God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[Gordon]

My analogy is about the pathway open to the agnostic.

To clarify - I've amended my post since I meant to say 'theism is irrelevant'.

How can there be a pathway towards nothing that can be shown to be a valid destination?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To clarify - I've amended my post since I meant to say 'theism is irrelevant'.

How can there be a pathway towards nothing that can be shown to be a valid destination?

It depends what you mean by valid destination. I have to check because I recall you previously declared God impossible and therefore no agnosticism for you.

Of other agnostics here they are of the "cannot know" whether God exists" variet so they effectively are in the same boat as you, as are those who "don't know" and think that nobody else does. In other words they have a prior commitment to atheism.

But that doesn't rule out that someone might not know but be open to finding out.

[Gordon]

It depends what you mean by valid destination. I have to check because I recall you previously declared God impossible and therefore no agnosticism for you.

Nope: don't think I ever said that. What I have said is that in the absence of convincing evidence 'God' isn't a serious proposition as things stand. However unlikely, I have to concede that if convincing evidence is ever presented I'd have to revise my view. Meantime though, I can treat Christianity as being just codified nonsense.

Of other agnostics here they are of the "cannot know" whether God exists" variet so they effectively are in the same boat as you, as are those who "don't know" and think that nobody else does. In other words they have a prior commitment to atheism.

I'd say that most atheists are agnostic.

But that doesn't rule out that someone might not know but be open to finding out.

To find something you have to have to at least have an idea that what you are looking for is amenable to being searched for.

[Nearly Sane]

The aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything else ...

Not sure if this is idiocy, lying or lying idiocy. Yet again you look like you are a WUM taking the piss out of people with religion

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure if this is idiocy, lying or lying idiocy. Yet again you look like you are a number taking the puss out of people with religion

I haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. Philosophical naturalism is atheistic and spirit is meaningless in philosophical empiricism. What, if not philosophical naturalism and philosophical empiricism is, say, Gordon’s position?
I don’t deny that SETI is looking for something out there for something that’s down here, so what? That can only be a metaphor for an issue that definitionally has no out there and down here and I don’t understand your stretching the metaphor.

If you realised that naturalistic methodology and methodological empiricism do not yield their philosophical counterparts as I recall you once used to you would realise why people can feel and discuss the spiritual and make analogy with things they know in the material world.

[Gordon]

I haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. Philosophical naturalism is atheistic and spirit is meaningless in philosophical empiricism. What, if not philosophical naturalism and philosophical empiricism is, say, Gordon’s position?

In spite of the time of year, Vlad, be careful with all that straw: I've never said I favoured philosophical naturalism, but then you already know that.

[Nearly Sane]

I haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. Philosophical naturalism is atheistic and spirit is meaningless in philosophical empiricism. What, if not philosophical naturalism and philosophical empiricism is, say, Gordon’s position?
I don’t deny that SETI is looking for something out there for something that’s down here, so what? That can only be a metaphor for an issue that definitionally has no out there and down here and I don’t understand your stretching the metaphor.

If you realised that naturalistic methodology and methodological empiricism do not yield their philosophical counterparts as I recall you once used to you would realise why people can feel and discuss the spiritual and make analogy with things they know in the material world.

It is not the 'aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything ' else . You've had that explained multiple times so you are either being an idiot or lying about it. All you are doing is making it loo like someone with a religion is either an idiot or a liar.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

OK, then I may not be talking about people who don't know there is a God and think they cannot know and that the same goes for everybody. A commitment to which might prevent speculative attempts to communicate with God....But I am talking about people who don't know if God exists at all and that lack of knowledge gives them freedom to send a speculative message to God....A kind of spiritual SETI if you will.

Still wrong. An agnostic simply finds the notion of god(s) to be unknowable, axiomatically so. Thus if, say, an agnostic followed a set of religious instructions about praying, absent any method to test the veracity of a supposed response they still wouldn’t have a basis to accept the claim “god”.   

That sounds like a positive assertion, Hillside... You know what you have to do.

And still you don’t understand how the burden of proof works, despite it being explained to you countless times. Really though? It was you who said “I know people who for a short time at least admit to dodging the response”. It’s your job therefore to establish that they were in fact admitting to “dodging” an actual response, and not just a belief that they’d had a response.   

You know therefore what you have to do.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything else but itself for it's existence if they are to go up against theism, so so much for evidence.

That’s not he “aim” of naturalism and empiricism at all. The aim of naturalism and empiricism it to provide logically coherent, evidence-based explanations for the way observable phenomena work.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In spite of the time of year, Vlad, be careful with all that straw: I've never said I favoured philosophical naturalism, but then you already know that.

From an audience point of view,Gordon your position has never been anything but philosophical naturalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is not the 'aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything ' else . You've had that explained multiple times so you are either being an idiot or lying about it. All you are doing is making it loo like someone with a religion is either an idiot or a liar.

How else do philosophical naturalists and philosophical empiricist demonstrate the rectitude of their position?

[Gordon]

From an audience point of view,Gordon your position has never been anything but philosophical naturalism.

I can't be held responsible for the limitations of some of my 'audience'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Still wrong. An agnostic simply finds the notion of god(s) to be unknowable, axiomatically so. Thus if, say, an agnostic followed a set of religious instructions about praying, absent any method to test the veracity of a supposed response they still wouldn’t have a basis to accept the claim “god”.   

And still you don’t understand how the burden of proof works, despite it being explained to you countless times. Really though? It was you who said “I know people who for a short time at least admit to dodging the response”. It’s your job therefore to establish that they were in fact admitting to “dodging” an actual response, and not just a belief that they’d had a response.   

You know therefore what you have to do.

I have to disagree. When I mooted that agnosticism was just not knowing whether God existed or not you said I was wrong. Of course that is what agnosticism. Is as you now tell us.
I did ofcourse check definitions and found you were quite right
Agnostics can be defined as those who believe God isn't known as fact or otherwise  by anyone or can be known.

But to get back to it, on this board there are people who are suggesting they can't even begin the search for God.

For them and other agnostics then there is the question, why not?

If something might exist then there is no reason it might be impossible to find.


However the following commitments would in my view prevent the search

To the philosophies of, naturalism, empiricism, materialism, scientism,  agnosticism.

Also fear of God as expressed by Nagel

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can't be held responsible for the limitations of some of my 'audience'.

The 'gallery' will be most amused, Gordon.

[Nearly Sane]

I have to disagree. When I mooted that agnosticism was just not knowing whether God existed or not you said I was wrong. Of course that is what agnosticism. Is as you now tell us.
I did ofcourse check definitions and found you were quite right
Agnostics can be defined as those who believe God isn't known as fact or otherwise  by anyone or can be known.

But to get back to it, on this board there are people who are suggesting they can't even begin the search for God.

For them and other agnostics then there is the question, why not?

If something might exist then there is no reason it might be impossible to find.


However the following commitments would in my view prevent the search

To the philosophies of, naturalism, empiricism, materialism, scientism,  agnosticism.

Also fear of God as expressed by Nagel

You are again begging the question and assuming hod exists.

[Nearly Sane]

From an audience point of view,Gordon your position has never been anything but philosophical naturalism.

Sad liar lies, again, and puts themselves in the position of being objective, and uses a ad populum. Quite a lot of shivery in that post.

[Nearly Sane]

How else do philosophical naturalists and philosophical empiricist demonstrate the rectitude of their position?

That anyone might try and demonstrate the correctness of a position does not mean the aim of their position is to demonstrate that, as that would be circular. It also presupposes that positions have aims which you haven't demonstrated. You've also as so often used the term empiricism and naturalism in a post without the qualification of philosophical and then inserted it, which again could be idiocy, or lying. Your thinking is mushy, your writing messy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You arecagain begging thecquestiin and assuming hod exists.

To the Agnostic...God might or might not exist.

[Nearly Sane]

To the Agnostic...God might or might not exist.

Indeed but so might any number of thing, and since you have said your god is not observable, there is no method for searching. And I'll reiterate that your post contained a begging of the wuestion, similar to the many times before, and when it's pointed out you continue to repeat the error. Why is that? Lying? Or are you too stupid to understand?

[Gordon]

To the Agnostic...God might or might not exist.

Not really: an agnostic who takes the view that 'God' is a claim about which there is inadequate knowledge to come to any reasonable conclusion (the 'unknowable' bit) says nothing about the existence or non-existence of said 'God'.

You seem to have the unerring ability to confuse yourself without any help from the rest of us.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really: an agnostic who takes the view that 'God' is a claim about which there is inadequate knowledge to come to any reasonable conclusion (the 'unknowable' bit) says nothing about the existence or non-existence of said 'God'.

Are you using a Bollocks loom?

[Enki]

The aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything else but itself for it's existence if they are to go up against theism, so so much for evidence.

Complete rubbish. Naturalism and empiricism are not concerned particularly with theism at all. Empiricism is simply an important method of ascertaining facts about the natural world by observation. The idea that the universe doesn't need anything else but itself is certainly not within the remit of empiricism which simply goes where the evidence leads.

It is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere but where is the evidence?

We don't know, that is exactly what SETI, along with many other approaches, is trying to find out.

Again the purpose of the analogy is to outline possible routes for the agnostic,including....
Laissez faire, curiosity, finding out,  committed agnosticism, not wanting to find out for fear of what the consequence could be.

Then it's a rubbish analogy on your part for the reasons I've already given. Furthermore a person who is agnostic wouldn't fit very well with the SETI analogy because an agnostic person would not be inclined to seek empirical evidence as they would regard the idea of God to be unknowable anyway.

My opinion is that you seem to be following your own distorted agenda which has little relation to the real thing. Mind you, I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

[jeremyp]

The aim of naturalism and empiricism is to show evidence that the universe doesn't need anything else but itself for it's existence

No it isn't.

[Outrider]

But to get back to it, on this board there are people who are suggesting they can't even begin the search for God.

For them and other agnostics then there is the question, why not?

Because there isn't a logically coherent definition of what to start looking for.

If something might exist then there is no reason it might be impossible to find.

Bertrand Russell would like you to pour the tea for him and the Invisible Pink Unicorn to drink while you demonstrate that.

However the following commitments would in my view prevent the search:

To the philosophies of, naturalism, empiricism, materialism, scientism,  agnosticism.

Fine, suggest a better methodology. Everyone is aware of the fact that these philosophies (with the possible exception of agnosticism) has limitations, but what you keep doing is throwing the baby away with the bathwater. Or, rather, presuming that the baby is God because the bathwater is murky.

Also fear of God as expressed by Nagel

People who don't believe in a god can't fear it. They might suggest that if it were real, and as depicted, they would fear it.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have to disagree.

With a definition? Well, you can disagree all you like with standard definitions to create your own reality, but so what?

When I mooted that agnosticism was just not knowing whether God existed or not you said I was wrong.

Yes. That’s not what agnosticism is. Again: it’s the position that such a thing is inherently unknowable. There are plenty of online dictionaries available if you want to look it up

Of course that is what agnosticism.

Of course it isn’t. See above.

Is as you now tell us.

?

I did ofcourse check definitions and found you were quite right
Agnostics can be defined as those who believe God isn't known as fact or otherwise  by anyone or can be known.

Glad you got there eventually.

But to get back to it, on this board there are people who are suggesting they can't even begin the search for God.

Yes. Because they’d have no means to know whether a god had answered or something else had happened. You can say the same about leprechauns of course, but again - so what?

For them and other agnostics then there is the question, why not?

Because theists who claim there to be god(s) offer no means of verifying the results. 

If something might exist then there is no reason it might be impossible to find.

Anything might exist, and it’s impossible to find if there’s no verifiable means of finding it. This holds true for gods and leprechauns alike.   

However the following commitments would in my view prevent the search

To the philosophies of, naturalism, empiricism, materialism, scientism,  agnosticism.

Then, as so often, your view is wrong. “Philosophies of naturalism, empiricism…” etc have nothing to say about truth claims that position themselves outside the purview of naturalism, empiricism etc. Your problem though is that nor do such claims offer any other method of verification that’s epistemologically distinguishable from subjective opinions and guesswork.

Perhaps if for once you tried not just assuming your a priori assumption “God” to be true – ie the begging the question fallacy – you wouldn’t keep going to obviously wrong?