viaro:

What type of "science" do you use to test a miracle? You just come here blab like a no-brainer, and when you can't handle what you force yourself to state, then you assume that I was blabbing because the term "physicalist probables" is too much for you to handle? Please.

So do you consider miracles supernatural? I'm asking to be sure since you cannot bring yourself to say it directly.

viaro:

@thehomer,
As an atheist, it is a shame that you are making out that you have not heard the term "Physicalism" before, no? Or are you deliberately being mischievous? If you did not know before now, is it too much for you to first go and find out before coming with an empty yap complaining you don't know what I mean? You atheists just amaze me with how hollow you can sound sometimes.

I've told you that physicalism is clear are you equating it to the phrase "physicalist probables"?

viaro:

@thehomer,
Now where is your own outline? WHY are you running round in circles and never able to oblige anything? Dude, this is not going to be something that you're familiar with, because if you think viaro is one of 'em people you can just wave strawman arguments for and dribble, you don't have a clue what's in store for you. If you have anything concrete to present, please do so - we take it in steps. But if you don't have anything and still shirking responsibility, please go and find a TV cartoon to watch or do something else.

You're requesting an outline. I already stated that scientific means will be quite adequate. From here, you can see how I intend to approach it. I was also been defining my terms as I went along. With regards to your parameters, define and present your evidence for this supernatural.
With regards to cartoons, I'll watch them as we continue the discussion.

viaro:

Haha. .  you don't, and I can sympathise.

Says the fellow ranting about the Russel's teapot analogy that was given to him by me.

viaro:

Dude, please go back to school - you're acting like a stray lost school kid. What two words start with an 'i'? Are you drunk or something?

Come on read your post and see what you were saying there.

viaro:

Oh goodness! Did you ever read my reply or you were chased out of a bar??  Did you not read my reply where I mentioned these -

 (a)  "My understanding is simple: I'm dealing with a supernatural subject,
         not a physicalist one - I have made myself as specific and very clear on that!"??

 (b)  "Yet, on my part as a theist, I am well prepared to adduce proof for the existence
        of a supernatural God where particularities are NOT reducible to physicalist
        probables."

Then adduce the proof the suspense is killing me.  

viaro:

Look, thehomer, there's something that I don't entertain from my discussants: and that is the tendency to be either duplicitous or ignorant - I'd bear with anyone on the latter, as long as there ignorance is sincere. . . but duplicity is not something I entertain. You seem to be acting strange in pretending not to have seen my answers to these same issues you're recycling ad infinitum, and that is beginning to show you as dubious, I'm sorry. My discussions are not about winning points or a debate. I believe in sharing knowledge and leaving it off for the other person to consider. But when you go about with nothing concrete on your part and just repeating hollow lines which have been dealt with, I don't take you seriously. If you're not going to discuss, please let me know so I can roundly ignore you once and for all.

I've read your post but you're yet to give the proof or evidence. You've defined evidence now present it.

viaro:

That's another amusing atheistic no-brainer. Is this thread or our discussion about proving the existence of all deities in all worldviews - or rather my convictions for my own case? I see all these shallow statement of yours as excuses that are yet not concrete where you just want to amuse yourself: you're not seeking a responsible, rational dialogue. Please oblige me my request (if you may) and demonstrate that you understand the nature of what you want to discuss, in just the same way as I have done. Failing to do so is one reason why I should not take you any seriously.

Oh oh he's about to go off in another tangent about other Gods. The point there is that proving your "supernatural" God should be good enough so that others can distinguish him from other Gods.

viaro:

hahahah. . . I could not be wrong, thank you for that acknowledgement. But your confusion remains your own and i have no share in that!  If you want to again flash your duplicity, there are other ways to do so instead of this miserly pretence of yours. Are you not the same person who said this -
Please tell me: where in philosophy is a theist required to prove any negative statement of an ATHEIST? Please show me - it's either you're a dunce, or a fellow struggling with his deceit. Either way, choose any that would light up your CV.

Aah you misunderstood what I said.
If you were able to prove that there is a God, that falsifies the first statement. You're not proving it for the atheist.
If you do demonstrate the God is the Christian one then that automatically falsifies the next.
For someone claiming to be smart it's a shame that you couldn't see this.
I thought it was clear that the burden of proof rested more on the one claiming the God existed.

"Not even wrong" is a phrase which characterizes what you're doing at least until you can present your evidence.

viaro:

If you cannot oblige me, please run along and do something else. You're just a brainless time-waster.

From the man yet to provide his evidence. Did you mean the insult literally?  
Lots of intelligent and notable people have given explanations, evidence etc of complex mechanisms that I understood come on you claim to be smart go ahead and present your evidence without interruption. You can even start another thread presenting this evidence.

viaro:

@mazaje, howdy?

Bam bam. . . How body?. . . .

Please mazaje, could you kindly stop trying to impress yourself with that old tune? You're sounding like a broken record and you need to move past that anthem you've been singing on Nairaland. If an atheist does not understand how to follow a discussion logically, he should not force himself to just talk by default. My 'evidence' will be demonstrated as soon as your atheist friends school up and show a bit more maturity in philosophical discussions - and to that end I have laid out the foundation of how I wish to proceed with my discussion, and I do not wish you to distract me with that repeated song.

I like some others here do not accept philosophical disscussions that lead no where because as toneyb pointed out, Philosopy is nothing other than opinions and counter opinions that says nothing much. Since you believe in the god of the bible then you should be able to provide some evidence that he exist beside some philosopical rigmarole that provides no evidence but arguments and conter arguments.

Do you believe that there is a god that is all good, all knowing, all merciful, all powerful who answers prayers for example? If you do then provide evidence to show that such a god exist. When can begin with prayers, Your evidence to show that Christians that pray to their god for protection are better protected than others that do not pray to the christian god for protection is WHAT?

This is an example of how brainless you can be. I believe what Revelation 6:13 states as long as you don't snatch it from its context.

What is the context?. . . . .You DO NOT know the context in which the writer wrote it because you are NOT the writer. What ever vairo chooses to make of that passages is vairo's problem not that of the writer. I wasn't even alluding to revelation 6: 13 I was talking about the stories about stars of the sky fighting wars with humans as recorded in the book of Judges: Judges 5:20 From the heavens the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera. Another translation puts it like this. . . .(New Living Translation) The stars fought from heaven. The stars in their orbitsfought against Sisera .. . . . .Why is it that stars ONLY fight against men in the pages of books?

I do. Forcing yourself to write 'God' in lower case is not showing you as a rational person interested in dialogue, or I wonder what it takes to do the simple sane things. Not that I care any which way - it rather makes me feel sorry for folks who are quite too disturbed about these matters that they just have to keep forcing themselves to such things.

On what ridiculous basis did you come to the conclusion that I am frcing myself to write god in the lower case?. . . .I am really sorry that people are so fearful an irrational about myths that the way people type characters on a key board makes them loose sleep(See, I can presume things about you, too) So, god must be written in upper case before a person is rational and interested in a dailogue? . . . .

viaro:

Did I say that you or anybody would not understand? Where did I say so? Please quote me.

If you feel that we would understand then give this mysterious evidence.

viaro:

I'm not forcing you to prove what I believe in, nor did I try to make you prove what you do not believe in. If you don't mind keeping your atheistic lies to yourself, thanks.

Well why do you believe what you believe? I'm not asking you to prove why you do not believe it.

Dont worry you will not repeat plenty you hear

thehomer:

So you see mazaje he simply refuses to give his evidence to the world because we would not understand.

Why does he believe what it says in Revelation 6:13?

He then wants someone to debate with him the existence of another mythical concept. From someone accusing me of trying to make him prove what he does not believe.

I just don't get it with religious philosophers, They are interested ONLY endless rigmaroles, I just want vairo to provide simeple evidence to show us that the god of the bible exist or at least that some of the claims that christian make are true, For example christians claim that the bible is the word of an all knowing, all god and all powerful god who created the universe and wants people to know about him. If that is true then any god with an interest in being worshiped, or obeyed, or followed, or really, anything other than being ignored, would be able to write or inspire a holy book that all who read it found convincing, clear, perfect in its meaning, and/or undeniably true. If the bible is that book why is it that many christians do not accept or agree on the text? Why do so many christians read and interprete the bible VERY VERY differently?The bible is blatantly erroneous on numerous counts and otherwise plagued with vacuous propositions and prophetic blunders, internal contradictions, historical and scientific errors, historical anachronisms and a god whose actions are ethically questionable. How can the bible be said to be a word of a god when men wrote everything that was written in it based ONLY on their world views, culture and position in human history ?

I expected that even if vairo can not provide evidence to show that that the god of the bible exists, He should at least provide evidence to show that some god "inspired" men to write what is written in the bible since we can all see the bible and the words that it contains but no, vairo will prefer to run around talkking about philosophical rigmaroles that mean NOTHING. . . . . .

That bold part is false - the atheist is committed to atheism and will not believe anything he or she is shown that contradicts his worldview. Please stop peddling this idea that 'the atheist will believe', that's a crude joke to play on yourself.

does this include the likes of anthony flew? did he refuse to believe anything that contradicted his worldview?

thehomer:

So do you consider miracles supernatural? I'm asking to be sure since you cannot bring yourself to say it directly.

I have answered that question in many ways than one. Did you miss how many times I said this:

 (a)  "My understanding is simple: I'm dealing with a supernatural subject,
         not a physicalist one - I have made myself as specific and very clear on that!"??

Please, if you are not going to discuss, you can simple say so, and I shall then roundly ignore you for the brainless time-waster you keep showing yourself. I don't see any reason for your filling pages with needless repetitions when the things you're reposting have been answered already!

I've told you that physicalism is clear are you equating it to the phrase "physicalist probables"?

Please show me the difference between them, since you don't want me to equate them.

You're requesting an outline. I already stated that scientific means will be quite adequate. From here, you can see how I intend to approach it. I was also been defining my terms as I went along. With regards to your parameters, define and present your evidence for this supernatural.
With regards to cartoons, I'll watch them as we continue the discussion.

You have discussed nothing. By just mentioning "scientific means", you're again vague. I know what 'scientific means' is; and I requested this of you: "You tell me what type of science you want to use to talk about spiritual things and then I will lead you in that study to discover the supernatural." It is not in my domain to supply you with an outline - that would be irresponsible of you and demonstrate you're a lazy thinker.

Says the fellow ranting about the Russel's teapot analogy that was given to him by me.

Please dry your tears - Russell's teapot is a strawman fallacy, live with it.

Come on read your post and see what you were saying there.

I see you are too challenged to understand anything, no? What is hard to understand in my post?

Then adduce the proof the suspense is killing me.  

Oh kill yourself already. . . it will be your own funeral, not mine.

I've read your post but you're yet to give the proof or evidence. You've defined evidence now present it.

I'm waiting for you to oblige my request about outlining how you intend to discuss the subject.

Oh oh he's about to go off in another tangent about other Gods. The point there is that proving your "supernatural" God should be good enough so that others can distinguish him from other Gods.

I don't think others are confused about what I have said - I did not argue to prove anybody's other Gods or deities, not even your strawman of Russell's teapot.

Aah you misunderstood what I said.

Then explain, please.

If you were able to prove that there is a God, that falsifies the first statement. You're not proving it for the atheist.
If you do demonstrate the God is the Christian one then that automatically falsifies the next.
For someone claiming to be smart it's a shame that you couldn't see this.
I thought it was clear that the burden of proof rested more on the one claiming the God existed.

You're a dunce! A confirmed one!    This is why you have been ducking and pussyfooting all along and not saying anything concrete about how you intend to discuss the subject!

In philosophy, proof of one subject does not falsify the next in a line of series. Whereever you got that from would be quite magical to see - or just crawl back to your hole. Let me recommend a cure for your ailment: go and read up a bit about proof on proposition logic (or syntactic proof). To claim that proof of one would falsify the next is roguish! The theist is not responsible to "prove" the atheistic claim, nor does the "proof" of the theist falsify the claim of the atheist! This is why you ought to school up on metaphysics and epistemic logic! Just don't bandy that idiocy beyond this thread or you make yourself the champion of ideological idiots for the first half of this year!

"Not even wrong" is a phrase which characterizes what you're doing at least until you can present your evidence.

Which quite simply does not apply to me. I'm familar with such talk, another being: what thehomer is saying does not even rise to the level of no-sense (meaning: all you've been saying is absolute nonsense until you oblige the basic principles of concrete logic in your repetitive evasions).

From the man yet to provide his evidence. Did you mean the insult literally?  

Nope, but you're wasting my time with your brainless evasions and acting like someone who's deliberately being mischievous. What have you been wasting time about on a simple request that you oblige me an outline of your own philosophical premise? If you want to keep bandying the empty noise you've been making, I have said before that you please let me know so i could roundly ignore you.

Lots of intelligent and notable people have given explanations, evidence etc of complex mechanisms that I understood come on you claim to be smart go ahead and present your evidence without interruption. You can even start another thread presenting this evidence.

I don't intend to plagiarise anyone's ideas - not even about complex mechanisms. I have set out how I intend to approach my discussion, and I have waited for you to set yours out logically as well. Just mentioning "scientific method" is meaningless until you demonstrate that you have a fine head on your shoulders to discuss intelligently rather than waste time spinning on the same spot.

Chrisbenogor:

Dont worry you will not repeat plenty you hear

No worries.

That i have fingers to respond to this alone is enuf evidence of God, the I am, who I am

how do you know you were created by ONE god? couldn't the creators be polytheist?
oh wait, it has to be one god because the bible said so.

bawomolo:

does this include the likes of anthony flew? did he refuse to believe anything that contradicted his worldview?

I'm sure he did - for any such evidence he came round to see had been presented to him during his half a century years of atheism, no? Did he immediately believe anything he was shown to contradict his atheism when they were first presented to him?

mazaje:

I just don't get it with religious philosophers, They are interested ONLY endless rigmaroles, I just want vairo to provide simeple evidence to show us that the god of the bible exist or at least that some of the claims that christian make are true, For example christians claim that the bible is the word of an all knowing, all god and all powerful god who created the universe and wants people to know about him. If that is true then any god with an interest in being worshiped, or obeyed, or followed, or really, anything other than being ignored, would be able to write or inspire a holy book that all who read it found convincing, clear, perfect in its meaning, and/or undeniably true. If the bible is that book why is it that many christians do not accept or agree on the text? Why do so many christians read and interprete the bible VERY VERY differently?The bible is blatantly erroneous on numerous counts and otherwise plagued with vacuous propositions and prophetic blunders, internal contradictions, historical and scientific errors, historical anachronisms and a god whose actions are ethically questionable. How can the bible be said to be a word of a god when men wrote everything that was written in it based ONLY on their world views, culture and position in human history ?

I expected that even if vairo can not provide evidence to show that that the god of the bible exists, He should at least provide evidence to show that some god "inspired" men to write what is written in the bible since we can all see the bible and the words that it contains but no, vairo will prefer to run around talkking about philosophical rigmaroles that mean NOTHING. . . . . .

I just don't get it with atheist philosophers. They often tend to honk endlessly on strawman arguments and will never produce anything concrete in any metaphysical discussion - nada, zilch, nix. If all I have set out is way out of your grasp, is that my problem? Not that I don't want you guys to understand anything - but waving all these issues about "any god" is not helping your own approach. Why is it that I have to repeatedly ask that you guys lay out your own philosophical approach as I have done earlier - and then you come back with nothing and wonder why you're still dancing on ice?

@OP,

If there were no God, there will be no atheists. 

norri:

Science does not have the answer to all questions. The scientific theory of the creation of the universe; the big bang theory that the universe was created by a massive nuclear explosion derived from one single atom.
Question. Who or what put the atom there?
A little child can ask a question and its mother will duly answer. The child will ask "why?". The mother will answer and to her reply the child will again ask "why?". Eventually the mother will run out of answers.

And this demonstrates what?

norri:

Likewise science will find answers to how the universe was created, but we can keep coming back with the question "what or who put that there?"
We can only conclude that there must be a creator. Whether we call that creator God, Allah, Jehovah or Boogleboogleboogle it doesn't matter. How we choose to worship that creator again it doesn't really matter.

Now that is what is called the argument from infinite regress that's number 51 on this web-page.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

No we cannot conclude that there must be a creator. Neither does this give us a reason to worship this creator. For all you know, this creator may not care about you.

norri:

Just one last question, can science answer the question "what is the purpose of life?"

Can any body of knowledge give a good answer to that question without prompting other questions till you end up in an absurdity? Sure you can form grammatically correct sentences but that does not make it a legitimate question.

I read your outline again and I am still confused, are you saying you can give evidence on the supernatural and not the physical, why can I not still shake the pilgrim.1 feeling

mazaje:

Bam bam. . . How body?. . . .

I'm good, thanks.

I like some others here do not accept philosophical disscussions that lead no where because as toneyb pointed out, Philosopy is nothing other than opinions and counter opinions that says nothing much. Since you believe in the god of the bible then you should be able to provide some evidence that he exist beside some philosopical rigmarole that provides no evidence but arguments and conter arguments.

I appreciate toneyb's concerns about philosophy, but that is not what it is all about. I also appreciate your concerns in the same vein, and I don't agree with you. This is perhaps why it seems to me that anytime I have had to make reference to the approach to I seek in discussing this issue, you guys have altogether woosh it away. Following that tendency, I requested that even if philosophy may not be to the atheist's flavour, then let's leave it open - which is that, the atheist should please tell me what type of science he wishes to employ in discussing the supernatural. And the result? Again we have seen responses that do not address that request.

You see, mazaje, the only reason I would be making the effort to outline my approach is because I understand that is how issues about realities are presented. That is evident in the discussions between toneyb and myself, and I again demonstrated why in particular that is so. For matters about realities, one has to know precisely what type of philosophy of reality they are adopting and WHY they choose that particular one (I gave toneyb the example of predicate dualism and pointed out why that would be a more involved approach to the philosophy of reality than the reductionist one that was presented in the vid he posted).

It is because I don't find responses from atheists in this thread showing me anything concrete, that is why I don't take seriously anyone making vague statements for his atheism.

Do you believe that there is a god that is all good, all knowing, all merciful, all powerful who answers prayers for example? If you do then provide evidence to show that such a god exist. When can begin with prayers, Your evidence to show that Christians that pray to their god for protection are better protected than others that do not pray to the christian god for protection is WHAT?

We've been through this before.

What is the context?. . . . .You DO NOT know the context in which the writer wrote it because you are NOT the writer.

Indeed, I am not the author - but that does not mean that I could not understand what he stated. You also cannot argue either ways, because you are not the writer of that verse to claim any understand of what it says.

What ever vairo chooses to make of that passages is vairo's problem not that of the writer.

Same as you. I do not have any problem with that verse, so what is your problem with my understanding it for myself?

I wasn't even alluding to revelation 6: 13 I was talking about the stories about stars of the sky fighting wars with humans as recorded in the book of Judges: Judges 5:20 From the heavens the stars fought, from their courses they fought against Sisera. Another translation puts it like this. . . .(New Living Translation) The stars fought from heaven. The stars in their orbits fought against Sisera .. . . . .Why is it that stars ONLY fight against men in the pages of books?

You are giving it a literalist interpretation - but the whole chapter is simple enough to understand, that Deborah and Barak were using figurative speech in that verse 20 to describing a principle of spiritual warfare. We know from Judges 4:15-16 that the battle was literally fought in a physically geographical place on earth where Barak himself was in that battle; so it is clear that they were not speaking in literal terms in that verse of their song. But, of course, it is up to you to do as pleases you with that verse - does it therefore provide any 'evidence' for your atheism?

On what ridiculous basis did you come to the conclusion that I am frcing myself to write god in the lower case?. . .

Well, look again - you just did, no? Not that it matters; but from the previous quote I'm sure you made an effort to type 'ONLY' in upper case? Don't let it trouble you - ridiculous or not, it is an observation that is now common with many atheists on this forum.

I am really sorry that people are so fearful an irrational about myths that the way people type characters on a key board makes them loose sleep(See, I can presume things about you, too) So, god must be written in upper case before a person is rational and interested in a dailogue? .

Oh dry your tears. . . who is fearful of what you hold about your atheism? Lol, mazaje. . please grow up.

Chrisbenogor:

I read your outline again and I am still confused, are you saying you can give evidence on the supernatural and not the physical,

But Chris, did I say that at all? I said plainly that my subject is a supernatural one; and as such, I would be approaching that discussion in terms that are not reducible to physicalist probables.

What do I mean by that? Simple: you cannot expect me to reduce everything I have to say on this subject to fit into the worldview of the Physicalist. Please allow me to make a small excerpt on 'physicalist' ~

[list]"Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things."[/list]

When thehomer was evading that point, I tried to explain what it entails for me by pointing out repeatedly the fact that I'm not a physicalist; and my approach be such where the fundementals or particularities are NOT "reducible to physicalist probables".

It is in the same manner that I reminded mazaje about the discussion I had with toneyb and what indeed philosophers of reality involve in their discources. There is a structured approach to these discussions - and viaro would not like to violate that structured approach. Just a quote from that discussion in my reply to toneyb ~

[list]Any genuine quest for "reality" requires a holistic approach rather than a reductionist one! Let me give you an example particularly in the area of the philosophy of mind with respect to another type of dualist philosophy:
[list]Predicate dualism is the theory that psychological or mentalistic predicates are (a) essential for a full description of the world and (b) are not reducible to physicalistic predicates.[/list][/list]

So Chris, I do hope that my point is clear now? Cheers.

viaro:

I have answered that question in many ways than one. Did you miss how many times I said this:

 (a)  "My understanding is simple: I'm dealing with a supernatural subject,
         not a physicalist one - I have made myself as specific and very clear on that!"??

A simple yes, no or maybe would suffice. To the direct question. Or do you not understand the concept of direct questions?

viaro:

Please show me the difference between them, since you don't want me to equate them.

I cannot show the difference between a defined word and a phrase you've come up with and refused to define. If they are similar, then use the one that has been clearly defined.

viaro:

You have discussed nothing. By just mentioning "scientific means", you're again vague. I know what 'scientific means' is; and I requested this of you: "You tell me what type of science you want to use to talk about spiritual things and then I will lead you in that study to discover the supernatural." It is not in my domain to supply you with an outline - that would be irresponsible of you and demonstrate you're a lazy thinker.

Since you know what the scientific method is about, here is an illustration. Please don't miss the point like you keep doing.

An amuptee healed by this "supernatural" God of yours should have his limb grow back. This can easily be demonstrated by direct vision or x-rays. No need for running into spiritual philosophical babble.

viaro:

Oh kill yourself already. . . it will be your own funeral, not mine.

I'm waiting for you to oblige my request about outlining how you intend to discuss the subject.

I already told you it would rely on the scientific method.

viaro:

You're a dunce! A confirmed one!    This is why you have been ducking and pussyfooting all along and not saying anything concrete about how you intend to discuss the subject!

In philosophy, proof of one subject does not falsify the next in a line of series. Whereever you got that from would be quite magical to see - or just crawl back to your hole. Let me recommend a cure for your ailment: go and read up a bit about proof on proposition logic (or syntactic proof). To claim that proof of one would falsify the next is roguish! The theist is not responsible to "prove" the atheistic claim, nor does the "proof" of the theist falsify the claim of the atheist! This is why you ought to school up on metaphysics and epistemic logic! Just don't bandy that idiocy beyond this thread or you make yourself the champion of ideological idiots for the first half of this year!

Here comes the philosopher that does not understand the concept of negation.
Here's an example. To expand it since you seem so slow.
Proposition A: God exists.
Proposition B: God does not exist.

If proposition A is true, proposition B is false. Actually proposition B can be stated as not A.

Proposition C: The bible is God's word.
Proposition D: The bible is not God's word.
D can also be referred to as not C.

If A were true, it does not mean that C is true or false.

I hope it's clearer now O wise philosopher. /sarcasm (So you do not miss it).

viaro:

Which quite simply does not apply to me. I'm familar with such talk, another being: what thehomer is saying does not even rise to the level of no-sense (meaning: all you've been saying is absolute nonsense until you oblige the basic principles of concrete logic in your repetitive evasions).

Mmhmm after claiming it as an acknowledgement of your prowess.

viaro:

Nope, but you're wasting my time with your brainless evasions and acting like someone who's deliberately being mischievous. What have you been wasting time about on a simple request that you oblige me an outline of your own philosophical premise? If you want to keep bandying the empty noise you've been making, I have said before that you please let me know so i could roundly ignore you.

Like I said before "The scientific method". You claim you already know what it is so let's have your evidence.

@ thehomer -

What is the sum of 0 + 0?

Let me help you: the answer is Zero. Thus 0+ 0 = 0.

This basically proves, and mathematically so, that no amalgamation of nothings (zeros) will ever conjure a something.

If we agree that the world as we know it is a "something" then we must perforce agree that something caused it to be.

Thus that on the left side of the zero equation above, there must exist a permanent quantity - and not a "nothing" (zero).

That permanent quantity is what is referred to as God.

Can you deal with that? ? ?

@ Viaro - Russell's Teapot is not a strawman. The Burden of proof rests with the Theist.

thehomer:

A simple yes, no or maybe would suffice. To the direct question. Or do you not understand the concept of direct questions?

I will not repeat myself on that.

I cannot show the difference between a defined word and a phrase you've come up with and refused to define. If they are similar, then use the one that has been clearly defined.

Why can't you show the difference - and then you complained earlier I was equating them? Please show me the difference between them that warranted your initial complaint, thanks.

Since you know what the scientific method is about, here is an illustration. Please don't miss the point like you keep doing.

That's fine, no worries.

An amuptee healed by this "supernatural" God of yours should have his limb grow back. This can easily be demonstrated by direct vision or x-rays. No need for running into spiritual philosophical babble.

That okay. Is the case of an amputee the only point of your metaphysical approach? I have witnessed incidents of people being healed instantly of serious ailments - would an x-ray also do in such cases? I'm not being mischievous here, and that is not an anedoctal claim. But the point I'm trying to make here is that one case does not fit all sizes; and that one instance does not cover the existence of the supernatural, does it?

I already told you it would rely on the scientific method.

Please demonstrate - how? I have not only told you about my approach, but I also outlined them. Please do the same, if you can, thanks.

Here comes the philosopher that does not understand the concept of negation.
Here's an example. To expand it since you seem so slow.

I'm not slow - I just wanted you to stop being a goon.

Proposition A: God exists.
Proposition B: God does not exist.

If proposition A is true, proposition B is false. Actually proposition B can be stated as not A.

That's not necessarily true, and you're further confirming you're a dunce. Take my advice and go read up on proof on proposition logic (or syntactic proof). In epistemic logic and metaphysics, the 'proof'  of (A) does not necessarily falsify (B). This is why one has to be careful to consider the probables that each proposition entails.

For example, if there were two propositions:

 (A) spirits exist
 (B) spirits do not exist

. . . whatever arguments are adduced for the 'proof' of (A) do not necessarily falsify (B) because of two things:

   ~  arguments are just that: arguments, and they cannot be 'absolute' for (A) or (B)
   ~  in questions about realities, (A) and (B) are subjective in their particulars

The fact that I may 'prove' (A) by an argument does not necessarily falsify (B) because the terms of the arguments are not absolutes in the real world, and they are particularly subjective.

If A were true, it does not mean that C is true or false.

Thank God you know that - so how is that any different from what I had stated earlier? You're just a funny fellow.

I hope it's clearer now O wise philosopher. /sarcasm (So you do not miss it).

Lol, please stop your boohoos. . your sarcasm was so ineffectual. You're just spun round and round and came back to the same point I said, and you wanted to teach me the nature of a negative? Are you so far lost in your own world or what?

Mmhmm after claiming it as an acknowledgement of your prowess.

Please stop feeling initimidated - next time grow up.

Like I said before "The scientific method". You claim you already know what it is so let's have your evidence.

Like I said in my reply to Chris, you're seeking a physicalist assumption; and even at that, you have made no outline of your approach. Are you too challenged to understand simple issues?

Deep Sight:

@ Viaro - Russell's Teapot is not a strawman. The Burden of proof rests with the Theist.

DeepSight, Russell's teapot is a strawman - that is why you will not find any atheist making any concrete discussions on that premise. Don't be easily gooned by simplistic arguments.

viaro:

I will not repeat myself on that.

Ok don't

viaro:

Why can't you show the difference - and then you complained earlier I was equating them? Please show me the difference between them that warranted your initial complaint, thanks.

I already told you why I couldn't show the difference. Should I repeat myself? I asked if [/b]you were equating them there's a question mark at the end of that post.

viaro:

That okay. Is the case of an amputee the only point of your metaphysical approach? I have witnessed incidents of people being healed instantly of serious ailments - would an x-ray also do in such cases? I'm not being mischievous here, and that is not an anedoctal claim. But the point I'm trying to make here is that one case does not fit all sizes; and that one instance does not cover the existence of the supernatural, does it?

Serious ailments such as sickle cell disease, or penetrating head injuries taking out the frontal cortex? Come on don't keep me hanging? You didn't mention any cases so how can I tell what investigation will be required? But it is anecdotal evidence and does not account for much. Saying it is not anecdotal does not make it so (i.e [b]not anecdotal evidence). Yes one case does not fit all but at the very least, it should be possible to investigate some of the claims by scientific means.

viaro:

Please demonstrate - how? I have not only told you about my approach, but I also outlined them. Please do the same, if you can, thanks.

Since you claim to know what the scientific method is about, the outline should already be clear. I don't have to run into philosophy when the claims you make clearly fall into testable claims.

viaro:

That's not necessarily true, and you're further confirming you're a dunce. Take my advice and go read up on proof on proposition logic (or syntactic proof). In epistemic logic and metaphysics, the 'proof'  of (A) does not necessarily falsify (B). This is why one has to be careful to consider the probables that each proposition entails.

For example, if there were two propositions:

 (A) spirits exist
 (B) spirits do not exist

. . . whatever arguments are adduced for the 'proof' of (A) do not necessarily falsify (B) because of two things:

   ~  arguments are just that: arguments, and they cannot be 'absolute' for (A) or (B)
   ~  in questions about realities, (A) and (B) are subjective in their particulars

You wish to go pedantic. Do you really understand what is meant by "the scientific method"? I know that arguments cannot be proven to 100% scientifically. It's clear if you understand what the scientific method is about. This comes from a non-dunce who know the scientific method?

This is why your arguments require good evidence. If you want to prove that this "supernatural" God of yours exists give the evidence and let the evaluation of the quality of the evidence begin from there.

viaro:

The fact that I may 'prove' (A) by an argument does not necessarily falsify (B) because the terms of the arguments are not absolutes in the real world, and they are particularly subjective.

Do you want to dance off into what is the "real world" and what isn't?

viaro:

Lol, please stop your boohoos. . your sarcasm was so ineffectual. You're just spun round and round and came back to the same point I said, and you wanted to teach me the nature of a negative? Are you so far lost in your own world or what?

Point you said? You were confused as to what I was saying. Since the burden of proof is heavy on you, give us the proof/evidence.

viaro:

Please stop feeling initimidated - next time grow up.

Ooh I'm now intimidated because you didn't understand the phrase when I first used it?

viaro:

Like I said in my reply to Chris, you're seeking a physicalist assumption; and even at that, you have made no outline of your approach. Are you too challenged to understand simple issues?

But it should be clear to a philosopher such as yourself. I said I'll go by the scientific method. Call it what you will but the outline of my approach should have already been clear to you at the very least from my example of the miracle.
Do you need to have another party acknowledge you before you can start presenting us with your fabled evidence? You should be able to give this evidence clearly without interruption then let the discussion continue from there.

Deep Sight:

@ thehomer -

What is the sum of 0 + 0?

Let me help you: the answer is Zero. Thus 0+ 0 = 0.

This basically proves, and mathematically so, that no amalgamation of nothings (zeros) will ever conjure a something.

If we agree that the world as we know it is a "something" then we must perforce agree that something caused it to be.

Thus that on the left side of the zero equation above, there must exist a permanent quantity - and not a "nothing" (zero).

That permanent quantity is what is referred to as God.

Can you deal with that? ? ?

@ Viaro - Russell's Teapot is not a strawman. The Burden of proof rests with the Theist.

If you wish to continue with that analogy in mathematics, loads of other abstract figures can give you zero or even greater than zero.

e.g (-1) x (-1) = 1. What does this mean? Two abstract items squared give you a real item?

Why did you choose addition and not division?

You then go on to invoke a first cause which is not helpful since your analogy is not quite helpful. What I request is actual evidence.
Like you've said to viaro the burden of proof rests more with the theist. So give the evidence of this first cause you've invoked.

I'm sure he did - for any such evidence he came round to see had been presented to him during his half a century years of atheism, no? Did he immediately believe anything he was shown to contradict his atheism when they were first presented to him?

how did he convert to deism if he refused every contradictory views? your statement is a sweeping generalization.

to get the significant of God you need to die and raise up from the death and tell us what you saw there then you can get the significant of God

FMK:

to get the significant of God you need to die and raise up from the death and tell us what you saw there then you can get the significant of God

No you don't. I don't know anyone who had died and resurrected.
The topic asks for evidence of a God. At least a significant one not just the significance of a God. I mean if you ably demonstrate this God of yours, his existence would be significant.

bawomolo:

how did he convert to deism if he refused every contradictory views? your statement is a sweeping generalization.

You're absolutely correct that my initial statement was a sweeping generalization, and it ought not to have been stated that way. It appears to me rather that many atheists who are committed to their atheism as a worldview are not actually interested in discussions that might evidence what contradicts their physicalist and materialistic worldview, no matter how simple the discussion would be.

@thehomer,

thehomer:

I already told you why I couldn't show the difference. Should I repeat myself? I asked if [/b]you were equating them there's a question mark at the end of that post.

If they are different, please show me [b]how. But if you cannot show any difference between them, it means you either don't find any such differences between them; or you otherwise do not understand either of them as to be asking such a question. Which is it?

Serious ailments such as sickle cell disease, or penetrating head injuries taking out the frontal cortex? Come on don't keep me hanging? You didn't mention any cases so how can I tell what investigation will be required? But it is anecdotal evidence and does not account for much. Saying it is not anecdotal does not make it so (i.e not anecdotal evidence). Yes one case does not fit all but at the very least, it should be possible to investigate some of the claims by scientific means.

I didn't start out trying to present anecdotal evidence - as you can see from my outline in how I intended to discuss the subject, I was not going the route of such anecdotal evidences (and that does not make such events false or flawed one way or the other).

I was clear about my approach and gave five points in my outline to demonstrate that. I've also repeatedly requested you to oblige me an outline in yours. If you cannot do so, please let me know - that way, you would not be repeatedly asked the same request in order for you to come back without doing so. Such evasions point to me that you either don't want to seriously discuss this subject, or you're rather not mature enough to do so.

I would therefore ask this once: please show me your outline in precisely the way I have previously demonstrated here, viz:

[list]

viaro: In (a) above, I have demonstrated that I'm willing to discuss my convictions for the existence of God from a philosophical approach where my subject is not one where fundamentals involved are reduced to "physicalist probables" (in other words, it is not 'physicalist' but rather 'supernatural'). That way, I'm not asking you the atheist to provide any proof for me, as I'm quite capable of doing that on my own by any number of philosophical approaches I adopt.

On the other hand, you're appealing to the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum where you expect to slip away easily from the burden of proof for whatever claim you make, even if it was negative. That is quite simply laughable! In metaphysical discussions about the nature of reality, the burden of proof rests on anyone making either a positive or negative claim - that is a different thing from claims made by any party in the physicalist approach.

For example, in physicalism, it does not matter whether the claimant is either a theist or atheist to be able to say it is possible to have 'a square peg in a round hole' - and either way, it is possible to describe that in literal terms by circumspections in geometry. Someone coming to make the negative counter claim that such a thing is not possible is also responsible to show with the burden of proof that it is NOT possible to have a square peg in a round hole. In this example of physicalism, it is irresponsible to say that the one who makes a negative claim is not responsible for any burden of proof.

However, in the philosophy of metaphysics, the theist who claims that 'God exists' and the atheist that claims that 'God does not exist' are both making a claim each - and either of them are saddled with the burden of proof in either case. For the atheist to then shirk responsiblity of the burden of proof here is both irresponsible and idiotic to do so, in just the same way that the theist would only assert it and show no 'evidence'  for what he claims. In this respect, the main question is this: what type of claims are they making - a physicalist claim or a metaphysical claim?

Unless you just want to ignore the particularities of each situation, you could as well speak of the farce of a single ended stick! When the atheist makes a claim - any claim - he is bound with the burden of proof in just the same way as it is contingent upon the theist to adduce proof. In your case, you're making a fallacy of the kind that is a reductio ad absurdum because you don't understand the nature of what you want to argue, and so deny any responsibility of a burden of proof! How convenient.

Yet, on my part as a theist, I am well prepared to adduce proof for the existence of a supernatural God where particularities are NOT reducible to physicalist probables. To this end, I remind you again of my perspectives -
         1.   I have defined my terms
         2.   I understand the nature of my subject
         3.   I have articulated the manner in which I hope to approach my subject
         4.   I have also earmarked its parameters (supernatural and not physcalist)
         5.   I also pointed particularly to what it entails in its philosophical underpinnings.
You may wish to follow the same and oblige me an outline of yours - or please go tend to something else. Whatever you decide on, please by all means, don't try to bother me with appeals to simplistic distractions of vague and meaningless fallacies

.

[/list]

The above summarises my approach and demonstrates how and why I would choose that approach. I did not simply tell you that it would be 'philosophical'; rather, I outlined how it would be discussed philosophically and why that is to be so.

Your mentioning "scientific method" says nothing at all about how or why you would be adopting that approach for a metaphysical subject. Even if for the sake of argument I was open to that simplistic idea, my pertinent remark to you about that was:
           _______________________________________

            You tell me what type of science you want to use to talk about spiritual things
            and then I will lead you in that study to discover the supernatural.
           _______________________________________

To all these you have forever evaded this request, never discussed anything or demonstrated how 'science' is used to adjudicate over the spiritual and the supernatural. Not even informed scientists try to make statements about the "scientific method" being used for such subjects - they know why; and the only person who hasn't got it yet is you. The problem probably is that you don't have a clue about the nature of the subject you want to discuss, and that is why you can't show anything concrete.

Just this once, I would ask you again:
[list]

You may wish to follow the same and oblige me an outline of yours

[/list]

. . . then show me why my approach is unsuitable in terms of the nature of the subject (spiritual and supernatural); and then demonstrate how you want to use any particular "science" for such a subject (spiritual and supernatural). I have shown my willingness to discuss this subject, and have demonstrated both how and why I would be discussing it on philosophical premises than anything else.

If you cannot oblige me a similar outline and cannot demonstrate any reason to show how and why in your case, I would take it that you wish to be soundly and roundly ignored henceforth.

viaro:

@thehomer,
If they are different, please show me how. But if you cannot show any difference between them, it means you either don't find any such differences between them; or you otherwise do not understand either of them as to be asking such a question. Which is it?

I've already told you that I did not understand the phrase "physicalist probable" that is why I cannot compare it to physicalism which is well defined.

thehomer:
Aah but you did not define supernatural in any meaningful way. You're still saying "physicalist probables". You have not indicated what that phrase means.

thehomer:
I cannot show the difference between a defined word and a phrase you've come up with and refused to define. If they are similar, then use the one that has been clearly defined.

Those responses were to tell you that I do not understand what it meant.

viaro:

I didn't start out trying to present anecdotal evidence - as you can see from my outline in how I intended to discuss the subject, I was not going the route of such anecdotal evidences (and that does not make such events false or flawed one way or the other).

Anecdotal evidence (especially by a non-specialist in the field) is quite unacceptable scientifically. Yes it may not be false.

viaro:

The above summarises my approach and demonstrates how and why I would choose that approach. I did not simply tell you that it would be 'philosophical'; rather, I outlined how it would be discussed philosophically and why that is to be so.

And I said

thehomer:
I'm asking for your evidence if you feel you have to run into metaphysics to provide it, please go ahead. But be sure to keep at the back of your mind the scientific claims it makes.

viaro:

Your mentioning "scientific method" says nothing at all about how or why you would be adopting that approach for a metaphysical subject. Even if for the sake of argument I was open to that simplistic idea, my pertinent remark to you about that was:
           _______________________________________

            You tell me what type of science you want to use to talk about spiritual things
            and then I will lead you in that study to discover the supernatural.
           _______________________________________

To all these you have forever evaded this request, never discussed anything or demonstrated how 'science' is used to adjudicate over the spiritual and the supernatural. Not even informed scientists try to make statements about the "scientific method" being used for such subjects - they know why; and the only person who hasn't got it yet is you. The problem probably is that you don't have a clue about the nature of the subject you want to discuss, and that is why you can't show anything concrete.

For all we know, the subject to which you are attempting to give a nature to may be nonexistent. The burden of proof is more on you to back up the claims of the supernatural and spiritual with evidence which you are yet to do.

viaro:

. . . then show me why my approach is unsuitable in terms of the nature of the subject (spiritual and supernatural); and then demonstrate how you want to use any particular "science" for such a subject (spiritual and supernatural). I have shown my willingness to discuss this subject, and have demonstrated both how and why I would be discussing it on philosophical premises than anything else.

I'm sorry I thought you could see my approach clearly.

I didn't define "scientific means" since you already said you knew what it meant.

Your claim of it being metaphysical is not disputed I only pointed out that the claims it makes can be tested scientifically.

I have chosen this method because claims of supernatural events/concepts e.g miracles can be tested scientifically since the claims it makes are scientific claims.

I intend to use it well, scientifically (with principles and methods used in science).

Your request for me to show why your method is unsuitable, is not for me to answer. The burden of proof is more on you to show why your method is suitable. I simply do not know if it would be suitable since you have not given any evidence.

what type of claims are they making - a physicalist claim or a metaphysical claim?

This is a false dichotomy. The claims they make are neither. They are scientific claims that can be tested scientifically. e.g I am no longer a sickler because I was healed by a spirit. That is a scientific claim that can be evaluated with a blood test.

viaro:

If you cannot oblige me a similar outline and cannot demonstrate any reason to show how and why in your case, I would take it that you wish to be soundly and roundly ignored henceforth.

There you have a similar outline plus how and why please present your evidence so we can get on with it.
(Communication is so much easier without insults don't you agree?)

thehomer:

I've already told you that I did not understand the phrase "physicalist probable" that is why I cannot compare it to physicalism which is well defined.

Those responses were to tell you that I do not understand what it meant.

I have simplified all that in my reply to Chrisbenogor.

For all we know, the subject to which you are attempting to give a nature to may be nonexistent. The burden of proof is more on you to back up the claims of the supernatural and spiritual with evidence which you are yet to do.

I shall do so as soon as you oblige my request.

I'm sorry I thought you could see my approach clearly.

You simply mentioned things, gave no demonstration, kept repeating it, and said nothing.

I didn't define "scientific means" since you already said you knew what it meant.

I know what it meant. Now please show me HOW and WHY it is more suited to METAPHYSICAL discussions.

Your claim of it being metaphysical is not disputed I only pointed out that the claims it makes can be tested scientifically.

That's fine - that is why I requested you to show me WHY that is so; and also HOW the metaphysical could be tested scientifically. Just saying so is not a demonstration of same - and I already outline what I meant, even going so far as to repeatedly refer to how I demonstrated it in my discourse with toneyb.

I didn't just state or mention things - I explained them in detail before coming to those 5 points as a summary and then requested you do the same. It so happens that you're seemingly evading this issue, unable to demonstrate anything concrete and we have to remain at your evasive come backs. So I shall do you the favour of once again posting a demonstration of what I meant from my replies to toneyb ~~
________________

(a) this is "why a philosophical approach" ~

[list]

viaro: Any genuine quest for "reality" requires a holistic approach rather than a reductionist one! Let me give you an example particularly in the area of the philosophy of mind with respect to another type of dualist philosophy:

[list]Predicate dualism is the theory that psychological or mentalistic predicates are (a) essential for a full description of the world and (b) are not reducible to physicalistic predicates.[/list]

If one is going to take seriously any philosophical approach to the study of "realities", such a researher should be willing to to avoid the reductionist approach where fundamental elements in such a research are reduced to "physicalist predicates" . To adopt the reductionist approach will not yield results for a "full description" of the realities of our world - and I'm afraid that is what has happened in the vid that you posted. Therefore, one cannot accept that as "conclusive evidence" for anything - that is a shame and will not score zilch in any journal of philosophy of mind.

I reckon that the real reason the author cleverly dodges critical philosophical underpinings is because those are issues that are the very core of the subject he sought to discuss. So for his own convenience, since he could not handle those grey areas that present serious problems to his narrow ideas, he quickly scuttles round them and proceeds to propound his own idealism. I'm sorry, toneyb, that kind of pretence is neither science nor philosophy - and such reductionist approach to studying reality is not what any informed thinker should present as "conclusive evidence" of anything, unless they simply want to be mischievous.

[/list]

(b) this is a further discourse on why and how ~~

[list]

viaro: Did you pay attention to the enquiry I posed? I had stated particularly: "I'm very interested in the philosophical underpinnings behind the conclusions you have reached to make such assertions", not so? And it was based on that same philosophical approcah that I posted my reply.

To be sure, that vid is an elaborate crap if we have to present it as "conclusive evidence" for reality. What you expected me to do was take every line he presented and then argue on endlessly, no?  I'm sorry to disappoint you; but if you were to present that in any solid academic institution of philosophy, you would fail the first class, I guarantee you that!

What did you actually try to counter in the fact that science is not about a reductionist approach but a holistic one? Why did he cleverly evade other dualist philosophies, toneyb? To reassure you, I had seen that vid long before now (it was one of those I viewed when researching for a paper on cosmology and came across Krauss' talk which I have also reviewed on this forum). I also here gave you an example of why philosophers of mind are not goons when it comes to philosophy of mind - and that link I gave about 'predicate dualism' is Philosophy resource at Stanford University.

If you have anything to say that is against the holistic approach for researches about realities of our world, please share the same. That is where that vid completely collapses, and he was clear from the onset that he was adopting the reductionist approach where "only one" fundamental reality is required. Toneyb, that is an attempt to cheat the gullible reader - and we know that any research for a "full description" of the world will involve fundamentals that are "not reducible to physicalistic predicates". Can you tell me why he was violating that very point that all sound philosophers ALREADY know??

[/list]
________________

Now please do the same and oblige me your own outline of why and how you deem that your idea of the "scientific method" is best suited to metaphysical questions. If and when you do so, could you indicate what type of dualism you intend to adopt on this subject?

I look forward to you disposition to oblige my request - which if you don't, it would suggest to me that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and need to please refrain from being so vacuous.

I have chosen this method because claims of supernatural events/concepts e.g miracles can be tested scientifically since the claims it makes are scientific claims.

Please show me any scientist that has conducted a scientific research into the supernatural by any scientific method  - any.

I intend to use it well, scientifically (with principles and methods used in science).

Please oblige me.

Your request for me to show why your method is unsuitable, is not for me to answer.

This is where you confirm you're a time-waster who wishes to be roundly ignored. If you had any clue how to approach your subject, you would not have been ducking it forever and shouting your strawman fallacy of Russell's teapot and recycling your vacuity. All you needed to have said was that simple - you cannot answer, because you are unable to do so. If you could, you definitely would have done so.

The burden of proof is more on you to show why your method is suitable. I simply do not know if it would be suitable since you have not given any evidence.

Are you drunk or deluded? How many times have I shown that same thing in this thread alone? You must be one illiterate schmuck! If the burden of proof is on me to show why my method or approach is suitable, I have done that same thing so many times already! A few reminders:

            post #94

            post #96

            post #97

            post #119

            post #134

            post #143

. . . and more recently again at:
            post #154

In almost every situation after I demonstrated why and how my approach is suitable (noting particularly that the type of questions asked are metaphysical), I then requested you to please demonstrate the same for yours. How and why do you adopt any "scientific method" for metaphysical questions? And you have forever evaded my simple request for your demosntration. . . only to come back now asking me to do what I have ALREADY done REPEATEDLY?!?

If you never saw where I demonstrated what you asked for, that is a different thing - but you definitely cannot pretend you did not once see where I did so repeatedly! Please just get lost and stop being such a hypocritical time-waster. You're one retard and a very dubious idiot at that.

viaro:

I have simplified all that in my reply to Chrisbenogor.

Aah so when you say "physicalist probables" you actually mean "the worldview that physicalism implies"? You should have just said this directly. Or correct me if I am wrong.

viaro:

I shall do so as soon as you oblige my request.

Mmmhmm keep dodging the issue. I've said use whatever means you want but remember the physical implications.

viaro:

I know what it meant. Now please show me HOW and WHY it is more suited to METAPHYSICAL discussions.

You have now introduced more suitable in metaphysical discussions. And I've repeatedly given you the latitude to go metaphysical just provide your evidence. You have refused to do so. I've also told you that the claims made by these metaphysical entities that you are supposed to prove are testable scientifically. I also gave you the example of sickle cell disease. If you cannot grasp this as a self acclaimed philosopher, then you've wasted your time studying in that field.

viaro:

That's fine - that is why I requested you to show me WHY that is so; and also HOW the metaphysical could be tested scientifically. Just saying so is not a demonstration of same - and I already outline what I meant, even going so far as to repeatedly refer to how I demonstrated it in my discourse with toneyb.

The example given below is not a demonstration?

thehomer:
They are scientific claims that can be tested scientifically. e.g I am no longer a sickler because I was healed by a spirit. That is a scientific claim that can be evaluated with a blood test.

I already gave you the above as to why the scientific method is suitable. Are you suffering from Alzheimer's disease? The claim made by the spirit proponent can be tested scientifically.
To make it clearer since you're just another dumb, philosopher chasing his own tail, a person with sickle cell disease can have their haemoglobin examined to see if they are abnormal. This examination is carried out scientifically.

viaro:

this is[/url] "why a philosophical approach" ~

The above is my answer to why I've opted for a scientific approach.

viaro:

Now please do the same and oblige me your own outline of why and how you deem that your idea of the "scientific method" is best suited to metaphysical questions. If and when you do so, could you indicate what type of dualism you intend to adopt on this subject?

Great philosopher, I have answered as to why it is best suited for me. And your attempt to shoehorn me into your dualism is just dumb. You said if I gave my outline you would give the evidence. I gave the outline, where is the evidence?

viaro:

I look forward to you disposition to oblige my request - which if you don't, it would suggest to me that you don't have a clue what you're talking about and need to please refrain from being so vacuous.

Since you have the clue, present the evidence already.

viaro:

Please show me any scientist that has conducted a scientific research into the supernatural by any scientific method  - any.

What you are asking for is simply absurd. And clearly demonstrates that you lack the mental capacity to understand what you're requesting.

viaro:

This is where you confirm you're a time-waster who wishes to be roundly ignored. If you had any clue how to approach your subject, you would not have been ducking it forever and shouting your strawman fallacy of Russell's teapot and recycling your vacuity. All you needed to have said was that simple - you cannot answer, because you are unable to do so. If you could, you definitely would have done so.

And I've said use your own approach. I will use mine. And so far your evidence is still absent.

viaro:

Are you drunk or deluded? How many times have I shown that same thing in this thread alone? You must be one illiterate schmuck! If the burden of proof is on me to show why my method or approach is suitable, I have done that same thing so many times already!
In almost every situation after I demonstrated why and how my approach is suitable (noting particularly that the type of questions asked are metaphysical), I then requested you to please demonstrate the same for yours. How and why do you adopt any "scientific method" for metaphysical questions? And you have forever evaded my simple request for your demosntration. . . only to come back now asking me to do what I have ALREADY done REPEATEDLY?!?

The guy asking if others are deluded wants to dance off into his own alternate reality. You really make me laugh.
Ooh I'm illiterate now. Yet I'm able to construct sentences in English and converse at college level.
What you've done is simply philosophical babble since you have not provided any evidence to back up what you're saying. I've given you the latitude to use any approach you wish.
I already gave you my how and why.

viaro:

If you never saw where I demonstrated what you asked for, that is a different thing - but you definitely cannot pretend you did not once see where I did so repeatedly! Please just get lost and stop being such a hypocritical time-waster. You're one retard and a very dubious idiot at that.

Ooh keep it up with the insults. I hope you don't damage anything with all your rants.
Also, you're quite a fellow. you've managed to stretch this topic this far without giving any evidence whether logical or not. Just going your merry way chasing your tail. If you don't have this fabled, mysterious, unrevealed evidence, just say so. Or do you not understand your evidence well enough to present it? Are afraid that it is yet another philosophical sophistry?

@viaro
Me I will not be involved in long meaningless threads filled with words that have no real meaning to me you or others reading this. If you say the issue is not a physical one and that the issue is more that this physical plane then go ahead an define the frame of reference and go ahead to further show that it holds for every one and then finally go ahead and provide that evidence. Infact ignore us and just go ahead with how you want to show that there is a God, chikena!

@thehomer
Dó my brother, you get time to do all this long long posts that mean nothing at the end of the day.

Chrisbenogor:

@viaro
Me I will not be involved in long meaningless threads filled with words that have no real meaning to me you or others reading this. If you say the issue is not a physical one and that the issue is more that this physical plane then go ahead an define the frame of reference and go ahead to further show that it holds for every one and then finally go ahead and provide that evidence. Infact ignore us and just go ahead with how you want to show that there is a God, chikena!

@Chris,

I do not wish you to be involved in long winding talk about metaphysical questions. Your dude thehomer has been playing games all along even after I had outlined my approach and was ready to discuss as soon as he obliged me the same. The one reason why I waited this long for him to do so is because I understand that philosophy (particularly metaphysics) is a serious problem for many atheists (not all atheists - for I have discussed with some very intelligent and honest atheists who have it well-sorted on metaphysics).

Soon in my reply to thehomer, I shall excerpt a few from some atheist site to show how serious the metaphysics is to the atheist, and what some have recommended. Metaphysics deals with the study of all of reality, not just those which the materialist and physicalist try to reduce to their own worldview. When I indicated this to toneyb, he was genuine enough to let me know that he was not at that time interested in metaphysical premises about reality - and that is quite an honest response I could applaud, rather than thehomer scuttling round and lying on top of everything! Please just stay tuned and I shall show you how he's been lying through his dirty teeth and wasting our time.