Food for thought for Christians

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof, Some etc,

Hate to be the "I told you so" merchant, but I did warn you about feeding the troll. All you get in return is endless evasions, misrepresentations, fallacious reasoning etc laced from time-to-time with crass abuse. You'd think it'd be simple enough for him instead just to say something like, "you can distinguish the objective truth of the cause I attribute to my experience from just guessing by the following method:..." but it never comes. 

Funny that. 

[Shaker]

The trouble is though God crops up everywhere.....experience, cosmology, philosophy etc.

Not in mine, sunshine. J'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.

[ProfessorDavey]

And that would all be lovely if God didn't appear in philosophy, moral philosophy Cosmogeny and that is why God if he exists would be true for all of us.

Of course if god objectively exists he/she/it would be true for everyone. But there is exactly zero evidence for actual objective existence of your god, or indeed any god. Sure people who believe (without objective evidence) in god can make moral codes etc based on their belief in the existence of their god, rather than their knowledge of the existence of their god, but those moral codes are made up by people, who we can objectively demonstrate exist, not by god, who we cannot.

What I am actually suggesting is that there is a middle route - where we can accept that god exists in an experiential manner, in other words 'true for you' if you chose to believe, but not actually objectively true for everyone.

Given the complete lack of objective evidence for any god then this at least allows some claim of subjective existence, as otherwise that lack of objective evidence drives to choosing not to believe, and people increasingly are when they have the freedom to chose and access to an open and balanced education.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the contrary - by your very use of the term 'the truth of experience' you are demonstrating your bias ably. The truth of experience is nothing more (nor less) than 'true for me', or 'true for you'. It isn't objectively true unless it is always true for everyone (in an experiential manner), which it clearly isn't or can be demonstrated to be true by objective means.
That is complete bollocks - you cannot know what I experience and I cannot know what you experience. You are doing the classic logical fallacy of assuming that just because you experience something in a particular way then I (and everyone else must too. You are making a claim equivalent to stating that all people must thing that Finzi is a fantastic composer because that is my experience.

That's interesting because it means that science and the universe being wonderful is according to you inconsequential personal baggage and yet there is no problem with it being touted round by Cox etc.

.....and Dougie Adams enjoyment of the Garden without fairies is also rendered as inconsequential shit.

And yet the very deriders of personal experience are the very people who specially plead science as the exception wonder counts.

The trouble is of course science pops up in cosmogony and philosophy although not moral philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course if god objectively exists he/she/it would be true for everyone. But there is exactly zero evidence for actual objective existence of your god, or indeed any god. Sure people who believe (without objective evidence) in god can make moral codes etc based on their belief in the existence of their god, rather than their knowledge of the existence of their god, but those moral codes are made up by people, who we can objectively demonstrate exist, not by god, who we cannot.

What I am actually suggesting is that there is a middle route - where we can accept that god exists in an experiential manner, in other words 'true for you' if you chose to believe, but not actually objectively true for everyone.

Given the complete lack of objective evidence for any god then this at least allows some claim of subjective existence, as otherwise that lack of objective evidence drives to choosing not to believe, and people increasingly are when they have the freedom to chose and access to an open and balanced education.

Until you can prove ontological naturalism from methodological naturalism God remains.
God is not just an idea but is experienced but that involves encounter and response.
That is a consciousness raising experience leading to illumination of the linguistic and thought frameworks(we can accommodate the notion of \god as creator) and increased moral consciousness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ruling out (most) gods is a very different prospect to providing a good argument for any of them. How about you provide such an argument...?

There are speculative hypotheses - that's normal for a science. Some conclusions based on these hypotheses don't appear to be falsifiable. Insofar as they are not, they can never be classed as confirmed theories.

And you are therefore no doubt aware that Greene hypothesises virtual universes in his classification of multiverses.

[Stranger]

And you are therefore no doubt aware that Greene hypothesises virtual universes in his classification of multiverses.

What has this to do with some god cropping up in cosmology?

Or the objective arguments or evidence for any god from any source at all - which are only notable in your posts to date by their total absence?

[ProfessorDavey]

Until you can prove ontological naturalism from methodological naturalism God remains.

On the contrary god remains merely an idea until those who believe actually prove his/her/its existence.

What on earth does ontological naturalism or methodological naturalism have to do with it. And in addition why does one need to be proved from the other. They can both be separately true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What has this to do with some god cropping up in cosmology?

If this is a virtual universe it could have a creator.

I don't suppose your caricature conception of God runs to that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On the contrary god remains merely an idea until those who believe actually prove his/her/its existence.

Unless encountered. Otherwise you are equating methodology with ontology.

[Stranger]

If this is a virtual universe it could have a creator.

And it may not be a virtual universe and it may not have a creator.

If it does have a creator, it might exist in another universe and be the equivalent of a spotty teenager with a new physics set, in some advanced civilization.

I don't suppose your caricature conception of God runs to that.

I don't have a (single, my own) concept of any gods - so it can't really be a caricature.

Does your concept of god run to the spotty teenager?

This is the point Vlad, I'm not arguing that it's impossible for there to be some sort of god (or any other kind of universe creator) - just that there's no evidence or reasoning that support the view that there actually is - and, more to the point perhaps, that even if there is, it has anything at all to do with any of the gods created by humans.

http://www.godchecker.com/

[ProfessorDavey]

Until you can prove ontological naturalism from methodological naturalism God remains.

And by your logically non-sense argument so does:

Thor, Odin, Vishnu and every other of the thousands of purported gods
The invisible flying teapot
The flying spaghetti monster
The Loch Ness monster
Unicorns
Leprechauns
etc, etc etc

Can hardly be elbow room in that fantasy world of yours.

Just to be clear it isn't the case that something does exist unless or until it is proven not to exist. Nor actually does it not exist until it is proven to do so. It either exists or it doesn't. But the problem for you is that try as you and your co-religionists have tried over thousands of years you have yet to provide one shred of credible evidence that your god exists, beyond the 'true for me' subjective stuff.

[wigginhall]

Until you can prove ontological naturalism from methodological naturalism God remains.
God is not just an idea but is experienced but that involves encounter and response.
That is a consciousness raising experience leading to illumination of the linguistic and thought frameworks(we can accommodate the notion of \god as creator) and increased moral consciousness.

I think approaching spiritual and religious stuff from the point of view of experience is fine.  However, there are two issues with it - it is a private experience; and second, of course, there are a huge number of different experiences going in the world.   I have Sufi friends who say that there is only God, and I have Buddhist friends who are not really interested in God, in fact, some of them say that there isn't anything really!

Now we are embarked on a kind of pluralism, which also includes lack of belief in God.   Let a 100 flowers bloom, then, but I'm not sure that Christianity can include that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

What on earth does ontological naturalism or methodological naturalism have to do with it.

Nothing whatsoever. Trollboy’s playbook goes like this:

1. He had an “experience” that he’s attributed to a god (that by a remarkable co-incidence just happens to be the god with which he’s most familiar). So far, so subjective…

2. Then though he overreaches by asserting this god to be an objective truth for the rest of us too. 

3. When asked why anyone else should take his causal explanation any more seriously than the countless different causal explanations countless others have had for countless experiences of their own he cannot or will not answer.

4. Instead therefore he’s cast around for terms that he thinks will help if he attacks them, and has lighted upon “ontological naturalism” to do the job. Now ontological naturalism can have various meanings, an extreme version being “the natural/material is necessarily all there is”. It’s a rare use though, the more usual one being something like, “the natural/material is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and testable” and so for the most part the proponent of it will proceed on the basis that, while anything might be, there’s no reason to suppose that everything that might be actually is.

5. Nonetheless, Trollboy labels us with his idiosyncratic version of the term, and then tries to critique us for ruling out the possibility that his personal god could also be a truth for the rest of us. 

6. Leaving aside his definitional problem of having no idea what he means by “god” (which technically makes the rest of us ignostic in response to his claims) he seems oblivious not only to the fact that he’s pushing at an open door re the possibility that anything might be, and not only to the problem that that same door also opens the way to anything else anyone else may happen to dream up, but also to the problem that it takes him no one iota of a jot of a smidgin towards an argument to take his god from “might be” to “is”.

7. Deepak Chopra styley he throws in the notion of a multiverse – apparently in the belief that it means that anything might be actually is. Even so, he seems blissfully unaware that a god boxed in to one such sub-universe would flatly contradict the claims he makes for his god – ie, that “He” is the creator of everything, and moreover that this god is the only show in town.

8. Finally, regardless of how many times he’s corrected he clings to this nonsense as a man clings to a lead lifebelt all the while wondering why the waves are closing over him. At first it was just stupid, but now it’s openly dishonest because he cannot or will not address the corrections he’s been given.         

It’s a mistake too I think to think that – because he (mis)uses long words – there must be an intelligence at play. When you strip away the evasions, the misrepresentations, the desperately broken logic you’re left with the reasoning of a four-year-old.

And an unpleasantly petulant one at that.

[Shaker]

Well ... bravo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And by your logically non-sense argument so does:

Thor, Odin, Vishnu and every other of the thousands of purported gods
The invisible flying teapot
The flying spaghetti monster
The Loch Ness monster
Unicorns
Leprechauns
etc, etc etc

Can hardly be elbow room in that fantasy world of yours.

Just to be clear it isn't the case that something does exist unless or until it is proven not to exist. Nor actually does it not exist until it is proven to do so. It either exists or it doesn't. But the problem for you is that try as you and your co-religionists have tried over thousands of years you have yet to provide one shred of credible evidence that your god exists, beyond the 'true for me' subjective stuff.

Odin, Vishnu etc. well granted.

Invisible flying teapot...... If it's invisible, how do we know it's a teapot?
FSM.............How do we know it's spaghetti and not linguine?
The LNM.................Either non existent or has moved.
Unicorns.........give me the horn
Leprechauns............where have you been for the last six years?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prof,

Nothing whatsoever. Trollboy’s playbook goes like this:

1. He had an “experience” that he’s attributed to a god (that by a remarkable co-incidence just happens to be the god with which he’s most familiar). So far, so subjective…

2. Then though he overreaches by asserting this god to be an objective truth for the rest of us too. 

Let me stop you there Blue Hotel. I have said that in our debates I cannot say any more than If God exists he would be true for all of us since God is present in philosophy, moral philosophy and cosmogony. I have not claimed to be able to present God to anybody......the rest of your shit therefore is just antitheist wankfodder.

Have a nice day.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Me:

It’s a mistake too I think to think that – because he (mis)uses long words – there must be an intelligence at play. When you strip away the evasions, the misrepresentations, the desperately broken logic you’re left with the reasoning of a four-year-old.

And an unpleasantly petulant one at that.

Trollboy:

Let me stop you there Blue Hotel. I have said that in our debates I cannot say any more than If God exists he would be true for all of us since God is present in philosophy, moral philosophy and cosmogony. I have not claimed to be able to present God to anybody......the rest of your shit therefore is just antitheist wankfodder.

QED

[ProfessorDavey]

Odin, Vishnu etc. well granted.

Invisible flying teapot...... If it's invisible, how do we know it's a teapot?
FSM.............How do we know it's spaghetti and not linguine?
The LNM.................Either non existent or has moved.
Unicorns.........give me the horn
Leprechauns............where have you been for the last six years?

All of them exist by your bizarre manner of thinking - unless you are cherry picking, so that your argument only applies to those entities that you have already pre-determined, in your mind, exist.

Not very logical really Vlad. Back to the drawing board I think.

Try again when you have a more cogent argument - until then I suggest you spend a little time learning about reasoning and intellectual argument as you seem rather lacking in those regards, whatever big words you might throw around (but clearly don't understand).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

7. Deepak Chopra styley he throws in the notion of a multiverse – apparently in the belief that it means that anything might be actually is. Even so, he seems blissfully unaware that a god boxed in to one such sub-universe would flatly contradict the claims he makes for his god – ie, that “He” is the creator of everything, and moreover that this god is the only show in town.

Oh so now I'm Deepak Chopra? Well if you can deflect attention from my point Hillside then I guess I have to expect you to be up for it.

If we live in a virtual universe within a multiverse then whatever creates us fulfils the Job description of God as proposed i'm afraid.

Also you have missed the point that the multiverse may have no way of being proved or disproved and is thus special pleading on the part of people like Sean Carroll for whom one universe remains a ''problem'' for some reason....Oh the fine tuning ''problem'' apparently.

Finally if there are virtual universes, what is to stop them all being virtual?

Some questions there Hillside which doubtless you feel are beneath you being the biggest swinging wotsit on the forum and that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Me:

It’s a mistake too I think to think that – because he (mis)uses long words – there must be an intelligence at play. When you strip away the evasions, the misrepresentations, the desperately broken logic you’re left with the reasoning of a four-year-old.

And an unpleasantly petulant one at that.

Trollboy:

Oh so now I'm Deepak Chopra? Well if you can deflect attention from my point Hillside then I guess I have to expect you to be up for it.

If we live in a virtual universe within a multiverse then whatever creates us fulfils the Job description of God as proposed i'm afraid.

Also you have missed the point that the multiverse may have no way of being proved or disproved and is thus special pleading on the part of people like Sean Carroll for whom one universe remains a ''problem'' for some reason....Oh the fine tuning ''problem'' apparently.

Finally if there are virtual universes, what is to stop them all being virtual?

Some questions there Hillside which doubtless you feel are beneath you being the biggest swinging wotsit on the forum and that

QED redux.

[ProfessorDavey]

... people like Sean Carroll ...

I do love it when the anti-atheists (see what I did there) use the term 'people like'. It used to be 'people like Richard Dawkins' and now Vlad has applied the same technique to Sean Carroll.

Actually this doesn't mean 'people like Richard Dawkins' it means Dawkins, just as it doesn't mean 'people like Sean Carroll' it means Carroll. Because these guys can never actually think of any other members of the 'people like ...' class.

So come on then who are the rest of the group who are in your mind 'people like Sean Carroll', because there must be loads of others for you to use that phrase.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do love it when the anti-atheists (see what I did there) use the term 'people like'. It used to be 'people like Richard Dawkins' and now Vlad has applied the same technique to Sean Carroll.

Actually this doesn't mean 'people like Richard Dawkins' it means Dawkins, just as it doesn't mean 'people like Sean Carroll' it means Carroll. Because these guys can never actually think of any other members of the 'people like ...' class.

So come on then who are the rest of the group who are in your mind 'people like Sean Carroll', because there must be loads of others for you to use that phrase.

Ah, the sound of scraping barrels.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

I do love it when the anti-atheists (see what I did there) use the term 'people like'. It used to be 'people like Richard Dawkins' and now Vlad has applied the same technique to Sean Carroll.

Actually this doesn't mean 'people like Richard Dawkins' it means Dawkins, just as it doesn't mean 'people like Sean Carroll' it means Carroll. Because these guys can never actually think of any other members of the 'people like ...' class.

So come on then who are the rest of the group who are in your mind 'people like Sean Carroll', because there must be loads of others for you to use that phrase.

Actually that's my fault I think. I referenced Sean Carroll in a different discussion and, true to form, Trollboy has seized on it and misunderstood or misrepresented him. Look at his latest abject confusion for example about "multiverse" and "virtual universe".   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prof,

Actually that's my fault I think. I referenced Sean Carroll in a different discussion and, true to form, Trollboy has seized on it and misunderstood or misrepresented him. Look at his latest abject confusion for example about "multiverse" and "virtual universe".

Don't hold your breath if you want Hillside to explain where the ''abject confusion'' lies though.