Evidence of God

[Nearly Sane]

My approach has led to highly active and contributed to threads on this forum just look at the stats so you can stuff yer missy humeian shite regarding the worth of my posts.

Irrelevant.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

Your "approach" is to be the house troll. You're here to pollute, no to contribute.

Joey Essex

I知 here to stimulate discussion. It appears to be working.

[jeremyp]

No, you don't. To have something regarded  as 'evidence' for a supernatural claim

Do you realise that, when you examine it, the notion of the supernatural is actually incoherent? There's only things that exist and things that don't exist. Evidence helps us decide which bucket - exists or not exists - some concept more likely belongs to.

[ippy]

How do we rule out advanced aliens?

Because they contacted Earthlings?

[Nearly Sane]

Do you realise that, when you examine it, the notion of the supernatural is actually incoherent? There's only things that exist and things that don't exist. Evidence helps us decide which bucket - exists or not exists - some concept more likely belongs to.

And since it is a supernatural claim for a supernatural entity which you believe is an incoherent concept, then evidence for it is a meaningless idea.

[BeRational]

Would they be a preferable explanation to God? If so why?

Aliens would be perfectly natural, and do not require supernatural explanations.

In that respect they are more reasonable

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Would they be a preferable explanation to God?

Yes.

If so why?

Ockham's razor.

[Nearly Sane]

Aliens would be perfectly natural, and do not require supernatural explanations.

In that respect they are more reasonable

There is no sense until there is a methodology for supernatural claims where they appear in the category 'reasonable'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Aliens would be perfectly natural, and do not require supernatural explanations.

In that respect they are more reasonable

No, they are more naturalistic. Your preference stems from your philosophical naturalism.
Philosophical naturalism cannot be established by methodological naturalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes.

Ockham's razor.

Explain Please?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no sense until there is a methodology for supernatural claims where they appear in the category 'reasonable'.

By methodology do you mean one that you can understand or one that you might not understand?

[Nearly Sane]

By methodology do you mean one that you can understand or one that you might not understand?

False dichotomy. How about one that stands up to logical challenge?

[Nearly Sane]

No, they are more naturalistic. Your preference stems from your philosophical naturalism.
Philosophical naturalism cannot be established by methodological naturalism.

Nope, please show your methodological nonnaturalism? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope, please show your methodological nonnaturalism?

I'm sending it to you telepathically now.
Are you getting it?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sending it to you telepathically now.
Are you getting it?

That you have no answer... Yes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That you have no answer... Yes.

You did want something methodologically unnatural. I provided it.

[Nearly Sane]

You did want something methodologically unnatural. I provided it.

Nope

[SteveH]

Could be Old Nick trying to deceive us.

[Owlswing]

Joey Essex

I知 here to stimulate discussion. It appears to be working.

No, it is not! You post a shovelful of old bollocks and people post proof that that is what you have posted and youre response is to post another pile of old rubbish trying to masquerade as wisdom!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope

Well then I知 afraid I am at a loss to know what you are after. For my part I could possibly describe methodological materialism to you but after that it gets hazy. My next stop might be to critique methodological materialism passed off as methodological history but after that I doubt I could produce a methodology for any other discipline.

I take it you can.

[Nearly Sane]

Well then I知 afraid I am at a loss to know what you are after. For my part I could possibly describe methodological materialism to you but after that it gets hazy. My next stop might be to critique methodological materialism passed off as methodological history but after that I doubt I could produce a methodology for any other discipline.

I take it you can.

Nonsensical non sequitur

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nonsensical non sequitur

Not helpful i知 Afraid, but I suppose you aren稚 here to help, just expose fallacies mim, mim, mim, mim, mim,mim etc.

[SteveH]

Well then I知 afraid I am at a loss to know what you are after. For my part I could possibly describe methodological materialism to you but after that it gets hazy. My next stop might be to critique methodological materialism passed off as methodological history but after that I doubt I could produce a methodology for any other discipline.

I take it you can.

Using a lot of long words fools no-one.

[Nearly Sane]

Not helpful i知 Afraid, but I suppose you aren稚 here to help, just expose fallacies mim, mim, mim, mim, mim,mim etc.

I have no idea what you are going on about.

[jeremyp]

And since it is a supernatural claim for a supernatural entity which you believe is an incoherent concept, then evidence for it is a meaningless idea.

No. The concept called "supernatural" is incoherent, not necessarily the entities you choose to label with the word.

Everything is supernatural until we find evidence for it, then it becomes natural.