Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

More straw manning isn't helping you here. Try reading and responding to what I actually said, not your misrepresentation of it.

What other methodologies did you have in mind then?
Your post does not define what credible evidence is. In other words.....Turdpolish.

[Stranger]

Stranger " Evidence is er, evidence"

Have you gone blind?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What other methodologies did you have in mind then?
Your post does not define what credible evidence is. In other words.....Turdpolish.

That’s your problem not mine, and shifting the burden of proof isn’t helping you here either. If you want to claim the status of “evidence” for something then it’s your job to propose a method to distinguish that claim from just guessing, making shit up etc.

Try again.

[ProfessorDavey]

How are you defining credible evidence here?

Objectively verifiable and objectively verified.

If you want to rebut an atheist position that they do not believe in god/gods due to a lack of credible evidence for their existence, all you have to do is provide some evidence that is objectively verifiable and objectively verified. That's all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Objectively verifiable and objectively verified.

If you want to rebut an atheist position that they do not believe in god/gods due to a lack of credible evidence for their existence, all you have to do is provide some evidence that is objectively verifiable and objectively verified. That's all.

read the definition of credible alongside the definition of objectively verifiable and there's already a conflict so do you want to remove credible aka believable?

Secondly, what is objectively unverifiable about a man back from the dead?

[Stranger]

Secondly, what is objectively unverifiable about a man back from the dead?

It's unverifiable because it's nothing but an old story in a book.   

[Outrider]

What is objectively unverifiable about a man back from the dead?

In this particular instance, depending on your theology:

- whether it's actually a man
- whether that man was actually real
- whether the real man is actually accurately represented by the mythologyf
- the dead bit
- the back from the dead bit.

Apart from that, though, spot on.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Secondly, what is objectively unverifiable about a man back from the dead?

That something must be objectively verifiable is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. Sufficiency requires that it is objectively verified.

Now it is certainly reasonable to suggest that it is objectively possible to verify that a person is clinically alive, then that the person is clinically dead, and then after three days is clinically alive again. All of those assessments are possible using objective methods.

But that isn't sufficient - for the evidence to actually be credible you need sufficiency - in other words that you have objectively verified that the person was clinically alive, then clinically dead for three days and then clinically alive again. That's where the credibility falls down. Firstly because it has, obviously, not been objectively verified as all we have are decades-later assertions with no objective verification. But further, although theoretically objectively verifiable, the notion is completely implausible given our understanding of human physiology as there would have been permanent and irreparable brain (and other tissue) damage in that three day period.

[Maeght]

Evidence has to be grounded in methodological naturalism? That is science isn't it? More turd polishing?

I'm not convinced by any evidence I have seen, material, anecdotal etc etc

[torridon]

the problem for theists is even deeper : what would constitute evidence for something supernatural, like God ?  If you cannot define what you are looking for, how could its discovery be confirmed ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Torri,

the problem for theists is even deeper : what would constitute evidence for something supernatural, like God ?  If you cannot define what you are looking for, how could its discovery be confirmed ?

I always think the same thing when people claim miracles. How would they know that the event isn’t instead a non-miraculous one for which we currently happen not to have a naturalistic explanation?

Here for example a catholic writer says:

“In the canonization process, a miracle almost always refers to the spontaneous and lasting remission of a serious, life-threatening medical condition. The healing must have taken place in ways that the best-informed scientific knowledge cannot account for and follow prayers to the holy person.”

https://theconversation.com/whats-a-miracle-heres-how-the-catholic-church-decides-170183

Who’s to say though that “the best-informed scientific knowledge” is definitive and absolute rather than just a statement about the current extent of medical knowledge?

It’s all a bit odd.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s your problem not mine, and shifting the burden of proof isn’t helping you here either. If you want to claim the status of “evidence” for something then it’s your job to propose a method to distinguish that claim from just guessing, making shit up etc.

Try again.

Hillside states that evidence must be backed up with a methodology but he cannot state what he has in mind.

There is methodological naturalism but that is science effectively. We know where this is going of course....physical evidence.

However outside the forums seeming collective wankfantasy that all is science there is the historical method. In other words
the methods of studying ancient history and the standards of that.

So there are historical documents and accounts of a Christian community who believed in the resurrection of Jesus, much of the material from Paul a contemporary of Jesus.

Rejection of such documents is effectively rejection of the historical method  and yes Hillside that is done on the grounds of philosophical naturalism rather than methodolical naturalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

the problem for theists is even deeper : what would constitute evidence for something supernatural, like God ?  If you cannot define what you are looking for, how could its discovery be confirmed ?

This seems to rule out discovery.

[Maeght]

Hillside states that evidence must be backed up with a methodology but he cannot state what he has in mind.

There is methodological naturalism but that is science effectively. We know where this is going of course....physical evidence.

However outside the forums seeming collective wankfantasy that all is science there is the historical method. In other words
the methods of studying ancient history and the standards of that.

So there are historical documents and accounts of a Christian community who believed in the resurrection of Jesus, much of the material from Paul a contemporary of Jesus.

Rejection of such documents is effectively rejection of the historical method  and yes Hillside that is done on the grounds of philosophical naturalism rather than methodolical naturalism.

Yes, the historical method gives evidence for an early belief in the resurrection.

[Stranger]

Hillside states that evidence must be backed up with a methodology but he cannot state what he has in mind.

Yet again: that's because it's not other people's problem, it's yours. It's entirely up to the people making the claims to give the rest of us some reason to take them seriously. You need to give us some method of distinguishing it from guessing or making shit up.

How many times do you need this simple, simple fact explained to you?

[Nearly Sane]

Hillside states that evidence must be backed up with a methodology but he cannot state what he has in mind.

There is methodological naturalism but that is science effectively. We know where this is going of course....physical evidence.

However outside the forums seeming collective wankfantasy that all is science there is the historical method. In other words
the methods of studying ancient history and the standards of that.

So there are historical documents and accounts of a Christian community who believed in the resurrection of Jesus, much of the material from Paul a contemporary of Jesus.

Rejection of such documents is effectively rejection of the historical method  and yes Hillside that is done on the grounds of philosophical naturalism rather than methodolical naturalism.

As covered many times, history is studied in a methodologically naturalist manner.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As covered many times, history is studied in a methodologically naturalist manner.

History IS studied I see. I can't recall the issue having been "covered". Perhaps you can reference the board and thread
Or outline how history is studied in a methodologically naturalist manner.

Methodological naturalism is science isn't it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet again: that's because it's not other people's problem, it's yours. It's entirely up to the people making the claims to give the rest of us some reason to take them seriously. You need to give us some method of distinguishing it from guessing or making shit up.

How many times do you need this simple, simple fact explained to you?

It seems to me Hillside and others are making crackpot so called rebuttals and pretending not to have a position on anything.

You seem to be unaware of when you and others make positive assertions IMHO.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, the historical method gives evidence for an early belief in the resurrection.

And evidence of a resurrection...which you either believe or don't.

[Stranger]

It seems to me Hillside and others are making crackpot so called rebuttals and pretending not to have a position on anything.

Examples? And what the fuck has this got to do with it being your problem to back up your own claims?

[Maeght]

And evidence of a resurrection...which you either believe or don't.

No, it isn't evidence of a resurrection as it doesn't show that an actual resurrection was the most likely reason for that belief. It is one possibility but not the only or the most likely. You don't believe evidence you accept that it gives a strong indication that something is the explanation.

[Nearly Sane]

History IS studied I see. I can't recall the issue having been "covered". Perhaps you can reference the board and thread
Or outline how history is studied in a methodologically naturalist manner.

Methodological naturalism is science isn't it.

No, methodlogical naturalusm is not science. Hstory is studied and taight that way. So is law.

Recently you said you had some relative with a history Ph.D? Go and ask them how evaluating the truth of miracle  claims is taught in the study of history. After they have asked you if you are being serious, come back.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it isn't evidence of a resurrection as it doesn't show that an actual resurrection was the most likely reason for that belief. It is one possibility but not the only or the most likely. You don't believe evidence you accept that it gives a strong indication that something is the explanation.

If an ancient document attested to an event and said there were multiple witnesses we would call it evidence.

What then changes because the event is a resurrection, that doesn't constitute special pleading?

What is the likeliest explanation for contemporary belief in the resurrection in your view?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, methodlogical naturalusm is not science. Hstory is studied and taight that way. So is law.

Recently you said you had some relative with a history Ph.D? Go and ask them how evaluating the truth of miracle  claims is taught in the study of history. After they have asked you if you are being serious, come back.

I've been busy but thank you for reminding me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, methodlogical naturalusm is not science. Hstory is studied and taight that way. So is law.

Recently you said you had some relative with a history Ph.D? Go and ask them how evaluating the truth of miracle  claims is taught in the study of history. After they have asked you if you are being serious, come back.

How do you teach something in a methodolocally naturalistic way?