Have you ever on this forum asked for the methodology for Philosophical Naturali

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

[Shaker]

I haven't. Nobody else that I can recall. Only you have an obsession with it such that you have to crowbar it into every other post.

[jeremyp]

Speaking for myself.  No.

[Jack Knave]

People are not wearing enough hats...

[Harrowby Hall]

No. Do you want it urgently?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No. Do you want it urgently?

So, Not much response, it seems non theists hold their basic position unquestioningly.

[horsethorn]

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

Yes.

Every time you mention it, you get asked.

I don't recall you having answered.

ht

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

Yes.

Every time you mention it, you get asked.

I don't recall you having answered.

ht

Not according to the findings of this post where of the respondents only you seemed to have asked for a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Apparently you asked me for that methodology but cannot recall you ever doing so.

If you are asking me now I don't think philosophical naturalism has one.

[Nearly Sane]

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

Yes.

Every time you mention it, you get asked.

I don't recall you having answered.

ht

Not according to the findings of this post where of the respondents only you seemed to have asked for a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Apparently you asked me for that methodology but cannot recall you ever doing so.

If you are asking me now I don't think philosophical naturalism has one.

Nope , you have been asked for a methodology for methodological supernaturalism. Why do you continue to lie about it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

Yes.

Every time you mention it, you get asked.

I don't recall you having answered.

ht

Not according to the findings of this post where of the respondents only you seemed to have asked for a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Apparently you asked me for that methodology but cannot recall you ever doing so.

If you are asking me now I don't think philosophical naturalism has one.

Nope , you have been asked for a methodology for methodological supernaturalism. Why do you continue to lie about it?

And what is the title of this thread Nearly Sane.

[Nearly Sane]

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

Yes.

Every time you mention it, you get asked.

I don't recall you having answered.

ht

Not according to the findings of this post where of the respondents only you seemed to have asked for a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Apparently you asked me for that methodology but cannot recall you ever doing so.

If you are asking me now I don't think philosophical naturalism has one.

Nope , you have been asked for a methodology for methodological supernaturalism. Why do you continue to lie about it?

And what is the title of this thread Nearly Sane.

What relevance is the title to a lie  in the post?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

Yes.

Every time you mention it, you get asked.

I don't recall you having answered.

ht

Not according to the findings of this post where of the respondents only you seemed to have asked for a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Apparently you asked me for that methodology but cannot recall you ever doing so.

If you are asking me now I don't think philosophical naturalism has one.

Nope , you have been asked for a methodology for methodological supernaturalism. Why do you continue to lie about it?

And what is the title of this thread Nearly Sane.

What relevance is the title to a lie  in the post?

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

Yes.

Every time you mention it, you get asked.

I don't recall you having answered.

ht

Not according to the findings of this post where of the respondents only you seemed to have asked for a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Apparently you asked me for that methodology but cannot recall you ever doing so.

If you are asking me now I don't think philosophical naturalism has one.

Nope , you have been asked for a methodology for methodological supernaturalism. Why do you continue to lie about it?

And what is the title of this thread Nearly Sane.

What relevance is the title to a lie  in the post?

What lie?

[Nearly Sane]

That you have been asked for a methodology for philosophic supernaturalism, whatever that may actually mean.

[Nearly Sane]

There are times when one just has to help a Vlad out in a whole 'Brother, here's a dime' way.

The issue Vlad wants to flag here is that if one has a proper methodology for supernaturalism, one has to effectively demonstrate that philosophical naturalism is wrong, and by default some form of philosophical supernaturalism is true as well, even though that concept actually is not transferrable. The main issue is that to assert that there is a methodological supernaturalism, one has to defeat philosophical naturalism. In that he recognises his problem, but is lying about what he has been asked. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That you have been asked for a methodology for philosophic supernaturalism, whatever that may actually mean.

I'm sorry but this thread is not about that (see thread title).
Please stop trying to derail.
This thread is about asking non theists if they have ever asked for a methodology for philosophical naturalism.
You seemed to have crashed in with utter disregard for that. That i'm afraid  is intellectual imperialism.

[Nearly Sane]

That you have been asked for a methodology for philosophic supernaturalism, whatever that may actually mean.

I'm sorry but this thread is not about that (see thread title).
Please stop trying to derail.
This thread is about asking non theists if they have ever asked for a methodology for philosophical naturalism.
You seemed to have crashed in with utter disregard for that. That i'm afraid  is intellectual imperialism.

So now lying about your own posts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are times when one just has to help a Vlad out in a whole 'Brother, here's a dime' way.

The issue Vlad wants to flag here is that if one has a proper methodology for supernaturalism, one has to effectively demonstrate that philosophical naturalism is wrong, and by default some form of philosophical supernaturalism is true as well, even though that concept actually is not transferrable. The main issue is that to assert that there is a methodological supernaturalism, one has to defeat philosophical naturalism. In that he recognises his problem, but is lying about what he has been asked.

The main issue on this thread is to find out whether non theists have ever asked for a methodology
for philosophical naturalism.
If philosophical naturalism has a methodology then are it's definitions applicable to supernaturalism?
If it doesn't then what business does it have to stand poised to accuse supernaturalism of not having one and being the less for it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That you have been asked for a methodology for philosophic supernaturalism, whatever that may actually mean.

I'm sorry but this thread is not about that (see thread title).
Please stop trying to derail.
This thread is about asking non theists if they have ever asked for a methodology for philosophical naturalism.
You seemed to have crashed in with utter disregard for that. That i'm afraid  is intellectual imperialism.

So now lying about your own posts.

Where on this thread am I doing that?

[Nearly Sane]

You aren't, I misread one of the replies  from you to horsethorn, I apologise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You aren't, I misread one of the replies  from you to horsethorn, I apologise.

Well now that you understand what the thread is about, would you like to make a contribution?

[Nearly Sane]

I did in reply 13. But beyond that, no, I haven't asked people for a methodology for a philosophical position - that would be odd. For two reasons, because it isn't a methodology, and I don't know that many philosophical naturalists - where I have seen them or wher I have seen posts taking the position I have challenged it

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I did in reply 13. But beyond that, no, I haven't asked people for a methodology for a philosophical position - that would be odd. For two reasons, because it isn't a methodology, and I don't know that many philosophical naturalists - where I have seen them or wher I have seen posts taking the position I have challenged it

Thanks for your contribution.

[Andy]

No, but I can recall on more than one occasion making the point that it is unfalsifiable.

[jeremyp]

I did in reply 13. But beyond that, no, I haven't asked people for a methodology for a philosophical position - that would be odd. For two reasons, because it isn't a methodology, and I don't know that many philosophical naturalists - where I have seen them or wher I have seen posts taking the position I have challenged it

Thanks for your contribution.

When we've all answered no, what then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I did in reply 13. But beyond that, no, I haven't asked people for a methodology for a philosophical position - that would be odd. For two reasons, because it isn't a methodology, and I don't know that many philosophical naturalists - where I have seen them or wher I have seen posts taking the position I have challenged it

Thanks for your contribution.

When we've all answered no, what then?

I will ask ''why not?''