Why do so many still have these religious beliefs?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

. Since you have admitted that you do not have a methodology that is non naturalistic, no one can choose such a methodology.

eh?
I think you've entered the realms of scientism Nearly Sane but don't want to admit it.

But what you have shown is that when you say the word method you really mean science.

You also seem to be saying that things only exist because of methodology. So science is the creator for you then.

[Walter]

eh?
I think you've entered the realms of scientism Nearly Sane but don't want to admit it.

But what you have shown is that when you say the word method you really mean science.

You also seem to be saying that things only exist because of methodology. So science is the creator for you then.

pity, pity, pity

[Gordon]

eh?
I think you've entered the realms of scientism Nearly Sane but don't want to admit it.

But what you have shown is that when you say the word method you really mean science.

You also seem to be saying that things only exist because of methodology. So science is the creator for you then.

I hope it is raining where you are Vlad (as it is here) - that is a lot of straw you have there, so be please careful with any naked flames.

[Nearly Sane]

eh?
I think you've entered the realms of scientism Nearly Sane but don't want to admit it.

But what you have shown is that when you say the word method you really mean science.

You also seem to be saying that things only exist because of methodology. So science is the creator for you then.

Ignore what I say and then make up something else is rather a pathetic tactic, Vlad.

I have continually asked you for a methodology to examine super naturalistic claims. You have admitted you don't have one. Therefore there can be no such methodology to be 'chosen' to study history.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ignore what I say and then make up something else is rather a pathetic tactic, Vlad.

I have continually asked you for a methodology to examine super naturalistic claims. You have admitted you don't have one. Therefore there can be no such methodology to be 'chosen' to study history.

I think Walter put his finger on it by pointing out the ''one fucking thing after another''ness of history. What if one of those things is supernatural?

History has no necessary commitment to yours or any other definition of methodological naturalism but has a commitment to report events....whatever their ''fucking'' providence.

[Nearly Sane]

I think Walter put his finger on it by pointing out the ''one fucking thing after another''ness of history. What if one of those things is supernatural?

History has no necessary commitment to yours or any other definition of methodological naturalism but has a commitment to report events....whatever their ''fucking'' providence.

Why are you confusing the study of history here with anything that happens? You have claimed that one chooses his to study history but have agreed that there is no methodology that covers non naturalistically events.

Everything could be non naturalistic, you just have no methodology  to identify them as being so.

[Gordon]

I think Walter put his finger on it by pointing out the ''one fucking thing after another''ness of history. What if one of those things is supernatural?

How could you tell it is supernatural?

[Nearly Sane]

How could you tell it is supernatural?

Vlad has told us that he has no such methodology to do so, so he has openly stated he can't.

[Gordon]

Vlad has told us that he has no such methodology to do so, so he has openly stated he can't.

In which case Vlad is flying a kite and hoping nobody will notice, which isn't very sensible of Vlad bearing in mind that he is the one holding onto the string.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad has told us that he has no such methodology to do so, so he has openly stated he can't.

No I didn't I agreed with you that there is no methodology for assessing supernatural claims not for establishing the supernatural i.e. anything that that cannot, rather than is not, explained by methodological naturalism.
I think I've stated that either the beginning of history or the alternative the eternality of history are supernatural situations or supernatural facts....or are you now suggesting that methodological naturalistic history generates events?

[Nearly Sane]

No I didn't I agreed with you that there is no methodology for assessing supernatural claims not for establishing the supernatural i.e. anything that that cannot, rather than is not, explained by methodological naturalism.
I think I've stated that either the beginning of history or the alternative the eternality of history are supernatural situations or supernatural facts....or are you now suggesting that methodological naturalistic history generates events?

assessing/establishing here seem synonyms which makes your sentence meaningless. Please expand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which case Vlad is flying a kite and hoping nobody will notice, which isn't very sensible of Vlad bearing in mind that he is the one holding onto the string.

Well Gordon.....while Nearly Sane is checking his definitions of philosophical naturalism, methodological naturalism and History I will be consulting ,much against my will, my beloved sister in law who has a PhD in history and now teaches it. If she backs up Nearly sane I will consider conceding....and you can hold on to the kite.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

assessing/establishing here seem synonyms which makes your sentence meaningless. Please expand.

I have shown that the supernatural can be established. We could not say whether it is God X or God Y using science. But you will see that the method for establishing the supernatural is when it is beyond the perview of science.

Now are you saying that nothing is beyond the perview of science or what?

[Gordon]

No I didn't I agreed with you that there is no methodology for assessing supernatural claims not for establishing the supernatural i.e. anything that that cannot, rather than is not, explained by methodological naturalism.

Then you need to tell us how you'd identify the supernatural when you've just said you have no method for doing so - you are contradicting yourself.

I think I've stated that either the beginning of history or the alternative the eternality of history are supernatural situations or supernatural facts....or are you now suggesting that methodological naturalistic history generates events?

Then tell us how you could ever hope demonstrate these supernatural facts or situations when you also say you've no method of doing so. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner, where your only option is surely to concede that belief in the 'supernatural' is solely a faith position.

[Nearly Sane]

I have shown that the supernatural can be established. We could not say whether it is God X or God Y using science. But you will see that the method for establishing the supernatural is when it is beyond the perview of science.

Now are you saying that nothing is beyond the perview of science or what?

No, you have asserted it by means of a definition that you appear to have made up. I think there are tons of things science doesn't cover. And under I've written that before many times directly to you.


One of the things beyond the purview of science is what I had for breakfast on this day last year. Are you stating that is 'supernatural'?

[Gordon]

I have shown that the supernatural can be established.

You haven't: you've only demonstrated that you'd like it to be true.

We could not say whether it is God X or God Y using science. But you will see that the method for establishing the supernatural is when it is beyond the perview of science.

Now are you saying that nothing is beyond the perview of science or what?

That science has its limits isn't disputed, so if we put science to one side what alternatives do you have?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then you need to tell us how you'd identify the supernatural when you've just said you have no method for doing so - you are contradicting yourself.

Which frankly is a small thing compared with having established the supernatural beginning or eternality of the universe. However let me make myself clear once again.

The supernatural can be established when the natural is eliminated....if that is a method then so be it.

I don't expect you to get ''moist'' over anything above or beyond a theist supposedly being ''sussed'' Gordon but for those here for les questions important.........

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That science has its limits isn't disputed, so if we put science to one side what alternatives do you have?

You tell me, if your not a scientismatist.

First of all you can be a proper historian, philosopher, lawyer, linguist, artist instead of trying to be a scientist manqué.

[Nearly Sane]

Which frankly is a small thing compared with having established the supernatural beginning or eternality of the universe. However let me make myself clear once again.

The supernatural can be established when the natural is eliminated....if that is a method then so be it.

I don't expect you to get ''moist'' over anything above or beyond a theist supposedly being ''sussed'' Gordon but for those here for les questions important.........

It's like Sherlock Hol-locks!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You haven't: you've only demonstrated that you'd like it to be true.

wrong on two counts read this and then tell me two things:

1: What the naturalistic alternative is?
2: There is anything in it which specifically says Vlad likes this to be true.

1: Nature is either created (A supernatural event not penetrable by science) or
2: It popped up out of nothing ( a supernatural event not penetrable by science) or
3: Nature is eternal and has no cause ( a supernatural state not penetrable by science)

[Gordon]

Which frankly is a small thing compared with having established the supernatural beginning or eternality of the universe. However let me make myself clear once again.

The supernatural can be established when the natural is eliminated....if that is a method then so be it.

I don't expect you to get ''moist'' over anything above or beyond a theist supposedly being ''sussed'' Gordon but for those here for les questions important.........

Desperate stuff, Vlad - perhaps you should stop digging.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Desperate stuff, Vlad - perhaps you should stop digging.

Then it should be easy for you to come up with a naturalistic alternative explantion for the sudden appearance or eternality of nature which doesn't stink of scientism.......oh, I see you haven't.

[Gordon]

wrong on two counts read this and then tell me two things:

1: What the naturalistic alternative is?
2: There is anything in it which specifically says Vlad likes this to be true.

1. To what?
2. Vlad does seem exceedingly keen on 'supernatural' but exceedingly secretive in explaining how he knows anything about it: good at flag-waving for the cause but provides no detail.

1: Nature is either created (A supernatural event not penetrable by science) or
2: It popped up out of nothing ( a supernatural event not penetrable by science) or
3: Nature is eternal and has no cause ( a supernatural state not penetrable by science)

You missed, 4: Don't know, but we'll keep looking into it.

[Gordon]

Then it should be easy for you to come up with a naturalistic alternative explantion for the sudden appearance or eternality of nature which doesn't stink of scientism.......oh, I see you haven't.

Shifting the burden, Vlad, assisted no doubt by some of your straw men - kinda obvious even for you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1. To what?
2. Vlad does seem exceedingly keen on 'supernatural' but exceedingly secretive in explaining how he knows anything about it: good at flag-waving for the cause but provides no detail.

You missed, 4: Don't know, but we'll keep looking into it.

How can science look into the nothing or no cause out of which nature popped.....or the eternity of nature?

Dunno as an answer?.......I don't think so. Would it wash on university challenge.....I don't think so. Is it even naturalistic?....

And do you really mean dunno?.....Don't you mean Dunno but we know it isn't supernatural?.......and you accuse me of wanting a particular answer.