Evangelising young children

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see how anyone could argue a case based on supernaturalism. By definition, that would be unamenable to investigation or reason. We have to work with what there is.

You seem to have mistaken methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism here. Never mind, you have outed yourself as.....a faithhead.

Next.

[wigginhall]

You seem to have mistaken methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism here. Never mind, you have outed yourself as.....a faithhead.

Next.

Well, next it would be interesting to see your defence of the supernatural.   

[BeRational]

But if you had noticed earlier this grass business is a shit analogy of believing in the existence of God or believing in a God free universe or in other words a universe with a necessary God and a God Free universe.

You are wrong, it fits perfectly.

Perhaps that's why you are scared to engage with it?

[BeRational]

Yes, It's faith that God isn't going to pop up which suggests a commitment to a view of God would be were he to, er, be and irritation of the mentioning of God.

Whatever it is there is a commitment going on and a position on the providence of pretty much everything.

It is a faith that a god free universe carries on....Hosanna!

I have no faith at all.

I do not believe a god exists, is NOT the same as believing there is no god(s)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, next it would be interesting to see your defence of the supernatural.

The defence of the supernatural involves establishing the crockness of the ''natural''.

[BeRational]

The defence of the supernatural involves establishing the crockness of the ''natural''.

Even if you could, that would still not do it.

The case for A is not made by finding B false.

You have to find evidence for A nothing else matters.

[wigginhall]

The defence of the supernatural involves establishing the crockness of the ''natural''.

Not really.  Be Rational beat me to it.   It's another of your false dichotomies.   If we don't understand consciousness, that does not = God.

[Maeght]

The defence of the supernatural involves establishing the crockness of the ''natural''.

Go on then - but remember it is okay to say 'We don't know'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even if you could, that would still not do it.

The case for A is not made by finding B false.

You have to find evidence for A nothing else matters.

I'm afraid you've set yourself up with your grass analogy.
If God or nature is the equivalent of even number or odd number of grass plants in your garden then establishing Odd falsifies even.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even if you could, that would still not do it.

The case for A is not made by finding B false.

You have to find evidence for A nothing else matters.

The case against B can be the same as the case for A as your lawn teaches us.

[Gordon]

That there are odd or even blades of grass isn't analogous with God or no God though.

Assuming there is an area of grass to be examined the odd or even number of blades/leaves/stems within a given area is potentially knowable, where the options are mutually exclusive and there is a method presumably where grass 'plants' can be counted (say within a 20cm square area).

To use the same analogy/dichotomy for 'God' would require some form of measure and associated method that is analogous to how grass would be counted - which is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That there are odd or even blades of grass isn't analogous with God or no God though.

Thank you.

[BeRational]

I'm afraid you've set yourself up with your grass analogy.
If God or nature is the equivalent of even number or odd number of grass plants in your garden then establishing Odd falsifies even.

I agree where there are only 2 possible options.
But there may be a third unknown option which you have not realised.

The point about a god, it either exists or it does not so it is digital, as is the odd or even number of blades of grass. There are no third options.

[Gordon]

I agree where there are only 2 possible options.
But there may be a third unknown option which you have not realised.

The point about a god, it either exists or it does not so it is digital, as is the odd or even number of blades of grass. There are no third options.

I don't think this odd/even analogy works well in this case.

Given a method to accurately count grass, which seems likely, this when applied to the odd/even question would confirm one of only two possibilities: odd or even, where the result of 'even' falsifies 'odd', and vice versa. So, applying this approach to 'god'/'no god' would require a comparable method involving criteria that has the potential to falsify 'no god' if the criteria is present in some way, or if absent to falsify 'god'.

I don't think there is such a method because I don't think 'god' is a meaningful enough conjecture about which detectable criteria can be clearly stated, along with a method to investigate the presence or absence of these criteria.   

[BeRational]

I don't think this odd/even analogy works well in this case.

Given a method to accurately count grass, which seems likely, this when applied to the odd/even question would confirm one of only two possibilities: odd or even, where the result of 'even' falsifies 'odd', and vice versa. So, applying this approach to 'god'/'no god' would require a comparable method involving criteria that has the potential to  falsify 'no god' if the criteria is present in some way, or if absent to falsify 'god'.

I don't think there is such a method because I don't think 'god' is a meaningful enough conjecture about which detectable criteria can be clearly stated, along with a method to investigate the presence or absence of these criteria.

I agree.

Perhaps the person making the claim should define god, then describe the method to establish this god exists.
Someone could say that music was their god, and I would believe that god existed, but I would not accept any supernatural powers for music, unless that could also be shown.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree.

Perhaps the person making the claim should define god, then describe the method to establish this god exists.
Someone could say that music was their god, and I would believe that god existed, but I would not accept any supernatural powers for music, unless that could also be shown.

I think it's already been suggested a few times.
Interestingly enough those who weren't prepared to attempt the method
cited a lack of belief in God as the reason therefore suggesting a pre-eminence of belief in any methodology.

[BeRational]

I think it's already been suggested a few times.
Interestingly enough those who weren't prepared to attempt the method
cited a lack of belief in God as the reason therefore suggesting a pre-eminence of belief in any methodology.

What's the method?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's the method?

Sending out an 'if you exist' or even 'do you exist' message into the darkness which is the uncertainty of whether God exists or not. Anyone can do it.

[Sebastian Toe]

Sending out an 'if you exist' or even 'do you exist' message into the darkness which is the uncertainty of whether God exists or not. Anyone can do it.

If that is done and there is no response, the usual comeback is that the subject is;

a) not doing it 'correctly' in the first place
b) not recognising that there has actually been a response
c) not listening properly
d) not waiting long enough for a response
e) some other excuse......

....so what is the process to do it 'correctly'?

[BeRational]

Sending out an 'if you exist' or even 'do you exist' message into the darkness which is the uncertainty of whether God exists or not. Anyone can do it.

It does not give an answer so your method is no good.

[torridon]

Sending out an 'if you exist' or even 'do you exist' message into the darkness which is the uncertainty of whether God exists or not. Anyone can do it.

Not exactly very scientific is it. In searching for exoplanets, Nasa have developed far more reliable methods for determining the existence of something.  If you got a job in astrophysics would you still be satisfied with your technique and stand there yelling at space, or would you start to see the value in more objective structured methods of enquiry ?

[jeremyp]

Sending out an 'if you exist' or even 'do you exist' message into the darkness which is the uncertainty of whether God exists or not. Anyone can do it.

What if you don't get a reply? Does that mean there is no god?

The reason I ask is because I did exactly that as a teenager and I'm still waiting.

If you do get a reply, how do you distinguish between God and telepathic aliens?

[floo]

What if you don't get a reply? Does that mean there is no god?

The reason I ask is because I did exactly that as a teenager and I'm still waiting.

If you do get a reply, how do you distinguish between God and telepathic aliens?

Good question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If that is done and there is no response, the usual comeback is that the subject is;

a) not doing it 'correctly' in the first place
b) not recognising that there has actually been a response
c) not listening properly
d) not waiting long enough for a response
e) some other excuse......

Without prejudice toward yourself

It is possible not to be genuine in this.
I did warn about having expectations but, rather be expectant
D) God is not a gumball machine....also if you have expectations you could be waiting a long time.

People claiming not being responded to are rendered suspect of all you complain to be suspected of, just like those who claim to be responded to are accused of madness, delusion, lying etc. I guess it's part of the territory.

I'm afraid you could still be coming to your realisation of God.

....so what is the process to do it 'correctly'?

Without prejudice toward yourself

It is possible not to be genuine in this.
I did warn about having expectations but, rather be expectant
D) God is not a gumball machine....also if you have expectations you could be waiting a long time.

People claiming not being responded to are rendered suspect of all you complain to be suspected of, just like those who claim to be responded to are accused of madness, delusion, lying etc. I guess it's part of the territory.

I'm afraid you could still be coming to your realisation of God.

In terms of the correct way....be genuine, I don't think I can expand on our original discussions. I don't think there's an added express delivery route on this.

Do you still wish to have a relationship with God as you intimated?
If that was and is the case I think you are already on journey.

[BeRational]

Without prejudice toward yourself

It is possible not to be genuine in this.
I did warn about having expectations but, rather be expectant
D) God is not a gumball machine....also if you have expectations you could be waiting a long time.

People claiming not being responded to are rendered suspect of all you complain to be suspected of, just like those who claim to be responded to are accused of madness, delusion, lying etc. I guess it's part of the territory.

I'm afraid you could still be coming to your realisation of God.

In terms of the correct way....be genuine, I don't think I can expand on our original discussions. I don't think there's an added express delivery route on this.

Do you still wish to have a relationship with God as you intimated?
If that was and is the case I think you are already on journey.

This is all just an excuse for the method failing.

Either you have a method to test this god or you don't.

Blaming other people for not being genuine is absurd.

Why not just accept that you believe in god for bad reasons.