Science, Religion, God – Let’s just be honest

Did I say you did? Stop being dishonest..... And I said that your beliefs are not subject to evidential scrutiny. Are you suggesting that as things stand we can subject your beliefs to evidential scrutiny? Can you specify how we might do that?

Did you say "For example jar will readily admit that his beliefs are not rational, logical, consistent, subjct to evidential scrutiny blah blah blah."

For example jar will readily admit that his beliefs are:not rational
not logical
not consistent
not subject to evidential scrutinyWhich one of those is wrong/"dishonest"?

No you didn't. You just asserted it and then went on to explain how your position in your own words almost entirely matches Straggler's summary of your position in his words. As I showed. Straggler didn't say there was no way to evidence your beliefs. He said they can't be subject to evidential scrutiny. You are just explaining here why you hold this position - ie., they cannot be held to evidential scrutiny because there is no way you know of so doing. Have you, or could you, subject your beliefs to evidential scrutiny? Can you describe how one would do so? You seem to say you know of no way - so therefore to the best of your knowledge there is no way to subject your beliefs to evidential scrutiny, therefore at this time it would not make sense to subject them to evidential scrutiny, therefore at this time they are not subject to evidential scrutiny. Maybe one day you'll make a risky prediction, and your position will be subject to evidential scrutiny. While it remains inconsistent, unreasonable or vague - it cannot be subject to such scrutiny.Straggler isn't being dishonest when he summarizes your position, he is just employing brevity for the purposes of raising an example to compare this general idea with another poster's position. For an 11 word summary, it was pretty accurate by your own admission. He may have not been 100% accurate in your view. He may have missed some key disclaimer or fine point. That is not dishonest. It's a complete disregard to the principle of charity to suggest he was being dishonest. I think you are letting your personal feelings cloud your thinking here. If you believe in something 'supernatural' the onus is on you to describe what that means, how we would know it when we came across it, how it interacts with the 'natural' (what's the force carrier, for example). Until you do - it is impossible to scrutinise it empircally.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Did you say "Did you say "For example jar will readily admit that his beliefs are not rational, logical, consistent, subjct to evidential scrutiny blah blah blah.""?Have I not always said that I see no way the supernatural could be evidenced and no one has presented such a method?All you need to do is present a way to test and identify something was supernatural or even present evidence that something I believe is false or has been refuted.

See Mod's post.

We have had several threads on this alone. It seems there never is any agreement on wtf the supernatural is or is not; let alone how it could be evidenced.Iit is like a distinction without a difference.If one can not differentiate between a supernatural event and a natural one then how can we know what is natural and what is not? What is supernatural and what is not?
It is like playing whack a mole. Follow the evidence. oh wait that is supernatural...it can not be evidenced! Why? Because if it was REALLLLYYYY supernatural it would be unevidenced.

Sorry but that is simply bullshit and carny con job.It is irrelevant and an attempt to move goal posts and misdirect the audience.It may well be my beliefs could be evidenced, I just do not know how. But I have said repeatedly that I am open to suggestions.In fact many of my beliefs have been refuted and in such cases my beliefs have changed.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

However there is lots of evidence that shows we have been able to explain things we thought were supernatural and determine they were natural. The list is nearly endless.

Hi jar,I respect your beliefs. However we have beaten this particular horse to shoe leather.I for one am comfortable saying that there may be a God.I do not think for a moment we have all the information. But I also do not believe if a God of all existed he would remain unevidenced. So which is it? Do you think God can be evidenced? And if so does that mean God is not supernatural?
I mean no disrepect to you.

I see you have still retained the inability to discuss something with someone who disagrees with you in a civil manner. I think it is grotesquely disrespectful of you to dismiss my words as 'bullshit' and a lie intended to mislead for gain (a con). It's one thing to disagree with the points I have made, that I have no problem with - but what you did here jar? That's the real bullshit. You have no business criticising an 11 word summary as being 'dishonest' when you don't even exercise common decency to others. Apologize, or our discussion is over.Generic arguments are a pointless waste of all our time. Talking of moving the goal posts, Straggler didn't say 'evidenced' he said 'subject to evidential scrutiny'. Let's stick to that, neh?As it stands, by your own admission, it is impossible to subject your views to empirical scrutiny. You don't know what the supernatural is, how we would identify it as supernatural, how it interacts with the natural, what is the force carrier associated with this and so on and so forth. Therefore we cannot use evidence to confirm or refute your beliefs in the supernatural.I submit this isn't a matter of the state of your knowledge, but an intrinsic consequence of a position that is not reasonable, inconsistent and ill-defined. You cannot subject something to scrutiny that does not conform to reason and is not consistent. You cannot identify something you have not defined.For instance: Scrites are shavalabal.This is not subject to evidential scrutiny. Maybe one day someone will find something that you think is close enough to your vague ideas of a scrite, and whatever it is maybe you'll say its shavalabal. So yes, in principle it could be that 'scrites are shavalabal' could be evidenced. But without saying ahead of time what a scrite is, and what it means to be shavalabal we can't examine evidence to see if it is true. Especially if we throw in the additional statement that 'shavalabal is illogical, not subject to reasoning and is inconsistent'.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I don't see anyway anything supernatural can be evidenced. There can be things we believe are supernatural but that is just a belief. It is not evidenced as we think of evidenced in the science world.

Ergo agnosticism?

Agnosticism describes the state of one's knowledge. As Mod himself put it in the post to which you replied:

quote:

---

"I submit this isn't a matter of the state of your knowledge, but an intrinsic consequence of a position that is not reasonable, inconsistent and ill-defined."

---

So in answer to your question - No, not really.

In the sense that one cannot know something that is ill-formed, yes.
Also, one has no reason to believe it is true thus 'ascritism' too.
And since the notion is incoherent, insufficiently defined and unfalsifiable: ignosticism would be an appropriate conclusion too.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.