Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[jeremyp]

Presumably you have a working definition of Satan and Leprechauns and understand the attributes of God or am I more correct in my thesis that you have redefined Satan and Leprechauns as and when it suits your argument.

You may assume the commonly understood definitions for all of those.  Obviously the leprechaun is a telepathic one.

A Leprechaun which projects images of the almighty into somebodies brain? That is surely susceptible to Ockhams razor.

If you can eliminate the possibility of  a telepathic leprechaun beaming the experience of God into your brain by logic alone, I'd like to see it.

[jeremyp]

Notice the 180 flip here.

All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.

They are all the same. Spud, Hope, Vlad, Alan, they all do exactly the same thing.   

[wigginhall]

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.

Is it really a leap, or just a small step? Some apologists say that since all naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explain Christianity (eg the disciples would not all deliberately lie when alone and faced with execution/multiple witnesses rules out delusion), the resurrection is the only possible one.

Notice the 180 flip here.

All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.

Nicely put, Andy.  Quite astonishing really, an ability to flip, as you say, like Tommy Cooper.  Just like that, the supernatural is a small step.   Staggering. 

[Hope]

All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.

Except that it isn't an impossible one, at least not if one believes in the super/supranatural.  So less of a flip and more of a natural progression from one or more possible explanations which can be shown to be impossible to one that can be shown to be possible.

Any (and others) I appreciate that your philosophy does not allow you to accept the existence of the super/supranatural, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.

[Leonard James]

Any (and others) I appreciate that your philosophy does not allow you to accept the existence of the super/supranatural, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.

Likewise, your belief in it doesn't mean it really exists.

[Gordon]

All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.

Except that it isn't an impossible one, at least not if one believes in the super/supranatural.  So less of a flip and more of a natural progression from one or more possible explanations which can be shown to be impossible to one that can be shown to be possible.

Any (and others) I appreciate that your philosophy does not allow you to accept the existence of the super/supranatural, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.

Then do the decent thing and demonstrate it without descending into a morass of fallacies and an embarrassment of wishy-washy special pleading. 

[Andy]

All the possible explanations become impossible, and an impossible explanation becomes the only possible one. Of course, when delving in such immense special pleading, one has to turn this all powerful god into a puny, weak and feeble being who only has one possible option.

Except that it isn't an impossible one, at least not if one believes in the super/supranatural.  So less of a flip and more of a natural progression from one or more possible explanations which can be shown to be impossible to one that can be shown to be possible.

Sheesh, this is like pulling teeth. How have you actually explained anything away here, when all you've done is say in more words what Spud already had?
If it's not impossible if one believes in the supernatural, then how come the more possible explanations are impossible? Talk about having your cake and eating it.

Any (and others) I appreciate that your philosophy does not allow you to accept the existence of the super/supranatural, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.

It's not my philosophy that doesn't allow it, it's people like you who stop it. I'm open to accepting the existence of anything as long as it's reasonable to believe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Presumably you have a working definition of Satan and Leprechauns and understand the attributes of God or am I more correct in my thesis that you have redefined Satan and Leprechauns as and when it suits your argument.

You may assume the commonly understood definitions for all of those.  Obviously the leprechaun is a telepathic one.

A Leprechaun which projects images of the almighty into somebodies brain? That is surely susceptible to Ockhams razor.

If you can eliminate the possibility of  a telepathic leprechaun beaming the experience of God into your brain by logic alone, I'd like to see it.

You mean you don't understand Ockhams Razor? Wikipedia is helpful.

You haven't owned changing the definitions to suit the argument.....
Is the Leprechaun short, Irish and at the end of a rainbow?

[Hope]

Then do the decent thing and demonstrate it without descending into a morass of fallacies and an embarrassment of wishy-washy special pleading.

Rich, coming from you, Gordon.  Just about everyone of your posts on this and related topics are special pleading; special pleading that only arguments that satisfy scientific sobjective (and, no that isn't a spelling mistake) categories can be allowed because you and others only recognise things that fit into those categories.

As I have said countless times over the years, we are discussing issues from so dramatically different perspectives that we might as well be speaking different languages.  Note too that, contrary to what you seem to be arguing, there is no dichotomy between science and faith.  As a Christian I am just as capable of being amazed by the diversity and excitement of what is happening in the scientific world as you are: in fact, there many people who are involved deeply in both at the same time, some holding important roles in the process of pushing the scientific boundaries backwards.  It is just that, for me and many others, science isn't the be-all and end-all of the answers to the multitudinal questions that people ask about 'life, the universe and everything'.

[Shaker]

Rich, coming from you, Gordon.  Just about everyone of your posts on this and related topics are special pleading; special pleading that only arguments that satisfy scientific sobjective (and, no that isn't a spelling mistake) categories can be allowed because you and others only recognise things that fit into those categories.

That's probably because every single time, without any exception I've ever seen, somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else, you lot give us the Marcel Marceau act.

As I have said countless times over the years, we are discussing issues from so dramatically different perspectives that we might as well be speaking different languages.  Note too that, contrary to what you seem to be arguing, there is no dichotomy between science and faith.  As a Christian I am just as capable of being amazed by the diversity and excitement of what is happening in the scientific world as you are: in fact, there many people who are involved deeply in both at the same time, some holding important roles in the process of pushing the scientific boundaries backwards.  It is just that, for me and many others, science isn't the be-all and end-all of the answers to the multitudinal questions that people ask about 'life, the universe and everything'.

Orwell called it doublethink.

[Hope]

How have you actually explained anything away here, when all you've done is say in more words what Spud already had?[/quote} It seems to me that it is the likes of your good self who are the ones trying to explain things away, Andy. 

If it's not impossible if one believes in the supernatural, then how come the more possible explanations are impossible? Talk about having your cake and eating it.

The more possible explanations are 'impossible' on the grounds that I and others have outlined on countless times.  For instance, Jesus never died: we know from modern medical science that when 'blood and water' issue from a piercing injury (like a spear thrust) it indicates that the blood has begun to separate, indicating death.  Or, the disciples stole the body: we know that a guard of Roman soldiers was placed on the tomb.  For the body to have been stolen, there would have had to be a fairly sizable fight between them and the grave 'robbers'.  That would have got into the news because the Romans were always on the look-out for insurrectionists, and would have clamped down vigorously on any such event.  Interestingly, there is no such clampdown in Judea at the time of Pilate recorded in any Roman documentation.

It's not my philosophy that doesn't allow it, it's people like you who stop it. I'm open to accepting the existence of anything as long as it's reasonable to believe.

Perhaps you ought to look into it rather more carefully then, as many other people have - from an atheist/non-believer perspective - before coming to a faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Rich, coming from you, Gordon.  Just about everyone of your posts on this and related topics are special pleading; special pleading that only arguments that satisfy scientific sobjective (and, no that isn't a spelling mistake) categories can be allowed because you and others only recognise things that fit into those categories.

That's probably because every single time, without any exception I've ever seen, somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else

Does methodology establish/cause existence though or can something exist
independently? What seems to be both on offer and stretched to fit philosophical materialism is the method. Let's be honest about The methodology. It merely demonstrates that something is matter/energy and that is it. It is a tool with apparati. The senses.

I disagree vehemently that minds conceptualising are necessary for mathematics since in someway it is being done by the cerebellum. Also we know there is maths which does not represent any physicality or material/energy or relationship.

What is that doing?



 

[Hope]

That's probably because every single time, without any exception I've ever seen, somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else, you lot give us the Marcel Marceau act.

Have you noticed that not many Christians on here have succumbed to the scratched record of arguments that you and others regularly regurgitate.  Could that indicate that there is one or more flaws in them?  As I said to Gordon, the reason that you believe that when 'somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else, you lot give us the Marcel Marceau act' you set out specific parameters for that working methodology that I and others here believe to be vry limited in nature.

Orwell called it doublethink.

And, of course, not everything that Orwell said was correct.

[Shaker]

Does methodology establish/cause existence though or can something exist
independently?

Cause to exist? No; but it's the conceptual toolkit by which we can reliably and accurately and consistently come to know what exists. Positing anything outside, above or beyond that is the whole problem which so many people here have tried to point out to absolutely no avail; you can dream up whatever the hell takes your passing fancy at any moment, but without a means of determining if it's real, a passing fancy it will for ever remain.

[Shaker]

Have you noticed that not many Christians on here have succumbed to the scratched record of arguments that you and others regularly regurgitate.  Could that indicate that there is one or more flaws in them?

No. The reasoning is impeccable and the logic tighter than a duck's arsehole under water. What it indicates is that they have no rebuttal, nothing to offer.

To say nothing of the fact that a great many people with groundless beliefs are, to say the least, not overly keen on having the spotlight of reason shone upon them. Such beliefs tend to come apart at the joins faster than cheap toys on Christmas morning.

As I said to Gordon, the reason that you believe that when 'somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else, you lot give us the Marcel Marceau act' you set out specific parameters for that working methodology that I and others here believe to be vry limited in nature.

And yet the very point at issue here - yet again - is that you can't provide any reason whatever for anybody else to think how and why this so-called "limitation" even exists.

And, of course, not everything that Orwell said was correct.

Orwell being correct all the time is not something I ever stated. In this case, however, he could scarcely have been more on the money.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does methodology establish/cause existence though or can something exist
independently?

Cause to exist? No; but it's the conceptual toolkit by which we can reliably and accurately and consistently come to know what exists.

No, it is the method by which we study matter/energy.
You are claiming too much for it.
Hence my much ignored warning that you confuse methodological materialism with philosophical materialism....

Nice try at a hijack though.

[Shaker]

There's a good reason why it's much ignored, Vlad: everybody is bored as fuck by it and wishes you could post something without wheeling it out yet again.

[Andy]

How have you actually explained anything away here, when all you've done is say in more words what Spud already had?

It seems to me that it is the likes of your good self who are the ones trying to explain things away, Andy.

That's nice.

If it's not impossible if one believes in the supernatural, then how come the more possible explanations are impossible? Talk about having your cake and eating it.

The more possible explanations are 'impossible' on the grounds that I and others have outlined on countless times.  For instance, Jesus never died: we know from modern medical science that when 'blood and water' issue from a piercing injury (like a spear thrust) it indicates that the blood has begun to separate, indicating death.  Or, the disciples stole the body: we know that a guard of Roman soldiers was placed on the tomb.  For the body to have been stolen, there would have had to be a fairly sizable fight between them and the grave 'robbers'.  That would have got into the news because the Romans were always on the look-out for insurrectionists, and would have clamped down vigorously on any such event.  Interestingly, there is no such clampdown in Judea at the time of Pilate recorded in any Roman documentation.

The stupid - it burns. Do you not get it that I'm usng your own argument for the supernatural against you? I'm not remotely interested or arsed about the 'grounds' in which you deem the more possible to be impossible (a contradiction in terms as it is).

What I'm getting at here is that you are using the supernatural to make what we consider naturally impossible to be possible, whilst deeming what we'd consider naturally possible to be impossible, without realising that they are still possible if you claim the supernatural exists. You don't get to make a switch/flip or progress to a more plausible explanation - you put all explanations on a level playing field.

It's not my philosophy that doesn't allow it, it's people like you who stop it. I'm open to accepting the existence of anything as long as it's reasonable to believe.

Perhaps you ought to look into it rather more carefully then, as many other people have - from an atheist/non-believer perspective - before coming to a faith.

It's a bit difficult to take your patronising seriously when you haven't got the foggiest idea of the point I'm making.

[jeremyp]

Presumably you have a working definition of Satan and Leprechauns and understand the attributes of God or am I more correct in my thesis that you have redefined Satan and Leprechauns as and when it suits your argument.

You may assume the commonly understood definitions for all of those.  Obviously the leprechaun is a telepathic one.

A Leprechaun which projects images of the almighty into somebodies brain? That is surely susceptible to Ockhams razor.

If you can eliminate the possibility of  a telepathic leprechaun beaming the experience of God into your brain by logic alone, I'd like to see it.

You mean you don't understand Ockhams Razor? Wikipedia is helpful.

You haven't owned changing the definitions to suit the argument.....
Is the Leprechaun short, Irish and at the end of a rainbow?

Evasion noted.  You might as well stop.  We both know you have nothing.

[jeremyp]

Just about everyone of your posts on this and related topics are special pleading; special pleading that only arguments that satisfy scientific sobjective (and, no that isn't a spelling mistake) categories can be allowed because you and others only recognise things that fit into those categories.

Please don't accuse others of committing fallacies you don't understand.

We have asked you many times to provide your methodology for telling whether a supernatural phenomenon is true or false and you are still to come up with the goods. 

Note too that, contrary to what you seem to be arguing, there is no dichotomy between science and faith.

Yes there is.  science has a methodology for testing its assertions.  Faith clearly has none.  The dichotomy is that with science we can be fairly confident of what is correct and what is not and if we are wrong, we figure it out eventually.

As a Christian I am just as capable of being amazed by the diversity and excitement of what is happening in the scientific world as you are: in fact, there many people who are involved deeply in both at the same time, some holding important roles in the process of pushing the scientific boundaries backwards.  It is just that, for me and many others, science isn't the be-all and end-all of the answers to the multitudinal questions that people ask about 'life, the universe and everything'.

It's not just about being amazed, it's about trying to find out what is right.  You are no further forward with knowing whose god is the right god than Thomas Aquinas was.  Think about what science has taught us about the World in that time. 

[jeremyp]

Have you noticed that not many Christians on here have succumbed to the scratched record of arguments that you and others regularly regurgitate.

So an argument to which you have no answer is a "scratched record".  We use it all the time precisely because you haven't been able to rebut it.  Yu and Alan and Vlad have pent pages and pages avoiding answering the simple question "how do we tell if a supernatural event is true or not".  You bluster, you evade, some of you insult but you do not answer the simple question.

Could that indicate that there is one or more flaws in them?  As I said to Gordon, the reason that you believe that when 'somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else, you lot give us the Marcel Marceau act' you set out specific parameters for that working methodology that I and others here believe to be vry limited in nature.

The only parameter we have set out is that the methodology be verifiable.  We haven't asked you to put any other limits on it.

Orwell called it doublethink.

And, of course, not everything that Orwell said was correct.

Yes but I think he was right on this occasion.

[jeremyp]

For instance, Jesus never died: we know from modern medical science that when 'blood and water' issue from a piercing injury (like a spear thrust) it indicates that the blood has begun to separate, indicating death.

We know from modern medical science that two day old corpses do not come back to life.  You seem to be pointing out the mote and ignoring the plank, to borrow a biblical metaphor.

Or, the disciples stole the body: we know that a guard of Roman soldiers was placed on the tomb.

Even William Lane Craig doesn't believe the story of the guards placed at the tomb.  It's fiction.

[Shaker]

So an argument to which you have no answer is a "scratched record".  We use it all the time precisely because you haven't been able to rebut it.  Yu and Alan and Vlad have pent pages and pages avoiding answering the simple question "how do we tell if a supernatural event is true or not".  You bluster, you evade, some of you insult but you do not answer the simple question.

Bravissimo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you noticed that not many Christians on here have succumbed to the scratched record of arguments that you and others regularly regurgitate.

So an argument to which you have no answer is a "scratched record".  We use it all the time precisely because you haven't been able to rebut it.  Yu and Alan and Vlad have pent pages and pages avoiding answering the simple question "how do we tell if a supernatural event is true or not".  You bluster, you evade, some of you insult but you do not answer the simple question.

Could that indicate that there is one or more flaws in them?  As I said to Gordon, the reason that you believe that when 'somebody asks you for a working methodology to be able to demonstrate the existence of anything else, you lot give us the Marcel Marceau act' you set out specific parameters for that working methodology that I and others here believe to be vry limited in nature.

The only parameter we have set out is that the methodology be verifiable.  We haven't asked you to put any other limits on it.

Orwell called it doublethink.

And, of course, not everything that Orwell said was correct.

Yes but I think he was right on this occasion.

Oh come on.
You asked how I could tell my experience was not really a Leprechaun capable of synthesising experience of God. Ockhams razor can be used on this as was definitional knowledge of what a leprechaun is.

How do we know we are not in the Matrix?

There is no material evidence for the divine. There is only material evidence for, er, material.......yet another example of elastic definition.

There is knowledge that can only be truly obtained personally. That that knowledge which is gained through experience is also in some way common is through agreement.

Finally if your going to insist on positivism for goodness sake live authentically as one....and see how far yer philosophy gets you.

Finally though no matter how good it would be to make Christians by argument alone, It's God who convinces. But I don't think certain attitudes help.

This is from Richard Lewontin

“We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's a good reason why it's much ignored, Vlad: everybody is bored as fuck by it and wishes you could post something without wheeling it out yet again.

Argumentum ad tedium eh.

Come off it Shaker you were caught red handed trying to claim that we use methodological materialism to determine what can exist and what can't...