Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[Outrider]

No, the questions you must answer are:

1. How do we (and by we I mean all of us, not just you) know that the experience you had was A.

where A is some supernatural phenomenon that you claim exists.

Yes Jezzer Add alternatives but don't specially plead them.

I haven't added anything.  My question is the same one I asked of you pages ago.  You have spent the entire time since then dodging it.

I think I've demonstrated the questionability of naturalistic approaches to the analysis of religious experience.

#

Which hasn't offered any better alternative method for analysis of the claims of religious experience.

Philosophical materialism isn't perfect, but it has a significantly better track record than anything else, so far, and you're not offering an alternative.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Maybe it is a learned or gifted attribute. A skill. If we are not in the zone we don't have the skill, Does Satan masquerade as an Angel of light? It's in the Bible. Maybe the ability is an extension of the intuition of Good and Bad.

I think you have largely ignored my suggestion of the use of Ockham's razor. I suggest you read up again on Ockham's Razor.

I question a) the presumption that the non material needs to be chaotic b) that methodological materialism or science can be used on the non material or that it can settle ontology c)That the ''supernatural'' is impervious to all of the methods of thinking we use in dealing with ''natural'' things ( that just smacks of proprietorialism.)

In which case your defence of leprechauns and trivialisation of God is as inexcusable as it obviously is.

[Outrider]

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.

Science has a proven track record and known, specified limitations. To apply it, within those established restrictions is not 'special pleading'. No-one is saying that only arguments that satisfy science are valid; what they are saying is that unless you can justify a methodology, or deduce from pure logic, you don't have a justification.

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.

Yes, but you aren't applying any sort of rigour or classification to your use of language. You make truth claims without any justification.

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'.

Questions which have to be justified in the first place. Begging the question 'why' presupposes that there is a valid answer, for which you then need to find an explanation.

O.

[Outrider]

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?

Or that none of you have an answer?

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.

Unless you clarify the limitations on your methodology you don't have a methodology, you have assertion.

O.

[Outrider]

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

Damn, why didn't I think of doing that?!?

O.

[Outrider]

Maybe it is a learned or gifted attribute. A skill. If we are not in the zone we don't have the skill, Does Satan masquerade as an Angel of light? It's in the Bible. Maybe the ability is an extension of the intuition of Good and Bad.

The entirely hypothetical, as yet undemonstrated intuition of "Good"^TM and "Bad"^TM, equally vaguely posited but unconfirmed "Satan"...

I think you have largely ignored my suggestion of the use of Ockham's razor. I suggest you read up again on Ockham's Razor.

In the absence of a methodology to determine any sort of likelihood, Ockham's razor cannot determine between equally unlikely possibilities. What it can do is reduce the number of unconfirmed steps: an unsubstantiated leprechaun making up the story of the Bible requires fewer unsubstantiated leaps than all of the unsubstantiated events of the Bible.

I question a) the presumption that the non material needs to be chaotic

No-one's suggesting that it needs to be. Quite the opposite, the fact that we're asking for a methodology implies that we're presuming some sort of rationale to it, or no methodology would be possible.

b) that methodological materialism or science can be used on the non material or that it can settle ontology

We've accepted that, which is why we want to see an alternative. We're not claiming philosophical naturalism has demonstrated the non-existence of a god, we're rejecting the claim in the absence of any justification.

c)That the ''supernatural'' is impervious to all of the methods of thinking we use in dealing with ''natural'' things ( that just smacks of proprietorialism.)

So what we need is a methodology, you say? What a great idea - crack on.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe it is a learned or gifted attribute. A skill. If we are not in the zone we don't have the skill, Does Satan masquerade as an Angel of light? It's in the Bible. Maybe the ability is an extension of the intuition of Good and Bad.

The entirely hypothetical, as yet undemonstrated intuition of "Good"^TM and "Bad"^TM, equally vaguely posited but unconfirmed "Satan"...

I think you have largely ignored my suggestion of the use of Ockham's razor. I suggest you read up again on Ockham's Razor.

In the absence of a methodology to determine any sort of likelihood, Ockham's razor cannot determine between equally unlikely possibilities. What it can do is reduce the number of unconfirmed steps: an unsubstantiated leprechaun making up the story of the Bible requires fewer unsubstantiated leaps than all of the unsubstantiated events of the Bible.

I question a) the presumption that the non material needs to be chaotic

No-one's suggesting that it needs to be. Quite the opposite, the fact that we're asking for a methodology implies that we're presuming some sort of rationale to it, or no methodology would be possible.

b) that methodological materialism or science can be used on the non material or that it can settle ontology

We've accepted that, which is why we want to see an alternative. We're not claiming philosophical naturalism has demonstrated the non-existence of a god, we're rejecting the claim in the absence of any justification.

c)That the ''supernatural'' is impervious to all of the methods of thinking we use in dealing with ''natural'' things ( that just smacks of proprietorialism.)

So what we need is a methodology, you say? What a great idea - crack on.

O.

I don't know whether I am saying we need a methodology since it seems to be another of these words being thrown about shamanically without due care and attention and as we have seen methodologies are in danger of being used to settle ontological questions .

Philosophical means of positing God are sound.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe it is a learned or gifted attribute. A skill. If we are not in the zone we don't have the skill, Does Satan masquerade as an Angel of light? It's in the Bible. Maybe the ability is an extension of the intuition of Good and Bad.

The entirely hypothetical, as yet undemonstrated intuition of "Good"^TM and "Bad"^TM, equally vaguely posited but unconfirmed "Satan"...

I think you have largely ignored my suggestion of the use of Ockham's razor. I suggest you read up again on Ockham's Razor.

In the absence of a methodology to determine any sort of likelihood, Ockham's razor cannot determine between equally unlikely possibilities.

I'm not sure how you establish a likely possibility here.
If they are equally unlikely are they not equally likely.
A leprechaun beaming an ersatz experience into the brain sounds like a supernatural conspiracy theory.......Ah says the philosophical naturalist. You aren't allowed to say that because that would be using naturalistic thinking.
Why is that not allowed?
I don't know says the PN'er.

Once again science does not settle ontology.

[jeremyp]

Maybe it is a learned or gifted attribute. A skill. If we are not in the zone we don't have the skill, Does Satan masquerade as an Angel of light? It's in the Bible. Maybe the ability is an extension of the intuition of Good and Bad.

Lots of maybes there.  How do you turn maybe into fact? 

I think you have largely ignored my suggestion of the use of Ockham's razor. I suggest you read up again on Ockham's Razor.

Let's run with that then.  I had an experience.  Either it was God, a telepathic leprechaun, Satan or my own subconscious imagination.  Ockham's razor tells us not to multiply entities unnecessarily.  That tells me to choose my own subconscious imagination as the most probable answer.

[jeremyp]

I don't know whether I am saying we need a methodology

No you don't but I am saying we do.

since it seems to be another of these words being thrown about shamanically without due care and attention and as we have seen methodologies are in danger of being used to settle ontological questions .

There's only one person who throws words about shamanically here.  He changes his screen name frequently, but it often starts with a V.

Philosophical means of positing God are sound.

Great, give us a sound philosophical means of positing God. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe it is a learned or gifted attribute. A skill. If we are not in the zone we don't have the skill, Does Satan masquerade as an Angel of light? It's in the Bible. Maybe the ability is an extension of the intuition of Good and Bad.

Lots of maybes there.  How do you turn maybe into fact? 

I think you have largely ignored my suggestion of the use of Ockham's razor. I suggest you read up again on Ockham's Razor.

Let's run with that then.  I had an experience.  Either it was God, a telepathic leprechaun, Satan or my own subconscious imagination.  Ockham's razor tells us not to multiply entities unnecessarily.  That tells me to choose my own subconscious imagination as the most probable answer.

yes but what prohibits God from being in your subconscious imagination, or the more powerful opponent of your evil leprechaun or Satan.

But since you positively assert God is the product of your subconscious imagination please provide proof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know whether I am saying we need a methodology

No you don't but I am saying we do.

since it seems to be another of these words being thrown about shamanically without due care and attention and as we have seen methodologies are in danger of being used to settle ontological questions .

There's only one person who throws words about shamanically here.  He changes his screen name frequently, but it often starts with a V.

Philosophical means of positing God are sound.

Great, give us a sound philosophical means of positing God.

You are kidding me. Even Dawkins thinks the God hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis, plantigna with his properly basic belief, fine tuning etc, etc, etc if you think those are not sound philosophically I think YOU need to get going.

[jeremyp]

But since you positively assert God is the product of your subconscious imagination please provide proof.

I didn't positively assert God is the product of my subconscious imagination, I asserted an experience I had was a product of my imagination, by applying Ockham's razor as you suggested. 

I'm sorry you don't like the results but you asked for it. 

[jeremyp]

You are kidding me. Even Dawkins thinks the God hypothesis is a valid scientific hypothesis, plantigna with his properly basic belief, fine tuning etc, etc, etc if you think those are not sound philosophically I think YOU need to get going.

I asked you to give me one, not tell me about other people who you think may have given one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But since you positively assert God is the product of your subconscious imagination please provide proof.

I didn't positively assert God is the product of my subconscious imagination, I asserted an experience I had was a product of my imagination, by applying Ockham's razor as you suggested. 

I'm sorry you don't like the results but you asked for it.

Well, let's go the whole hog and say it's all the product of our imaginations.

[jeremyp]

But since you positively assert God is the product of your subconscious imagination please provide proof.

I didn't positively assert God is the product of my subconscious imagination, I asserted an experience I had was a product of my imagination, by applying Ockham's razor as you suggested. 

I'm sorry you don't like the results but you asked for it.

Well, let's go the whole hog and say it's all the product of our imaginations.

So we end up with solipsism.  Can we agree now that Ockham's razor as a tool for discerning truth is not completely adequate.

[Outrider]

I don't know whether I am saying we need a methodology since it seems to be another of these words being thrown about shamanically without due care and attention and as we have seen methodologies are in danger of being used to settle ontological questions.

I don't think, in the current environment of only one methodology have been put forward, that we are in danger of having any plurality of methodologies inundate us with problems.

You want to justify a claim, you need a methodology, otherwise you just have an assertion. Your methodology can be logical deduction, it can be philosophical enquiry. Of course, neither of those has been sufficient to justify the claim in the thousands of years that people have been trying - nor are they sufficient to disprove it, I'll acknowledge, but we don't put the onus on the sceptic to prove their position until sufficient grounds to accept it have been proffered.

Philosophical means of positing God are sound.

I think you missed the bit where they did philosophy - naturalistic or otherwise.

Philosophically, as scientifically, god is an hypothesis that awaits confirmation.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know whether I am saying we need a methodology since it seems to be another of these words being thrown about shamanically without due care and attention and as we have seen methodologies are in danger of being used to settle ontological questions.

I don't think, in the current environment of only one methodology have been put forward, that we are in danger of having any plurality of methodologies inundate us with problems.

You want to justify a claim, you need a methodology, otherwise you just have an assertion. Your methodology can be logical deduction, it can be philosophical enquiry. Of course, neither of those has been sufficient to justify the claim in the thousands of years that people have been trying - nor are they sufficient to disprove it, I'll acknowledge, but we don't put the onus on the sceptic to prove their position until sufficient grounds to accept it have been proffered.

Philosophical means of positing God are sound.

I think you missed the bit where they did philosophy - naturalistic or otherwise.

Philosophically, as scientifically, god is an hypothesis that awaits confirmation.

O.

Ah so hypotheses exist outside the study of matter/energy.
So what you are saying is that it has the same status as philosophical naturalism.

[Outrider]

I'm not sure how you establish a likely possibility here. If they are equally unlikely are they not equally likely.

I don't, that's why they have to be considered equally unlikely.

A leprechaun beaming an ersatz experience into the brain sounds like a supernatural conspiracy theory.......

More or less so than a psychopathic deity that sacrifices its own avatar for hypothetical sins I've not yet commited, to forgive me for those sins, to then expect me to spend my life on my knees in worship and supplication apologising for those sins? (Satan was inside job!!!)

Once again science does not settle ontology.

Then, once again, give us a methodology that does.

O.

[Outrider]

Ah so hypotheses exist outside the study of matter/energy. So what you are saying is that it has the same status as philosophical naturalism.

I'm using the language I have. If you have different terms to use with your, as yet unspecified, methodology, then you'd need to share them with us.

Just in case, though, I won't hold my breath...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not sure how you establish a likely possibility here. If they are equally unlikely are they not equally likely.

I don't, that's why they have to be considered equally unlikely.

A leprechaun beaming an ersatz experience into the brain sounds like a supernatural conspiracy theory.......

More or less so than a psychopathic deity that sacrifices its own avatar for hypothetical sins I've not yet commited, to forgive me for those sins, to then expect me to spend my life on my knees in worship and supplication apologising for those sins? (Satan was inside job!!!)

Argumentum axe grindium.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah so hypotheses exist outside the study of matter/energy. So what you are saying is that it has the same status as philosophical naturalism.

I'm using the language I have. If you have different terms to use with your, as yet unspecified, methodology, then you'd need to share them with us.

Just in case, though, I won't hold my breath...

O.

So what you are saying is that philosophies positing God have the same status vis a vis being unconfirmed hypothesis as philosophical naturalism.

[jeremyp]

Ah so hypotheses exist outside the study of matter/energy. So what you are saying is that it has the same status as philosophical naturalism.

I'm using the language I have. If you have different terms to use with your, as yet unspecified, methodology, then you'd need to share them with us.

Just in case, though, I won't hold my breath...

O.

So what you are saying is that philosophies positing God have the same status vis a vis being unconfirmed hypothesis as philosophical naturalism.

No he's not saying that at all, he's asking you to define your terms and tell us what your methodology is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah so hypotheses exist outside the study of matter/energy. So what you are saying is that it has the same status as philosophical naturalism.

I'm using the language I have. If you have different terms to use with your, as yet unspecified, methodology, then you'd need to share them with us.

Just in case, though, I won't hold my breath...

O.

So what you are saying is that philosophies positing God have the same status vis a vis being unconfirmed hypothesis as philosophical naturalism.

No he's not saying that at all, he's asking you to define your terms and tell us what your methodology is.

Well if he isn't he should be.

Other than that, all you guys are asking for methodology. which incidently philosophical naturalism doesn't seem to have either.

I will venture that what we are seeing is the confusion between methodological materialism and philosophical naturalism attempted to be changed into a virtue.

Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.

[Outrider]

I'm not sure how you establish a likely possibility here. If they are equally unlikely are they not equally likely.

I don't, that's why they have to be considered equally unlikely.

A leprechaun beaming an ersatz experience into the brain sounds like a supernatural conspiracy theory.......

More or less so than a psychopathic deity that sacrifices its own avatar for hypothetical sins I've not yet commited, to forgive me for those sins, to then expect me to spend my life on my knees in worship and supplication apologising for those sins? (Satan was inside job!!!)

Argumentum axe grindium.

Rather than your "argumentum ad ridiculum (except mine, because mine's different)" special pleading?

O.