What is God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it wouldn't - a good starting point would be to prove what is in the garden and what isn't.

AKA Ontology i.e. Being...or would you prefer to start from Empiricism i.e. being there?

[Shaker]

To which, at the risk of being accused of argumentum ad ridiculum, I could add Dawkinism.

I'm glad you're aware of how ridiculous you sound.

Many theists are arguing that God is fundemental to the Garden. That is hardly a claim that God is in anyway extra.

Of course it is. A garden with a god in or behind it has something extra compared to a garden without. Do you not know what extra means?

Adams proposes a theist who thinks like an empiricist. That's the type of 'cleverness' which can propel someone up their own rectum.

If a theist thought like an empiricist they wouldn't be a theist. Theism is fideism, not empiricism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course it is. A garden with a god in or behind it has something extra compared to a garden without. Do you not know what extra means?

You are mixing the metaphor with what the metaphor means. So Adams refers to fairies for God and the Garden for the universe.

He opens himself to a charge of argumentum ad ridiculum and of proclaiming a physical materialst universe.

Both need justification.


Come on then give it.

[Shaker]

You are mixing the metaphor with what the metaphor means. So Adams refers to fairies for God and the Garden for the universe.

I think most of us had got there anyway but thanks all the same.

He opens himself to a charge of argumentum ad ridiculum and of proclaiming a physical materialst universe.

Which is exactly what it looks like. If you've come up with some methodology for investigating a non-physical, non-material universe - which is exactly what you'd need - then I'd love to hear about it.

Both need justification.

Come on then give it.

What needs justification are your assertions (#40; #42; #44) that a god is somehow present in or behind the garden. Not merely that such a thing exists - any fool can simply assert that, and frequently do - but the means by which this is known.

I'm all ears.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What needs justification are your assertions (#40; #42; #44) that a god is somehow present in or behind the garden. Not merely that such a thing exists - any fool can simply assert that, and frequently do - but the means by which this is known.

I'm all ears.

What needs justification are Adams assertions. If philosophical as you claim some justification should be forthcoming but here you are assiduously trying to avoid the prospect.


Why should empiricism, physicalism, naturalism etc be immune from any challenge to justify them?


regarding Adams and Hitchens, were they around today I think they would be astounded at the retreat of their spawn from a committed antitheism, naturalism, empiricism and scientism.

[Shaker]

What needs justification are Adams assertions.

Which are?

If philosophical as you claim some justification should be forthcoming but here you are assiduously trying to avoid the prospect.

You're the one asserting a god (#40, #42 and #44, if you recall). Seems to me you're the one with all the heavy lifting to do.

Why should empiricism, physicalism, naturalism etc be immune from any challenge to justify them?

Who claims that they are?

regarding Adams and Hitchens, were they around today I think they would be astounded at the retreat of their spawn from a committed antitheism, naturalism, empiricism and scientism.

What "retreat"?

[ProfessorDavey]

What needs justification are Adams assertions.

No they don't because all that Adams claims (i.e. what can be demonstrably evidenced as being in the garden) is, well, already demonstrably evidenced.

It is you who is countering his evidenced assertion but claiming there could be something else in the garden - that something not demonstrated to even exist, let alone be in the garden. As such the burden of justification lies entirely with you. Once you've got off the starting block by demonstrating that additional something (be it god or fairies) actually exists, then we might be able to get into a discussion about whether that god or those fairies are in the garden. But until that point Adams comments need no further justification.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No they don't because all that Adams claims (i.e. what can be demonstrably evidenced as being in the garden) is, well, already demonstrably evidenced.

He is obviously talking from an empiricists point of view(and then constructing some straw man hybrid of a theist and empiricist) and empiricism needs justified. Come on then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is you who is countering his evidenced assertion

Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced?

[ProfessorDavey]

Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced?

So are you denying that the grass in the garden exists, or the roses, or the trees and shrubs, or the swing by the pond?

We can readily determine that grass, roses, trees, shrubs, swings and ponds exist and then ascertain their presence in this particular garden.

[Gordon]

Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced?

Tell me, Vlad: if you have a garden with a lawn, and you liked a neat lawn, do you think you would be justified in buying a lawnmower?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So are you denying that the grass in the garden exists, or the roses, or the trees and shrubs, or the swing by the pond?

Not at all....you've missed God out.

[Shaker]

Presumably he has no need of that hypothesis.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Tell me, Vlad: if you have a garden with a lawn, and you liked a neat lawn, do you think you would be justified in buying a lawnmower?

Sorry you've lost me what has that got to do with the proof of empiricism?

Empiricism

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasises the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, over the idea of innate ideas or traditions.

[Gordon]

Sorry you've lost me what has that got to do with the proof of empiricism?

Empiricism

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasises the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, over the idea of innate ideas or traditions.

You observe that the grass has grown and needs cutting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No they don't because all that Adams claims (i.e. what can be demonstrably evidenced as being in the garden) is, well, already demonstrably evidenced.

Since he also claims that's all there is then you are wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You observe that the grass has grown and needs cutting.

Yeeesssss…..and?

[Gordon]

Yeeesssss…..and?

Is your observation that the grass has grown empirical evidence (that grass can grow) or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is your observation that the grass has grown empirical evidence (that grass can grow) or not?

Yes.

Now please demonstrate how empirical evidence proves empiricism.

[Gordon]

Yes.

Now please demonstrate how empirical evidence proves empiricism.

My initial response was to your 'Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced?': you seem to agree that an observation that grass can be observed to have grown is empirical evidence. Yes?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My initial response was to your 'Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced?': you seem to agree that an observation that grass can be observed to have grown is empirical evidence. Yes?

I'm sorry but empirical evidence does not ''evidence'' empiricism (see the definition).

In the same way as methodological materialism doesn't evidence philosophical materialism. Game over for you Gordon.

[Gordon]

I'm sorry but empirical evidence does not ''evidence'' empiricism (see the definition).

In the same way as methodological materialism doesn't evidence philosophical materialism. Game over for you Gordon.

Not really, Vlad: you asked 'Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced' and you've agreed that the observation that grass can grow is correct. This observation is based on a 'sensory experience' (which your definition mentions) that grass can indeed grow: hence the need for lawnmowers.

Do you have a point or are you just, as usual, trying to pick a fight over nothing. Of course you probably prefer not to cut the grass: since that could be a recipe for straw, which is a commodity you make use of frequently. For example, when you volunteered that  'materialism doesn't evidence philosophical materialism' - when nobody said that it did.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really, Vlad: you asked 'Where has empiricism etc. ever been evidenced' and you've agreed that the observation that grass can grow is correct. This observation is based on a 'sensory experience' (which your definition mentions) that grass can indeed grow: hence the need for lawnmowers.

Since Adams' quote concerns Empiricism (He thinks that there is no God in the universe according to his metaphor). His heirs need to justify that Empiricism.


I have no fucking idea why you are wittering on about lawnmowers.

[Gordon]

Since Adams' quote concerns Empiricism (He thinks that there is no God in the universe according to his metaphor). His heirs need to justify that Empiricism.


I have no fucking idea why you are wittering on about lawnmowers.

In that case: 'whoosh'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In that case: 'whoosh'.

I don't think making the sound of a lawn mower helps your ''case'' Gordon.