Evidence of God

[Owlswing]

 As far as I know the law works on witness testimony.
Every now and then someone takes God or his existence to court. I never hear the verdict.

On another matter would you say you reached out to your gods...or did they reach out to you.

Neither - I was introduced by a couple of friends. I suppose you could interpret that as them reaching out to me via my friends tho'!

The only person I have ever heard of taking God to Court was played by Billy Connolly!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Neither - I was introduced by a couple of friends. I suppose you could interpret that as them reaching out to me via my friends tho'!

The only person I have ever heard of taking God to Court was played by Billy Connolly!

Your friends would have made some kind of testimony to you?

[BeRational]

It is beyond scientific verification. I.e.methodological naturalism.

How do you know that?

It is not yet understood is not supernatural.

[Owlswing]

Your friends would have made some kind of testimony to you?

No, they merely told me that they were pagan, not that they were witches, and invited me to a Summer Solstice ritual.

I went chatted at the P U afterwards, went to the next full moon ritual, and the next and then I asked to join the coven!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know that?

It is not yet understood is not supernatural.

Not even time travel could resolve the question of whether the universe has infinite existence.
The question is always going to remain a matter of connection. Secondly  an infinite universe is an unrepeatable entity Both these elevate the question beyond methodological materialism.

To expect or hope for a scientific solution is faith in science. Let me repeat, faith....in science.

Popping out of nothing could be seen as the equivalent  of magic. Although I understand that only becomes a problem for some if there is the suggestion of an actual magician which is a no no.

So popping out of nothing is fine for these folk. Something pulling the rabbit out of its hat? Why ever would we think that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, they merely told me that they were pagan, not that they were witches, and invited me to a Summer Solstice ritual.

I went chatted at the P U afterwards, went to the next full moon ritual, and the next and then I asked to join the coven!

What was it that convinced you?

[Stranger]

The universe popping out of nothing is supernatural. The universe existing for ever is supernatural.

Drivel.

It is beyond scientific verification. I.e.methodological naturalism.

Not only is that a bizarre notion of "supernatural", which would make in mean something like "beyond our ability to investigate", it's also not strictly true. If we had the theory that made testable predictions and that also predicted that the universe was infinite, that would be scientific evidence.

Not even time travel could resolve the question of whether the universe has infinite existence.
The question is always going to remain a matter of connection.

See above.

Secondly  an infinite universe is an unrepeatable entity Both these elevate the question beyond methodological materialism.

The history of the observable universe is unrepeatable, yet we have learned a great deal about it using methodological materialism.

To expect or hope for a scientific solution is faith in science. Let me repeat, faith....in science.

Science will go on investigating as far as it can. There may well be questions that never get answers but that doesn't make them "supernatural" or make anybody's baseless guesses any more believable. Just because we see no way in which science can investigate something now does not mean that there won't be a way in the future. It wasn't that long ago that people thought science could never tell us anything about the composition of stars: "In 1835 the French philosopher Auguste Comte predicted that we would never know anything about the chemical composition of stars." from >here<.

I don't have faith that science will explain everything about why things exists (I expect it won't) but insisting that that means that there is something supernatural is just playing silly word games.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel.

Not only is that a bizarre notion of "supernatural", which would make in mean something like "beyond our ability to investigate", it's also not strictly true. If we had the theory that made testable predictions and that also predicted that the universe was infinite, that would be scientific evidence.

See above.

The history of the observable universe is unrepeatable, yet we have learned a great deal about it using methodological materialism.

Science will go on investigating as far as it can. There may well be questions that never get answers but that doesn't make them "supernatural" or make anybody's baseless guesses any more believable. Just because we see no way in which science can investigate something now does not mean that there won't be a way in the future. It wasn't that long ago that people thought science could never tell us anything about the composition of stars: "In 1835 the French philosopher Auguste Comte predicted that we would never know anything about the chemical composition of stars." from >here<.

I don't have faith that science will explain everything about why things exists (I expect it won't) but insisting that that means that there is something supernatural is just playing silly word games.

A litany of faith in science.

Watch the astronomical claims of atheists Comte ballsed up on that.
Bertrand Russell predicted we would never be able to track something the size of an orbiting teapot.
Because he didn’t believe ludicrous items could be put into orbit?

[Stranger]

A litany of faith in science.

Drivel. As I said, I don't expect science to answer every question and it's anyway irrelevant to the point. Calling something you think science can't answer 'supernatural' is just a daft game with words.

Bertrand Russell predicted we would never be able to track something the size of an orbiting teapot.
Because he didn’t believe ludicrous items could be put into orbit?

Once again Vlad demonstrates a total lack of understanding of analogy and the burden of proof.... 

[Gordon]

Bertrand Russell predicted we would never be able to track something the size of an orbiting teapot.
Because he didn’t believe ludicrous items could be put into orbit?

No, since to see it that way would be an over-simplistic take on the point BR was conveying using this analogy: I'm surprised, or maybe not, that given how often this analogy has been mentioned you still don't understand it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, since to see it that way would be an over-simplistic take on the point BR was conveying using this analogy: I'm surprised, or maybe not, that given how often this analogy has been mentioned you still don't understand it.

I understand it, not as holy atheist scripture as you do, but as the horse laugh argument it is.....and that, as you ken fine well, is fallacious.
But in the spirit of amity.....what say we compromise on “utterly shite analogy”?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel. As I said, I don't expect science to answer every question and it's anyway irrelevant to the point. Calling something you think science can't answer 'supernatural' is just a daft game with words.

Once again Vlad demonstrates a total lack of understanding of analogy and the burden of proof.... 

Look you are an out and out faith in science merchant by your own statement.

However astronomy is based on what things in space give out. So without resorting to mere faith in science to solve everything because it has shown cause and effect in the past, what is it that the universe is giving off that tells us that it is effect without cause. Bing, Yet another reason for why this isn’t the preserve of science.

[Stranger]

Look you are an out and out faith in science merchant by your own statement.

Just repeating something doesn't make it any more true or believable. I have 'faith' in science to the extent it is a methodology that works. That's it. I'm not, as you suggest, putting my faith in it to be able to answer every question about existence.

And you are still ignoring the point that just labelling things that you think science can't address as 'supernatural' is nothing but a silly word game.

However astronomy is based on what things in space give out. So without resorting to mere faith in science to solve everything because it has shown cause and effect in the past, what is it that the universe is giving off that tells us that it is effect without cause. Bing, Yet another reason for why this isn’t the preserve of science.

I have never claimed that the universe is an effect without a cause. As of today, the best theory of space-time we have (that is backed up by evidence) tells us that it is a four-dimensional manifold and that time and cause and effect are internal to it. It would, in that case, not be an effect at all. A quantum theory of gravity may change that or it may not. There are a large number of speculative ideas in this area but until and unless they make predictions that can be verified, they remain conjectures. They do however have the advantage that they are based on extrapolating what we know in some way or another, rather than just being baseless superstition.

It's anyway irrelevant unless you have an alternative methodology that can objectively determine the probably true from just making shit up, then we are stuck with science and logic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just repeating something doesn't make it any more true or believable. I have 'faith' in science to the extent it is a methodology that works. That's it. I'm not, as you suggest, putting my faith in it to be able to answer every question about existence.

And you are still ignoring the point that just labelling things that you think science can't address as 'supernatural' is nothing but a silly word game.

I have never claimed that the universe is an effect without a cause. As of today, the best theory of space-time we have (that is backed up by evidence) tells us that it is a four-dimensional manifold and that time and cause and effect are internal to it. It would, in that case, not be an effect at all. A quantum theory of gravity may change that or it may not. There are a large number of speculative ideas in this area but until and unless they make predictions that can be verified, they remain conjectures. They do however have the advantage that they are based on extrapolating what we know in some way or another, rather than just being baseless superstition.

It's anyway irrelevant unless you have an alternative methodology that can objectively determine the probably true from just making shit up, then we are stuck with science and logic.

How are you still denying your expressions of faith in science. They are there for all to see and you repeatedly stated your faith in science. What a barefaced cheek you have in denying it.

I on the other hand have asked you what it is about the universe that will reveal that it is effect without cause.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside all you are doing is conflating all supernatural things.

Don’t be daft. I’m just pointing out that if you want to claim one “supernatural” thing able to flit in and out of im/materiality at will, you have no basis to deny others claiming different supernatural things capable of the same thing.

It doesn’t work.

Straw men generally don’t.

The universe popping out of nothing is supernatural. The universe existing for ever is supernatural.

Leaving aside your wrong descriptions of the hypothesis, how on earth have you jumped from “not understood naturalistically” to “supernatural”? Was thunder supernatural before it was understood naturalistically? Why not? 

As you say, no gods involved, Leprechauns? Diminutive............Eminently measurable.

Why would a leprechaun manifesting itself as a small Irishman be any more or less measurable than a god manifesting itself in human-like form?

Perhaps you should consider stopping digging about now?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

How are you still denying your expressions of faith in science. They are there for all to see and you repeatedly stated your faith in science. What a barefaced cheek you have in denying it.

Why have you just doctored his quote by removing the speech marks he put around the word faith/"faith"? You knew he did this to mean something like "confidence based on practical experience" rather than the religious sense of the term. It's not the first time you've done this kind of thing, and it's shameful behaviour.   

[Stranger]

How are you still denying your expressions of faith in science. They are there for all to see and you repeatedly stated your faith in science. What a barefaced cheek you have in denying it.

This appears to be a barefaced lie. Apart from the sense that science is a methodology that works (the evidence for which you are using to read this message), where have I expressed any other 'faith' in it?

I on the other hand have asked you what it is about the universe that will reveal that it is effect without cause.

I haven't said that it is an effect without a cause.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

Why have you just doctored his quote by removing the speech marks he put around the word faith/"faith"? You knew he did this to mean something like "confidence based on practical experience" rather than the religious sense of the term. It's not the first time you've done this kind of thing, and it's shameful behaviour.

No one has confidence based on practical experience of an effect with no cause in science because that
isn't what science does. Therefore.

"confidence based on practical experience" is just a statement of faith without evidence.

''Not only is that a bizarre notion of "supernatural", which would make in mean something like "beyond our ability to investigate", it's also not strictly true.''

If he states that isn't true , then that is actually faith in science without evidence that everything is within the scope of science to investigate.

We know what manner of thing science is capable of and what it isn't because it is a discipline and a methodology.

Effect without cause isn't science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not only is that a bizarre notion of "supernatural", which would make in mean something like "beyond our ability to investigate", it's also not strictly true. If we had the theory that made testable predictions and that also predicted that the universe was infinite, that would be scientific evidence.

Scientific theories are not scientific evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

No one has confidence based on practical experience of an effect with no cause in science because that isn't what science does. Therefore."confidence based on practical experience" is just a statement of faith without evidence.

Stranger hasn’t claimed “effect with no cause” as he explicitly just told you in his last Reply. Perhaps if you stopped lying about that your quote doctoring would be less appealing to you?

If he states that isn't true , then that is actually faith in science without evidence that everything is within the scope of science to investigate.

Bullshit. It’s your claim that phenomenon can’t be explained naturalistically must therefore be “supernatural”, so the burden of proof is with you to justify that claim. There’s no “faith” in science as you imply because no-one says that science/naturalism necessarily must be the correct explanatory model.   

We know what manner of thing science is capable of and what it isn't because it is a discipline and a methodology.

What “manner of thing” do you think science isn’t capable of, and how would you propose to justify you assertion about that? 

Effect without cause isn't science.

And a Happy Meal without fries isn’t a Happy Meal. As no-one claims either though, your “point” is irrelevant.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

Scientific theories are not scientific evidence.

Scientific theories require evidence. No-one says that they are evidence.

Your already badly corrupted coherence monitor seems to have given up the ghost entirely now.

[Stranger]

No one has confidence based on practical experience of an effect with no cause in science because that
isn't what science does. Therefore.

"confidence based on practical experience" is just a statement of faith without evidence.

I really don't know why you've decided to suddenly focus on an effect without a cause, but the evidence is that they happen all the time within the well tested theory of quantum mechanics, so you're wrong anyway.

If he states that isn't true , then that is actually faith in science without evidence that everything is within the scope of science to investigate.

Total misrepresentation of what I said.

I never claimed that everything was within the scape of science to investigate, I was making a specific point that a theory that implied an infinite universe but also made testable predictions could provide evidence for that sort of universe.

Effect without cause isn't science.

False. Why are you even obsessing about effect without causes?

[Stranger]

Scientific theories are not scientific evidence.

But evidence for scientific theories are evidence that they are accurate models.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Don’t be daft. I’m just pointing out that if you want to claim one “supernatural” thing able to flit in and out of im/materiality at will, you have no basis to deny others claiming different supernatural things capable of the same thing.

That isn't what is being claimed by Christianity. Any empirical measurement of Jesus would not have yielded any scientific data concerning his divinity.

The basis of flitting in and out of materiality is that you have chosen to so extend the described properties of the Leprechaun.

In any case where Jesus passed the humanity test Leprechauns have failed any kind of test and the evidence is that people have added to the story and properties over the years. Something you yourself have a part in by making Leprechauns divine.

Leprechauns though are Diminutive supernatural irishmen with beards and coats and hats. You have been polishing their diminutivity and Irishanity out of the picture while conflating the gamut of supernaturality.

Conflating the gamut of supernaturality. A fallacy ascribing all and any supernatural ability to any supernatural entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

Stranger hasn’t claimed “effect with no cause” as he explicitly just told you in his last Reply. Perhaps if you stopped lying about that your quote doctoring would be less appealing to you?

Bullshit. It’s your claim that phenomenon can’t be explained naturalistically must therefore be “supernatural”, so the burden of proof is with you to justify that claim. There’s no “faith” in science as you imply because no-one says that science/naturalism necessarily must be the correct explanatory model.   

What “manner of thing” do you think science isn’t capable of, and how would you propose to justify you assertion about that? 

And a Happy Meal without fries isn’t a Happy Meal. As no-one claims either though, your “point” is irrelevant.

Joey

He has talked about his faith in science.

Your bollocks about practical confidence in science is faith in science.

His notion that if you have a testable hypothesis which makes a prediction you have scientific evidence is wrong.

You seem to have shown yourself up a pair of committed dillitantes.....if not dillahunty's Ha Ha Ha.

Also you cannot have it that the universe is infinitely old and therefore doesn't need a creator one moment and then argue that proposing an infinite universe isn't proposing an effect without a cause.