Are we done here?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

No-one claims it is "science". It is though logic - and inescapable logic at that. If I am to accept a priori one man's "worldview" - for example, about "God" - then on what basis should I reject a priori another man's "worldview" about leprechauns?

Why do you need to accept anyone else's worldview? Why not investigate for yourself?

Surprisingly, the Christian religion is more falsifiable (by scientific standards) than the pre-commitment to natural causes and explanations (can't speak for other religions). If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, no Christian faith!! So it comes down to whether or not one believes this happened. Now, if one starts of by assuming natural causes and explanations, there is no way they can even begin to consider this, or anything that is presented as evidence of this. Hardly an objective search for truth, in my opinion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Why do you need to accept anyone else's worldview? Why not investigate for yourself?

You're the one telling me I'm using the wrong "world view"! How would you propose that I investigate the competing claims of the supernatural without using the naturalistic tools of reason and logic?

Surprisingly, the Christian religion is more falsifiable (by scientific standards) than the pre-commitment to natural causes and explanations (can't speak for other religions). If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, no Christian faith!! So it comes down to whether or not one believes this happened. Now, if one starts of by assuming natural causes and explanations, there is no way they can even begin to consider this, or anything that is presented as evidence of this. Hardly an objective search for truth, in my opinion.

So what alternative do you propose to gauge the veracity or otherwise of the resurrection story?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

So what alternative do you propose to gauge the veracity or otherwise of the resurrection story?

Investigate it. Look into it in detail. What are the claims? What things support it? What things don't support it? Are there any counter-claims, etc. Good luck!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Investigate it. Look into it in detail. What are the claims? What things support it? What things don't support it? Are there any counter-claims, etc. Good luck!

Oh right - so use the tools of naturalism then. Fair enough.

Oh hang on though, didn't you say that naturalism is the wrong "world view" for this purpose?

You seem to have painted yourself into a bit of a corner here old son. Do you actually have a "world view" other than the naturalistic one to propose in order to get yourself out of it?

Something?

Anything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Well, as simple logic doesn't work for you what's the alternative?

It turns out that you are equally as shit at simple logic and hypnosis.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

You're the one telling me I'm using the wrong "world view"! How would you propose that I investigate the competing claims of the supernatural without using the naturalistic tools of reason and logic?

That's just you Hillside being intellectually imperialistic and claiming reason and logic for atheism.

After 3

Hooray, for Hilly and Shakes, hooray for Hilly and Shakes, Hooray for Hilly and Shakes..........

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It turns out that you are equally as shit at simple logic and hypnosis.

Only in your head Trollboy, only in your head.

Any news by the way on the various questions you've been asked but keep running away from?

Something?

Anything?

Ah well. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's just you Hillside being intellectually imperialistic and claiming reason and logic for atheism.

After 3

Hooray, for Hilly and Shakes, hooray for Hilly and Shakes, Hooray for Hilly and Shakes..........

I'll add "imperialist" to the ever-growing list of words you don't understand then. There's nothing "imperialist" about identifying that Sword has driven himself into a cul-de-sac. He tells me that my naturalistic "world view" is the wrong one to employ when investigating certain claims, and then proposes that I use a naturalistic method to do so "instead"!

And that my ever-bewildered pal is logic, not imperialism.   

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

Oh right - so use the tools of naturalism then. Fair enough.

Why should naturalism have a monopoly on these tools and techniques?

You seem to have painted yourself into a bit of a corner here old son. Do you actually have a "world view" other than the naturalistic one to propose in order to get yourself out of it?

My worldview allows for natural explanations and non-natural explanations, so I'm not stuck in a corner If I conclude non-natural and it can be shown that there is a natural explanation, I can change. Similarly, if I concluded natural and it can be shown that there is a non-natural explanation, I can change. Your position however cannot offer this flexibility, as you have to assume natural causes and there is no way of falsifying your position!

[Nearly Sane]

Why should naturalism have a monopoly on these tools and techniques?
My worldview allows for natural explanations and non-natural explanations, so I'm not stuck in a corner If I conclude non-natural and it can be shown that there is a natural explanation, I can change. Similarly, if I concluded natural and it can be shown that there is a non-natural explanation, I can change. Your position however cannot offer this flexibility, as you have to assume natural causes and there is no way of falsifying your position!

how do you conclude something is non-naturak or show that there us such an explanation that has any validity? You need a method here, please outline it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Why should naturalism have a monopoly on these tools and techniques?

Because that's what the word means. 

My worldview allows for natural explanations and non-natural explanations, so I'm not stuck in a corner .

Yes you are. In what sense do you have a non-natural "explanation" rather than just a claim or an assertion? How would you test it?   

If I conclude non-natural and it can be shown that there is a natural explanation, I can change. Similarly, if I concluded natural and it can be shown that there is a non-natural explanation, I can change.

You need to back up there. What would a "non-natural explanation" even mean in this context? 

Your position however cannot offer this flexibility, as you have to assume natural causes and there is no way of falsifying your position!

Of course there is - try the lift vs defenestration experiment I suggested.

And my position "cannot offer this flexibility" because the flexibility is illusory, and will remain so until you come up with a method to differentiate your non-natural "explanation" from just guessing, mistake, delusion etc.

That's your problem. If your complaint is that I approach claims of the supernatural with a naturalistic "world view" then fair enough. The job is all yours though to propose an alternative means of testing the claims that isn't a naturalistic one.     

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

how do you conclude something is non-naturak or show that there us such an explanation that has any validity? You need a method here, please outline it.

Why can't you come up with a method yourself? If you can't, it means that your worldview is not falsifiable. Why are you then holding religious belief up to a standard you can't meet yourself?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

And my position "cannot offer this flexibility" because the flexibility is illusory, and will remain so until you come up with a method to differentiate your non-natural "explanation" from just guessing, mistake, delusion etc.

That's your problem.

Erm, it's your problem. Otherwise you will have to concede that you are using a worldview that is not falsifiable. Not only that, it appears that you have no way of being able to do so. Therefore, why are those of religious belief being held to a standard that its opponents cannot match?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Why can't you come up with a method yourself?

That's the burden of proof fallacy again. You're the one making the claim ("supernatural entity X"), you come up with a method to test it.

If you can't, it means that your worldview is not falsifiable.

It means no such thing. Rather it means that your world view - gods, dragons, shape-shifting lizards, whatever - isn't falsifiable because you offer no means to falsify it.

Why are you then holding religious belief up to a standard you can't meet yourself?

He isn't. When your premise fails, so does you conclusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Erm, it's your problem.

This burden of proof thing really has got you foxed hasn't it.

Is it your problem to come up with a world view to falsify my claims about leprechauns?

Why not?

Otherwise you will have to concede that you are using a worldview that is not falsifiable.

Don't be daft. Again, try the lift vs defenestration experiment and then tell me that it's not falsifiable.

Not only that,...

There is no "not only", but ok...

...it appears that you have no way of being able to do so. Therefore, why are those of religious belief being held to a standard that its opponents cannot match?

Are you feeling unwell or something? I've given you a method of falsification - several times in fact. What equivalent method would you propose to falsify, say, "God"?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

That's the burden of proof fallacy again. You're the one making the claim ("supernatural entity X"), you come up with a method to test it.

Nope. I'm asking you to substantiate your worldview that all causes have natural explanations and how it can be falsified.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Don't be daft. Again, try the lift vs defenestration experiment and then tell me that it's not falsifiable.

I missed this, sorry. Can you provide a link to it?

[Maeght]

Nope. I'm asking you to substantiate your worldview that all causes have natural explanations and how it can be falsified.

Has anyone claimed that to be a fact?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Nope. I'm asking you to substantiate your worldview that all causes have natural explanations and how it can be falsified.

That's called the fallacy of the straw man. I don't say that at all. What I do say though is that - so far at least - no-one's ever managed to come up with a method to distinguish claims of the supernatural from just guessing about stuff, so I have no cogent reason to believe in the supernatural.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

I missed this, sorry. Can you provide a link to it?

Person A says: "My world view indicates that taking the lift will more reliably deliver you safely to the ground."

Person B says: "My world view indicates that jumping out of the 20th storey window will more reliably deliver you safely to the ground".

Now test these claims and write down the results (I suggest you try A before B).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Has anyone claimed that to be a fact?

No - it's a straw man. I think he might be Vlad's kid brother.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

That's called the fallacy of the straw man. I don't say that at all. What I do say though is that - so far at least - no-one's ever managed to come up with a method to distinguish claims of the supernatural from just guessing about stuff, so I have no cogent reason to believe in the supernatural.

We know that the universe is here because of a supernatural event.

You want your lovely naturalism but have to borrow at least one miracle ha ha.

You have a juvenile scientism in my humble opinion.

[wigginhall]

There must be a Christian college, which trains people in important fallacies, and how to use them.   The negative proof fallacy, straw-manning, reversal of burden of proof, with a side-dish of the problem of induction.   

Is there a degree in it? 

[wigginhall]

We know that the universe is here because of a supernatural event.

You want your lovely naturalism but have to borrow at least one miracle ha ha.

You have a juvenile scientism in my humble opinion.

A supernatural event is an oxymoron. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

We know that the universe is here because of a supernatural event.

We know no such thing. We don't even know whether "supernatural" has any sort of cogent meaning.

You want your lovely naturalism but have to borrow at least one miracle ha ha.

No it doesn't.

You have a juvenile scientism in my humble opinion.

Then your (rarely humble) opinion is wrong, not least because it relies entirely on your personal re-definition of the word "scientism".

Are you and Sword related by any chance? You seem to be making exactly the same mistakes.