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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's been like recieving the commandments on the mount, mount olympus and mounting the kerb all at once since Bluehillside posted several of these:

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

So lets get into it.
1: I have no complaint. It is what it is.
2: I confess to not knowing what it is you are after. How do you paint a masterpiece?
3: How do you investigate claims of a Non Material God?.....First of all, empirical methods cannot establish God and that is it as far as that is concerned. How do we investigate God? First of all we should know that we have to take a hokey cokey approach. When we are waxing scientific we take our whole self out but when investigating God we have to put our whole self in rather than Putting your whole self out then your whole self out again is sticking with science, I would have thought,
4:As you are always telling us about not knowing the providence of the universe and other stuff that it is noble to say ''we don't know''. what then would be your reaction then to I don't know how to answer your question vis a vis methodology.

What is the methodology for establishing any philosophy. How can you establish your presuppositional acts of cosmic Godlessness for instance. How did the universe come about? You don't know and not knowing is a noble thing according to you.

Your question is literally conflation of two points writ large, geddit?
1: Empiricism cannot investigate God 2. What can?

Augustine realised that he was actually putting his whole self out when it came to investigating God out of fear of putting his whole self in. ''Make me a christian, but not yet'' was the way he summed himself up not that he also didn't talk about his life of God Dodging.

However with you I have the sneaking suspicion of scientism.....that you really do believe that some how some strange how science will disprove God 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's been like recieving the commandments on the mount, mount olympus and mounting the kerb all at once since Bluehillside posted several of these:

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

So lets get into it.
1: I have no complaint. It is what it is.
2: I confess to not knowing what it is you are after. How do you paint a masterpiece?
3: How do you investigate claims of a Non Material God?.....First of all, empirical methods cannot establish God and that is it as far as that is concerned. How do we investigate God? First of all we should know that we have to take a hokey cokey approach. When we are waxing scientific we take our whole self out but when investigating God we have to put our whole self in rather than Putting your whole self out then your whole self out again is sticking with science, I would have thought,
4:As you are always telling us about not knowing the providence of the universe and other stuff that it is noble to say ''we don't know''. what then would be your reaction then to I don't know how to answer your question vis a vis methodology.

What is the methodology for establishing any philosophy. How can you establish your presuppositional acts of cosmic Godlessness for instance. How did the universe come about? You don't know and not knowing is a noble thing according to you.

Your question is literally conflation of two points writ large, geddit?
1: Empiricism cannot investigate God 2. What can?

Augustine realised that he was actually putting his whole self out when it came to investigating God out of fear of putting his whole self in. ''Make me a christian, but not yet'' was the way he summed himself up not that he also didn't talk about his life of God Dodging.

However with you I have the sneaking suspicion of scientism.....that you really do believe that some how some strange how science will disprove God

Wouldn’t it have been simpler and more honest just to have said, “actually, I can offer no method at all to investigate and verify my claim “god””? 

[ippy]

Another load of go nowhere tripe Vlad.

All you need to do is supply a good enough reason, (viable evidence), for believing this invisible friend that lives in your imagination really exists.

ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wouldn’t it have been simpler and more honest just to have said, “actually, I can offer no method at all to investigate and verify my claim “god””?

No I think i'll stick to I don't know what it is you are after, thank you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No I think i'll stick to I don't know what it is you are after, thank you.

Aw, but we both know that’s not true now don’t we. You make various claims of fact (“god” etc). Then you tell us that these claims cannot be investigated or verified with naturalistic methods and tools (though I don’t know why you think that to be the case at least when your various belief objects supposedly magicked themselves into material form to perform their various naturalistic deeds).

Then when asked what methods or tools we should use instead to investigate your claims of fact you collapse into a dog’s dinner of fallacies, evasions, misrepresentations etc so as to avoid answering a perfectly simple – and reasonable - question.

Now here’s the problem with that: not only do you have no good reason for anyone else to take your claims and assertions seriously (and certainly no more seriously than my claims about leprechauns), you also have no means to justify your opinions to yourself. I know it won’t, but that at least should trouble you. It really should.       

[Outrider]

It's been like recieving the commandments on the mount, mount olympus and mounting the kerb all at once since Bluehillside posted several of these:

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

So lets get into it.
1: I have no complaint. It is what it is.
2: I confess to not knowing what it is you are after. How do you paint a masterpiece?
3: How do you investigate claims of a Non Material God?.....First of all, empirical methods cannot establish God and that is it as far as that is concerned. How do we investigate God? First of all we should know that we have to take a hokey cokey approach. When we are waxing scientific we take our whole self out but when investigating God we have to put our whole self in rather than Putting your whole self out then your whole self out again is sticking with science, I would have thought,
4:As you are always telling us about not knowing the providence of the universe and other stuff that it is noble to say ''we don't know''. what then would be your reaction then to I don't know how to answer your question vis a vis methodology.

What is the methodology for establishing any philosophy. How can you establish your presuppositional acts of cosmic Godlessness for instance. How did the universe come about? You don't know and not knowing is a noble thing according to you.

Your question is literally conflation of two points writ large, geddit?
1: Empiricism cannot investigate God 2. What can?

I don't think it's a conflation, necessarily - not all of the respondents necessarily agree with you that empiricism cannot investigate God, for instance.

For me, if something exists then it's feasibly within the realms of scientific enquiry - maybe not current science, obviously, but the concept of examination of phenomena and extrapolation from that observation a working hypothesis of mechanisms which can then be tested.  The only way something could be somehow 'beyond' science is if it were to not exhibit any observable phenomena, at which point you have to ask in what way is that different from something that doesn't exist?

Augustine realised that he was actually putting his whole self out when it came to investigating God out of fear of putting his whole self in. ''Make me a christian, but not yet'' was the way he summed himself up not that he also didn't talk about his life of God Dodging.

However with you I have the sneaking suspicion of scientism.....that you really do believe that some how some strange how science will disprove God.

Actually, it's the opposite; I don't think science can 'disprove' very much, but implicitly if God is real science should be able to prove that it is.

All of which isn't the point of the question that's being asked.  If the claim made is that science isn't the system to use to investigate gods, the question is what method do we use instead; various offers of revelation, faith etc have been put forward, but they all lack the robustness of scientific enquiry, they can't be validated or relied upon.

So what's being asked for is a system of enquiry - not a mere acceptance, not 'it is what it is', these are people who won't take an extraordinary claim at face value in part because the world is full of extraordinary claims and we need a system to judge between them.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think it's a conflation, necessarily - not all of the respondents necessarily agree with you that empiricism cannot investigate God, for instance.

Then it is surely up to them to devise an empirical experiment for that purpose.

We know that understanding using the scientific method is relatively easy (is it in fact a skill?) and we know that describing what we are after with regards to non scientific method is difficult other wise Bluehillside for example would have been able to list the absolute requirements for something to be be described a method and hasn't yet and therefore without him doing that it is hard for me to respond.

For me, if something exists then it's feasibly within the realms of scientific enquiry

That is, i'm afraid a very definition of philosophical empiricism -

maybe not current science,

Scientism?

Putting it in the nicest way possible this all sounds like you are saying something can only exist if there is a method, and not just any method but science. That seems to have things arse about face to me.

Actually, it's the opposite; I don't think science can 'disprove' very much, but implicitly if God is real science should be able to prove that it is.

All of which isn't the point of the question that's being asked.  If the claim made is that science isn't the system to use to investigate gods, the question is what method do we use instead; various offers of revelation, faith etc have been put forward, but they all lack the robustness of scientific enquiry, they can't be validated or relied upon.

So what's being asked for is a system of enquiry - not a mere acceptance, not 'it is what it is', these are people who won't take an extraordinary claim at face value in part because the world is full of extraordinary claims and we need a system to judge between them.

O.

I believe that in my life I have had to respond to God having being overtaken in all regards by his presence( something more than just an idea...from which it is possible to be distracted from or extracate yourself from) How I respond is down to me.

Also, you are all people.....What method did you all use to fall in love?

[jeremyp]

It's been like recieving the commandments on the mount, mount olympus and mounting the kerb all at once since Bluehillside posted several of these:

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

So lets get into it.
1: I have no complaint. It is what it is.
2: I confess to not knowing what it is you are after. How do you paint a masterpiece?
3: How do you investigate claims of a Non Material God?.....First of all, empirical methods cannot establish God and that is it as far as that is concerned. How do we investigate God? First of all we should know that we have to take a hokey cokey approach. When we are waxing scientific we take our whole self out but when investigating God we have to put our whole self in rather than Putting your whole self out then your whole self out again is sticking with science, I would have thought,
4:As you are always telling us about not knowing the providence of the universe and other stuff that it is noble to say ''we don't know''. what then would be your reaction then to I don't know how to answer your question vis a vis methodology.

What is the methodology for establishing any philosophy. How can you establish your presuppositional acts of cosmic Godlessness for instance. How did the universe come about? You don't know and not knowing is a noble thing according to you.

Your question is literally conflation of two points writ large, geddit?
1: Empiricism cannot investigate God 2. What can?

Augustine realised that he was actually putting his whole self out when it came to investigating God out of fear of putting his whole self in. ''Make me a christian, but not yet'' was the way he summed himself up not that he also didn't talk about his life of God Dodging.

However with you I have the sneaking suspicion of scientism.....that you really do believe that some how some strange how science will disprove God

It's quite simple Vlad. You say "I have experienced God". We say "how can a neutral bystander verify that your experience is not your imagination (or your lie)?"

That's all there is to it once you cut away all the big words that you seem so keen on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's quite simple Vlad. You say "I have experienced God". We say "how can a neutral bystander verify that your experience is not your imagination (or your lie)?"

Yes but that just adds to mystery of how one/you? concludes/acts as if it is imagination or a lie.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what's being asked for is a system of enquiry

Let's start then with something common to all of us. What is the system of enquiry for falling in love?

Isn't knowing the intellectual elements of religion where you guys bail out anyway?
e.g. Dawkins and his I have to know as much about leprachology as I do about theology.

[jeremyp]

Yes but that just adds to mystery of how one/you? concludes/acts as if it is imagination or a lie.

There's no mystery. You provide no evidence. Indeed you are unbelievably evasive about it, so we assume there is none and we therefore do not need to believe God exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's no mystery. You provide no evidence. Indeed you are unbelievably evasive about it, so we assume there is none and we therefore do not need to believe God exists.

Then if this is the attitude of this so called ''neutral bystander'' then he must be a philosophical naturalist, empiricist or the like. He isn't neutral.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Then it is surely up to them to devise an empirical experiment for that purpose.

We know that understanding using the scientific method is relatively easy (is it in fact a skill?) and we know that describing what we are after with regards to non scientific method is difficult other wise Bluehillside for example would have been able to list the absolute requirements for something to be be described a method and hasn't yet and therefore without him doing that it is hard for me to respond.

Utter bollocks. I believe there to be leprechauns. I also believe them to be able to flit at will to and fro between material and non-material states. I know these things to be objectively true because that’s my “faith”. It’s therefore your job to “…list the absolute requirements for something to be be described a method…” to investigate and verify my beliefs.

Can you see a problem with that?

“God” is your claim – if you want that claim to be taken seriously, it’s therefore your job to propose a method to investigate and verify it.     
 

I believe that in my life I have had to respond to God having being overtaken in all regards by his presence( something more than just an idea...from which it is possible to be distracted from or extracate yourself from) How I respond is down to me.

No, it precisely is “just an idea” until and unless you can finally come up with a sound reason to think it to be otherwise. So far though, all we have is your deafening silence on that (plus some crude shifting of the burden of proof).

Also, you are all people.....What method did you all use to fall in love?

And the straw man to finish. No-one argues for a “method to fall in love”. What’s actually argue for is a rational explanation for what the process of falling in love is. To a significant extent we can do that already, and where we can’t there’s no good reason to think that the various neurological processes involved will be forever beyond the scope of science for a full explanation.   

Your desperation is showing here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
.

And the straw man to finish. No-one argues for a “method to fall in love”.

Why not?, I'm doing it now. Are you agreeing that enquiries after method aren't always appropriate or is it that you think there is only one method in fact?

What’s actually argue for is a rational explanation for what the process of falling in love is.

and how would that help us find love?

To a significant extent we can do that already, and where we can’t there’s no good reason to think that the various neurological processes involved will be forever beyond the scope of science for a full explanation.

I see we don't want to find love we merely want to understand it and have a working theory of it. And we want that also concerning God. Well there is the Dicky Dawkins way of ruling out any intellectual effort right from the get go for starters......how is that going?

Regarding neuroscience though that seemed to work for Sam Harris, ''Hi I'm Sam, I'm a neuroscientist. Is this a Gun in my pocket or am I just pleased to see you? All those acolytes.

I suppose what I am saying is that intellectual interest can be the start of a road that leads to God. As a New Atheist though your are not allowed that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Why not?, I'm doing it now. Are you agreeing that enquiries after method aren't always appropriate or is it that you think there is only one method in fact?

What are you even trying to say here? You claim as a fact something you call “god”. You think this claim should be taken more seriously than, say, my claim “leprechauns”. Fine – just tell us why then. What method of enquiry do you propose such that the epistemological value of the former can be distinguished from that of the latter?

Why is this so difficult for you even to grasp, let alone to do?
 

and how would that help us find love?

Love is an observable phenomenon; “god” isn’t. We don’t have to just assume that love exists to discuss how to find it; we do have to just assume that “god” exists to discuss how to find “him”.

Short answer: your analogy is a bust. 

I see we don't want to find love we merely want to understand it and have a working theory of it. And we want that also concerning God. Well there is the Dicky Dawkins way of ruling out any intellectual effort right from the get go for starters......how is that going?

See above – you’re trying a false equivalence between love and “god”. That analogy is a crock. Try again.

Regarding neuroscience though that seemed to work for Sam Harris, ''Hi I'm Sam, I'm a neuroscientist. Is this a Gun in my pocket or am I just pleased to see you? All those acolytes.

I suppose what I am saying is that intellectual interest can be the start of a road that leads to God. As a New Atheist though your are not allowed that.

Then what you’re saying is more bollocks. If you think there’s such a thing as “god” then – finally – tell us why that claim should be taken more seriously than my claim “leprechauns”. Rather than keep evading, misrepresenting, trying false analogies etc, why not just say either “because….X” or, “OK, I have nothing to offer about that – it’s just assertions all the way down”?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What are you even trying to say here? You claim as a fact something you call “god”. You think this claim should be taken more seriously than, say, my claim “leprechauns”. Fine – just tell us why then. What method of enquiry do you propose such that the epistemological value of the former can be distinguished from that of the latter?

Why is this so difficult for you even to grasp, let alone to do?
 
Love is an observable phenomenon; “god” isn’t. We don’t have to just assume that love exists to discuss how to find it; we do have to just assume that “god” exists to discuss how to find “him”.

Short answer: your analogy is a bust. 

See above – you’re trying a false equivalence between love and “god”. That analogy is a crock. Try again.

Then what you’re saying is more bollocks. If you think there’s such a thing as “god” then – finally – tell us why that claim should be taken more seriously than my claim “leprechauns”. Rather than keep evading, misrepresenting, trying false analogies etc, why not just say either “because….X” or, “OK, I have nothing to offer about that – it’s just assertions all the way down”?   

Love is an observable phenomenon? Oh dear...... Hillside on the verge of making another term redundant. Do you mean sex is an observable phenomenon?, physical contact is observed?, I'm not interested in your voyeuristic ''I prefer to watch approach'' Hillsides.

Given that things which should be observable and God is busted analogy......Do you thus feel sorry for the demise of the God-Leprechaun schtick?(Time of death 18.45)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Love is an observable phenomenon? Oh dear...... Hillside on the verge of making another term redundant. Do you mean sex is an observable phenomenon?, physical contact is observed?, I'm not interested in your voyeuristic ''I prefer to watch approach'' Hillsides.

Given that things which should be observable and God is busted analogy......Do you thus feel sorry for the demise of the God-Leprechaun schtick?(Time of death 18.45)

This is your standard tactic when you run out of road – pigeon chess:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess

Love, hate, grief, anger, whatever are responses to stimuli that people observably experience. To a significant extent we can understand the neurochemistry involved by using MRI scanners to map the parts of the brain that “light up”, analysing hormone samples etc. “God” on the other hand (and leprechauns too) are claims about the objective existence of things, not about our responses to them. You've made a basic category error.

Oh, and if you want to assert a god who’s material when he feels like it then he should precisely be observable when he is, and for that matter arguments for his presence in those times should be reason and logic apt too. As for his supposed non-material sojourns, still you have all your work ahead of you to propose a method to investigate that claim. Same goes for leprechauns by the way.

Epic fail Vladdo, epic fail…       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

This is your standard tactic when you run out of road – pigeon chess:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess

Love, hate, grief, anger, whatever are responses to stimuli that people observably experience. To a significant extent we can understand the neurochemistry involved by using MRI scanners to map the parts of the brain that “light up”, analysing hormone samples etc. “God” on the other hand (and leprechauns too) are claims about the objective existence of things, not about our responses to them. You've made a basic category error.

Oh, and if you want to assert a god who’s material when he feels like it then he should precisely be observable when he is, and for that matter arguments for his presence in those times should be reason and logic apt too. As for his supposed non-material sojourns, still you have all your work ahead of you to propose a method to investigate that claim. Same goes for leprechauns by the way.

Epic fail Vladdo, epic fail…     . It's

I'm sorry Hillside you've run down the curtain on your own analogy. So as you now say the observable compared with the non observable is bad analogy.

That wraps it up for the God Leprechaun analogy. Although there is suspicion that it disappeared up it's own arsehole and asphyxiated after a struggle.It certainly smells that way. If you want a list of observable features of Leprechauns Enki has produced one but we all know what they are. My condolences on your loss.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry Hillside you've run down the curtain on your own analogy.

Using a false analogy (god/love) does not falsify a sound one (god/leprechauns).

So as you now say the observable compared with the non observable is bad analogy.

And nor does lying about what I actually say. A god that’s material some of the time and not material at other times should be observable during the former. So should leprechauns that are material some of the time and not material at other times. For this purpose, the two claims of fact are analogous.   

That wraps it up for the God Leprechaun analogy.

Only if you think lying can wrap something up. When you don’t do that though, the analogy is fine – unlike the attempted god/love analogy, which collapses as soon as it’s examined for the reasons I gave you and you’ve just ignored.   

Although there is suspicion that it disappeared up it's own arsehole and asphyxiated after a struggle.It certainly smells that way. If you want a list of observable features of Leprechauns Enki has produced one but we all know what they are. My condolences on your loss.

And presumably someone could provide a list of observable features of a supposed god when in material form too. So now your false analogy effort has been defenestrated and the original one remains, when are you going to get around to proposing a method to investigate your claim “god”? Or do you intend to keep running away from that question as you do all others too?

[Stranger]

That wraps it up for the God Leprechaun analogy.

Since you've never shown any hint that you even understand it, it seems unlikely you'd be able to tell if it was ever wrapped up....

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Since you've never shown any hint that you even understand it, it seems unlikely you'd be able to tell if it was ever wrapped up....

To be fair he’s never shown any understanding of (or has always been disingenuous about) what the term “analogy” means at all, so there’s precious little chance he’d have something sensible to say about its use in a particular instance.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

                                 Notices

It is with regret that we announce the Passing of

      The God-Leprechaun Analogy (known as Dave)

The service (Humanist) will be held at The Muswell Hill
                          Crematorium.

          No Flowers Please just Donations to

            The Richard Dawkins Foundation 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Catch that Pigeon,

   Notices

It is with regret that we announce the Passing of

      The God-Leprechaun Analogy (known as Dave)

The service (Humanist) will be held at The Muswell Hill
                          Crematorium.

          No Flowers Please just Donations to

            The Richard Dawkins Foundation

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

[jeremyp]

Then if this is the attitude of this so called ''neutral bystander''

No, it's the attitude of somebody who doesn't believe religionists' bullshit.

then he must be a philosophical naturalist, empiricist or the like. He isn't neutral.

Whatever.

It's quite simple. I don't believe you and you have given me no reason to believe you.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Vlad,

This is your standard tactic when you run out of road – pigeon chess:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess

Love, hate, grief, anger, whatever are responses to stimuli that people observably experience. To a significant extent we can understand the neurochemistry involved by using MRI scanners to map the parts of the brain that “light up”, analysing hormone samples etc. “God” on the other hand (and leprechauns too) are claims about the objective existence of things, not about our responses to them. You've made a basic category error.

Oh, and if you want to assert a god who’s material when he feels like it then he should precisely be observable when he is, and for that matter arguments for his presence in those times should be reason and logic apt too. As for his supposed non-material sojourns, still you have all your work ahead of you to propose a method to investigate that claim. Same goes for leprechauns by the way.

Epic fail Vladdo, epic fail…     

BHS - I am not sure what you meant when you said love is an observable phenomenon or a response to stimuli as there are so many often contradictory definitions of love. Some people claim to love people they abuse or love people who abuse them so in that instance is there universally agreed criteria that can decide whether what you are observing is love or wishful thinking? Yes you can possibly observe changes in brain structure or function, hormone levels, chemistry but since people are self-reporting feelings of love how would you come up with a method of distinguishing real love from wishful thinking?

Some people will think indulgence of children is a sign of love while some psychologists see it potentially as a form of child abuse. Again, I would think in those situations love is hard to define and therefore observe. That we can observe the person who claims to feel love or observe the object of their love is not really helping us know conclusively if they are in fact feeling love or deluding themselves or mistakenly labelling their feelings and emotions as love.

Many religious people claim to feel something they have defined as spiritual interaction with a higher power or knowledge of god. There is no agreed upon definition of spiritual experiences and certainly no method to investigate whether the experience is a spiritual interaction with anything or wishful thinking. That is possibly the comparison Vlad was making between love and religious experiences where claims are made that god is unknowable. People may have changes in brain function during spiritual experiences, as do many people who meditate, but that is all anyone can observe and as people are self-reporting, no conclusions can be reached as to who or what the person mentally interacted with. https://psychcentral.com/blog/how-meditation-changes-the-brain/

If we observed your brain during your interactions with leprechauns it is possible that we would see similar brain functions to the brain of a person having a religious experience. But I have no idea if such studies have been done?