'Sin'

[floo]

You can tell when Wigginhall is losing an argument badly, he starts playing the man instead of the ball........(several winking smileys)

Vlad, Wigs seems to be very much on the ball, it is you who lost it a good while back, if you ever had it! 

[wigginhall]

I was recalling the phrase 'epistemic naturalism', which as far as I can remember, means a view that nature is available for observation and experiment, but holds back from the total claim that nature is all.  In other words, holds back from certainty.  It's a bit like saying that the supernatural is possible, but implausible. 

However, maybe I've got this wrong.   Corrections welcome.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad, Wigs seems to be very much on the ball, it is you who lost it a good while back, if you ever had it! 

Hang about then Floo i'm just about to take him to task for a possible attempted turd polish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was recalling the phrase 'epistemic naturalism', which as far as I can remember, means a view that nature is available for observation and experiment, but holds back from the total claim that nature is all.  In other words, holds back from certainty.  It's a bit like saying that the supernatural is possible, but implausible. 

Yes on what grounds does it therefore say that the supernatural is implausible......ontological material grounds perhaps?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

whosoever argues that there are no grounds for believing or that there is no evidence.

Ho Ho Ho Ho.

Ha Ha Ha Ha.

Seriously I need to lie down.

You are a funny guy.

[Stranger]

I was recalling the phrase 'epistemic naturalism', which as far as I can remember, means a view that nature is available for observation and experiment, but holds back from the total claim that nature is all.  In other words, holds back from certainty.  It's a bit like saying that the supernatural is possible, but implausible. 

However, maybe I've got this wrong.   Corrections welcome.

Yes on what grounds does it therefore say that the supernatural is implausible......ontological material grounds perhaps?

Well, reading what was actually said (it's a skill you would do well to learn), I'd say, on the grounds that it is not available for observation and experiment or, perhaps, that it doesn't appear to be available for observation and experiment.

Ontology is being specifically excluded.

[wigginhall]

Yes on what grounds does it therefore say that the supernatural is implausible......ontological material grounds perhaps?

Well, people tend to say that being in the Matrix is possible but implausible.   It's because we have zero evidence that we are in the Matrix, but we can't totally exclude it.   Same with the supernatural, with the added problem that no-one can define it, whereas we have some idea about the Matrix.   

An ontological materialist would exclude the supernatural completely, so not just implausible but impossible.  Does anyone here say that?  Dunno.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, people tend to say that being in the Matrix is possible but implausible.   It's because we have zero evidence that we are in the Matrix, but we can't totally exclude it.   Same with the supernatural, with the added problem that no-one can define it, whereas we have some idea about the Matrix.   

An ontological materialist would exclude the supernatural completely, so not just implausible but impossible.  Does anyone here say that?  Dunno.

Well Wiggs I've put the question ''monist or dualist'' out there for atheists. No responders yet though.

[wigginhall]

Well Wiggs I've put the question ''monist or dualist'' out there for atheists. No responders yet though.

That looks like a false dichotomy to me.   There are atheists who are neither.   For example, Buddhists are very difficult to classify, as they may have no beliefs at all, not even in Buddhism.  Hence, 'kill the Buddha', meaning get rid of the idolatry of belief.   Famous book, 'Buddhism without beliefs', Batchelor. 

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

No. Earlier I pointed out that ontological naturalism was on an equal footing (in terms of defence of)  to theism.

In other words theism can't be defended!

Now I have recovered from my massive coughing/laughing fit I can address your earlier MASSIVE non sequitur.

Just because someone does not accept you evidence (if it can be called that) does not mean that they will NOT as a point of principle accept evidence. Really, this was one of you biggest shockers yet.


Now, onto bigger issues.

As you know I joined this board because of the claims that a methodology existed that could demonstrate the truth of non natural, and specifically, divine claims.

You were one of the strongest supporters of this view.

You have just admitted that the defence of atheism is on a par with defence of ontological naturalism (as I say, we assume by this you mean that the natural is all that CAN exist).

Despite your assertions no one here thinks that. However, EVEN IF THEY DID you have now admitted that haven't got a methodology such as Hope claims, and the fact that the ontological naturalist would be equally wrong doesn't help you in any way.

I suspect you won't (understandably) give me your home address, but if you give the address of a PO Box I will send you the sling for your arse.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That looks like a false dichotomy to me.   There are atheists who are neither.   For example, Buddhists are very difficult to classify, as they may have no beliefs at all, not even in Buddhism.  Hence, 'kill the Buddha', meaning get rid of the idolatry of belief.   Famous book, 'Buddhism without beliefs', Batchelor.

Monism and Dualism a false dichotomy? I can't believe you are even suggesting that.
Perhaps I should have framed it monist or not.
I believe they aren't contributing because they all ponce chav-like around the forum with the philosophical equivalent of a hoodie and don't wish to be identified.

[Sebastian Toe]

.....now go of and do something useful.

I would agree as trying to make any sense out of your posts is a complete waste of time, for anyone!

[floo]

I think Vlad must have a dictionary beside his computer. He goes through it so he can try to dazzle us with the big words he discovers!

[Bubbles]

I think Vlad must have a dictionary beside his computer. He goes through it so he can try to dazzle us with the big words he discovers!

I was getting fed up with the word ontological seeping through to all the threads 

[Sebastian Toe]

I was getting fed up with the word ontological seeping through to all the threads 

Be prepared to remain fed up for some time to come!

[floo]

I was getting fed up with the word ontological seeping through to all the threads 

I am getting bored with that word too.

[horsethorn]

And who is a ontological naturalist?

I assume by this you mean someone who says the material/natural is all that can exist.

whosoever argues that there are no grounds for believing or that there is no evidence.

So you are saying that there are theists who are ontological naturalists? That doesn't make sense.

ht

[floo]

whosoever argues that there are no grounds for believing or that there is no evidence.


So you are saying that there are theists who are ontological naturalists? That doesn't make sense.

ht

Vlad uses big words in order to try to blind us to the fact he hasn't a clue what he is on about.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Horsethorn,

Yes, I am a ontologicalist. Although I am well aware I may be jumping into the abyss, entering the mind of Vlad.

An ontological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God that uses ontology. Many arguments fall under the category of the ontological, and they tend to involve arguments about the state of being or existing. More specifically, ontological arguments tend to start with an a priori theory about the organization of the universe. If that organizational structure is true, the argument will provide reasons why God must exist.

1. The Universe works, oh yes it does!

2. This little world of ours works, oh yes it does!

3. Man, us, spend our whole lives trying to be small gods, oh yes we do! may be that is why God does not make his presence more noticeable, he/she/it is shit scared of what we have become and where we are going.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

1. The Universe works, oh yes it does!

2. This little world of ours works, oh yes it does!

Interesting - what do you mean by 'works' - how could it not work?

3. Man, us, spend our whole lives trying to be small gods, oh yes we do! may be that is why God does not make his presence more noticeable, he/she/it is shit scared of what we have become and where we are going.

So, yours is not an omni- type god?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

how could it not work?

No gravity, no hydrogen, no entropy, hell I don't know, and neither do the scientists.

So, yours is not an omni- type god?

God is, yes omni is as good a word as any, but please allow me some poetic licence.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

No gravity, no hydrogen, no entropy, hell I don't know, and neither do the scientists.

Why would that not be working?

God is, yes omni is as good a word as any, but please allow me some poetic licence.

Poetic licence; okay, but now I don't see why you think god is hiding.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Why would that not be working?

EH!! Without gravity or hydrogen the Universe would not work, yes/no?

Poetic licence; okay, but now I don't see why you think god is hiding.

Well I in fact don't think God is hiding, I was being flippant or just silly, sue me!

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

EH!! Without gravity or hydrogen the Universe would not work, yes/no?

It would be different but, again, why would different be 'not working'?

Well I in fact don't think God is hiding...

Why can't I see it, then?

[BeRational]

Dear Stranger,

EH!! Without gravity or hydrogen the Universe would not work, yes/no?

Well I in fact don't think God is hiding, I was being flippant or just silly, sue me!

Gonnagle.

Without gravity of hydrogen a universe would work yes. Just not this one. There is nothing special about this one though.

If god is not hiding, why can we not detect him easily?