Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Straggler specifically started this thread to respond to the idea that non-empirical things could be evidenced by empirical means. If you're not sure if god is non-empirical, then many of Straggler's arguments don't pertain to you.

I disagree. I don't believe in anything until I have evidence of its existence. I start from a position of disbelief, and require evidence to move toward a tentative belief, through to full on belief. The level of evidence needed to move me in any great way will depend on mundanity of the claim. I will admit I may be wrong, and may even pursue an experiment to see if I can turn up any evidence for something I don't believe exists, but until I find any evidence, I don't think the thing exists.For example: My new neighbors may or may not have a cat. I haven't asked anyone and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that they do, but neither have I seen a sign saying "I hate cats" or some other such evidence of the lack of cats. So, I don't think they have a cat, but all it would take for me to switch to believing they do is someone telling me.

If someone asks me, "Do they have a cat." I would say, "I don't know, but I don't think so."This may be considered weak atheism, if you prefer, but to me, just sitting there saying, "I don't know," and dropping it at that indicates that it's not very important, and in this case, I guess it isn't. But for something big, like God, I would try to make some decision, so, until I see some reason to change my mind, I'm going to assume a god doesn't exist. I describe myself as an atheist with agnostic tendencies, meaning, I think there is no God (atheist) but I admit that I could be wrong (agnostic tendencies).For those math geeks out there, I assume a null set until I see a component.

You know, I was trying to get somewhere with my story, I just wasn't sure where. Thanks for picking up my slack.

I believe, and again, we're all just spitting in the wind until RAZD pipes up, is that if this person "hears" this voice and no one else is around, how is he supposed to know if it was empirical or not?I also believe, if I can be excused for writing down two things I think RAZD means, that until he can be sure if this experience is empirical or not, RAZD is considering it not empirical. That way, it can lead to a belief, it can lead to further investigation, but we can never know if it was an empirical sound, or merely a subjective "sound."Edited by Perdition, : Spelling, spelling everywhere and not a word to read.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

The telling is subjective, but the beginning point was still objective. At the beginning of the chain is something objective and empirical, or at least possibly so. My interest in this thread, and I assume many others' as well, is that we find RAZD to be one of the best posters on this forum, effortlessly chopping creationists up with grace and skill. Yet he claims to believe in, which means asserts the actual existence of, a deity that is inherently unknowable. This seems very strange and I want to know where the disconnect is. How can he be such a rational, logical person when it comes to others' sincerely held beliefs, yet can't be so when it comes to his own? I find it perplexing, but I try and stay out of these conversations, to a degree, because I do respect that he doesn't want ot talk about it, as frustrating as that is.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.