Where is god?

[Sebastian Toe]

He has comprehensively answered a post?

I'm off to get the Bunting up.

And if you ever do the same - I have a sparkler ready to light , been saved in a drawer just for that occasion. I'm not sure it will work after 8 years though!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

He has comprehensively answered a post?

I'm off to get the Bunting up.

This from the king of avoidance, evasion and distraction?

Blimey!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

This is a question dealing with a real person and a real country, so it would be fairl easy to show to a level as near as makes no difference that that is the case.

Nevertheless, it shows that there are ways to prove a negative!

It hasn’t … unless you can produce one testable fact. There are mountains of subjective ideas and beliefs which people believe to be proof, but none that stands up to scrutiny.

Ok, let's start with Christianity. What scrutiny have you performed to establish whether or not Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Hi Susan,

It would, but Sword's question was whether I could "prove" that - which of course I could not. How for example would I eliminate the possibility of waking from a coma only to find that DC was the POTUS?

In other words, a worldview is needed that can take the hypothesis, consider the things that would support it and consider the things that would go against it, before reaching a final conclusion that has to be taken on faith!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Nevertheless, it shows that there are ways to prove a negative!

No it doesn't. How would you propose to prove that?

Ok, let's start with Christianity. What scrutiny have you performed to establish whether or not Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

The same scrutiny you'd apply to any other such claim - the commonality of superstitious tales at the time, the absence of contemporary records, the absence of any known means for it to happen, the propensity for stories to stick because of survivor bias, the heavy editing of the books that eventually did write the story down and the discrepancies between them etc etc.

The point though is that all these methods and others are naturalistic in character. Your complaint concerns use of the naturalistic "world view", so what methods would your propose we use instead?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

In other words, a worldview is needed that can take the hypothesis, consider the things that would support it and consider the things that would go against it, before reaching a final conclusion that has to be taken on faith!

Not in other words at all, no. You're conflating meanings of the word "faith" here - ie, "a realistic expectation based on experience and known parameters" vs "a strong feeling in my head that I think thereby to be an objective truth for other people". I have "faith" that my car will start in the morning; I don't have "faith" that there's a dragon asleep under the bonnet.

We've covered this before - you might want to read some previous threads to see where you've gone off the rails.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Your complaint concerns use of the naturalistic "world view",

Which assumes natural causes...

Not in other words at all, no. You're conflating meanings of the word "faith" here - ie, "a realistic expectation based on experience and known parameters" vs "a strong feeling in my head that I think thereby to be an objective truth for other people". I have "faith" that my car will start in the morning; I don't have "faith" that there's a dragon asleep under the bonnet.

No conflation. You have merely illustrated the difference between faith and blind faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Which assumes natural causes...

Yes it does. What non-naturalistic method do you propose instead to test your claims of the supernatural?

No conflation. You have merely illustrated the difference between faith and blind faith.

Big conflation. What method would you propose to indicate that your faith in the supernatural isn't "blind"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

Yes it does. What non-naturalistic method do you propose instead to test your claims of the supernatural?

The use of logic and reason.

The universe either popped out of nothing or it is eternal.
Either are unique, not subject to any law, generate no law nor are subject to scientific investigation.

Ta Da.

[wigginhall]

The use of logic and reason.

The universe either popped out of nothing or it is eternal.
Either are unique, not subject to any law, generate no law nor are subject to scientific investigation.

Ta Da.

This is nonsense.  It's because of scientific work, that the notion of the Big Bang has emerged.  How do you think they discovered it, by counting the pixies on the planet Zog?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The use of logic and reason.

Nope. Sword's complaint was the use of a naturalistic world view. Logic and reason are naturalistic methods, not non-naturalistic ones. By all means rely on these naturalistic methods if you want (and thereby risk Sword's opprobrium) but you'll keep losing the arguments when you do.   

The universe either popped out of nothing or it is eternal.

Or various other options. None of which though say anything to the notion of "supernatural". "Don't know" and "supernatural" are not synonyms. Why is this so difficult for you?

Either are unique, not subject to any law, generate no law nor are subject to scientific investigation.

Uniqueness and non-investigability have nothing whatever to do with supernaturalism. All they tell you is that they happened just once and are not investigable.

Ta Da.

I think you meant "Ta doh!"

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

This is nonsense.  It's because of scientific work, that the notion of the Big Bang has emerged.  How do you think they discovered it, by counting the pixies on the planet Zog?

Quite so. Vlad's weird thinking implies that a supernatural event stays supernatural, but only up to the time that someone has a big enough telescope or similar to explain it, at which time it magics into the natural. Whether it can magic back again if the explanation is wrong is anyone's guess, but there it is I guess.

Bonkers innit?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Vlad,

Nope. Sword's complaint was the use of a naturalistic world view.

Which assumes natural causes and explanations. That is my objection, because then how can such a worldview examine evidence of a non-natural cause?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Which assumes natural causes and explanations. That is my objection, because then how can such a worldview examine evidence of a non-natural cause?

That's claims of a non-natural cause. It's your claim though, so what "world view" do you propose we use instead to examine these claims?

Why so coy?

[Gordon]

Ok, let's start with Christianity. What scrutiny have you performed to establish whether or not Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

Sword

Aside from this being an instance of the dear old NPF: perhaps you'll have a go at this - I've asked this of several theists here but without reply. The question is a simple one: how have you excluded the risks of mistakes or lies in the anecdotal accounts of the resurrection of Jesus?

That people makes mistakes and tell lies is known human behaviour, so surely these risks are a problem in respect of any claim that is dependent on the veracity of anecdotal accounts of unknown provenance - so, what is your view on this aspect?

[Gordon]

Which assumes natural causes and explanations. That is my objection, because then how can such a worldview examine evidence of a non-natural cause?

So all you need do now is provide an example of a non-natural cause and a method of demonstrating that this cause is mutually exclusive from any natural phenomena.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

So all you need do now is provide an example of a non-natural cause and a method of demonstrating that this cause is mutually exclusive from any natural phenomena.

Yes he does, though he's ducked that and suggested that it's the job others to do that. It's just the old shifting the burden of proof thing, but so far at least Sword doesn't seem to have grasped the issue.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is nonsense.  It's because of scientific work, that the notion of the Big Bang has emerged.

But I think you'll agree the notion that the universe came ex Nihilo came hundreds of years before science. Science seems to provide evidence for that but some feel there is wriggle room for an eternal universe.