Show us the evidence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... the issue that has been raised continually is that you make supernatural claims without a methodology to even define what constitutes evidence for such. That is leaving aside the many many times that instead of providing 'evidence' , you have continually referred to having done so previously which would be vaguely annoying if you had ever addressed the first issue of methodology.

I believe that there have been attempts by others here to look at the issue of methodology, only for them to be told that - because the methodology they have put forward doesn't fit with the 'scientific method' (as if the scientific method is the only legitimate form of methodology - which, in view of the fact that quite so much of real life isn't satisfactorily explained by any form of scientific methodology anyway, is likely untrue) - then that methodology has to be discounted. 

Oddly enough, many of the evidences that have been proposed do fit scientific methodology - documentation, repeatability, experience.

Not from me and I have asked Vlad and Alan (Alien) hundreds of times each. I've asked you a good fifty or so times and so far I have seen nothing.

You have asked from an unreasonable position i'm afraid....denial of a ''not God'' ''Don't know'' or ''can't know'' stance.

I've asked from a Don't Know stance which is entirely honest. Is honesty not reasonable to you?

No that's fine. what is dishonest is just asking for a methodology for supernatural and not for the natural, or PM or empiricism or anything else.......one would think you were an atheist posing as an agnostic or something.

Do you accept that the only thing which has methodology is methodological materialism.

The above post from does not make any sense. At least it isn't lying (as far as one can tell)

Evasion noted.

No evasion, I just stated that it appeared not to make any sense. Why is it you want to represent your beliefs by lying? Why is it you want to represent yourself by lying? What is it that you feel the need to lie so frequently? What is this need you have to lie?

I have been completely upfront about my beliefs and my knowledge.

I am not judging about that. You have continually lied about others positions and lied about them and continue to do so

Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?

[jeremyp]

No......I said no ''methodology''.....not no methodology.

Is this really meant to be a serious contribution to the thread? You're hiding behind scare quotes.  Utterly pathetic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No......I said no ''methodology''.....not no methodology.

Is this really meant to be a serious contribution to the thread? You're hiding behind scare quotes.  Utterly pathetic.

Have you ever on this forum asked for the methodology for Philosophical Naturalism?

[jeremyp]

Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?

This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism.  In case you had forgotten, we have a method for determining the probable truth of claims about the natural world.  That's settled; it's called science and it's been quite successful.

On this thread we are asking for a method to determine the probable truth of supernatural claims.  Hope is convinced it exists but he's not telling.  In the circumstances, people can be forgiven for thinking he is talking bollocks.  Do you know what this fabled method is? 

[jeremyp]

No......I said no ''methodology''.....not no methodology.

Is this really meant to be a serious contribution to the thread? You're hiding behind scare quotes.  Utterly pathetic.

Have you ever on this forum asked for the methodology for Philosophical Naturalism?

Off topic.

[Shaker]

This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism.

They rarely, if ever, are, but if they're not by God Vlad will make them about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?

This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism.  In case you had forgotten, we have a method for determining the probable truth of claims about the natural world.  That's settled; it's called science and it's been quite successful.

It isn't philosophical naturalism though.

[jeremyp]

Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?

This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism.  In case you had forgotten, we have a method for determining the probable truth of claims about the natural world.  That's settled; it's called science and it's been quite successful.

It isn't philosophical naturalism though.

So what?  Have you got anything to say about the other paragraph in that post?

[Andy]

Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?

This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism.  In case you had forgotten, we have a method for determining the probable truth of claims about the natural world.  That's settled; it's called science and it's been quite successful.

It isn't philosophical naturalism though.

So you understand the difference between MN and PN, but when someone requests MS you equate that with PS and then play a round of shift the burden and request an M for PN. Like I said, that doesn't compare. It would only compare with an M for PS and I think you know it, yet don't expect anyone else to notice.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?

This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism.  In case you had forgotten, we have a method for determining the probable truth of claims about the natural world.  That's settled; it's called science and it's been quite successful.

It isn't philosophical naturalism though.

So you understand the difference between MN and PN, but when someone requests MS you equate that with PS and then play a round of shift the burden and request an M for PN. Like I said, that doesn't compare. It would only compare with an M for PS and I think you know it, yet don't expect anyone else to notice.

I'm sorry Andy, I'm genuinely lost on what you are trying to say.

[wigginhall]

Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism.   It's a kind of giant tu quoque.   'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should explain yours'.    Maybe science-envy also?

[BashfulAnthony]

author=wigginhall link=topic=10480.msg532496#msg532496 date=1435098289]
Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism.   It's a kind of giant tu quoque.   'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should

"Some Christians," "Christians," "a Christian."    So you've canvassed all Christians, or some, or any, have you.?  No.  You just think that's what they say.  Your comment is a worthless generalisation.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism.   It's a kind of giant tu quoque.   'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should explain yours'.    Maybe science-envy also?

1: I'm not sure it's a proper tu coque.
2: Philosophical naturalists seem to be running an inquisition. It's fair to ask ''on what authority.''
3: I have opened the question about methodology for philosophical naturalism on another board............or are you saying some questions should not be asked?
4: There is no science envy since science is not philosophical naturalism.

[Andy]

Have you ever on this board asked for the methodology of philosophical naturalism?

This thread isn't about philosophical naturalism.  In case you had forgotten, we have a method for determining the probable truth of claims about the natural world.  That's settled; it's called science and it's been quite successful.

It isn't philosophical naturalism though.

So you understand the difference between MN and PN, but when someone requests MS you equate that with PS and then play a round of shift the burden and request an M for PN. Like I said, that doesn't compare. It would only compare with an M for PS and I think you know it, yet don't expect anyone else to notice.

I'm sorry Andy, I'm genuinely lost on what you are trying to say.

I'm describing what you're doing. You can keep track of what you're doing, can't you?

[Spud]

Gordon:

All you guys need do now is present a similar level of discipline in respect of your faith views without resorting to either the usual mish-mash of fallacies or by trying to misrepresent science.

There is probably a comparable body of work/level of discipline produced over the years by academics and theologians - so why would you believe any of us here over them?

After all, even science is understood through the filter of human experience.  Over the years, people have proposed ideas and come up with what they regard to be conclusive evidence for those ideas.  It has only been when another person has thought in a different way that that conclusivity has been questioned.

So lets have the evidence for the supernatural presented alongside the methodology used to identify why this evidence can be safely assumed to empirically sound, where the method(s) can be shown to be robust enough to exclude naturalistic alternatives, such as human artifice.

That scientists are prepared to revise their theories in the light of new evidence or better techniques is one of it strengths: science, unlike religion, isn't a tablet of stone.

Bon soir Gordon,
What we have as a methodology is a cross-examination of the witnesses. This has been done by the very first skeptics. They ran into difficulty because the more the witnesses insisted they had met the risen Jesus, the more the irate cross-examiners beat them up trying to force them to recant. Eventually they had very few witnesses left to cross-examine because they had killed most of them. The point is that their sacrifice- submitting to persecution and death rather than deny their Lord (in contrast with dying blowing unbelievers up, by the way) was the very evidence people back then needed to know they were telling the truth. And so the gospel has changed the lives of many since. A prime example recently is the son and daughter of the lady shot while at the prayer meeting in South Carolina. They knew that love is more powerful than hate, and so were able to forgive the gunman immediately.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism.   It's a kind of giant tu quoque.   'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should explain yours'.    Maybe science-envy also?

I agree. It is clear some Christians prefer a supernatural explanation in preference to a much more logical natural one.

A supernatural explanation for what?

[ProfessorDavey]

Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism.   It's a kind of giant tu quoque.   'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should explain yours'.    Maybe science-envy also?

I agree. It is clear some Christians prefer a supernatural explanation in preference to a much more logical natural one.

A supernatural explanation for what?

An empty tomb perhaps.

Or maybe a purported virgin birth.

No need to go anywhere near supernatural explanations to explain these claimed phenomena.

[Nearly Sane]

This is not a methodology. People die all the time for what they believe in, not necessarily by blowing people up, though discounting such is simply a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Many times the thing they will die for will be diametrically opposed to what someone else will die for.

[Dicky Underpants]

author=wigginhall link=topic=10480.msg532496#msg532496 date=1435098289]
Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism.   It's a kind of giant tu quoque.   'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should

"Some Christians," "Christians," "a Christian."    So you've canvassed all Christians, or some, or any, have you.?  No.  You just think that's what they say.  Your comment is a worthless generalisation.   

"Some Christians" means "some Christians". Wiggi doesn't have to canvass all Christians - the likely inference is that some here fit the description. And doubtless others he has met may do so. Wiggi has told us that he has in-depth conversations with some Catholic Christians (not all - not even you with your superhuman powers, BA, could do that).
And wiggi is far better informed about Christianity than you are - and world religion in general.

As for worthless generalisations - well, you're supremely skilled about making them about atheists, as if they all exactly alike. I'm sorry if this sounds irritable, but I've been reading quite a few of your recent posts, and they have not impressed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Some Christians try to cover up the poverty of their thinking about the supernatural, by trying to do a counter-attack on naturalism or materialism or physicalism.   It's a kind of giant tu quoque.   'Well, I can't explain my position, so I think you should explain yours'.    Maybe science-envy also?

I agree. It is clear some Christians prefer a supernatural explanation in preference to a much more logical natural one.

A supernatural explanation for what?

An empty tomb perhaps.

Or maybe a purported virgin birth.

No need to go anywhere near supernatural explanations to explain these claimed phenomena.

An empty tomb or the empty tomb? As far as I know the empty tomb would be meaningless in any case as the standalone idea you've tried to portray it as. Unfortunately for you there are the other resurrection accounts.

A virgin birth? Well nobody apart from God had the technology in those days....Nowadays it is different.

[ProfessorDavey]

What we have as a methodology is a cross-examination of the witnesses. This has been done by the very first skeptics. They ran into difficulty because the more the witnesses insisted they had met the risen Jesus, the more the irate cross-examiners beat them up trying to force them to recant. Eventually they had very few witnesses left to cross-examine because they had killed most of them.

Firstly let's recognise that just because a person is prepared to die for some belief doesn't mean that belief is actually true.

But also where is you evidence of a mass execution of purported eye witnesses to the claimed resurrection of Jesus. I don't think there is any evidence for this, even in the bible (which is a non partial record). Paul sees to claim 500 eye witnesses, and then goes on to claim that most of these are still living at the time he was writing (some 20 years after the purported event). So even Paul doesn't support your claim that the purported eye witnesses were rapidly killed off.

[ProfessorDavey]

An empty tomb or the empty tomb? As far as I know the empty tomb would be meaningless in any case as the standalone idea you've tried to portray it as. Unfortunately for you there are the other resurrection accounts.

But don't forget first that the earliest gospel, Mark, originally ended with nothing more than the empty tomb. So anything about visions, eye witnesses etc is likely embellishment to fit an agenda.

But even if you accept the basic narrative, it can easily be explained in a completely non supernatural manner through any combination of:

Jesus not being actually dead (which isn't implausible at all particularly given the much poorer understanding of physiology in those days)

Mistaken recollection (again not an unreasonable assumption). Ask a bunch of witnesses to a car crash and you'll straight away get many differing accounts

Exaggeration and embellishment (just think of recent historical events that we have really good accounts of and how rapidly stories arise that are embellishments what happened or completely fabricated, whether due to mistaken recollection or deliberate misrepresentation for a purpose).

A virgin birth? Well nobody apart from God had the technology in those days....Nowadays it is different.

If a woman has a baby and her husband knows he hasn't had intercourse with her I don't think virgin birth is likely to be the cause. I think something rather more naturalistic is going to be the reason!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An empty tomb or the empty tomb? As far as I know the empty tomb would be meaningless in any case as the standalone idea you've tried to portray it as. Unfortunately for you there are the other resurrection accounts.

But don't forget first that the earliest gospel, Mark, originally ended with nothing more than the empty tomb. So anything about visions, eye witnesses etc is likely embellishment to fit an agenda.

But even if you accept the basic narrative, it can easily be explained in a completely non supernatural manner through any combination of:

Jesus not being actually dead (which isn't implausible at all particularly given the much poorer understanding of physiology in those days)

Mistaken recollection (again not an unreasonable assumption). Ask a bunch of witnesses to a car crash and you'll straight away get many differing accounts

Exaggeration and embellishment (just think of recent historical events that we have really good accounts of and how rapidly stories arise that are embellishments what happened or completely fabricated, whether due to mistaken recollection or deliberate misrepresentation for a purpose).

A virgin birth? Well nobody apart from God had the technology in those days....Nowadays it is different.

If a woman has a baby and her husband knows he hasn't had intercourse with her I don't think virgin birth is likely to be the cause. I think something rather more naturalistic is going to be the reason!

I think the truth of the matter is that any merely historical fact loses it's impact with time.
So had the resurrection merely been an historical event it's value in perpetuating faith would have tailed off . However Christians have there own experience of the resurrected Jesus and it is that which makes the account of the empty tomb resonate.

Somebody living within and committed to an arid philosophical materialism isn't necessarily going to appreciate either aspect of the resurrection unless the reinforced titanium doors are prized apart.

[ProfessorDavey]

An empty tomb or the empty tomb? As far as I know the empty tomb would be meaningless in any case as the standalone idea you've tried to portray it as. Unfortunately for you there are the other resurrection accounts.

But don't forget first that the earliest gospel, Mark, originally ended with nothing more than the empty tomb. So anything about visions, eye witnesses etc is likely embellishment to fit an agenda.

But even if you accept the basic narrative, it can easily be explained in a completely non supernatural manner through any combination of:

Jesus not being actually dead (which isn't implausible at all particularly given the much poorer understanding of physiology in those days)

Mistaken recollection (again not an unreasonable assumption). Ask a bunch of witnesses to a car crash and you'll straight away get many differing accounts

Exaggeration and embellishment (just think of recent historical events that we have really good accounts of and how rapidly stories arise that are embellishments what happened or completely fabricated, whether due to mistaken recollection or deliberate misrepresentation for a purpose).

A virgin birth? Well nobody apart from God had the technology in those days....Nowadays it is different.

If a woman has a baby and her husband knows he hasn't had intercourse with her I don't think virgin birth is likely to be the cause. I think something rather more naturalistic is going to be the reason!

I think the truth of the matter is that any merely historical fact loses it's impact with time.
So had the resurrection merely been an historical event it's value in perpetuating faith would have tailed off . However Christians have there own experience of the resurrected Jesus and it is that which makes the account of the empty tomb resonate.

Somebody living within and committed to an arid philosophical materialism isn't necessarily going to appreciate either aspect of the resurrection unless the reinforced titanium doors are prized apart.

I agree that the 'myth' can become more resonant in terms of its longevity than the actual factual truth of what actually happened. And much more so when aligned with a combination of:

1. Embedding the myth in a religious belief with its own customs, traditions, mechanisms for passing belief in the myth from one generation to another.
2. Imbuing belief in the myth as an element of cultural identity (with links to 1) and
3. That the myth is based on events that happened at a time when the ability to collect verified and verifiable evidence for what actually happened was much poorer than today and
4. That the historical events which gave rise to the myth happened at a time when the distinctions between historical reality and myth/legend were culturally blurred.

The events that lead to christian belief fit with all of these.

However none of this alters that fact that the all of the claims within the gospels can be easily explained away without resort to the supernatural.

And the notion that for a christian a personal belief in the resurrection, even a belief in the actual veracity of the resurrection is deeply, deeply important to that person doesn't mean it actually happened.

[Spud]

This is not a methodology. People die all the time for what they believe in, not necessarily by blowing people up, though discounting such is simply a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Many times the thing they will die for will be diametrically opposed to what someone else will die for.

Can you give examples? Often they die fighting for their country, or defending themselves or their family or friend. How about being tortured until dead with no retaliation, you would think at least one of the twelve would have resisted or said 'it was all a fake'?