Food for thought for Christians

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

You are the one who refuses to give a methodology for what you believe ontologically while demanding one from somebody who has already admitted he may not have one.

Alas, for you though, methodology is not ontology.

So, are you saying you can't provide us with a methodology in order to verify that you have correctly identified the cause of your experience?

You know what that would be absolutely fine. I'm very happy to proceed with discussion on a wide range of issues based on a true for you type claim. There could be many interesting ones to be had.

[Stranger]

You are the one who refuses to give a methodology for what you believe ontologically while demanding one from somebody who has already admitted he may not have one.

Alas, for you though, methodology is not ontology.

You are constructing what you'd like to think other people's ontological beliefs are and then criticising them.

That's a straw man fallacy.

Learn some logic!!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, are you saying you can't provide us with a methodology in order to verify that you have correctly identified the cause of your experience?

You know what that would be absolutely fine. I'm very happy to proceed with discussion on a wide range of issues based on a true for you type claim. There could be many interesting ones to be had.

I am saying methodology does not help with issues of ontology.....and experience of God and the reality thereof and indeed Godfree, the view of atheism.....are issues of ontology.

Given that claims of God and claims of Godfree can be discussed philosophically and rationally and logically providing there is no erroneous claim that these are necessarily Godfree.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are constructing what you'd like to think other people's ontological beliefs are and then criticising them.

That's a straw man fallacy.

Learn some logic!!!

Many antitheists and non theists are in the experience of this forum very cagey about their beliefs........and that is the major malfunction which leads them to confuse methodology with ontology.

However where they stand

[Stranger]

I am saying methodology does not help with issues of ontology.....and experience of God and the reality thereof and indeed Godfree, the view of atheism.....are issues of ontology.

Actually, you can't really decide on anything without some sort of methodology.

Given that claims of God and claims of Godfree can be discussed philosophically and rationally and logically providing there is no erroneous claim that these are necessarily Godfree.

Nobody I know of is claiming that there are definitely no gods, so your 'Godfree' nonsense is another straw man.

[Stranger]

Many antitheists and non theists are in the experience of this forum very cagey about their beliefs....

No, they aren't - you've been told many, many times that most atheists do not claim there are definitely no gods. Your continued drivelling on about claims of 'godfree' can only be due either to failure to read, deliberate straw man construction, or stupidity.

....and that is the major malfunction which leads them to confuse methodology with ontology.

No - you lust keep moronically repeating this like it's some magic mantra. I doubt you even know what it means...

How about you give the full argument of how you know what other people's ontological beliefs are and in what way they are confusing it with methodology...

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I am saying methodology does not help with issues of ontology.....and experience of God and the reality thereof and indeed Godfree, the view of atheism.....are issues of ontology.

Given that claims of God and claims of Godfree can be discussed philosophically and rationally and logically providing there is no erroneous claim that these are necessarily Godfree.

So you agree you cannot offer anything to sort out the issue highlighted in msg 389.

For your benefit here it is again.
 

I have answered it several times.

Here we go for another time:

(Before we go though I am proceeding along the lines that you equate experience of God with revelation of God. You use the former in your case and the latter in my friends case, so I will continue assuming you use them interchangeably)


You have a revelation of God. This best fits the Christian narrative. You therefore accept a divine Jesus.

He has a revelation of God. This best fits the Jewish narrative. He therefore does not accept a divine Jesus. If he thought there was a divine Jesus the Jewish narrative would not be the best fit to his experience.


[Further notes]

1)    I use narrative as a short hand version for you "linguistic framework, so feel free to change them as best suits you]

2)    Ignoring my friend, do you really think there are no Jewish people who believe they have a direct personal experience of God? Unless people who do are all lying the question remains, of how we know if your or their or any personal revelation is reliable.
[quote/]

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Many antitheists and non theists are in the experience of this forum very cagey about their beliefs........and that is the major malfunction which leads them to confuse methodology with ontology.

However where they stand

I have told you exactly what my view of gods and the "non-natural" realm is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually, you can't really decide on anything without some sort of methodology.

Nobody I know of is claiming that there are definitely no gods, so your 'Godfree' nonsense is another straw man.

Shaker for instance has said in terms of questions of providence of the universe has cheerfully admitted that he doesn't know but it wasn't God.

That is a prime case of Godfree.
Ontological naturalist position is implicit in all forum arguments against theists.

You are wrong to portray these arguments as merely critiques of methodology.

Are you suggesting that al are some kind of  weird theist atheist hybrid.

The person who actually needs to explain the leaky materialism you propose is actually Bluehillside but maybe you can explain how an ontological fence squatter can also be a vehement antitheist or anti supernaturalist.

[Shaker]

Shaker for instance has said in terms of questions of providence of the universe has cheerfully admitted that he doesn't know but it wasn't God.

No reason to think so, old fruit. And claiming to know something on no evidence whatever is a bit stupid isn't it, Vlad?

By the way: I know this is a daily thing with you but you appear not to know what providence means.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you agree you cannot offer anything to sort out the issue highlighted in msg 389.

For your benefit here it is again.
 

I have answered it several times.

Here we go for another time:

(Before we go though I am proceeding along the lines that you equate experience of God with revelation of God. You use the former in your case and the latter in my friends case, so I will continue assuming you use them interchangeably)


You have a revelation of God. This best fits the Christian narrative. You therefore accept a divine Jesus.

He has a revelation of God. This best fits the Jewish narrative. He therefore does not accept a divine Jesus. If he thought there was a divine Jesus the Jewish narrative would not be the best fit to his experience.


[Further notes]

1)    I use narrative as a short hand version for you "linguistic framework, so feel free to change them as best suits you]

2)    Ignoring my friend, do you really think there are no Jewish people who believe they have a direct personal experience of God? Unless people who do are all lying the question remains, of how we know if your or their or any personal revelation is reliable.
[quote/]

I do not believe that I can find a methodology for an ontology.
That should be clear.

I cannot give you what you want since that would make me complicit in your error namely that philosophical methods and logical methods are not relevant in religion.

[Stranger]

Ontological naturalist position is implicit in all forum arguments against theists.

Implicit in what way?

You are wrong to portray these arguments as merely critiques of methodology.

Why?

Are you suggesting that al are some kind of  weird theist atheist hybrid.

An atheist (this one anyway) sees no reasoning and no evidence for any gods and hence lacks a belief in any.

I see no evidence or reasoning for vampires either.

Both vampires and gods might exist - but I have no reason to think they do.

What is so complicated about that?

Why can't you get it into your head?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I see no evidence or reasoning for vampires either.

Both vampires and gods might exist - but I have no reason to think they do.

What is so complicated about that?

Why can't you get it into your head?

I think this is all about the fact that he finally admitted earlier that he has not got a methodology for taking his true for me claims forward to objectively real.

He is trying to salvage a draw by saying that you can't prove there is no God either. The fact that no one has made this claim always escapes him.

[horsethorn]

Given that claims of God and claims of Godfree can be discussed philosophically and rationally and logically providing there is no erroneous claim that these are necessarily Godfree.

And yet even in discussion with another theist, you can't support your arguments.

ht

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually, you can't really decide on anything without some sort of methodology.

Nobody I know of is claiming that there are definitely no gods, so your 'Godfree' nonsense is another straw man.

I'm afraid that when methodology on this site they mean science and then try to hand wave the fact that science does not help with ontology.
Any victories an antitheist thinks he gets by talking about methodology is actually pyrrhic and indeed not a victory.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet even in discussion with another theist, you can't support your arguments.

ht

No,
I can argue philosophically, rationally and logically with another theist and we can compare our witness.

When I argue with Stephen he is putting up an ersatz atheistic best shot at what he thinks a religious person is.

[Stranger]

I'm afraid that when methodology on this site they mean science and then try to hand wave the fact that science does not help with ontology.
Any victories an antitheist thinks he gets by talking about methodology is actually pyrrhic and indeed not a victory.

How do you arrive at a conclusion as to what you regard as true without a methodology?

I don't care if it's science or something else.

At the moment you seem to be claiming some magic insight directly into what is real and what is not, via reading a few books and matching it to something you experienced.

That would be fine if it worked for everybody else and they reached the same conclusion. It patently does not, otherwise we wouldn't have endless, sects, cults, religions, superstitions, atheists and agnostics...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, are you saying you can't provide us with a methodology in order to verify that you have correctly identified the cause of your experience.

The alternative explanation is mental aberration. Stephen.
Feel free to demonstrate mental abberance.

[ProfessorDavey]

I can argue philosophically, rationally and logically with another theist and we can compare our witness.

In other words you can discuss your relative subjective experiences, which is fine and dandy if that's what you wish to do, but takes us not one jot further in determining whether god or gods objectively exist (in other words true for everyone), in other words outside of subjective 'experience' (in other words 'true for me' but perhaps not 'true for you').

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you arrive at a conclusion as to what you regard as true without a methodology?

I don't care if it's science or something else.

At the moment you seem to be claiming some magic insight directly into what is real and what is not, via reading a few books and matching it to something you experienced.

That would be fine if it worked for everybody else and they reached the same conclusion. It patently does not, otherwise we wouldn't have endless, sects, cults, religions, superstitions, atheists and agnostics...

Methodology is not ontology Stranger.
When is that going to sink in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In other words you can discuss your relative subjective experiences, which is fine and dandy if that's what you wish to do, but takes us not one jot further in determining whether god or gods objectively exist (in other words true for everyone), in other words outside of subjective 'experience' (in other words 'true for me' but perhaps not 'true for you').

You are saying therefore that objectively real things do not cause experiences?
That methodologies give rise to experiences.

Also, although you may not like it, your musings move you inexorably towards a conclusion of mental
Why not cut to the chase and prove mental abbération.

[Stranger]

Methodology is not ontology Stranger.
When is that going to sink in.

Evasion is not an answer. When is that going to sink in?

Chanting your methodology/ontology mantra means nothing; you might as well just post "wibble".

[Stranger]

The alternative explanation is mental aberration. Stephen.
Feel free to demonstrate mental abberance.

Right after you demonstrate mental aberration in everybody who doesn't believe in your god.....

[ProfessorDavey]

You are saying therefore that objectively real things do not cause experiences?

I am saying that how we react to things (i.e. our experience of them) is, of course, subjective. You and I might experience the same thing but our subjective interpretation of the meaning of that experience may be entirely different - it is subjective.

Objective truths are independent of subjective experience - indeed they would remain objectively true even if there wasn't anyone around to experience them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am saying that how we react to things (i.e. our experience of them) is, of course, subjective. You and I might experience the same thing but our subjective interpretation of the meaning of that experience may be entirely different - it is subjective.

Objective truths are independent of subjective experience - indeed they would remain objectively true even if there wasn't anyone around to experience them.

I've never experience Australia.