The god of suffering

[Hope]

unfortunately for you, your posts are so ridiculous they don't warrant an argument. Mainly because the burden of proof lies with you , not me.  I see no evidence for your god it is your responsibility to convince me, not the other way round.

Walter, if most of what you posted on the 'religion' aspects of this board were constructive (even if critical) or even sensible, I'd ignore this post.  Sadly, your posts on this area of the board are so often rude, destructive and even meaningless that I am forced to point out your hypocrisy.  Oddly enough, the burden of proof, as to the reality of your and others' claim that the scientific materialist approach to evidence is the only one is most definitely on your side of the court.

[Walter]

Walter, if most of what you posted on the 'religion' aspects of this board were constructive (even if critical) or even sensible, I'd ignore this post.  Sadly, your posts on this area of the board are so often rude, destructive and even meaningless that I am forced to point out your hypocrisy.  Oddly enough, the burden of proof, as to the reality of your and others' claim that the scientific materialist approach to evidence is the only one is most definitely on your side of the court.

oh dear!

Hope ,I feel like I want to buy you a cup of tea, sit you down , put my arm round your shoulder and gently explain reality.

[Gordon]

Oddly enough, the burden of proof, as to the reality of your and others' claim that the scientific materialist approach to evidence is the only one is most definitely on your side of the court.

Which is a straw man, and also a downright lie since you've been asked for an alternative so many times that I've lost count.

That 'science', in the broad sense of the term, is the only current formal method doesn't preclude another, hence you being asked to supply this other - which to date you've failed to do.

[Shaker]

Which is a straw man, and also a downright lie since you've been asked for an alternative so many times that I've lost count.

That 'science', in the broad sense of the term, is the only current formal method doesn't preclude another, hence you being asked to supply this other - which to date you've failed to do.

Ah yes, how are we doing with these alleged alternative methodologies these days? Any movement on that score?

[Shaker]

oh dear!

Hope ,I feel like I want to buy you a cup of tea, sit you down , put my arm round your shoulder and gently explain reality.

I admire your optimism Walter but I wouldn't waste your time; we can't even get him past the most basic basics like the burden of proof and the negative proof fallacy yet.

[Gordon]

Ah yes, how are we doing with these alleged alternative methodologies these days? Any movement on that score?

I suspect Hope is avoiding us on this subject: it's as if we were lepers!

[Shaker]

I suspect Hope is avoiding us on this subject

Say it ain't so! 

[Walter]

I suspect Hope is avoiding us on this subject: it's as if we were lepers!

Hope knows lepers never change their spots

[Hope]

I suspect Hope is avoiding us on this subject: it's as if we were lepers!

I haven't avoided the question since it was first posed several months, even years, ago.  At the risk of getting tedious, I'll repeat what I (and others) have said on numerous occasions.  Naturalistic science/materialistic naturalism can't prove (or disprove) aspects of reality that fall outside their remit.  Science can't be used to (dis)prove God, because it doesn't have the facilities to, nor the language to.  If you wish to argue otherwise, the burden to show that your understanding of reality is the only real one is in your court.

[Hope]

Which is a straw man, and also a downright lie since you've been asked for an alternative so many times that I've lost count.

That 'science', in the broad sense of the term, is the only current formal method doesn't preclude another, hence you being asked to supply this other - which to date you've failed to do.

But it has been shown very clearly that some here will only accept evidence that fits naturalisitic parameters,  Trying to use that remit to evidence ideas that fall outside those parameters is therefor not 'physically' possible.

[Gordon]

I haven't avoided the question since it was first posed several months, even years, ago.

You've done so relentlessly.

At the risk of getting tedious, I'll repeat what I (and others) have said on numerous occasions.

Never mind 'others': the question has been addressed to you.

Naturalistic science/materialistic naturalism can't prove (or disprove) aspects of reality that fall outside their remit.

What 'aspects of reality' are these. Moreover, if they do fall outwith the remit of science what method have you used to identify them in the first place?
 

Science can't be used to (dis)prove God, because it doesn't have the facilities to, nor the language to.  If you wish to argue otherwise, the burden to show that your understanding of reality is the only real one is in your court.

Nope - 'God' is your claim, and not mine, Leaving side the straw man, and the invitation to commit the NPF and the special pleading: you say science is inappropriate with regard to 'God', so the obvious question is what is appropriate?

[Gordon]

But it has been shown very clearly that some here will only accept evidence that fits naturalisitic parameters,  Trying to use that remit to evidence ideas that fall outside those parameters is therefor not 'physically' possible.

No it hasn't, so another straw man: nobody has said that, since we all recognise the risk of 'unknown unknowns' cannot be absolutely excluded.

The burden of proof is yours here, but without some form of credible method your claims can reasonably be considered to be groundless, especially so when they are expressed via fallacies.

[Walter]

You've done so relentlessly.

Never mind 'others': the question has been addressed to you.

What 'aspects of reality' are these. Moreover, if they do fall outwith the remit of science what method have you used to identify them in the first place?
 
Nope - 'God' is your claim, and not mine, Leaving side the straw man, and the invitation to commit the NPF and the special pleading: you say science is inappropriate with regard to 'God', so the obvious question is what is appropriate?

for god's sake Hope, please put us out of our misery .

[Sebastian Toe]

for god's sake Hope, please put us out of our misery .

What? And leave the forum?
Surely not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

I haven't avoided the question since it was first posed several months, even years, ago.  At the risk of getting tedious, I'll repeat what I (and others) have said on numerous occasions.  Naturalistic science/materialistic naturalism can't prove (or disprove) aspects of reality that fall outside their remit.

That’s called the reification fallacy. You’re just assuming that there are “aspects of reality” beyond the possible purview of science. There may or may not be such phenomena, but without a method of any kind to investigate your claims then all you have is just that – claims.

Science can't be used to (dis)prove God, because it doesn't have the facilities to, nor the language to.  If you wish to argue otherwise, the burden to show that your understanding of reality is the only real one is in your court.

That’s a straw man - no-one does argue that science can disprove god, or disprove leprechauns for that matter either. For the purposes of science, both conjectures are treated as “not even wrong”.

But it has been shown very clearly that some here will only accept evidence that fits naturalisitic parameters,

“Evidence” is itself a naturalistic concept. Notwithstanding, if you think you have evidence of a different kind that reliably distinguishes your religious claims from just guessing, then why not finally tell us what it is?
 

Trying to use that remit to evidence ideas that fall outside those parameters is therefor not 'physically' possible.

Which is why science does no such thing. Funnily enough though, it’s often theists themselves who attempt to harness the methods of science to support their claims albeit that the effort always seems to collapse under scrutiny.

Anyways, if not for naturalistic evidence to support your claims, what method would you propose to use instead?

[Shaker]

What they said.

What makes you think that there are things outside the purview of methodologically naturalistic enquiry, and if not methodologically naturalistic, what kind of method do you propose using? That's to say, what operating procedure are you using with these very much alleged things such that you're tolerably sure that you're not just guessing or making shit up as you go along?

Repetition isn't explanation, I'm afraid. And begging the question (in the true and original sense of that phrase, not the far more common bastardised version) isn't an argument. Can you answer these questions or can you not?

Several people all asking the same questions, but my money's on the brave Sir Robin act again ...

[Hope]

What they said.

What makes you think that there are things outside the purview of methodologically naturalistic enquiry, ...

Experience.

[Nearly Sane]

Experience.

So when people say they have been abducted by UFOs you think they have.

[Gordon]

Experience.

How do you know that what you experienced is outwith methodological naturalism?

Presumably you must have reviewed this experience in some structured way, if only to be reasonably sure that your understanding of it wasn't mistaken.

[Hope]

You've done so relentlessly.

Gordon, just because you don't agree with opinions and ideas that the likes of myself, Jim, Sass, Spud and Brownie put forward, it doesn't mean that you are correct.

Never mind 'others': the question has been addressed to you.

Which is precisely why I have responded to said questions on a number of occasions with a response that has said the same as I've said here, in a variety of ways.  'Others', however, do matter, especially when they have expressed agreement with me.

What 'aspects of reality' are these.

Non-scientific/non-medical healing - something we have discussed before and even you have failed to explain other than by suggesting that 'the body heals itself' ie - no scientific explanation.

Moreover, if they do fall outwith the remit of science what method have you used to identify them in the first place?

Observation predominantly - such as the aforementioned non-medical healing phenomenon.
 

Nope - 'God' is your claim, and not mine, Leaving side the straw man, and the invitation to commit the NPF and the special pleading: you say science is inappropriate with regard to 'God', so the obvious question is what is appropriate?

Trust, probably - aka experience-based faith that has been tested by your favourite, naturalistic study.

[Nearly Sane]

Gordon, just because you don't agree with opinions and ideas that the likes of myself, Jim, Sass, Spud and Brownie put forward, it doesn't mean that you are correct.
Which is precisely why I have responded to said questions on a number of occasions with a response that has said the same as I've said here, in a variety of ways.  'Others', however, do matter, especially when they have expressed agreement with me.
Non-scientific/non-medical healing - something we have discussed before and even you have failed to explain other than by suggesting that 'the body heals itself' ie - no scientific explanation.
Observation predominantly - such as the aforementioned non-medical healing phenomenon.
 Trust, probably - aka experience-based faith that has been tested by your favourite, naturalistic study.

And it's shifting the burden of proof. You sound exactly like people who said Zeus threw thunderbolts. This is not a methodology. It's the incredulity fallacy yet again.

[Shaker]

Non-scientific/non-medical healing - something we have discussed before and even you have failed to explain other than by suggesting that 'the body heals itself' ie - no scientific explanation.
Observation predominantly - such as the aforementioned non-medical healing phenomenon.

A long time ago I posted a link to an easy-to-read but lengthy and detailed article outlining what's currently known about spontaneous healing (including of certain cancers), such as that the immune system is known to play a part, as is body temperature.

Having linked to it once, the next time you trotted out this usual guff as your favourite gap to hide a god in I reposted the link. I may have done so more than once, but it was certainly at least twice.

The fact - it is one - that you have never once even acknowledged the existence of that article and the information therein, let alone tried to take it on board, and even now pretend that it never existed, can now be ascribed not to ignorance but your constitutional dishonesty and evasiveness.

Here it is again, Sir Robin:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150306-the-mystery-of-vanishing-cancer

[Gordon]

Gordon, just because you don't agree with opinions and ideas that the likes of myself, Jim, Sass, Spud and Brownie put forward, it doesn't mean that you are correct.

Have to say I don't recognise these others ploughing exactly the same furrow as you - this looks like some kind of safety in numbers ploy on your part.
 

Which is precisely why I have responded to said questions on a number of occasions with a response that has said the same as I've said here, in a variety of ways.  'Others', however, do matter, especially when they have expressed agreement with me.

I'm not all that sure they have actually: what arguments has each offered in which they specifically agree with you (beyond them being fellow Christians)?

Non-scientific/non-medical healing - something we have discussed before and even you have failed to explain other than by suggesting that 'the body heals itself' ie - no scientific explanation.

We've already established, several times in fact, that your knowledge of both medicine and research methods are woeful, so your points here are an argument from ignorance: your ignorance.

Observation predominantly - such as the aforementioned non-medical healing phenomenon.

Nope - you don't know enough about medicine to have an informed opinion. 

Trust, probably - aka experience-based faith that has been tested by your favourite, naturalistic study.

This reads like a non sequitur, while your other points are no more than your personal incredulity writ large.

[Walter]

Hope,

please read the link supplied by Shaker then come back and tell us your thoughts on the information therein.

[ippy]

Some time ago I read about a guy that had built a small garage, a snug fit around his bubble car, he drove the car into this garage and had to stay there until help arrived to get him out, this particular bubble car of his didn't have a reverse gear, I can't quite think now, what was it that made me think of that poor bloke? Something must have joged my memory?

Ippy