About the Charismatic gifts and their exercise.

[Nearly Sane]

This is the real world NS. It's all we have got.

ah so you have solved the problem of hard solipsism? 

[jeremyp]

ah so you have solved the problem of hard solipsism?

That makes no sense NS. Hard solipsism is taking the idea that you can't prove anything in the real world to the extreme i.e. you can't be sure there even is a real world.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Counter example please.

A counter example to you being wrong about epistemology? So I would have to offer being wrong as well? You seem confused. To state there is no evidence of x, is a claim that needs absolute knowledge. If you want to say LR has that then justify it.

[Nearly Sane]

That makes no sense NS. Hard solipsism is taking the idea that you can't prove anything in the real world to the extreme i.e. you can't be sure there even is a real world.

Exactly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

I have never said  god doesn't exist!

NS has already addressed this, but I never said you did. I expressly talked about you claim re evidence, not about what such evidence would demonstrate.

I have said there is no verifiable evidence that it does.

Which is a repetition of the same mistake. To know that you’d have to be omniscient. Unless you are omniscient, the most you can say is that you are not aware of verifiable evidence that there is a god. Nor am I. Nor so far as I’m aware is anyone else. That though doesn’t allow me to state as a fact that it does not exist.     

[Nearly Sane]

Floo,

NS has already addressed this, but I never said you did. I expressly talked about you claim re evidence, not about what such evidence would demonstrate.

Which is a repetition of the same mistake. To know that you’d have to be omniscient. Unless you are omniscient, the most you can say is that you are not aware of verifiable evidence that there is a god. Nor am I. Nor so far as I’m aware is anyone else. That though doesn’t allow me to state as a fact that it does not exist.   

While I'm in full agreement, I'd add that without a definition of god and evidence, it's pretty much a meaningless statement.

[SteveH]

Since God, whatever God is, is not a being in the universe, the evidence would be different from the evidence you'd demand for the existance of (say) Australia or the horsehead nebula.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

While I'm in full agreement, I'd add that without a definition of god and evidence, it's pretty much a meaningless statement.

Yes. I’m pretty much ignostic I think – ie, “I have no idea what you mean by “God” (and nor have you), so any discussion consequent on that term is for now meaningless”. Nonetheless, in practice there’s a sort of “OK, let’s both pretend we do know what’s meant by “God”, and examine the arguments made for it on that basis”.

You’re right though. Anyone proselytising here for his god should first be made to tell us what he means by “god”. Probably be the end of the site if we did though!       

[Nearly Sane]

Since God, whatever God is, is not a being in the universe, the evidence would be different from the evidence you'd demand for the existance of (say) Australia or the horsehead nebula.

Some definitions of god(s) would have it/them as beings in or indeed made up by the universe. For your definition, you would need first to come up with a methodology which would lead to a definition of evidence. In the absence of that 'evidence' is just meaningless

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Since God, whatever God is, is not a being in the universe,…

That is the assertion some make about their faith belief “god”, yes. It is just an assertion though.

… the evidence would be different from the evidence you'd demand for the existance of (say) Australia or the horsehead nebula.

But wouldn’t the notion of evidence itself be problematic because it’s a naturalistic concept? How could a naturalistic approach demonstrate a (supposedly) non-natural entity?

[wigginhall]

Since God, whatever God is, is not a being in the universe, the evidence would be different from the evidence you'd demand for the existance of (say) Australia or the horsehead nebula.

Not only that, but God is not part of the natural world.  As others have said, I would think that notions such as evidence and probability flow from the idea of the natural world, so to apply them elsewhere seems odd, well, more than odd, incoherent.  Is there non-natural evidence?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes. I’m pretty much ignostic I think – ie, “I have no idea what you mean by “God” (and nor have you), so any discussion consequent on that term is for now meaningless”. Nonetheless, in practice there’s a sort of “OK, let’s both pretend we do know what’s meant by “God”, and examine the arguments made for it on that basis”.

You’re right though. Anyone proselytising here for his god should first be made to tell us what he means by “god”. Probably be the end of the site if we did though!       

Yep, I get that  there's a sort of default idea of 'God' based around a supposition of some characteristics given to a 'Christian God' but whenever you actually to get into any real detail it seems to me to fall apart.

To be honest the god debates are about the least interesting part of this site for me, in part because of the sheer nebulous quality of any definition.

[Nearly Sane]

Not only that, but God is not part of the natural world.  As others have said, I would think that notions such as evidence and probability flow from the idea of the natural world, so to apply them elsewhere seems odd, well, more than odd, incoherent.  Is there non-natural evidence?

I think that the most common apologetic approach is to argue it from logical premises but I doubt that anyone really believes in god(s) because of anything like the Kalam.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yep, I get that  there's a sort of default idea of 'God' based around a supposition of some characteristics given to a 'Christian God' but whenever you actually to get into any real detail it seems to me to fall apart.

Can you give an example?

[Nearly Sane]

Can you give an example?

The trinity

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The trinity

You aren't the chap who stopped using 3 in1 oil on grounds of logical incoherence are you?

[SteveH]

You aren't the chap who stopped using 3 in1 oil on grounds of logical incoherence are you?

   

[Nearly Sane]

You aren't the chap who stopped using 3 in1 oil on grounds of logical incoherence are you?

Good line, irrelevant though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good line, irrelevant though.

Since the trinity is analogically........in what way is the analogy irrelevant?

[Nearly Sane]

Since the trinity is analogically........in what way is the analogy irrelevant?

First of all, it's irrelevant because you raised the ides of logical coherence which wasn't somethinh I was talking about. Secondly 3-1 is a methodlogically naturalistic description so it cannot be used to demonstrate the meaning of the trinity.


That said, it looks to me as if your 'analogy' actually makes my point for me. In attempting to explain your meaning to the concept of the trinity, you have used something that is utterly unhelpful.

[jeremyp]

Exactly.

So asking LR to provide proof of a negative is unreasonable. Asking her to provide evidence, however is fine as long as you do not assume hard solipsism - if you do, we might as well all go home, because we can't ague about anything.

LR stated there is no verifiable evidence for God and the fact that people have been trying to find such evidence for centuries and failing is evidence for her case.

[Nearly Sane]

So asking LR to provide proof of a negative is unreasonable. Asking her to provide evidence, however is fine as long as you do not assume hard solipsism - if you do, we might as well all go home, because we can't ague about anything.

LR stated there is no verifiable evidence for God and the fact that people have been trying to find such evidence for centuries and failing is evidence for her case.

And it needs omniscience to state there isn't,l so she has to demonstrate that.

It also needs a clear definition of what such 'evidence' would be.

[jeremyp]

And it needs omniscience to state there isn't,l so she has to demonstrate that.

No it doesn't. I clearly saw her post the statement in question and I'm pretty sure she is not omniscient.

[Nearly Sane]

No it doesn't. I clearly saw her post the statement in question and I'm pretty sure she is not omniscient.

So when she claimed that there is no evidence as a fact, then she was wrong.

[Roses]

So when she claimed that there is no evidence as a fact, then she was wrong.

So if there is evidence, why is it so well hidden? Of course I am omniscient, how dare anyone suggest otherwise.