The power of prayer

[Nearly Sane]

No, NS, read what I said.  I said, "I don't give a..."  I've spent years doing it and I get nowhere; not with those programmed to disbelieve.  I'm too old to waste any more of my time reiterating.

not answering questions is likely to contribute to getting nowhere. You may want to stop doing it as a tactic.

[BashfulAnthony]

In my opinion, the gospels were just as likely to be prone to exaggeration and porkies, just like modern day journalism written for a mass audience.

Ah!  Only exaggeration!  That's a step forward!

[BashfulAnthony]

not answering questions is likely to contribute to getting nowhere. You may want to stop doing it as a tactic.

But you see, NS, I have answered these questions till I've been blue in the face.  Strangely, you atheists seem unaware that you have repeated the same thing umpteen times over the years.  I simply cannot be bothered to say the same things again and again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Literature that says, "we met this bloke who claims to be the son of God. What a bozo eh?".

Well, um - what about that stuff someone was telling us here about the pharisees not having enough faith to believe him or some such guff. Isn't that written down somewhere?

Hillside if you are saying that there were those who believed and those that didn't based on scripture I'd agree with you.
If you are saying that scripture says that there were no believers and then after a long period people believed I cannot agree with you.

[Nearly Sane]

But you see, NS, I have answered these questions till I've been blue in the face.  Strangely, you atheists seem unaware that you have repeated the same thing umpteen times over the years.  I simply cannot be bothered to say the same things again and again.

Are you saying you have answered previously the question of which recognised UK university has a history course that is not methodologically naturalistic (which was the question) but can't be bothered answering it again?

[wigginhall]

In my opinion, the gospels were just as likely to be prone to exaggeration and porkies, just like modern day journalism written for a mass audience.

And also, religious leaders around the world, whose followers claim miracles by their leader.  Obvious example is Sai Baba, who was claimed to levitate, heal diseases, produce flowers out of thin air, bilocation, blah blah blah.   Maybe all of this really happened, but then again, maybe not, and his followers are bigging him up.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you saying you have answered previously the question of which recognised UK university has a history course that is not methodologically naturalistic (which was the question) but can't be bothered answering it again?

Are you saying that history is a science?

[floo]

And also, religious leaders around the world, whose followers claim miracles by their leader.  Obvious example is Sai Baba, who was claimed to levitate, heal diseases, produce flowers out of thin air, bilocation, blah blah blah.   Maybe all of this really happened, but then again, maybe not, and his followers are bigging him up.

Benny Hinn is a case in point, I believe he has claimed amputated limbs have regrown due to his healing ministry, but of course the evidence is lacking.

[Nearly Sane]

Are you saying that history is a science?

No, I'm saying  that it is studied (and studied in terms of history was first referred to by BA) in a methodologically naturalistic way. Can you, as BA has refused, point me in the direction of a recognised university course in the UK that is not taught in that basis?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I'm saying  that it is studied (and studied in terms of history was first referred to by BA) in a methodologically naturalistic way. Can you, as BA has refused, point me in the direction of a recognised university course in the UK that is not taught in that basis?

Do you have evidence that history research is universally consciously methodological naturalistic?

Surely history would be identical to science and therefore able to eliminate itself since it is by definition the study of unrepeatable events.

[wigginhall]

I think historians tend to ignore miracles, because, as NS says, they operate in naturalistic manner.  Of course, they study people's claims of miracles.   Case in point,  E. P. Sanders, 'The Historical Figure of Jesus', who does not investigate miracles, as they are supernatural, and therefore outside the scope of academic history.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside if you are saying that there were those who believed and those that didn't based on scripture I'd agree with you.

The former.

If you are saying that scripture says that there were no believers and then after a long period people believed I cannot agree with you.

No, I'm saying that there are some (non contemporaneous) accounts of belief and of disbelief, and that further stories on the belief side of the equation have been added since. I'm not sure how a "story" of non-belief could be invented, but I guess the use of reason and logic would lead many subsequent observers to conclude that the Jesus as God story, the Jesus miracle stories etc are more probably than not myths.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

I think historians tend to ignore miracles, because, as NS says, they operate in naturalistic manner.  Of course, they study people's claims of miracles.   Case in point,  E. P. Sanders, 'The Historical Figure of Jesus', who does not investigate miracles, as they are supernatural, and therefore outside the scope of academic history.

And for the matter outside the scope of academic anything.

[Nearly Sane]

Do you have evidence that history research is universally consciously methodological naturalistic?

Surely history would be identical to science and therefore able to eliminate itself since it is by definition the study of unrepeatable events.

No, it would not be identical. In part your problem is you have become confused between a definition of science, and one that is wrong to start with, and methodological naturalism. They are not one and the same thing.

Let's first deal with your misunderstanding of the question of unrepeatable events here. In an absolute sense all events are unrepeatable and indeed unique. Were one to use your specious idea that unique events were supernatural then every event is by that definition. The use of repetition in science refers to experimentation and not about whether the actual event is repeated.


To move onto history, methodological naturalism simply assumes that we can investigate using probabilistic techniques (something impossible in a supernatural claim since it breaks the normal assumption of cause and effect in methodological naturalistic disciplines). In order to evaluate claims of the supernatural it would need some form of method to do that. You know like the one you have been asked for so many tines but gave never supplied.


As to do I have evidence that history is universally naturalistic in method,note I have no idea what your addituon of 'consciously' means in the context, the answer is no but since that's a strawman irrelevant. As already noted BA talked about using historical studies to establish the truth of supernatural claims in the NT. In the number if universities in the UK that I have been involved with on the study of history they have been entirely naturalistic in method. In terms of the number of people I know currently teaching history at university, they all teach it in a naturalistic manner. So what I was asking BA was to back up his claim of having studied history in a way that is not methodologically naturalistic. Despite asking, nothing so far.

So now that I've clarified the matter, do you know of any such teaching in a recognised UK university course that does this?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Do you have evidence that history research is universally consciously methodological naturalistic?

Do you have evidence that there isn't a teapot orbiting Earth just beyond the range of the instruments we have that could detect such a thing?

What should we conclude from this?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Do you have evidence that there isn't a teapot orbiting Earth just beyond the range of the instruments we have that could detect such a thing?

What should we conclude from this?

Just as I was compiling "CategoryFuck of the week you popped up and provided it.

Many thanks.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just as I was compiling "CategoryFuck of the week you popped up and provided it.

Many thanks.

Ah category error - yet another term you've never understood. Oh well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it would not be identical. In part your problem is you have become confused between a definition of science, and one that is wrong to start with, and methodological naturalism. They are not one and the same thing.

Let's first deal with your misunderstanding of the question of unrepeatable events here. In an absolute sense all events are unrepeatable and indeed unique. Were one to use your specious idea that unique events were supernatural then every event is by that definition. The use of repetition in science refers to experimentation and not about whether the actual event is repeated.


To move onto history, methodological naturalism simply assumes that we can investigate using probabilistic techniques (something impossible in a supernatural claim since it breaks the normal assumption of cause and effect in methodological naturalistic disciplines). In order to evaluate claims of the supernatural it would need some form of method to do that. You know like the one you have been asked for so many tines but gave never supplied.


As to do I have evidence that history is universally naturalistic in method,note I have no idea what your addituon of 'consciously' means in the context, the answer is no but since that's a strawman irrelevant. As already noted BA talked about using historical studies to establish the truth of supernatural claims in the NT. In the number if universities in the UK that I have been involved with on the study of history they have been entirely naturalistic in method. In terms of the number of people I know currently teaching history at university, they all teach it in a naturalistic manner. So what I was asking BA was to back up his claim of having studied history in a way that is not methodologically naturalistic. Despite asking, nothing so far.

So now that I've clarified the matter, do you know of any such teaching in a recognised UK university course that does this?

I am only saying that science is not the study of the unrepeatable. Where as history is and is therefore only sensitive to that naturalism which is dependent on its definition on suggestions of the supernatural.

I see zero constraint on the historian who wishes to state that for a group of people the resurrection was real without making a comment on whether it actually was.

Nor can I see any constraint on a historian stating that history has a starting date even though philosophers and scientists may be floundering.

Finally just evoking UK universities and alleging some firm and quasi religious allegiance  to methodological materialism looks like a bit of a fiddle.

Surely a historian is interested in what happened rather than whether it conforms to some naturalism. Let's not forget that something only becomes natural if it repeats itself.

[Nearly Sane]

So as with B that would be a no, and again an avoidance of producing the methodology as requested.

If you have a non UK recognised university, i'm happy to listen but BA only seems to have 'studied' in this country so it does not seem like a fiddle to me.



ETA oh and by the way I note that you keep on ignoring that this was generated by BA's claim to have studied history in some way to help him verify supernatural claims and yet being able to provide no evidence of how this might be achieved. And that you are still presenting a strawman about what I am claiming. I would ask that you refrain from this sort of dishonest tactic

[BashfulAnthony]

No, it would not be identical. In part your problem is you have become confused between a definition of science, and one that is wrong to start with, and methodological naturalism. They are not one and the same thing.

Let's first deal with your misunderstanding of the question of unrepeatable events here. In an absolute sense all events are unrepeatable and indeed unique. Were one to use your specious idea that unique events were supernatural then every event is by that definition. The use of repetition in science refers to experimentation and not about whether the actual event is repeated.


To move onto history, methodological naturalism simply assumes that we can investigate using probabilistic techniques (something impossible in a supernatural claim since it breaks the normal assumption of cause and effect in methodological naturalistic disciplines). In order to evaluate claims of the supernatural it would need some form of method to do that. You know like the one you have been asked for so many tines but gave never supplied.


As to do I have evidence that history is universally naturalistic in method,note I have no idea what your addituon of 'consciously' means in the context, the answer is no but since that's a strawman irrelevant. As already noted BA talked about using historical studies to establish the truth of supernatural claims in the NT. In the number if universities in the UK that I have been involved with on the study of history they have been entirely naturalistic in method. In terms of the number of people I know currently teaching history at university, they all teach it in a naturalistic manner. So what I was asking BA was to back up his claim of having studied history in a way that is not methodologically naturalistic. Despite asking, nothing so far.

So now that I've clarified the matter, do you know of any such teaching in a recognised UK university course that does this?

Sorry, I'm just not going to get involved in these never-ending, and rather pedantic, academic roundhouses.  I am interested, however, in knowing just how many universities and history teachers you are acquainted with!

[Nearly Sane]

Oh and while we are at it, Vlad I note you a repeating your idea that only repeating events are natural. As already pointed out all events are unique so therfore you are logically claiming in an absolute sense nothing is natural.

That's leaving aside that you are in presenting the idea as true ignoring the philosophy of science, the meaning of methodological naturalism if you want to present such novel ideas, you need to make a case rather than just repeat then and ignore what has been said against them

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, I'm just not going to get involved in these never-ending, and rather pedantic, academic roundhouses.  I am interested, however, in knowing just how many universities and history teachers you are acquainted with!

You made the claim. You aren't back it it up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So as with B that would be a no, and again an avoidance of producing the methodology as requested.

If you have a non UK recognised university, i'm happy to listen but BA only seems to have 'studied' in this country so it does not seem like a fiddle to me.



ETA oh and by the way I note that you keep on ignoring that this was generated by BA's claim to have studied history in some way to help him verify supernatural claims and yet being able to provide no evidence of how this might be achieved. And that you are still presenting a strawman about what I am claiming. I would ask that you refrain from this sort of dishonest tactic

History will report on any event reported without casting any judgment.
If you are saying that historians now only report on repeatable events then either you are exaggerating or there is now a new school of history like the great man theory or Marxist history.

[Nearly Sane]

History will report on any event reported without casting any judgment.
If you are saying that historians now only report on repeatable events then either you are exaggerating or there is now a new school of history like the great man theory or Marxist history.

I am quite clearly not saying history of talks about reoeatabke events and indeed have gone into some of of your misuse of t idea of repeatability which you are ignoring. Kindly stop with your dishonest approach

[BashfulAnthony]

You made the claim. You aren't back it it up.

Answer the question, or your whole argument falls flat.