Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

...and showing your philosophical materialism up for what it is, and your sloppy elastic definitions.

[Shaker]

Oh look, Vlad said philosophical materialism again. Yawny yawny yawningtons.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh look, Vlad said philosophical materialism again. Yawny yawny yawningtons.

The level of your debate has tripled today Shaker......

3 x 0 =0

[Shaker]

... whereas the number of times you've invoked philosophical materialism for absolutely no reason whatsoever is pretty well incalculable by now. What an achievement.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... whereas the number of times you've invoked philosophical materialism for absolutely no reason whatsoever is pretty well incalculable by now. What an achievement.

Says Mr P.Materialist
Head of philosophical materialism
Faculty of Philosophical materialism
University of Philosophical materialism
370 Philosophical materialist avenue
Philo...Delphia.

[jeremyp]

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?  Ockham's razor is only a tool that tells you which explanation is to be preferred if all else is equal.  It doesn't claim to give you the right answer.

How do we know we are not in the Matrix?

We don't.

There is knowledge that can only be truly obtained personally.

That is not knowledge, it's belief.  If it can't be verified it could be your imagination playing tricks.

Finally...

Finally...

Do you mean it this time?

 

This is from Richard Lewontin

Clearly not.

[Spud]

Message 774,

All the possible explanations become impossible,

Nay, they have been eliminated.

[jeremyp]

Oh look, Vlad said philosophical materialism again. Yawny yawny yawningtons.

The level of your debate has tripled today Shaker......

3 x 0 =0

Hey look, a post in which Vlad didn't say "philosophical materialism".  Do I win a prize?

[Shaker]

Yes, the relief of not seeing Vlad write philosophical materialism for once. Enjoy it - it'll be brief.

[jeremyp]

Message 774,

All the possible explanations become impossible,

Nay, they have been eliminated.

If you assume God, you can't eliminate any explanation.  A god that can raise a man from the dead can easily create a false memory in hundreds of people that they've seen Jesus alive.

[Andy]

Message 774,

All the possible explanations become impossible,

Nay, they have been eliminated.

And then ratified again by the supernatural. Ho hum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?  Ockham's razor is only a tool that tells you which explanation is to be preferred if all else is equal.  It doesn't claim to give you the right answer.

How do we know we are not in the Matrix?

We don't.

There is knowledge that can only be truly obtained personally.

That is not knowledge, it's belief.  If it can't be verified it could be your imagination playing tricks.

But it might not be. I think you are specially pleading psychological incompetence in a certain circumstance here Jezzer.

[Shaker]

But it might not be.

Assuming that you like your knowledge of reality to be as accurate as possible (which I fully concede may well be a mistaken assumption), how do you propose to tell the difference?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But it might not be.

Assuming that you like your knowledge of reality to be as accurate as possible (which I fully concede may well be a mistaken assumption), how do you propose to tell the difference?

When it's proved to be my imagination would do it.....go ahead.

[Shaker]

That's Hope's favourite fallacy though, the negative proof/appeal to/argument from ignorance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's Hope's favourite fallacy though, the negative proof/appeal to/argument from ignorance.

Nope, saying something is the product of someone's imagination is a positive assertion.

[Andy]

What Vlad is asking for is a method for falsifying supernatural claims...

[Andy]

That's Hope's favourite fallacy though, the negative proof/appeal to/argument from ignorance.

Nope, saying something is the product of someone's imagination is a positive assertion.

Oh yea, jp said it could be, not that it is.

[Shaker]

saying something is the product of someone's imagination is a positive assertion.

Yes it is. Good job nobody has said as much, to my knowledge at any rate. What Jeremy has quite rightly pointed out is that since you can't offer a methodology which verifies experiences, you can't tell the difference between what is imaginary and what isn't.

[jeremyp]

But it might not be.

Exactly, you don't know.

I think you are specially pleading psychological incompetence in a certain circumstance here Jezzer.

I'm not pleading anything.  As Andy and Shaker have pointed out, all I've said is that we can't tell the difference between a real experience of God and an imaginary one.

[Nearly Sane]

Message 774,

All the possible explanations become impossible,

Nay, they have been eliminated.

which given a naturalistic methodology is impossible to do by definition. Adding an argument from ignorance as you do here just shows the problems with your position.

[Gordon]

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.

Then feel free to detail these 'other categories' and explain the method, such as the range of qualifying criteria, that you used to do the categorisation as well as the outcome (e.g. how many categories you derived and what each category contains).

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'.

You can ask questions until the cows come home, Hope, but the important issue here is whether the questions you ask are valid: iirc some of the Christian here have said along the lines of that while science is useful for 'how' questions it isn't suited to 'why' questions, which presumes that 'why' is always a valid question in the first place.

For example, the TofE and associated (and on-going) science informs about 'how' our (and other) species evolved so 'how' is a valid question. However,  'why do homo-sapiens exist' isn't a valid question until there is an underlying theory/method that can be used to turn this 'why' into a testable hypothesis that can be used to investigate the 'why' - faith statements along the lines of 'goddidit' don't qualify here since you guys haven't as yet provided a basis to test this.

[Outrider]

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

In theory it can 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.

Whereas, in the absence of a methodology, all we have is a claim that something might be possible, without even a capacity to check the viability of the claim, let alone the veracity.

I disagree vehemently that minds conceptualising are necessary for mathematics since in someway it is being done by the cerebellum.

A cricket ball in flight follows a mathematically calculable path, but even you I suspect would hesitate to suggest that it's capable of mathematics or conceptualising numbers.

Also we know there is maths which does not represent any physicality or material/energy or relationship.

What is that doing?

Playing with the concept of numbers, mainly.

O.

[Outrider]

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.

Except that martyrs in other religions show that people must be willing to die for things that aren't true, we don't have multiple witnesses we have singular accounts alleging multiple witnesses and, most importantly, the lack of any current rock-solid explanation does not mean 'god did it'.

O.

[Outrider]

So you agree that A could exist but I imagined it?

What are our options then?
A exists and I have experienced A
A does not exist and I have not experienced A
A does not exist so I have not experienced A
B exists but I am mistaking it for A

A does not exist, B does not exist and you are suffering delusions...
A does not exist, B exists and is actively deceiving you...
A does not exist and your subconscious is actively deceiving you...
A does not exist and confirmation bias is leading you to mistake random events for a sensation of A...

1: How do we know A not to exist?

We don't know, but in the absence of evidence to support the claim we can dismiss it.

2: How can B be mistaken for A?

B can be deceptive. People are imperfect witnesses.

3: How is an experience an experience of A?

Who said that it was?

If it quacks like a duck it is a duck. Of course I could try, delusion or illusion if I were you

If it quacks like a duck it could be a duck, or a CGI simulation of a duck, or a model of a duck, or someone with a hearing impairment misunderstanding a goose, or a liar, or someone that really, really, really wants it to be a duck falling prey to confirmation bias in the presence of a swan, or someone stood close to a synthesiser loaded with the recording of a duck...

O.