Speaking in 'tongues'

[Hope]

First, he'd have to trouble himself with providing a meaningful and coherent definition of this "god" of which he speaks, ...

That's been done by several people on this board before, so I wouldn't attempt to reinvent that particular wheel.

... and second he'd have to come up with a method or process to which any evidence could be applied - science does it with testing etc but I've no idea how he'd propose to apply any evidence he might eventually suggest to a claim of the supernatural.

Again, the methodology has been in existence for many centuries, but because it doesn't fit the scientific definitions that define your life, you can't see it. 

Depressingly so far at least he's failed to notice that a "don't know" (re a surprising medical cure for example) says nothing to a possible divine intervention, ...

but equally it says nothing against a divine intervention ...

[Shaker]

How many people do you know who have been conceived by a woman in the way Mary was supposed to have conceived Jesus? How many people who are genuinely dead have come to life again?

I assume that you are referring to human beings who are nothing but human?  Do you have any evidence that Jesus - who is of course the subject of this debate - was merely human?

Hope bingo - eyes down everybody!

[Outrider]

Again, the methodology has been in existence for many centuries, but because it doesn't fit the scientific definitions that define your life, you can't see it.

"Accept what you've been told because it's what your ancestors believed" is not a methodology. I've not seen a methodology that enables me to either accept the supernatural claims of a religion or differentiate between the claims of various religious groups.

Depressingly so far at least he's failed to notice that a "don't know" (re a surprising medical cure for example) says nothing to a possible divine intervention, ...

but equally it says nothing against a divine intervention ...

The burden of proof still lies on you or we can simply resort to 'we don't know'.

O.

[Hope]

S'funny - you've had the burden of proof issue explained to you many times, yet you continue to crash blithely through it with posts like this. Do you have any evidence that unicorns don't enjoy a nice chicken tikka masala on a Friday night?

But how do we know that the burden of proof that you adhere to actually matches reality?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hopester,

That's been done by several people on this board before, so I wouldn't attempt to reinvent that particular wheel.

Not only has it never been done on this board, it's never been done by anyone anywhere. That's why ignosticism exists - "god" is just so much white noise until and unless someone ever does provide a meaningful definition of the term.

Again, the methodology has been in existence for many centuries, but because it doesn't fit the scientific definitions that define your life, you can't see it.

Again, "faith" isn't a method of any kind - it's just an assertion of personal belief, which is why your faith in your god is no more a method for establishing that god than is anyone else's faith in any other god, and nor for that matter any more a method than my faith in unicorns. Even if any of us could define the members of the menagerie of spooks, gods ghouls and ghosties in which we separately believe should we then accept them all as true? And if not, why not?

...but equally it says nothing against a divine intervention ...

No-one says that it does, any more than it says anything against unicorn intervention. What it does tell us though is that your thinking in support of your claim - the argument from personal incredulity - is fundamentally flawed. Before Jenner no-one knew why milkmaids didn't get smallpox either - does that mean that a god did it with miracles, or just that the answer wasn't immediately to hand and so the only honest response was a "don't know"?

[jeremyp]

I assume that you are referring to human beings who are nothing but human?  Do you have any evidence that Jesus - who is of course the subject of this debate - was merely human?

Human females always give birth to humans.  This is an observed fact.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

But how do we know that the burden of proof that you adhere to actually matches reality?

You don't understand "burden of proof". It's not a description of reality - it's the logic by which it's for those who make claims to provide the proof for them, rather than for others to provide proof against (especially when the conjecture is framed in such a way as to be impervious to proof/disproof).

See "Russell's Teapot" for an analogy that may help you.

[Gordon]

A miracle can occur as a result of hard work, dedication, etc.  Take last night's Euro. qualifier between Scotland and Germany.  Had Scotland won that match, it would have been deemed a miracle by many; but that ignores the fact that the Scottish players would have put in an amazing performance, would have 'worked their socks off' and, unless there were a host of examples of good/bad luck, would have deserved that victory.

No it wouldn't - it would just have been the outcome of their 'amazing performance': stuff like skills, training, fitness and tactics - nothing miraculous there; just biology. Sadly history now shows that they lost.

The same goes for medicine; a doctor can come across a case or condtion that they have never seen before, and for which there is no written documentation, and as a result of dogged determination and - yes - by the application of science, perform a miracle.  In my view, miracles happen, on a daily basis, in the hospitals of this and other nations.  No two cases are identical, so no doctor can perform precisely the same procedure; they will always have to deal with individual elements that complicate things.  Medical science can tell them the outline, they then have to fill in the detail for themselves.

Nonsense - treatment is based on established knowledge and known effective practices (with the exception of designated research activities) and not this kind of filling in the blanks that you imagine is the case. I spent the first half of my career in clinical settings and attended countless case conferences, and in all the reviews and discussions the word 'miracle' was never mentioned once: on the other hand 'don't know', 'need more information', 'review in 3 months', 'repeat investigations' etc were regular comments.

Perhaps you could find some published papers in peer-reviewed medical journal in which a qualified medic writing about his or her medical activities argues that 'divine intervention' is a clinical possibility: I doubt you will find any, but you will find plenty of noted uncertainties along with 'further study is required into condition X'.

   

[Shaker]

Perhaps you could find some published papers in peer-reviewed medical journal in which a qualified medic writing about his or her medical activities argues that 'divine intervention' is a clinical possibility: I doubt you will find any, but you will find plenty of noted uncertainties along with 'further study is required into condition X'.

Even if he finds one we won't get to see the bloody thing!

[Shaker]

Has anybody else ever, in any other forum, seen the appeal to ignorance pressed into service quite as often by one person?

[Gordon]

Perhaps you could find some published papers in peer-reviewed medical journal in which a qualified medic writing about his or her medical activities argues that 'divine intervention' is a clinical possibility: I doubt you will find any, but you will find plenty of noted uncertainties along with 'further study is required into condition X'.

Even if he finds one we won't get to see the bloody thing!

He won't though, unless he descends into pseudo-science (and that doesn't count).

[Shaker]

Well, quite. Though it would be no surprise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I also explained why I could NOT provide any evidence, such as the fact that medical journals aren't very keen on publishing this kind of material, even when supported by medical records and my not having access to such records even when the patient has expressed a wiliingness to have them made public.

Ah, the usual old excuse! "I've got the evidence, but I can't show it to you."

And there was me thinking Jackanory finished years ago

There are some things that only we know ourselves. That should be blindingly obvious but these days of doubting the self, one wonders if it is.

If experiences are merely a matter of electricity theoretically they should be transferable in future and we could perhaps download them.

Would an atheist be happy to ''download'' a religious experience into their own brain?

[Shaker]

Would an atheist be happy to ''download'' a religious experience into their own brain?

Some atheists can already have them via gadgets like Michael Persinger's "God helmet."

[Leonard James]

The lack of any contrary evidence.

... that you are able to accept in view of your world-view.

Quite! I don't accept it for the same reason that I don't accept any other god stories.

You, on the other hand, seem quite willing to reject all other god stories in favour of your own, even though they have the same kind of "evidence".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Would an atheist be happy to ''download'' a religious experience into their own brain?

Some atheists can already have them via gadgets like Michael Persinger's "God helmet."

A crude device given exaggerated precision or accuracy by strawclutchers like yourself. which leaves one thinking why millions of people have had religious experiences of far superior quality without them.

Hardly an analogy for what I am suggesting.

[Shaker]

A crude device given exaggerated precision or accuracy by strawclutchers like yourself. which leaves one thinking why millions of people have had religious experiences of far superior quality without them.

Hardly an analogy for what I am suggesting.

Temporal lobe epilepsy is another factor - no gizmos required.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A crude device given exaggerated precision or accuracy by strawclutchers like yourself. which leaves one thinking why millions of people have had religious experiences of far superior quality without them.

Hardly an analogy for what I am suggesting.

Temporal lobe epilepsy is another factor - no gizmos required.

What about Low temporal lobe sensitivity?.................according to Persinger, Dawkins has it!!!!!!!!!!!

How ironic eh, Antitheists trying to say that Moses and Saul of Tarsus had Temporal lobe epilepsy...............When all the time Dawkins had measured low temporal sensitivity!!!!!!

What Larks!............sorry guys that certainly pisses on the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Bonfire.

[Shaker]

What about Low temporal lobe sensitivity?.................according to Persinger, Dawkins has it!!!!!!!!!!!


How ironic eh, Antitheists trying to say that Moses and Saul of Tarsus had Temporal lobe epilepsy...............When all the time Dawkins had measured low temporal sensitivity!!!!!!

A good thing, given what we already know about people who have temporal lobe "issues."

What Larks!............sorry guys that certainly pisses on the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Bonfire.

No it doesn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What about Low temporal lobe sensitivity?.................according to Persinger, Dawkins has it!!!!!!!!!!!


How ironic eh, Antitheists trying to say that Moses and Saul of Tarsus had Temporal lobe epilepsy...............When all the time Dawkins had measured low temporal sensitivity!!!!!!

A good thing, given what we already know about people who have temporal lobe "issues."

What Larks!............sorry guys that certainly pisses on the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Bonfire.

No it doesn't.

Oh yes it does. Anyone claiming that religion is merely Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is now countered with atheism/antitheism being merely Low Temporal lobe sensitivity.

[Shaker]

... which demonstrates that you are to knowledge of temporal lobe epilepsy and its manifestations as Stephen Hawking is to contemporary jazz dance.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... which demonstrates that you are to knowledge of temporal lobe epilepsy and its manifestations as Stephen Hawking is to contemporary jazz dance.

No, it demonstrates that Dawkins is to Temporal Lobe sensitivity as Stephen Hawking is to contemporary jazz dance.

[Outrider]

What about Low temporal lobe sensitivity?.................according to Persinger, Dawkins has it!!!!!!!!!!!

How ironic eh, Antitheists trying to say that Moses and Saul of Tarsus had Temporal lobe epilepsy...............When all the time Dawkins had measured low temporal sensitivity!!!!!!

What Larks!............sorry guys that certainly pisses on the Temporal Lobe Epilepsy Bonfire.

Not really. Yes lower temporal lobe activity is correlated with a lack of religious experience, by implication, as higher temporal lobe activity is correlated with religious experience.

However, the sensation has not been tied an actual event, still, so it's still effectively explanation of why that particular delusion or hallucination occurs.

In order to demonstrate that people were 'missing' out on an experience of an actual event because of temporal lobe insensitivity, you'd need to demonstrate by some other means that there was reason to think the religious activity to be sensed was real.

It's a little like saying that people that don't hear voices criticizing them in their own heads are suffering from low schizophrenia...

O.

[Leonard James]

Oh yes it does. Anyone claiming that religion is merely Temporal Lobe Epilepsy is now countered with atheism/antitheism being merely Low Temporal lobe sensitivity.

Which we've known all along! Theists are much more prone to "God" hallucinations than atheists are.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There are some things that only we know ourselves.

And there's your problem - only you "know" it. The problem though is that people with these private, subjective beliefs - in your god, in other gods, in the ghosts of their grandfathers, in unicorns for all I know - have a tendency to overreach by insisting that these are also objective, "true for you too" beliefs with no argument to take them from the former to the latter. 

By all means conclude that a universe-creating deity has been in touch if you want to. If you set the evidential bar low enough and that belief suits you, that's no-one's business but your own. The moment though that you insist that this god is objectively real for me too then you must also explain why none of the many naturalistic (but less thrilling) possible alternative explanations are more likely in your case, but are more likely in the cases of everyone who believes in supernatural "somethings" other than your own.

So far as I'm aware you've never shown any awareness of the problem, let alone attempted to address it. A problem it is though nonetheless - your conviction that your experience and your attribution of its cause is real but those of others about their gods, Napoleon talking to them on the bus etc are not is just that - a conviction - but one entirely unsupported by any sort of argument to support it.

And there's your problem.