Evidence of God

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ipster,

He doesn't like evidence because it's "empirical" 

I love empirical evidence for empirical entities like er, Extremely Small irishmen, Pots, Gold, Rainbows.
Let's hear what Ippy has to say.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I love empirical evidence for empirical entities.
Let's hear what Ippy has to say.

Better yet, let's finally hear what you have to say about what method instead you'd propose to investigate your claims.

Why so coy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Better yet, let's finally hear what you have to say about what method instead you'd propose to investigate your claims.

Why so coy?

There is no scientific method and that goes for physicalism too and naturalism and empiricism and scientism.

In terms of methodologies I have already said I wouldn't know how to go about formulating one for anything other than science and I suspect neither do you or Ippy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

There is no scientific method and that goes for physicalism too and naturalism and empiricism and scientism.

No-one here argus for scientism, and of course there's a scientific method for "naturalism and empiricism" - that's why we have rockets and medicines. So, now the red herring and straw men are out of the way... 

In terms of methodologies I have already said I wouldn't know how to go about formulating one for anything other than science and I suspect neither do you or Ippy.

So you assert the claim "god", but you "wouldn't know how to go about formulating" a method to investigate and verify that claim?

Does it occur to you that this gives you something of a problem if you want the claim to be taken seriously?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No-one here argus for scientism, and of course there's a scientific method for "naturalism and empiricism" - that's why we have rockets and medicines. So, now the red herring and straw men are out of the way... 

So you assert the claim "god", but you "wouldn't know how to go about formulating" a method to investigate and verify that claim?

Does it occur to you that this gives you something of a problem if you want the claim to be taken seriously?

Vlad,

No-one argus for scientism, and of course there's a scientific method for "naturalism and empiricism" - that's why we have rockets and medicines. So, now the red herring and straw men are out of the way... 

So you assert the claim "god", but you "wouldn't know how to go about formulating" a method to investigate and verify that claim?

Does it occur to you that this gives you something of a problem if you want the claim to be taken seriously?

No one argues for scientism? Well they do everytime they promise science is likely be able to overrride any objections that there are some things that are not science.

There is no methodology for philosophical naturalism and philosophical empiricism and the methodologies have never supported anything you've ever said about God.
Stop Bullshitting.

Science is science and has nothing to say on ''being''. Only on the physical and to turn it into something more than it is, is dishonest.

Some will take the claim seriously because they haven't deluded themselves into equating God with Leprechauns.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No-one here argus for scientism, and of course there's a scientific method for "naturalism and empiricism" - that's why we have rockets and medicines.

Sanctimonious bullshit which tries piously and in line with arseclenching scientism to co-opt progress and medicine to atheism. Dawkinsian Wank of the finest vintage.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

No one argues for scientism? Well they do everytime they promise science is likely be able to overrride any objections that there are some things that are not science.

Fine. Now actually try to find someone who says that, or more to the point who says that science is capable of finding the answers to all possible questions about the universe.

Good luck with it.   

There is no methodology for philosophical naturalism and philosophical empiricism…

Provided you don’t lie about what these terms mean, of course there is – it’s called science.

..and the methodologies have never supported anything you've ever said about God.

No, logic does that.

Stop Bullshitting.

Stop lying.

Science is science and has nothing to say on ''being'' only on the physical and to turn it into something more than it is, is dishonest.

And a straw man. If you don’t like your straw man though, stop repeating it.   

Some will take the claim seriously…

What claim - your straw man? Why would anyone do that?

…because they haven't deluded themselves into equating God with Leprechauns.

And the big lie to finish. Yet again – there’s no “equating God with leprechauns”. Never has been, never will be. What there actually is (as has been explained to you about 47 billion times already) is the equating of the arguments attempted to justify these claims when they’re the same arguments.

You should stop lying about this. Really you should. You never well though will you.   

So anyway, with all your latest evasions over let’s address your epic problem. By your own admission, you "wouldn't know how to go about formulating" a method to investigate and verify your claim god”?

How you propose to get out of that then?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

Sanctimonious bullshit which tries piously and in line with arseclenching scientism to co-opt progress and medicine to atheism. Dawkinsian Wank of the finest vintage.

More argument-free lying. What do you get from it?

[jeremyp]

Sanctimonious bullshit which tries piously and in line with arseclenching scientism to co-opt progress and medicine to atheism. Dawkinsian Wank of the finest vintage.

Do you realise that the post to which you were responding said nothing at all about atheism?

[ippy]

I love empirical evidence for empirical entities like er, Extremely Small irishmen, Pots, Gold, Rainbows.
Let's hear what Ippy has to say.

Oh I see Vlad, it's some sort of semantic problem that you're having about the exact meaning of the word evidence, well I thought I'd consult Proff Google and he says, 'the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid'.

I'll settle for 'viable evidence' Vlad, I've not seen anything like viable evidence coming from your direction that gives anything like an absolutely cast iron, full proof evidence supporting your claim that there is some sort of god that really does exist. 

This must be really hard for you Vlad, AB and spud have an exactly similar problem; tough.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

Do you realise that the post to which you were responding said nothing at all about atheism?

Quite. It doesn’t take much scratching at the surface for Vlad to throw his usual list of bogeymen into the fray does it – it’s all a bit unhinged I find. If only to stop that throbbing vein in his temple finally giving out I think perhaps I should back off a bit with a shorthand response each time his posts a suite of lies, straw men and misrepresentations while he tries to make good his escape. With due deference to the Gish Gallop therefore*, I think from now on I’ll just reference his use of the “Vlad Gallop” when he does it.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop#:~:text=The%20Gish%20gallop%20is%20a,or%20strength%20of%20the%20arguments.

[Outrider]

That is incorrect. The word eternal is associated with religion and god and not 'normal usage' as you construe it.

God is not just 'eternal' though, god implies many, many other things, not least of which is some sense of consciousness.

Reality is certainly a term used in God as ground of being theology.

You know my feelings on theology, however.  Misusing or misattributing reality as somehow supporting magical claims validates neither the field nor the claim.

In eastern theologies God is the ultimate reality.

And still something more self-aware, dynamic and involved than just existence.  There are theological concepts of an eternal existence within which 'spiritual' rules apply to ideas like reincarnation, Nirvana and one-ness, but those are not 'gods' and where 'gods' are introduced it's with personalities, intentions and awareness.

Your opening statement is thus immedately off the mark considering you have co opted many of the properties of the necessary being from God anyway.

Nothing can be 'co-opted' from gods which don't exist; that something in reality could be eternal is derived from first principles, that someone else mistakenly attributed it to gods doesn't make accepting that it's possibly a necessity 'co-opting' it just means that you got part of your working right.

In view of my accusation I think it would be helpful if you outline, warts and all, your conception of God, bearing in mind I suspect your experience has been largely secular till now.

I'm sure you would find that helpful, it's always helpful when someone actually offers something rather than just sniping from the sidelines.  However, in this particular instance I can't really help you, as I don't have a conception of a god, as I've not come across anyone's definition of one which made sense enough to accept.

Firstly if the universe is deterministic then there must be a determiner, whatever it is.

Wrong.

For the necessary, definitially it must be self determining other wise if it is not there is something which determines it and that then becomes the necessary.

Founded on the mistaken first premise.

Since you are saying the universe is determined You have now then almost proved God IMHO.

Except for the failure to understand determinism...

And yet you are suggesting the laws of nature are doing what they do by themselves!!! Oh dear the inevitable cop out by declaration of naturalism.

You realise that's not an argument, right?  Why do natural laws need to have been 'selected' by some intelligence, why are they not just an inherent part of the infinite structure of reality?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

God is not just 'eternal' though, god implies many, many other things, not least of which is some sense of consciousness

All I have actually proposed is self control but yes the question is how can an unconscious actualiser show self control. Since there is nothing to stop it actualising, there being nothing outside it. The only control is self control. The rest of your post looks like more assertion of the naturalist position. 

The failure to understand determinism...

The floor is yours.

You realise that's not an argument, right?  Why do natural laws need to have been 'selected' by some intelligence, why are they not just an inherent part of the infinite structure of reality?

Again the floor is yours but the laws of nature could be also be bound up with the logos in some way.

You seem to be skirting further acceptance of some of the ideas put here and the similarities but in this post a lot of others' terminology has entered your own.

What for instance is it which determines?

Accusations of not knowing then remaining silent yourself isn't good.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh I see Vlad, it's some sort of semantic problem that you're having about the exact meaning of the word evidence, well I thought I'd consult Proff Google and he says, 'the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid'.

I'll settle for 'viable evidence' Vlad, I've not seen anything like viable evidence coming from your direction that gives anything like an absolutely cast iron, full proof evidence supporting your claim that there is some sort of god that really does exist. 

This must be really hard for you Vlad, AB and spud have an exactly similar problem; tough.

Ippy. You aren't even capable of explaining what you mean by viable evidence.

Go on prove me wrong by telling us. And for Hillside since he is going to ask who I mean by us. I mean non-wankers.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

Ippy. You aren't even capable of explaining what you mean by viable evidence.

Shifting of the burden of proof fallacy (again). If you don't think empirical evidence is appropriate for the job of validating your claims then it's your job to tell us what type of evidence would be. 

Go on prove me wrong by telling us.

See above. Why is the burden of proof concept so difficult for you?

And for Hillside since he is going to ask who I mean by us. I mean non-wankers.

Three letters and a hyphen too many there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

Shifting of the burden of proof fallacy (again)..

How is asking for someone's definition of viable evidence shifting the burden of proof Don't be stupid, I think you are getting over excited, you silly Billy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How is asking for someone's definition of viable evidence shifting the burden of proof…

Seriously? Empirical evidence is the only type of evidence I (and I guess ippy too) know of. You assert a claim you call “god”, and tell us that it’s not empirical evidence apt. Fine. Then it’s your job to tell us what type of evidence instead would do the job.

QED 

Don't be stupid,…

Such a pity you have no concept of irony.

I think you are getting over excited, you silly Billy.

You’re the one who routinely spits the dummy remember, not me.

So anyway, now you’ve tried yet more evasions it’s back to your epic problem. By your own admission, you "wouldn't know how to go about formulating" a method to investigate and verify your claim "god”.

How do you propose to get out of that then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Seriously? Empirical evidence is the only type of evidence I (and I guess ippy too) know of. 

it's philosophical empiricism then. What evidence do you have for that?

Goodnight Vienna........... circle.

[Nearly Sane]

it's philosophical empiricism then. What evidence do you have for that?

Goodnight Vienna........... circle.

So was it older than  10 years old children that you said you were sexually attracted to?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

it's philosophical empiricism then. What evidence do you have for that?

Goodnight Vienna........... Group.

And the last lying evasion of the day to finish. I make no comment at all about whether there's such a thing as non-empirical evidence - for all I know there could be, though I have no idea what it would look like. Luckily for me though that's your problem, not mine. You make the claim "god", you tell us that empirical evidence isn't right for the job of justifying your belief, so it's your job to tell us what type of evidence instead would be.

Do you propose to twist in the wind forever about this?

Why?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

And the last lying evasion of the day to finish. I make no comment at all about whether there's such a thing as non-empirical evidence - for all I know there could be, though I have no idea what it would look like. Luckily for me though that's your problem, not mine. You make the claim "god", you tell us that empirical evidence isn't right for the job of justifying your belief, so it's your job to tell us what type of evidence instead would be.

Do you propose to twist in the wind forever about this?

Why?   

As a philosophical empiricist, what empirical evidence do you have for philosophical empiricism?

[Nearly Sane]

As a philosophical empiricist, what empirical evidence do you have for philosophical empiricism?

As you being a paedophile, why are you a paedophile?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As you being a paedophile, why are you a paedophile?

Too weird for me, Your welcome to this message board farewell to all apart from Nearly Sane obviously.

[Nearly Sane]

Too weird for me, Your welcome to this message board farewell to all apart from Nearly Sane obviously.

Don't lie. And learn to write English.

[Owlswing]

 Don't lie. And learn to write English.

He won't quit this board - the posters here, not including myself, are the only people who are prepared to put up with his bullshit and bollocks!