Evidence of God

[Nearly Sane]

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!

Why would I want him to quit the board?

[Outrider]

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.

Asking questions is not 'asserting' anything; redefining language beyond the point of usefulness to try to maintain some semantic semblance of continuity so you can overlay your unvalidatable hypothesis over any idea that's proffered is just theology in practice.

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

They could be, but there is no need for them to be.  The fact that there are natural laws does not preclude a logos, but it equally does not require it or even suggest it.

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.

I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.

What for instance is it which determines?

Nothing, that's not what 'deterministic' means.

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

That rather depends; if my claim is that it's a concept which defies sense, then not knowing doesn't look bad at all, it's entirely consistent.  On the other hand, if you think you've got a conception, but you spend all your time skirting around the fringes of it without actually defining it, who is it that looks disengenuous?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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

In 241 I said:

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

In 242 you replied to that with:

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

Here’s what philosophical empiricism means (something that's been explained to you many times before now):

“Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience.” (emphases added)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/empiricism

You’ll notice that my position (that “empirical evidence is the only type of evidence I know of”) is not therefore philosophical empiricism (ie, the claim that all evidence is empirical). Thus in 244 I corrected your misrepresentation when I said:

“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.”

You though just ignored that, and in 245 (ie, the very next Reply) said:

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

If the first misrepresentation was a mistake, ignoring the correction to repeat the same misrepresentation was a lie.

In 246 NS said:

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

He wasn’t suggesting that you’re a paedophile. Rather he was demonstrating that if you persist in lying about people’s positions, anyone else can play that game back at you too. 

I suggest you apologise and try to respond to what’s actually said, not to your misrepresentations of it.   

[ippy]

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.

As you already know Vlad, it's been explained to you so many times, the ball's in your court I'm not the one promoting anything, I'm just one of many that ask you and your fellow travellers where is there any evidence that might support this god idea of yours and if there is any viable evidence, fine, let's have it.

Trouble is Vlad, I've never seen any of your god lot present anything that would confirm this god of yours does in fact exist and don't forget where the burden of proof lies, you know Vlad, B R's teapot.

I'll assume that you must be aware the international press and all of the other forms of the media will be busy making you the most famous person in the world, that is, if you managed to present some viable evidence that supports this god idea of yours, well maybe not today then Vlad.

[Roses]

Now Vlad is back again after his miniscule break he might be able to provide some evidence of the existence of god, which would stand up in a court of law. I am not holding my breath!

[ippy]

Now Vlad is back again after his miniscule break he might be able to provide some evidence of the existence of god, which would stand up in a court of law. I am not holding my breath!

You're right to ask L R and I try to remind him presenting VIABLE evidence just as you're saying L R, he needs to think of all that world fame that would be sure to follow if he did manage to find some VIABLE evidence.

Again L R, you're right about not holding your breath while waiting for his VIABLE evidence.

ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Now Vlad is back again after his miniscule break he might be able to provide some evidence of the existence of god, which would stand up in a court of law. I am not holding my breath!

I don't know what you mean by evidence. I put that down to not exposing the definition as empiricism.

I did not raise objections or withdraw my input, without which, frankly this forum would have experienced the equivalent of heat death aeons ago, because of the situation regards the method for finding God. Here I think atheists are in the same position of not knowing what it is they are asking for, bless their hearts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't know what you mean by evidence. I put that down to not exposing the definition as empiricism.

Yes you do - it's a method you wouldn't be able to falsify if l tried the same thing to justify my belief "leprechauns".

I did not raise objections or withdraw my input, without which, frankly this forum would have experienced the equivalent of heat death aeons ago, because of the situation regards the method for finding God. Here I think atheists are in the same position of not knowing what it is they are asking for, bless their hearts.

Not true - see above.

[Stranger]

Here I think atheists are in the same position of not knowing what it is they are asking for, bless their hearts.

Unmitigated drivel. We are looking for you to come up with some way to justify your god claims - how you go about that is entirely your problem.

[Gordon]

Here I think atheists are in the same position of not knowing what it is they are asking for, bless their hearts.

If I think that the claim 'God' is incoherent and contradictory then clearly I can have no idea what sort of evidence would overcome my objections, especially since my objections are a conclusion based on my rejection of the plethora of failed arguments already offered by those claiming 'God'.

Even so, since I don't adopt a position of absolute certainty, I have to allow for the possibility that a different and evidence-based argument for 'God' could yet be presented, so that asking what methods might support compelling arguments for 'God' remains a reasonable question to ask those such as yourself, Vlad. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unmitigated drivel. We are looking for you to come up with some way to justify your god claims - how you go about that is entirely your problem.

I've come up with many ways to justify God claims over the years.

I'm not going to make any remarks about the attitudes of anybody to these ways except to say, pastafarianism, leprechaun similarity, , unicornism aren't good starting points.

[Stranger]

I've come up with many ways to justify God claims over the years.

I'm not going to make any remarks about the attitudes of anybody to these ways except to say, pastafarianism, leprechaun similarity, , unicornism aren't good starting points.

The problem is that none of what you've said can actually distinguish between your god claims and claims of all the other stuff you've mentioned, like leprechauns.

You haven't even come up with a meaningful definition of 'god'. You've tried to stick the label on anything from Feser's "base of hierarchy" to universe simulators (no matter what their other characteristics). You first need to make up your mind what it is you're trying to argue for.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I've come up with many ways to justify God claims over the years.

Also not true, or at least you’ve proposed none that aren’t incoherent or fallacious. Or that don’t work equally to justify leprechauns too. 

I'm not going to make any remarks about the attitudes of anybody to these ways except to say, pastafarianism, leprechaun similarity, , unicornism aren't good starting points.

They’re an excellent starting point if you want to show that an argument to justify the belief “god” is probably a bad one when it justifies these beliefs too.

Oh, and by the way – when are you going to provide a method to justify my belief “leprechauns”?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem is that none of what you've said can actually distinguish between your god claims and claims of all the other stuff you've mentioned, like leprechauns.

You haven't even come up with a meaningful definition of 'god'. You've tried to stick the label on anything from Feser's "base of hierarchy" to universe simulators (no matter what their other characteristics). You first need to make up your mind what it is you're trying to argue for.

I've written at length about the differences in claims about Leprechauns and claims about God.

My recollection is of a debate with someone on this board who claimed that Leprechauns were indistinguishable in all ways from God. Since this arguably makes the term Leprechaun redundant. How then are the divine attributes ridiculous?

Of course one shouldn't have shorn....or should that be Shaun?...Leprechauns of their definitive characteristics in the first case.

Just because there may be some arguments that would apply to arguments apply to God, So what they also apply to aspects of naturalism, empiricism, multiverse, simulated universe as well.

I think we need to remind ourselves how "blown out" recourse to Leprechauns has always been.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I've written at length about the differences in claims about Leprechauns and claims about God.

And every time you’ve done it you’ve been corrected about that mistake of thinking that different characteristics are relevant to the argument. You in turn routinely just ignore or lie about the corrections you're given.   

My recollection is of a debate with someone on this board who claimed that Leprechauns were indistinguishable in all ways from God. Since this arguably makes the term Leprechaun redundant. How are the divine attributes ridiculous.

Then your recollection is wrong or you’re lying again. No-one here has said any such thing - precisely the opposite in fact.

Of course one shouldn't have shorn....or should that be Shaun?...Leprechauns of their definitive characteristics.

The defining characteristics of leprechauns and of “god” are irrelevant. What is relevant is that they’re in the same category when the arguments attempted to justify beliefs in the existence of either of them are the same.   

lt’d be helpful if you finally stopped lying about that.

Just because there may be some arguments that would apply to arguments apply to God, So what they also apply to aspects of naturalism, empiricism, multiverse, simulated universe as well.

No they don’t.

I think we need to remind ourselves how "blown out" recourse to Leprechauns has always been.

Until you can engage with or at least stop misrepresenting the point of the analogy, no it hasn’t been.

Oh, and where’s my method for justifying my belief “leprechauns” then?

[Stranger]

I've written at length about the differences in claims about Leprechauns and claims about God.

Yes, unfortunately, all that has shown is that you don't understand the analogy (or even analogy in general, probably).

My recollection is of a debate with someone on this board who claimed that Leprechauns were indistinguishable in all ways from God.

I don't believe anybody has ever argued that but if you want to provide a link...

Just because there may be some arguments that would apply to arguments apply to God, So what they also apply to aspects of naturalism, empiricism, multiverse, simulated universe as well.

More irrelevant gibbering.   

I think we need to remind ourselves how "blown out" recourse to Leprechauns has always been.

Your total inability to grasp the analogy has no impact on its validity. It is, and always has been, perfectly valid in the context.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NTtS,

Yes, unfortunately, all that has shown is that you don't understand the analogy (or even analogy in general, probably).

So far as l can tell he either just doesn’t understand what “analogy” means at a conceptual level, or he does understand but he chooses to pretend he doesn’t. l’ve explained it to him oftentimes, sent him links to definitions etc so l think it’s likely the latter but there’s no telling.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Also not true, or at least you’ve proposed none that aren’t incoherent or fallacious. Or that don’t work equally to justify leprechauns too. 

I’ve argued that Leprechauns have physical definitive features. Enki has provided a list of those features which would satisfy existence empirically.

There are no properties of the divine that can be studied so.

Also again My contention is we would all remain a leprechaunist even if Leprechauns were shown to exist just like our lives never change whenever any obscure species ceases to exist or some obscure species is discovered.

[Stranger]

I’ve argued that Leprechauns have physical definitive features. Enki has provided a list of those features which would satisfy existence empirically.

All totally irrelevant because they're magic / supernatural.

There are no properties of the divine that can be studied so.

Also irrelevant but what about miracles and answered prayers?

Also again My contention is we would all remain a leprechaunist even if Leprechauns were shown to exist just like our lives never change whenever any obscure species ceases to exist or some obscure species is discovered.

Now there’s an argument you can’t say you’ve debunked, because I’ve just come up with it.

Drivel - we certainly wouldn't remain aleprechaunist if we had evidence and them being magic / supernatural and all, it would be likely to be a significant discovery. However, even if we accept your contention for the sake of argument, it too is totally irrelevant.

Now, have you thought of any reason why we should take your god claims any more seriously than leprechauns, yet?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All totally irrelevant because they're magic

So apparently was Chitty chatty Bang bang but by all accounts it still needed it’s fucking oil changed.

[Stranger]

Now, have you thought of any reason why we should take your god claims any more seriously than leprechauns, yet?

So apparently was Chitty chatty Bang bang but by all accounts it still needed it’s fucking oil changed.

I'll take that as a 'no'.     

Why don't you stop trying to undermine analogies that you obviously don't understand and concentrate on actual positive reasons why we should take your god claims seriously?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Also irrelevant but what about miracles and answered prayers?

My contention is that one could witness a miracles and remain an atheist. If you were unable to remain an atheist it would be because you would acknowledge an ability to perceive the divine.

Answered prayer is different because you may have been experimentally involved.

[Roses]

My contention is that one could witness a miracles and remain an atheist. If you were unable to remain an atheist it would be because you would acknowledge an ability to perceive the divine.

Answered prayer is different because you may have been experimentally involved.

I am of the opinion so called, 'miracles', have a natural explanation, so it is sensible to be sceptical when someone claims the god, for which there is no evidence of its existence, is responsible for them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Drivel - we certainly wouldn't remain aleprechaunist if we had evidence and them being magic / supernatural and all, it would be likely to be a significant discovery. However, even if we accept your contention for the sake of argument, it too is totally irrelevant.

If Leprechauns were discovered empirically we would act as if they didnt exist and apparently that's all being an atheist is acting as though God doesn't exist.

Magic/ supernatural is not I'm afraid susceptible to empirical means. In the case therefore of Leprechauns disappearing, only illusion or instrumental failure or electromagnetic interference
Can be demonstrated empirically. We could therefore continue  being a-Leprechaunist in terms of them being magical or supernatural.

Shorn of their supernatural abilities we could proceed with life as normal.

But, even if we did have evidence of them disappearing so what?

And here we come to it, if all arguments for Leprechauns are the same as for God., if we have found Leprechauns have we also found God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am of the opinion so called, 'miracles', have a natural explanation, so it is sensible to be sceptical when someone claims the god, for which there is no evidence of its existence, is responsible for them.

And that is a philosophical naturalistic opinion.