Why is there no verifiable evidence?

[Gordon]

A few category errors here. Matter is not determined methodologically.

That rather depends on what 'determined methodologically' means in Vladdish - perhaps you'd explain.

For example the existence of the 4o foot truck coming towards me does not depend on any methodology but by empirical and instrumental detection.

Which implies a methodology: silly you!

Matter has if you like revealed itself.

Or is just there and we have worked out how to detect it.

The latest methodology craze amongst your community is  a craze.

We are just asking reasonable questions but it seems that you guys have no reasonable answers.

Our scripture suggests that God reveals himself and is not winkled out by science.

Even if it does I doubt that its writers were all that well-versed in what we now refer to as 'science', so their views are only relevant in terms of cultural history.

The bible ends with an ultimate act of self revelation which will be self evident to all.

Every week 'Oor Wullie' ends up sitting on an upturned bucket.

http://tinyurl.com/j3kqj5h

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You previously said.
The empirical and instrumental detection is the methodology.

I think that is both wrong and unfortunate
A: because it could be argued that in terms of detecting God we have a sense that detects God and/ or we are an instrument. Any argument that we don't all detect God can be rebuffed by God choosing who he reveals himself to or by a failure of detection ability or function which suggests repair by the engineer......I.e God.

B; because detection or observation is but part of the methodology we allude to and not a methodology itself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That rather depends on what 'determined methodologically' means in Vladdish - perhaps you'd explain.

Which implies a methodology: silly you!

Or is just there and we have worked out how to detect it.

We are just asking reasonable questions but it seems that you guys have no reasonable answers.

Even if it does I doubt that its writers were all that well-versed in what we now refer to as 'science', so their views are only relevant in terms of cultural history.

Every week 'Oor Wullie' ends up sitting on an upturned bucket.

http://tinyurl.com/j3kqj5h

Detection by itself is not a methodology sorry to piss on your bonfire.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That rather depends on what 'determined methodologically' means in Vladdish - perhaps you'd explain.

Which implies a methodology: silly you!

Or is just there and we have worked out how to detect it.

We are just asking reasonable questions but it seems that you guys have no reasonable answers.

Even if it does I doubt that its writers were all that well-versed in what we now refer to as 'science', so their views are only relevant in terms of cultural history.

Every week 'Oor Wullie' ends up sitting on an upturned bucket.

http://tinyurl.com/j3kqj5h

Science doesn't do God Gordon.

[Gordon]

Detection by itself is not a methodology sorry to piss on your bonfire.

So, having established how thermometers work as a reliable measure of temperature, sticking one into liquid so see if it is hot or not isn't a methodology?

I suppose you could stick some of your fingers in, although in your case, Vlad, only after you've removed them from your ears - but I'd go for the thermometer as the tried and tested, and also safer, method.

[Gordon]

Science doesn't do God Gordon.

So, do you have a reliable alternative method?

[Stranger]

A: because it could be argued that in terms of detecting God we have a sense that detects God and/ or we are an instrument. Any argument that we don't all detect God can be rebuffed by God choosing who he reveals himself to or by a failure of detection ability...

Unfortunately this could be argued, not only for all the numerous and mutually contradictory ideas of god (and gods) but also for any other imaginary friend or fairies or aliens or tree spirits or...

[Stranger]

I think it was Gonnagle last Sunday who pointed out that atheists experienced being disturbed by God. That is evidence of God

This atheist has never been disturbed by any gods - just the idea of gods being taken seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, do you have a reliable alternative method?

Ah so when you guys talk about methodology you are talking about science the and any of your appeals for any methodology not necessarily science are in fact.........humbug.


....thought so.

Science doesn't do God and its raising in matters of God are non sequitur.
You are parading the turd that will not be polished again namely trying to subtlety link science with your beliefs.

I'm afraid it is hard to curl shit into a donut let alone forging a solid chain.

[Gordon]

A: because it could be argued that in terms of detecting God we have a sense that detects God and/ or we are an instrument.

Well argue it then: assertion isn't argument.

Any argument that we don't all detect God can be rebuffed by God choosing who he reveals himself to or by a failure of detection ability or function which suggests repair by the engineer......I.e God.

Get rebuffing (sic) then, but be careful your straw doesn't catch fire.

B; because detection or observation is but part of the methodology we allude to and not a methodology itself.

Non sequitur, Vlad, and it does rather seem you are trying to redefine methodology by removing some the 'method' aspects - that just leaves you with the 'ology' bit, which doesn't seem like a sensible move on your part.

[Rhiannon]

Science doesn't do God Gordon.

So why then are you attempting to do just that? You've made a leap from an apparent response in the brain of atheists detected on a scan to that being evidence not only of them fearing God but of there being a god to be feared.

Of course I'm not into mind reading in the way that you appear to be but you do seem increasingly desperate to shore up your beliefs with science, even at the expense of your own understanding. It smacks of insecurity.

[Gordon]

Ah so when you guys talk about methodology you are talking about science the and any of your appeals for any methodology not necessarily science are in fact.........humbug.


....thought so.

Then, as usual, you'd be wrong - we've been asking you guys for an alternative to science: a method suitable for your non-natural claims - but you all seem to be in full wriggling mode.

Science doesn't do God and its raising in matters of God are non sequitur.
You are parading the turd that will not be polished again namely trying to subtlety link science with your beliefs.

I'm afraid it is hard to curl shit into a donut let alone forging a solid chain.

I guess we should give you credit for inventing 'turdology', Vlad: you are its expert exponent for sure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unfortunately this could be argued, not only for all the numerous and mutually contradictory ideas of god (and gods) but also for any other imaginary friend or fairies or aliens or tree spirits or...

Are you on the pagan site slagging them of for belief in tree spirits.
If not it is a fact that you find the Christian God disturbing in a way that you don't with others.

Given what you say about you only being disturbed by other people believing things what is special about Christianity.
I have said that atheists are more certain of their disbelief in fairies than God. Any appeal to fairies in an argument about God must be ridicule rather than equation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So why then are you attempting to do just that? You've made a leap from an apparent response in the brain of atheists detected on a scan to that being evidence not only of them fearing God but of there being a god to be feared.

Of course I'm not into mind reading in the way that you appear to be but you do seem increasingly desperate to shore up your beliefs with science, even at the expense of your own understanding. It smacks of insecurity.

I am doing methodology Rhiannon not science since science cannot produce God.
No leaps have been made. Adverse reactions to the idea of God are apparent and this is neurologically evident.

That science doesn't do God doesn't stop me from sifting what is self revealed and that dear boy IS a method.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well argue it then: assertion isn't argument

No it's a counter argument to that old atheist favourite God isn't obvious to all or as I believe there is antitheist  keech doing the rounds about the hidden ness of God.

Wrong again Gordon

You'll have to raise your game I'm afraid.

[Stranger]

If not it is a fact that you find the Christian God disturbing in a way that you don't with others.

No; it's that belief in the Christian gods (for there are many versions) is what I encounter most in the UK. It's also the religion that I know most about because of my upbringing.

I have said that atheists are more certain of their disbelief in fairies than God. Any appeal to fairies in an argument about God must be ridicule rather than equation.

No; I consider them equally without evidence and therefore equally unlikely. I chose the other examples because I didn't think a theist would be likely to take them seriously. The fact remains that your 'logic' can be applied equally well to both contradictory ideas and to many others that you don't take seriously - it is therefore flawed.

[Stranger]

I am doing methodology...

I haven't seen one.

science cannot produce God.

Who said science could produce god? You're waffling.

No leaps have been made.

...just baseless assertions.

Adverse reactions to the idea of God are apparent and this is neurologically evident.

What are you talking about? By "neurologically evident", you mean people tell you they have a reaction to the idea of god?

That science doesn't do God doesn't stop me from sifting what is self revealed and that dear boy IS a method.

Asserting that god is "self revealed" is not a method - it's just an assertion.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I think that is both wrong and unfortunate
A: because it could be argued that in terms of detecting God we have a sense that detects God and/ or we are an instrument. Any argument that we don't all detect God can be rebuffed by God choosing who he reveals himself to or by a failure of detection ability or function which suggests repair by the engineer......I.e God.

B; because detection or observation is but part of the methodology we allude to and not a methodology itself.

You misquote me here. Why?

My previous reply was to your 40 foot truck analogy. I think you accept that there is a methodology available to determine if the claim of an approaching 40 foot truck is true. Do you not?

It is a very odd thing to say that the truck has revealed itself to us. Surely it's simply that we can determine if a 40 truck is there or not.

You then go on to talk about God and that we (well some people anyway) can detect it. Well how? How do you know that it is God that you are detecting?

[Gordon]

No it's a counter argument to that old atheist favourite God isn't obvious to all or as I believe there is antitheist  keech doing the rounds about the hidden ness of God.

Wrong again Gordon

You'll have to raise your game I'm afraid.

No, Vlad, it is just more assertion on your part, alongside your army of straw men.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I am doing methodology Rhiannon not science since science cannot produce God.
No leaps have been made. Adverse reactions to the idea of God are apparent and this is neurologically evident.

That science doesn't do God doesn't stop me from sifting what is self revealed and that dear boy IS a method.

You are not doing any kind of methodology. You need to show how you get from adverse reactions to the idea of God existing to God actually existing.

Self revealed vs delusional, how to tell the difference?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No; it's that belief in the Christian gods (for there are many versions) is what I encounter most in the UK. It's also the religion that I know most about because of my upbringing.

No; I consider them equally without evidence and therefore equally unlikely. I chose the other examples because I didn't think a theist would be likely to take them seriously. The fact remains that your 'logic' can be applied equally well to both contradictory ideas and to many others that you don't take seriously - it is therefore flawed.

but we cannot ignore your antipathy towards one particular formulation of God.
That seems irrational to me.

That you cite the reason of familiarity also seems a bit odd given that anybody with half an education should either know or be able to find out about other formulations.

I'm afraid you are saddled with merely being agnostic about God with a more marked disbelief in fairies aliens and tree spirits and I know that because you are talking to me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You misquote me here. Why?

My previous reply was to your 40 foot truck analogy. I think you accept that there is a methodology available to determine if the claim of an approaching 40 foot truck is true. Do you not?

It is a very odd thing to say that the truck has revealed itself to us. Surely it's simply that we can determine if a 40 truck is there or not.

You then go on to talk about God and that we (well some people anyway) can detect it. Well how? How do you know that it is God that you are detecting?

The only odd thing here is a suggestion that a methodology is needed to establish a forty foot truck is there. It isn't and we have already satisfied ourselves though not universally....what about the blind?, that it is there.
Methodology does not conjur it into existence.

[Shaker]

A: because it could be argued that in terms of detecting God we have a sense that detects God and/ or we are an instrument.

Oh deary me - we're not heading down the road of the sensus divinitatis bullshit beloved of William Lane Craig are we Vlad?

Any argument that we don't all detect God can be rebuffed by God choosing who he reveals himself to or by a failure of detection ability or function which suggests repair by the engineer......I.e God.

No, it can't be rebuffed at all. Why? Easy. Because it's a monumental exercise in question begging (in the true sense of the phrase; circular reasoning or petitio principii if you prefer) in that it's assuming the existence of a god without demonstration or methodology and then conjuring feeble, entirely ad hoc excuses out of thin air as to why some people don't have that alleged entity revealed to them by the entity whose existence hasn't been established in the first place.

A god stands in need of demonstration to be taken seriously as a viable part of the discussion, not merely assumed and everything proceeding from thereon.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are not doing any kind of methodology. You need to show how you get from adverse reactions to the idea of God existing to God actually existing.

Self revealed vs delusional, how to tell the difference?

There is a problem here with you using the word delusional here since a delusion usually refers to people thinking that something is in fact something else.

With the so called God delusion a situation is being proposed where an absolute non existent is being mistaken for the ultimate in existence.

In other words it bears no resemblance to any medical or day to day usage of the word delusion.

And besides on that great day when the God Delusion went onto the bookshelves
I don't think any of you guys stopped to ask the question.....delusion ........or self revelation.

[Stranger]

I'm afraid you are saddled with merely being agnostic about God with a more marked disbelief in fairies aliens and tree spirits and I know that because you are talking to me.

Your 'logic' about me seems every bit as flawed as your 'logic' about god...