Food for thought for Christians

[Stranger]

SKoS, take note too.  It is interesting to note that what have been called fallacious have simply been dismissed by some here on the grounds that they don't accept arguments that don't suit their naturalistic understanding of life.  LKet me give you a different example.  I can argue in Nepal that lamb is an extremely tasty meat, but many Nepaleses people will dismiss that claim on the grounds that they don't know what lamb is andhave never seen a lamb or a sheep.  They lack the experience of what a sheep is to be able to verify the claim.  That isn't to say that the claim isn't valid - just that their experience doesn't extend to this particular knowledge.

How tasty anything is, is subjective. That aside, you can demonstrate the existence of sheep in many ways.

So, any evidenced or reasoned arguments for any gods.....?

[Gordon]

SKoS, take note too.  It is interesting to note that what have been called fallacious have simply been dismissed by some here on the grounds that they don't accept arguments that don't suit their naturalistic understanding of life.  LKet me give you a different example.  I can argue in Nepal that lamb is an extremely tasty meat, but many Nepaleses people will dismiss that claim on the grounds that they don't know what lamb is andhave never seen a lamb or a sheep.  They lack the experience of what a sheep is to be able to verify the claim.  That isn't to say that the claim isn't valid - just that their experience doesn't extend to this particular knowledge.

Then all you need do is bus-in some sheep (and of course some mint-sauce) to Nepal, capture the whole thing on CCTV and provide details of the acquisition, transport and delivery of the sheep and the Nepalese will have demonstrably experienced sheep. 

Interestingly, I can think of plenty of people who would regard your arguments, Gordon, as having been done up like the proverbial kipper because they too can be shown to be fallacious.

Doubt it since, interestingly, I haven't made any arguments: I've simply referred to the rebuttal of arguments made by some theists, which isn't the same thing at all as me making an argument.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

SKoS, take note too.  It is interesting to note that what have been called fallacious have simply been dismissed by some here on the grounds that they don't accept arguments that don't suit their naturalistic understanding of life.

That's not me then. I have never asked you for a naturalistic method. Just for a method. Actually I can't say that I have ever seen anyone demand the method be naturalistic.


 LKet me give you a different example.  I can argue in Nepal that lamb is an extremely tasty meat, but many Nepaleses people will dismiss that claim on the grounds that they don't know what lamb is andhave never seen a lamb or a sheep.  They lack the experience of what a sheep is to be able to verify the claim.  That isn't to say that the claim isn't valid - just that their experience doesn't extend to this particular knowledge.


[/quote]

All you have to do (as others have pointed out) is show them a sheep. Many methodologies are available for this.

So can you show us a God?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

SKoS, take note too.  It is interesting to note that what have been called fallacious have simply been dismissed by some here on the grounds that they don't accept arguments that don't suit their naturalistic understanding of life.

Flat wrong. They are "called" fallacious because they are fallacious - they fit the various definitions of fallacy (argumentum ad populum, your favourite the negative proof fallacy etc). Your only way out of that would be to argue that logic itself is "naturalistic", and so no matter how much you crash through it it doesn't undo the force of your beliefs.

That gives you two problems though. First, you may as well abandon reason altogether to make your case not because your use of it is manifestly wrong, but because being "naturalistic" it's of no relevance in any case.

Second though, absent reason then until and unless you can offer something instead to enable the rest of us to test your claims (and to differentiate them from the different claims of others) then all you're doing is shouting at the wind. 

[Stranger]

That's not me then. I have never asked you for a naturalistic method.

Has anybody?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

Has anybody?

No - it's just one of Hope's straw men. By complaining that others ask for a naturalistic method, he wants to distract attention from his absence of a method of any kind to distinguish his claims from those of others, and indeed from just guessing about stuff. When pressed veeeery hard he insists that he did so, like you know, ages ago only - um - he can't quite recall where, ooh is that the time already? Must dash! etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope,

Flat wrong. They are "called" fallacious because they are fallacious - they fit the various definitions of fallacy (argumentum ad populum, your favourite the negative proof fallacy etc). Your only way out of that would be to argue that logic itself is "naturalistic", and so no matter how much you crash through it it doesn't undo the force of your beliefs.

That gives you two problems though. First, you may as well abandon reason altogether to make your case not because your use of it is manifestly wrong, but because being "naturalistic" it's of no relevance in any case.

Second though, absent reason then until and unless you can offer something instead to enable the rest of us to test your claims (and to differentiate them from the different claims of others) then all you're doing is shouting at the wind.

Let's not forget that the forum's favoured argumentum ad populum is  ''Decline in church membership.'' Recognition of fallacy should prevent triumphalism on the part of the Goddodgers but doesn't.

Are reason and logic naturalistic? Of course not...... this is just Hillside doing the hustle.

[Stranger]

Let's not forget that the forum's favoured argumentum ad populum is  ''Decline in church membership.''

Do you have evidence of this?

Have you come up with any evidence or argument for any gods, yet?

[ProfessorDavey]

Let's not forget that the forum's favoured argumentum ad populum is  ''Decline in church membership.'' Recognition of fallacy should prevent triumphalism on the part of the Goddodgers but doesn't.

Are reason and logic naturalistic? Of course not...... this is just Hillside doing the hustle.

Who is arguing that a decline in church membership is an argument for christianity being incorrect - certainly not me. Indeed I regularly make it clear that the popularity of a point of a view is no indication of its objective veracity.

A decline in church membership is an indication of just that - less people in the UK being involved in churches in various ways. I think why many of us see that as a good thing is because it weakens the argument, not that christianity is right, but that christianity should be provided with special privileges in society - those arguments often being justified on the spurious 'we are a christian country' mantra.

[Shaker]

Who is arguing that a decline in church membership is an argument for christianity being incorrect - certainly not me. Indeed I regularly make it clear that the popularity of a point of a view is no indication of its objective veracity.

A decline in church membership is an indication of just that - less people in the UK being involved in churches in various ways. I think why many of us see that as a good thing is because it weakens the argument, not that christianity is right, but that christianity should be provided with special privileges in society - those arguments often being justified on the spurious 'we are a christian country' mantra.

Beat me to it!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Who is arguing that a decline in church membership is an argument for christianity being incorrect...

No-one is; it's just yet another of Trollboy's straw men. I hear they're having to ship in more dried grass from Canada to keep up with demand.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Some,

No - it's just one of Hope's straw men. By complaining that others ask for a naturalistic method, he wants to distract attention from his absence of a method of any kind to distinguish his claims from those of others, and indeed from just guessing about stuff. When pressed veeeery hard he insists that he did so, like you know, ages ago only - um - he can't quite recall where, ooh is that the time already? Must dash! etc.

Actually when pressed he will make suggestions as to what his method is. On another thread he has suggested personal experience. However, when you point out that you can easily be mistaken and that you would need a method to verify what you are experiencing is in tune with realty, then this is when he disappears.

Therefore, I think his method is God of the Gaps, this is unexplained therefore God coupled with the negative proof fallacy, you can't prove that Jesus was not resurrected therefore the probability of a resurrection is at least 50%. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you have evidence of this?

Have you come up with any evidence or argument for any gods, yet?

Have you come up with any evidence for what you believe, yet?
Science working not being evidence and that.

It is the Goddodgers delusion par excellence that they don't have an alternative view to the way the universe is. It is of course naturalistic and God free.
and of course since they have a view there is the burden to prove this.
It is of course a question of ontology and there are no methodologies to establish ultimate ontology and this is why we have the spectacle of methodological naturalism being dressed up as ontological naturalism.

Materialists have to constantly justify their choice to kill off something about themselves in the pursuit of the material.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Science working not being evidence and that.

I would have thought that science working is rather good evidence that science works.

[ProfessorDavey]

Actually when pressed he will make suggestions as to what his method is. On another thread he has suggested personal experience. However, when you point out that you can easily be mistaken and that you would need a method to verify what you are experiencing is in tune with realty, then this is when he disappears.

Therefore, I think his method is God of the Gaps, this is unexplained therefore God coupled with the negative proof fallacy, you can't prove that Jesus was not resurrected therefore the probability of a resurrection is at least 50%.

The problem with that approach of course is that everything becomes equally 'true' even things which are mutually incompatible. It is inconsistent and logically fatally flawed.

Unless you are talking about 'true' being 'true for me' in other words an entirely subjective truth. So I have no problem with people using personal experience to justify 'true for me' statements - e.g. Gerald Finzi is a fantastic composer - it is true for me. Indeed only personal experience can be used to justify true for me statements, as by definition there is no objective veracity beyond that individual.

But that approach can never go beyond the individual, precisely because you cannot know what it 'true for me' and I cannot know what is 'true for you'. So although I can justify a view that it is 'true for me' that Gerald Finzi is a fantastic composer I cannot turn that into any kind of objective veracity, because there are other for whom it is 'true for them' that Finzi is a second rate composer, basically with little style of his own largely ripping off his contemporaries. That is true for them - there is no objective veracity approach which can decide which is true objectively using personal experience.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Have you come up with any evidence for what you believe, yet?
Science working not being evidence and that.

It is the Goddodgers delusion par excellence that they don't have an alternative view to the way the universe is. It is of course naturalistic and God free.
and of course since they have a view there is the burden to prove this.
It is of course a question of ontology and there are no methodologies to establish ultimate ontology and this is why we have the spectacle of methodological naturalism being dressed up as ontological naturalism.

Materialists have to constantly justify their choice to kill off something about themselves in the pursuit of the material.

I think we all agree that there is some kind of natural, material reality around us don't we? So no burden of proof since we all agree anyway. We might all be wrong but hey ho you have to start somewhere.

You then go further and claim that there are non material non naturalistic things. Enjoy your burden of proof.

[Stranger]

Have you come up with any evidence for what you believe, yet?
Science working not being evidence and that.

What belief of mine are you talking about?

Have you come up with any evidence or argument for any gods, yet?

...

It is the Goddodgers delusion par excellence that they don't have an alternative view to the way the universe is. It is of course naturalistic and God free.
and of course since they have a view there is the burden to prove this.
It is of course a question of ontology and there are no methodologies to establish ultimate ontology and this is why we have the spectacle of methodological naturalism being dressed up as ontological naturalism.

Materialists have to constantly justify their choice to kill off something about themselves in the pursuit of the material.

That will be 'no' then...

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

The problem with that approach of course is that everything becomes equally 'true' even things which are mutually incompatible. It is inconsistent and logically fatally flawed.

Unless you are talking about 'true' being 'true for me' in other words an entirely subjective truth. So I have no problem with people using personal experience to justify 'true for me' statements - e.g. Gerald Finzi is a fantastic composer - it is true for me. Indeed only personal experience can be used to justify true for me statements, as by definition there is no objective veracity beyond that individual.

But that approach can never go beyond the individual, precisely because you cannot know what it 'true for me' and I cannot know what is 'true for you'. So although I can justify a view that it is 'true for me' that Gerald Finzi is a fantastic composer I cannot turn that into any kind of objective veracity, because there are other for whom it is 'true for them' that Finzi is a second rate composer, basically with little style of his own largely ripping off his contemporaries. That is true for them - there is no objective veracity approach which can decide which is true objectively using personal experience.

you don't need to tell me what the problems are with it. We are just waiting on Hope to tell us what that final little step is that gets from true for me to true for you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually when pressed he will make suggestions as to what his method is. On another thread he has suggested personal experience. However, when you point out that you can easily be mistaken and that you would need a method to verify what you are experiencing is in tune with realty, then this is when he disappears.

Therefore, I think his method is God of the Gaps, this is unexplained therefore God coupled with the negative proof fallacy, you can't prove that Jesus was not resurrected therefore the probability of a resurrection is at least 50%.

You are suggesting that the experienced isn't checked against what science can suggest. It is but the conclusion is that science does not cover the experience. To show bias towards the promise that one day science will cover it is Scientism pure and simple. It is a faith position and does not cover what Sir Paul Nurse has referred to as the limits of science. In scientism there are no limits since science completely describes things. That is a misunderstanding of science as a modelling activity.

I'm afraid given that we are all trading opinions which we may choose to justify or not.

That means blowhards such as Hillside lose a bit of ''authority'' and I guess that grates with him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What belief of mine are you talking about?

Complete cuntism.

[Shaker]

you don't need to tell me what the problems are with it. We are just waiting on Hope to tell us what that final little step is that gets from true for me to true for you.

It's on another forum, er, um, somewhere.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

You are suggesting that the experienced isn't checked against what science can suggest. It is but the conclusion is that science does not cover the experience. To show bias towards the promise that one day science will cover it is Scientism pure and simple. It is a faith position and does not cover what Sir Paul Nurse has referred to as the limits of science. In scientism there are no limits since science completely describes things. That is a misunderstanding of science as a modelling activity.

I'm afraid given that we are all trading opinions which we may choose to justify or not.

That means blowhards such as Hillside lose a bit of ''authority'' and I guess that grates with him.

Who said anything about checking it against science?

[ProfessorDavey]

Have you come up with any evidence for what you believe, yet?

There is no requirement for me to provide evidence to justify things I don't believe - the onus is on those who do believe to provide the evidence.

So if, as you are suggesting, atheists are required to provide evidence for things they don't believe in then you will also have an extremely long list of things you don't believe in that you equally will be required to provide evidence in justification. Let's start the list (and please do correct me if there are any here that I have erroneously suggested you don't believe when in fact you do):

That Thor is real and the god of thunder
That JFK didn't die but was abducted by aliens
That Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by a body double
That there is an invisible teapot in orbit around Saturn
That there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow
etc etc

I suspect you don't believe in any of those things (nor do I) and neither you nor I are required to justify our lack of belief - the onus lies entirely on the believers in those things to justify the veracity of their belief.

And in exactly the same manner I don't believe in your god, just as you don't believe in Thor and therefore I am mo more required to justify my lack of belief in your god than both your or I are to justify our lack of belief in Thor. You, on the other hand do believe in your god and therefore the onus is on your to justify that belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

Actually when pressed he will make suggestions as to what his method is. On another thread he has suggested personal experience. However, when you point out that you can easily be mistaken and that you would need a method to verify what you are experiencing is in tune with realty, then this is when he disappears.

Therefore, I think his method is God of the Gaps, this is unexplained therefore God coupled with the negative proof fallacy, you can't prove that Jesus was not resurrected therefore the probability of a resurrection is at least 50%.

Quite. Just to note too that claiming personal experience to be a method for establishing objective truths is a complete abuse of the term "method" because there's nothing systematic, planned, investigable, repeatable etc about it. The feeling that a god (who just happens to be the one with which you're most familiar) paid a house call may be an overwhelmingly strong one, but there's nothing methodical about it.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no requirement for me to provide evidence to justify things I don't believe

That is completely non sequitur to a request to provide evidence to justify things someone does believe in.

Evasion noted.