What 'evidence' and 'reasons' exactly are atheists after.

[Nearly Sane]

And the great irony is if he is talking in methodologically naturalistic terms of what evidence is, where is the methodologically naturalistic evidence for the philosophical naturalism he proceeds from?

So once again, do you have a supernaturalistic methodology? 

[Nearly Sane]

Absolute rot. If you want to posit that the universe or some manifold in which it exists just is as brute fact, that is the intellectual equivalent of taking the ball and hiding it. What for instance is ''it's'' explanation ?

You need to justify a need for an explanation not assume it. The problem with using the idea of necessary cause is it is as has been pointed out many many times to you based on induction, and that isn't something that can give rise to the conclusion. Further once you use that flawed approach, you then end up throwing it away for whatever thing is 'necessary '. You really don't have any conception a logical argument.

[Gordon]

And the great irony is if he is talking in methodologically naturalistic terms of what evidence is, where is the methodologically naturalistic evidence for the philosophical naturalism he proceeds from?

I'm trying to work out how, aside from the fevered workings of your imagination, you think anyone here is committed to philosophical naturalism - sounds like you are suffering from an over abundance of straw again.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm trying to work out how, aside from the fevered workings of your imagination, you think anyone here is committed to philosophical naturalism - sounds like you are suffering from an over abundance of straw again.

I happily will admit to agreeing with Vlad here. I think if you rule out the possibility of a supernatural methodology as torridon has,  then you are effectively committing to philosophical naturalism

[Stranger]

Absolute rot. If you want to posit that the universe or some manifold in which it exists just is as brute fact, that is the intellectual equivalent of taking the ball and hiding it. What for instance is ''it's'' explanation ?

Do try to keep up. The universe, which is possibly best described as a four-dimensional manifold, does exist. It's you who are trying to make an argument about why it exists and I'm pointing out that the options you have been presenting are rooted in outdated Newtonian thinking about time.

No matter what you posit as an "explanation" of the universe, it has exactly the same problem of what its explanation is. It's a pointless guessing game.

[Gordon]

I happily will admit to agreeing with Vlad here. I think if you rule out the possibility of a supernatural methodology as torturing has,  then you are effectively committing to philosophical naturalism

I'd agree with that, but my reading of posts here is that people don't adopt a stance of philosophical naturalism since they recognise that there is always the risk of the dreaded 'unknown unknowns', hence the frequent requests for a methodology specifically suited to the supernatural (though what that might look like beats me).

That these requests aren't responded to puzzles me, in that were methodological naturalism to ever provide substantive evidence for the divine then the divine is no more than a newly understood natural phenomenon - a routine fact, so no faith needed - so I'd have thought theists such as Vlad would be focused more on developing a method suited to their claims.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd agree with that, but my reading of posts here is that people don't adopt a stance of philosophical naturalism since they recognise that there is always the risk of the dreaded 'unknown unknowns', hence the frequent requests for a methodology specifically suited to the supernatural (though what that might look like beats me).

That these requests aren't responded to puzzles me, in that were methodological naturalism to ever provide substantive evidence for the divine then the divine is no more than a newly understood natural phenomenon - a routine fact, so no faith needed - so I'd have thought theists such as Vlad would be focused more on developing a method suited to their claims.

There is no unknown unknown here though it’s either god or not god.

A methodology hasn’t helped philosophical naturalism.

[Gordon]

There is no unknown unknown here though it’s either god or not god.

How do you know that?

A methodology hasn’t helped philosophical naturalism.

You'll need to unpack that, Vlad, since I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

[Nearly Sane]

There is no unknown unknown here though it’s either god or not god.

A methodology hasn’t helped philosophical naturalism.

First sentence empty and logically incoherent suggestion.

Second sentence irrelevant, and evasion of your long standing inability to give answer to the lack of  supernatural methodology.

All of course part of your inept attempts at shifting the burden of proof from your claims.

[jeremyp]

Absolute rot. If you want to posit that the universe or some manifold in which it exists just is as brute fact, that is the intellectual equivalent of taking the ball and hiding it. What for instance is ''it's'' explanation ?

What, for instance, is God's explanation?

[Stranger]

A methodology hasn’t helped philosophical naturalism.

That's not the point. A methodology has hugely helped our understanding of the natural world. What is missing is any methodology to investigate claims of the "supernatural".

If you want to propose the "supernatural" you need to provide a method that can be used to distinguish probably true claims from just guesses or personal, subjective impression and intuition.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First sentence empty and logically incoherent suggestion.

There are no unknowns here it is a known unknown …...either God is or he isn't.

Second sentence irrelevant, and evasion of your long standing inability to give answer to the lack of  supernatural methodology.

Off course it's relevant. It the invocation of methodological materialism in matters of the argument between philosophical materialism and theism or philosophical naturalism that is irrelevant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What, for instance, is God's explanation?

The personal creator of this universe I suppose could be contingent or it could be the necessary creator and thus the explanation is found in itself.

[ippy]

Read your recent posts Vlad, you're still managing to avoid supplying anything approaching a credible reason for you to cling on to this belief you have that there's some kind of god figure at the centre of all things, OK where's your supporting evidence, it's your idea god, so it's your need to prove your case, not mine?

See if you can find a way of giving a direct answer in place of your reams of mixed bollocks and theobabble?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not the point. A methodology has hugely helped our understanding of the natural world.

That is wholly irrelevent as to the validity of philosophical Naturalism though.

[Stranger]

That is wholly irrelevent as to the validity of philosophical Naturalism though.

Which totally irrelevant to anything I've said.

[Stranger]

The personal creator of this universe I suppose could be contingent or it could be the necessary creator and thus the explanation is found in itself.

And gravity could be caused by tiny, purple pixies called Eric, that pull at the fabric of space-time.... 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Read your recent posts Vlad, you're still managing to avoid supplying anything approaching a credible reason for you to cling on to this belief you have that there's some kind of god figure at the centre of all things, OK where's your supporting evidence, it's your idea god, so it's your need to prove your case, not mine?

See if you can find a way of giving a direct answer in place of your reams of mixed bollocks and theobabble?

ippy

I do not need to prove my case on an old message board Ippy.
I just have to take part in discussion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And gravity could be caused by tiny, purple pixies called Eric, that pull at the fabric of space-time.... 

How would they do it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which totally irrelevant to anything I've said.

You've just been talking about science. Isn't there a thread for that?

[Gordon]

There are no unknowns here it is a known unknown …...either God is or he isn't.Off course it's relevant.

That sounds like a false dichotomy to me, since presumably somebody could postulate a creator that isn't a 'god', and if they did you would ask them to explain themselves, yes? Therefore I can't see how you can wholly exclude 'unknown unknowns'.

It the invocation of methodological materialism in matters of the argument between philosophical materialism and theism or philosophical naturalism that is irrelevant.

I'm still struggling to understand why you think anyone is arguing from a position of philosophical naturalism, so I suspect you're just doing another spot of kite-flying (such as switching terms to suddenly include 'materialism').

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That sounds like a false dichotomy to me, since presumably somebody could postulate a creator that isn't a 'god', and if they did you would ask them to explain themselves, yes? Therefore I can't see how you can wholly exclude 'unknown unknowns'.

I'm still struggling to understand why you think anyone is arguing from a position of philosophical naturalism, so I suspect you're just doing another spot of kite-flying (such as switching terms to suddenly include 'materialism').

If you think and argue from the point of view that nature is probably all there is then that is philosophical naturalism. Unknown unknowns is a cop out since God or no god is an unknown unknown.

[Stranger]

How would they do it?

They're supernatural, of course.   

You've just been talking about science. Isn't there a thread for that?

I was responding to your inept attempts at talking about why the universe exists. Philosophical naturalism seems to be something you're obsessed with for some reason of your own. I'm perfectly happy to accept the possibility of something "supernatural" but we would need some way of investigating claims about it - a methodology. Otherwise it's just guessing and my claims about all the little Erics who cause gravity are just as valid as anything anybody else claims about supernatural stuff.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That sounds like a false dichotomy to me, since presumably somebody could postulate a creator that isn't a 'god', and if they did you would ask them to explain themselves, yes? Therefore I can't see how you can wholly exclude 'unknown unknowns'.

The example you give isn’t an unknown unknown but another known unknown.

[Gordon]

If you think and argue from the point of view that nature is probably all there is then that is philosophical naturalism.

Just as well that I don't then - can you name anyone here who does?

Unknown unknowns is a cop out since God or no god is an unknown unknown.

Not a cop out at all, and since you've just cited as follows "God or no god is an unknown unknown" then you seem to be indulging in what you yourself call a "cop out": you seem very confused.