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

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

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     
 

And all I can suggest is that if you want your claim to be taken seriously, you demonstrate in what way everyone's opinion about the meaning of the word justice is not equally valid; and demonstrate in what way everyone's opinion about the meaning of the word god is equally valid.

For example, some evidence that someone has claimed god means ukulele or some other meaning of your choice and in what way it has been accepted as valid that would not happen if someone claimed a meaning for the word justice.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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.

Why are you flat out categorically lying about this again when I’ve explained to you over and over why it’s wrong? Can you simply not process a simple explanation? Can you not read? Are you so lost in pathological dishonesty that you just have no option but to lie? What?

Yet again: your belief “god” entails an entity that’s supernatural, but that has also manifested from time-to-time in person – as a burning bush, as a pilar of light, as a whisper, as an angel, as his own son FFS.

My belief is that “leprechauns” are also supernatural entities, but that also have manifested from time-to-time in person – as small green Irishmen etc.     

Thus these two faith beliefs are ANALOGOUS. Moreover, if you think leprechauns must have been detectable when in material form, THEN YOUR GOD MUST HAVE BEEN TOO.

Now stop fucking lying about this will you. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why are you flat out categorically lying about this again when I’ve explained to you over and over why it’s wrong? Can you simply not process a simple explanation? Can you not read? Are you so lost in pathological dishonesty that you just have no option but to lie? What?

Yet again: your belief “god” entails an entity that’s supernatural, but that has also manifested from time-to-time in person – as a burning bush, as a pilar of light, as a whisper, as an angel, as his own son FFS.

My belief is that “leprechauns” are also supernatural entities, but that also have manifested from time-to-time in person – as small green Irishmen etc.     

Which unfortunately makes them observeable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

And all I can suggest is that if you want your claim to be taken seriously, you demonstrate in what way everyone's opinion about the meaning of the word justice is not equally valid; and demonstrate in what way everyone's opinion about the meaning of the word god is equally valid.

For example, some evidence that someone has claimed god means ukulele or some other meaning of your choice and in what way it has been accepted as valid that would not happen if someone claimed a meaning for the word justice.   

Ah well – I tried.

I suggest you ask, say, a Fred Phelps what he thinks “god” means. Then ask a Justin Welby what he thinks it means. Now tell me who’s right and who’s wrong (and why) given that both are faith claims.   

Now ask what two different people think “justice”, “table” etc mean and I’ll tell you which one’s right and which wrong, and why.

QED 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Which unfortunately makes them observeable.

BOTH of them, yes. That's why they're analogous.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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

If no alternative method can be suggested by you or them then the only available method currently for establishing existence objectively is science. And they are happy with using that as the basis of establishing existence until some other method is presented for examination.

Anything that can't be established by science is in the don't know category. In this category it doesn't matter to people whether someone else believes in gods existing or feels love as neither beliefs nor feelings of love can be defined or established empirically. It's probably like knowing that someone's favourite colour is blue - it doesn't really affect you too much if their favourite colour is blue or red or if Fred believes himself to be in love or if Fred believes gods exist.

However, believing oneself in love and belief in gods seem to provide some benefits for some/many regardless of the disagreements over meanings. So that may explain why the words have entered into common usage and we act as if we understand what they mean and have discussions about them.

[Gordon]

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’.

As I've said, for me 'God' is supernatural claim that is incoherent, illogical and involves contradictions and I've no idea what method(s) might be suited to incoherent, illogical and contradictory claims - you need to ask someone who claims 'God' exists in an empirical sense, such as yourself, but so far all you've done is evade and attempt to shift the burden of proof.

This whole situation has an eery familiarity to it. Gordon, were you ever a really senior manager in a public service at any time?

Indeed I was, but what has that to do with methods to investigate supernatural claims that are incoherent, illogical and contradictory?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

BOTH of them, yes. That's why they're analogous.

Sure and begorrah, God was incarnated as Jesus for terty tree years during which time he was boat man and God. Rafferty oh flaherty is just a wee Irishman who it is said can make hisself invisible.
Now when you look at Jesus what is it yer empirically seeing?Is the second person of the Trinity or the man?

Now take Allah and compare rafferty O flaherty. The observable and the non observable.
Look at Jesus, you have the observable man and the unobservable Divine.
Look at raffert O Flanerty. If you are seeing him, give your GP a call.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I've said, for me 'God' is supernatural claim that is incoherent, illogical and involves contradictions

And those are?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sure and begorrah, God was incarnated as Jesus for terty tree years during which time he was boat man and God. Rafferty oh flaherty is just a wee Irishman who it is said can make hisself invisible.
Now when you look at Jesus what is it yer empirically seeing?Is the second person of the Trinity or the man?

Now take Allah and compare rafferty O flaherty. The observable and the non observable.
Look at Jesus, you have the observable man and the unobservable Divine.
Look at raffert O Flanerty. If you are seeing him, give your GP a call.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

God = immaterial but material when he wants to be, during which he should be detectable.

Leprechauns = immaterial but material when they want to be, during which they should be detectable.

That’s called an ANALOGY.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Ah well – I tried.

I suggest you ask, say, a Fred Phelps what he thinks “god” means. Then ask a Justin Welby what he thinks it means. Now tell me who’s right and who’s wrong (and why) given that both are faith claims.   

Now ask what two different people think “justice”, “table” etc mean and I’ll tell you which one’s right and which wrong, and why.

QED

Ah well - I tried too,

Regarding the word justice - ok see below for a couple of opinions on the meaning of the word justice from Welby and from Terry Pratchett. Feel free to give me your opinion on who is right and who is wrong - not that your 3rd opinion means anything more than the other 2. 

I think you used the word "fair" when you were trying to explain the meaning of justice, but were unable to explain what "fair" means. So that leaves me where exactly?

Regarding Fred Phelps and Justin Welby meanings of the word "God", Phelps is dead so I can't ask him but having looked up some of his statements and activities on the internet, he seems to see God as some sort of supreme power that judges humans. This is based on some of the placards he and his supporters were carrying when they were given permission by local law enforcement to picket peacefully 1000 feet from a church holding a soldier's funeral.

‘You’re Going to Hell’, ‘God Hates Fags’, ‘God Hates You’, ‘God Hates the USA’

Welby has also said "In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is recorded as giving one of the greatest challenges possible to his disciples just before his arrest and crucifixion when he describes the judgment of God at the end of time.

In that passage he explicitly says that judgment is linked to justice, namely, in the way in which we treat those who are most vulnerable and weakest."

https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/speaking-and-writing/speeches/archbishop-canterburys-remarks-launch-ippr-economic-justice

Seems like I can understand what Welby and Phelps mean when they use the word God, there are similarities in their usage.

Welby said justice meant the way in which we treat those who are most vulnerable and weakest. Terry Pratchett says in this conversation between Death and Susan (Death's words are in capitals for those not familiar with Pratchett):

All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

[Gordon]

And those are?

Examples from comments made in this wee forum.

God existed before time, and is somehow outside the physical universe.

God was killed but didn't stay dead, walked on water etc.

God loves everyone but children still die of bone cancer.

Anyway, are you going to outline a method of investigation that is an alternative to science - or not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What the fuck is wrong with you?

God = immaterial but material when he wants to be, during which he should be detectable.

Leprechauns = immaterial but material when they want to be, during which they should be detectable.

That’s called an ANALOGY.

The divine is never empirical. When Jesus walked All saw the man, some detected the divine.
Leprechauns, well, they should be observable at the end of rainbows in Ireland. They remain unverified.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The divine is never empirical. When Jesus walked All saw the man, some detected the divine.
Leprechauns, well, they should be observable at the end of rainbows in Ireland. They remain unverified.

“The divine” would be “empirical” when it decided to be a burning bush, a pilar of light etc. How else would someone have detected that such material phenomena had occurred?

You know, just like my non-material leprechauns were when they chose to be material. 

The appearances of both “remain unverified”. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah well - I tried too,

Regarding the word justice - ok see below for a couple of opinions on the meaning of the word justice from Welby and from Terry Pratchett. Feel free to give me your opinion on who is right and who is wrong - not that your 3rd opinion means anything more than the other 2. 

I think you used the word "fair" when you were trying to explain the meaning of justice, but were unable to explain what "fair" means. So that leaves me where exactly?

Regarding Fred Phelps and Justin Welby meanings of the word "God", Phelps is dead so I can't ask him but having looked up some of his statements and activities on the internet, he seems to see God as some sort of supreme power that judges humans. This is based on some of the placards he and his supporters were carrying when they were given permission by local law enforcement to picket peacefully 1000 feet from a church holding a soldier's funeral.

‘You’re Going to Hell’, ‘God Hates Fags’, ‘God Hates You’, ‘God Hates the USA’

Welby has also said "In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is recorded as giving one of the greatest challenges possible to his disciples just before his arrest and crucifixion when he describes the judgment of God at the end of time.

In that passage he explicitly says that judgment is linked to justice, namely, in the way in which we treat those who are most vulnerable and weakest."

https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/speaking-and-writing/speeches/archbishop-canterburys-remarks-launch-ippr-economic-justice

Seems like I can understand what Welby and Phelps mean when they use the word God, there are similarities in their usage.

Welby said justice meant the way in which we treat those who are most vulnerable and weakest. Terry Pratchett says in this conversation between Death and Susan (Death's words are in capitals for those not familiar with Pratchett):

All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

I may have missed it but have you been asked for a method for finding God yet?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

“The divine” would be “empirical” when it decided to be a burning bush, a pilar of light etc. How else would someone have detected that such material phenomena had occurred?

You know, just like my non-material leprechauns were when they chose to be material. 

The appearances of both “remain unverified”.

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the father, has made him known.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I may have missed it but have you been asked for a method for finding God yet?

No she hasn’t, and nor have you.

What you’ve actually been asked for is your method to show first that that there's a “god” to be found. You know, the question you keep running away from.

Be nice if you stopped lying about that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the father, has made him known.

If you believe scripture to be true, yes they have - frequently so. "He' manifested in various forms apparently - as a a burning bush, as a pillar of light etc - just as leprechauns have manifested in various material forms too. As someone who claims to be a Christian, you should know this already.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No she hasn’t, and nor have you.

What you’ve actually been asked for is your method to show first that that there's a “god” to be found. You know, the question you keep running away from.

OK have you asked her to provide a method to first show there’s a God?

Surely God has to exist before we show that he, Er,exists. In which case I can’t see how finding God can be irrelevant for what you want to achieve.

Whatever the method of showing or finding God The God Leprechaun Analogy, whether you’ve bet the house on it isn’t a Good place to start.  Even atheists would tell you that. The trouble is in terms of intellectual atheists this forum is. A bit light on them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If you believe scripture to be true, yes they have - frequently so. "He' manifested in various forms apparently - as a a burning bush, as a pillar of light etc - just as leprechauns have manifested in various material forms too. As someone who claims to be a Christian, you should know this already.

Really how have Leprechauns manifested as things other than Leprechauns. What material form other than the form of a Leprechaun do they have?

Let’s face it Hillside you haven’t got Leprechauns in your life at all. You are a bogus Leprechanist. A prosperity leprechaunist. Your muttering of vaguely sounding Irish words is just snake oil. You are destined for the pit of banshees.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

OK have you asked her to provide a method to first show there’s a God?

Gabriella isn’t the one asserting “god” as a fact while offering no means to justify that claim – you are remember?

Surely God has to exist before we show that he, Er,exists. In which case I can’t see how finding God can be irrelevant for what you want to achieve.

Even for you that’s epically stupid. You’re being asked to propose a method to justify your assertion of fact “god”. If you can’t do that (and it seems you can’t) there’s no reason to take that claim any more seriously than my claim of fact “leprechauns”.   

Whatever the method of showing or finding God The God Leprechaun Analogy, whether you’ve bet the house on it isn’t a Good place to start.  Even atheists would tell you that. The trouble is in terms of intellectual atheists this forum is. A bit light on them.

More pigeon chess? Oh well. You’ve been told many times why you’re wrong about that. If you lack the wit or the honesty to address that, that’s just another of your problems. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your stupidity/dishonesty is out of control now…

Really how have Leprechauns manifested as things other than Leprechauns. What material form other than the form of a Leprechaun do they have?

So now you’re shifting ground from “god wasn’t material” to ‘god was material in more ways than leprechauns were”. Either way though, it’s irrelevant. The number of different forms your god and my leprechauns have chosen to appear in when not being non-material has no significance at all to the analogy.   

Let’s face it Hillside you haven’t got Leprechauns in your life at all. You are a bogus Leprechanist. A prosperity leprechaunist. Your muttering of vaguely sounding Irish words is just snake oil. You are destined for the pit of banshees.

Could you have more clearly demonstrated your dimwitted, dishonest and incoherent failure to grasp the point of the analogy? I find it hard to see how. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Gabriella isn’t the one asserting “god” as a fact while offering no means to justify that claim – you are remember?

Even for you that’s epically stupid. You’re being asked to propose a method to justify your assertion of fact “god”. If you can’t do that (and it seems you can’t) there’s no reason to take that claim any more seriously than my claim of fact “leprechauns”.   

More pigeon chess? Oh well. You’ve been told many times why you’re wrong about that. If you lack the wit or the honesty to address that, that’s just another of your problems.

Gabriella is a Moslem. I’m afraid I find it rather strange that you haven’t asked her the same questions. Rather strange? No, really odd. I’m sure as a Moslem she thinks God exists.

The big question mark is your different reaction to Gabriella’s confession and mine.

Your claim about Leprechauns isn’t a serious proposition because you aren’t a serious proposition.
A died in the wool scientistical physicalist who is so disciplined so dogmatic that not only has he cut out any alternative thinking he can skilfully cut alternatives out of. The conversation. Not clever enough not to be tempted to answer on behalf of others though. Greatly skilled habit if i’m Correct you have been prepared to practice your turdpolishing skills at large.

Still your patently different attitude toward two world faiths is probably an interesting avenue to stick around for.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Gabriella is a Moslem. I’m afraid I find it rather strange that you haven’t asked her the same questions. Rather strange? No, really odd. I’m sure as a Moslem she thinks God exists.

Irrelevant, but in any case Gabriella does not assert her god to be an objective fact for everyone. You do.

The big question mark is your different reaction to Gabriella’s confession and mine.

No it isn’t.

Your claim about Leprechauns isn’t a serious proposition because you aren’t a serious proposition.

It’s the analogy that’s the serious proposition, not the leprechauns. Even you should be able to grasp this by now. 
 

A died in the wool scientistical physicalist who is so disciplined so dogmatic that not only has he cut out any alternative thinking he can skilfully cut alternatives out of.

You're spitting the dummy now. Perhaps they could. Have you ever met or engaged with one such to find out? I haven’t, so it has no relevance here.

The conversation. Not clever enough not to be tempted to answer on behalf of others though. Greatly skilled habit if i’m Correct you have been prepared to practice your turdpolishing skills at large.

Have you dropped a bag of Scrabble letters and decided to copy and paste here? This is just incomprehensible. 

Still your patently different attitude toward two world faiths is probably an interesting avenue to stick around for.

And the straw man to finish. There is no “patently different attitude toward two world faiths”. If Gabriella made the same kinds of claims of fact that you do, she’d receive the same questions and challenges.

Your desperation now you’ve run out of road is showing. You were asked whether you had some means to justify your assertion of fact “god”, either to yourself to anyone else. We now know that you haven’t, so there’s no reason to take the claim seriously. It’s ok – we all knew that anyway. All that your endless lying, evading, distracting and general twisting in the wind here has done is to confirm it.

I’ll leave you to your private grief now.       

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella is a Moslem. I’m afraid I find it rather strange that you haven’t asked her the same questions. Rather strange? No, really odd. I’m sure as a Moslem she thinks God exists.

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

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

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

The big question mark is your different reaction to Gabriella’s confession and mine.

Other than the swearing possibly, I think the reaction would be the same if I kept saying God exists as objective fact.

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

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