More on the gospels.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is your experience that is driving your claim, so the burden of proof is quite clearly yours.

I don't go down the default route that there is no God myself since I think 'God' is a meaningless and incoherent notion to start with: I would, in effect, be saying that the default is that there is an absence of something that is so meaningless and incoherent that nothing can be said about it that would sufficient enough to come to a view regarding it.

I can, of course, see that a 'the default position is that there is no God' could well be a convenient shorthand that could include the above, but it isn't an approach I make much use of since I think far safer ground is to found in considered arguments offered by some God enthusiasts. My view then is that there is no basis to entertain 'God' as being a serious proposition until such times as someone says something meaningful about it that isn't fallacious or incoherent.

What is the default position that demands I have the burden of proof.

Clearly If I claim a leprechaun or a dragon in the room it is not unreasonable to be asked to produce one since we should have immediate empirical evidence. The evidence is that there is no empirical evidence where there should be.

God or the absence thereof are a different matter.

Secondly I have to ask you why you say God is meaningless? Do you use that in an Empiricists way like the Vienna school?   

[Gordon]

What is the default position that demands I have the burden of proof.

I do wish you'd follow what is being said. In #243 you said

If it's true that I might be right then you not finding the reasons good isn't really relevant is it?

I simply reminded you that in relation to what you said (your claim of a supernatural encounter) the burden of proof is yours: you then raised the 'default' issue and I explained why I don't find that approach helpful.

Clearly If I claim a leprechaun or a dragon in the room it is not unreasonable to be asked to produce one since we should have immediate empirical evidence. The evidence is that there is no empirical evidence where there should be.

Give that boy a coconut.

God or the absence thereof are a different matter.

Why - you had an encounter with something other that a leprechaun or a dragon, with 'God', and yet you say that for these two mythic creatures you'd expect empirical evidence, so why no expectation of empirical evidence for 'God'?

Secondly I have to ask you why you say God is meaningless? Do you use that in an Empiricists way like the Vienna school?

I'm using meaningless in the sense of an absence of meaning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do wish you'd follow what is being said. In #243 you said
I simply reminded you that in relation to what you said (your claim of a supernatural encounter) the burden of proof is yours: you then raised the 'default' issue and I explained why I don't find that approach helpful.

Give that boy a coconut.

Why - you had an encounter with something other that a leprechaun or a dragon, with 'God', and yet you say that for these two mythic creatures you'd expect empirical evidence, so why no expectation of empirical evidence for 'God'?

I'm using meaningless in the sense of an absence of meaning.

I think people will mull the relative importance of what you find helpful or not.


Firstly empirical properties are part of the definition of Leprechauns and Dragons, the chief part.

That is not the case with God.

To expect God to have empirical evidence is shorthand for expecting everything to have empirical evidence which is really empiricism and yes, if you detected a hint of saying that as if it were a bad thing then you're not wrong.

The chief failure of empiricism is that it cannot classically be demonstrated empirically

The last statement is circular.


Time maybe to get your motor running and get down on the Highyawayyyyyy?

[Gordon]

I think people will mull the relative importance of what you find helpful or not.

They are free to do so.

Firstly empirical properties are part of the definition of Leprechauns and Dragons, the chief part.

That is not the case with God.

Why?

To expect God to have empirical evidence is shorthand for expecting everything to have empirical evidence which is really empiricism and yes, if you detected a hint of saying that as if it were a bad thing then you're not wrong.

The chief failure of empiricism is that it cannot classically be demonstrated empirically

I'm just pointing out your own inconsistency by requiring empirical evidence for leprechauns and dragons but carefully excluding 'God' from this requirement without explaining why 'God' is exempt.

The last statement is circular.

Nope: I'm simply qualifying/defining the term 'meaningless' by noting that it means an absence of meaning, on the same basis that 'homeless' would mean the absence of a home.

Time maybe to get your motor running and get down on the Highyawayyyyyy?

Not tonight, Vlad - though that is on the agenda for tomorrow.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why?

It's back to definitions again i'm afraid Gordon.

Dragons and Leprechauns are defined by their empirical features.

God isn't. That's why Christians tend to file arguments such as yours in the file marked old man with a beard or intergalactically large chap.

I suppose the definition of God as a non empirical comes from his independence from the material world. He is there when matter isn't if it wasn't that is.
His lack of emprical features is down to his necessity or non contingency, his independence from physical phenomena. Light would not be expected to bounce of him for instance.

Although I wouldn't depend on it too much, nobody on here has ever suggested they can positively identify what is non contingent in the universe or indeed how they would go about it.


Where are you taking the Vespa tomorrow then?

[Walter]

It's back to definitions again i'm afraid Gordon.

Dragons and Leprechauns are defined by their empirical features.

God isn't. That's why Christians tend to file arguments such as yours in the file marked old man with a beard or intergalactically large chap.

I suppose the definition of God as a non empirical comes from his independence from the material world. He is there when matter isn't if it wasn't that is.
His lack of emprical features is down to his necessity or non contingency, his independence from physical phenomena. Light would not be expected to bounce of him for instance.

Although I wouldn't depend on it too much, nobody on here has ever suggested they can positively identify what is non contingent in the universe or indeed how they would go about it.


Where are you taking the Vespa tomorrow then?

as a 'get out off jail free card' that's a very poor attempt. I expect better from you Phillis .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

as a 'get out off jail free card' that's a very poor attempt. I expect better from you Phillis .

Feel free to...….Is there somebody with you in case you faint at this controversial suggestion I am about to make......Feel free to explain your assertion.


There Watty I bleeding well went and gone and said it.

[Walter]

Feel free to...….Is there somebody with you in case you faint at this controversial suggestion I am about to make......Feel free to explain your assertion.


There Watty I bleeding well went and gone and said it.

you could have said god exists outside of time and space, that's always a good one . Makes me laugh anyway .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

you could have said god exists outside of time and space, that's always a good one . Makes me laugh anyway .

Oh no, Not Buzz Lightyear and then some...…...although if you think about it......go on I dare you......The necessary would be independent of time and space in any case.

[Stranger]

Do I have the sole burden of proof? Why? Are you suggesting that the default position is that there is no God? On what grounds does that demand the status of the default position?

Not again! How many times do you need this explaining?

The default position is always to not accept a claim unless sufficient grounds are given to do so. So we default to no gods, no ghosts, no alien abductions, no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, no black holes, no anything unless there are good reasons to accept it.

This really isn't hard. The alternative would be insanity (literally: having to take everything seriously without good reason).

And, no, it doesn't matter a jot how something is defined (empirically or not), the same principle must apply: unless there are good reasons to accept something, then it is rational not to accept it.

[Spud]

That just makes it worse for you. Undeniably, suicide bombers go to their deaths for their faith and now you are claiming they do not need to have had any special experience. So that means the early Christians could have gone to their deaths without having any special experiences too.

Yes, I think I got a bit muddled up yesterday. I do think suicide bombers would have had an experience (like seeing their kin suffer) as well as just faith, so I still think that being willing to die indicates an experience has been had, which though someone could be mistaken about something they have faith in would indicate that they are not lying with regard to their experience. Would someone die just for a belief about a religion?  Maybe another question to ask is, would a Muslim suffer without or harming other people, which is what we are told happened to many of the first Christians.
In any case, i accept this argument may not conclusively prove that the disciples were not lying.

[BeRational]

Yes, I think I got a bit muddled up yesterday. I do think suicide bombers would have had an experience (like seeing their kin suffer) as well as just faith, so I still think that being willing to die indicates an experience has been had, which though someone could be mistaken about something they have faith in would indicate that they are not lying with regard to their experience. Would someone die just for a belief about a religion?  Maybe another question to ask is, would a Muslim suffer without or harming other people, which is what we are told happened to many of the first Christians.
In any case, i accept this argument may not conclusively prove that the disciples were not lying.

Or honestly mistaken.

[jeremyp]

It's back to definitions again i'm afraid Gordon.

Dragons and Leprechauns are defined by their empirical features.

God isn't.

What is God defined by then?

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

What is God defined by then?

Quite. The schtick here is, "you can't use empirical methods like reason and evidence to evaluate my claims about (my, but only my) god cos he's magic". So the question then is what should we use instead, or should we just accept that anyone who thinks he's "experienced" a god must therefore have done so?

We're going to have an awful lot of gods that way!

[Roses]

God is defined in so many different ways, depending on a person's take on a deity, which may or may not exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

no gods, no ghosts, no alien abductions, no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, no black holes,

These Declarations are all positive assertions and therefore have a burden of proof.

[jeremyp]

These Declarations are all positive assertions

Nope.

and therefore have a burden of proof.

Nope.

Although, in the case of atoms, EM radiation and black holes, there is good evidence that the positive assertion is true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

no gods, no ghosts, no alien abductions, no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, no black holes,
These Declarations are all positive assertions and therefore have a burden of proof.

Below is what Stranger actually said rather than Vlad's straw manning of it to attempt a dishonest point.

The default position is always to not accept a claim unless sufficient grounds are given to do so. So we default to no gods, no ghosts, no alien abductions, no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, no black holes, no anything unless there are good reasons to accept it.

[Stranger]

These Declarations are all positive assertions and therefore have a burden of proof.

So, despite having it explained to you countless times, by several people, you still haven't grasped this simple, simple concept. When I said the default position was (for example) no atoms, I wasn't suggesting that it was to deny the possibility of atoms, just (as I said) to not accept that they exist until there is good reason to support the notion (which there now obviously is).

I thought that by including things that are obviously true, I would emphasise that point, but it seems I overestimated you.   

The default position with gods is exactly the same: not to deny the possibility that one or more of them exist, just to not accept that any of them do until and unless some good reason is given to take one or more of them seriously.

This isn't complicated and it is very far from the first time it's been explained to you. What's so hard?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not again! How many times do you need this explaining?

The default position is always to not accept a claim unless sufficient grounds are given to do so. So we default to no gods, no ghosts, no alien abductions, no atoms, no electromagnetic radiation, no black holes, no anything unless there are good reasons to accept it.

This really isn't hard. The alternative would be insanity (literally: having to take everything seriously without good reason).

And, no, it doesn't matter a jot how something is defined (empirically or not), the same principle must apply: unless there are good reasons to accept something, then it is rational not to accept it.

Citations please.

But while we are waiting lets think about it.

Let's take the Dragon in the room crock. If I declare there is no dragon in the room then I have positively asserted and have a burden of proof. My proof of absence is that none of the empirically detected properties of a Dragon have been empirically detected.

If I claim the default position, as you said earlier, then you have positively asserted, with the burden of proof that entails. Whereas it easy to detect presence or absence of Dragons, the lack of empirically detectable properties of God put Dragons, leprechauns etc in a different category.

Since you are positively asserting the so called default position you are making a claim. What Good reason then do you have for no alien abductions? and what Good reasons do you believe you have for no God.

Can you give a citation for what constitutes ''good reason'' and ''sufficient grounds'' namely one we can all agree on rather than just the ''folies a plusieures'' of antitheism?

If you want a good reason for God it's the ownership by dissenting atheists of ''Contingency without necessity'' and that other crock  ''things being both contingent and necessary.


Rather than fucking about with the default position being no atoms, people who we celebrate today went right ahead and proposed them.


I think we will find that ''no good reason'' will turn out to mean 'not empiricism' and 'not physicalism'


 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, despite having it explained to you countless times, by several people, you still haven't grasped this simple, simple concept. When I said the default position was (for example) no atoms, I wasn't suggesting that it was to deny the possibility of atoms, just (as I said) to not accept that they exist until there is good reason to support the notion (which there now obviously is).

Again will you or will you not cite an agreed definition of good reason?

This is so we can test your own statements and claims by it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremy,

Quite. The schtick here is, "you can't use empirical methods like reason and evidence to evaluate my claims about (my, but only my) god cos he's magic". So the question then is what should we use instead, or should we just accept that anyone who thinks he's "experienced" a god must therefore have done so?

We're going to have an awful lot of gods that way!

Nobody is stopping you using empirical methods to detect the necessary being (That which is necessary). I just ask where you are going to start?

It might be impossible not to smile at this sort of post if they didn't come from people who believed in contingency without necessity or something being contingent and necessary.

[Stranger]

Citations please.

For what? The burden of proof?

Burden of proof (philosophy)

But while we are waiting lets think about it.

Let's take the Dragon in the room crock. If I declare there is no dragon in the room then I have positively asserted and have a burden of proof. My proof of absence is that none of the empirically detected properties of a Dragon have been empirically detected.

But what if it's a supernatural dragon which can use magic to hide its presence? The main problem with most god claims is that they are unfalsifiable - they make no testable predictions.

If I claim the default position, as you said earlier, then you have positively asserted, with the burden of proof that entails. Whereas it easy to detect presence or absence of Dragons, the lack of empirically detectable properties of God put Dragons, leprechauns etc in a different category.

Only if the claims about dragons or leprechauns make falsifiable predictions - otherwise we are in the same territory.

Since you are positively asserting the so called default position you are making a claim. What Good reason then do you have for no alien abductions? and what Good reasons do you believe you have for no God.

Have you not actually read any of the many. many explanations? I am not saying that I can rule out alien abductions, or gods (there is no single "God" claim - and it's a distortion to talk as if there were) - just that I see no reason to take them seriously.

Can you give a citation for what constitutes ''good reason'' and ''sufficient grounds'' namely one we can all agree on rather than just the ''folies a plusieures'' of antitheism?

What's wrong with objective evidence and/or sound arguments?

If you want a good reason for God it's the ownership by dissenting atheists of ''Contingency without necessity'' and that other crock  ''things being both contingent and necessary.

There is no single concept called "God". Claiming that "God" exists is all but meaningless - not even wrong. You'll have to expand on what you mean both by "God" and all the other waffle about contingency and necessity.

Rather than fucking about with the default position being no atoms, people who we celebrate today went right ahead and proposed them.

Yes, and they went and found good, objective evidence for them - just like people who claim that gods exist haven't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is God defined by then?

Stuff you can't detect with empirical measurement or observation. He is self defining or revelatory. He is described philosophically. He is the necessary being

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For what? The burden of proof?

Burden of proof (philosophy)

But what if it's a supernatural dragon which can use magic to hide its presence? The main problem with most god claims is that they are unfalsifiable - they make no testable predictions.

Only if the claims about dragons or leprechauns make falsifiable predictions - otherwise we are in the same territory.

Have you not actually read any of the many. many explanations? I am not saying that I can rule out alien abductions, or gods (there is no single "God" claim - and it's a distortion to talk as if there were) - just that I see no reason to take them seriously.

What's wrong with objective evidence and/or sound arguments?

There is no single concept called "God". Claiming that "God" exists is all but meaningless - not even wrong. You'll have to expand on what you mean both by "God" and all the other waffle about contingency and necessity.

Yes, and they went and found good, objective evidence for them - just like people who claim that gods exist haven't.

Sorry, I'll have to get back to you to help out with your philosophical ignorance.


Cheers


Phyllis.