Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

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

And here are some examples of the previous covering of history being methodoligically naturalist on here

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12494.msg635185#msg635185


https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11115.msg566453#msg566453


https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10752.msg553049#msg553049

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10621.msg548407#msg548407


https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10367.msg531555#msg531555

[Nearly Sane]

How do you teach something in a methodolocally naturalistic way?

You assume that natural explanations are all you can investigate and talk about.

[Stranger]

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

When it's written decades after the event and selected and edited by people with a religious vested interest, it loses a lot of credibility.

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

The Bayesian prior. A resurrection is something that not generally observed, so has to be considered to be a low probability explanation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Outrider]

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

He doesn't need to, he's not relying on that hypothetical 'other' methodology. You are, so you need to justify it for anyone to lend any credence to what you have to say.

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

And that doesn't work for you, which we get. There's also pure logic, and that hasn't worked out so well for you, either, fair enough. So what else have you got?

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.

Fair enough. Is it the overwhelming, or even majority, historical consensus that Jesus was the son of a god and all the stories are true? I suspect that it isn't.

So there are historical documents and accounts of a Christian community who believed in the resurrection of Jesus, much of the material from Paul a contemporary of Jesus.

And not withstanding many of the works attributed to him are considered to be by others, there remain about a half-dozen (from memory) which are considered to be genuinely his work.

Rejection of such documents is effectively rejection of the historical method

Rejection in what sense? The point of history is not simply to identify what documents come from a particular time, place and person (although that's the first step) but also to put those into context and consider the biases and interests of the author, their blind spots and influences, and to consider what they have to say in that context. So, on that basis, the documents themselves aren't 'rejected', but we don't have to take the claims in the content at face value, necessarily. That is exactly those 'methods of studying ancient history' that you were looking for.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You assume that natural explanations are all you can investigate and talk about.

What about the history of theology?

[Maeght]

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?

In all situations we judge what is most likely to have happened, and that is normally based on our experiences and the reality we see around us. We don't see resurrections normally.

There are various possible reasons for an early belief in the resurrection that are proposed. Post grief hallucinations is one of course, but it is not for me to say what actually happened as I'm not making a claim. I have said that the resurrection is one possible explanation but there are others that have been proposed and probably others no one has thought of. As I said, for it to be evidence for the resurrection it has to strongly indicate that this is the most likely explanation rather than other possible causes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You assume that natural explanations are all you can investigate and talk about.

What about the history of theology?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When it's written decades after the event and selected and edited by people with a religious vested interest, it loses a lot of credibility.

Vague

The Bayesian prior. A resurrection is something that not generally observed, so has to be considered to be a low probability explanation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

What about the history of theology?

What about it? Theology as an academic discipline in the UK is studied in a methodological naturalist manner.

[Stranger]

Vague

You certainly are.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

He doesn't need to, he's not relying on that hypothetical 'other' methodology. You are, so you need to justify it for anyone to lend any credence to what you have to say.

And that doesn't work for you, which we get. There's also pure logic, and that hasn't worked out so well for you, either, fair enough. So what else have you got?

Fair enough. Is it the overwhelming, or even majority, historical consensus that Jesus was the son of a god and all the stories are true? I suspect that it isn't.

And not withstanding many of the works attributed to him are considered to be by others, there remain about a half-dozen (from memory) which are considered to be genuinely his work.

Rejection in what sense? The point of history is not simply to identify what documents come from a particular time, place and person (although that's the first step) but also to put those into context and consider the biases and interests of the author, their blind spots and influences, and to consider what they have to say in that context. So, on that basis, the documents themselves aren't 'rejected', but we don't have to take the claims in the content at face value, necessarily. That is exactly those 'methods of studying ancient history' that you were looking for.

O.

If Hillside states explicitly or implicitly that evidence must be gained by a methodology then he has to justify that statement and should expect to be questioned on which methodologies he has in mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

1. Leprechauns are real.

2. I know that leprechauns are real because I have evidence that tells me so.

3. The evidence I have isn’t of the methodologically naturalistic type.

4. It’s your job to tell me what method I should use instead so as to distinguish my claims of evidence for leprechauns from just guessing or making shit up. 

5. You can’t do that? OK, so leprechauns are real then.

Does anything strike you as problematic with that?

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

Or logical evidence. If you want to claim to have “evidence” and you don’t like either of these methods to justify that claim though, then it’s still your job to propose a different method to do your job.

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.

You’ve collapsed into incoherence again. The historical method though is methodoligically naturalistic too. 

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.

There are lots of accounts from many faiths, sects, traditions etc of countless supposedly miraculous events. Do you accept at face value that all of them are true too? Why not?

Rejection of such documents is effectively rejection of the historical method…

No it isn’t. It’s only the rejection of your assertion that a record of what some people believed had happened had therefore actually happened. Try to remember the difference in future. It's important.   

…and yes Hillside that is done on the grounds of philosophical naturalism rather than methodolical naturalism.

No Hilliside isn’t, and lying about that isn’t helping you either.

[jeremyp]

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

Great. Bring this man to us to verify he is now alive.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

1. Leprechauns are real.

2. I know that leprechauns are real because I have evidence that tells me so.

3. The evidence I have isn’t of the methodologically naturalistic type.

4. It’s your job to tell me what method I should use instead so as to distinguish my claims of evidence for leprechauns from just guessing or making shit up. 

5. You can’t do that? OK, so leprechauns are real then.

Does anything strike you as problematic with that?

Or logical evidence. If you want to claim to have “evidence” and you don’t like either of these methods to justify that claim though, then it’s still your job to propose a different method to do your job.

You’ve collapsed into incoherence again. The historical method though is methodoligically naturalistic too. 

There are lots of accounts from many faiths, sects, traditions etc of countless supposedly miraculous events. Do you accept at face value that all of them are true too? Why not?

No it isn’t. It’s only the rejection of your assertion that a record of what some people believed had happened had therefore actually happened. Try to remember the difference in future. It's important.   

No Hilliside isn’t, and lying about that isn’t helping you either.

As has been said to you before Leprechauns are diminutive Irish people and therefore fall within methodological naturalism.

However there is a mountain of evidence saying they are just a joke.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If Hillside states explicitly or implicitly that evidence must be gained by a methodology…

What Hillside actually says is that if you want to claim to have evidence for something then you need to justify that claim with a method to distinguish it from just guessing or making shit up.

…what then he has to justify that statement…

He has done – several times. gain: if you don’t have a method to differentiate your claim of evidence from just guessing or making shit up then you have no choice but to accept any other claim of evidence as true too – including my claim to have evidence for leprechauns.

… and should expect to be questioned on which methodologies he has in mind.

No he shouldn’t. “I have evidence” is your claim, so it’s your job to justify it. All I have to do is to point out that – so far at least – you’ve never managed to do that. Here (again) is where you keep going wrong:

“The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat - the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Great. Bring this man to us to verify he is now alive.

He ascended into heaven. However He stands and the door and knocks. If anyone hears his voice and opens the door He will enter and share with you.

[jeremyp]

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.

I'm happy to accept three of those points i.e. that Jesus was a man, was real and that he died. I think Vlad is going to have problems with the last bit because the only sources for the resurrection are a few words written by a religious fanatic and four mutually inconsistent accounts that are anonymous and written decades after the alleged event.

The interesting bit is that, even if Vlad, were somehow to get me to accept that dead Jesus came alive again, he still has to show that the mythology follows from that. After all, other dead people came alive again in the Bible but they weren't considered to be gods. There are other resurrection myths in ancient history and ythey do not imply the Christian god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As has been said to you before Leprechauns are diminutive Irish people and therefore fall within methodological naturalism.

However there is a mountain of evidence saying they are just a joke.

As has been explained to you before god is an old man with a beard siting on a cloud and therefore falls withing methodological naturalism.

You’re missing the point entirely here – I’m telling you that I have evidence for leprechauns that are supernatural, able to flit in and out of the natural world at will etc. Sometimes people characterise them as diminutive Irish people, just a sometimes people characterise your god as an old man with a beard.

Now then, why can’t you tell me what method I should use to distinguish my claim to have evidence for leprechauns from just guessing or making shit up?

[Stranger]

He ascended into heaven. However He stands and the door and knocks. If anyone hears his voice and opens the door He will enter and share with you.

Sorry, couldn't resist. I'll get my coat....

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

He ascended into heaven. However He stands and the door and knocks. If anyone hears his voice and opens the door He will enter and share with you.

Blind faith claims are not evidence for anything (apart that is from the fact that apparently you believe some blind faith claims to be true). 

[jeremyp]

He ascended into heaven.

Well that's bad news for you. Now how are you going to show that Jesus is still alive?

However He stands and the door and knocks. If anyone hears his voice and opens the door He will enter and share with you.

FFS, make up your mind. Is he in heaven or not? You seem terribly confused about what you believe.

Oh and I live in an apartment block. If he wants to come and visit, he'll need to use the entry phone because nobody will hear him knocking.

[Alan Burns]

Torri,

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.

What you seem to ignore is the timing of an unexplained event to coincide with the prayer.
In my case, the most memorable answer to prayer was the miraculous healing of my wife's father who suffered an aortic aneurysm.  We were told he had just one or two hours to live and his organs were failing by the medical staff when we arrived at the hospital.  My wife and I had been praying several decades of the rosary on our way to the hospital.  At his bedside, my wife handed me a small Gideon bible and asked me to pick a reading.  I randomly opened a page and read these words from psalm 91:
Because he loves me, I will give him long life
I passed it back to my wife and showed her the reading, and we looked at her father deeply unconscious on a morphine drip.  A few moments later, he started to cough, the nurse removed his oxygen mask, he opened his eyes and said, "clear off!".
We were ushered out of the room while medical staff were called in.  He made a miraculous recovery (in the words of the ward sister) and lived several more years before God called him to heaven, and he was able to look after his wife who suffered from severe arthritis.

So not only did the unexplained event coincide with the prayers, it was confirmed by a scripture reading just before it happened.  No doubt you will write it all off as coincidence, but how many coincidences does it take to make a miracle?

[Outrider]

If Hillside states explicitly or implicitly that evidence must be gained by a methodology then he has to justify that statement and should expect to be questioned on which methodologies he has in mind.

He has justified that statement - without a methodology to provide a framework in which to assess a claim, it's just an unsubstantiated claim. If you want to make a claim in a framework outside of those generally accepted (i.e. maths, logic, science etc.) then it's on YOU to justify the framework you are choosing - no-one has to provide a framework for you if you don't like the ones that are already in common use.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

In my case, the most memorable answer to prayer was the miraculous healing of my wife's father who suffered an aortic aneurysm.  We were told he had just one or two hours to live and his organs were failing by the medical staff when we arrived at the hospital.  My wife and I had been praying several decades of the rosary on our way to the hospital.  At his bedside, my wife handed me a small Gideon bible and asked me to pick a reading.  I randomly opened a page and read these words from psalm 91:
Because he loves me, I will give him long life
I passed it back to my wife and showed her the reading, and we looked at her father deeply unconscious on a morphine drip.  A few moments later, he started to cough, the nurse removed his oxygen mask, he opened his eyes and said, "clear off!".
We were ushered out of the room while medical staff were called in.  He made a miraculous recovery (in the words of the ward sister) and lived several more years before God called him to heaven, and he was able to look after his wife who suffered from severe arthritis.

So not only did the unexplained event coincide with the prayers, it was confirmed by a scripture reading just before it happened.  No doubt you will write it all off as coincidence, but how many coincidences does it take to make a miracle?

But this is mere anecdote - you have no way of knowing whether your father-in-law would have made a recovery had you not prayed, as there is no control.

And of course, there are countless other examples, where people have prayed and prayed for recovery and the person prayed for still died - perhaps when he finally died you were praying for him at that time too.

The only way you can draw any kind of meaningful conclusions is through proper controlled research and there have been a few such studies. You also need to factor out the placebo/nocebo effects where a person may feel better or worse through the psychological effects of knowing they are having an intervention (whether medicinal or prayer) which has nothing to do with any potential direct impact of the intervention.

So the best example of research of this type looked at complications and recovery rates for patients following heart surgery. There were three groups:

A: Where a group of people actively prayed for recovery and the patient was aware they were being prayed for.
B: Where a group of people actively prayed for recovery and the patient was not aware they were being prayed for.
C: Where there has no prayer intervention.

The results showed no difference between groups B and C - on other words prayed had no effect on recovery other than through a psychological effect if the person knows they are being prayed for. Interestingly group A had the worst outcomes - so while prayer had no actual effect knowing that people are praying for you actually led to worse recovery, presumably because the patient concludes that their condition is worse than it actually is if people are actively praying.

But hey, ho, let's not let some real evidence get in the way of anecdote and blind faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What you seem to ignore is the timing of an unexplained event to coincide with the prayer.

I’m not ignoring it – I'm dismissing it because it’s basic mistake in reasoning called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:

“Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy that states: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X."”

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

In my case, the most memorable answer to prayer was the miraculous healing of my wife's father who suffered an aortic aneurysm.  We were told he had just one or two hours to live and his organs were failing by the medical staff when we arrived at the hospital.  My wife and I had been praying several decades of the rosary on our way to the hospital.  At his bedside, my wife handed me a small Gideon bible and asked me to pick a reading.  I randomly opened a page and read these words from psalm 91:
Because he loves me, I will give him long life
I passed it back to my wife and showed her the reading, and we looked at her father deeply unconscious on a morphine drip.  A few moments later, he started to cough, the nurse removed his oxygen mask, he opened his eyes and said, "clear off!".
We were ushered out of the room while medical staff were called in.  He made a miraculous recovery (in the words of the ward sister) and lived several more years before God called him to heaven, and he was able to look after his wife who suffered from severe arthritis.

So not only did the unexplained event coincide with the prayers, it was confirmed by a scripture reading just before it happened.

Thank you for that anecdote. Now then: how many times have you prayed for things that didn’t happen, and what method did you use to calculate whether or not the prayed for events that did happen happened any more frequently than would have been the case with no praying involved?

No doubt you will write it all off as coincidence…,

Yes I will unless you produce some sound reasons to suggest otherwise.

… but how many coincidences does it take to make a miracle?

“Miracles” are your claim, not mine – you tell me. You might though want to begin with a basic understanding of probability.