When did the Christian mission...

[Gordon]

A method? Well that isn't an ontology at all.

Funny thing is Vlad, both the Profs who were my academic supervisors (who were very strict about research methods) never mentioned 'ontology', and I suspect they were better qualified than you are on this issue.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

A method? Well that isn't an ontology at all.

Right, do you really need me to drag up the previous posts on this subject?

You admitted that God could not be shown to be objectively true.  We all agree that someone seeking Gog might get to a point where they believed the existence of God was objectively true.

As we all know that is not the same as demonstrating it to be objectively true.

Very happy to go though the older posts, but are you?           

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

As are its failures, but you would rather these weren't mentioned as they undermine your reliance on it.  As for answering SKoS's question, I've explained in a number of places across this board, and then briefly explained again in my last post. It's all about 'testing' or asking questions.

errm what are these failures exactly?

People make an observation.

They develop an hypothesis of what the principle factors might be.

They then test the hypothesis against previously untested  data (in a way that is independent of the person carrying out the test and in  which the variable(s) under scrutiny have been isolated.

If it fits, the hypothesis is accepted (on a provisional basis).

If the model doesn't match reality then the model is refined of rejected.

If the model matches reality then it becomes our best understanding until further data comes along that refines or destroys the model.

What is wrong with that approach?

Can you outline a similar method for you on-naturalist stuff? i.e. following on form the previous thread can you give me the name and adrees of an academic who has published a paper that says that scientific explanations to spontaneous healing CAN be ruled out.

I did a search of Elsevier and ScienceDirect the other day (as part of my professional subscription) but failed to find one.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Right, do you really need me to drag up the previous posts on this subject?

You admitted that God could not be shown to be objectively true.  We all agree that someone seeking Gog might get to a point where they believed the existence of God was objectively true.

As we all know that is not the same as demonstrating it to be objectively true.

Very happy to go though the older posts, but are you?           

Bump

[Hope]

Right, do you really need me to drag up the previous posts on this subject?

You admitted that God could not be shown to be objectively true.  We all agree that someone seeking Gog might get to a point where they believed the existence of God was objectively true.

As we all know that is not the same as demonstrating it to be objectively true.

Very happy to go though the older posts, but are you?           

Yet, we don't actually know whether what is claimed for science is objectively true, either, Stephen.  As I have pointed out before, the history of science has been littered with false starts, dead ends, arguably unacceptable outcomes (eg nuclear weapons) and scientific laws that have stood for a period (both long and short) before being shown - to the best of the new generations ability - to be mistaken, false or incomplete.  Science is based, regardless of what you and others like to argue, on experience and observation which is then filtered through human understanding.  How does this differ from religious belief?  Science is very good in many aspects of life, but doesn't even attempt to look at, let alone answer many of the moral and ethical issues that make up 'the rest of' real life.

[Stranger]

Yet, we don't actually know whether what is claimed for science is objectively true, either, Stephen.

It is however, objectively testable. That is what science does. It produces hypotheses that are then either confirmed or falsified.

As I have pointed out before, the history of science has been littered with false starts, dead ends, arguably unacceptable outcomes (eg nuclear weapons) and scientific laws that have stood for a period (both long and short) before being shown - to the best of the new generations ability - to be mistaken, false or incomplete.

As one would expect from the way it works. Delving back to pre-scientific ideas, like humorism for example, is however, dishonest.

Science is based, regardless of what you and others like to argue, on experience and observation which is then filtered through human understanding.

...and which is objectively verifiable. It is organised to minimise personal bias and subjectivity. Experimental results have to be repeatable and observations confirmed.

How does this differ from religious belief?

Fundamentally: science is characterized by objectivity (intersubjective verification), while religion appears to have no objective means by which it can be tested at all.

Despite repeated questions, nobody has come up with an objective way of testing religious claims. This post of yours is just the latest instance of you blatantly avoiding the question.

[Shaker]

Bravo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Right, do you really need me to drag up the previous posts on this subject?

You admitted that God could not be shown to be objectively true.  We all agree that someone seeking Gog might get to a point where they believed the existence of God was objectively true.

As we all know that is not the same as demonstrating it to be objectively true.

Very happy to go though the older posts, but are you?           

You cant help hawking methodology for evidence for an ontology can you?

[Leonard James]

You guys are clearly infected with ologismy.

[Stranger]

You cant help hawking methodology for evidence for an ontology can you?

There goes that damned parrot again.

Squawk! Squawk! Squawk! Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight! Squawk! Ontology! Squawk! Squawk! Methodology!! Squawk! Squawk!

[Owlswing]

There goes that damned parrot again.

Squawk! Squawk! Squawk! Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight! Squawk! Ontology! Squawk! Squawk! Methodology!! Squawk! Squawk!

 

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

You cant help hawking methodology for evidence for an ontology can you?

I don't recall hawking anything.

If you want a response to your message can I request that you first express it in plain English.

[Leonard James]

I don't recall hawking anything.

If you want a response to your message can I request that you first express it in plain English.

You can't get blood from a stone.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Yet, we don't actually know whether what is claimed for science is objectively true, either, Stephen.  As I have pointed out before, the history of science has been littered with false starts, dead ends, arguably unacceptable outcomes (eg nuclear weapons) and scientific laws that have stood for a period (both long and short) before being shown - to the best of the new generations ability - to be mistaken, false or incomplete.  Science is based, regardless of what you and others like to argue, on experience and observation which is then filtered through human understanding.  How does this differ from religious belief?  Science is very good in many aspects of life, but doesn't even attempt to look at, let alone answer many of the moral and ethical issues that make up 'the rest of' real life.

Hard to improve on SKOS's answer.

But I would like to emphasis the verification point. This is where your and Vlad's arguments for the existence of God fall flat on their face. You have no methodology for verifying them as objectively true. You have claimed to have one but ....well we all know the rest.

Actually to be fair to Vlad he has admitted that he doesn't have one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't recall hawking anything.

Stephen? Hawking?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science is a method....it might be THE method....but you've got to get from that Ladies and Gentlemen to the virtue of whatever it is you believe in or the virtue of not believing in something other people do.

Don't forget boys and girls you are deluded if you think you hold the default position.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Science is a method....it might be THE method....but you've got to get from that Ladies and Gentlemen to the virtue of whatever it is you believe in or the virtue of not believing in something other people do.

Don't forget boys and girls you are deluded if you think you hold the default position.

No the default position is clearly that things are treated as undemonstrated until they are, in fac,t demonstrated. Otherwise you would soon get to the ludicrous position of holding multiple contradictory things as objectively true.

As to your first part, what I or anyone else believes is irrelevant to your claims. You make the claim it is up to you to demonstrate its objectiveness, if that is, you  want people to take your claim seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No the default position is clearly that things are treated as undemonstrated until they are, in fac,t demonstrated. Otherwise you would soon get to the ludicrous position of holding multiple contradictory things as objectively true.

As to your first part, what I or anyone else believes is irrelevant to your claims. You make the claim it is up to you to demonstrate its objectiveness, if that is, you  want people to take your claim seriously.

You are again perpetuating the myth that you and your ilk support and do science and people not like you don't. You have science and we have science, therefore what is the difference?

Can you demonstrate for instance that you can only know about naturalistic things? That is a belief, Stephen.....please demonstrate the virtue of it. I would say put up or shut up but silencing opposing views but that is I move the desire of people who are largely, IMHO, on your side of the argument and frankly you guys show no sign of trying to understand where they are coming from.

There are of course honourable exceptions to that and one of those, from my point of view very recently produced one of the most timely and sensible posts I've seen on the matter.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Can you demonstrate for instance that you can only know about naturalistic things? That is a belief, Stephen.....please demonstrate the virtue of it.

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish.

I have said on many occasions that I DO NOT SAY that you can only know about naturalistic things. You have been corrected on this on many occasions so please stop lying.

Naturalistic things certainly exist, I'm sure you agree. In order for us to admit non naturalistic things into the same category we need a method to determine if those things do indeed exist. NOTE AGAIN, that is not the same as saying they don't/can't exist. They remain in the undemonstrated category. That is until someone can come up with a verification method that teks them out of that category. We are still waiting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually to be fair to Vlad he has admitted that he doesn't have one.

I Hope you are not taking that as much of a concession though since you cannot demonstrate any position that isn't tainted by some kind of scientism or another.

[Owlswing]

I Hope you are not taking that as much of a concession though since you cannot demonstrate any position that isn't tainted by some kind of scientism or another.

Add yet another 'ism' to Vlad's intreminable list of 'isms'!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You left out method: the science version is well understood but the religious equivalent seems to be absent. Perhaps you could provide said method.

Method is not ontology Gordon.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I Hope you are not taking that as much of a concession though...

I take it as exactly that. A concession that you can't get from a subjectively true for you God (although it feels objective to you) to an objectively true God.

... since you cannot demonstrate any position that isn't tainted by some kind of scientism or another.
[/quote]

I don't recall attempting to demonstrate a position have I?

Saying that your position is undemonstrated is not in itself a position.

[Stranger]

Science is a method....it might be THE method....but you've got to get from that Ladies and Gentlemen to the virtue of whatever it is you believe in or the virtue of not believing in something other people do.

OK, let's play this game.

What I believe: I'm happy to accept as objectively true (at least as a working assumption), those things that can be objectively tested. That is, those things for which there is objective evidence.

Its virtue: it works.

The virtue of not believing other things: if I just accepted things that other people believe, just because they believed them, I'd end of with multiple contradictory beliefs, which would be very confusing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK, let's play this game.

What I believe: I'm happy to accept as objectively true (at least as a working assumption), those things that can be objectively tested. That is, those things for which there is objective evidence.

Its virtue: it works.

What works? What is it which is working? Your belief? or what you know?
I probably believe everything you believe as objectively true.....what is it then that is different from us and what is it in that difference is it that makes you objectively true and me objectively false?