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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

Very true - yes some/ many people find the concept of gods incoherent and therefore have no method to engage with the concept.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

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.

You’re still not getting it. At a conceptual level terms like “justice” are coherent, cogent, unambiguous, agreed. While there can be endless discussion and debate about what just or unjust outcome would be, the basic concept – ie, the process by which individuals or societies attempt to reach conclusions and to obtain practical measures that satisfy various principles or fairness and equality – is robust enough to be useful.

Now consider “god(s)” – even conceptually a god that is asserted to exist as an article of faith is a god about which literally anything can be said. “God is kind”, “God is cruel”, “God is a set of bagpipes”, it doesn’t matter. That is, “god” even as a concept is incoherent, non-cogent, ambiguous, not agreed. It has no workable use because it dissolves into nothingness as soon as you try to examine it.

That’s the Grand Canyon-sized difference between them.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No not quite there yet.

Don’t worry – you’ll get there eventually. Or perhaps not?

What is the method for arriving at a guess?

Irrelevant.

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.

Bit rich from someone who asserts “god”, “supernatural” etc with no definitions at all, but in any case you’ve had your definition – it's a method to distinguish a claim of fact from just guessing. 

Either put up or shut up.

Presumably you’re talking to yourself here?

Guessing isn’t asserting something to be true.

When there’s no means to justify the claim, yes it is.

It is making a guess.

Yes, the guess that something is true.

Guesses are frequently justified.

Infrequently, not frequently – a stopped clock is right twice a day, but not for the rest of the time. In any case, if you can’t justify the claim then a guess is still a guess whether or not it happens to be correct just as a matter of dumb luck. That’s true for your god and for my leprechauns alike.     

Look as we all know it anyway, why not just say it: “I Vlad can no more propose a means to justify my claim of fact “god” than you blue can propose a means to justify your claim of fact “leprechauns””. 

There – that didn’t hurt did it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Don’t worry – you’ll get there eventually. Or perhaps not?

Irrelevant.

Bit rich from someone who asserts “god”, “supernatural” etc with no definitions at all, but in any case you’ve had your definition – it's a method to distinguish a claim of fact from just guessing. 

Presumably you’re talking to yourself here?

When there’s no means to justify the claim, yes it is.

Yes, the guess that something is true.

Infrequently, not frequently – a stopped clock is right twice a day, but not for the rest of the time. In any case, if you can’t justify the claim then a guess is still a guess whether or not it happens to be correct just as a matter of dumb luck. That’s true for your god and for my leprechauns alike.     

Look as we all know it anyway, why not just say it: “I Vlad can no more propose a means to justify my claim of fact “god” than you blue can propose a means to justify your claim of fact “leprechauns””. 

There – that didn’t hurt did it.

The method for establishing anything is irrelevant for a guy insisting on me having a method for something. What strange wankery is this?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The method for establishing anything is irrelevant for a guy insisting on me having a method for something. What strange wankery is this?

Dishonest gibberish. You claim "god" to be a fact. Do you expect:

1. People to just accept this unqualified assertion at face value (in which case you must afford the same treatment to my claim "leprechauns"); or

2. People to insist you justify the claim with some means of verification before they accept it?

If 2, what do you want the means to be?   

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

                                          Invitation

          You are invited to a party jointly celebrating TWO Hillside fuck ups

The suggestion that you can assert God is supernatural and have failed to have given a definition of God at the same time.



Making the equation “God and guess”.
Either there isn’t a methodology for a guess in which case not everything has a methodology, or there is. In which case. Since you are equating God with a guess God has a methodology for his establishment.

 RSVP

Raffle Proceeds go to the steeple restoration at St BERTRAND’S.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You can’t assert God is supernatural and have failed to have given a definition of God at the same time.

You’re very confused (or very dishonest): “God” and ‘supernatural” are your assertions, not mine remember? Your failure to define either is thus your problem, not mine. 

Let’s not fanny about the bush any longer.

You have made the equation “God and guess”.

Yes. Absent any means so far to verify the claim, how else could it be described?

Either there isn’t a methodology for a guess in which case not everything has a methodology, or there is. In which case. Since you are equating God with a guess God has a methodology for his establishment.

Was there even a thought of any kind in your head when you typed that car crash of a sentence? Guessing is what you have when you make claims of fact without a means to justify them. Call that a “methodology” if you like but it doesn’t change anything. 

So basically your argument here is done.

Yes, and you lost. Actually, to be fair you never turned up in the first place but the effect is the same.

So to conclude: you assert “god” to be a fact, but can propose no method to justify that belief.   

Thought so. Thanks for the guess though. Here’s mine: leprechauns. 

[Outrider]

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

Hence the challenge.

We know that understanding using the scientific method is relatively easy (is it in fact a skill?)

You say that, yet so many seem to fail so readily.

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.

Scientific definitions aren't necessarily easy to come up with, but they're easy to justify once they're there because the mechanism of science is well understood.  Blue doesn't have any obligation to come up with another definition or a system to justify it because it's not his claim.  It shouldn't be hard for you, you're making the claim 'god', so you just explain what basis you make that judgement upon: it's as easy science, apparently.

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

Then explain why it's wrong - giving it a name and then dismissing it doesn't work as an argument. What do you think actually exists that doesn't have measurable phenomena?  In what way can something without measurable phenomena actually be said to exist?

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.

I thought this science was supposed to be easy?  It's not even really a skill...  allegedly.

It's not that it can only exist if there's a method, it's that if it exists we have a method for investigating it.  You are suggesting something that only can that method not currently detect, but which you are also suggesting is possibly beyond the capacity of that method to investigate, yet you have no alternative method for investigating.  There may be other methods, I'm just not currently aware of them.

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.

It is.  How I respond is up to me, and I respond by asking how is your subjective experience definitively different from, say, a delusion or a dream?

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

Can't speak for everyone, but I didn't go out with a method.  I was me in public places, and someone with the exact right/wrong combination of personality traits to find that suitably comforting and engaging whilst being equally comforting and engaging to me happened to be in the same place at the same time.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can't speak for everyone, but I didn't go out with a method.  I was me in public places, and someone with the exact right/wrong combination of personality traits to find that suitably comforting and engaging whilst being equally comforting and engaging to me happened to be in the same place at the same time.

O.

So you put yourself out their into an environment where it was more likely to occur.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You’re still not getting it. At a conceptual level terms like “justice” are coherent, cogent, unambiguous, agreed. While there can be endless discussion and debate about what just or unjust outcome would be, the basic concept – ie, the process by which individuals or societies attempt to reach conclusions and to obtain practical measures that satisfy various principles or fairness and equality – is robust enough to be useful.

Now consider “god(s)” – even conceptually a god that is asserted to exist as an article of faith is a god about which literally anything can be said. “God is kind”, “God is cruel”, “God is a set of bagpipes”, it doesn’t matter. That is, “god” even as a concept is incoherent, non-cogent, ambiguous, not agreed. It has no workable use because it dissolves into nothingness as soon as you try to examine it.

That’s the Grand Canyon-sized difference between them.   

Sounds like you're special pleading to me. I get you don't find the concept of god coherent and that it's your perspective that the word dissolves into nothingness when you examine it. It does not dissolve into nothingness when others examine it therefore it is a useful term once people explain what they mean by it.

You're just repeating yourself. I disagree that justice is any more of a cogent, unambiguous or agreed concept than god. To try to give the word "justice" some meaning you try to describe it using words such as "fairness" and "equality" - again equally meaningless without explanation. Honour is another meaningless word until someone explains what it means to them based on their convictions. There are lots of similar examples of abstract concepts that anything could be said about. Your arguments about the incoherence of god as opposed to examples of other abstract concepts remain unconvincing to me, though I get that you and a few other people on this board think it is incoherent.

That people have the freedom to say what they like about the word "god" does not make the term meaningless. As with a lot of abstract concepts, how words are actually used seem more relevant to a discussion on the meaning of abstract concepts than how words potentially could be used because of freedom of thought.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Sounds like you're special pleading to me. I get you don't find the concept of god coherent and that it's your perspective that the word dissolves into nothingness when you examine it. It does not dissolve into nothingness when others examine it therefore it is a useful term once people explain what they mean by it. Honour is meaningless until someone explains what it means to them based on their convictions. There are lots of similar examples of abstract concepts that anything could be said about. Your arguments about the incoherence of god as opposed to examples of other abstract concepts remain unconvincing to me, though I get that you and a few other people on this board think it is incoherent.

That people have the freedom to say what they like about the word "god" does not make the term meaningless. As with a lot of abstract concepts, how words are actually used seem more relevant to a discussion on the meaning of abstract concepts than how words potentially could be used because of freedom of thought.

No special pleading at all. It’s not that I find “god” incoherent – it’s that is incoherent, necessarily so. Why? Because anyone can describe it in any way they like and be equally “right” even when the descriptions contradict each other. You can’t though do that with term like “justice” etc. 

It’s a simple enough difference I’d have thought: the meanings of some terms are agreed as concepts and are thereby workably useful (justice, cow, table, whatever) and some terms “mean” only whatever the any individual using them says they mean (eg “god”) as articles of personal faith.

Put it this way: you can say that eg justice means, “the process by which individuals or societies attempt to reach conclusions and to obtain practical measures that satisfy various principles or fairness and equality”. You can’t though say that it means “hating everyone”, “banana” or whatever else takes your fancy. Now compare that with “god” when you can say it means literally anything you like because that’s your “faith”.

Can you see the qualitative epistemic difference between the two?       

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

No special pleading at all. It’s not that I find “god” incoherent – it’s that is incoherent, necessarily so. Why? Because anyone can describe it in any way they like and be equally “right” even when the descriptions contradict each other. You can’t though do that with term like “justice” etc. 

It’s a simple enough difference I’d have thought: the meanings of some terms are agreed as concepts and are thereby workably useful (justice, cow, table, whatever) and some terms “mean” only whatever the any individual using them says they mean (eg “god”) as articles of personal faith.

Put it this way: you can say that eg justice means, “the process by which individuals or societies attempt to reach conclusions and to obtain practical measures that satisfy various principles or fairness and equality”. You can’t though say that it means “hating everyone”, “banana” or whatever else takes your fancy. Now compare that with “god” when you can say it means literally anything you like because that’s your “faith”.

Can you see the qualitative epistemic difference between the two?     

No because there is nothing stopping people describing "justice" as banana any more than anything prevents the meaning of god from being banana. Since there is no way to detect or measure justice....what is it you think that prevents anyone from saying it means "hating everyone" or "banana"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

No because there is nothing stopping people describing "justice" as banana any more than anything prevents the meaning of god from being banana.

Why are you not getting this? No-one’s saying the people aren’t free to say that by “justice” they mean “banana”. If we accept the latter as legitimate usage too though, then the term becomes meaningless, incoherent – it has no functional use in dialogue. Now compare that with “god”. Any meaning anyone attaches to that term is as legitimate as any other – they’re all faith claims after all, so they're epistemically indistinguishable from each other.

It’s like Fred saying, “by “justice I mean applying principles of equality”, Susan saying “by “justice” I mean banana”, Fred saying “by justice I mean Beethoven’s Fifth” etc ad infinitum and them all being equally “right”. Can you see the problem with that?           

Since there is no way to detect or measure justice....what is it you think that prevents anyone from saying it means "hating everyone" or "banana"?

You’ve elided the meaning conceptually with its practical application – I’ve made clear several times that the concept is fine because everyone knows what they mean by it and it’s the same meaning. Whether, say, the outcome of a court case actually is “just” is a different matter entirely. Same with morality. Same with aesthetics. Same with any human-made or derived set of judgements.     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Why are you not getting this? No-one’s saying the people aren’t free to say that by “justice” they mean “banana”. If we accept the latter as legitimate usage too though, then the term becomes meaningless, incoherent – it has no functional use in dialogue. Now compare that with “god”. Any meaning anyone attaches to that term is as legitimate as any other – they’re all faith claims after all, so they're epistemically indistinguishable from each other.

It’s like Fred saying, “by “justice I mean applying principles of equality”, Susan saying “by “justice” I mean banana”, Fred saying “by justice I mean Beethoven’s Fifth” etc ad infinitum and them all being equally “right”. Can you see the problem with that?           

You’ve elided the meaning conceptually with its practical application – I’ve made clear several times that the concept is fine because everyone knows what they mean by it and it’s the same meaning. Whether, say, the outcome of a court case actually is “just” is a different matter entirely. Same with morality. Same with aesthetics. Same with any human-made or derived set of judgements.   

The bit I am not getting is the meaning of justice is based on what is in common usage. The meaning of god is also based on what is in common usage. How are we arbitrating between all the different possible meanings of the word justice other than through common acceptable usage of the term? How are we arbitrating between all the different possible meanings of the word god other than through common acceptable usage of the term? Not seeing a difference between the 2.

[Outrider]

So you put yourself out their into an environment where it was more likely to occur.

Yes, but not with that intention - I wasn't looking for someone when I went where I met my wife, that happened in addition to my intended activity.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

The bit I am not getting is the meaning of justice is based on what is in common usage. The meaning of god is also based on what is in common usage. How are we arbitrating between all the different possible meanings of the word justice other than through common acceptable usage of the term? How are we arbitrating between all the different possible meanings of the word god other than through common acceptable usage of the term? Not seeing a difference between the 2.

It's simple: terms like “justice”, “cow”, “liberty” etc have generally accepted and codified senses such that they can be used in meaningful dialogue. If someone tried a conversation about justice but then said, “oh by way, when I say “justice “ I mean “ukulele”” the conversation would be impossible. It gets worse: imagine that six or 60 people wanted to have a conversation about justice, but each of them had a different meaning for that term. How should we “arbitrate” this? Simple, just look it up in one (or several) dictionaries and agree to have the dialogue accordingly. Now dictionaries of course merely describe rather than determine meanings and moreover meanings often change over time as new senses are adopted and removed. Nonetheless, there’s a practical way to resolve the issue of personal meanings so most terms can work usefully by consensus.

Now consider the term “god”. Our six or 60 people can each have different senses for that term and none of them are wrong (in effect, "justice" can also mean "ukulele", or anything else). There can be no arbitration when all claims of fact are also claims of faith. Any one claim is as in/valid as any other, no matter how different or contradictory. That’s why we have the no true Scotsman fallacy.       

How this actually plays out in practice by the way is as a sort of implicit assumption – that the definition part of “god” has been arrived at when it actually hasn’t. It’s a sort of unspoken contract: “OK, your claim “god” has collapsed immediately because there’s no way to know what it means but let’s both pretend and carry on as if that wasn’t the case”. The only real response to theism is ignosticism – “I have no idea what you’re talking about, and neither have you” – but think of the fun we’d miss if every conversation here just stopped at that point.           

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

It's simple: terms like “justice”, “cow”, “liberty” etc have generally accepted and codified senses such that they can be used in meaningful dialogue. If someone tried a conversation about justice but then said, “oh by way, when I say “justice “ I mean “ukulele”” the conversation would be impossible. It gets worse: imagine that six or 60 people wanted to have a conversation about justice, but each of them had an entirely different meaning for that term. How should we “arbitrate” this? Simple, just look it up in one (or several) dictionaries and agree to have the dialogue accordingly. Now dictionaries of course merely describe rather than determine meanings and moreover meanings often change over time as new senses are adopted and removed. Nonetheless, there’s a practical way to resolve the issue of personal meanings so most terms can work usefully by consensus.

Now consider the term “god”. Your six or sixty people can each have different senses for that term and none of them are wrong (in effect, "justice" can also mean "ukulele", or anything else at all). There can be no arbitration when all claims of fact are also claims of faith. Any one claim is as in/valid as any other, no matter how different or contradictory. That’s why we have the no true Scotsman fallacy.       

How this actually plays out in practice by the way is as a sort of implicit assumption – that the definition part of “god” has been arrived at when it really hasn’t. It’s a sort of unspoken contract: “OK, your claim “god” has collapsed immediately because there’s no way to know what it means but let’s both pretend and carry on as if that wasn’t the case”. The only real response to theism is ignosticism – “I have no idea what you’re talking about, and neither have you” – but think of the fun we’d miss if every conversation here just stopped at that point.         

You're just repeating your assertions. You have not been able to demonstrate that what you assert about gods cannot apply to justice. If god can mean ukulele so can justice. If justice can't mean ukulele neither can god. You haven't shown a mechanism that prevents that meaning in the case of justice but allows it in the case of god.

As an example, what does the statue of justice with her eyes blindfolded mean? If justice is blind can it be said to achieve fairness? That definition is meaningless unless you can define fairness. What does fairness mean? The word can have as many meanings as the word god.  Off the top of my head does it mean treating people exactly the same regardless of their background or circumstances? Is it treating people differently by taking into account their history and background - their family life, upbringing, education? Is it treating people differently by taking into account their current circumstances, mental health, physical disability? Is it affirmative action? How do you decided fairness when different protected characteristics intersect?

How this actually plays out in practice by the way is as a sort of implicit assumption – that the definition part of “fair” has been arrived at when it really hasn’t. It’s a sort of unspoken contract: “OK, your claim “fair” has collapsed immediately because there’s no way to know what it means but let’s both pretend and carry on as if that wasn’t the case”.  The only real response is – “I have no idea what you’re talking about, and neither have you” – but think of the fun we’d miss if every conversation here just stopped at that point.         

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, but not with that intention - I wasn't looking for someone when I went where I met my wife, that happened in addition to my intended activity.

O.

What I am trying to find out is, Does everything have a methodology and is it reasonable to ask for a methodology for absolutely everything. So here we are discussing a methodology for finding love.

So far, in this quest, we are only at the point where you have met your wife. Most people meet several other people. But they don’t find love with all of them. This reply therefore does not tell us anything so far about any methodology for finding love. Indeed you suggest it was an accidental by product of another goal. And that isn’t a method at all.

We are still far away from concluding that requesting a method for finding God is at all reasonable.
What is certain is that empirical methods do not appear to rule in or rule out God. Where the “therefore God does not exist” come in I don't know other than some circular argument.

[Outrider]

What I am trying to find out is, Does everything have a methodology and is it reasonable to ask for a methodology for absolutely everything. So here we are discussing a methodology for finding love.

Except that 'finding love' isn't the same - you aren't trying to establish if other people exist, you're trying to find one of them that's compatible.  That's like skipping the bit where you establish if there are gods and getting straight to deciding if you're going to be a Roman Catholic or a Shi'a Muslim.

O.

[Gordon]

What I am trying to find out is, Does everything have a methodology and is it reasonable to ask for a methodology for absolutely everything.

A methodology only applies where the method can be shown to be suited to what is being claimed and/or studied: for example, there are methods associated with chemical analysis that allow chemists to determine what the tablets were that were found in Fred's hand luggage when he went through customs, even if he claims they were just vitamins.

Moreover those methods have been developed incrementally from the earliest preceding theories and observations to get to a point where the conclusions are reliable and can be replicated via the method(s) that have been developed, and of course as knowledge is gained then previous knowledge is revised, or even shown to be wrong, and new methods, refinements to existing methods and new technology emerges: the so-called 'scientific method' is the obvious example.   

We are still far away from concluding that requesting a method for finding God is at all reasonable.
What is certain is that empirical methods do not appear to rule in or rule out God. Where the “therefore God does not exist” come in I don't know other than some circular argument.

Since, so far as I can see, 'God' isn't a scientific or empirical claim so I can't see a basis to even consider that there would be a suitable scientific or empirical method of investigating claims of 'God'. But that is your problem, the burden of proof being yours, and I suspect you are falling into the trap of thinking that when somebody says to you, by way of a challenge, "what alternative method would you use, Vlad, if you think science is inadequate", of just throwing the problem back at them to suggest one.

Have you considered that your claim 'God' isn't an empirical or scientific one, and nor is it a claim that is amenable to any known methodology that is comparable to the robustness of science because 'God' is solely a faith-based belief? That is my view, since I think the notion of 'God' is so incoherent and/or contradictory to the extent that there is nothing upon which a methodology could be developed - and faith alone does not require one anyway.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What I am trying to find out is, Does everything have a methodology and is it reasonable to ask for a methodology for absolutely everything. So here we are discussing a methodology for finding love.

So far, in this quest, we are only at the point where you have met your wife. Most people meet several other people. But they don’t find love with all of them. This reply therefore does not tell us anything so far about any methodology for finding love. Indeed you suggest it was an accidental by product of another goal. And that isn’t a method at all.

We are still far away from concluding that requesting a method for finding God is at all reasonable.
What is certain is that empirical methods do not appear to rule in or rule out God. Where the “therefore God does not exist” come in I don't know other than some circular argument.

Most of the atheists on this board as far as I can tell do not make the positive claim that God does not exist. From the dictionary it seems the word "exist" is used in the English language only to refer to what can be objectively and repeatedly measured / detected by the tools of science because it is made up of matter / atoms / energy that could conceivably be tested/ detected. Theists on here are claiming that God cannot be detected by the tools of science, so based on the dictionary definition I am not sure how theists can make the positive claim that gods "exist". We just get caught up in the technicalities of justifying a claim we can't justify because there is no methodology to justify "exist" when it comes to gods.

I personally would therefore limit myself to putting forward my concept or opinion on what God is and why I follow Islam based on my subjective values, ethics, morals, beliefs all of which are based on emotional responses to a combination of reasoning, thoughts, personality, perceptions and experiences. I would also list the benefits I have experienced and if people find that resonates with them, they too may decide to look into Islam further, try it out at some point in the future if they are presented with the opportunity or they may not.

You could argue that theists can't know that in the future there will never be a technological development that could detect the substance of God, whatever that may be. But even if a new substance could be detected there is no method to link it to the various definitions of gods that theists believe in. How do you bridge that gap between the substance itself and the abstract concepts? It would be like trying to detect fairness, as an substance that exists, and then trying to link it to all the different definitions of "fair". 

And for some people the claims of theists about gods are so contradictory and illogical that from a logic basis it would be impossible to devise a method to test illogical concepts.

So to sum up atheists on here usually say no theist has provided any reason for them to take the claim of gods seriously rather than making the positive claim that god does not exist. And if theists assert that gods exist, there is no requirement to take that assertion seriously as there is no method to test whether gods exist.

Regarding the contradictory nature of the claims theists make about gods - it would be a bit like a Muslim pointing a gun at Christians and saying God loves you and His message to humanity is that it is ok to kill you if you are so ungrateful as to not love Him back by obeying his laws and by converting to Islam. It's kind of contradictory with the definition of love that is in common usage so you don't take the Muslim or his contradictory claims seriously - you probably think the Muslim is a bit psychotic. So I think that the atheists on this board have the same problem with the claims that Christian theists put forward on these boards - there are too many internal contradictions about god's attributes in the stories to take it seriously.

I have probably missed a bit. But that sums up my understanding of the key parts of the atheist position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that 'finding love' isn't the same - you aren't trying to establish if other people exist, you're trying to find one of them that's compatible.  That's like skipping the bit where you establish if there are gods and getting straight to deciding if you're going to be a Roman Catholic or a Shi'a Muslim.

O.

I’m trying to find out if there is a methodology for finding love at the moment. If there isn’t one then I wonder if it is then reasonable to expect a method for finding God. If it turns out that
 Finding love has a method then I may have a steer on EXPLAINING the method for finding God and it gives Hillside and company more justification in  expecting a method from me.

At the moment  there are two camps fmpov. Those asking for a non scientific method but not willing to define what they mean and those like yourself who are prepared to discuss it.

Concerning love, so far you have only reached how you found another human being  not how you found love with or in that human being. So we haven’t reached love here at all let alone found the method for finding love.

Here’s a question. Can you find love without knowing or using a method?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A methodology only applies where the method can be shown to be suited to what is being claimed and/or studied: for example, there are methods associated with chemical analysis that allow chemists to determine what the tablets were that were found in Fred's hand luggage when he went through customs, even if he claims they were just vitamins.

Moreover those methods have been developed incrementally from the earliest preceding theories and observations to get to a point where the conclusions are reliable and can be replicated via the method(s) that have been developed, and of course as knowledge is gained then previous knowledge is revised, or even shown to be wrong, and new methods, refinements to existing methods and new technology emerges: the so-called 'scientific method' is the obvious example.   

Since, so far as I can see, 'God' isn't a scientific or empirical claim so I can't see a basis to even consider that there would be a suitable scientific or empirical method of investigating claims of 'God'. But that is your problem, the burden of proof being yours, and I suspect you are falling into the trap of thinking that when somebody says to you, by way of a challenge, "what alternative method would you use, Vlad, if you think science is inadequate", of just throwing the problem back at them to suggest one.

Have you considered that your claim 'God' isn't an empirical or scientific one, and nor is it a claim that is amenable to any known methodology that is comparable to the robustness of science because 'God' is solely a faith-based belief? That is my view, since I think the notion of 'God' is so incoherent and/or contradictory to the extent that there is nothing upon which a methodology could be developed - and faith alone does not require one anyway.   

Well thank you for being so charitable towards me. There are just one or two issues with your post.

1: Is asking for a non scientific methodology even sensible.
2: I am not throwing it back at them. I am just asking them to define terms. What do they think they mean by a non scientific methodology? What are they expecting? Hell I don’t Even know what a non scientific natural method is or applies to if it’s not the same as science. Of course I can and am proceeding to see if there is an alternative method including whether there has to be one on the principle that it isn’t any method that gives rise to existence.

[Outrider]

I’m trying to find out if there is a methodology for finding love at the moment. If there isn’t one then I wonder if it is then reasonable to expect a method for finding God.

You're making a false equivalence here between an emotion and whatever the hell you might classify a god as.  One is a pattern of behaviour, the other is purportedly a complex non-physical intelligence of some sort - that there is a defined method for, say, finding the temperature of a body of liquid tells us nothing about whether there might be a method to 'find' love, and equally neither of those will give you anything reliable about whether there is a 'method' to find a god.

Not only that, but your suggestion is that love is a single, unique thing and not, say, something different for everyone - even if I had a 'method' for finding love, it's possibly not even viable to extrapolate that to other people finding love, let alone trying to co-opt it to try to justify the claim of gods.

O.

[Stranger]

1: Is asking for a non scientific methodology even sensible.
2: I am not throwing it back at them. I am just asking them to define terms. What do they think they mean by a non scientific methodology? What are they expecting? Hell I don’t Even know what a non scientific natural method is or applies to if it’s not the same as science. Of course I can and am proceeding to see if there is an alternative method including whether there has to be one on the principle that it isn’t any method that gives rise to existence.

I can't believe you're still struggling so much. These are your problems, not anybody else's. You claim your god is an objective reality (true for everybody), I say, how do you know, it just looks like a blind guess (no better than leprechauns), and you say.......what exactly?

It's your job to tell us why your proposal should be taken seriously, i.e. why it is better than (how we might distinguish it from) a blind guess.