Speaking in 'tongues'

[jeremyp]

Why didn't someone produce the body?

I think the right answer to this question is that nobody cared enough to try to find the body. I don't think the empty tomb story became currency or Christianity became a threat until many years after Jesus' death. 

However, it's interesting to note that the followers of a religion can maintain their beliefs in the face of incontrovertible evidence. The rastafarians revere Haile Selassie as a god in spite of the fact that he explicitly denied it at least once. If anybody had produced Jesus' body, it is highly unlikely that his fanatical supporters would have taken any notice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Golly Blue I can't believe you have made an elementary howler like that.

There are matters which science cannot deal with (source BTEC Level 3 Applied science).

It gets worse for you since any scientific conclusion doesn't actually exclude the possibility of God being involved in some way through his will, purpose etc.

The only “howler” is yours. Of course there are phenomena that cannot be explained by the methods of science. That’s why people do science – to discover more. Jumping straight to, “that’ll be the supernatural then” as you do is just your basic, common-or-garden god of the gaps fallacy.

Since you are being so dense Hillside. Your accusation is firmly based in promissory scientism. The belief that science will solve everything............that's a fallacy.

I see that you still don’t do irony. I’ve made perfectly clear that anything might be – for all I and you know, there may even be stuff out there that you call “supernatural” (whatever that means). Your problem though is that just asserting its existence doesn’t make it exist. I notice by the way that you (and Hope too) have casually elided "claims of the supernatural" with "the supernatural" as if its existence was agreed, only some silly people hadn't realised it yet. Big cheat.

Me:

4 is incoherent.

5 is at least a response of some kind, but your problem isn’t finding a method that I would recognise, it’s finding a method of any kind. “Intuiting” something isn’t a method – it’s just a feeling, and anyone can have them about anything at all. Not only does your claim give nothing to anyone else to make them think you might not be wholly wrong about that, it gives you nothing either for you to test your feeling against the possibility of mistake, delusion etc.

6 is a straw man. No-one claims that philosophical naturalism is the established truth. This is where you keep going off the rails because of your failure to comprehend what it does entail.

Philosophical naturalism is the belief that there is no means to test or examine or verify claims of the supernatural. It does not assert that there is necessarily no such thing as the supernatural (that’s just your straw man version of it) but it does say that those claims are incoherent unless they can be verified and so can safely be ignored. Methodological naturalism is just the application of that, for example in the working methods of science.

The resulting findings are a provisional truths, but no-one claims the absolute truth. Thus the claim that jumping out of the window will make you hit the deck shortly after can be tested, and when you do indeed hit the deck – and so does everyone else who tries it – then gravity is accepted as a provisional truth.

By contrast, someone else may claim that if he jumps out of a window a god will lower him safely to the ground. The problem though is that, unless he submits to have the claim falsified, then all he has is a claim. Now that claim may be true - as may any other clam anyone else thinks they “intuit” – but that helps you not a jot.

What you’re actually saying here is effectively, “OK, I’m guessing but so are you”. It fails because it’s dishonest, (equivalent to one four-year-old saying to another, “you smell” and the other replying, “well you’re fat” as if that were in some way relevant), and because it fundamentally fails to understand that naturalism provides enough inter-subjective commonality of experience to enable a probabilistic assessment of truth, whereas claims of the supernatural offer nothing at all.

You’ve been corrected on your going nuclear approach several times now, but here once again is the Stephen Law's essay that will explain it to you:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html

You:

How do you do it Blue? What's the methodology for getting from methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism?

It’s the other way around, I’ve just explained it to you and I posted a link for you so you could understand it better. What more do you want?

Either address the argument or walk away, but enough already with the wilful obtuseness.

Because naturalism arbitrarily rules out the supernatural.

No, it’s indifferent to it because there’s no definition of it, no evidence for it and no method to establish whether it’s real or just a natural phenomenon we’ve yet to figure out.
 

How can it possibly explain God for instance if he ''shows'' up.

I thought superstitionists like you thought he had “turned up” already – what happened to omnipresence?

Anyway, how could a naturalistic method explain any non-naturalistic phenomena that might be –your god, other gods, unicorns, Jack Frost, whatever? It couldn’t, but that helps you not a jot with your central problem: how on earth would you know that any of these things had turned up at all, rather than that something had happened for which you just had no other explanation (the god of the gaps fallacy of which you’re so fond)?

Since you positively assert natural causes you need to come up with convincing evidence that supernatural experiences have a natural reason.....with no final appeal to philosophical naturalism.

Again, you fail to grasp how the burden of proof works. If you want to assert the existence of the supernatural, then it’s for you to demonstrate it. That gives you two problems: first, you need to show that you’ve considered and refuted all known natural possible causes (something about which you seem to be remarkably indifferent by the way); and second you need to explain why your “experience” wasn’t a natural phenomenon that you’ve misattributed to the god of your choice pending a natural explanation becoming available (the god of the gaps daftness you keep peddling).

Unless you can do these things, then “supernatural” is just overreaching.

Look, face it – your schtick here has been found out. It goes like this:

1. Realise that, despite countless requests for it, you have no method to distinguish the thing you think you intuit from mistake, delusion, false attribution etc.

2. Rather than address that, lay waste instead to any method of establishing probable truths in the hope that the relativism of, “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” will somehow help you.

3. To achieve Step 2, misdescribe naturalism as the conviction that the natural is all there ever could be, then keep attacking that straw man.

4. Wait until everyone else gives up in frustration at your dishonesty, evasion and obtuseness.

5. Declare victory.

It’s your call – either address the rebuttals or continue with the schtick. If, as I suspect, it’ll be the latter there’s nothing more to say really.

[Andy]

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

There are several people here, Vlad who believe that it is

Why don't you name who they are so we can see if you're correct, cos as far as I'm aware, there are plenty who are misrepresented even though they have categorically stated, more than once, that they don't believe this.

Bump

[Leonard James]

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

There are several people here, Vlad who believe that it is

Why don't you name who they are so we can see if you're correct, cos as far as I'm aware, there are plenty who are misrepresented even though they have categorically stated, more than once, that they don't believe this.

Bump

I believe this is a natural universe, because we have no evidence of it being anything more.

However, I do not close my mind to the fact that there may be something more ... and when evidence of that turns up, I will accept it.

[Spud]

ok let's run with your idea about 'novelisations' chuckle. Why include worthless eyewitness of women? why make them first to see the Lord?

You have to make the story credible. The women had a credible reason to go to the tomb because it was their job to tend to the dead.

Note also that having women be the first people to find the empty tomb allows you to deploy exactly the same argument you just deployed.

Having the moon dust only a few cm deep makes the story of the lunar landings credible too.

[Shaker]

Having the moon dust only a few cm deep makes the story of the lunar landings credible too.

Eh?

[Spud]

Having the moon dust only a few cm deep makes the story of the lunar landings credible too.

Eh?

Apparently Neil Armstrong admitted to being worried about the moon being covered in deep layers of soft dust. Had the reports of the lunar landings been fabricated, the loose dust would probably have been reported to be deeper in order to add credibility to the story. Likewise, had the resurrection story been fabricated, and assuming the authors wanted to maximise its credibility, the first witnesses would most likely have been men.

[Hope]

However, I do not close my mind to the fact that there may be something more ... and when evidence of that turns up, I will accept it.

So, you would be willing to accept non-naturalistic evidence?

[Nearly Sane]

However, I do not close my mind to the fact that there may be something more ... and when evidence of that turns up, I will accept it.

So, you would be willing to accept non-naturalistic evidence?

What is your methodology for determining what is such evidence?

[Shaker]

However, I do not close my mind to the fact that there may be something more ... and when evidence of that turns up, I will accept it.

So, you would be willing to accept non-naturalistic evidence?

What is your methodology for detreming what is such evidence?

Uh-oh, that's knackered it now!

[Shaker]

However, I do not close my mind to the fact that there may be something more ... and when evidence of that turns up, I will accept it.

So, you would be willing to accept non-naturalistic evidence?

What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?

[Hope]

As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.

But of course you find it difficult to acknowledge anything that is not naturalistic in nature, thus limiting the arena in which you can accept credibility.

[Shaker]

As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.

But of course you find it difficult to acknowledge anything that is not naturalistic in nature, thus limiting the arena in which you can accept credibility.

I thought we'd already established that without your provision of a methodology for supernaturalism (that thing with which you're struggling so much) you can't actually use a term such as "limiting."

[Outrider]

As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.

But of course you find it difficult to acknowledge anything that is not naturalistic in nature, thus limiting the arena in which you can accept credibility.

We're skeptical - we adopt a position of finding it difficult to acknowledge ANYTHING.

We only do so when some sort of methodology is presented by which we can decide if there's sufficient basis to accept the claim. Science gives such a methodology for naturalistic claims.

We aren't predisposed to accept naturalistic claims per se, it's simply that we've already accepted the scientific method, and naturalistic claims are typically presented within that framework.

If you were to present a valid methodology for claims outside of a naturalistic framework that were to then become as mainstream as science is we'd accept things within that - at the moment that simply isn't there.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

But of course you find it difficult to acknowledge anything that is not naturalistic in nature, thus limiting the arena in which you can accept credibility.

First, it’s claims about “anything that is not naturalistic in nature”, not just “anything that is not naturalistic in nature”. You have all your work ahead of you still to establish such things before troubling yourself with whether or not others accept their existence. (That's called reification by the way, an informal logical fallacy.)

Second, yes we do find it difficult to accept anything that pops into your head (or, as Vlad would have it, that you “intuit”), especially when those conjectures fail to cohere with anything about the way the world observably works. We do so for exactly the same reason that you find it “difficult to accept” whatever pops into the heads of others that also fails to cohere with the way the world observably works.

[2Corrie]

Having the moon dust only a few cm deep makes the story of the lunar landings credible too.

Eh?

Apparently Neil Armstrong admitted to being worried about the moon being covered in deep layers of soft dust. Had the reports of the lunar landings been fabricated, the loose dust would probably have been reported to be deepe in order to add credibility to the story. Likewise, had the resurrection story been fabricated, and assuming the authors wanted to maximise its credibility, the first witnesses would most likely have been men.

As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.

Can God bring His Son back to life again? Or is your whole position based on the presupposition that God doesn't exist?

How would you go about explaining the empty tomb, the early accounts of the resurrection, the enemy testimony to the missing body, the spread of Christianity in Jerusalem, the willingness of the apostles to face agonizing deaths... ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

2Corrie,

Can God bring His Son back to life again? Or is your whole position based on the presupposition that God doesn't exist?

How would you go about explaining the empty tomb, the early accounts of the resurrection, the enemy testimony to the missing body, the spread of Christianity in Jerusalem, the willingness of the apostles to face agonizing deaths... ?

Wow, a logical fallacy full house. Good effort!

1. Shifting of the burden of proof.

2, Argument from personal incredulity.

3. The reification fallacy – what you should have asked is how there came to be stories about these events, not how come the events themselves which you’ve yet to establish are true.

The answer by the way is that there are many entirely naturalistic possible explanations, albeit less solipsistically thrilling ones. There’s no way of knowing at this distance which are the most likely ones, but no matter: your problem is to explain why a different explanation entirely outside all known experience of the way the universe works is more likely than any of them.

Good luck!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Look, face it – your schtick here has been found out. It goes like this:

1. Realise that, despite countless requests for it, you have no method to distinguish the thing you think you intuit from mistake, delusion, false attribution etc.

2. Rather than address that, lay waste instead to any method of establishing probable truths in the hope that the relativism of, “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” will somehow help you.

3. To achieve Step 2, misdescribe naturalism as the conviction that the natural is all there ever could be, then keep attacking that straw man.

4. Wait until everyone else gives up in frustration at your dishonesty, evasion and obtuseness.

5. Declare victory.

It’s your call – either address the rebuttals or continue with the schtick. If, as I suspect, it’ll be the latter there’s nothing more to say really.

Declare victory? You mean like your shameful assertion that you had proved moral non realism/subjective morality a few weeks back.

You know and I know that your position is not supported by 'The methodology' any more than mine is.

You see that as a defeat which is why you cannot stand to 'own it'

Unlike you I don't see aspects of the cosmos 'failing' the methodology.
It is the methodology which is limited.

POMA is just a shoe in for the philosophical contradiction of wanting to be considered a logical positivist but wanting the rest as well.

Being a logical positivist manqué is a sorry state to find oneself in, i would have thought.

Contrary to the bollocks narrative you and others have weaved, I and others are both adherents of science and religion.

Have a good one.

[Hope]

What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?

Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.

How does one gets to know about it?  Through documentation.

[Shaker]

Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.

That would therefore include the Big Bang, although we have abundant evidence for that event/process.

How does one gets to know about it?  Through documentation.

Documentation alone offers absolutely no methodology for assessing the truth or falsity of what is documented, though, does it? Literally all you have is words on a page.

[Hope]

Wow, a logical fallacy full house. Good effort!

No, not a logical fallacy anything, bhs.  I am nigh on 60 and over those 6 decades I have had experiences that naturalism has no explanations for and, in my view, will never have explanations for.  Therefore, for me to assume that naturalistic science can and will provide the answers to every question to do with 'life, the universe and everything' is illogical.  The only logical process is therefore to assume that there is some part of reality that is not within the parameters that define naturalism.  After all, that is all anyone is doing as far as naturalism as the sole arbiter is concerned.

...  your problem is to explain why a different explanation entirely outside all known experience of the way the universe works is more likely than any of them.

We've been through this process before, bhs- though I can't recall the exact thread but it was earlier this year.  Oddly enough, none of the naturalistic options came near to standing up to criticism.

[Nearly Sane]

What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?

Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.

How does one gets to know about it?  Through documentation.

As pointed out to Vlad this would mean the sneeze I made some minutes ago is non naturalistic. This is obviously nonsense so try again.

[Andy]

What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?

Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.

How does one gets to know about it?  Through documentation.

I'm not aware of any event that is 100% repeatable, in fact I would say it's nigh on impossible. There is no Groundhog Day. That's why science is the way it is - provisional, because we can't predict with 100% accuracy the outcome of any event.

[Shaker]

I am nigh on 60 and over those 6 decades I have had experiences that naturalism has no explanations for and, in my view, will never have explanations for.

And you know this - the use of the word 'never' especially as that's a positive assertion standing in need of proof - how, exactly?

The only logical process is therefore to assume that there is some part of reality that is not within the parameters that define naturalism. After all, that is all anyone is doing as far as naturalism as the sole arbiter is concerned.

No, actually, it isn't. It really isn't. That's an example of the fallacy of the false dichotomy or excluded middle.

In eighteen years (this month) online I have seen every logical fallacy going at one time or another, but I have never, ever, once, anywhere seen any one individual deploy so many fallacies so often. Quite extraordinary.

[jeremyp]

How would you go about explaining the empty tomb,

It's fiction.

Or, if not, human beings moved the body elsewhere, likely to an unmarked grave.

the early accounts of the resurrection, the enemy testimony to the missing body, the spread of Christianity in Jerusalem, the willingness of the apostles to face agonizing deaths... ?

All fiction.