Floo...

[Enki]

Hi Sriram,
 In response to your post 42:

The fact that Floo has talked about it is to her credit. Most atheists would have kept quiet.

An interesting assumption. I can assure you that I wouldn't.

My point is that atheists keep asking for evidence and still never bother to  discuss or investigate such matters. They are happy living in their comfort zone and prefer that their mindset is not disturbed.

Complete bunkum in my case, Sriram. Many years ago, I and three others decided to investigate strange happenings which appeared in the local press. This involved visiting locations, interviewing people, and, in one particular case, spending the night in a working men's club which had previously been a local jail where people had died. We investigated a number of strange happenings over a period of roughly three years.  May I also remind you that my father was a spiritualist, and I have attended quite a few spiritualist meetings in the past.

All these are mindset problems and are not easily resolved. No one likes strange new things infringing  on their deeply embedded ideas.

It appears to me, as it often does, that it is you who have the mindset problem. You seem to have already made up your mind about 'miracles' when you suggested that Christians  would rather talk about '2000 year old events and miracles rather than real ones of today.' Well, pardon me, Sriram, but I would rather go where the evidence leads, rather than make the assumption that there are 'real' miracles today.

[Hope]

...but I would rather go where the evidence leads, rather than make the assumption that there are 'real' miracles today.

I can think of several people, medics included, who would also 'rather go where the evidence leads', which is why they believe that 'real' miracles occur today.

[Nearly Sane]

...but I would rather go where the evidence leads, rather than make the assumption that there are 'real' miracles today.

I can think of several people, medics included, who would also 'rather go where the evidence leads', which is why they believe that 'real' miracles occur today.

Do any of them have the method for establishing the supernatural that you have been asked for so many times, or are they just relying on their incredulity?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...but I would rather go where the evidence leads, rather than make the assumption that there are 'real' miracles today.

I can think of several people, medics included, who would also 'rather go where the evidence leads', which is why they believe that 'real' miracles occur today.

Do any of them have the method for establishing the supernatural that you have been asked for so many times, or are they just relying on their incredulity?

Nearly.
When an argument against it being supernatural has been reduced to just being a statement of philosophical naturalism.......I think we are there.

[Nearly Sane]

...but I would rather go where the evidence leads, rather than make the assumption that there are 'real' miracles today.

I can think of several people, medics included, who would also 'rather go where the evidence leads', which is why they believe that 'real' miracles occur today.

Do any of them have the method for establishing the supernatural that you have been asked for so many times, or are they just relying on their incredulity?

Nearly.
When an argument against it being supernatural has been reduced to just being a statement of philosophical naturalism.......I think we are there.

Except it isn't that, and being reduced, as you are again, to lying about what people say, is just ludicrous. I am not making a claim about philosophical anything , that is why my post has the word methodology in it. Hope is making a philosophical claim and a methodological one as well with his talk of evidence. He, as with you never provide a methodology for your philosophical supernaturalistic claims, but you seem to hide that by misrepresenting what is being said. Why is it you think lying is acceptable? Why do you do you like so frequently?

[Enki]

...but I would rather go where the evidence leads, rather than make the assumption that there are 'real' miracles today.

I can think of several people, medics included, who would also 'rather go where the evidence leads', which is why they believe that 'real' miracles occur today.

Then let them go where the evidence leads and produce their dissertations in respected peer reviewed outlets so that everyone can study their evidence in detail and hopefully replicate the 'miracles' that they are supposed to believe in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...but I would rather go where the evidence leads, rather than make the assumption that there are 'real' miracles today.

I can think of several people, medics included, who would also 'rather go where the evidence leads', which is why they believe that 'real' miracles occur today.

Do any of them have the method for establishing the supernatural that you have been asked for so many times, or are they just relying on their incredulity?

Nearly.
When an argument against it being supernatural has been reduced to just being a statement of philosophical naturalism.......I think we are there.

Except it isn't that, and being reduced, as you are again, to lying about what people say, is just ludicrous. I am not making a claim about philosophical anything , that is why my post has the word methodology in it. Hope is making a philosophical claim and a methodological one as well with his talk of evidence. He, as with you never provide a methodology for your philosophical supernaturalistic claims, but you seem to hide that by misrepresenting what is being said. Why is it you think lying is acceptable? Why do you do you like so frequently?

And I think you are just being slyly disingenuous.
You know that the one established methodology, science, backs up science and no other argument.....and yet you and everybody else makes arguments.

In other words you and others think that by mentioning the ''method'' or ''methodology'' you have cunningly exposed any claim.

Science is a methodology................................ so what?

That's almost as bad as Shaker claiming that someone who believes there is more than the natural is not only not allowed to use science but is morally wrong if they seek to do so.............Handwaving, it's all handwaving.

[Owlswing]

Most modern "miracles" are people or animals who/that were expected to die and did not, they made a full recovery.

This recovery is attributed to a deity, a god, whichever one the speaker believes in.

In most cases it has nothing to do with any deity, not even mine, but to the tireless and expert care of medical professionals of one grade or trade or another, to years and years of learning, training and practice.

And, of course, all their undertaking of this learning and training and practice is put down to them being driven to do these things by their god (the speaker's), because without that drive the speaker opines, the medics would possibly have turned out to be sewing machine mechanics, anything but the accomplished medical professionals that they are.

A case of total disrespect.

[Nearly Sane]

In what way is asking for  method for a claim, disingenuous or otherwisem? You and Hope make claims and posit evidence. I merely ask how judge those claims. I have asked on here and the BBC for years and nothing from those I have asked.


I have been open about that and at no point have taken the position that such  a methodology would be impossible. In addition. I have often posted that the methodology of science will never address an ought argument. Perhaps instead of lying continually about what people said, if you took time to read it you could actually engage with the discussion.

So given that can you help Hope out with a methodology for his claims?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way is asking for  method for a claim, disingenuous or otherwisem? You and Hope make claims and posit evidence. I merely ask how judge those claims. I have asked on here and the BBC for years and nothing from those I have asked.


I have been open about that and at no point have taken the position that such  a methodology would be impossible. In addition. I have often posted that the methodology of science will never address an ought argument. Perhaps instead of lying continually about what people said, if you took time to read it you could actually engage with the discussion.

So given that can you help Hope out with a methodology for his claims?

Just a repeat of what's been going down Nearly.

Plus I think we want to know what you mean by saying you want a method or methodology.

And why the supernatural out of all the other things which don't have a methodology should be a target of your special pleading.

And why you convert history into science when yer antitheists on here are challenged on what are points of history.

A means of judging whether naturalistic methodology covers a situation has been provided to you ....and is continually met by you with a ''provide methodology please''. I have also stated that certain claims can be judged using rational means and logic. Other than that, this supernatural or God business doesn't just stop at the establishing of facts, there is the commitment to it being.....or not being so ''knowledge,or awareness or understanding can only ultimately be by being personally involved in a way not required by mere methodologies.

Your methodology bit is the ultimate red herring IMO.

[Hope]

Most modern "miracles" are people or animals who/that were expected to die and did not, they made a full recovery....
In most cases it has nothing to do with any deity, not even mine, but to the tireless and expert care of medical professionals of one grade or trade or another, to years and years of learning, training and practice.

Of course, many of such events are dubbed 'spontaneous healings' by those who do not accept miracles (including some religious folk) purely because the

tireless and expert care of medical professionals of one grade or trade or another, to years and years of learning, training and practice

you refer to, has produced no outcome other than expectation of death.  That is why they aren't treated as ordinary recovery stats by hospitals.

And, of course, all their undertaking of this learning and training and practice is put down to them being driven to do these things by their god (the speaker's), because without that drive the speaker opines, the medics would possibly have turned out to be sewing machine mechanics, anything but the accomplished medical professionals that they are.

A case of total disrespect.

Matt, can you explain to me how someone explaining that their skills in medicine, the law, agriculture, whatever, ... are God-given is 'total disrespect'?

[floo]

Until a deity, should it exist, reveals itself to the whole world in a way which cannot be denied by even the most hidebound atheists, ...

You've made this type of comment before, but I think that we will always have those for whom anything will be able to be denied.  As I've asked before, but you've never answered other than to suggest ways that have already occurred, what way of the deity 'reveal[ing] itself to the whole world' would satisfy you?

If it was omnipotent I am sure it could think of a way which would be undeniable to anyone! Mind you, if the deity exists, it doesn't seem to be very accomplished, if its screw ups are anything to go by!

[Hope]

Then let them go where the evidence leads and produce their dissertations in respected peer reviewed outlets so that everyone can study their evidence in detail and hopefully replicate the 'miracles' that they are supposed to believe in.

I know of several who have written articles and other material for peer-reviewed outlets, all of whom have been told that the outlet will happily publish provided that the authors get permission from the institutions where the events occurred for the material to be published, on the grounds that the information is 'owned' by the institution (something that doesn't apply with other similar documentation to my knowledge).  This has, in some cases, been despite the patient giving  permission for their doctor-patient confidentiality to be waived.

As for replicating miracles, surely that is logically and scientifically impossible, since a miracle is something that happens outside of the normal.  Mind you, many doctors with a faith would say that they and their colleagues perform and replicate miracles day after day, not least because no two patients ever present identically.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Until a deity, should it exist, reveals itself to the whole world in a way which cannot be denied by even the most hidebound atheists, ...

You've made this type of comment before, but I think that we will always have those for whom anything will be able to be denied.  As I've asked before, but you've never answered other than to suggest ways that have already occurred, what way of the deity 'reveal[ing] itself to the whole world' would satisfy you?

If it was omnipotent I am sure it could think of a way which would be undeniable to anyone! Mind you, if the deity exists, it doesn't seem to be very accomplished, if its screw ups are anything to go by!

And having been....as you say, a God of this earth, why would you want to hand over any of your power or authority.

[Hope]

If it was omnipotent I am sure it could think of a way which would be undeniable to anyone!

So, you are again arguing for humanity as robot. 

[Nearly Sane]

If I make a claim about evidence then I need a method to determine whether it works. You seem to understand the methodology of science,and how it works, I want something that works for an assumption of the supernatural, can you provide one? If not then any claim to evidence is specious.

Again as I pointed out in my last post, I don't think science works for oughts so I am not making special pleading. Again can I suggest you read posts rather than reply to stuff you are making up in your head.

[Nearly Sane]

If it was omnipotent I am sure it could think of a way which would be undeniable to anyone!

So, you are again arguing for humanity as robot.

No, having a means to convince someone of a fact does not make them a robot. If Satan exists, it would have incontrovertible knowledge of God's existence but would not portrayed as a robot

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If I make a claim about evidence then I need a method to determine whether it works. You seem to understand the methodology of science,and how it works, I want something that works for an assumption of the supernatural, can you provide one? If not then any claim to evidence is specious.

Again as I pointed out in my last post, I don't think science works for oughts so I am not making special pleading. Again can I suggest you read posts rather than reply to stuff you are making up in your head.

I don't think anybody fits your description of ASSUMING THE SUPERNATURAL. I think that is but a much loved characture and false justification for ''ducking''.

Again a more accurate model is of those for whom faith in philosophical naturalism is not enough to explain/accommodate their experience. In other words those who will use the naturalistic method until it's exhaustion. Let's not forget it's not just the supernatural where science exhausts it's capacity for explanation.

[Hope]

No, having a means to convince someone of a fact does not make them a robot. If Satan exists, it would have incontrovertible knowledge of God's existence but would not portrayed as a robot

But if proof was incontrovertible where would our freewill be?  Where would the need for brains as complex as ours be?

[Enki]

Then let them go where the evidence leads and produce their dissertations in respected peer reviewed outlets so that everyone can study their evidence in detail and hopefully replicate the 'miracles' that they are supposed to believe in.

I know of several who have written articles and other material for peer-reviewed outlets, all of whom have been told that the outlet will happily publish provided that the authors get permission from the institutions where the events occurred for the material to be published, on the grounds that the information is 'owned' by the institution (something that doesn't apply with other similar documentation to my knowledge).  This has, in some cases, been despite the patient giving  permission for their doctor-patient confidentiality to be waived.

As for replicating miracles, surely that is logically and scientifically impossible, since a miracle is something that happens outside of the normal.  Mind you, many doctors with a faith would say that they and their colleagues perform and replicate miracles day after day, not least because no two patients ever present identically.

There are plenty of occurrences which seem to happen outside the norm, Hope. Often this depends on the amount and quality of the evidence available at the time. Placebo and nocebo effects, for instance, are now fairly widely accepted because of a wide range of studies which give evidence of these effects.

However, if you really want to claim that 'miracles' actually take place then I suggest that hard evidence is essential, and they have to be examined using scientific methodology. Failing that, then some other methodology has to be used which can be convincing enough to identify and explain these 'miracles'. Belief is a poor substitute for such a methodology.

[floo]

Until a deity, should it exist, reveals itself to the whole world in a way which cannot be denied by even the most hidebound atheists, ...

You've made this type of comment before, but I think that we will always have those for whom anything will be able to be denied.  As I've asked before, but you've never answered other than to suggest ways that have already occurred, what way of the deity 'reveal[ing] itself to the whole world' would satisfy you?

If it was omnipotent I am sure it could think of a way which would be undeniable to anyone! Mind you, if the deity exists, it doesn't seem to be very accomplished, if its screw ups are anything to go by!

And having been....as you say, a God of this earth, why would you want to hand over any of your power or authority.

Did I say anything about handing over anything? If the deity really does exist, and is a quarter as bad as the Bible portrays it to be, we should be doing everything in our power to exterminate the evil entity

[Nearly Sane]

No, having a means to convince someone of a fact does not make them a robot. If Satan exists, it would have incontrovertible knowledge of God's existence but would not portrayed as a robot

But if proof was incontrovertible where would our freewill be?  Where would the need for brains as complex as ours be?

Incontrovertible proof of facts has nothing to do with any concept about free will. Free will is related to action not belief. Are you saying that if there is such a thing as Satan it has no fee will and a non complex brain.

[Nearly Sane]

If I make a claim about evidence then I need a method to determine whether it works. You seem to understand the methodology of science,and how it works, I want something that works for an assumption of the supernatural, can you provide one? If not then any claim to evidence is specious.

Again as I pointed out in my last post, I don't think science works for oughts so I am not making special pleading. Again can I suggest you read posts rather than reply to stuff you are making up in your head.

I don't think anybody fits your description of ASSUMING THE SUPERNATURAL. I think that is but a much loved characture and false justification for ''ducking''.

Again a more accurate model is of those for whom faith in philosophical naturalism is not enough to explain/accommodate their experience. In other words those who will use the naturalistic method until it's exhaustion. Let's not forget it's not just the supernatural where science exhausts it's capacity for explanation.

Oh dear, more misrepresentation about people claiming science explains everything which I have never said, and twice in the the last two posts explicitly disagreed with. For the 3rd time in 3 posts stop making shite up.
As to the assumption. Of supernatural, it's implicit in a methodology and  is implicit in some of the stuff you post with showing no understanding of it.

[Hope]

If the deity really does exist, and is a quarter as bad as the Bible portrays it to be, we should be doing everything in our power to exterminate the evil entity

Floo, if I'd had a £1 for every time you made a post along these lines without ever producing evidence to back up your claim, I'd be a very rich guy by now.   

[Nearly Sane]

If the deity really does exist, and is a quarter as bad as the Bible portrays it to be, we should be doing everything in our power to exterminate the evil entity

Floo, if I'd had a £1 for every time you made a post along these lines without ever producing evidence to back up your claim, I'd be a very rich guy by now.   

Except Floo's post here is a statement of opinion about her reading of the bible and the character of the god portrayed into. It's not a claim about evidence. Btw any chance of a methodology to evaluate supernatural claims?