IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTI

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No sorry - as I explained my opinion was that if the word "exist" is used in the English language to mean "is an objective fact", then I can't claim God exists because God has not been proved as objective fact. I can claim the concept of God exists as we all talk about it. I can also claim a belief in God, a faith-based belief i.e. one that is believed in the absence of objective evidence.

It doesn't matter to me if other people believe it too because I can understand if they don't in the absence of objective evidence, having been an atheist myself almost 30 years ago. Were you ever an atheist Vlad or have you always believed in God?

From reading the Quran translation and listening to some online talks and reading some essays on the Islamic perspective it does not seem to be a requirement for Muslims to assert that God exists in the material sense of the word. The Quran says there is nothing like Allah so I would think that finding an empirical method to establish existence would be impossible. Nor could anyone demonstrate the attribute of being eternal using an empirical method as science relies on linear time and increasing entropy over time. But there are Muslims who would assert existence without being able to provide evidence of existence.
Other than the swearing possibly, I think the reaction would be the same if I kept saying God exists as objective fact.

To be honest I don’t know what you mean by objective fact. Hillside as i’ve Said is well versed in steering the context of a conversation by putting terms in.

I don’t think God is penetrable by empirical science I have made that much clear. I do not believe that God is true for me and no one else. Neither do I believe God is delusion.

I would like to see what Hillside makes of what you are saying in this post. I think you gave him a bit of an offering though by refuting God as objective fact. A phrase I have never used about anything

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

To be honest I don’t know what you mean by objective fact. Hillside as i’ve Said is well versed in steering the context of a conversation by putting terms in.

I don’t think God is penetrable by empirical science I have made that much clear. I do not believe that God is true for me and no one else. Neither do I believe God is delusion.

I would like to see what Hillside makes of what you are saying in this post. I think you gave him a bit of an offering though by refuting God as objective fact. A phrase I have never used about anything

I tend to dissect BHS's responses to try and understand what he means by what he says and if I disagree I'll argue it out with him. We usually fail to agree but in the process we might find one or two bits of common ground and I certainly gain a better understanding of what he is getting at even if I disagree. And sometimes something he says will alter my view and I might agree with him. I don't have a problem with changing my mind - having been an atheist and then a theist it involved changing my mind.

Regarding true for everyone, it's the difference between a belief and a fact. I edited my response to add something at the end about what I think is the way we establish facts as opposed to beliefs or assertions or concepts. What I said was:

ETA: The word fact means something that is known to be true. The "knowers" in this definition are human and the usual convention is that if they have not come up with a method that others can understand, use and repeat to establish the truth of something to others, a lot of people will not accept it as a fact. Some people might but we shouldn't be surprised if many don't as there are lots of things that people assert that I don't accept as fact unless it can be demonstrated. And you can establish something as true and then new information might be discovered that would change what was previously accepted as true.

Hence the question being asked about a method to establish a claim of fact, which would not be required for a belief. You may well not be making a claim of fact but just stating your belief when you talk about God in which case this conversation was not necessary but has been enjoyable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I thought you might find this interesting:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism

I'm an ignostic - ie, I take the view that questions about the existence or non-existence of "god" are meaningless because there's no way to define the term consistently. That's not to say though that that the arguments about this non-defined "something" can't be discussed readily - when for example someone says "god is real because..." and the "because" turns out to be logically false, it's legitimate to discuss that. To that extent I'm an atheist too - there are no sound reasons that I'm aware of to justify the claim "god", whatever each theist may happen to mean by that.       

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

To be honest I don’t know what you mean by objective fact. Hillside as i’ve Said is well versed in steering the context of a conversation by putting terms in.

I don’t think God is penetrable by empirical science I have made that much clear. I do not believe that God is true for me and no one else. Neither do I believe God is delusion.

I would like to see what Hillside makes of what you are saying in this post. I think you gave him a bit of an offering though by refuting God as objective fact. A phrase I have never used about anything

No Hillside isn’t, but in any case defining a fact (the “objective” is redundant here) is actually a more nuanced business than you might think. Nonetheless, rather than have me explain it to you why don’t you work it out for yourself? You for example think that, say, “the capital of France is Paris” is a fact, “the speed of light is 186k miles per second” is a fact etc but you do not think the object of my claim “leprechauns” is a fact.

Why is that? That’s right – it’s because there are methods to justify the former beliefs, but no methods to justify the latter. And that’s the problem with “I do not believe that God is true for me and no one else”. It’s epistemically equivalent to the statement “I do not believe that leprechauns are true for me and no one else” because there’s no way to justify either belief.       

[ProfessorDavey]

Regarding true for everyone, it's the difference between a belief and a fact.

I'm not sure that is correct.

Just because something isn't 'true for everyone' doesn't make it just a belief. Rather it may be a 'subjective truth' that could even be a verifiable fact, but one that only applies to an individual, not to everyone.

So an example - do you like bananas. I don't think it is just a belief if I claim to like bananas. However it is also not a 'true for everyone' thing as there are others who do not like bananas. And it is possible to demonstrate objectively that like or dislike of bananas - so you may be able to demonstrate altered brain activity associated with pleasure in people who like bananas when they eat them which you do not detect in people who dislike bananas.

So it is a subjective truth - 'true for me', and possibly even objectively verifiably 'true for me', without being either 'true for everyone' nor a belief.

And on belief - rather than this being a true for me like or opinion, it tends to be considered as a subjective opinion without evidence of something that is claimed to be an objective truth - in other words 'true for everyone'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I tend to dissect BHS's responses to try and understand what he means by what he says and if I disagree I'll argue it out with him. We usually fail to agree but in the process we might find one or two bits of common ground and I certainly gain a better understanding of what he is getting at even if I disagree. And sometimes something he says will alter my view and I might agree with him. I don't have a problem with changing my mind - having been an atheist and then a theist it involved changing my mind.

Regarding true for everyone, it's the difference between a belief and a fact. I edited my response to add something at the end about what I think is the way we establish facts as opposed to beliefs or assertions or concepts. What I said was:

ETA: The word fact means something that is known to be true. The "knowers" in this definition are human and the usual convention is that if they have not come up with a method that others can understand, use and repeat to establish the truth of something to others, a lot of people will not accept it as a fact. Some people might but we shouldn't be surprised if many don't as there are lots of things that people assert that I don't accept as fact unless it can be demonstrated. And you can establish something as true and then new information might be discovered that would change what was previously accepted as true.

Hence the question being asked about a method to establish a claim of fact, which would not be required for a belief. You may well not be making a claim of fact but just stating your belief when you talk about God in which case this conversation was not necessary but has been enjoyable.

Mulling these things over I still think you might be being a tad over generous at allowing atheists a bit of domination in terms of ontology and what can exist. The ontology is naturalistic and empiricist why, because we are mostly 21st century white British secular people.
Empiricist and naturalistic ontology is based on a circular argument.

On the other hand there is much that is right with your approach and attitude which I realise makes part of mine wr-werr-wero-wro-wro-o-o doomed to inefficiency of exchange.

[ProfessorDavey]

Mulling these things over I still think you might be being a tad over generous at allowing atheists a bit of domination in terms of ontology and what can exist. The ontology is naturalistic and empiricist why, because we are mostly 21st century white British secular people.

Complete non-sense - whether something exists is completely outside of the notion of humans, let alone 21st century white British secular people. Where humans come in is that we have developed methods to demonstrate that something exists, but that isn't the same as the concept of existence. And we have some great examples - so our methods in astrophysics can demonstrate the existence of far off stars - however we know that the distance traveled to us to allow those methods to work means that we are looking at stars as they existed potentially long before those methods were developed or even human existence. So their existence pre-dates humans (and indeed they may no longer exist - team will tell), so the notion that existence is somehow a human construct, let alone a 21st century white British secular people construct.

However that isn't the case for religion and religious belief, which is most definitely a construct of humans and in the case of christianity very much a construct of a small subset of humans with particularly characteristics of origin and, largely gender.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gabriella,

I thought you might find this interesting:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism

I'm an ignostic - ie, I take the view that questions about the existence or non-existence of "god" are meaningless because there's no way to define the term consistently. That's not to say though that that the arguments about this non-defined "something" can't be discussed readily - when for example someone says "god is real because..." and the "because" turns out to be logically false, it's legitimate to discuss that. To that extent I'm an atheist too - there are no sound reasons that I'm aware of to justify the claim "god", whatever each theist may happen to mean by that.       

What other terms are you ignostic about?
What is your view on Leprechauns?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Mulling these things over I still think you might be being a tad over generous at allowing atheists a bit of domination in terms of ontology and what can exist.

Atheism doesn’t involve what can exist. This has been explained you many, many times. Why do you still get it wrong therefore? Atheism is just the conclusion that there are no good reasons on the table to think that god(s) do exist. It says nothing about whether or not they can or could.

Now write that down until it finally sinks in.

The ontology is naturalistic and empiricist why, because we are mostly 21st century white British secular people.

No, it’s because it’s the only method we have so far to investigate and to validate truth claims. Your utter failure to provide a different method to investigate your truth claim “god” just reinforces that.

Empiricist and natualistic ontology is based on a circular argument.

Utter bollocks for reasons that have also been explained to you countless times. Why on earth have you returned to your previous car crash in reasoning?

On the other hand there is much that is right with your approach and attitude which I realise makes part of mine wr-werr-wero-wro-wro-o-o doomed to inefficiency of exchange.

Gabriella is much brighter and more nuanced than you are. You’re in no position to patronise her.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What other terms are you ignostic about?
What is your view on Leprechauns?

Why are you still trying avoidance tactics?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

I thought you might find this interesting:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ignosticism

I'm an ignostic - ie, I take the view that questions about the existence or non-existence of "god" are meaningless because there's no way to define the term consistently. That's not to say though that that the arguments about this non-defined "something" can't be discussed readily - when for example someone says "god is real because..." and the "because" turns out to be logically false, it's legitimate to discuss that. To that extent I'm an atheist too - there are no sound reasons that I'm aware of to justify the claim "god", whatever each theist may happen to mean by that.       

Ok thanks. To establish existence, yes for the reasons I gave as well, I can understand that theological position. I don't think it is possible to establish existence of gods eg. gods are not defined in a way that is testable - eg. eternal, supernatural, all-powerful etc all don't lend themselves to evidence or testing, unless someone comes up with a method to test such terms. My impression on here is that we have plenty to debate about the different beliefs and preferences people hold - whether it's about gods or other concepts that can't be clearly defined.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm not sure that is correct.

Just because something isn't 'true for everyone' doesn't make it just a belief. Rather it may be a 'subjective truth' that could even be a verifiable fact, but one that only applies to an individual, not to everyone.

So an example - do you like bananas. I don't think it is just a belief if I claim to like bananas. However it is also not a 'true for everyone' thing as there are others who do not like bananas. And it is possible to demonstrate objectively that like or dislike of bananas - so you may be able to demonstrate altered brain activity associated with pleasure in people who like bananas when they eat them which you do not detect in people who dislike bananas.

So it is a subjective truth - 'true for me', and possibly even objectively verifiably 'true for me', without being either 'true for everyone' nor a belief.

And on belief - rather than this being a true for me like or opinion, it tends to be considered as a subjective opinion without evidence of something that is claimed to be an objective truth - in other words 'true for everyone'.

Yes true. It could be a belief or a personal preference.

Religions seem to have a lot to do with personal preferences - different religious views and practices even within one single religion appeal to different people and they can probably explain why they found a particular thing appealing or not appealing and there might be a common theme between their religious preferences and their other non-religious philosophical preferences or even dietary preferences.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Mulling these things over I still think you might be being a tad over generous at allowing atheists a bit of domination in terms of ontology and what can exist. The ontology is naturalistic and empiricist why, because we are mostly 21st century white British secular people.
Empiricist and naturalistic ontology is based on a circular argument.

On the other hand there is much that is right with your approach and attitude which I realise makes part of mine wr-werr-wero-wro-wro-o-o doomed to inefficiency of exchange.

Haha  - I am sure there are some wise, infinitely patient people who instantly always know the best approach in any given situation but I haven't met them yet and clearly from the arguments i have on here and IRL, that's definitely not me.

I think the point is that atheists see no reason to believe God exists because there is no method to test for it, and evidence that has been offered is testimonial and the atheists have not found it convincing.

People feel the same way about many other things, not just gods, ie. they don't feel evidence for X existing is convincing, so they do not believe that the X exists. I think that about many things too - if I don't find the evidence or testimony for its existence convincing.

And there are many things I don't even bother discussing because it does not seem to be testable or even interest me.

We discuss the merits of different beliefs on here, even if we can't establish that the subject of those beliefs exist.

I don't understand your comment about British, white, secular 21st century - maybe you can clarify? We haven't come across a method now or from the past that we can use to show existence of gods and many other things as fact so not sure how British, white, secular etc is relevant?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella is much brighter and more nuanced than you are. You’re in no position to patronise her.

Thanks.... I think. I had to sit down with shock when I read that earlier on my phone  I didn't feel patronised but I can see why you read it that way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Ok thanks. To establish existence, yes for the reasons I gave as well, I can understand that theological position. I don't think it is possible to establish existence of gods eg. gods are not defined in a way that is testable - eg. eternal, supernatural, all-powerful etc all don't lend themselves to evidence or testing, unless someone comes up with a method to test such terms. My impression on here is that we have plenty to debate about the different beliefs and preferences people hold - whether it's about gods or other concepts that can't be clearly defined.

Yes, but the problem is much bigger than the non-testability of these supposed characteristics – it’s that there’s no agreement on "god" having them at all. Some think “He” has all of them, some think He has some of the them, some think He has none of them. Yet others think there to be god(s), but with different characteristics entirely. And here’s the thing: none of them are demonstrably wrong, even when the claimed characteristics contradict each other. That’s what happens when you rely on a personal faith beliefs for your definition of “god”: one person’s faith definition is no more or less valid than any other person’s faith definition.

In short, that’s the definition problem right there: “I believe in God”. “OK, what do you mean by “God”? “I mean X”.   

“I believe in God”. “OK, what do you mean by “God”? “I mean Y”.   

“I believe in God”. “OK, what do you mean by “God”? “I mean Z”.

How then would a dialogue about what “god” (supposedly) is take place when there’s no consensus even on the basic definition?     

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes true. It could be a belief or a personal preference.

Indeed, although in some cases this goes beyond a personal preference, which implies a choice. I think there are subjective truths (true for me) that are inherent in individuals and not a preference or choice. I guess with my food analogy you can stretch is a bit - so there may be some people who love peanuts (and you may be able to demonstrate that in terms of neurological pleasure when eating them), yet another person may be allergic and demonstrate a completely different but equally objectively measurable reaction. In this case we've gone beyond a choice of preference for peanuts but something much more intrinsically determined and can be objectively demonstrated. So a subjective 'true for me' that can be objectively demonstrated.

Religions seem to have a lot to do with personal preferences - different religious views and practices even within one single religion appeal to different people and they can probably explain why they found a particular thing appealing or not appealing and there might be a common theme between their religious preferences and their other non-religious philosophical preferences or even dietary preferences.

I'd argue that specific religiosity is inherently learned behaviour, even if there may be an inherent human tendency towards non-specific religiosity, linked to our evolutionarily-driven curiosity and social behaviours. Virtually all people who have a particularly religiosity were brought up in that way - very few genuine change from one religion to another and very few people brought up in a non-religious manner become religious. And I think the reason is that, as adults, the claims of religions seems implausible if we come to them cold - the only way in which we can suspend that implausibility is if we've been taught from being a child that the implausible is, in fact, true. And even then many people simply see through that implausibility as adults.

That is somewhat different to food preferences (or music etc), as although we might be brought up to like particular kinds of food or music I don't think that makes us find other types of food or music intrinsically unpalatable, although they may be an acquired taste. And a further point is that we can comfortably like bangla music or Caribbean cooking without being expected to 'buy into' a particular world view and inherent behaviours. Religion isn't like that.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't understand your comment about British, white, secular 21st century - maybe you can clarify? We haven't come across a method now or from the past that we can use to show existence of gods and many other things as fact so not sure how British, white, secular etc is relevant?

That's right.

And throughout history people have decided that they don't believe in the prevailing gods purported to exist at the time and created new ones to believe in. And some people have taken that a step further by concluding that none of the prevailing gods purported to exist at the time actually exist but choose not to create or believe in a new one (those people being atheist).

So the reality is that it is gods that tend to be clearly identified by place, time and species - being associated with one species (humans) living on a single planet (the earth) at a particular time (variable, but none of the purported gods we are aware of now have been considered to exist for more than the blink of an eye in the context of the cosmic timeframe).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Prof,

…I guess with my food analogy you can stretch is a bit - so there may be some people who love peanuts (and you may be able to demonstrate that in terms of neurological pleasure when eating them), yet another person may be allergic and demonstrate a completely different but equally objectively measurable reaction. In this case we've gone beyond a choice of preference for peanuts but something much more intrinsically determined and can be objectively demonstrated. So a subjective 'true for me' that can be objectively demonstrated...

Just to expand on that a little bit, isn’t the point here that “likeability” isn’t an inherent property of peanuts (or of anything else), but rather it’s a description how of how some people respond to eating them. You can’t take a peanut apart and then point to the atoms that are the “likeable” ones.  Same with morality and aesthetics and other human-made or derived value judgements too by the way – no act, painting etc is inherently “good” or “bad”; rather these are description we attach to them and made in response to them. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Indeed, although in some cases this goes beyond a personal preference, which implies a choice. I think there are subjective truths (true for me) that are inherent in individuals and not a preference or choice. I guess with my food analogy you can stretch is a bit - so there may be some people who love peanuts (and you may be able to demonstrate that in terms of neurological pleasure when eating them), yet another person may be allergic and demonstrate a completely different but equally objectively measurable reaction. In this case we've gone beyond a choice of preference for peanuts but something much more intrinsically determined and can be objectively demonstrated. So a subjective 'true for me' that can be objectively demonstrated.
I'd argue that specific religiosity is inherently learned behaviour, even if there may be an inherent human tendency towards non-specific religiosity, linked to our evolutionarily-driven curiosity and social behaviours. Virtually all people who have a particularly religiosity were brought up in that way - very few genuine change from one religion to another and very few people brought up in a non-religious manner become religious. And I think the reason is that, as adults, the claims of religions seems implausible if we come to them cold - the only way in which we can suspend that implausibility is if we've been taught from being a child that the implausible is, in fact, true. And even then many people simply see through that implausibility as adults.

That is somewhat different to food preferences (or music etc), as although we might be brought up to like particular kinds of food or music I don't think that makes us find other types of food or music intrinsically unpalatable, although they may be an acquired taste. And a further point is that we can comfortably like bangla music or Caribbean cooking without being expected to 'buy into' a particular world view and inherent behaviours. Religion isn't like that.

As adults? This generation from boomers on must be the most neotenised bunch of people there has ever been. Haven’t you noticed that this forum ticks over on the law of the playground.

As adults indeed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Haha  - I am sure there are some wise, infinitely patient people who instantly always know the best approach in any given situation but I haven't met them yet and clearly from the arguments i have on here and IRL, that's definitely not me.

I think the point is that atheists see no reason to believe God exists because there is no method to test for it, and evidence that has been offered is testimonial and the atheists have not found it convincing.

People feel the same way about many other things, not just gods, ie. they don't feel evidence for X existing is convincing, so they do not believe that the X exists. I think that about many things too - if I don't find the evidence or testimony for its existence convincing.

And there are many things I don't even bother discussing because it does not seem to be testable or even interest me.

We discuss the merits of different beliefs on here, even if we can't establish that the subject of those beliefs exist.

I don't understand your comment about British, white, secular 21st century - maybe you can clarify? We haven't come across a method now or from the past that we can use to show existence of gods and many other things as fact so not sure how British, white, secular etc is relevant?

I’m still unable to figure out though if atheists ask for a method in a rhetorical way namely in the quiet belief that there is no other method than science, hence talk of tests.
Or that they are being 100% genuine and are seeking a way of finding God or cosmic Godlessness or other/ attaining conviction of his existence or otherwise. If you are conceding that existence is testable by scientific means only; then if they don’t believe in the existence of God then it must be on an empirical/ naturalistic basis.

And on that basis I question the ontological starting point of atheists.



I don’t merely lack a belief in Leprechauns. I have a reason for not believing and it isn’t because i’m Not being given good reasons.

[Stranger]

I’m still unable to figure out though if atheists ask for a method in a rhetorical way namely in the quiet belief that there is no other method than science, hence talk of tests.
Or that they are being 100% genuine and are seeking a way of finding God/ attaining conviction of his existence. If you are conceding that existence is testable by scientific means only then if they don’t believe in the existence of God then it must be on an empirical/ naturalistic basis.

And on that basis I question the ontological starting point of atheists.

Still desperately avoiding addressing the point. The motivation and any 'starting point' is totally irrelevant to the logic of the situation. Either you have some reason or method that can distinguish your god claims from blind guesses, wishful thinking, or whatever, or you don't.

It should be simple enough even for you...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still desperately avoiding addressing the point. The motivation and any 'starting point' is totally irrelevant to the logic of the situation. Either you have some reason or method that can distinguish your god claims from blind guesses, wishful thinking, or whatever, or you don't.

It should be simple enough even for you...

I thought logic in any matter started from premises.

[Stranger]

I thought logic in any matter started from premises.

The premiss for the question to you is the philosophical burden of proof.

What are yours and where is the argument that gets us to your god-claim being any better than a random guess?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still desperately avoiding addressing the point. The motivation and any 'starting point' is totally irrelevant to the logic of the situation. Either you have some reason or method that can distinguish your god claims from blind guesses, wishful thinking, or whatever, or you don't.

It should be simple enough even for you...

Woo ah, I think you guys have forgotten how voluntary participation on an Internet forum. I don’t have to respond in the time it takes to rattle off a sound bite in the fashion of yourself nor jump to attention to satisfy someone who is/or was a big noise elsewhere and that is how they are used to being treated.

That said I have plenty of reasons to get it down to either a prime explanation for the universe or the universe popped out of nothing.

I suppose it all comes down to what you mean by the words reason and method.
What do you mean by them.

[Gordon]

I’m still unable to figure out though if atheists ask for a method in a rhetorical way namely in the quiet belief that there is no other method than science, hence talk of tests.

Those of us who regard claims of 'God' as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory may well think that there are no methods specific to supernatural claims, and not without cause since we've asked theists posting here often enough but with no result: but still we ask because there is always the possibility that we might be wrong and that one of you guys might one day post a game-changer of a methodology that can be shown to be suitable for verifying supernatural claims.

Or that they are being 100% genuine and are seeking a way of finding God or cosmic Godlessness or other/ attaining conviction of his existence or otherwise.

Nope - remember the main reason I keep asking you for a method to verify 'God' claims is because I see no good reason to take your claim of 'God' seriously: and why would I bother "seeking a way of finding" something that I regard as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory?

If you are conceding that existence is testable by scientific means only; then if they don’t believe in the existence of God then it must be on an empirical/ naturalistic basis.

As ever you're missing the point: so I'll say again, if I regard claims of 'God' as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory then I'm not ever reaching for an empirical or naturalistic basis to reject the existence of 'God' since all I need do is reject the arguments for 'God' made by theists because, and I'll say it again, I regard them as being incoherent, illogical and contradictory.

And on that basis I question the ontological starting point of atheists.

Then you'd be wrong, again.

I don’t merely lack a belief in Leprechauns. I have a reason for not believing and it isn’t because i’m Not being given good reasons.

Then do tell what this specific reason is.