AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

unlikely needs numbers. It's a calculation based on a methodology. You haven't provided one.

Why? If the known sample set of natural causal explanations for observed phenomena is "loads", and the known sample set of supernatural explanations for observed phenomena is "none so far", why would it require numbers to deduce that the explanation for a currently causally unexplained observed phenomenon is more likely to come from the first set than from the second?

The paradigm of "stuff we didn't understand before but now do has always had a natural causal explanation, and so seems more likely to do so in future than it is to have a supernatural explanation" seems valid to me, not least because new ways of understanding the arrangements of matter and force require fewer assumptions that guesses about how supernatural explanations would even work - Occam's razor in other words.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Why? If the known sample set of natural causal explanations for observed phenomena is "loads", and the known sample set of supernatural explanations for observed phenomena is "none so far", why would it require numbers to deduce that the explanation for a currently causally unexplained observed phenomenon is more likely to come from the first set than from the second?

The paradigm of "stuff we didn't understand before but now do has always had a natural causal explanation, and so seems more likely to do so in future than it is to have a supernatural explanation" seems valid to me, not least because new ways of understanding the arrangements of matter and force require fewer assumptions that guesses about how supernatural explanations would even work - Occam's razor in other words.

Because the 'loads' and 'none' are using a methodology that assumes  naturalism and has no way of dealing with supernatural claims. The problems associated with Hope's claims of miracles make any claims about causes without a methodology to evaluate it as specious as Hope's claim.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

...and I am aware of God's existence...

That's a basic error you make a lot here, called the reification fallacy. You may believe in "God's existence", you may believe that "God came into my life" etc but that's all they are - beliefs. You cannot though just assert them as facts and expect others to proceed on that basis.   

[jeremyp]

you cannot observe things have a naturalistic cause

Point of order: I said naturalistic explanation, not naturalistic cause.

if you do not have a method that can show what are naturalistic causes as opposed to non naturalistic ones.

As far as I am aware, every single explanation we have for anything that has any credibility has been formulated within our scientific framework and is hence naturalistic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, we can point to instances that seem to suggest the reverse of my argument, that complexity arises from greater complexity still. Termite mounds are created by termites, and termites are more complex than termite mounds; ants create ant hills; an ant hill is less complex than an ant.  But this is trivial because the origins of both the termite and the termite mound are traceable back to simpler origins ultimately - life diversifies and develops through repeated underlying mechanisms that are insentient and simple such as cell division and copying errors which themselves are traceable back to yet simpler principles of energy conservation and statistical probability.  The cosmos produces pockets of increasing complexity against the backdrop of thermodynamic dissipation which tends to break them down and some of those pockets themselves produce pockets of lesser complexity in the short term but the overarching principle is that complex systems derive ultimately from simpler systems not the reverse as is implied by matrix theory or theism.  I think this poses more difficult problems than the reverse, which is something from nothing.  Something from nothing is the way to go I think, this is challenging I agree but we can rise to challenges; theism on the other hand merely avoids the challenge by presenting what is ultimately a tautology to get out of the regression.

So the overarching principle is really entropy then...

What about the tautology at the heart of philosophical naturalism?...........if you are in the market for rejecting tautological solutions?

[Nearly Sane]

Point of order: I said naturalistic explanation, not naturalistic cause.

As far as I am aware, every single explanation we have for anything that has any credibility has been formulated within our scientific framework and is hence naturalistic.

which are all based on an assumption of naturalism. There is no way to evaluate supernatural claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Because the 'loads' and 'none' are using a methodology that assumes  naturalism and has no way of dealing with supernatural claims. The problems associated with Hope's claims of miracles make any claims about causes without a methodology to evaluate it as specious as Hope's claim.

I see what you're attempting there, but the "assumption" of naturalism requires fewer component assumptions than does supernaturalism, so it's Occam's razor that caries the argument for me. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

That's a basic error you make a lot here, called the reification fallacy. You may believe in "God's existence", you may believe that "God came into my life" etc but that's all they are - beliefs. You cannot though just assert them as facts and expect others to proceed on that basis.

I don't think he does. It will be the Holy spirit who leads you....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

I see what you're attempting there, but the "assumption" of naturalism requires fewer component assumptions than does supernaturalism, so it's Occam's razor that caries the argument for me.

I wouldn't get you to fix any machine of mine ......I'm not very good with bits not put back.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I see what you're attempting there, but the "assumption" of naturalism requires fewer component assumptions than does supernaturalism, so it's Occam's razor that caries the argument for me.

I don't think it works because there is an assumption that the hypotheses you evaluate are in some way equivalent. The supernatural one isn't. It's not an hypothesis.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I don't think it works because there is an assumption that the hypotheses you evaluate are in some way equivalent. The supernatural one isn't. It's not an hypothesis.

Yes I'm aware the "god"/leprechauns/whatever are not even hypotheses and so are in "not even wrong" territory, but I'd add "assuming that you can ever formulate a hypothesis worthy of the name" as just one more assumption to add to the pile on supernaturalism's side. Pretty much every exchange here does the same - the alternative would be just to post every time, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" (and nor have you)", which would limit the conversations somewhat.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes I'm aware the "god"/leprechauns/whatever are not hypotheses and so are in "not even wrong" territory, but I'd add "assuming that you can ever formulate a hypothesis worthy of the name" as just one more assumption to add to the pile on supernaturalism's side. Pretty much every exchange here does the same - the alternative would be just to post every time, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" (and nor have you)", which would limit the conversations somewhat.

I pretty much agree with this but that's no reason to follow the same lack of reasoning in evaluating the claims.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That's a basic error you make a lot here, called the reification fallacy. You may believe in "God's existence", you may believe that "God came into my life" etc but that's all they are - beliefs. You cannot though just assert them as facts and expect others to proceed on that basis.

Is it an error to say that God is as real to me as my own existence?  I can understand your point of view.  Having never known God it would be impossible for you to understand this reality.  Perhaps one day you will.

CS Lewis in his atheist days also found it hard to accept when his circle of Christian friends at Oxford said that they did not just believe, they knew.

[Nearly Sane]

Is it an error to say that God is as real to me as my own existence?  I can understand your point of view.  Having never known God it would be impossible for you to understand this reality.  Perhaps one day you will.

CS Lewis in his atheist days also found it hard to accept when his circle of Christian friends at Oxford said that they did not just believe, they knew.

I have that issue with some Muslim friends. They say they know, so by your 'method' they are right?

[Walter]

I have that issue with some Muslim friends. They say they know, so by your 'method' they are right?

and still nobody has provided a scrap of evidence to support their claims. I think I would be seriously rethinking my reasoning by now. ah well!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Is it an error to say that God is as real to me as my own existence?

No, provided that's all you say. Lots of people believe in lots of things that are as real to them as their own existence.

I can understand your point of view.  Having never known God it would be impossible for you to understand this reality.  Perhaps one day you will.

And then you repeat the reification fallacy. It's not that I've "never known God", but rather that I've never shared your personal belief that there is a "God".

CS Lewis in his atheist days also found it hard to accept when his circle of Christian friends at Oxford said that they did not just believe, they knew.

But as they too presumably had no method to get them from faith to fact either, that "knew" should be "strongly believed".

Just out of interest, how would you answer the question Vlad always runs away from (one of several), namely: When I line up ten people before breakfast each with different beliefs in different supernatural "somethings" (one is you, one is a muslim, one is a leprechaunist etc) each of whom is every bit as certain as you are that they "know" themselves to be right, how would you propose that I differentiate your claim from theirs?     

[ekim]

and still nobody has provided a scrap of evidence to support their claims. I think I would be seriously rethinking my reasoning by now. ah well!

There is no evidence that can be provided in the manner that you would wish it because what AB is saying is experiential to him i.e. an inner experience.  The word 'evidence' itself is based upon the Latin 'to look outwards'.  It's a pity that there isn't a word 'invidence' for looking within.  As a mild example, I would find it difficult to provide evidence that I dreamed a particular dream last night.  As regards the alleged declaration of an experience of God, you would have to take it on trust and if you wanted to experience the same then you would need to have faith in a particular way/path/method and follow it.  The Christians have their 'way', the Muslims have their 'way' the Hindus have their 'ways', the Buddhists have their 'ways' and so on.  Thinking and reasoning is likely to take you further from those 'ways' as they are generally associated with inner stillness rather than agitation.

[Walter]

There is no evidence that can be provided in the manner that you would wish it because what AB is saying is experiential to him i.e. an inner experience.  The word 'evidence' itself is based upon the Latin 'to look outwards'.  It's a pity that there isn't a word 'invidence' for looking within.  As a mild example, I would find it difficult to provide evidence that I dreamed a particular dream last night.  As regards the alleged declaration of an experience of God, you would have to take it on trust and if you wanted to experience the same then you would need to have faith in a particular way/path/method and follow it.  The Christians have their 'way', the Muslims have their 'way' the Hindus have their 'ways', the Buddhists have their 'ways' and so on.  Thinking and reasoning is likely to take you further from those 'ways' as they are generally associated with inner stillness rather than agitation.

I'm a very straight forward sort of bloke. Either something IS or it ISN'T  so I have no time for all this wishy washy stuff you talk about. As long as they keep it all to themselves and don't involve anybody else they can believe what they want .But they should expect ridicule from people like me if they try to.

[Alan Burns]

Just out of interest, how would you answer the question Vlad always runs away from (one of several), namely: When I line up ten people before breakfast each with different beliefs in different supernatural "somethings" (one is you, one is a muslim, one is a leprechaunist etc) each of whom is every bit as certain as you are that they "know" themselves to be right, how would you propose that I differentiate your claim from theirs?   

You ask God for the gift of discernment.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

There is no evidence that can be provided in the manner that you would wish it because what AB is saying is experiential to him i.e. an inner experience.  The word 'evidence' itself is based upon the Latin 'to look outwards'.  It's a pity that there isn't a word 'invidence' for looking within.  As a mild example, I would find it difficult to provide evidence that I dreamed a particular dream last night.  As regards the alleged declaration of an experience of God, you would have to take it on trust and if you wanted to experience the same then you would need to have faith in a particular way/path/method and follow it.  The Christians have their 'way', the Muslims have their 'way' the Hindus have their 'ways', the Buddhists have their 'ways' and so on.  Thinking and reasoning is likely to take you further from those 'ways' as they are generally associated with inner stillness rather than agitation.

Which is fine when the person who thinks he’s “experienced” something also says, “of course that’s entirely a personal belief so there’s no reason for anyone else to think I’ve experienced a “true for you too” god, let alone a reason for my personal beliefs to be privileged in the public square for example in education, in the legislature or in media access”.

I’m indifferent to such people because their faiths are no-one’s business but their own. Trouble is though, often those with personal experiences also insist that they must be true for me too, and so insist too that their claims should be privileged over, say, just guessing.

[Alan Burns]

There is no evidence that can be provided in the manner that you would wish it because what AB is saying is experiential to him i.e. an inner experience.  The word 'evidence' itself is based upon the Latin 'to look outwards'.  It's a pity that there isn't a word 'invidence' for looking within.  As a mild example, I would find it difficult to provide evidence that I dreamed a particular dream last night.  As regards the alleged declaration of an experience of God, you would have to take it on trust and if you wanted to experience the same then you would need to have faith in a particular way/path/method and follow it.  The Christians have their 'way', the Muslims have their 'way' the Hindus have their 'ways', the Buddhists have their 'ways' and so on.  Thinking and reasoning is likely to take you further from those 'ways' as they are generally associated with inner stillness rather than agitation.

Your post brings to mind profound song lyrics:

Many try to stop me, shake me up in my mind,
Say, "Prove to me that He is Lord, show me a sign."
What kind of sign they need when it all come from within,
When what's lost has been found, what's to come has already been?

Bob Dylan - Pressing On
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K01EAM2TtD4

[Alan Burns]

ekim,

Which is fine when the person who thinks he’s “experienced” something also says, “of course that’s entirely a personal belief so there’s no reason for anyone else to think I’ve experienced a “true for you too” god, let alone a reason for my personal beliefs to be privileged in the public square for example in education, in the legislature or in media access”.

I’m indifferent to such people because their faiths are no-one’s business but their own. Trouble is though, often those with personal experiences also insist that they must be true for me too, and so insist too that their claims should be privileged over, say, just guessing.

It is fortunate that the first disciples of Jesus did not share your thinking.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You ask God for the gift of discernment.

That's a logical error called circular reasoning. You'll also find that the muslim says, "you ask Allah for the gift of discernment", the leprechaunist says, "you ask Colin, the King of the Leprechauns for the gift of discernment", the etc etc.

That's your problem if think you've experienced a "true for you too" god. The other nine people also think they've experienced "true for you" somethings. Absent any method to validate it, "the gift of discernment" just means "something I really think to be true", which helps you not at all.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is fortunate that the first disciples of Jesus did not share your thinking.

No doubt you think so, but that has nothing whatever to do with the rebuttal you thought you were responding to.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That's a logical error called circular reasoning. You'll also find that the muslim says, "you ask Allah for the gift of discernment", the leprechaunist says, "you ask Colin, the King of the Leprechauns for the gift of discernment", the etc etc.

That's your problem if think you've experienced a "true for you too" god. The other nine people also think they've experienced "true for you" somethings. Absent any method to validate it, "the gift of discernment" just means "something I really think to be true", which helps you not at all.   

But there is only one God, and if you sincerely ask for discernment you will get it.