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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh dear. Try here to get you started on the labyrinthine taxonomy of Christian denominations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination#:~:text=Christianity%20can%20be%20taxonomically%20divided,widely%20diverging%20beliefs%20and%20practices. 

“A Christian denomination is a distinct religious body within Christianity that comprises all church congregations of the same kind, identifiable by traits such as a name, peculiar history, organization, leadership, theological doctrine, worship style and sometimes a founder. It is a secular and neutral term, generally used to denote any established Christian church.”

So here we have multiple “theological doctrines”, and that’s just within Christianity. Now add all the other religious faiths there are (and, presumably, have been). What deep knowledge of any of their countless theologies do you think would enable you to conclude that any one of them is more likely to be correct than any other? 

That’s the car crash reasoning you keep trying: theologies just document their various faith claims, but tell you nothing about why they’re (supposedly) true – let alone any more true than the competing theologies. That’s also why you keep going wrong with the Courtier’s Reply.

Oh, and speaking of car crashes have I missed your withdrawal of your repeated fuck up re the leprechauns/god analogy?     

In terms of the God Leprechaun analogy, Hillside the pastoral advise is not, I repeat not, to get involved in necromancy or trying to raise the dead.

I fail to see why yet again you have failed to include philosophical empiricism, philosophical philosophical physicalism, naturalism, Cosmic godlessness has and scientism as faith claims.

 Theology is the discussion of what God is like based on his circumstances and ours. I believe that is what we are doing on this board.

[Stranger]

In terms of the God Leprechaun analogy, Hillside the pastoral advise is not, I repeat not, to get involved in necromancy or trying to raise the dead.

I fail to see why yet again you have failed to include philosophical empiricism, philosophical philosophical physicalism, naturalism, Cosmic godlessness has and scientism as faith claims.

You're so out of your depth here, it's comical. Yet again, for the hard-of-thinking: nobody is proposing any of these philosophical -isms you're so obsessed with, and you still don't understand the leprechaun analogy...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

In terms of the God Leprechaun analogy, Hillside the pastoral advise is not, I repeat not, to get involved in necromancy or trying to raise the dead.

So was that a “yes I have withdrawn my fuck up about this” or not?

I fail to see why yet again you have failed to include philosophical empiricism, philosophical philosophical physicalism, naturalism, Cosmic godlessness has and scientism as faith claims.

Why do you fail to see it, what with it having been explained to you so clearly and so often?

Yet again: some of these positions are not absolutist so don’t require faith; and no-one here argues for the ones that are absolutist and so would require faith if they did.

Just write it down so you can look it up the next time you forget it (or want to lie about it) again. 

Theology is the discussion of what God is like based on his circumstances and ours. I believe that is what we are doing on this board.

“His circumstances” is overreaching – you’d have to establish a “Him” before you could get to “His” supposed characteristics, and in any case you’ve just avoided the actual point that no amount of studying theological faith claims (any faith claims from any theology) tells you anything at all about whether they’re also true. 

Oh, and in that case leprechaunology is the discussion of “what leprechauns are like based on their circumstances and ours too". So?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So was that a “yes I have withdrawn my fuck up about this” or not?

Why do you fail to see it, what with it having been explained to you so clearly and so often?

Yet again: some of these positions are not absolutist so don’t require faith; and no-one here argues for the ones that are absolutist and so would require faith if they did.

Just write it down so you can look it up the next time you forget it (or want to lie about it) again. 

“His circumstances” is overreaching – you’d have to establish a “Him” before you could get to “His” supposed characteristics, and in any case you’ve just avoided the actual point that no amount of studying theological faith claims (any faith claims from any theology) tells you anything at all about whether they’re also true. 

Oh, and in that case leprechaunology is the discussion of “what leprechauns are like based on their circumstances and ours” too. So?

I have nothing to withdraw. It was your analogy and your own debunking of it. You see Hillside it was no good me trying to persuade you. You had to come to the realisation yourself.
It's always been a crock. ..OTHERS WERE JUST TOO POLITE TO BREAK IT TO YOU.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think what happens on these boards is that those of us who want to, discuss the attributes of gods and discuss the ideas that different forms of theism are based on. We also discuss the impact and influence of different beliefs on culture, even if we hold the view that until they can be detected/ measured we have not established that gods exist independently of our thoughts and only have a faith conviction that there is a supernatural creator entity (or different versions of one depending on who you talk to).

Some people's input into these discussions are that at some point in the future science may come up with a way to detect/ measure gods - a bit like the Spectre Detector in Ghostbusters - but until gods become detectable they are irrelevant. And even if gods became detectable that would not induce respect or worship based on the attributes theists have put forward on these boards.

And some people think it so unlikely that science will do this, that they believe gods do not exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have nothing to withdraw.

Yes you have.

It was your analogy and your own debunking of it.

Your lying about it is not my debunking of it.

You see Hillside it was no good me trying to persuade you.

You can't persuade someone by lying about what they've said.

You had to come to the realisation yourself.

It's your job to come to the "realisation", not mine. Your first step is to stop lying about what the analogy actually entails. 

It's always been a crock.

No it hasn't.

..OTHERS WERE JUST TOO POLITE TO BREAK IT TO YOU.

No, "others" were sufficiently more intelligent or more honest than you to have identified your mistake/lies.

Why do you just lie about everything? What do you get from it? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So was that a “yes I have withdrawn my fuck up about this” or not?

Why do you fail to see it, what with it having been explained to you so clearly and so often?

Yet again: some of these positions are not absolutist so don’t require faith; and no-one here argues for the ones that are absolutist and so would require faith if they did.

They are absolutist. Whether anyone has 100 per cent faith in them might be in question but such a statement as you are making here could refer to religious faith.

Certainly a lot of people are committed to act as if there is no god although how they pull that stunt from a God is just white noise stance I know not. How acting like God doesn't exist explains your behaviour here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bring out your dead( analogies)
Bring out your dead( analogies)

[Stranger]

Bring out your dead( analogies)
Bring out your dead( analogies)

Beats me why you are so determined to make such a fool of yourself. You've never shown the first hint of any understanding of the analogy, so you wouldn't have the any clue if it were dead or not (it isn't).

When and if you show the slightest glimmer of understanding, your comments on it might be taken seriously, until then....

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I think what happens on these boards is that those of us who want to, discuss the attributes of gods…

Actually their (various) beliefs about the attributes of (supposed) gods, but ok…

…and discuss the ideas that different forms of theism are based on.

Not so much here – they tend to discuss the theological claims (“god thinks X”, “god does Y” etc) without bothering with the foundational, pre-theological arguments to demonstrate god(s) as a fact in the first place. 

We also discuss the impact and influence of different beliefs on culture, even if we hold the view that until they can be detected/ measured we have not established that gods exist independently of our thoughts and only have a faith conviction that there is a supernatural creator entity (or different versions of one depending on who you talk to).

That’s a non sequitur – you can discuss the effect of religious beliefs regardless of (non)detectability their central claims – but I agree that it’s a legitimate topic for discussion. To  large extent, it’s what RE is in secular schools these days.

Some people's input into these discussions are that at some point in the future science may come up with a way to detect/ measure gods - a bit like the Spectre Detector in Ghostbusters - but until gods become detectable they are irrelevant. And even if gods became detectable that would not induce respect or worship based on the attributes theists have put forward on these boards.

Not many I think. The standard trope is: "Science is naturalistic. (My) god is non-naturalistic. Therefore science isn’t apt for investigating my claim “god”.” Which is fair enough so far as it goes, but in answer to the rejoinder, “OK, so what method should we use instead then?” there’s always a deafening silence. (See Vlad’s endless disappearing act at this point for example.)

And some people think it so unlikely that science will do this, that they believe gods do not exist.

That’s backwards I think. It’s not so much “science can’t detect gods, therefore I don’t believe in gods” as, “people who believe in gods are unable to provide any sound reasons to justify their beliefs, therefore I don’t accept them”. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

They are absolutist. Whether anyone has 100 per cent faith in them might be in question but such a statement as you are making here could refer to religious faith.

Wrong again. Where you screwed up was to include naturalism, which has two forms:

“Methodological naturalism, naturalism that holds that science is to be done without reference to supernatural causes; also refers to a methodological assumption in the philosophy of religion that observable events are fully explainable by natural causes without reference to the supernatural.

Metaphysical naturalism, a form of naturalism that holds that the cosmos consists only of objects studied by the natural sciences, and does not include any immaterial or intentional realities.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism

It’s your standard lie: you lump together non-absolutist positions (that people like me subscribe to) with absolutist ones (that no-one here subscribes to), then claim that people who don’t accept your assertion “god” are as much practitioners of faith as you are. First, it’s not true (see methodological naturalism above), and second “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” is an avoidance of justifying your claims, not vindication of them. It’s just whataboutery, albeit whatboutery based on one of your various lies.

Certainly a lot of people are committed to act as if there is no god…

Yes, it’s called atheism.

…although how they pull that stunt from a God is just white noise stance I know not.

Another lie. You know it because I just explained it. A fact claim about which literally anything can be said because all faith claims are epistemically equivalent is ipso facto white noise. 

How acting like God doesn't exist explains your behaviour here.

My behaviour here with you consists almost entirely of calling you out on your unremitting lying. If you just stopped lying I wouldn’t do it. So why don’t you just stop lying?   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Actually their (various) beliefs about the attributes of (supposed) gods, but ok…

Not so much here – they tend to discuss the theological claims (“god thinks X”, “god does Y” etc) without bothering with the foundational, pre-theological arguments to demonstrate god(s) as a fact in the first place. 

That’s a non sequitur – you can discuss the effect of religious beliefs regardless of (non)detectability their central claims – but I agree that it’s a legitimate topic for discussion. To  large extent, it’s what RE is in secular schools these days.

Yes I agree, I did not have a full stop between my 1st 2 sentences previously so attributes of gods and ideas about theism and the influence of beliefs all had the qualification of"even if we hold the view that until they can be detected/ measured we have not established that gods exist independently of our thoughts and only have a faith conviction that there is a supernatural creator entity". Then it seemed too long a sentence so I stuck in a full stop and made it 2 sentences but that also separated the qualification that we don't know if gods exist.

Not many I think. The standard trope is: "Science is naturalistic. (My) god is non-naturalistic. Therefore science isn’t apt for investigating my claim “god”.” Which is fair enough so far as it goes, but in answer to the rejoinder, “OK, so what method should we use instead then?” there’s always a deafening silence. (See Vlad’s endless disappearing act at this point for example.)

Here I was actually referring to atheists, not theists. So I was referring to people who do not see a reason to justify belief.

That’s backwards I think. It’s not so much “science can’t detect gods, therefore I don’t believe in gods” as, “people who believe in gods are unable to provide any sound reasons to justify their beliefs, therefore I don’t accept them”.

No, here I was referring to people who make the positive claim that gods do not exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gabriella,

Actually their (various) beliefs about the attributes of (supposed) gods, but ok…

Not so much here – they tend to discuss the theological claims (“god thinks X”, “god does Y” etc) without bothering with the foundational, pre-theological arguments to demonstrate god(s) as a fact in the first place. 

That’s a non sequitur – you can discuss the effect of religious beliefs regardless of (non)detectability their central claims – but I agree that it’s a legitimate topic for discussion. To  large extent, it’s what RE is in secular schools these days.

Not many I think. The standard trope is: "Science is naturalistic. (My) god is non-naturalistic. Therefore science isn’t apt for investigating my claim “god”.” Which is fair enough so far as it goes, but in answer to the rejoinder, “OK, so what method should we use instead then?” there’s always a deafening silence. (See Vlad’s endless disappearing act at this point for example.)

That’s backwards I think. It’s not so much “science can’t detect gods, therefore I don’t believe in gods” as, “people who believe in gods are unable to provide any sound reasons to justify their beliefs, therefore I don’t accept them”.

The deafening silence is you not defining what you mean by the 'word' method, presumably because it is another redundant word meaning the same as science. When you define it as being something other than science the suspicion of you trying to be smart and tricky not to mention rhetorical can be put to one side..

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The deafening silence is you not defining what you mean by the 'word' method, presumably because it is another redundant word meaning the same as science. When you define it as being something other than science the suspicion of you trying to be smart and tricky not to mention rhetorical can be put to one side.

Stop lying. If you want to justify your claim "god" then it's your job to provide a method to do that. If you think science and naturalistic methods in general aren't apt for the purpose then propose something else instead. It's no more my job to do that for you than it's your job to devise a method to investigate my claims about leprechauns.

Until you finally manage to do that, all we have is your unqualified assertion "god". Worse, that's all you have to justify your claim to yourself too.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Stop lying. If you want to justify your claim "god" then it's your job to provide a method to do that. If you think science and naturalistic methods in general aren't apt for the purpose then propose something else instead. It's no more my job to do that for you than it's your job to devise a method to investigate my claims about leprechauns.

Until you finally manage to do that, all we have is your unqualified assertion "god". Worse, that's all you have to justify your claim to yourself too.     

Naturalistic methods what are they and how are they different from science?

You see you are totally fucked when asked to describe a method other than science.

Happily though, you now ,accidentally I'm sure, introduced us to methodological methods.....like what Hillside?

It's perfectly reasonable in discussion to ask for definition of terms .Answer these enquiries or leave the forum, live in the woods and eat grass.

[Stranger]

You see you are totally fucked when asked to describe a method other than science.

Good grief Vlad, how many more times do you need this simple, simple concept explained? It's up to you to provide a method to distinguish your god claims from just guessing. That is, if you want anybody else to think that you're not just guessing and that anybody else's guess (leprechauns, for example) aren't just as good as yours. It's not up to other people to help you support your claims.

Jeez, it's like trying to teach a cat to do calculus...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good grief Vlad, how many more times do you need this simple, simple concept explained? It's up to you to provide a method to distinguish your god claims from just guessing. That is, if you want anybody else to think that you're not just guessing and that anybody else's guess (leprechauns, for example) aren't just as good as yours. It's not up to other people to help you support your claims.

Jeez, it's like trying to teach a cat to do calculus...

Define what you mean by method then. Go on it's not unreasonable particularly when it's you and Hillside in the picture.
If you don't have a clue what you mean by method you've got no right to be  fucking about on this forum.
It sounds like you savants need a steer. What is the method for making a guess? Since the pair of you haven't defined that yet but what I can glean from what you've said about guessing it is a bit suspect.

I'm not asking you for a method why are you suggesting I am? Is it because that other.......p....p....person is suggesting it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Stop lying. If you want to justify your claim "god" then it's your job to provide a method to do that. If you think science and naturalistic methods in general aren't apt for the purpose then propose something else instead. It's no more my job to do that for you than it's your job to devise a method to investigate my claims about leprechauns.
   

I haven't asked you to do that. All i've asked you for is you to do is demonstrate what you mean by method.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think what happens on these boards is that those of us who want to, discuss the attributes of gods and discuss the ideas that different forms of theism are based on. We also discuss the impact and influence of different beliefs on culture, even if we hold the view that until they can be detected/ measured we have not established that gods exist independently of our thoughts and only have a faith conviction that there is a supernatural creator entity (or different versions of one depending on who you talk to).

Some people's input into these discussions are that at some point in the future science may come up with a way to detect/ measure gods - a bit like the Spectre Detector in Ghostbusters - but until gods become detectable they are irrelevant. And even if gods became detectable that would not induce respect or worship based on the attributes theists have put forward on these boards.

And some people think it so unlikely that science will do this, that they believe gods do not exist.

A fine overview that I feel I shall often refer back to.

[Stranger]

Define what you mean by method then. Go on it's not unreasonable particularly when it's you and Hillside in the picture.

FFS Vlad, why are you finding this so hard? It isn't rocket science. If you want to convince people that your god is more than just a guess and that any other guess is just as good (leprechauns), and you don't think the methods of science and logic are up to the job, then it's up to you to provide such a method and tell us why you think it's valid and applicable.

Other people are under no obligation to help you, this is a hole you've dug yourself into.

[Gordon]

I think what happens on these boards is that those of us who want to, discuss the attributes of gods and discuss the ideas that different forms of theism are based on. We also discuss the impact and influence of different beliefs on culture, even if we hold the view that until they can be detected/ measured we have not established that gods exist independently of our thoughts and only have a faith conviction that there is a supernatural creator entity (or different versions of one depending on who you talk to).

Some people's input into these discussions are that at some point in the future science may come up with a way to detect/ measure gods - a bit like the Spectre Detector in Ghostbusters - but until gods become detectable they are irrelevant. And even if gods became detectable that would not induce respect or worship based on the attributes theists have put forward on these boards.

And some people think it so unlikely that science will do this, that they believe gods do not exist.

I think that you have missed out those of us who don't think that science is even relevant here because we think the notion of 'God' (of whatever flavour) is inherently incoherent and/or contradictory so that there is nothing for any external process, such as the methods of science, to engage with in the first place - so that theism is exclusively a faith-based belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Naturalistic methods what are they and how are they different from science?

You see you are totally fucked when asked to describe a method other than science.

Happily though, you now ,accidentally I'm sure, introduced us to methodological methods.....like what Hillside?

It's perfectly reasonable in discussion to ask for definition of terms .Answer these enquiries or leave the forum, live in the woods and eat grass.

The only fuck up here continues to be yours. You assert the claim “god”. You tell us that this claim cannot be investigated by naturalistic means. Fine.Then you tell us what method we should use to distinguish your claim from just guessing.

Why is this difficult for you to comprehend? 

Define what you mean by method then. Go on it's not unreasonable particularly when it's you and Hillside in the picture.

A method in this case is some means to distinguish your claim “god” from just guessing. As it’s your claim (and by the way as you haven’t bothered to define “supernatural” either) then it’s your job to pick a method to do the job. 

If you don't have a clue what you mean by method you've got no right to be  fucking about on this forum.

See above.

It sounds like you savants need a steer. What is the method for making a guess? Since the pair of you haven't defined that yet but what I can glean from what you've said about guessing it is a bit suspect.

Guessing is asserting something to be true when you have no means to justify that claim. Either you have a method to justify your belief “god” but you want to keep it a secret, or you have no such method. Either way, from anyone else’s perspective there’s no reason to think you’re not just guessing.   

I'm not asking you for a method why are you suggesting I am? Is it because that other.......p....p....person is suggesting it?

You shouldn’t be asking us for anything. It’s your claim, so it’s your job to explain how it should be investigated. What’s stopping you?   

I haven't asked you to do that. All i've asked you for is you to do is demonstrate what you mean by method.

What I mean by “a method” remains a process to justify your claim that “god” is a fact and not just a guess. It’s the same thing you would demand from me if I insisted your treat my claim “leprechauns” as a fact too.

This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp, even for you. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that you have missed out those of us who don't think that science is even relevant here because we think the notion of 'God' (of whatever flavour) is inherently incoherent and/or contradictory so that there is nothing for any external process, such as the methods of science, to engage with in the first place - so that theism is exclusively a faith-based belief.

Where is the incoherence/ inconsistency?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

FFS Vlad, why are you finding this so hard? It isn't rocket science. If you want to convince people that your god is more than just a guess and that any other guess is just as good (leprechauns), and you don't think the methods of science and logic are up to the job, then it's up to you to provide such a method and tell us why you think it's valid and applicable.

Other people are under no obligation to help you, this is a hole you've dug yourself into.

I think whether people find a particular interpretation of an abstract proposition convincing would depend on the individual. Abstract concepts such as goodness or justice or gods cannot be objectively detected or demonstrated and BHS and I will have to agree to disagree that these concepts have more coherence than concepts of gods. So far I find BHS's arguments unconvincing. Maybe if we could define justice, fairness, equality in any kind of objective way or even agreed upon way rather than trying to define them using more abstract concepts, or if we could detect their presence using science, or if those concepts were made up of matter that can be measured, I would find BHS's argument on there being a difference in coherence between gods and goodness convincing, but as that is not the case I don't see the difference between those concepts and gods.

That is not to say that BHS can't find gods more incoherent than goodness but I don't see that as something that can be demonstrated as objective fact. Yes I understand that with gods some people are theorising some kind of duality with an alternative space and time (or no time) that is undetectable, but to me that duality/ alternative dimension/ universe - whatever you want to call it -  is just another abstract concept.

Obviously in order to understand a particular concept the brain has to comprehend the words and reason and interpret them with reference to knowledge of the material world. But science is somewhat irrelevant in this area, as Gordon said. I think where scenarios are offered that transcend science and the material world, that is part of the attractions for some people because the idea that you are not limited by science but are in the world of abstract concepts such as good and bad, thoughts and intentions, justice and purpose and a spiritual accountability (if you believe in a concept of souls) where worth is measured by good and bad deeds and intentions rather than your material body or assets can be appealing.

Deciding between abstract concepts such as right and wrong (as opposed to legal and illegal) could also be described as based on a guess or choices could be justified by argumentum ad populam or argumentum ad consequentiam. Decisions are based on feelings and the reasoning out of potential consequences, which from my experience is similar to decisions about religious affiliations. In which case I do a lot of guessing in my life and see no reason why guessing about gods is any more problematic for me than all the other guesses I make. I encourage my children to guess and adopt faith positions because it is normal behaviour for loving parents to pass on as advice any guesses, behaviour and thoughts and abstract concepts they feel have been beneficial to them.

I would say that where theist guesses are convincing to others whereby they join a particular faith, it would be based on the others feeling something (curiosity/ affinity/ fear) when reading a particular religious text, or feeling something when in a particular religious building or listening to a particular sermon or in discussions with groups of theists or participating in specific group or solo rituals such as prayer. If "guess" covers that then fair enough. It therefore makes sense for theists to keep offering others opportunities to try guessing for themselves and see if their response and interpretation to the experience has beneficial consequences for them - regardless of whether the response is theism or atheism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The only fuck up here continues to be yours. You assert the claim “god”. You tell us that this claim cannot be investigated by naturalistic means. Fine.Then you tell us what method we should use to distinguish your claim from just guessing.

Why is this difficult for you to comprehend? 

A method in this case is some means to distinguish your claim “god” from just guessing. As it’s your claim (and by the way as you haven’t bothered to define “supernatural” either) then it’s your job to pick a method to do the job. 

See above.

Guessing is asserting something to be true when you have no means to justify that claim. Either you have a method to justify your belief “god” but you want to keep it a secret, or you have no such method. Either way, from anyone else’s perspective there’s no reason to think you’re not just guessing.   

You shouldn’t be asking us for anything. It’s your claim, so it’s your job to explain how it should be investigated. What’s stopping you?   


What I mean by “a method” remains a process to justify your claim that “god” is a fact and not just a guess. It’s the same thing you would demand from me if I insisted your treat my claim “leprechauns” as a fact too.

This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp, even for you.

No not quite there yet. What is the method for arriving at a guess?
Asking for definitions is normal in debate and frankly yours are still too vague hence me asking you to exemplify by outlining the method for arriving at a guess.

Either put up or shut up.
Guessing isn’t asserting something to be true. It is making a guess. Guesses are frequently justified.