation.

It is better to be honest, it is better than making stuff up.  Admitting we don't know keeps the mind open for new discoveries and shows the humility that is required for learning.

Commitment to agnosticism?

[Stranger]

Commitment to agnosticism?

Absurd.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, the default position is that you don't believe there is a God. You need to be convinced of the proposition that God or gods exist to be able to say that you believe in God. If you aren't convinced then the default position is that you don't believe in God.

Certainly there has to be an ordered way to start a debate but whether it goes further than mere etiquette, I’m not so sure.
So the house does not believe there is a God, well, a theist could say they do believe there is a God and that would be fine, both beliefs then have equal status by being beliefs so if one had the burden of proof so would the other and that would have remained fine however in the mists of time a theist somewhere declared there was a God and was heard claiming it by....atheists. No amount of subsequent admission that there was no empirical evidence could put the cat back in the bag.
The theist claim had been made. The debate and the default position and burden of proof was on. Epistemiologies had been offended, justice had to be visited upon.

But what is good is also good for the gander and somewhere an atheist bus campaign was about to commence with an exhortation to stop worrying because God did not exist. Of course legally they weren’t allowed to put it on and I suppose some atheists felt that they could continue to say it had never been claimed.

So belief that God doesn’t exist may be claimed as a counter argument to belief that he does and God doesn’t exist in a counter argument to him existing I suppose.

I find therefore the argument of default positions here a bit unconvincing,the best reason. This is how these things have been done a wholly inadequate explanation.

[Outrider]

Commitment to agnosticism?

How do you 'commit' to agnosticism?

O.

[Gordon]

Certainly there has to be an ordered way to start a debate but whether it goes further than mere etiquette, I’m not so sure.
So the house does not believe there is a God, well, a theist could say they do believe there is a God and that would be fine, both beliefs then have equal status by being beliefs so if one had the burden of proof so would the other and that would have remained fine however in the mists of time a theist somewhere declared there was a God and was heard claiming it by....atheists. No amount of subsequent admission that there was no empirical evidence could put the cat back in the bag.
The theist claim had been made. The debate and the default position and burden of proof was on. Epistemiologies had been offended, justice had to be visited upon.

But what is good is also good for the gander and somewhere an atheist bus campaign was about to commence with an exhortation to stop worrying because God did not exist. Of course legally they weren’t allowed to put it on and I suppose some atheists felt that they could continue to say it had never been claimed.

So belief that God doesn’t exist may be claimed as a counter argument to belief that he does and God doesn’t exist in a counter argument to him existing I suppose.

I find therefore the argument of default positions here a bit unconvincing,the best reason. This is how these things have been done a wholly inadequate explanation.

Stop being silly - I need go no further than reject your belief in 'God', and I'm under no burden of proof obligations in doing that.

Perhaps you should spend more time convincing others rather than misrepresenting them.

[Stranger]

Certainly there has to be an ordered way to start a debate but whether it goes further than mere etiquette, I’m not so sure.
So the house does not believe there is a God, well, a theist could say they do believe there is a God and that would be fine, both beliefs then have equal status by being beliefs so if one had the burden of proof so would the other...

Still trying to build a false equivalence. In fact you're misrepresenting both positions. A theist, for the most part, will claim that they believe that there is a specific God, which may well be quite a different God to other theists.

As has been pointed out endlessly, the atheist position is not the opposite (I believe that no God exists) but the position of being unconvinced by any theist arguments or supposed evidence, for their multiple versions of God.

It is the default because it is for everything. It holds for any sort of claim, including (perhaps, especially) scientific hypotheses; the first questions are: why should I take this seriously, how do we test it, and how might it be falsified?

I claim I have an invisible dragon in my garage, and you do what exactly? Take me seriously?

But what is good is also good for the gander and somewhere an atheist bus campaign was about to commence with an exhortation to stop worrying because God did not exist.

More misrepresentation. It didn't say that god didn't exist, it was qualified with "probably", which seems to be a fair assessment of the current evidence and state of the supposed arguments.

Of course legally they weren’t allowed to put it on...

Really? Atheist Bus Campaign.

So belief that God doesn’t exist...

Again, you are arguing against a position that nobody here holds and that nobody is claiming is the default. Grow up and face up to what's actually being said, FFS! This ritual slaughter of straw men is just pointless.

[Enki]

Certainly there has to be an ordered way to start a debate but whether it goes further than mere etiquette, I’m not so sure.
So the house does not believe there is a God, well, a theist could say they do believe there is a God and that would be fine, both beliefs then have equal status by being beliefs so if one had the burden of proof so would the other and that would have remained fine however in the mists of time a theist somewhere declared there was a God and was heard claiming it by....atheists. No amount of subsequent admission that there was no empirical evidence could put the cat back in the bag.
The theist claim had been made. The debate and the default position and burden of proof was on. Epistemiologies had been offended, justice had to be visited upon.

But what is good is also good for the gander and somewhere an atheist bus campaign was about to commence with an exhortation to stop worrying because God did not exist. Of course legally they weren’t allowed to put it on and I suppose some atheists felt that they could continue to say it had never been claimed.

So belief that God doesn’t exist may be claimed as a counter argument to belief that he does and God doesn’t exist in a counter argument to him existing I suppose.

I find therefore the argument of default positions here a bit unconvincing,the best reason. This is how these things have been done a wholly inadequate explanation.

What a meandering, ungrammatical post! Sounds as if you're getting frustrated that atheists aren't playing by your rules. I suppose, in your eyes, atheists should own up to the statement that there is no god, then you could at least attack them on the same territory that they attack you. Unfortunately this ain't going to happen because it is entirely reasonable and accurate to suggest that one does not have any belief in a god because no convincing argument has been given but cannot rule out that no god exists.

So, it looks like you're stuck.

[Outrider]

So the house does not believe there is a God, well, a theist could say they do believe there is a God and that would be fine, both beliefs then have equal status by being beliefs so if one had the burden of proof so would the other and that would have remained fine however in the mists of time a theist somewhere declared there was a God and was heard claiming it by....atheists.

The house does not 'not believe there is a God', the house believes no valid case has been made that there is a god. A theist can say they believe there's a god, then they can try to make the case if they wish. Unfortunately, the ongoing persecution of people all over the world for being Christian, or atheist, or Muslim, or gay, or female suggests that those do not have equal status.

No amount of subsequent admission that there was no empirical evidence could put the cat back in the bag.

You've not demonstrated that there's a cat, yet.

The theist claim had been made. The debate and the default position and burden of proof was on. Epistemiologies had been offended, justice had to be visited upon.

But what is good is also good for the gander and somewhere an atheist bus campaign was about to commence with an exhortation to stop worrying because God did not exist. Of course legally they weren’t allowed to put it on and I suppose some atheists felt that they could continue to say it had never been claimed.[/qutoe]

That's not what the bus said, but don't let reality get in the way of your case.

So belief that God doesn’t exist may be claimed as a counter argument to belief that he does and God doesn’t exist in a counter argument to him existing I suppose.

It could, you should go find someone who's making that argument.

I find therefore the argument of default positions here a bit unconvincing,the best reason.

It seems to me you don't find it unconvincing, you find it inconvenient because it firmly makes it clear that the burden of proof remains on you, you can't attempt the false dichotomy fallacy to justify a god that you can't demonstrate on its own merits.

This is how these things have been done a wholly inadequate explanation.

Yes, that's exactly it. We're pointing out that religion has a wholly inadequate explanation, and you're not doing nearly enough to change that perception if that's your goal.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The house does not 'not believe there is a God', the house believes no valid case has been made that there is a god. A theist can say they believe there's a god, then they can try to make the case if they wish. Unfortunately, the ongoing persecution of people all over the world for being Christian, or atheist, or Muslim, or gay, or female suggests that those do not have equal status.

You've not demonstrated that there's a cat, yet.

It could, you should go find someone who's making that argument.

It seems to me you don't find it unconvincing, you find it inconvenient because it firmly makes it clear that the burden of proof remains on you, you can't attempt the false dichotomy fallacy to justify a god that you can't demonstrate on its own merits.

Yes, that's exactly it. We're pointing out that religion has a wholly inadequate explanation, and you're not doing nearly enough to change that perception if that's your goal.

O.

Yes we know you believe no valid case has been made. And we say you are wrong.
Because your criteria for validity is either empiricist, naturalist or physicalist and the gymnastics, goalpost shifting, redefinition of terms to avoid any suggestion of God has been observed and noted.

[Stranger]

Yes we know you believe no valid case has been made. And we say you are wrong.

So make a sound argument or provide objective evidence, then.

Because your criteria for validity is either empiricist, naturalist or physicalist and the gymnastics, goalpost shifting, redefinition of terms to avoid any suggestion of God has been observed and noted.

Gibberish laden rant.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still trying to build a false equivalence. In fact you're misrepresenting both positions. A theist, for the most part, will claim that they believe that there is a specific God, which may well be quite a different God to other theists.

As has been pointed out endlessly, the atheist position is not the opposite (I believe that no God exists) but the position of being unconvinced by any theist arguments or supposed evidence, for their multiple versions of God.

It is the default because it is for everything. It holds for any sort of claim, including (perhaps, especially) scientific hypotheses; the first questions are: why should I take this seriously, how do we test it, and how might it be falsified?

I claim I have an invisible dragon in my garage, and you do what exactly? Take me seriously?

More misrepresentation. It didn't say that god didn't exist, it was qualified with "probably", which seems to be a fair assessment of the current evidence and state of the supposed arguments.

Really? Atheist Bus Campaign.

Again, you are arguing against a position that nobody here holds and that nobody is claiming is the default. Grow up and face up to what's actually being said, FFS! This ritual slaughter of straw men is just pointless.

Unfortunately “There’s probably no God” is still a positive assertion and therefore carries a burden of proof.

Let me give you my take on why you think you have the default position.... You all wake up in the morning and you don’t see or empirically detect God or a pantheon and therefore you feel you have the right to challenge an alternative Perception but not have yours challenged. The question is why do you do that? In what way is your perception superior?