Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Outrider]

Your only warrant for doing so is philosophical naturalism and perhaps the notion that things are only real if conjured up by a methodology.

Half-right. My justification is the continued validity of the predictions of various streams of evidence based investigation based upon the presumption of philosophical naturalism, yes.

The nonsense of them being 'conjured by a methodology' was dealt with rather simply above, which I note you failed to even try to address.

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.

But aren't you really saying I don't know but it can't be supernatural?
Where as you could also say I don't know but it's not natural.
Or does your philosophical naturalism preclude that?

[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.

But aren't you really saying I don't know but it can't be supernatural?
Where as you could also say I don't know but it's not natural.
Or does your philosophical naturalism preclude that?

Philosophically, no, I'm saying that philosophical naturalism leads to provisional explanations which lead to further hypotheses that can be tested. Those tested hypotheses continue to validate both the underlying assumption of philosophical naturalism and the individual theories resting upon it.

In practical terms, to an extent, yes I am. The possibility, in the face of the overwhelming mass of naturalistic explanation for phenomena, that there is something outside of that system which some people can detect and others can't is so extraordinary that it requires an extraordinary reason to accept it: as yet, I've seen nothing that qualifies as even coming close to that extraordinary evidence.

I try to be honest and ask people to provide it - as I did here - and as yet they've not managed to. When people ask me 'what evidence would you accept that shows god?' I genuinely cannot conceive of what someone might be able to come up that I wouldn't presume had a natural cause I didn't yet understand rather than a supernatural one.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I genuinely cannot conceive of what someone might be able to come up that I wouldn't presume had a natural cause I didn't yet understand rather than a supernatural one.

O.

Right Ho.......a philosophical naturalist then.

[Outrider]

I genuinely cannot conceive of what someone might be able to come up that I wouldn't presume had a natural cause I didn't yet understand rather than a supernatural one.

O.

Right Ho.......a philosophical naturalist then.

Did I ever suggest anything else? Philosphical naturalism has supporting evidence. I'm still waiting for someone to produce evidence of anything else, and a methodology by which to reliably assess it.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I genuinely cannot conceive of what someone might be able to come up that I wouldn't presume had a natural cause I didn't yet understand rather than a supernatural one.

O.

Right Ho.......a philosophical naturalist then.

Did I ever suggest anything else? Philosphical naturalism has supporting evidence.

Really, What is that?

[Gordon]

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.

As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.

In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.
 

[Outrider]

I genuinely cannot conceive of what someone might be able to come up that I wouldn't presume had a natural cause I didn't yet understand rather than a supernatural one.

O.

Right Ho.......a philosophical naturalist then.

Did I ever suggest anything else? Philosphical naturalism has supporting evidence.

Really, What is that?

The body of scientific work that continues to reliably explain and predict, with increasing scope and accuracy, the  ongoing activity we can detect in the universe.

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.

As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.

In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.

I don't think that believing in a resurrection event necessarily is the equivalent of Christianity. What I am saying was there existed an orthodox Christian community
which sincerely believed in the resurrection as a real event within a short time of the events described. Most of them would also have held the belief that this is by no means a normal occurrence. Whether there were other witnesses who witnessed it and did think this was a natural but rare occurrence we don't know.

I believe I am talking about natural explanations being exhausted with regard to my own Christian Experience. Objections to it being a real experience of God boil down to mere philosophy.

[jeremyp]

Please provide a way that hasn't been exhausted.

You tell us what ways you have tried and we'll tell you which ones haven't been exhausted, although I'm willing to be you have not tried any methods that rule out your subjective opinion.

[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?

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.

The leprechaun doesn't have to have godlike attributes to be able to beam imaginary thoughts into your head.

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.

How is that relevant?

[Andy]

...Jesus naturally returning from the dead is almost infinitessimally unlikely that we all agree it would not have happened, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the Christian claim that God raised Jesus from the dead.

You may think it's not what we're discussing, but it's integral to everyone's position. We're all starting with naturalism as the background by which we come to assess the likelihood of an event.

No, we are not "all starting with naturalism as the background".

Yes, we are. It's your whole routine for how you think you can clearly identify when a miracle has occurred. Look, you've even been finicky in your response when agreeing with me about it! - You see X as naturally impossible, but believe it happened, therefore a god.

That is not assuming/starting with naturalism, whether methodological or philosophical. All it says is that, whether there is a supernatural or not, it is not possible for a person dead for 2 days to come back to life via normal, physical processes. That is all. That does not make me a naturalist. A philosophical naturalist is someone who believes there is nothing beyond the physical world and a methodological naturalist is someone who uses methods which would not show up a supernatural event even if one happened.

Hang  on, I didn't say that you assume naturalism. You've equated assuming with starting point here. I'm not. To assume naturalism here would be begging the question. I'm exactly saying that because you start with naturalism, that doesn't mean you've ruled in/out the existence of the supernatural, only that you start with not factoring it into the assessment. Perhaps it'd be better if I said a naturalisitc outlook rather than naturalism, to avoid the connotations of the latter.

The question here though is, why didn't you factor the supernatural in at the start?

By all means, if you want to claim that your starting point for assessing the likelihood of an event is filtered through theism, by my guest, but it makes your argument circular. Really, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in saying you start with naturalism, but perhaps I shouldn't.

Nope, I am not claiming my "starting point for assessing the likelihood of an event is filtered through theism." I was not a theist when I started looking at the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I became a (Christian) theist as a result, but it was not my starting point.

Which kinda makes my point that if you didn't start with theism/supernatural factored in, then you started with a naturlastic outlook in order to assess the likelihood.

You, as a philosophical naturalist are,
I don't know how many times I have to either make the point or say things in a manner that make it crystal that I am not a philosophical naturalist. Please, don't turn into Vlad, as it's probably a good thing that you're going to post less if you do.

My apologies. How would you describe yourself, please?

Dunno really, you just need to understand here that I don't believe there is nothing beyond the physical (or more accurarely the natural) world.

those of us who have not assumed that the physical world is all there is may not be. I aren't.

As I've explained above, you are starting with it.

As explained above, I am not.

And I'll state again, I'm not claiming you have assumed it, only that you've started with it.

<shrugs> Don't see it myself, but if you feel it would be better for me to see meaning in it, then provide the method etc... ...you know the drill.

Have done on a number of occasions on various threads. Getting a bit tired of repeating it. Look at what happened (death on a cross, burial in a known tomb, tomb found empty, individuals and groups on about a dozen occasions convinced they had met, spoken with and sometimes eaten with Jesus who was again right as ninepence. You know the score.

Well firstly, as is oft repeated, I'm not looking at what happened, only what's claimed to have happened.

Anyway, I'm not seeing an method here that can be applied across the board to any and all supernatural claims. All you seem to be doing is starting with a naturalistic outlook, failing to find a possible naturalistic explanation that caters for all these (claimed) events, then hey presto god. Sounds like an argument from ignorance to me.

The catch 22 here is that it's a paradox. If something deemed to be naturally impossible is the best explanation, then it means that all other naturalistic explanations for the events are impossible too, but you understand that to not be the case. Take propaganda as an example - you understand that it's not impossible yet pump for something impossible as being the better explanation. The conclusion is that any explanation you believe to be less plausible must also be naturally impossible, which would then mean from your standpoint that I must also conclude theism because I believe an explanation that is also naturally impossible.
So now we're on a level playing field, arguing over which god it is that exists. Using a naturalistic outlook is useless here because all the explanations are naturally impossible, and gods aren't deemed to be natural anyway. So how do we then assess the probability of which god it is that most likely to exists?

I was drawing a parallel with your argument, that's all. I don't agree with either conclusion, as you yourself just said, "Therefore, since Jesus was raised from the dead, there is a god". I could've latched onto that myself, but it would be shifting away from the point. I know what you believe happened, I'm just making the point that if the opposite happened, then it doesn't mean a god doesn't exist, but also it can equally be used to conclude god exists. It's that I don't think you disagree with...

Why would anyone ever argue that "If there is no god, it is impossible for Jesus to have stayed dead"?

The motivation of any indiviudal to argue this isn't the point. The point is that you believe a god's existence is required in order for Jesus to stay dead.

I mean, do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without god?

Er, yes, I do believe people could stay dead without God. Did you mean to ask that?

Yes, I meant it. You're just showing yourself up to being inconsistent and having tunnel vision for one argument you use for god by isolating it from the others you use. I'll ask again and expand:

Do you really believe that Jesus (or anybody for that matter) could stay dead without a god when you simultaneously believe that the laws of nature, that dictate people stay dead, were created (and sustained?) by a god?

Yes, if there is no God then there is no God to create and sustain the laws of nature.

Well that contradicts your previous answer where you said you believe people could stay dead without a god. This is my whole point - I find this whole game of sifting through Christian theology (or any theology for that matter) with a fine toothed, trying to show supernatural internvetion as the best explanation for it, as futile, when you simultaneously believe that any diametrically opposed claims or explanations can just as easily bring you to conclude a god exists.

[jeremyp]

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.

This is not on us, it is on you.  You are being asked to show a methodology for distinguishing false supernatural claims from true ones.  You don't seem to have an answer. 

Basically, you believe because you want to, which is OK, but if you just admitted it, we'd save a lot of time.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem here is that using naturalistic methodologies tell one nothing. Using all of them and not getting an answer merely leads to I Don't Know. Further they do not prove that anything that happens is naturalistic, merely that within that framework, things work in a way for which a naturalistic explanation can be proffered.

Nothing may be naturalistic in its causation, however make that first assumption and it works. For a supernatural method I am not sure that it posits anything that can 'work'. Make an assumption of the supernatural and you cannot investigate because investigation is naturalistic. Your entire investigation could be a chimaeric dream created by whatever does such things. The supernatural is the most corrosive relativism we can consider, and it burns through method, logic and experience to leave nothing left, a barren burnt landscape of meaninglessness.

[Leonard James]

Basically, you believe because you want to, which is OK, but if you just admitted it, we'd save a lot of time.

I don't think that's true, Jeremy. We can't just believe because we want to ... we believe because there is sufficient evidence to convince us.

Those of us who don't find sufficient evidence can't just believe, even though we might like to.

[Gordon]

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.

As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.

In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.

I don't think that believing in a resurrection event necessarily is the equivalent of Christianity.

No? I thought the key bit in Christianity was the belief that Jesus didn't stay dead.

What I am saying was there existed an orthodox Christian community which sincerely believed in the resurrection as a real event within a short time of the events described. Most of them would also have held the belief that this is by no means a normal occurrence. Whether there were other witnesses who witnessed it and did think this was a natural but rare occurrence we don't know.

No doubt they sincerely did - but could their sincere beliefs have been influenced by propaganda? This is a valid question since people then, as now, can make mistakes, can tell lies and be credulous.

I believe I am talking about natural explanations being exhausted with regard to my own Christian Experience. Objections to it being a real experience of God boil down to mere philosophy.

No doubt that is your belief, but of course what you believe and what you think you have experienced are  functions of your biology - and people aren't infallible (even you, Vlad).

You're still stuck at 'true for me' though, which would be fine if you were keeping this to yourself, but here you are telling us all about it and implying that it is 'true for everyone'. Some of us are looking for more that sincerity, since however genuine your sincerity isn't confirmation that what you are sincere about is actually true if this includes claims that turn the natural order of things on its head - much more likely that you are wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

This is not on us, it is on you.  You are being asked to show a methodology for distinguishing false supernatural claims from true ones.  You don't seem to have an answer. 

Basically, you believe because you want to, which is OK, but if you just admitted it, we'd save a lot of time.

You obviously have not read, marked nor learnt the experiences as outlined by the writer of Isaiah, St Paul, Augustine, John Bunyan and the Christian Writer who wrote that the first grasp of the Good News is as Bad news for the ego. All of whose experiences chime with mine.

In the light of that what you class as obvious may be due to a lack of research and Ignosis.

However you asked me to compare supernatural claims. God is self evidently knowing, loving and able and good, if you cannot tell evil from good that is a bit of a bad sign since one's moral compass is up the spout. There is spiritual discernment or illumination provided by the ''Light''...and that is how it is done.

What did you make of my answer to your evil leprechaun projecting evil into one's brain?

[wigginhall]

The problem here is that using naturalistic methodologies tell one nothing. Using all of them and not getting an answer merely leads to I Don't Know. Further they do not prove that anything that happens is naturalistic, merely that within that framework, things work in a way for which a naturalistic explanation can be proffered.

Nothing may be naturalistic in its causation, however make that first assumption and it works. For a supernatural method I am not sure that it posits anything that can 'work'. Make an assumption of the supernatural and you cannot investigate because investigation is naturalistic. Your entire investigation could be a chimaeric dream created by whatever does such things. The supernatural is the most corrosive relativism we can consider, and it burns through method, logic and experience to leave nothing left, a barren burnt landscape of meaninglessness.

Hot shit, man, that's word!   I recall Alien, or maybe someone else, saying 'why not?' to a question of whether God could do X.  But that 'why not?' is, as you say, intensely corrosive of all knowledge and description.   There is nothing left, since there could be anything.    No wonder some of the mystics ended up with the void.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem here is that using naturalistic methodologies tell one nothing. Using all of them and not getting an answer merely leads to I Don't Know. Further they do not prove that anything that happens is naturalistic, merely that within that framework, things work in a way for which a naturalistic explanation can be proffered.

Nothing may be naturalistic in its causation, however make that first assumption and it works. For a supernatural method I am not sure that it posits anything that can 'work'. Make an assumption of the supernatural and you cannot investigate because investigation is naturalistic. Your entire investigation could be a chimaeric dream created by whatever does such things. The supernatural is the most corrosive relativism we can consider, and it burns through method, logic and experience to leave nothing left, a barren burnt landscape of meaninglessness.

How does it necessarily burn through experience?.....unless part of your definition of the supernatural is ''That which burns through experience''.

[jeremyp]

You obviously have not read, marked nor learnt the experiences as outlined by the writer of Isaiah, St Paul, Augustine, John Bunyan and the Christian Writer who wrote that the first grasp of the Good News is as Bad news for the ego. All of whose experiences chime with mine.

How are the writings of these people a methodology for determining the truth of supernatural events.

God is self evidently knowing, loving and able and good,

Your evidence for this is? 

if you cannot tell evil from good that is a bit of a bad sign since one's moral compass is up the spout. There is spiritual discernment or illumination provided by the ''Light''...and that is how it is done.

This is not about telling good from evil, it is about telling true supernatural claims from false ones.

What did you make of my answer to your evil leprechaun projecting evil into one's brain?

What did you make of my rebuttal to that that answer?

[Nearly Sane]

It burns through experience because anything, as wigginhall notes, is then allowed. Experience is entirely worthless since it is mere recall. To privilege it would mean that you would need to be able to claim its truth. Since experience can be contradictory that would fall to logic, but if logic is if x then y that falls to the corrosive agent you wish to splash about like Brut.

If anything can be true, nothing is.

[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.

As you seem to be saying, Vlad, the resurrection claims as presented by Christians that involve claimed supernatural agency aren't suitable for assessing using those naturalistic methods that involve post-mortem phenomena, because on that basis the claim is rejected since it is known that 2/3 dead people really do stay permanently dead. However, the behaviour of people is natural phenomena, so that the risks of mistakes or lies made by supporters of Jesus is a relevant concern in relation to these claims and yet Christians supported the divinity of Jesus seem keen to avoid this possibility.

In response to questions about the risks of mistakes or propaganda they seemingly can't give a basis for rejecting these risks, preferring instead to resort to special pleading along the lines that early Christians were somehow immune to making mistakes or telling lies - so your leap to the supernatural is false dichotomy since you are not exhausting more likely natural explanations.

I don't think that believing in a resurrection event necessarily is the equivalent of Christianity.

No? I thought the key bit in Christianity was the belief that Jesus didn't stay dead.

yes that's key but then the NT has three accounts of resurrection. Jesus, Lazarus and the Boy raised by St Paul after falling out of the window. So resurrection per se not Christianity but resurrection of Jesus yes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It burns through experience because anything, as wigginhall notes, is then allowed. Experience is entirely worthless since it is mere recall. To privilege it would mean that you would need to be able to claim its truth. Since experience can be contradictory that would fall to logic, but if logic is if x then y that falls to the corrosive agent you wish to splash about like Brut.

If anything can be true, nothing is.

That presupposes that the supernatural is lawless chaos though doesn't it. In other words is a philosophical naturalism the only place where logic and reason exist. I think the material world representing order and a non material world representing chaos is an article of faith rather than a logical inevitability.

[Nearly Sane]

There is a problem when those who believe in absolutes want to indulge in relativist games with those of us who have messed about in the dull brown muck of doubt for too long. You miss that everything dies in this muck, it grows flowers of no kind.  Descartes's attempt to grow his weed of knowledge fails because not even thinking survives. The flowers are ghosts, the dreams of imps and demons that aresenseless, shapeless and mere wisps of forgotten utopias.

Vast schemes fall to the dust, the 'I' you treasure like Ozymandias, returning to the sand.

[Nearly Sane]

It presupposes nothing. It merely takes the claim that you make about possibility and  applies it clear and pitilessly, rather than your own sentimental poultice, carefully avoiding that it destroys everything you want to hold dear.  It is your claims that do this, not mine. Your argument that eats itself like a manic Ouroboros, swallowing, burning, disintegrating in its confused denial of its consequences.