Have you tried reading the NT in the correct order?

[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.

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

I'm saying that if you have a methodology, then conceivably your claims about gods could have a status equivalent to an hypothesis - in the absence of any explanation of a methodology, what you have is an assertion.

O.

[Outrider]

Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.

Presume that cause-to-effect is consistent.

Hypothesise on a given effect's cause. Simulate situation in which changes in causal mechanism can either be identified or controlled.

Post the results on the internet you've built on the findings of decades of that methodology for others to review looking for possible sources of error.

Validate or refute the hypothesis based on the outcome of the simulation.

Repeat.

Your turn.

O.

[jeremyp]

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.

No, we are seeing desperation on your part because you are using your big words in another attempt to wriggle out of the hole you have dug.

Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.

Why?  We have a methodology for telling true and false things apart in the natural world, all we need now is one for telling true and false things apart in the supernatural world.  When we have that, we will be able to decide if Jesus was raised or not and everybody will be happy. 

See how I managed to make that request without resorting to the pseudo philosophy you like?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

No, we are seeing desperation on your part because you are using your big words in another attempt to wriggle out of the hole you have dug.

Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.

Why?  We have a methodology for telling true and false things apart in the natural world, all we need now is one for telling true and false things apart in the supernatural world.  When we have that, we will be able to decide if Jesus was raised or not and everybody will be happy. 

See how I managed to make that request without resorting to the pseudo philosophy you like?

Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.

[jeremyp]

Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.

Aha.  The broken record trick.  Time to draw a close over this discussion.  It's clear you have nothing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.

Aha.  The broken record trick.  Time to draw a close over this discussion.  It's clear you have nothing.

That's all very well but please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism.

[Outrider]

Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.

Aha.  The broken record trick.  Time to draw a close over this discussion.  It's clear you have nothing.

That's all very well but please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism.

Already done - see above. Irrelevant to your claims, anyway. Please provide a method that will allow us to differentiate between an 'experience of a god' and an hallucination that you feel is 'an experience of god'.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.

Aha.  The broken record trick.  Time to draw a close over this discussion.  It's clear you have nothing.

That's all very well but please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism.

Already done - see above. Irrelevant to your claims, anyway. Please provide a method that will allow us to differentiate between an 'experience of a god' and an hallucination that you feel is 'an experience of god'.

O.

Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.

[Andy]

Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.

Yes, the confusion is yours as you've done this before. You're equating having a method for falsifying supernatural claims (MS) with having a method for philosophical supernaturalism (PS), and then trying to make this parallel with requiring a method for PN. Given, if you could supply a method for falsifying supernatural claims, then PN is false, but your attempt to play role reversal is a straw man.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.

Yes, the confusion is yours as you've done this before. You're equating having a method for falsifying supernatural claims (MS) with having a method for philosophical supernaturalism (PS), and then trying to make this parallel with requiring a method for PN. Given, if you could supply a method for falsifying supernatural claims, then PN is false, but your attempt to play role reversal is a straw man.

you said that as if it were a good thing.

You are conflating different issues. I have a problem with a methodology for the supernatural, they have a problem with a methodology for philosophical naturalism.
The lack of a methodology for supernaturalism does not absolve philosophical naturalism from having to have one lest it have the same status as ontological dualism or supernaturalism.

So given that....what is the methodology for philosophical naturalism?

[Andy]

Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.

Yes, the confusion is yours as you've done this before. You're equating having a method for falsifying supernatural claims (MS) with having a method for philosophical supernaturalism (PS), and then trying to make this parallel with requiring a method for PN. Given, if you could supply a method for falsifying supernatural claims, then PN is false, but your attempt to play role reversal is a straw man.

you said that as if it were a good thing.

You are conflating different issues. I have a problem with a methodology for the supernatural

Yes, but this is regarding a method to gauge the likelihood of supernatural claims, not supernaturalism.

they have a problem with a methodology for philosophical naturalism.

Yes, but not for a method to gauge the likelihood of naturalistic claims.

The lack of a methodology for supernaturalism does not absolve philosophical naturalism from having to have one lest it have the same status as ontological dualism or supernaturalism.

Correct.

So given that....what is the methodology for philosophical naturalism?

No idea. You could argue that there is a method based on PN (which is what I think Outrider is saying), but not one for PN.

Does this mean we can get back to you giving us a method based on PS?

[Outrider]

Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.

Aha.  The broken record trick.  Time to draw a close over this discussion.  It's clear you have nothing.

That's all very well but please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism.

Already done - see above. Irrelevant to your claims, anyway. Please provide a method that will allow us to differentiate between an 'experience of a god' and an hallucination that you feel is 'an experience of god'.

O.

Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.

Well here's your chance to kill two birds with one stone.

Seeing as how it's your turn to offer up something more than just more demands and questions (given that you're the one with the unsubstantiated claim of a god), and seeing as how you apparently have a clarity about what constitutes a methodology where we apparently don't...

How about you explain your methodology for establishing that your 'experience of a god' is not an hallucination.

O.

[jeremyp]

Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.

Only in your mind.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Please provide a methodology for philosophical naturalism. Since there seems to be some confusion between methodology and philosophy.

Only in your mind.

Please etc.

[Dicky Underpants]

I say: examine them both and subject them to phenomenological analysis. Then, you pays your money and... I've made my decision, and it would take something pretty earth-shattering to change my view now. "I've looked at life from both sides now..."

Sorry Pants I think we'd have to sort out such an analysis from philosophical naturalism and I am still puzzled by a focus on those who lose there faith as you seem to be saying they are somehow superior witnesses rather than Gumball machine theorists to put things bluntly.

I speak as I find, from my own analysis of my previous experience of a 'spiritual' viewpoint, and my present position of non-belief, accompanied by my reading of those who have also travelled the path from a belief in the supernatural (in its broadest sense) to a more naturalistic standpoint.
I have been particularly impressed by the testimony of Bishop Richard Holloway and his journey from belief in a supernatural God and traditional Christian view, to a more humanistic standpoint, often accompanied by a great deal of mental trauma in the process (there are a few others I could have mentioned who have followed similar paths). If you wish to denigrate such admirable people as "Gumball machine theorists", then you might do well to attend to your own "Christian witness", which has for a long time degenerated into word salad, peppered with such phrases as "philosophical naturalism" as an all-purpose spice.
To continue the food analogy, in the words of Jesus (which I quote as best I can from memory):
"If a man ask you for an egg, would you give him a scorpion:
if he ask you for bread, would you give him a stone?"
The words of Richard Holloway certainly give people something nutritious to chew on.
Whereas the sterile pseudo-academics of our Vlad are simply a  mouthful of gravel, at best.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

No, we are seeing desperation on your part because you are using your big words in another attempt to wriggle out of the hole you have dug.

Methodology for philosophical naturalism please.

Why?  We have a methodology for telling true and false things apart in the natural world, all we need now is one for telling true and false things apart in the supernatural world.  When we have that, we will be able to decide if Jesus was raised or not and everybody will be happy. 

See how I managed to make that request without resorting to the pseudo philosophy you like?

And did so very well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I say: examine them both and subject them to phenomenological analysis. Then, you pays your money and... I've made my decision, and it would take something pretty earth-shattering to change my view now. "I've looked at life from both sides now..."

Sorry Pants I think we'd have to sort out such an analysis from philosophical naturalism and I am still puzzled by a focus on those who lose there faith as you seem to be saying they are somehow superior witnesses rather than Gumball machine theorists to put things bluntly.

I speak as I find, from my own analysis of my previous experience of a 'spiritual' viewpoint, and my present position of non-belief, accompanied by my reading of those who have also travelled the path from a belief in the supernatural (in its broadest sense) to a more naturalistic standpoint.
I have been particularly impressed by the testimony of Bishop Richard Holloway and his journey from belief in a supernatural God and traditional Christian view, to a more humanistic standpoint, often accompanied by a great deal of mental trauma in the process (there are a few others I could have mentioned who have followed similar paths). If you wish to denigrate such admirable people as "Gumball machine theorists", then you might do well to attend to your own "Christian witness", which has for a long time degenerated into word salad, peppered with such phrases as "philosophical naturalism" as an all-purpose spice.
To continue the food analogy, in the words of Jesus (which I quote as best I can from memory):
"If a man ask you for an egg, would you give him a scorpion:
if he ask you for bread, would you give him a stone?"
The words of Richard Holloway certainly give people something nutritious to chew on.
Whereas the sterile pseudo-academics of our Vlad are simply a  mouthful of gravel, at best.

You have me at a disadvantage. I am only familiar with Holloway's contribution to a work called Priestlands progress which is over 30 years old now. That he has made the transition from supernaturalism to naturalism suggests he has leapt a fence. It would be interested in his motivations.

I have no idea what you are talking about and as such it is probably respectful not to say more than you are, like an evangelical commending a personal experience. I'm certainly interested in hearing both it and why you think it is more valid than a conversion to Christianity.

Others on this board do strike me as Gumball theorists. Naturalism on the whole for me is an arbitrary position in terms of it's ruling out and materialism either has no way of establishing itself as true other than a circular argument. That seems to me as true without resort to emotions etc.

[Alien]

But you and others seem to be suggesting that it could have been a trick (that is what you are suggesting, isn't it?).  If so then you must surely have some reason for so suggesting.

I'm suggesting that it's a possibility, and that given that we have other instances of well-witnessed events of seemingly impossible things being perpetrated, that it's a more likely explanation than an actual resurrection.

If you don't know it is possible to pull off such a trick, why suggest it was a trick? You are claiming it was something you don't seem to really believe yourself.

You don't know it's possible to resurrect yourself after incarnating yourself in a sacrificial avatar, but you accept it as the best explanation... Essentially, all deceptions of this kind require a set-up to make you think you know what's going to happen, a distraction where the deception is either out of sight or out of your line of attention, and then a reveal.

Help me here.

You'd need to talk to professional magicians to get inside secrets like that, but I don't need to demonstrate exactly how - it's conceivable, easily, and it's a more likely explanation than actual resurrection.

You keep saying it is "a more likely explanation", but don't back it up with anything substantial. If you really think it could have been a trick then you need to explain how it could have happened rather than (metaphorically) wave your hands in the air and say it is conceivable. It is conceivable that it was (a) God. We need to go beyond what is conceivable. I (and millions of others across the centuries) have seen the evidence that it was God raising Jesus from the dead. You are suggesting a 1st century Derren Brown as a concept, but no more.

That's before we get to the possibility that the entire story is apocryphal in the first place - that's probably less likely than people of the time genuinely thinking they saw it, but more likely than someone coming back to life after two days of being actually dead.

O.

Again you say it is "more likely", but again no evidence.

[Alien]

Why do you think the gorilla experiment has got anything to do with whether individual and groups of people on a dozen or so occasions met up with, talked with and sometimes at with someone they were convinced was the same Jesus who had been killed by crucifixion a few days earlier?

I linked it to the crucifixion specifically, as an example that people paying full attention and focussing on particular elements can miss pertinent details.

Witnesses concerned about how Jesus was doing could have been watching his face, his demeanour and not noticed someone doing something else, something deceptive.

Like what?

Even if we presume the physical events of the crucifixion happened as they're described by people who genuinely believe those were the events, that doesn't mean that's what actually happened.

Agreed, but what better explanation is there? If you think there is one, please tell us and make it more than a concept.

People are not reliable witnesses at the best of times, in emotional times like a crucifixion, even less so. That's not a judgment on the purported integrity of the eye-witnesses, it's a well-validated finding about human perception and memory.

O.

On a dozen separate occasions, the individuals and groups would all have to be wrong. What about the tomb? Your theory does not account for the empty tomb?

[Outrider]

Why do you think the gorilla experiment has got anything to do with whether individual and groups of people on a dozen or so occasions met up with, talked with and sometimes at with someone they were convinced was the same Jesus who had been killed by crucifixion a few days earlier?

I linked it to the crucifixion specifically, as an example that people paying full attention and focussing on particular elements can miss pertinent details.

Witnesses concerned about how Jesus was doing could have been watching his face, his demeanour and not noticed someone doing something else, something deceptive.

Like what?

I don't know, I wasn't there.

Even if we presume the physical events of the crucifixion happened as they're described by people who genuinely believe those were the events, that doesn't mean that's what actually happened.

Agreed, but what better explanation is there? If you think there is one, please tell us and make it more than a concept.

A combination of mistaken people, deliberate deception and post-event exaggeration seems the most likely option - we just need to look at the rise of Mormonism to see how it happens. I don't have specifics, but I don't need specifics - deceptive people with vested interests and a credulous public coupled with selective editing at later dates is far more likely than actual magic.

On a dozen separate occasions, the individuals and groups would all have to be wrong. What about the tomb? Your theory does not account for the empty tomb?

We don't know there was an empty tomb. We don't know that there was a Jesus, there are only references to a cult following him outside of the New Testament. Expert analysis suggests that it's likely he existed, I appreciate, and that some of the accounts were written within living memory of his death, but whilst there's enough evidence to suggest he probably existed there's certainly nothing strong enough to support the contention that the normal operation of physical laws was suspended.

That's an extraordinary claim, and it requires more support than is being offered. That doesn't disprove the claim, but it's not enough to justify it.

O.

[jeremyp]

It is conceivable that it was (a) God. We need to go beyond what is conceivable.

How do you go beyond what is conceivable?  If it is not conceivable, by definition, you cannot conceive of it.

I (and millions of others across the centuries) have seen the evidence that it was God raising Jesus from the dead.

No you haven't.  You read a story in a book.

You are suggesting a 1st century Derren Brown as a concept, but no more.

That's a new one: argument ad boring.

That's before we get to the possibility that the entire story is apocryphal in the first place - that's probably less likely than people of the time genuinely thinking they saw it, but more likely than someone coming back to life after two days of being actually dead.

O.

Again you say it is "more likely", but again no evidence.

Why do you not accept the well known fact that dead people do not come alive as evidence?

[Nearly Sane]

I (and millions of others across the centuries) have seen the evidence that it was God raising Jesus from the dead.

  You may well be as bored as I am about me raising this BUT I know of evidence in terms of science, law and history, all of which are methodologically naturalistic. What is this use of the word for a supernatural claim and what is your methodology for determining it? Will you even attempt to answer this, or as you have done continually obfuscate and evade?

[Gordon]

It is conceivable that it was (a) God.

Not on the basis of these anecdotes, and since we are talking anecdotes that are indistinguishable from fiction (e.g. there is a risk that, for example, the 'empty tomb' bit isn't actually true) then it is far more conceivable that it is people.

I (and millions of others across the centuries) have seen the evidence that it was God raising Jesus from the dead. You are suggesting a 1st century

You haven't seen evidence - you've just encountered, and taken far too seriously, what credulous people in antiquity who were steeped in religiosity said about someone whose divine claims they were no doubt committed to - but what they said is now known to be impossible.

Therefore their claims can be dismissed and are best seen as being a symptom of their time, place and culture.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I (and millions of others across the centuries) have seen the evidence that it was God raising Jesus from the dead.

  You may well be as bored as I am about me raising this BUT I know of evidence in terms of science, law and history, all of which are methodologically naturalistic. What is this use of the word for a supernatural claim and what is your methodology for determining it? Will you even attempt to answer this, or as you have done continually obfuscate and evade?

But a raising from the dead must also be a material event............

Bad luck son.

[Nearly Sane]

So Vlad provides no methodology again. Nul points