Speaking in 'tongues'

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Only some historians reject the resurrection out of hand but the reasons are not likely to be historical.

They’re “historical” because the story offers nothing with which the methods of academic history can engage, and they’re rational because it’s just a myth.

If you are arguing that History is now coopted to the naturalist movement then historians are now straight jacketed by the dogma.

It’s not “co-opted to the naturalistic movement” – it is naturalistic. It cannot be otherwise because those who assert supernatural phenomena never offer a method of any kind to test those claims with which history – or any other discipline – could engage. They’re only “straighjacketed” therefore if you also think that they – and you – are straighjacketed from grasping the true wonder of leprechauns too.

That is just a naturalists wankfantasy of Bluehillsidian proportions.

Masking your deep stupidity with vulgarity doesn’t remove that stupidity.

How’s it coming by the way with you finally attempting to propose a method to distinguish your claims from mistake, delusion, deception etc? Surely after all these years of asking you for it you must have something by now?

Anything?

A working draft maybe?

Vlad?

[Shaker]

How’s it coming by the way with you finally attempting to propose a method to distinguish your claims from mistake, delusion, deception etc? Surely after all these years of asking you for it you must have something by now?

Anything?

A working draft maybe?

Vlad?

He could always ask Hoppity and Alien for help - they claim such a methodology exists.

Never provided it, mind; they always seem to be busy.

[Spud]

Floo

It's all in John 16 and Acts 2. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's no decision to make.  Resurrection is an impossibility unless you admit the existence of a deity or similarly powerful supernatural entity.  As soon as we admit the existence of a deity, we lose all power to reason about the World because we only have naturalistic methodologies to determine what is true and what is not true.

You could always try asking for a supernatural methodol ... oh, no, wait: forget it.

or a methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism. Should be easy if it's right.

[jeremyp]

There's no decision to make.  Resurrection is an impossibility unless you admit the existence of a deity or similarly powerful supernatural entity.  As soon as we admit the existence of a deity, we lose all power to reason about the World because we only have naturalistic methodologies to determine what is true and what is not true.

You could always try asking for a supernatural methodol ... oh, no, wait: forget it.

or a methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism. Should be easy if it's right.

I know it's hard for you, but please to to focus on the problem at hand. The problem being that, if you want to treat the resurrection as a historical event, you need to find some methodology for dealing with the supernatural that can then be incorporated into the historical method. 

At various times you, Alan and Hope have claimed that such a methodology exists, but for some strange reason you always try to deflect attention when we ask you what it is. I'm beginning to suspect you are all lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

or a methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism. Should be easy if it's right.

Been done many times, but always falls on deaf ears because of your misunderstanding of the term.

Yet another evasion of the question you always run from noted by the way. As we know you'll never answer it and that you'll never even tell us why you won't answer it, how about instead just telling us whether you even understand the question and the problem it gives you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

or a methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism. Should be easy if it's right.

Been done many times, but always falls on deaf ears because of your misunderstanding of the term.

Yet another evasion of the question you always run from noted by the way. As we know you'll never answer it and that you'll never even tell us why you won't answer it, how about instead just telling us whether you even understand the question and the problem it gives you?

Sorry can you give me a brief summary of how it is establish because myself and billions of people in the world have or would have if they visited this site a distinct impression that you are bullshitting.

[Leonard James]

I know it's hard for you, but please to focus on the problem at hand. The problem being that, if you WANT to treat the resurrection as a historical event, you need to find some methodology work dealing with the supernatural that can then be incorporated into the historical method. 


At various times you, Alan and Hope have claimed that such a methodology exists, but for some strange reason you always try to deflect attention when we ask you what it is. I'm beginning to suspect you are all lying.

Once again, Jeremy, I don't think they are lying ... they really believe it is there but it just hasn't been found yet.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

or a methodology for establishing philosophical naturalism. Should be easy if it's right.

Been done many times, but always falls on deaf ears because of your misunderstanding of the term.

Yet another evasion of the question you always run from noted by the way. As we know you'll never answer it and that you'll never even tell us why you won't answer it, how about instead just telling us whether you even understand the question and the problem it gives you?

Sorry can you give me a brief summary of how it is establish because myself and billions of people in the world have or would have if they visited this site a distinct impression that you are bullshitting.

And you know for fact that BILLIONS of people would have that impression do you?

Coming from the Queen of Bovine Efflux herself that's a compliment indeed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry can you give me a brief summary of how it is establish because myself and billions of people in the world have or would have if they visited this site a distinct impression that you are bullshitting.

The rationale for philosophical naturalism, or for your misunderstanding of what it entails? I can do the former again readily, but no-one can help you with the latter.

Tell you what - I'll explain it to you on condition you finally attempt a method to distinguish your claims for the supernatural from mistake, delusion, deception etc.

Deal?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Sorry can you give me a brief summary of how it is establish because myself and billions of people in the world have or would have if they visited this site a distinct impression that you are bullshitting.

The rationale for philosophical naturalism, or for your misunderstanding of what it entails? I can do the former again readily, but no-one can help you with the latter.

How does the rationale for philosophical naturalism translate into it therefore being proved correct rather than at base a circular argument?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How does the rationale for philosophical naturalism translate into it therefore being proved correct rather than at base a circular argument?

Prove what it actually means or prove your misunderstanding of what it means?

Anyway, what about the deal?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

How does the rationale for philosophical naturalism translate into it therefore being proved correct rather than at base a circular argument?

Prove what it actually means or prove your misunderstanding of what it means?

Anyway, what about the deal?

I'm always pretty careful when dealing with accountants.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm always pretty careful when dealing with accountants.

I'll take that to mean:

1. You'll never answer the question.

2. You'll never tell us why you won't answer the question.

3. You have no understanding of the question, and no of why it causes "assertion as fact" schtick such a problem.

Ah well. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I'm always pretty careful when dealing with accountants.

I'll take that to mean:

1. You'll never answer the question.

2. You'll never tell us why you won't answer the question.

3. You have no understanding of the question, and no of why it causes "assertion as fact" schtick such a problem.

Ah well.

or 4. positive assertions come with burden of proof. There is no hierarchy of response.

5. I don't know that I can give you anything that you will recognise as a method and therefore I am not actually offering one.

6. You claim that philosophical naturalism is the established truth. The burden of proof on that positive assertion is yours
therefore points 4 and 5 considered it is up to you because you seem to be the only person claiming something.

[Shaker]

5. I don't know that I can give you anything that you will recognise as a method and therefore I am not actually offering one.

I'll give you this much Vladdypops; you earn full marks for a sincere and honest answer to the point, which is more than we've ever had from Hope and Alien who still squirm and writhe like greased snakes and who rely either on saying that the methodology has already been provided somewhere else, once, somewhere, some other time so it doesn't have to be provided again (Hope) or suddenly finding that they have something urgent to do at that very moment (Alien).

It holes any case you might ever once have thought you had below the waterline, of course; all of your claims and assertions can be blithely ignored because by your own admission you won't provide any method by which the claims can be assessed to be real as opposed to mistake, delusion, deception etc. But at least you're honest about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

5. I don't know that I can give you anything that you will recognise as a method and therefore I am not actually offering one.

I'll give you this much Vladdypops; you earn full marks for a sincere and honest answer to the point, which is more than we've ever had from Hope and Alien who still squirm and writhe like greased snakes and who rely either on saying that the methodology has already been provided somewhere else, once, somewhere, some other time so it doesn't have to be provided again (Hope) or suddenly finding that they have something urgent to do at that very moment (Alien).

It holes any case you might ever once have thought you had below the waterline, of course; all of your claims and assertions can be blithely ignored because by your own admission you won't provide any method by which the claims can be assessed to be real as opposed to mistake, delusion, deception etc. But at least you're honest about it.

But you are still missing the elephant in the room Shaker. The method only applies to science and so the method itself has shortcomings in it's ability to assess claims! For example it has nothing to contribute about the unfalsifiable.

And as it only applies to science there is no method to establish philosophical naturalism.

Religious knowledge is intuited and then, on sharing that knowledge areas of agreement form.

Also once the ''supernatural'' has been accessed or revealed then one applies reason also.

Atheists who are also moral realists will recognise the above, yes I'm going to use the word methodologies since they would agree that they intuit moral truth and  areas of agreement form.


But lets turn things around Shaker......given there is no methodology to establish Philosophical naturalism:

How do you know you are not mistaken about philosophical naturalism, or deluded about it, or deceived about it?

[jeremyp]

Religious knowledge is intuited

So it is just guesswork.

Also once the ''supernatural'' has been accessed or revealed

The problem with that is, by your own admission, there's no way to tell whether the supernatural has been accessed, revealed or just imagined.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Religious knowledge is intuited

So it is just guesswork.

Also once the ''supernatural'' has been accessed or revealed

The problem with that is, by your own admission, there's no way to tell whether the supernatural has been accessed, revealed or just imagined.

No I have said that if there is no naturalistic explanation for something experienced then we have experienced the supernatural.

I guess by natural I mean what you guys believe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Religious knowledge is intuited

So it is just guesswork.

Also once the ''supernatural'' has been accessed or revealed

The problem with that is, by your own admission, there's no way to tell whether the supernatural has been accessed, revealed or just imagined.

There's no way to tell that this is merely a natural universe.

[jeremyp]

Religious knowledge is intuited

So it is just guesswork.

Also once the ''supernatural'' has been accessed or revealed

The problem with that is, by your own admission, there's no way to tell whether the supernatural has been accessed, revealed or just imagined.

No I have said that if there is no naturalistic explanation for something experienced then we have experienced the supernatural.

You said you didn't have a methodology for telling if something is supernatural earlier, so you can't tell if any experience you have is supernatural.

[Hope]

Things which we take for granted these days, like being able to talk to people the other side of the world instantly, or sending people into space, for instance, would have been considered supernatural 200 years ago.

Would they?  Surely supernatural is applied to events/situations that are experienced, something that wouldn't apply to telephonic conversations or space-travel 200 years ago (similar to ideas that Leonardo de Vinci had posited through technical drawings some 300 years earlier). 

After all 'science fiction' writing can be traced back to 'The Arabian Nights' (circa 10th century), even Lucian's 2nd century work 'True History'.  Were what was portrayed in these regarded as 'supernatural'.

[Leonard James]

Things which we take for granted these days, like being able to talk to people the other side of the world instantly, or sending people into space, for instance, would have been considered supernatural 200 years ago.

Would they?  Surely supernatural is applied to events/situations that are experienced, something that wouldn't apply to telephonic conversations or space-travel 200 years ago.

Wouldn't it? Before the telephone was invented, talking with somebody on the other side of the planet would probably have been considered a 'supernatural' ability, men walking on the moon even moreso.

[Hope]

There's no way to tell that this is merely a natural universe.

There are several people here, Vlad who believe that it is - yet at no time in the past 4 or 5 years have any of them produced evidence to show this, let alone prove it.

I realise that some of them, if not all of them will now tell me that the burden of proof lies with those of us who disagree with them, but that ignores the fact that they regularly make blanket assertions about 'life, the universe and everything' (Douglas Adam's title does have that umbrella status!!) whilst never actually providing any evidence to back them up.  Ironically, even science doesn't provide any such basis, since - because it is naturalistic in nature - it can't speak to things that are outside its parameters.

[Hope]

Wouldn't it? Before the telephone was invented, talking with somebody on the other side of the planet would probably have been considered a 'supernatural' ability, men walking on the moon even moreso.

I would question whether they were even considered, other than by the scientists of the day, let alone considered 'supernatural'.