Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Gordon]

I suppose it depends on whether one believes that one has explanations, in which case 'I don't know' is inappropriate.

That then depends on what you propose as an explanation, since if what you propose can be rejected as being incoherent or is already know to be wrong then don't really have an explanation (although you may wrongly think you do). 

[Gordon]

I suppose it depends on whether one believes that one has explanations, in which case 'I don't know' is inappropriate.

That then depends on what you propose as an explanation, since if what you propose can be rejected as being incoherent or is already known to be wrong then you don't really have an explanation at all (although you may wrongly think you do).

[jeremyp]

And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.

What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.

What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?

naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.

[jeremyp]

In the absence of explanations, though, the appropriate answer is 'I don't know', not 'therefore gods'.

I suppose it depends on whether one believes that one has explanations,

If you were being honest with yourself you would recognise that your beliefs can be wrong.  Unless you have a way to verify your beliefs that is free of biases, the appropriate answer is still "I don't know".

[Gordon]

And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.

What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?

naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.

Just give us the details of the methodology you used then.

[jeremyp]

And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.

What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?

naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.

Please give details of how you excluded all naturalistic possibilities. 

[Outrider]

And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.

What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?

naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.

Which eliminates a lot of methods that you didn't use, which doesn't answer the question. What methodology did you use?

O.

[jeremyp]

OK, so let's say Vlad did eliminate all naturalistic possibilities (I don't believe that for a minute, but let's run with it), so we are left with supernatural possibilities.

Here are some supernatural possibilities:

Vlad had an encounter with God

The Evil Leprechaun beamed an imaginary encounter with God into Vlad's head.

Vlad had an encounter with Satan pretending to be God. 

What methodology did Vlad use to eliminate the second two possibilities?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.

What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?

naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.

Which eliminates a lot of methods that you didn't use, which doesn't answer the question. What methodology did you use?

O.

So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the absence of explanations, though, the appropriate answer is 'I don't know', not 'therefore gods'.

I suppose it depends on whether one believes that one has explanations,

If you were being honest with yourself you would recognise that your beliefs can be wrong. 

Please provide a way that hasn't been exhausted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK, so let's say Vlad did eliminate all naturalistic possibilities (I don't believe that for a minute, but let's run with it), so we are left with supernatural possibilities.

Here are some supernatural possibilities:

Vlad had an encounter with God

The Evil Leprechaun beamed an imaginary encounter with God into Vlad's head.

Vlad had an encounter with Satan pretending to be God. 

What methodology did Vlad use to eliminate the second two possibilities?

First of all in terms of Leprechauns. As your erstwhile board leader and great guru Bluehillside found out in his work with me, leprechauns only come close to God in his attributes if you make them less like Leprechauns and more like...,er, God. So on those grounds alone probability is more God than Leprechaun.

Secondly. The inability to tell evil from good is a parlous and dangerous state to be in as mentioned by Jesus in the New Testament.

[Gordon]

And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.

What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?

naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.

Which eliminates a lot of methods that you didn't use, which doesn't answer the question. What methodology did you use?

O.

So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?

Nice try Vlad - but too obvious. Outrider asked you what method you used - a straight answer would be nice.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And that is the notionally accepted situation in the notional absence of an encounter or contact with God.

What is the methodology that verifies that your encounter with God was real?

naturalistic possibilities were exhausted.

Which eliminates a lot of methods that you didn't use, which doesn't answer the question. What methodology did you use?

O.

So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?

Nice try Vlad - but too obvious. Outrider asked you what method you used - a straight answer would be nice.

And I'm supposed not to be allowed to ask him about the super, supra, extra natural methodologies he is proposing.

I think methodologies establishing something as real smacks of things only existing as long as there is a good philosophical case for them....as if the method conjures them up. That is magic.

[Outrider]

So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?

I acknowledge the conceptual possibility of other methodologies - I've seen no evidence for one yet. That's what I was asking you for - I can't prove a negative, all I can do is pass comment on the validity or invalidity of suggestions.

As the claimant, the burden of proof still lies on you. I don't need to posit a methodology to support an assertion I don't see any evidence for.

O.

[Outrider]

And I'm supposed not to be allowed to ask him about the super, supra, extra natural methodologies he is proposing.

I'm not proposing, you're implying, I'm asking for clarification.

I think methodologies establishing something as real smacks of things only existing as long as there is a good philosophical case for them....as if the method conjures them up. That is magic.

Only if the methodology creates the phenomena - you are suggesting the phenomenon, we are asking for a methodology that would lead you to regard that phenomenon as leading to your conclusion.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?

I acknowledge the conceptual possibility of other methodologies - I've seen no evidence for one yet. That's what I was asking you for - I can't prove a negative, all I can do is pass comment on the validity or invalidity of suggestions.

As the claimant, the burden of proof still lies on you. I don't need to posit a methodology to support an assertion I don't see any evidence for.

O.

Do you think empirical methodology establish that something is real or, more accurately that something is physical or material?

[Outrider]

So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?

I acknowledge the conceptual possibility of other methodologies - I've seen no evidence for one yet. That's what I was asking you for - I can't prove a negative, all I can do is pass comment on the validity or invalidity of suggestions.

As the claimant, the burden of proof still lies on you. I don't need to posit a methodology to support an assertion I don't see any evidence for.

O.

Do you think empirical methodology establish that something is real or, more accurately that something is physical or material?

How about you stop answering questions with other questions and actually participate? Answer a question: what methodology do you use to differentiate between an actual sensation of an actual god and an hallucination?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?

I acknowledge the conceptual possibility of other methodologies - I've seen no evidence for one yet. That's what I was asking you for - I can't prove a negative, all I can do is pass comment on the validity or invalidity of suggestions.

As the claimant, the burden of proof still lies on you. I don't need to posit a methodology to support an assertion I don't see any evidence for.

O.

Do you think empirical methodology establish that something is real or, more accurately that something is physical or material?

How about you stop answering questions with other questions and actually participate? Answer a question: what methodology do you use to differentiate between an actual sensation of an actual god and an hallucination?

O.

An hallucination of what?
In other words why are you categorising all encounters with God as hallucination?

[Outrider]

So you acknowledge that there are other methodologies other than naturalistic ones.
Interesting........what have you got?

I acknowledge the conceptual possibility of other methodologies - I've seen no evidence for one yet. That's what I was asking you for - I can't prove a negative, all I can do is pass comment on the validity or invalidity of suggestions.

As the claimant, the burden of proof still lies on you. I don't need to posit a methodology to support an assertion I don't see any evidence for.

O.

Do you think empirical methodology establish that something is real or, more accurately that something is physical or material?

How about you stop answering questions with other questions and actually participate? Answer a question: what methodology do you use to differentiate between an actual sensation of an actual god and an hallucination?

O.

An hallucination of what?
In other words why are you categorising all encounters with God as hallucination?

How about you stop answering questions with other questions and actually participate? Answer a question: what methodology do you use to differentiate between an actual sensation of an actual god and an hallucination?

O.

[Gordon]

And I'm supposed not to be allowed to ask him about the super, supra, extra natural methodologies he is proposing.

I think methodologies establishing something as real smacks of things only existing as long as there is a good philosophical case for them....as if the method conjures them up. That is magic.

Wriggle all you like Vlad - you are being asked about what method you have applied.

As far as I can see neither Outrider, Jeremy or I are making any claims about methods - we are simply doing the asking here in the (probably vain) hope that you will do the answering. 

[Leonard James]

How about you stop answering questions with other questions and actually participate? Answer a question: what methodology do you use to differentiate between an actual sensation of an actual god and an hallucination?

O.

He can't differentiate, so he can't answer your question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I'm supposed not to be allowed to ask him about the super, supra, extra natural methodologies he is proposing.

I think methodologies establishing something as real smacks of things only existing as long as there is a good philosophical case for them....as if the method conjures them up. That is magic.

Wriggle all you like Vlad - you are being asked about what method you have applied.

As far as I can see neither Outrider, Jeremy or I are making any claims about methods - we are simply doing the asking here in the (probably vain) hope that you will do the answering.

I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.

[Outrider]

I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.

That's fine. You don't have a methodology, it's just an unwarranted assumption, by your own admission.

I'd say, in the absence of evidence 'I don't know', you assume supernatural.

That which can be assumed without evidenced can be dismissed on the same basis. You're making the claim 'supernatural' - you either have to justify it, or we can just dismiss it.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have demonstrated how far the natural methodologies go and in the absence of you guys or myself indeed being able to convincingly extend them.....The experience is supernatural until proven otherwise.

That's fine. You don't have a methodology, it's just an unwarranted assumption, by your own admission.

I'd say, in the absence of evidence 'I don't know', you assume supernatural.

That which can be assumed without evidenced can be dismissed on the same basis. You're making the claim 'supernatural' - you either have to justify it, or we can just dismiss it.

O.

Your only warrant for doing so is philosophical naturalism since the only methodology you know only establishes that something is material or physical and perhaps the notion that things are only real if conjured up by a methodology.