Christian 'Mythology'.

[Walter]

Thus, you are making science a god. In your view, if science has nothing of importance to say on the matter, the idea might as well be chucked out. Science only deals with the objective and material and until the subjective and immaterial can be taken on board the complete picture cannot be whole.

its not that the idea is chucked out , as you put it , it only exists in the minds of the wishful thinker and is therefore ignored as such .
 

[Gordon]

Thus, you are making science a god.

Straw man.

In your view, if science has nothing of importance to say on the matter, the idea might as well be chucked out.

Another straw man.

Science only deals with the objective and material and until the subjective and immaterial can be taken on board the complete picture cannot be whole.

Assuming you mean claims of the non-natural, these claims can't be 'taken on board' until such times as the claimants (such as yourself) come up with a suitable method whereby these claims can be critically evaluated. Perhaps you can deliver here where others have failed, largely by either ignoring the problem or resorting to fallacies. 

[Enki]

Thus, you are making science a god. In your view, if science has nothing of importance to say on the matter, the idea might as well be chucked out. Science only deals with the objective and material and until the subjective and immaterial can be taken on board the complete picture cannot be whole.

Don't be silly. I am always open to any other views, as long as they are backed by some sort of verifiable evidence. If you wish to say that your approach(the subjective and the immaterial) is so important, then my subjective ideas and my approach to the immaterial (which I would probably suggest are a world away from yours) are just as important and valid as yours, or, indeed, anybody else's. Where does that get us? I suggest nowhere.

[Shaker]

Thus, you are making science a god.

No - nothing is a god.

Science however can be a gatekeeper.

[floo]

Thus, you are making science a god.

Science is a useful reality, not a mythical entity like a god.

[Enki]

I think you misunderstand here. Christians do not say that the laws individually or collectively are intelligent rather than the idea that where there is law there is a lawgiver.

I think that you misunderstand. I was replying to one particular Christian poster who was responding to Susan in order to show that he/she was showing 'primary empirical evidence for God '. My arguments were based solely upon the explanations given in that response.

The idea of a lawgiver can well be true when associated with the workings of society but in science it simply suggests causal relationships of observed phenomena. They are descriptions of widely accepted unifying concepts, they are not concerned with the idea of a lawgiver at all.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Science only deals with the objective and material and until the subjective and immaterial can be taken on board the complete picture cannot be whole.

#thumbsup

Except now you'll be told that you have to demonstrate that there is such a thing as the subjective and immaterial, which only serves to illustrate at least two things.

1. The worldview for the methodology used is not falsifiable.

2. The methodology is being misused by being applied to things outside of its domain, a bit like trying to play Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March No.1 in the style of a Viennese Waltz.

[Nearly Sane]

#thumbsup

Except now you'll be told that you have to demonstrate that there is such a thing as the subjective and immaterial, which only serves to illustrate at least two things.

1. The worldview for the methodology used is not falsifiable.

2. The methodology is being misused by being applied to things outside of its domain, a bit like trying to play Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance March No.1 in the style of a Viennese Waltz.

What 'worldview'? Which methodology?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

What 'worldview'?

The one which assumes natural causes and explanations for the evidence or any phenomenon.

Which methodology?

Those that seek to come up with an explanation by analysis of evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

The one which assumes natural causes and explanations for the evidence or any phenomenon.
Those that seek to come up with an explanation by analysis of evidence.

which is why you need a methodology to back up your claims. I am willing to listen. No one has said that such a methodology cannot exist. You have just failed to provide one. So once again ball is in your court, and kindly don't fall back in the shifting the burden of proof.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

which is why you need a methodology to back up your claims. I am willing to listen. No one has said that such a methodology cannot exist. You have just failed to provide one. So once again ball is in your court, and kindly don't fall back in the shifting the burden of proof.

Which you perhaps unwittingly have done by failing to state how a worldview that assumes natural causes/explanations is falsifiable, the point I made to SweetPea in #181 in anticipating objections to her #172

The net result is that there is no way to provide you with what you want because the only options are
1. Known natural explanation
2. Unknown natural explanation (how many times have you seen the terminology argument from incredulity used round here?)

[Gordon]

Which you perhaps unwittingly have done by failing to state how a worldview that assumes natural causes/explanations is falsifiable, the point I made to SweetPea in #181 in anticipating objections to her #172

Which is a straw man, and a flagrant misrepresentation.

The net result is that there is no way to provide you with what you want because the only options are
1. Known natural explanation
2. Unknown natural explanation (how many times have you seen the terminology argument from incredulity used round here?)

Lots, and still you keep the fallacies coming.

[Hope]

which is why you need a methodology to back up your claims. I am willing to listen. No one has said that such a methodology cannot exist. You have just failed to provide one. So once again ball is in your court, and kindly don't fall back in the shifting the burden of proof.

NS, a tad rich coming from someone for whom shifting the burden of proof sometimes comes pretty easily.

More importantly though, it can be difficult to provide a methodology when the issue under debate transcends mere material naturalism, which so many of the members here seem to place all their trust in.

[Nearly Sane]

Which you perhaps unwittingly have done by failing to state how a worldview that assumes natural causes/explanations is falsifiable, the point I made to SweetPea in #181 in anticipating objections to her #172

The net result is that there is no way to provide you with what you want because the only options are
1. Known natural explanation
2. Unknown natural explanation (how many times have you seen the terminology argument from incredulity used round here?)

I did ask you to not do the switching the burden if proof routine, but you couldn't resist, could you?


Let's take this slowly. You (and Sweetpea) make claims about things not being natural. I am not making any claims about things being natural. You have the burden of proof and need some way to show me that your claims have any validity.

[Nearly Sane]

NS, a tad rich coming from someone for whom shifting the burden of proof sometimes comes pretty easily.

More importantly though, it can be difficult to provide a methodology when the issue under debate transcends mere material naturalism, which so many of the members here seem to place all their trust in.

When have I tried to switch the burden of proof? Citation? (BTW the way will I have to wait for it like your claim elsewhere that the WHO had announced the eradication of leprosy?)

And your evasion of any attempt to provide a methodology is shockingly obvious.

[Gordon]

NS, a tad rich coming from someone for whom shifting the burden of proof sometimes comes pretty easily.

Which reminds me there is a thread still awaiting your clarification re.leprosy.

More importantly though, it can be difficult to provide a methodology when the issue under debate transcends mere material naturalism, which so many of the members here seem to place all their trust in.

You've yet to provide us with an alternative though: god knows you've been asked often enough.

[Shaker]

NS, a tad rich coming from someone for whom shifting the burden of proof sometimes comes pretty easily.

More importantly though, it can be difficult to provide a methodology when the issue under debate transcends mere material naturalism, which so many of the members here seem to place all their trust in.

Dodge, dodge, duck, dive, bob and weave.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#189

More importantly though, it can be difficult to provide a methodology when the issue under debate transcends mere material naturalism, which so many of the members here seem to place all their trust in.

...And your evasion of any attempt to provide a methodology is shockingly obvious.

You've yet to provide us with an alternative though: god knows you've been asked often enough.

The charge against Hope is incorrect. Here was an attempt by him to address the issue:
'Cold-Case Christianity'

And in terms of the wider charge against those of religious belief failing to find any method, here's 42 pages of a thread to illustrate what happens when they do.
AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

So, for the last time this year:

1. A worldview that assumes natural causes and explanations cannot be used to evaluate any claims / submission of evidence for anything that doesn't have a natural cause / explanation.

2. Those that are going to examine any claims / submission of evidence need to know for themselves what they would consider as evidence or what methodology they would use to test any claims. This would not be an issue if their worldview was falsifiable, by their own scientific standards, as they would already have some idea.

The problem that exists currently is that the worldview and methodologies used assume natural causes / explanations, so guess what the conclusion is going to be?
- Evidence: Known or unknown natural cause. Suggesting a non-natural cause is an argument from incredulity / God of the gaps
- Cause: The explanation given in support of a non-natural cause is fallacious.

Happy New Year to all.

[Nearly Sane]

#189

The charge against Hope is incorrect. Here was an attempt by him to address the issue:
'Cold-Case Christianity'

And in terms of the wider charge against those of religious belief failing to find any method, here's 42 pages of a thread to illustrate what happens when they do.
AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

So, for the last time this year:

1. A worldview that assumes natural causes and explanations cannot be used to evaluate any claims / submission of evidence for anything that doesn't have a natural cause / explanation.

2. Those that are going to examine any claims / submission of evidence need to know for themselves what they would consider as evidence or what methodology they would use to test any claims. This would not be an issue if their worldview was falsifiable, by their own scientific standards, as they would already have some idea.

The problem that exists currently is that the worldview and methodologies used assume natural causes / explanations, so guess what the conclusion is going to be?
- Evidence: Known or unknown natural cause. Suggesting a non-natural cause is an argument from incredulity / God of the gaps
- Cause: The explanation given in support of a non-natural cause is fallacious.

Happy New Year to all.

And none of that actually has a methodology. It has a lot of repetiton saying induction but no  worked example. Ooh and by the way, stop lying about people's worldviews. I pointed out you were wrong about my worldview and position earlier. Kindly retract your lie.

Oh and in addition your first numbers point is a complete misrepresentation of all of those peopke who have asked for a methododoligy for your claims. Why lie so often?

[Gordon]

#189

The charge against Hope is incorrect. Here was an attempt by him to address the issue:
'Cold-Case Christianity'

Try reading my #4 that followed: this attempt by Hope was derisory (and that is being kind).

1. A worldview that assumes natural causes and explanations cannot be used to evaluate any claims / submission of evidence for anything that doesn't have a natural cause / explanation.

So you assert - thing is, your assertion is a straw man since none of us nasty atheists are that naive.

2. Those that are going to examine any claims / submission of evidence need to know for themselves what they would consider as evidence or what methodology they would use to test any claims. This would not be an issue if their worldview was falsifiable, by their own scientific standards, as they would already have some idea.

Utter nonsense: but you've been told this before when you first tried this argument.

The problem that exists currently is that the worldview and methodologies used assume natural causes / explanations, so guess what the conclusion is going to be?
- Evidence: Known or unknown natural cause. Suggesting a non-natural cause is an argument from incredulity / God of the gaps
- Cause: The explanation given in support of a non-natural cause is fallacious.

Methodological naturalism is the only game in town at present but you're perfectly free to propose and detail a credible alternative. Instead though your arguments are exposed as being fallacious, and moreover they wander through the whole gamut of the most commonly used fallacies.

By the way without this other method 'non-natural cause' is no more than an oxymoron being used within fallacious arguments.

[2Corrie]

Regarding evidence, with Paul on this one.

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.
17For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,fn just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Pray that God would bring people to their knees this side of eternity 😯 Happy New Year.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Methodological naturalism is the only game in town at present

Unfortunately for you on a different playing field from the one your trying to play on.

[trippymonkey]

A Happy New Year to ALL here !!!!!
It's just after 9pm here in north east Lancashire ie Nelson near Burnley & have already heard fireworks ?!!?!??

Nick XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[Walter]

A Happy New Year to ALL here !!!!!
It's just after 9pm here in north east Lancashire ie Nelson near Burnley & have already heard fireworks ?!!?!??

Nick XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I know that area very well,  are you sure its fireworks?

[Shaker]

1. A worldview that assumes natural causes and explanations cannot be used to evaluate any claims / submission of evidence for anything that doesn't have a natural cause / explanation.

Monumental question-begging (in the true sense of that phrase)/circular non-reasoning at its finest.

We're trying to establish if there's such a thing as anything that doesn't have a natural cause or explanation. This is not achieved by simply assuming - as you have here - that there already is such a thing but is out of reach.

You will call this a prior commitment to naturalism. You would be absolutely correct. My prior commitment to naturalism is based partly on my own experience of the world (the world has always and in every case - with no exceptions at all in any way whatever - been a material world of matter and energy) and partly on its prior success in explaining and understanding the world. Your commitment to supernaturalism is based as far as I can see on no more than emotional need that there ought to be such a thing.