Where's the evidence?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Because I have had an experience best described in religious terms…

But “best” only for you. A rationalist would find a different best.

…and attempts to explain it in terms of philosophical naturalism are illogical, contradictory, promissory etc.

No, they’re just reason and evidence-based is all.

There is no experience in atheism but a non experience.

I'm sure you could find a Christian who would accept they could be wrong in their beliefs.

There’s no anything “in” atheism – its just the finding that there’s no reason to accept claims and assertions made for gods. Re Christians, some would and some (like AB who’s “absolutely certain”) wouldn’t.

You also invoke the idea most atheists willing to accept they are wrong. I'm sure that is true of some Christians. I think the virtuous ''I could be wrong position'' though to be exaggerated since most atheists here think they are probably right and I recall frequent appeals to the idea that converts to religion cannot have been true atheists.

The “probably” gives the game away. Find me an argument for “God” that isn’t hopeless and I’ll sign up tomorrow.

Until you guys come up with something better than the performance that was and is new atheism I'm afraid what walks and quacks in front of me is indeed, a duck.

What “performance” do you think there to be? There’s nothing much new about “new atheism” – the logic that supports atheism has been around for centuries and – so far at least – hasn’t been falsified. That’s why the religious rely on something they call “faith” for support instead.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd imagine that the experience of sky-diving isn't separate from it's description or definition: plane, parachute and wild blue yonder come to mind, where the experience of doing it would be an addition to the definition/description.

So how about you provide a description of god that is equivalent to sky-diving (e.g. planes, parachutes etc) and then we can explore how to experience this god.

Then you seem to be saying that the existence of a thing is the equivalent of it's description. I am not sure about that.

In terms of the second part of your post I believe a bubble from your subconscious has helped us out here.
In other words talk of experience of God has elicited talk of parachute jumps.

In the light of that I feel that your confessed refusal to go up in the plane in the first place might just be a metaphor for where you are in relation to an experience of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

But “best” only for you. A rationalist would find a different best.

Then you must introduce me to this rationalist then. Is he or she another of your pop scientists?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What “performance” do you think there to be? There’s nothing much new about “new atheism” – the logic that supports atheism has been around for centuries and – so far at least – hasn’t been falsified. That’s why the religious rely on something they call “faith” for support instead.

Performance which is new atheism?
Lack of rigour springs to mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Then you render the definition of knowledge as uncertain.

Of course knowledge is uncertain – how could it be otherwise?

Are you saying knowledge is being wrong?

Of course he isn’t. Why would you even attempt such a straw man version of what he did say?

I think you might be being a bit extremist in the style of  ''Know nothing, doubt everything'' that's just hyperbole isn't it?

Presumably because you’ve just made up your own version of what was actually said.

Why do you do that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you infallible on any other matters, or just god?

Are you infallible on 1+1=3.
In terms of fallibility God is a domain just like science is a domain. Now, would you dismiss science no, can you still be fallible in matters of science? yes.

[Enki]

So you can accept the possibility that God could exist but you don't believe that God could exist. Do you believe that he could not exist?

To rephrase your first sentence:

I can accept the possibility that gods could exist, but have no belief in any god actually existing. (I have eliminated your second 'could' here, as your sentence doesn't make sense  to me if it remains.)   


To answer your question. Any god might exist, so, no, I don't believe that he could not exist.

[Gordon]

Then you seem to be saying that the existence of a thing is the equivalent of it's description. I am not sure about that.

Neither am I - but then I didn't say this.

In terms of the second part of your post I believe a bubble from your subconscious has helped us out here.
In other words talk of experience of God has elicited talk of parachute jumps.

Do you think so: or are you evading again: my money's on the latter.

In the light of that I feel that your confessed refusal to go up in the plane in the first place might just be a metaphor for where you are in relation to an experience of God.

I'm afraid the answer is more prosaic: I don't like flying in a plane at he best of times, so voluntarily jumping out of one when several thousand feet aloft isn't something I'd be keen on doing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

Then you must introduce me to this rationalist then.

How do you do? Nice to meet you.

Performance which is new atheism?
Lack of rigour springs to mind.

Then try to apply some. Start with reading what's actually said, then stop misrepresenting it, then try at least to engage with the arguments that undo your various assertions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the irrationalist,

In terms of fallibility God is a domain just like science is a domain.

Er, no.

"God" is white noise.

"Science" is a systematised method and body of knowledge that provides explanatory models of the way the universe appears to be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

How do you do? Nice to meet you.

Hillside, You are wearing a fez, a buttonless shirt, baggy trousers and little shoes pointed up at the end.
Could you please tell the organ grinder I've arrived for his interpretation of my experience.

[ProfessorDavey]

Then you render the definition of knowledge as uncertain.
Are you saying knowledge is being wrong? I think you might be being a bit extremist in the style of  ''Know nothing, doubt everything'' that's just hyperbole isn't it?

Knowledge develops, deepens and strengthens over time - or alternatively it weakens and crumbles under challenge.

And the process by which we do this is through rigorous challenge - we try to prove it to be incorrect, and if it fails that test we update our knowledge with a better understanding. If it survives that rigorous testing the knowledge is strengthened. But we have to keep testing and challenging that knowledge. Only that which remains robust through years of objective and rigorous testing is considered the strongest knowledge.

However we can never get to a point where we simply accept that some knowledge is unchallengeable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Neither am I - but then I didn't say this.

Do you think so: or are you evading again: my money's on the latter.

I'm afraid the answer is more prosaic: I don't like flying in a plane at he best of times, so voluntarily jumping out of one when several thousand feet aloft isn't something I'd be keen on doing.

I'm not sure you realise the implications of what you said.
As prosaic as your answer may be, as much of a punt as my surmise that your subconscious translates God experience into thoughts of skydiving is....... imho your a priori dismissal of God remains.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Knowledge develops, deepens and strengthens over time - or alternatively it weakens and crumbles under challenge.

And the process by which we do this is through rigorous challenge - we try to prove it to be incorrect, and if it fails that test we update our knowledge with a better understanding. If it survives that rigorous testing the knowledge is strengthened. But we have to keep testing and challenging that knowledge. Only that which remains robust through years of objective and rigorous testing is considered the strongest knowledge.

However we can never get to a point where we simply accept that some knowledge is unchallengeable.

So what is your position on 1+1 = 2?

[Gordon]

I'm not sure you realise the implications of what you said.

Oh I think I do.

As prosaic as your answer may be, as much of a punt as my surmise that your subconscious translates God experience into thoughts of skydiving is....... imho your a priori dismissal of God remains.

Dismissal of what exactly? (hint: your definition of god, attributes and properties etc etc is needed here).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrational,

So what is your position on 1+1 = 2?

That it's probabilistically true.

What's yours, and why have just ignored being corrected on your earlier mistakes re the leprechaun analogy, knowledge and certainty, "philosophical naturalism" etc?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrational,

That it's probabilistically true.

What's yours, and why have just ignored being corrected on your earlier mistakes re the leprechaun analogy, knowledge and certainty, "philosophical naturalism" etc?

I wasn't asking you and I doubt I will again........white noise and all that.

[ProfessorDavey]

So what is your position on 1+1 = 2?

In what respect.

Given that numbers and there relation are self defining and self defined by people I'm not sure I understand the relevance.

And the relationship only holds true under certain (themselves defined) situations.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what respect.

Given that numbers and there relation are self defining and self defined by people I'm not sure I understand the relevance.

And the relationship only holds true under certain (themselves defined) situations.

So you are OK with the self defining?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrational,

I wasn't asking you and I doubt I will again........white noise and all that.

Abject capitulation noted. Still if telling lies on a message board makes you feel all warm about yourself, keep on keeping on then. 

[BeRational]

Are you infallible on 1+1=3.
In terms of fallibility God is a domain just like science is a domain. Now, would you dismiss science no, can you still be fallible in matters of science? yes.

Yes but that is axiomatic and we make the rules.

God is not.

I am fallible is all sorts of things, and I claim infallibility in nothing.

Are you infallible about god?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrational,

Abject capitulation noted. Still if telling lies on a message board makes you feel all warm about yourself, keep on keeping on then.

capitulation on what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you infallible about god?

What, that he exists? I have related my position. The Christian faith best describes my experience.

[ProfessorDavey]

So you are OK with the self defining?

Mathematics is a 'created' language (or series of languages) which is a helpful tool in understanding phenomena. So depending on the language used,

1+1=2
or
1+1=10 (for example)

So in this context self definition is absolutely fine - how else would you have a language defined - they don't miraculously appear out of the ether - they are defined, evolved and adapted by people.

[BeRational]

What, that he exists? I have related my position. The Christian faith best describes my experience.

So is that you saying yes you are infallible on the existence of god?