Speaking in 'tongues'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Other than history as it is taught in all UK universities being methodologically naturalistic. Got a supernatural history method, Vlad?

Again. History doesn't reject accounts of unique events Nearly even if they don't fit in with what is considered natural.

History as a method and a subject does. Do you have a method of doing history other than is taught at all British universities? If you do, please outline.

How does it do that( reject unique event records which do not fit into the term natural )without undermining it's own method which is the study of unique events as well as ceremonial ones?

What is special about British universities?

Can you stop lying about what I say? I didn’t say it rejects unique events, just that it is methodologically naturalistic. As to British universities, nothing special, just the places I understand because I got my degrees there.

Any method for the supernatural from a British or other university in history?

No, I have already stated that history does not reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea of ''natural'' since that undermines the method of history which is to study recorded events....although academic freedom does permit that.

Therefore you have to justify what is naturalistic about history.

History has no method for saying whether the cause of the events was God since that is a question of faith and theology.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The sneeze I just made is historically unique, but not supernatural.

yes it is historically unique as is the resurrection.

[Nearly Sane]

The sneeze I just made is historically unique, but not supernatural.

yes it is historically unique as is the resurrection.

Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?


You have just said the resurrection is a sneeze.


BTW any method yet? Which you avoided even looking by omission?

[Gordon]

No, I have already stated that history does not reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea of ''natural'' since that undermines the method of history which is to study recorded events....although academic freedom does permit that.

They (historians) would, however, if not rejecting them outright, be extremely cautious of records involving post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance that involve making fantastic claims in view of the risks of human artifice.

I've yet to see a theist here address these risks without resorted to special pleading - perhaps you might buck the trend. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The sneeze I just made is historically unique, but not supernatural.

yes it is historically unique as is the resurrection.

Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?


You have just said the resurrection is a sneeze.


BTW any method yet? Which you avoided even looking by omission?

First of all the method of determining whether something is supernatural is if naturalism doesn't cover it.
What is good/bad, right or wrong within the supernatural is intuitive just like moral intuition.

I have said the resurrection is a sneeze? Where did that happen?

As for this gem.

''Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?''

Who can doubt it's intellectual power?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I have already stated that history does not reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea of ''natural'' since that undermines the method of history which is to study recorded events....although academic freedom does permit that.

They would, however, if not rejecting them outright, be extremely cautious of records involving post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance that involve making fantastic claims in view of the risks of human artifice.
 

And they would be free to do that.........

[Shaker]

First of all the method of determining whether something is supernatural is if naturalism doesn't cover it.

So supernatural = whatever can't currently be explained at the moment, which sounds suspiciously like a variant on Hope's dearly beloved negative proof fallacy.

Sure about that, Vlad?

[Nearly Sane]

The sneeze I just made is historically unique, but not supernatural.

yes it is historically unique as is the resurrection.

Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?


You have just said the resurrection is a sneeze.


BTW any method yet? Which youit avoided even looking by omission?

First of all the method of determining whether something is supernatural is if naturalism doesn't cover it.
What is good/bad, right or wrong within the supernatural is intuitive just like moral intuition.

I have said the resurrection is a sneeze? Where did that happen?

As for this gem.

''Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?''

Who can doubt it's intellectual power?

It's its.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First of all the method of determining whether something is supernatural is if naturalism doesn't cover it.

So supernatural = whatever can't currently be explained at the moment, which sounds supiciously like Hope's dearly beloved negative proof fallacy.

Sure about that, Vlad?

yes Shaker but aren't you assuming that naturalism will eventually explain everything?
Aren't the boundaries of naturalism already set Shaker?

[Shaker]

yes Shaker

Thought so. Glad you agree.

but aren't you assuming that naturalism will eventually explain everything?

No.

But if a naturalistic paradigm can't nothing else can, because there's no other methodology capable of explaining anything, let alone everything.

You'll find a few oddballs who think there is, but as soon as you ask them to provide it they suddenly have other stuff to do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The sneeze I just made is historically unique, but not supernatural.

yes it is historically unique as is the resurrection.

Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?


You have just said the resurrection is a sneeze.


BTW any method yet? Which youit avoided even looking by omission?

First of all the method of determining whether something is supernatural is if naturalism doesn't cover it.
What is good/bad, right or wrong within the supernatural is intuitive just like moral intuition.

I have said the resurrection is a sneeze? Where did that happen?

As for this gem.

''Do you subscribe to the magazine 'How I make myself look like a moron' available in 987 parts, first part on sale for 7/6, or is it just a natural talent?''

Who can doubt it's intellectual power?

It's its.

D'oh.

[Andy]

First of all the method of determining whether something is supernatural is if naturalism doesn't cover it.

What kind of sneaked in bullshit is this? I take it you're going to go down the road of naturalism doesn't cover itself therefore super god? You make an absolute nonsense of what it means to describe anything as natural if all you do is have the supernatural supersede everything.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

yes Shaker

Thought so. Glad you agree.

but aren't you assuming that naturalism will eventually explain everything?

No.

But if a naturalistic paradigm can't nothing else can, because there's no other methodology capable of explaining anything, let alone everything.

But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.

[Shaker]

But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.

Quite predictably nobody even mentioned philosophical naturalism but you, Vladdypops.

[Andy]

yes Shaker

Thought so. Glad you agree.

but aren't you assuming that naturalism will eventually explain everything?

No.

But if a naturalistic paradigm can't nothing else can, because there's no other methodology capable of explaining anything, let alone everything.

But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.

Which is a big own goal as it's an indirect admission that you have no method for falsifying the supernatural.

[Gordon]

No, I have already stated that history does not reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea of ''natural'' since that undermines the method of history which is to study recorded events....although academic freedom does permit that.

They would, however, if not rejecting them outright, be extremely clautious of records involving post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance that involve making fantastic claims in view of the risks of human artifice.
 

And they would be free to do that.........

So, if the historical method as applied by professional historians regarded the NT accounts that Alan sets so much store by (empty tomb and Jesus interacting with other having been previously dead) as being inadequate as evidence of the historical fact of the resurrection claim then it becomes more likely that we are dealing with the human as opposed to the divine - would you agree?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.

Quite predictably nobody even mentioned philosophical naturalism but you, Vladdypops.

Shaker. Your implicit and explicit collection of views actually has a name you know. Do you want them not to because you are operating undercover or something.?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I have already stated that history does not reject records of events which do not fit a philosophical naturalists idea of ''natural'' since that undermines the method of history which is to study recorded events....although academic freedom does permit that.

They would, however, if not rejecting them outright, be extremely clautious of records involving post-hoc anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance that involve making fantastic claims in view of the risks of human artifice.
 

And they would be free to do that.........

So, if the historical method as applied by professional historians regarded the NT accounts that Alan sets so much store by (empty tomb and Jesus interacting with other having been previously dead) as being inadequate as evidence of the historical fact of the resurrection claim then it becomes more likely that we are dealing with the human as opposed to the divine - would you agree?

Well one has to decide whether the accounts were written as reportage or myth or fiction and to establish the choice as far as I know historians collectively are of the general opinion that the Christian community at this time were ''sincere in their belief''.

The moment one makes a decision on whether it was a divine or not or whether it wasn't made up, one has strayed out of history and into anthropology, psychology, sociology, ''common sense'' etc.

[Shaker]

But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.

Quite predictably nobody even mentioned philosophical naturalism but you, Vladdypops.

Shaker. Your implicit and explicit collection of views actually has a name you know.

Let me guess: is it shamanistic Brobat philosophically naturalist intellectually totalitarian materialist Stalinism, by any chance?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

yes Shaker

Thought so. Glad you agree.

but aren't you assuming that naturalism will eventually explain everything?

No.

But if a naturalistic paradigm can't nothing else can, because there's no other methodology capable of explaining anything, let alone everything.

But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.

Which is a big own goal as it's an indirect admission that you have no method for falsifying the supernatural.

you have elevated science (The naturalistic method) to be the only source of truth. That is a leap of faith since the naturalistic method doesn't establish that.
Of course either that is the truth or it isn't. But the method doesn't cover it.

Does that mean we can never know? What's to stop us knowing it?

I don't recall the inability to falsify something means that thing cannot be merely that it is not subjectable to science.

[Andy]

yes Shaker

Thought so. Glad you agree.

but aren't you assuming that naturalism will eventually explain everything?

No.

But if a naturalistic paradigm can't nothing else can, because there's no other methodology capable of explaining anything, let alone everything.

But that doesn't help you because there is no methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism.

Which is a big own goal as it's an indirect admission that you have no method for falsifying the supernatural.

you have elevated science (The naturalistic method) to be the only source of truth. That is a leap of faith since the naturalistic method doesn't establish that.
Of course either that is the truth or it isn't. But the method doesn't cover it.

Does that mean we can never know? What's to stop us knowing it?

I don't recall the inability to falsify something means that thing cannot be merely that it is not subjectable to science.

Back to lying about what people say. Well it's either that or you're ignorant or stupid.

I think you should head back under your bridge.

[Gordon]

Well one has to decide whether the accounts were written as reportage or myth or fiction and to establish the choice as far as I know historians collectively are of the general opinion that the Christian community at this time were ''sincere in their belief''.

How do you decide, since sincerity alone does confirm that what is sincerely believed is factually true: people can be genuinely mistaken or be misled. Moreover, if sincerity were a determinant of truth then, for instance, you'd have to regard, say, the suite of Roman gods that were sincerely believed in as having the same truth basis as Christians regard their version - do you?     

The moment one makes a decision on whether it was a divine or not or whether it wasn't made up, one has strayed out of history and into anthropology, psychology, sociology, ''common sense'' etc.

So you're saying that history has no commonality with anthropology, psychology or sociology?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well one has to decide whether the accounts were written as reportage or myth or fiction and to establish the choice as far as I know historians collectively are of the general opinion that the Christian community at this time were ''sincere in their belief''.

How do you decide, since sincerity alone does confirm that what is sincerely believed is factually true: people can be genuinely mistaken or be misled. Moreover, if sincerity were a determinant of truth then, for instance, you'd have to regard, say, the suite of Roman gods that were sincerely believed in as having the same truth basis as Christians regard their version - do you?     

The moment one makes a decision on whether it was a divine or not or whether it wasn't made up, one has strayed out of history and into anthropology, psychology, sociology, ''common sense'' etc.

So you re saying that history has no commonality with anthropology, psychology or sociology?

Nope why should I be?
I agree with much of the rest of your post. I think comparing Christian sincerity with roman religious sincerity is straying a bit since the roman pantheon was apparently not interactive physically in the same way as the Christian God was reported to be at this time and it is the Christian account of a historical event that is in question.

[Gordon]

Well one has to decide whether the accounts were written as reportage or myth or fiction and to establish the choice as far as I know historians collectively are of the general opinion that the Christian community at this time were ''sincere in their belief''.

How do you decide, since sincerity alone does confirm that what is sincerely believed is factually true: people can be genuinely mistaken or be misled. Moreover, if sincerity were a determinant of truth then, for instance, you'd have to regard, say, the suite of Roman gods that were sincerely believed in as having the same truth basis as Christians regard their version - do you?     

The moment one makes a decision on whether it was a divine or not or whether it wasn't made up, one has strayed out of history and into anthropology, psychology, sociology, ''common sense'' etc.

So you re saying that history has no commonality with anthropology, psychology or sociology?

Nope why should I be?
I agree with much of the rest of your post. I think comparing Christian sincerity with roman religious sincerity is straying a bit since the roman pantheon was apparently not interactive physically in the same way as the Christian God was reported to be at this time and it is the Christian account of a historical event that is in question.

Which sounds like special pleading in favour of the sincerity of Christians being somehow a superior example of sincerity, and you are also presuming that there was an 'event' to be sincere about - how have you excluded the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT accounts of this alleged event?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well one has to decide whether the accounts were written as reportage or myth or fiction and to establish the choice as far as I know historians collectively are of the general opinion that the Christian community at this time were ''sincere in their belief''.

How do you decide, since sincerity alone does confirm that what is sincerely believed is factually true: people can be genuinely mistaken or be misled. Moreover, if sincerity were a determinant of truth then, for instance, you'd have to regard, say, the suite of Roman gods that were sincerely believed in as having the same truth basis as Christians regard their version - do you?     

The moment one makes a decision on whether it was a divine or not or whether it wasn't made up, one has strayed out of history and into anthropology, psychology, sociology, ''common sense'' etc.

So you re saying that history has no commonality with anthropology, psychology or sociology?

Nope why should I be?
I agree with much of the rest of your post. I think comparing Christian sincerity with roman religious sincerity is straying a bit since the roman pantheon was apparently not interactive physically in the same way as the Christian God was reported to be at this time and it is the Christian account of a historical event that is in question.

Which sounds like special pleading in favour of the sincerity of Christians being somehow a superior example of sincerity, and you are also presuming that there was an 'event' to be sincere about - how have you excluded the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT accounts of this alleged event?

Nowhere have I given any judgment over the level of sincerity of belief. I merely point out that the Christians believed a substantial physical and historical event had taken place.

 In a discussion about historical events, why compare a historical event with a theological position Gordon?