Sound reasons for naturalism, materialism,empiricism etc Pleeeeeeeaaazzz!

[ippy]

I enjoy it. That makes it not pointless.

Arr yes a very good point jp, you seem to be saying he's the equivalent of a punch bag, it just swings around when you punch it and doesn't make any sound that's worth bothering about.

Regards, ippy.

[jeremyp]

Arr yes a very good point jp, you seem to be saying he's the equivalent of a punch bag, it just swings around when you punch it and doesn't make any sound that's worth bothering about.

Regards, ippy.

Keeps you fit though.

[ippy]

Keeps you fit though.

Yer that too!

ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Arr yes a very good point jp, you seem to be saying he's the equivalent of a punch bag, it just swings around when you punch it and doesn't make any sound that's worth bothering about.

Regards, ippy.

Punch bag?.....Punch bag?
I wonder what JeremyP thinks of that?

Keeps you fit though.

Oh dear, what kind of people have I come across...…..time to leave I think.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh dear, what kind of people have I come across...…..time to leave I think.

You could do that. Alternatively you could finally engage honestly with the issues under discussion. Maybe start by not personally redefining commonplace terms so as to complain that no-one can justify your straw men versions of them?

It’s up to you though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why would you presume there is something more than can be measured or detected?  Why would you presume at all?  You don't 'presume' there's nothing more than the physical world, you operate as though there was nothing more until someone produces a reason to think there is.

O.

I think we presume there may or may not be until we discover or are convinced by the arguments. That seems to avoid the inherent circularity of philosophical materialism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think we presume there may or may not be until we discover or are convinced by the arguments.

No, because you have an a priori problem of the incoherence of the term “non-material”. Until you can explain what it is, how you’d investigate the claim etc it’s just white noise. You may as well say that there may or may not be ijh97867y.

Assuming that you could to that however, you’d still be stuck with the burden of proof to demonstrate it. That is, with finding some means to take your from the possible to the probable – which is when you always vanish.   

That seems to avoid the inherent circularity of philosophical materialism.

There isn’t any.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  You don't 'presume' there's nothing more than the physical world, you operate as though there was nothing more until someone produces a reason to think there is.

O.

I think this shifts things away from favouring philosophical materialism to merely operating. Why 'operate' like you suggest? In other words you seem like you want your cake and eat it here. You don't want admit a to a belief although you betray one by 'operating' in a certain way...…...and you are keen to be seen as a methodological materialist......strange.

I am a methodological materialist but not a philosophical one. In other words in matters of material.....I am methodologically materialist.

Is that different from your position?
If so....how is it different.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think we presume there may or may not be until we discover or are convinced by the arguments. That seems to avoid the inherent circularity of philosophical materialism.

   

   
There isn’t any.

Er, That would be the demand for material evidence......A dodge which acknowledges that the argument for materialism (philosophical) is circular.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think this shifts things away from favouring philosophical materialism to merely operating.

No it doesn’t because “philosophical materialism” isn’t your straw man version of it.

Why 'operate' like you suggest? In other words you seem like you want your cake and eat it here. You don't want admit a belief although you betray one by 'operating' in a certain way...…...and you are keen to be seen as a methodological materialist......strange.

No, because the “why” question is incoherent unless you can demonstrate first a “something” to decide that there is a purposive why. That’s you dong actual circular reasoning – “there is a god because the universe turned out the way god intended it to”.

I am a methodological materialist but not a philosophical one.

Probably not true. You’re likely to be a philosophical materialist (actual meaning), but not a philosophical materialist (Vlad’s straw man meaning). So are most people.

Your big mistake/lie here by the way is trying to make “philosophical materialism” mean something like “physicalism”. That’s why you post misunderstandings/misrepresentations like “How does science support the contention that all there is is the material world?” (and then run away when you're found out).

But then again you knew that already didn’t you what with it having been explained so many times.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Er, That would be the demand for material evidence......A dodge which acknowledges that the argument for materialism (philosophical) is circular.

And the lies keep coming. No-one “demands material evidence” – any method at all that’s epistemically distinguishable from just guessing would be fine. That’s just another of your straw men remember?

Can you have forgotten already that not long ago I chased you all over this mb trying to get you to answer a perfectly simple question about how anyone should distinguish your claim “god” from anyone else’s faith claim about anything else only for you endlessly to duck and dive to avoid answering (and indeed that you refused to tell us even why you’d never answer)? I don’t recall saying “material evidence only”. Do you?

[ippy]

Vlad,

And the lies keep coming. No-one “demands material evidence” – any method at all that’s epistemically distinguishable from just guessing would be fine. That’s just another of your straw men remember?

Can you have forgotten already that not long ago I chased you all over this mb trying to get you to answer a perfectly simple question about how anyone should distinguish your claim “god” from anyone else’s faith claim about anything else only for you endlessly to duck and dive to avoid answering (and indeed that you refused to tell us even why you’d never answer)? I don’t recall saying “material evidence only”. Do you?

Blue, have you tried banging your head on the keyboard yet, you're likely to get far more out of that than you'll ever get from you know who?

regards, ippy.

[jeremyp]

   

Er, That would be the demand for material evidence......A dodge which acknowledges that the argument for materialism (philosophical) is circular.

Actually the dodge is you attaching the word “material” to it. Nobody is asking you for material evidence, we are asking you for evidence. You can give us any evidence for the non material you deem appropriate and then I Will tell you whether I consider it good evidence and why not, if not.

[jeremyp]

Blue, have you tried banging your head on the keyboard yet, you're likely to get far more out of that than you'll ever get from you know who?

regards, ippy.

Yes ok. We all know it’s like getting a good argument out of a Brexiteer. No need to keep banging on about why you consider this thread a waste of time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually the dodge is you attaching the word “material” to it. Nobody is asking you for material evidence, we are asking you for evidence. You can give us any evidence for the non material you deem appropriate and then I Will tell you whether I consider it good evidence and why not, if not.

Forgive me for not entertaining this but I am not interested in answering questions on theism and Christianity because that misses the point of the thread.

You have turned my questioning into your questioning and you are doing so in a pack, a scourge, a posse.

Now if you'd like to open a thread particularly on what evidence I have. Then open your own.

[Gordon]

Forgive me for not entertaining this but I am not interested in answering questions on theism and Christianity because that misses the point of the thread.

You have turned my questioning into your questioning and you are doing so in a pack, a scourge, a posse.

Now if you'd like to open a thread particularly on what evidence I have. Then open your own.

Looking at the title of this thread: and it is your thread, I'd say the issue of what constitutes evidence is definitely on topic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And the lies keep coming. No-one “demands material evidence” – any method at all that’s epistemically distinguishable from just guessing would be fine.

That's a bit vague and flip and I'm sure calculated to make your particular gallery sigh and swoon but how are you defining guess here?

If not material evidence then what do you type of evidence do you mean?

[jeremyp]

Forgive me for not entertaining this but I am not interested in answering questions on theism and Christianity because that misses the point of the thread.

You have turned my questioning into your questioning and you are doing so in a pack, a scourge, a posse.

Now if you'd like to open a thread particularly on what evidence I have. Then open your own.

I wasn’t asking you a question on theism and Christianity, I was asking you a question on the non material which is directly related to this thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Looking at the title of this thread: and it is your thread, I'd say the issue of what constitutes evidence is definitely on topic.

This is not about what I believe though it is merely an appeal for sound reasons pertaining to the list provided and so appeals for me to start talking about atheism are going to be disappointed.

If you can't make good reason then why are you on this thread busy trying to divert attention away. Embarrased……..by any chance.

You are at liberty to open a similar thread to this about theism if you wish...….but then I think you might be a bit scared of doing so and heaven forbid what place would a thread about religion have on a religion and ethics message board.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wasn’t asking you a question on theism and Christianity, I was asking you a question on the non material which is directly related to this thread.

I don't see it on the list or in the appeal for good reasons of it.

I don't consider, '' well, give us a good reason for believing in the non material '' a good reason for believing in philosophical materialism.

You may.....and maybe you can persuade me on this thread why it is a good reason for.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Looking at the title of this thread: and it is your thread, I'd say the issue of what constitutes evidence is definitely on topic.

What do you mean by evidence....material evidence?

[Gordon]

This is not about what I believe though it is merely an appeal for sound reasons pertaining to the list provided and so appeals for me to start talking about atheism are going to be disappointed.

If you can't make good reason then why are you on this thread busy trying to divert attention away. Embarrased……..by any chance.

You are at liberty to open a similar thread to this about theism if you wish...….but then I think you might be a bit scared of doing so and heaven forbid what place would a thread about religion have on a religion and ethics message board.

Don't be silly, Vlad: I haven't mentioned theism, or indeed atheism, but your thread title includes the trio of "naturalism, materialism,empiricism" so I'm surprised you're so coy about the relevance of evidence.

[Gordon]

What do you mean by evidence....material evidence?

Just 'evidence', Vlad, which when presented can then be scrutinised.

[jeremyp]

I don't see it on the list or in the appeal for good reasons of it.

I don't consider, '' well, give us a good reason for believing in the non material '' a good reason for believing in philosophical materialism.

You may.....and maybe you can persuade me on this thread why it is a good reason for.

You were given good reasons. Then you disputed them and so this is part of the response to your disputes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly, Vlad: I haven't mentioned theism, or indeed atheism, but your thread title includes the trio of "naturalism, materialism,empiricism" so I'm surprised you're so coy about the relevance of evidence.

OK ''Show us the evidence for the non material'' isn't evidence for naturalism, materialism or empiricism'' is it.

For these to be true you would actually have to show me naturalism....not nature but naturalism and so forth.

Outrider mentioned measurement and I think observation. How then are we going to even begin observing and measuring naturalism, materialism and empiricism?

But then I suspect you know all of this.