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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

If you are ok with asking potentially stupid questions that’s fine by me.
I haven’t said that I don’t have burden of proof here have I, I’m working on it.
If you don’t want to define terms that is i’m Afraid your problem.
If you want to be siwwy sickle bubbas and not define your terms I can always find other sources of more worthwhile and intelligent help e.g a cooperative amoeba.

[Stranger]

If you are ok with asking potentially stupid questions that’s fine by me.

If you want to carry on with your transparent evasion, that's fine by me.

If you don’t want to define terms that is i’m Afraid your problem.

It's still entirely your job to tell us why your proposal is better than a guess. I haven't specified (and have no intention of doing so) how you go about that, because it's entirely up to you.

[Gordon]

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.

It is a reasonable question that can be asked of anyone who claims that 'x' exists independently of their personal convictions. Whether 'x' is suited to a non-scientific methodology is for the person making the claim to conclude, and if they can't conclude that there is suitably specific methodology available then perhaps they need to reconsider how they formulate their claim.

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?

I suspect that they don't know, and where it is recognised that the scientific method can't apply to supernatural claims that involve the likes of 'God' empirically existing they are simply asking those who support that claim what alternative methods they would use as an alternative to science that would show that 'God' does indeed exist. 

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.

Then maybe you should back away from 'God' existing as being an empirical claim that is true for everyone and, instead, present your belief as being solely a personal faith-based position for which no methodology is required.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you want to carry on with your transparent evasion, that's fine by me.

It's still entirely your job to tell us why your proposal is better than a guess. I haven't specified (and have no intention of doing so) how you go about that, because it's entirely up to you.

Again, Does one need a method for coming up with a guess ?
Again, What do you mean by a guess. I say this because the little we can glean from the Hillside teams use of the word guess is suspect.

[Stranger]

Again, Does one need a method for coming up with a guess ?
Again, What do you mean by a guess. I say this because the little we can glean from the Hillside teams use of the word guess is suspect.

All irrelevant. It's entirely your job to make your case, in whatever way you see fit. If you don't know what the word 'guess' means, then find a dictionary site.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

You're just repeating your assertions. You have not been able to demonstrate that what you assert about gods cannot apply to justice….

You’re better than that (or at least you ought to be). I’ve given you explanations, not assertions – that is, I’ve told you why “justice” etc are in a different category to “god(s)”.

Once again: “justice”, “table” etc have meanings agreed by consensus independent of the personal “faith” beliefs of anyone who wants to use these terms. “God(s)” on the other hand means whatever the person attempting the term wants it to mean. There’s a categorically epistemological difference between the two. (And again by the way you’ve conflated what “just”, “fair” etc would mean in practice with the concepts “justice”, “fairness” etc.)

You can engage with the argument or not as you wish, but the rest of your post falls away accordingly.         

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Again, Does one need a method for coming up with a guess ?
Again, What do you mean by a guess. I say this because the little we can glean from the Hillside teams use of the word guess is suspect.

Presumably he means this when he describes it as a guess. From the dictionary:

estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.

to give an answer to a particular question when you do not have all the facts and so cannot be certain if you are correct
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/guess

b. To assume, presume, or assert (a fact) without sufficient information.
3. To suppose; think: I guess he was wrong.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/guess

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is a reasonable question that can be asked of anyone who claims that 'x' exists independently of their personal convictions.

because...........?

Whether 'x' is suited to a non-scientific methodology

Like what? What is a non scientific methodology

is for the person making the claim to conclude, and if they can't conclude that there is suitably specific methodology available then perhaps they need to reconsider how they formulate their claim.

Sounds fair but I’m not sure if I know what you mean.

I suspect that they don't know, and where it is recognised that the scientific method can't apply to supernatural claims that involve the likes of 'God' empirically existing they are simply asking those who support that claim what alternative methods they would use as an alternative to science that would show that 'God' does indeed exist. 

Then maybe you should back away from 'God' existing as being an empirical claim that is true for everyone and, instead, present your belief as being solely a personal faith-based position for which no methodology is required.

I am not claiming God as an empirical anything. I don’t think the explanation for the universe to be subject to empirical means.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

You’re better than that (or at least you ought to be). I’ve given you explanations, not assertions – that is, I’ve told you why “justice” etc are in a different category to “god(s)”.

Once again: “justice”, “table” etc have meanings agreed by consensus independent of the personal “faith” beliefs of anyone who wants to use these terms. “God(s)” on the other hand means whatever the person attempting the term wants it to mean. There’s a categorically epistemological difference between the two. (And again by the way you’ve conflated what “just”, “fair” etc would mean in practice with the concepts “justice”, “fairness” etc.)

You can engage with the argument or not as you wish, but the rest of your post falls away accordingly.       

No, you 've asserted why you think justice and gods are different categories based on special pleading. And I've explained why justice and gods both have meanings based on common usage, because that's how it works in real life. You still have not found a way to demonstrate the mechanism that allows gods to mean ukulele but justice to not mean ukulele.

Evasion noted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Again, Does one need a method for coming up with a guess ?
Again, What do you mean by a guess. I say this because the little we can glean from the Hillside teams use of the word guess is suspect.

Yet again, a guess is a claim of fact without a means to justify it. Whether you call that a "methodology" is irrelevant.

Oh, and the other dishonest stunt you're trying is conflating a known phenomenon (love) with a speculation ("god"). How we fall in love is not analogous with your failure to demonstrate that the potential object of that love exists in the first place. Not that you care, but that's called the fallacy of begging the question.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All irrelevant. It's entirely your job to make your case, in whatever way you see fit. If you don't know what the word 'guess' means, then find a dictionary site.

I can do that. But it isn’t going to affect how suspect your use of the word is, is it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

No, you 've asserted why you think justice and gods are different categories based on special pleading. And I've explained why justice and gods both have meanings based on common usage, because that's how it works in real life. You still have not found a way to demonstrate the mechanism that allows gods to mean ukulele but justice to not mean ukulele.

Evasion noted.

As you seem to be unable to distinguish between a "what" statement (assertion) and a "why" statement (explanation) I'm not sure I can help you further. If you cannot distinguish between words that can be used either correctly or incorrectly (eg "justice") and words for which there are no correct or incorrect meanings (eg "god") the argument will remain lost on you, so any evasion there may be is yours.     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

“Whatever ‘in love’ means,” as Prince Charles famously responded to the reporter who said to Charles and Diana on their engagement “You both look very much in love.”

ie whether you are in love or not is open to your own interpretation - no one can establish it as fact.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yet again, a guess is a claim of fact without a means to justify it. Whether you call that a "methodology" is irrelevant.

Oh, and the other dishonest stunt you're trying is conflating a known phenomenon (love) with a speculation ("god"). How we fall in love is not analogous with your failure to demonstrate that the potential object of that love exists on the first place. Not that you care, but that's called the fallacy of begging the question.   

Finding if there is or isn’t a method for finding, love, justice, guess is vitally important to the question of whether your demand for a method for anything and everything is more valid than a demand thatI Etsy ettyperkowpting. Does everything even need a method. Can I find love and not realise, be able to relate even though I don’t know the method? If so then not everything needs understanding of a method and as we all know. Knowing a method doesn’t bring something into existence.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

As you seem to be unable to distinguish between a "what" statement (assertion) and a "why" statement (explanation) I'm not sure I can help you further. If you cannot distinguish between words that can be used either correctly or incorrectly (eg "justice") and words for which there are no correct or incorrect meanings (eg "god") the argument will remain lost on you, so any evasion there may be is yours.     

The meanings of both justice and gods are based on common usage. It's your assertion that gods means something other than what is derived from common usage e.g. ukulele or any other word you want to suggest. You have asserted a distinction.

Your claim, it's up to you to demonstrate it if you want it taken seriously. Just repeating your assertion over and over again isn't working.

[Gordon]

because...........?

They are making a claim that 'x' exists, so asking by what methods they know this to be the case is a reasonable question - since if there is such a method then the claim can be substantiated independently of the views of the claimant.

Like what? What is a non scientific methodology

No idea: I'm not making a non-scientific/non-empirical claim, so a method suited to non-scientific/non-empirical claims isn't an issue I need address. Ask someone who is making non-scientific/non-empirical claims what method(s) they suggest would be effective.

Sounds fair but I’m not sure if I know what you mean.I am not claiming God as an empirical anything. I don’t think the explanation for the universe to be subject to empirical means.

Then you needn't concern yourself with method(s) since you'd have adopted a faith-based position - all you need do is avoid straying into arguments where you make, or imply, that 'God' is an empirical phenomenon since if you do you can be expected to be asked to show by what method(s) you've established this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yet again, a guess is a claim of fact without a means to justify it. Whether you call that a "methodology" is irrelevant.

Oh, and the other dishonest stunt you're trying is conflating a known phenomenon (love) with a speculation ("god"). How we fall in love is not analogous with your failure to demonstrate that the potential object of that love exists in the first place. Not that you care, but that's called the fallacy of begging the question.   

I’m not conflating them I want to know if there is a method for finding love. If there isn’t then that means that not everything has a method and it is unreasonable to expect a method for everything and anything. If there is a method but it can’t be expressed too well then it is unreasonable to expect the full monty for everything and anything. So you are wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea: I'm not making a non-scientific/non-empirical claim, so a method suited to non-scientific/non-empirical claims isn't an issue I need address.

Yes it is because you are the one expecting something and yet by your own admission have no clue what it could be.

[Gordon]

Yes it is because you are the one expecting something and yet by your own admission have no clue what it could be.

That is because the burden of proof is yours: if you have a method that is suited to non-scientific/non-empirical claims then I have no idea what this might involve but I await, with bated-breath, your clarification of the details.

Once you have produced the goods then we can all critique what you are proposing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is because the burden of proof is yours: if you have a method that is suited to non-scientific/non-empirical claims then I have no idea what this might involve but I await, with bated-breath, your clarification of the details.

Once you have produced the goods then we can all critique what you are proposing.

That’s a bit too optimitistic from somebody who admits he has no idea about what it is he has asked me to do. I don’t even know what it is i’m Supposed to be looking for although I’m doing better than ‘No idea’. This whole situation has an eery familiarity to it. Gordon, were you ever a really senior manager in a public service at any time?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I’m not conflating them I want to know if there is a method for finding love.

Why? It has no relevance to justifying your claim “god”, so it’s irrelevant.

If there isn’t then that means that not everything has a method and it is unreasonable to expect a method for everything and anything.

Fuck me but you struggle. Whether there’s a method to explain a known response to something (eg love) has no relevance whatever to demonstrating a speculation about a something existing at all (eg “god”). What you’re being asked for is some method to establish first that your claim of fact “god” is a fact at all. How you’d fall in love with it, have a relationship with it etc once it’s been demonstrated is a second order matter.

Do you remember your various car crash efforts to discount the leprechauns analogy? Here’s another example of why it works: "“not everything has a method and it is unreasonable to expect a method for everything and anything”, therefore leprechauns."

Can you see anything wrong with that?

If there is a method but it can’t be expressed too well then it is unreasonable to expect the full monty for everything and anything. So you are wrong.

No, you are. You can’t just deflect to issues with explaining the working of a process (like falling in love) when the question is actually about the objective existence of something in the first place.

You’re desperately confused here.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes it is because you are the one expecting something and yet by your own admission have no clue what it could be.

I think it's more a case of they won't take a claim of god existing seriously because no method has been offered to verify the claim. If you offer an alternative method then they can examine it. If you don't offer an alternative method then that's fine too as it means there is no reason to take seriously the claim of god existing.

In the case of love, no one who thinks they are experiencing love needs to prove empirically to someone else that love exists or is the correct description for what they are feeling. People just take your word for it because "love" means different things to different people and because no one really cares whether you think you are in love or not as it's none of their business.

There is a common usage meaning but there are so many variations of meaning - some people claim they fell in love instantly or multiple times and other people claim that falling in love happens over time once you really get to know someone and anything else should be called infatuation and not love.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

The meanings of both justice and gods are based on common usage. It's your assertion that gods means something other than what is derived from common usage e.g. ukulele or any other word you want to suggest. You have asserted a distinction.

Your claim, it's up to you to demonstrate it if you want it taken seriously. Just repeating your assertion over and over again isn't working.

All I can suggest is that you try reading what I’ve actually said until it sinks in. If it does, engage with it; if it doesn’t, don’t.

This is the simplest I can put it: we can arbitrate the meaning of terms like “justice” because everyone’s opinion about that is NOT equally valid; we cannot arbitrate the meaning of terms like “god” because everyone’s opinion about that IS equally valid. QED     
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
[

Why? It has no relevance to justifying your claim “god”, so it’s irrelevant.

Fuck me but you struggle. Whether there’s a method to explain a known response to something (eg love) has no relevance whatever to demonstrating a speculation about a something existing at all (eg “god”). What you’re being asked for is some method to establish first that your claim of fact “god” is a fact at all. How you’d fall in love with it, have a relationship with it etc once it’s been demonstrated is a second order matter.

Do you remember your various car crash efforts to discount the leprechauns analogy? Here’s another example of why it works: "“not everything has a method and it is unreasonable to expect a method for everything and anything”, therefore leprechauns."

Can you see anything wrong with that?

No, you are. You can’t just deflect to issues with explaining the working of a process (like falling in love) when the question is actually about the objective existence of something in the first place.

You’re desperately confused here.

The God leprechaun analogy is bad because analogising what is observable with what is not is bad analogy. And how do we know that what is observable shouldn’t be analogised with what is not? Why according to that Grand old son of Dixie sippin’ his mint julep  among the cotton field of Essex, ah refer to none other than Mr B Lou Hillside said as much.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think it's more a case of they won't take a claim of god existing seriously because no method has been offered to verify the claim. If you offer an alternative method then they can examine it. If you don't offer an alternative method then that's fine too as it means there is no reason to take seriously the claim of god existing.
 

I get all that I just want them to give me some idea of what an alternative method means to them since they are going to be judging its merits. If as one chappy has admitted he hasn’t an idea, then how are they possibly competent. It’s rather like Henry the Eighth and his court sending me of to find a Kangaroo. They don’t know what one is and neither do I.
 He