Karma

[ippy]

I've brought myself up to date on this thread, it leaves me with a thought about Sriram, he reminds me of when the carpet fitter finds that he's trapped the Budgie under the carpet and not wanting to undo all of that hard work decides to hammer it flat where the Budgie is but it doesn't work the slight lump in the carpet remains no matter how many times you beat it down and then you find the continual beatings have altered the texture of the carpet in that area, you just can't get rid of that bloody Budgie or the mark he's left in the carpet, even though he's been thoroughly beaten.

ippy

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I've brought myself up to date on this thread, it leaves me with a thought about Sriram, he reminds me of when the carpet fitter finds that he's trapped the Budgie under the carpet and not wanting to undo all of that hard work decides to hammer it flat where the Budgie is but it doesn't work the slight lump in the carpet remains no matter how many times you beat it down and then you find the continual beatings have altered the texture of the carpet in that area, you just can't get rid of that bloody Budgie or the mark he's left in the carpet, even though he's been thoroughly beaten.

Or perhaps Sriram is like the carpet fitter, who finds that something is trapped under the carpet and does want to undo all the hard work in order to address the problem, except he is being told by his colleagues that there is no evidence that anything is trapped under the carpet. No matter how much he is told to ignore the problem/he has got it wrong, etc., he just can't get it out of his mind and wants to find the solution.

[Brownie]

I think you are right there, Sword;   in any case, it isn't a battle, it's a discussion, so no-one is going to be "beaten".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

I think the soul is another ''problem'' for some scientismatists, just like the ''problem'' of apparent fine-tuning and the problem of consciousness.
Let's take the problem of fine tuning. Sean Carroll, who talked of the ''problem'', inspired doubts from atheists and scientists and atheist scientists about whether the endeavour to rule it out was a fit and correct and indeed scientific motivation for the pursuit of multiverse theory.

For whom is consciousness a problem?...and why the obvious endeavour to class it as intelligence when intelligence could work perfectly well without consciousness? What is the motivation then for wanting to find it as a sophisticated intelligence rather than a novel property?

Finally there is the soul. Does science do souls?, what is the motivation for finding the self to be an illusion (who or what is being illuded?).And yes the idea that the self doesn't exist is perhaps the best candidate for something actually being ludicrous, particularly when illusion of selfists justify themselves in proposing argumentum ad ridiculum concerning God.

Those who propose illusion of self should not be as arrogantly disrespectful of their opposition as they are.

What's difficult to process is that all these attempts at arguments have been rebutted many times, yet you never address the rebuttals. Instead you just go quiet for a bit then repeat the same basic mistakes.

Why?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

As a Christian I find myself involved in something which I don't think can be understood and is often misunderstood...

If something can't be understood how would you know when it's misunderstood?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

If something can't be understood how would you know when it's misunderstood?

I have to admit to a typo in my original post. When I wrote 'believer' in this context that should be 'non believer' who of course cannot understand divine worship and misunderstand what Christians mean by the word worship.

[Sriram]

Or perhaps Sriram is like the carpet fitter, who finds that something is trapped under the carpet and does want to undo all the hard work in order to address the problem, except he is being told by his colleagues that there is no evidence that anything is trapped under the carpet. No matter how much he is told to ignore the problem/he has got it wrong, etc., he just can't get it out of his mind and wants to find the solution.

Thanks...SoS.  Perfectly right! 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

My point is not that I or you or anyone individually would have a ready methodology on a platter to use for such exotic phenomena that don't fall within the range or scope of standard methodologies. The new methodology has to evolve....just as the standard one  has also evolved over time through the efforts of many people.

Flat wrong – the methodology (observation, testing etc) is just fine. What you were trying to say I think was that the tools used to apply the methodology would have to improve, which is true – just as they had to improve for celestial observations before optical lenses were developed.
You’re also attempting an argument from incredulity here by the way – whether you can envisage science being able to investigate matters like dark energy says nothing about whether it ever will.

But the environment for the evolution of such new systems, principles and methodologies....needs to be conducive. It will not happen in an environment of scorn,  deep hostility and antagonism.

It doesn’t. “Science” essentially treats words like “soul” as not even wrong as they offer neither cogent definition nor any means of investigation, verification or falsification. They’re just white noise.     

It is important that scientists have the necessary mental makeup required to face up to such exotic possibilities. This mental make up only will give rise to necessary new methodologies and systems. And there are sufficient grounds for scientists to adopt such a changed attitude from the one they have traditionally adopted to such matters.

“Scientists” already do. You seem to think that scientists could investigate woo claims only they don’t bother because they feel a bit hostile about them. This is ludicrous. If ever such claims were able to offer something to investigate it’d be a Nobel prize winning opportunity to be the first to validate them.   

These grounds are the new areas and the theories of science that cannot be readily investigated using standard methods, that I have mentioned many times. These point to the fact that the world is not as clearly defined as we had thought in earlier times.

What makes you think they are “new areas” rather than unsupportable myths?
 

If you add to these ideas such experiences as NDE and spontaneous healing, it makes it all the more imperative that such a changed attitude is adopted among scientists.

Neither NDE nor “spontaneous healing” have ever been demonstrated to be real, and there are plenty of non-woo alternative explanations for the stories – oxygen deprivation to the brain causing hallucinations for example.

I know there will be a hue and cry among some people who are wedded to traditional science. For them it will seem blasphemous....like asking Christians to stop believing in Jesus.  For sadly, science really has become a religion among some people.

No, it’s a method. If you really think the beliefs you have to be real don’t complain that the methods of science can’t engage with them – propose a different method of your own to distinguish your claims from nonsense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

I have to admit to a typo in my original post. When I wrote 'believer' in this context that should be 'non believer' who of course cannot understand divine worship and misunderstand what Christians mean by the word worship.

But even if you add the "un", you said:

"As a Christian I find myself involved in something which I don't think can be understood and is often misunderstood by the (un)believer by which I mean worship of Jesus."

The same question applies - if you're engaged in something you think can't be understood, how would you know when it's misunderstood? Absent a benchmark of the correct understanding, maybe what you think to be the misunderstanding isn't a misunderstanding at all. In other words, unless you know that 2+2=4, how would you know that 2+2=5 is wrong?

[Sebastian Toe]

I have to admit to a typo in my original post. When I wrote 'believer' in this context that should be 'non believer' who of course cannot understand divine worship and misunderstand what Christians mean by the word worship.

Unless of course it is you who is misunderstanding it?
Which is not impossible with you being a mere fallible human......

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Me:

As you seem to relaxed about asking others to clear things up for you, perhaps you'd be so good finally to clear someone up for us?

You tell us that your personal faith beliefs - "God" etc - are also true for the rest of us. What method would you propose we use to investigate these remarkable claims so we know you're not mistaken about them? A simple point-by-point rationale will be fine thanks - you could call it an early Christmas present to your waiting minions if you like.

Go for it!

Spoof:

...

I'll take that as a "no" then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unless of course it is you who is misunderstanding it?
Which is not impossible with you being a mere fallible human......

You forget I've been on both sides of the fence Seb.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Me:

Spoof:

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Hillside I take the position that the God debated on this forum is either true or not and if true then that isn't a mealy mouthed ''true for me'' sort of way And I suppose you are the same with your naturalism.

[Sebastian Toe]

You forget I've been on both sides of the fence Seb.

Nope, did not forget.
Either way you are still fallible, aren't you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope, did not forget.
Either way you are still fallible, aren't you?

We all are but I get the feeling that in respect of our conversation you feel you aren't.
I'm afraid were rather into modern humanists view of worship against Christians experience of it territory.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Hillside I take the position that the God debated on this forum is either true or not and if true then that isn't a mealy mouthed ''true for me'' sort of way And I suppose you are the same with your naturalism.

Then you suppose wrongly. "Naturalism" is merely the finding that the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable using methods and tools that produce results that are true for everyone. The 'plane will take people aloft regardless of their opinions on the matter. "God" on the other hand is a faith belief that it's a factual truth with no method of any kind to verify that claim.

You may well think that your god is a fact for me too, but you're entirely unable even to suggest a reason for me to think you're any more right about that that are the people who believe in Allah, pixies or the man in the moon. What's so special abut your persona faith belief such that I should take it more seriously than the personal faith beliefs on anyone else?

And that's the problem you always - as in always - run away from.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Then you suppose wrongly. "Naturalism" is merely the finding that the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable using methods and tools that produce results that are true for everyone. The 'plane will take people aloft regardless of their opinions on the matter. "God" on the other hand is a faith belief that it's a factual truth with no method of any kind to verify that claim.

You may well think that your god is a fact for me too, but you're entirely unable even to suggest a reason for me to think you're any more right about that that are the people who believe in Allah, pixies or the man in the moon. What's so special abut your persona faith belief such that I should take it more seriously than the personal faith beliefs on anyone else?

And that's the problem you always - as in always - run away from.

There are commonalities in monotheism so the issue there is in interpretation of the unitary God as it is in the interpretation of the unitary self. Pixies or the man in the moon do not fall into monotheism unless you are prepared to give them divine properties to make them equivalent to the unitary God but I think that has always defeated your intent when you have used it before.

I have no beef  with methodological naturalism until you change it into philosophical naturalism. In other words your opening paragraph contains no actual argument against God.

There is no way I can make fabricate seriousness in respect of the possibility of the divine or our need for reconciliation thereof but that is an existential matter between you and God and not me because the contest between your ego and it's conception of Vlad is always going to be a foregone conclusion I would have thought.

[SusanDoris]

I've brought myself up to date on this thread, it leaves me with a thought about Sriram, he reminds me of when the carpet fitter finds that he's trapped the Budgie under the carpet and not wanting to undo all of that hard work decides to hammer it flat where the Budgie is but it doesn't work the slight lump in the carpet remains no matter how many times you beat it down and then you find the continual beatings have altered the texture of the carpet in that area, you just can't get rid of that bloody Budgie or the mark he's left in the carpet, even though he's been thoroughly beaten.

ippy

[Sebastian Toe]

We all are but I get the feeling that in respect of our conversation you feel you aren't.

Then if I was you, I wouldn't rely on my feelings  to illicit any great positive results.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then if I was you, I wouldn't rely on my feelings  to illicit any great positive results.

Yes, but modern agnosticism hasn't really got any great track record in philosophy and new atheism(prototype brexiters) ditto. What philosophy there is today is on secondary matters.
The great axial philosophy is theistic or sympathetic to it.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, but modern agnosticism hasn't really got any great track record in philosophy and new atheism ditto.

what's that non sequitur assertion got to do with you being wrong about Seb?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

what's that non sequitur assertion got to do with you being wrong about Seb?

Seb's argument is based on the notion of psychological incompetence but somehow he and you fail to recognise the implications of applying that only to those with the opposing argument.

[Nearly Sane]

Seb's argument is based on the notion of psychological incompetence but somehow he and you fail to recognise the implications of applying that only to those with the opposing argument.

Except that is now lying about Seb's position. Why us it that you feel the need to lie  people's positions? You did it about wigginhall earlier today. It makes discussion with you nearly impossible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

There are commonalities in monotheism so the issue there is in interpretation of the unitary God as it is in the interpretation of the unitary self.

“Commonalities” is what you’d expect with stories like creation myths that have become culturally embedded, but it’s not nearly enough to get you from opinion to fact. There’s a lot more than commonalities with facts like gravity – you’ll come to a messy end when you jump out of the window regardless of your opinion on the matter.

Pixies or the man in the moon do not fall into monotheism unless you are prepared to give them divine properties to make them equivalent to the unitary God but I think that has always defeated your intent when you have used it before.

You’ve always got that ass-backwards – essentially you’re saying something like, “OK, none of the rules of epistemology apply to my religious claims but by slapping the word “divine” on them I can just retro-fit my assertions and bypass all that tedious reason and evidence stuff. It doesn’t work logically, and it still leaves you with the problem in any case that there are countless unverifiable faith beliefs that those who hold them also think to be divine. Why should I treat your personal one as true but, say, Ra or Zeus as not true?

I have no beef  with methodological naturalism until you change it into philosophical naturalism. In other words your opening paragraph contains no actual argument against God.

First, as you’ve never understood what “philosophical naturalism” actually means there’s nothing to discuss.

Second though, the opening paragraph merely explained the qualitative difference between a claim of a “true for you too” fact (eg, “God"), and phenomena that are actually investigable and verifiable independent of peoples’ opinions on the matter.

There is no way I can make fabricate seriousness in respect of the possibility of the divine or our need for reconciliation thereof but that is an existential matter between you and God and not me because the contest between your ego and it's conception of Vlad is always going to be a foregone conclusion I would have thought.

I presume that alphabet soup of a sentence meant something in your head when you typed it, but I have no means of knowing what that might be.

I also note your continued relentless silence on how anyone would evaluate your personal opinion "God", either on a stand alone basis or by comparison with any other claimed divinity.

Why is that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except that is now lying about Seb's position. Why us it that you feel the need to lie  people's positions? You did it about wigginhall earlier today. It makes discussion with you nearly impossible.

So far as I can tell Vlad thinks telling lies is fine, provided he's telling lies for Jesus. Either that or he genuinely has no concept of the difference between lying and truthfulness.