some home truths from Alice Cooper

[Stranger]

Those gaping holes just seem to appear through the tinted spectacles/welders goggles of philosophical empiricism

No, they appear entirely because you have given us not the first hint of a reason to take you god claim at all seriously that doesn't fall apart at the first attempt to look at it rationally. If you want to do so in some non-empirical way, do feel free. Stamping your little foot about "philosophical empiricism" is just empty posturing.

You either have some (any) objective methodology to distinguish your claims as probably true, as opposed to blind guesses or entirely subjective feelings, or you don't.

And the challenge for you is to find empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism.

No. I have no obligation to defend a position I don't hold.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, Vlad - the challenge is for you guys to offer a credible argument for 'God' that is neither fallacious nor incoherent: the burden of proof remains yours.

No Gordon. You have the challenge to find empirical evidence for the philosophical empiricism on which you are basing your definition of Credible..............Irrespective of what my challenges are or aren't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, they appear entirely because you have given us not the first hint of a reason to take you god claim at all seriously that doesn't fall apart at the first attempt to look at it rationally. If you want to do so in some non-empirical way, do feel free. Stamping your little foot about "philosophical empiricism" is just empty posturing.

You either have some (any) objective methodology to distinguish your claims as probably true, as opposed to blind guesses or entirely subjective feelings, or you don't.

No. I have no obligation to defend a position I don't hold.   

That there is a prime actuality which is not contingent is more reasonable than insisting on empirical proof and method and then abandoning those two things when challenged about the origins of the universe and the empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism......which is where the best and most intelligent atheists are. I'm thinking here of Russell and Carroll.

If you are denying having a philosophical position then that is incredible because you are opposing my philosophical position.

[Gordon]

No Gordon. You have the challenge is yours to find empirical evidence for the philosophical empiricism on which you are basing your definition of Credible..............Irrespective of what my challenges are or aren't.

Don't be silly: the credibility, or otherwise, of any argument you might make can't be determined until, you know, you actually make an new argument that can be critiqued and its credibility assessed.

Your 'philosophical empiricism' is just you indulging in evasive kite-flying again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly: the credibility, or otherwise, of any argument you might make can't be determined until, you know, you actually make an new argument that can be critiqued and its credibility assessed.

Your 'philosophical empiricism' is just you indulging in evasive kite-flying again.

You don't define what you mean by credibility or believability by just repeating the word credibility.
You cannot critique anything without having a position to critique from.

I'm stating your position because you don't seem to want to.

[Gordon]

You don't define what you mean by credibility or believability by just repeating the word credibility.
You cannot critique anything without having a position to critique from.

I'm stating your position because you don't seem to want to.

Try looking up 'credibility' in a dictionary, Vlad: use several dictionaries if you wish to. I think you'll find the term is consistently defined, and then maybe you can stop evading.

Also stop putting carts before horses - in order to critique 'something' one must first know something about the 'something' that is to be critiqued .

[Stranger]

That there is a prime actuality which is not contingent...

Whether there is or not has no direct connection to your god claims. This is firmly in the territory of things we don't know.

...is more reasonable than insisting on empirical proof and method...

I'm not insisting on anything but some objective reason to take your god claim seriously. How you want to approach that is up to you.

...then abandoning those two things when challenged about the origins of the universe...

Who's abandoning anything? I don't claim to know the origin of the universe (which in any case requires further defining to even turn it into a specific question).

...and the empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism...

If you are denying having a philosophical position then that is incredible because you are opposing my philosophical position.

What would that be? I've yet to see you put forward anything remotely coherent enough to be called a philosophical position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Try looking up 'credibility' in a dictionary, Vlad: use several dictionaries if you wish to. I think you'll find the term is consistently defined, and then maybe you can stop evading.

Also stop putting carts before horses - in order to critique 'something' one must first know something about the 'something' that is to be critiqued .

It's the ability to be believed Gordon and that's about it. Philosophical empiricism makes the decision not to believe anything that cannot be measured empirically a priori.

[Stranger]

Philosophical empiricism makes the decision not to believe anything that cannot be measured empirically a priori.

Which is still totally irrelevant outside of your own little fantasy world. What is missing is you coming up with a reason to think your god claim is credible without opening the door to every unfalsifiable crazy guess, myth, legend, or interpretation of subjective experiences, at the same time.

[Gordon]

It's the ability to be believed Gordon and that's about it. Philosophical empiricism makes the decision not to believe anything that cannot be measured empirically a priori.

If you offer up an proposition for 'something' then you should be able to include what methodology applies whereby someone else can investigate your claim of 'something' since, presumably, you've used some form of methodology to convince yourself that you are correct - whether the method you've used can be described as 'empirical' depends on what it is, which for you to set out.

What we do then is look at your claim and also the method you propose. No matter how much you wriggle the burden of proof is still yours, and if your want to rail against empiricism then by all means propose and describe a non-empirical approach - but expect it to be critiqued.

If you can't then maybe you should, as they say, consider your position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you offer up an proposition for 'something' then you should be able to include what methodology applies whereby someone else can investigate your claim of 'something' since, presumably, you've used some form of methodology to convince yourself that you are correct - whether the method you've used can be described as 'empirical' depends on what it is, which for you to set out.

What we do then is look at your claim and also the method you propose. No matter how much you wriggle the burden of proof is still yours, and if your want to rail against empiricism then by all means propose and describe a non-empirical approach - but expect it to be critiqued.

If you can't then maybe you should, as they say, consider your position.

I've already stated how I come to a system of contingency and necessity and how this makes the idea of God reasonable and put it against what must be the atheist suite of positions used to counter the argument namely either everything being contingent imho unreasonable or everything being penetrable by scientific means but with the suspension of a necessary scientific answer on the issue of the origin of the universe or why we should be philosophical empiricists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is still totally irrelevant outside of your own little fantasy world. What is missing is you coming up with a reason to think your god claim is credible without opening the door to every unfalsifiable crazy guess, myth, legend, or interpretation of subjective experiences, at the same time.

Credible means able to be believed. Well it seems God is capable of being believed.
              Philosophical empiricism is cannot meet it's own demands.
              Philosophical empiricism attempts to shoehorn an encounter with God into the subjective (the ''true for me'' category.
           

[Stranger]

I've already stated how I come to a system of contingency and necessity and how this makes the idea of God reasonable...

You've asserted that you've done this. What is missing is anything remotely like a coherent argument.

...and put it against what must be the atheist suite of positions used to counter the argument namely either everything being contingent imho unreasonable or everything being penetrable by scientific means but with the suspension of a necessary scientific answer on the issue of the origin of the universe or why we should be philosophical empiricists.

Gibberish. You completely misunderstood all the responses and tried to shift the burden of proof.

[Stranger]

Well it seems God is capable of being believed.

Any number of contradictory gods, along with alien abductions, the Loch Ness monster, COVID conspiracy theories, flat earth...

Philosophical empiricism ... Philosophical empiricism...

         
 

[jeremyp]

Credible means able to be believed.

I don't think that is a correct definition.

It's not credible that the Earth is flat and yet people believe it.

It's not credible that the MMR vaccine causes autism, and yet people believe it.

It's not credible that aliens would travel across thousands of parsecs in order to create artistic patterns in crops, and yet people believe it.

It's not credible that a person can give a man a certain power and then punish him and all his descendants for using that power and then decide the only way to stop the punishment is to punish himself, and yet people believe it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think that is a correct definition.

It's not credible that the Earth is flat and yet people believe it.

It's not credible that the MMR vaccine causes autism, and yet people believe it.

It's not credible that aliens would travel across thousands of parsecs in order to create artistic patterns in crops, and yet people believe it.

It's not credible that a person can give a man a certain power and then punish him and all his descendants for using that power and then decide the only way to stop the punishment is to punish himself, and yet people believe it.

What does it mean then?
Does your alternative meaning pass the dictionary test?

[jeremyp]

What does it mean then?

You tell me. You're the one using it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You've asserted that you've done this. What is missing is anything remotely like a coherent argument.

Gibberish. You completely misunderstood all the responses and tried to shift the burden of proof.

Not really, Philosophical empiricism has a burden of proof irrespective of any I have.

Argument from contingency is perfectly coherent. Insisting that God needs a scientific proof but the universe doesn't need one because it just is is more inconsistent than Mr inconsistent, care of Inconsistent House, Inconsistency Avenue Inconsistent City, United states of Inconsistency.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You tell me.

I already have.

[Stranger]

Not really, Philosophical empiricism has a burden of proof irrespective of any I have.

Only on those who are proposing it, i.e. nobody on this forum that I'm aware of.   

Argument from contingency is perfectly coherent.

Then post it or reference a version of it that you're prepared to defend. I kept on asking you to do this last time you brought it up, to no avail.

Insisting that God needs a scientific proof but the universe doesn't need one because it just is is more inconsistent than Mr inconsistent, care of Inconsistent House, Inconsistency Avenue Inconsistent City, United states of Inconsistency.

*sigh*

• 'Scientific proof' isn't a thing.
• We have plenty of evidence that the universe exists.
• We have no evidence, or any other coherent reason to think that any of the thousands gods that humans have dreamt up exist.
• Nobody knows if the universe 'just is', it's just something we can't rule out.
• This must be one of the silliest assertions you've ever posted...

[jeremyp]

I already have.

And I rejected your definition, pointing out why it was wrong.

[Dicky Underpants]

Forgive me but surely ultimate meaning has to cover everything including us 

I specifically used the word 'personally' as a direct reference to the religious, particularly Christian, claim that their deity has a special interest in each of us and our destinies.

[Dicky Underpants]

And I think you've clinched it in calling it a philosophy which I think is the point where they stopped and possibly drew back.
Can you give a deep and well thought through philosophy?

Probably not a philosophy which would satisfy you. I can only point out what I realised were the drawbacks and inconsistencies of French existentialism (which is basically that of Sartre, the Prof has noted - others were largely parasitic on his views. Sartre himself claimed indebtedness to Heidegger, whereas H himself called L'Etre et Le Neant unreadable dreck). Well, I'm not going to give a full resume of French existentialism either, but here are a few points. Though it doesn't actually deny unconscious processes in the human organism, it wishes to nullify their importance to insignificance. As many contributors to this forum have often pointed out, unconscious processes are practically everything that govern us, even down to the decisions we think we make with the pre-frontal cortex.
Sartre in particular seemed obsessed in asserting a 'self' against what he perceived as the nothingness of being (this, along with mescalin, no doubt, prompted his agonisings about 'the Abyss). His way of asserting selfhood and freedom was to prove his existence by a succession of actes gratuits which run counter to all nature's constraints (the idea began with the novelist Gide). That's a pretty hopeless scenario - no one can hope to behave in this unpredictable way at every moment, and of course, no one has ever done.

For better or worse, we are bound up with the whole of nature and the universe, and such frantic self-assertion is the act of people who have lost any sense of unity with the world. By saying that, I'm not letting 'spirituality' in by the back door. We may be made of 'star-stuff', but that doesn't mean the universe is sentient.

Sartre was a good novelist, I think, and dramatist. Such a pity he couldn't see through Stalin. But that resulted from another of his benighted mental escapades - the attempt to link existentialism and Marxism. At the risk of being accused of dragging in an argumentum ad consequentiam , I'll shut up.

That'll do yer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I rejected your definition, pointing out why it was wrong.

And I rejected your definition, pointing out why it was wrong.

No you didn't you gave sentences which merely repeated the word credible. How does that define credible and prove i'm wrong?

[jeremyp]

No you didn't you gave sentences which merely repeated the word credible. How does that define credible and prove i'm wrong?

Your definition of "credible" was "able to be believed"

I gave some counter examples of people believing things that are not credible. This falsifies your definition. You need to, at least, qualify who is able to believe a credible thing.