Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

You've obviously forgotten that God is omnipresent
Jeremy. You seem to be demanding questions of a Christianity You have invented.

[ProfessorDavey]

You've obviously forgotten that God is omnipresent

Really?!? If that a statement of fact or merely an unevidenced assumption on your part. Given that there is no credible evidence that god even exists it is really stretching things to then ascribe attributes to this non-proven entity.

Learn to walk before you try to run - in other words provide credible evidence that god actually exists first. Until or unless you do this discussion about whether god is omnipresent, omnipotent, wears a blue hat, likes jazz etc, etc, are completely pointless.

But Vlad you don't seem to have learned to crawl yet, let alone walk or run.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

What methodologies did you have in mind?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really?!? If that a statement of fact or merely an unevidenced assumption on your part. Given that there is no credible evidence that god even exists it is really stretching things to then ascribe attributes to this non-proven entity.

Learn to walk before you try to run - in other words provide credible evidence that god actually exists first. Until or unless you do this discussion about whether god is omnipresent, omnipotent, wears a blue hat, likes jazz etc, etc, are completely pointless.

But Vlad you don't seem to have learned to crawl yet, let alone walk or run.

For the purposes of trying common ground Davey, one doesn't just assume but derives it from the notion that God is at the bottom of all existential hierarchies derived in turn from one of the cosmological arguments.

What is the evidence for philosophical naturalism?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You've obviously forgotten that God is omnipresent
Jeremy. You seem to be demanding questions of a Christianity You have invented.

You've obviously forgotten the fallacy of reification. If you want to make a statement like this to justify an argument you need to demonstrate first:

1. That there is a god; and

2. That this god is omnipresent.

You can't forget something you've been given no sound reasons to think to be true in the first place.
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What methodologies did you have in mind?

As you just ignored your mistake last time and have tried it again now:

"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)

[Outrider]

What methodologies did you have in mind?

I've no idea if there are any others, but I don't need them. You need something to justify your points, if you have a framework bring it along. If you don't, we'll continue to treat your unsubstantiated assertions as the unsubstantiated assertions that they are, not even needing a rebuttal.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You've obviously forgotten the fallacy of reification. If you want to make a statement like this to justify an argument you need to demonstrate first:

1. That there is a god; and

2. That this god is omnipresent.

You can't forget something you've been given no sound reasons to think to be true in the first place.
 

Sorry but Jeremy has already entered into a discussion whereby God has been  accepted non commitally as a notion and we are now discussing  notional attributes.

No doubt now Jeremy has entered into a notional discussion several demons will spring from the arsehole of the four horsemen.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've no idea if there are any others, but I don't need them. You need something to justify your points, if you have a framework bring it along. If you don't, we'll continue to treat your unsubstantiated assertions as the unsubstantiated assertions that they are, not even needing a rebuttal.

O.

So methodological naturalism it is then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As you just ignored your mistake last time and have tried it again now:

"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)

By what form does this denial take? Speech?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As you just ignored your mistake last time and have tried it again now:

"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)

What form does this denial take? Speech?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry but Jeremy has already entered into a discussion whereby God has been  accepted non commitally as a notion and we are now discussing  notional attributes.

No doubt now Jeremy has entered into a notional discussion several demons will spring from the arsehole of the four horsemen.

Whoosh!

What Jeremy has accepted is just that you believe a story to be true, not that it is true. If you want to try “You've obviously forgotten that God is omnipresent Jeremy” (Reply 49125) as your argument you should instead say something like, “You've obviously forgotten that I believe a story about God being omnipresent Jeremy”. What relevance you think that’d have to the argument though is anyone's guess.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As you just ignored your mistake last time and have tried it again now:

"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)

Hillside...there doesn't seem to be a source for the Latin quote. We don't know whether it is New atheist arse pull or whether it has whethered centuries of scrutiny.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So methodological naturalism it is then.

But you've told us repeatedly that your claims of evidence cannot be justified by the method of methodological naturalism. Perhaps you should make your mind up about this – which method do you propose to validate your claims to have evidence for your religious beliefs?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What form does this denial take? Speech?

What are you trying to say here?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside...there doesn't seem to be a source for the Latin quote. We don't know whether it is New atheist arse pull or whether it has whethered centuries of scrutiny.

I literally gave you the source (Wiki) and you literally just quoted it back to me!

Are you feeling unwell, or have you perhaps been at the Christmas sherry a tad too early this year?

[Stranger]

Hillside...there doesn't seem to be a source for the Latin quote. We don't know whether it is New atheist arse pull or whether it has whethered centuries of scrutiny.

What on earth are you wittering on about now? The link was broken because it had a bracket at the end. Here it is: Burden of proof (philosophy).

It's got nothing to do with 'new atheism'.   

[Stranger]

I literally gave you the source (Wiki) and you literally just quoted it back to me!

Your link broke because of the brackets. You need to use the [url]...[/url] tags - inserted automatically if you select it and hit the hyperlink button.

[Outrider]

So methodological naturalism it is then.

If that's your choice, go for it, but I don't fancy your chances. I'm not limiting your choices, you can bring anything you'd like to the table, but at the moment you're not bringing anything at all, just the hollow promise of a dinner that we're supposed to accept because you say so.

It's your claim. It's your choice of methodology. We're all going purple here holding our breath waiting for this to happen, and purple is not an attractive colour for someone with my complexion. Put us out of our misery; back your claim, or back away.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I literally gave you the source (Wiki) and you literally just quoted it back to me!

Are you feeling unwell, or have you perhaps been at the Christmas sherry a tad too early this year?

It's the festival of gaslight ha ha.
I did note a reliance on Hitchen's razor and Sagan's standard both Wikipedia entries make very interesting reading.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Your link broke because of the brackets. You need to use the ... tags - inserted automatically if you select it and hit the hyperlink button.

Thank you. My bad as da kidz have it...

[Stranger]

It's the festival of gaslight ha ha.

Philosophy 101 is gaslighting now?

I did note a reliance on Hitchen's razor and Sagan's standard both Wikipedia entries make very interesting reading.

No reliance, vlad. Hitchin's razor is more of a corollary and the Sagan standard is connected directly to Bayesian probability. Russell's teapot is more directly relevant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Philosophy 101 is gaslighting now?

No reliance, vlad. Hitchin's razor is more of a corollary and the Sagan standard is connected directly to Bayesian probability. Russell's teapot is more directly relevant.

Have to say I'm more warm towards a Hitchens razor  than a Sagan standard.

[Stranger]

Have to say I'm more warm towards a Hitchens razor  than a Sagan standard.

The Sagan standard is actually based directly on probability reasoning.

Say you're trying to screen people for a disease. You have a rather good test that has 90% sensitivity (true-positive rate) and a 9% false-positive rate, and somebody tests positive. How probable is it that they have the disease? Answer: we have no idea because we missed out the prior probability. In this case, how probable it is that some random person has the disease before we do the test, i.e. obtain the evidence?

If the prevalence in the population is low, say 1%, then we have a problem because the answer to how likely is it that our positive test indicates the disease is a mere 9%. Basically all the false-positives dominate the result.

An extraordinary claim must be assigned a very low prior probability—that's what extraordinary means. Hence, you need very, very good evidence that has very high sensitivity and almost no chance of a false positive, i.e extraordinary evidence.

[jeremyp]

You've obviously forgotten that God is omnipresent

Why did he need to ascend to heaven then? He was already there.

Jeremy. You seem to be demanding questions of a Christianity You have invented.

No, I'm demanding answers of somebody who seems very confused about his Christianity.