If evidence is non-empirical and the conclusion is non-empirical how can we establish that any conclusions drawn on the basis of non-empirical "evidence" (even regarding mere possibilities) are superior to simply randomly guessing as to what might exist?
You missed--or ignored--the entire basis of my post. If conclusions based on a non-empirical premise are confirmed, then perhaps that premise needs to be reexamined. We are talking about a logical construct here, not whether some evidence is empirical or non-empirical. (I am totally ignoring that dream stuff in those previous posts.)
OK. Then you too must conclude that the possibility of empirically unknowable gods is evidenced by means of experiences that can only be products of the mind. Unless one assumes that a sixth sense exists as a means of detecting otherwise undetectable phenomenon.
Nonsense. I didn't address that question at all. Read my previous post again.
You are pretty eager to declare victory where there was none.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
The context of this is the evidential basis for concluding that supernatural inherently non-empirical entities might actually exist in a reality external to the mind of the experiencee. If the evidence and the conclusion are both non-empirical how can either be derived from anything perceived externally to the experiencee? A sixth sense would necessarily be required.
Why should Coyote accept your poor logic and failure to deal with HIS position
OK. Then you too must conclude that the possibility of empirically unknowable gods is evidenced by means of experiences that can only be products of the mind. Unless one assumes that a sixth sense exists as a means of detecting otherwise undetectable phenomenon.
Or your false representation of my argument - especially when he can refer the real thing?
quote:Let's review the real RAZD position on what has been problematically referred to as "subjective evidence":
the "subjective evidence" in question refers specifically to an experience by a conscious and aware individual,
it is called "subjective" because the only evidence is what is\was sensed by the person having the experience, and what they recall of the experience,
this is the same kind of experience that happens to people everyday, with mundane experiences: experiences so common that rarely do we ask for backup information to validate the experience, even though these too are only "evidenced" by the senses of the person having the experience,
however, such experiences do become notable when they are novel, unexpected, or unusual,
we do not question that the mundane experiences can be indicative of reality,
likewise, as long as the novel\unexpected\unusual experience is not contrary to known reality, there is no logical reason not to accept that the experience may be indicative of reality,
without additional validation of the experience, however, one cannot logically progress beyond an unknown possibility of validity,
additional validation is best provided by either (a) additional experience by other people, with objective evidence being gathered, or, (b) through the scientific method, formulating falsification tests to invalidate the concept and testing them.
if you have a concept that does not seem tractable to forming scientific tests of validity, either because it is inherently untestable, or because of a lack of technology to make the test, and where the experience has not been repeated, then one is left at (7), with an unknown possibility at best, and the concept should be considered on philosophical grounds rather than scientific, if one is interested in pursuing it,
such philosophical considerations, to be valid, must be logically consistent and not contradicted by any known evidence,
additional subjective experiences, similar to the initial experience, can add to the possibility of validity, however this still does not get you past (8), objective validation.
Please note that this is entirely consistent with the Perceptions of Reality, where, once we have run out of scientifically testable concepts we are forced into the realm of philosophy, with logic, with concepts not invalidated by any known evidence, and where the only measure of validity is a multiplicity of opinions that concur, an admittedly poor and unreliable method at best.
Why don't you take my challenge in the same thread:
ps - here's a quick reference with the new board threads: you can go to the message linked and then select the "RAZD Posts Only" link under my icon and search to your hearts delight for my arguments concerning god/s and deities.
Message 1 the "Perceptions of Reality" thread, msg 1 (the oldest thread discussing this issue),
Message 4 the "Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?" thread, msg 4, my first message on the thread,
Message 1 the "Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument" thread, msg 1,
and finally this thread: Message 22, "Is My Hypothesis Valid???" message 22, my first on the thread.
Search for "deities" or "god" once you have limited the display to only my posts, and see if you can find a single post where I have extended "the idea of what can be evidenced by means of anecdotal evidence to supernatural entities that are empirically undetectable and thus inherently scientifically unknowable" as you have claimed.
Please note all the posts where I have had to correct you on this. Have your phone camera handy.
If what you claim is really my position, you should be able to find one or more posts that actually state it.
If you can't find a single post that supports your view of my position then I humbly suggest that you consider it a fact that you are wrong, and that you have been wrong for a long time.
This is a thread in the science forums, and as such you are required by the forum guidelines to substantiate your claims with evidence.
I expect to see you at Message 30 - "Winners and Losers" - admitting that you are wrong. I'm not interested in "winning" - what I am interested in is honesty.
We are talking about a logical construct here, not whether some evidence is empirical or non-empirical.
Actually I am trying to establish with RAZD whether there is actually any more evidence to positively suggest the existence of some god concepts over any any others. I say no. He says yes. I would have thought that me, you and RAZD would all agree that there exists no empirical evidence in favour of any gods? No? Or are you claiming that we have empirical evidence in favour of gods? If not that leaves us only with non-empirical.
Our empirical senses are our only known method of interfacing with any reality external to our minds. If the evidence in question is non-empirical and relates to the existence of something external to ourselves how has this evidence been detected? By definition it cannot have been detected by means of our empirical senses. Thus a sixth sense is logically required for any non-empirical "evidence" to be detected. Do you dispute this logic?
If conclusions based on a non-empirical premise are confirmed, then perhaps that premise needs to be reexamined.
I agree entirely. If RAZD can demonstrate that the sort of experiences he is including as non-empirical "evidence" actually result in testable confirmable results that demonstrate such evidence to be more reliable than simply guessing then his forms of evidence should indeed definitely be given some credence. I have challenged him previously to apply the same evidence that he is applying to conclude that deities might exist to something testable and he has repeatedly ignored me.
You missed--or ignored--the entire basis of my post.
We first need to unambiguously establish exactly what RAZD does mean by "non-empirical evidence". In the context of our ongoing discussion it is my understanding that he is talking about waking visions, and hearing the "voice of god" inside ones head type experiences and citing these as valid forms of "non-empirical evidence" (not dreams apparently as these are not waking visions but unconscious visions). On the basis of such "evidence" he tells me that the IPU is evidentially distinguishable from other inherently non-empirical supernatural beings. Is that your understanding too?
Your example seemed to be interpreting RAZD's non-empirical evidence claim to be something else. So let's ask him for an explicit and unambiguous definition of what he does mean and then continue this if we actually disagree? See Message 334
I will put up or shut up. But you have only just announced (some might say conceded after much evasion) your reliance on non-empirical evidence after an entire thread on deism, an entire thread exploring the Immaterial Pink Unicorn and this 300+ post thread on the nature of evidence. So challenging me to refute this new position of yours immediately seems a bit rich. First we need to establish what this new position of your actually entails:
If you genuinely have confidence in your newly cited position based on non-empirical "evidence" then you won't need to be anything but explicit and unambiguous. So let's start by getting in some unambiguous and explicit answers as to exactly what your latest position actually is:
1) Can you categorically state whether or not non-empirical evidence is the only evidential basis upon which you consider it possible to distinguish one supernatural inherently non-empirical entity from any other? (e.g. the IPU and any other supernatural inherently empirically unknowable entity as per Message 325)
2) Can you please state the sort of expereinces that you do include as valid forms of non-empirical evidence. For example are waking internal visions valid forms of non-empirical evidence? Are "voice of god" inside ones head type experiences considered to be a valid form of non-empirical evidence? What exactly do you include as valid non-empirical evidence and what exactly do you exclude as valid forms of nonempirical evidence?
Hi Straggler, still struggling with the reality of my position I see.
But you have only just announced (some might say conceded after much evasion) your reliance on non-empirical evidence after an entire thread on deism, an entire thread exploring the Immaterial Pink Unicorn and this 300+ post thread on the nature of evidence. So challenging me to refute this new position of yours
This is more of your false impression. This is purest bullshit of your manufacture. Either you are lying, unable to understand what I have said, or deluded about my position. I've been saying for several hundred posts that your various representations are false, so I would think you would jump at the chance to prove me wrong.
I suggest you take up the challenge before making more foolish unsubstantiated and false statements.
If you genuinely have confidence in your newly cited position based on non-empirical "evidence" ...
Curiously, my position has not changed -- which you would know if you took up the challenge -- unless you are redefining what you mean by non-empirical. This wouldn't surprise me either, as you have consistently tried different definitions to try to build a false facade of your position.
All I have said is that a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality. You acknowledge that such experiences are valid starting points for investigation
I do indeed acknowledge this.
Fascinatingly we come back again to the issue of how "empirical" such experiences are, where I find such experiences leave me completely unable to distinguish their potential empirical-ness a priori, due to their being untested singular experiences. Because I cannot confirm even the potential "empirical-ness" of the experiences it seems to me proper to consider them non-empirical until known otherwise, if for no other reason than because they have not yet been validated.
Are you now saying that these types of "singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual" are now empirical? Conversely do you agree that these "singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual" are non-empirical for now, and that you choose to ignore the fact that you stated they are valid starting points for further investigation, while trying to claim that I am using this type of evidence to justify beliefs in god/s?
If you go back to the original proposed topic post for Perceptions of Reality you will see that it has a lot more material than the subsequent promoted version. Note these statements:
quote:Science (as a whole) is limited to the study of natural objects and processes. It depends on studies that can be reproduced by others with similar results, and skepticism about results and the validity of theories that explain and predict results is healthy and valid within science.
Science sometimes reaches the limits of what it can substantiate with evidence, places where theory has gone beyond the evidence to what might be true, but the testing, the evidence has not occurred or been found, and here it reaches into philosophy: making logical conclusions based on what is known and accepted as true from the evidence that is available. This is where we get dark matter and a {big-bang\inflation} beginning in physics, and similar untested hypothesis in other sciences.
Philosophy (as a whole) expands on science by using logic and rational thought processes, using inductive and deductive methods and "reasonable" assumptions. It depends on the premises being true for the conclusions to be true, and thus discussion of those premises and assumptions is valid in the discerning of the truth of the conclusions.
Philosophy sometimes reaches the limits of what it can develop by logical and rational means, going beyond "reasonable" assumptions into metaphysics and fantasy, and {stories\thought experiments} of "what if" -- where some starting point is taken on a "leap of faith" or by the "suspension of disbelief" required by fiction (especially science fiction).
Faith (as a whole) expands on philosophy, by absolutely accepting on faith certain things to be true without proof or material evidence being needed or necessary.
...
Science cannot get to faith directly without going through philosophy; it needs a logical step, rungs on a ladder, a path of stepping stones, a stairway to heaven, and thus the plea for substantiation, of a point to stand on, a rock, a crumb (particularly from those without a worldview that includes much in the way of faith). It is not so much that science "trumps" faith as that it just cannot get there, it can't walk on water.
...
Science is stopped by the moat of philosophy from getting into faith, even the most ardent atheist includes a wide swath of philosophy within their {worldview}, and can get quite close to the fuzzy boundary to faith. Possibly just {rejecting\denying} the existence of god figures without necessarily {rejecting\denying} a spiritual essence, the edge of faith. But they won't cross that last boundary.
Note several things: this is from December 2005, already I have referenced how a person reacts to information through their worldview, there is no statement that we can conclude god/s must exist, and the question is raised on how we can judge the reality of information\experiences once we have exhausted the possibilities of science. The focus is on perception of reality not on the potential existence of god/s.
Further, in the promoted thread the OP was restated in Message 52, in October 2006:
quote:However, not all of this knowledge is true to reality.
There is knowledge from previous times that has been invalidated - such as a geocentric earth - and it is possible to base conclusions on false precepts.
There are many religions that are exclusive of other religions, so logically they cannot all be true as conceived (although it is possible they could all be close to the reality, just in different ways).
Philosophy based on logic is true if the precepts are true, but how do we know if the precepts are true? There are some philosophies that contradict or oppose other philosophies.
We also know that science has a tendency of finding new evidence that invalidates previous theories and shows new theories and understandings to be more valid, but because we cannot prove a theory in science we cannot know that we know.
So how can we judge the validity of perceptions of reality?
I put to you that there are two relatively easy measures that perceptions of reality are valid:
concordance - those elements of the perception of reality that are the most common, universal, plain, and
lack of denial - the validity of beliefs is inversely related to the amount of denial of {other knowledge}
These also apply after exhausting scientific investigation, where the first is based on shared knowledge, the second is the lack of contradictory evidence. There is still no statement that we can conclude god/s must exist, and the question is raised, again, on how we can judge the reality of information\experiences once we have exhausted the possibilities of science. The focus is still on perception of reality, not on the potential existence of god/s.
Also note this from Message 74 replying to Warner:
quote:This doesn't rule out philosophy or religion or the reality of any possible spirit world, it just says science cannot go there until there IS evidence.
That leaves us with having to use other methods, and that leaves us with problems of finding ways to validate those methods. SO far the best indicators we have are:
rule out anything that has been invalidated
consider anything for which there is multiple cross-cultural experiences in concordance
Anything else is making bias a basis of belief.
My argument has not changed in over 4 years of posting on this forum. Perhaps this will give you a taste of the reality of my position, and hint that your conception of my position is a false one.
So take on the challenge, and let's see how you make out.
I want to definitively establish whether or not it can be rationally shown that one supernatural inherently non-empirical entity is actually any more evidenced than any other. Or if concepts such as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn are as equally evidenced as a deity or any other such inherently non-empirical being. Note: This is not a direct attack on your personal beliefs. It is a quest to examine the nature of evidence and rational belief (or lack of it) based on this evidence (or lack of it). Do you at least accept that as a valid aim? I think we can both be quite feisty and I personally think that is all part of the fun, but lets not let our personality defects express themselves to the point of obstructing meaningful discussion.
Hi Straggler, still struggling with the reality of my position I see.
Yes RAZ. It appears that I am. I find it hard to believe that I am alone in this as it seems to be very inconsistent with regard to the both the reliance on, and acceptance of, non-empirical evidence. Your response quoted in Message 145 suggest that you definitely DO NOT consider the experiences available to our blind, deaf etc. witness to be valid as evidence. Whilst your response quoted in Message 327 suggests that you DO consider experiences available to our empirically insensate witness to be valid evidence. Surely you can see how these statements might be considered contradictory? With that in mind:
1) Can you categorically state whether or not non-empirical evidence is the only evidential basis upon which you consider it possible to distinguish one supernatural inherently non-empirical and "scientifically unknowable" entity from any other? (e.g. the IPU and any other supernatural inherently empirically unknowable entity as per Message 325)
2) Can you please state the sort of experiences that you do include as valid forms of non-empirical evidence. For example are waking internal visions valid forms of non-empirical evidence? Are "voice of god" inside ones head type experiences considered to be a valid form of non-empirical evidence? What exactly do you include as valid non-empirical evidence and what exactly do you exclude as valid forms of nonempirical evidence?
To avoid further confusion please be explicit and unambiguous in your response to these questions.
Are you now saying that these types of "singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual" are now empirical?
I am asking you if they need to be empirical to be considered as valid evidence? I think that they do and will be happy to expand upon that claim once you have unambiguously stated your position on non-empirical "evidence" as per the above questions.
I want to definitively establish whether or not it can be rationally shown that one supernatural inherently non-empirical entity is actually any more evidenced than any other. Or if concepts such as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn are as equally evidenced as a deity or any other such inherently non-empirical being.
Then proceed with someone else. Perhaps start another thread (we are at 336 now and you have not supported your claims about my position, and you need to do that before switching to another topic - creationist style to avoid the issue - and before this topic closes.
I note that this has nothing to do with my position on the validity of a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, as a valid starting point for further investigation, nor does it have to do with your substantiating your (false) claims about my position.
Whilst your response quoted in ***Newsflash - Breaking News - Newsflash*** (Message 327) suggests that you DO consider experiences available to our empirically insensate witness to be valid evidence.
Except that your misrepresentation of my position in message 327 is YOUR LIE about my position. Do you really not see the falsehood of your claim?
1) Can you categorically state whether or not non-empirical evidence is the only evidential basis upon which you consider it possible to distinguish one supernatural inherently non-empirical and "scientifically unknowable" entity from any other?
I can categorically state that this has absolutely Nothing, Zero, Zilch, Nada, to do with my argument on the validity of a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, as a valid starting point for further investigation.
(e.g. the IPU and any other supernatural inherently empirically unknowable entity as per Empirical Evidence - Non-Empirical Entity (Message 325))
Don't you find it curious that the only support for your claims about my position are contained in your posts and not in mine?
Even when you go to message 325 you find that it links to another of your posts. It seems you are rather fond of quoting yourself rather than going to primary literature.
Reconciling Contradictions
The contradiction is in your mind, so I can't help you. You need to do your homework to see if you can resolve it.
(PaulK) Firstly any hypothesis that has not been confirmed (for whatever reason) must be regarded as speculative.
Absolutely. Let's take that as a given. I am talking about unverified hypotheses here.
And he seems to come to a conclusion in Message 19
We seem to broadly agree agree on the following regarding a good/valid/legitimate/well formed/whatever hypothesis.
1) A hypothesis should be derived from established objective evidence.
2) Conclusions which are inherently untestable in principle cannot be claimed as valid hypotheses.
3) Conclusions which are able to be tested in principle but which cannot be tested due to current practical or technological limitations can be claimed as valid hypotheses. Not ideal. But valid nevertheless.
quote:My first impression of "hypothesis" is that it is essentially a logical construction, as used in math, and formal logic, and isn't necessarily tied to objective evidence. A hypothesis is "true" IF the logical structure is valid and the premises are "true" ... and that at some point you have a set of starting assumptions considered "true" for the sake of argument. Because of this logical basis, a hypothesis does not have to be testable or falsifiable, as they can be subject to mathematical\logical proofs.
Then I referred to Webster to see what general usage was, and came to this conclusion:
quote:Conclusion/s
Alien life exists - Is this a valid hypothesis?
It is valid as a hypothetical guess, speculation, as science fiction, it qualifies as hypothesis1, but it is not a working explanation of facts, so it is not a (Natural Science) hypothesis, and it does not qualify as hypothesis2.
An intelligent designer exists - Is this a valid hypothesis?
It is a valid "working explanation of facts," and a stated objective is to "guide further investigation," so yes, on this basis it qualifies as a (Natural Science) hypothesis, as hypothesis2, ... just not as a scientific (testable, falsifiable) theory.
Webster makes no qualifications on the types of evidence that need to be explained by the hypothesis, just evidence in general. For reference the definition in question is:
Straggler eventually conceded that his argument for alien life was conjecture (hypothesis1) rather than hypothesis2.
In Message 23 Straggler clarifies his position by stipulating that he is referring to the hypothesis2 definition, and asks:
So do you or don't you think scientific hypotheses need necessarily be derived from objective evidence?
So now he asking whether the hypothesis is scientific, another change. This resulted in my introducing the "red car" argument in Message 26:
quote:
So do you or don't you think scientific hypotheses need necessarily be derived from objective evidence?
Again, it is the modification with "scientific" that is more relevant to the question than the term "hypothesis" - let's say we are going to limit our discussion to red cars, and then ask whether you think all well made cars are red.
In Message 63 I proposed a reformulation that I think is closer to the real process:
quote:Thanks. My thoughts today were along the lines of rephrasing your formula slightly:
A + B = C
Where: A is a compiled and organized set of evidence, B is a logically derived hypothesis to explain the evidence C is an extrapolated conclusion
In this version, the starting point is a body of evidence, so a single observation doesn't make the cut, the hypothesis is your untested scientific conclusion and the conclusions (conjectured new evidence) are the tests for the hypothesis. We then take it as given that none of the conjectured new evidence has been found yet, and the the hypothesis (B) is untested.
Then began a long discussion on what constitutes valid evidence to use in formulating the hypothesis, and some of this involved the nature of "subjective evidence":
quote:You will probably note that I have taken the word "objective" out, and there is a reason for that. ... What is objective evidence?
The problem I have, is that I don't think you can draw a clear and distinct line between "subjective" and "objective" evidence. Where does one end and the other begin? All evidence is experienced subjectively, and we derive a sense of "objective reality" by the conformity of similar experiences by different people, and by repetition of the experience. The chair is always were I left it, and other people see, and sit in, the chair: thus the chair gains a sense of objective reality, an existence outside our experiences of the chair. But what happens when someone has a unique experience that can't be repeated?
After much relatively silly discussion we finally ended up with some agreement again:
(1) In Message 102 I, to clear some of the silliness that was being attributed to my argument I stipulated and conceded that:
quote:As I've said many a time, you misunderstand my argument. I am not interested in dreams and unconscious experiences, I am interested in experiences that occur while conscious and aware.
RAZD Concedes (does this even the score?) If it helps the situation any (and I come to despair of every enlightening you on what my argument entails) I will concede that anything that occurs wholly within the mind - such as dreams or the experiences of your bewilderingly bizarre example of a person incapable of sensation - I will concede that these kind of "experiences" do not constitute evidence of any kind of interest to me. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
I would think that should have been clear by now, but obviously this false impression is causing a sever lack of communication of ideas and meaning, so let's eliminate it from the discussion pro and con eh? ...
... our mutual aim should be to try and envisage the best means of seperating and establishing this as distinct from the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence".
Except that I just don't think that this is possible. If it helps, as noted above (RAZD Concedes) we can separate dreams and other unconscious experiences from the experiences of a conscious and aware observer.
and, finally,
(2) In Message 304 Straggler concedes the validity of certain "subjective evidence"
RAZD writes:
All I have said is that a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality. You acknowledge that such experiences are valid starting points for investigation
quote:Take any experience made by a person, and derive a logical hypothesis based on it, then test that hypothesis for validity, and you will either end up with:
1. validated experience, 2. invalidated experience, or 3. a null result (no further evidence either way)
And the validated ones, no matter what their original basis was, would be evidence of reality.
We are agreed that the only known way to validate concepts is through the scientific process. The only real disagreement has been about what kind of information we need to start with.
Straggler kept arguing for an intrinsically untenable position - that it had to be known objective evidence. He has concede that the singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality and is a valid basis for forming a hypothesis to be used for further testing.
quote: ... all I have ever suggested is that we start with evidence and proceed to do same kind of evaluation or investigation, and whether you call evidence subjective or objective, is irrelevant.
Where the (logic) includes the hypothesis and the (conjecture) involves the predictions of new evidence necessary for validation.
Q.E.D.
Note that there is no reference to proving god/s or any other reference to evidence for supernatural entities as falsely claimed by Straggler. For anyone with questions about my position, it is summarized on Message 301
quote:Let's review the real RAZD position on what has been problematically referred to as "subjective evidence":
the "subjective evidence" in question refers specifically to an experience by a conscious and aware individual,
it is called "subjective" because the only evidence is what is\was sensed by the person having the experience, and what they recall of the experience,
this is the same kind of experience that happens to people everyday, with mundane experiences: experiences so common that rarely do we ask for backup information to validate the experience, even though these too are only "evidenced" by the senses of the person having the experience,
however, such experiences do become notable when they are novel, unexpected, or unusual,
we do not question that the mundane experiences can be indicative of reality,
likewise, as long as the novel\unexpected\unusual experience is not contrary to known reality, there is no logical reason not to accept that the experience may be indicative of reality,
without additional validation of the experience, however, one cannot logically progress beyond an unknown possibility of validity,
additional validation is best provided by either (a) additional experience by other people, with objective evidence being gathered, or, (b) through the scientific method, formulating falsification tests to invalidate the concept and testing them.
if you have a concept that does not seem tractable to forming scientific tests of validity, either because it is inherently untestable, or because of a lack of technology to make the test, and where the experience has not been repeated, then one is left at (7), with an unknown possibility at best, and the concept should be considered on philosophical grounds rather than scientific, if one is interested in pursuing it,
such philosophical considerations, to be valid, must be logically consistent and not contradicted by any known evidence,
additional subjective experiences, similar to the initial experience, can add to the possibility of validity, however this still does not get you past (8), objective validation.
Please note that this is entirely consistent with the Perceptions of Reality, where, once we have run out of scientifically testable concepts we are forced into the realm of philosophy, with logic, with concepts not invalidated by any known evidence, and where the only measure of validity is a multiplicity of opinions that concur, an admittedly poor and unreliable method at best.
Note again that there is no reference to proving god/s or any other reference to evidence for supernatural entities as falsely claimed by Straggler.
Enjoy.
ps -
Whether Straggler owns up to his frequent false portrayal of my consistent position on this issue, generally on what evidence is valid for a starting position of investigating concepts of reality, and specifically on the relevance of deities and supernatural whatevers to the issue, is relatively unimportant. I have the empirical objective whatever he wants to call it evidence of his dishonesty.
I do apologize to those reading the thread for the dirty laundry that has been washed here, and note that there should be relatively little need for me to post further on this thread: Straggler will either admit his dishonesty or blindly continue with it, and I can neither force one nor the other to occur. All I can do is document it, and that has been done.
Actually RAZD started this whole thing by telling me in no uncertain terms that rationally and logically I should be agnostic rather than atheistic towards his deities (back in the Percy deism thread).
On purely logical grounds, you should be agnostic. Without any evidence whatsoever for or against it, we're left in the position of not knowing.
But I see no evidential reason to be any less atheistic towards your god or his deities than I am towards the actual existence of the IPU. Can you give me any evidence based reasons?
I don't believe the IPU exists because somebody just made it up to prove a point. Brahman? I dunno.
And it is fair to say that you actually disbelieve in the existence of the IPU. That with regard to the IPU you are an atheist. Right? Well I have no evidence for the existence of either your god nor the IPU. I disbelieve in them equally as much as you disbelieve in the IPU. For very much the same reasons.
But if you are simply relying on the lack of evidence, then agnosticism should be the default, not atheism. I thought you arrived at your atheism, not just because of the lack of evidence for it, but because of the mutual exclusivity of all the various gods and peoples' tendency to make stuff up, right?
So, you have reasons to disbelieve in god, aka 'evidence' (in my loose sense of the word) just like I have reasons to believe in god. Niether of our beliefs compare to the disbelief in the IPU.
And yet you and RAZD seem convinced of the notion that my equal disbleief in the two concepts is unjustified. That I should be "agnostic" or "weak atheist" towards your gods or deities rather than have the insolence to consider them as equally unevidenced and thus no more likely to exist than the IPU. My atheism towards your god is as evidentially justified and logical as your atheism towards the IPU concept. So how confident are you in the non-existence of the IPU? Honestly.
Does the above explanation help answer those questions?
On purely logical grounds, you should be agnostic. Without any evidence whatsoever for or against it, we're left in the position of not knowing.
There is evidence to suggest that gods are created by humans. We have been through this before.
I don't believe the IPU exists because somebody just made it up to prove a point.
I don't believe in gods because there is evidence that they are made up human constructs. I don't believe in the IPU because there is evidence to suggest that it is a made up human construct.
But if you are simply relying on the lack of evidence, then agnosticism should be the default, not atheism.
You seem to agree that there is no evidence to positivley suggest that gods exist. Do you dispute that there is evidence to suggest that gods are the product of human invention?
If you do maybe you should start a thread to discuss that question as it is slightly different from the one being tackled here (i.e. whether or not there is any positive evidence of any kind to suggest that any one god concept is evidentially superior to any other)
Does the above explanation help answer those questions?
It seems to confirm the notion that all gods are equally unevidenced whilst accepting the notion that people have reasons to believe in things that rationally cannot be evidenced.
You ignore the parts where I explain how I disagree with you to spin my post into agreeing with you?
If you agree that all gods are equally unevidenced then I don't see how any disagreement fits, even in the loosest sense, into a topic on the foundations of hypotheses?
Like I said in my post - If you want to debate whether or not there is positive evidence to suggest that unevidenced gods are actually human creations then I am happy to take part in such a thread.
It appears that I should have listened to Percy all those months ago. Message 114
RAZD writes:
I note that this has nothing to do with my position on the validity of a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, as a valid starting point for further investigation, nor does it have to do with your substantiating your (false) claims about my position.
You cannot put forward a position on the nature of evidence, whether based on singular experiences or otherwise, that point blank refuses to differentiate between the validity of empirical evidence as compared to other notions of evidence. That is just blatantly absurd.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 1) Can non-empirical entities be evidenced by means of empirical experience? Surely, by very definition, they cannot. Thus the only means by which they can then be evidenced is by some concept of non-empirical "evidence".
2) What forms of non-empirical evidence do you consider to be valid? Are waking visions a valid form of non-empirical evidence? Are "voice of god" experiences inside ones head valid forms of evidence?
You just adamantly refuse to state which isolated and singular experiences you are actually including as evidence. I think the reason for this is an unwillingness to look ridiculous by answering honestly. Non-empirical entities cannot be evidenced empirically, by definition, so how else can non-empirical entities be evidenced but by such outlandish means?
EMPIRICAL OR NOT? I genuinely tried to get to the bottom of what you do and do not consider to be valid evidence by invoking my empirically insensate "brain in a body" witness example. At that point you seemed to answer pretty unequivocally:
RAZD writes:
If it helps the situation any (and I come to despair of every enlightening you on what my argument entails) I will concede that anything that occurs wholly within the mind - such as dreams or the experiences of your bewilderingly bizarre example of a person incapable of sensation - I will concede that these kind of "experiences" do not constitute evidence of any kind of interest to me. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
I would think that should have been clear by now, but obviously this false impression is causing a sever lack of communication of ideas and meaning, so let's eliminate it from the discussion pro and con eh? Message 102
My emphasis. I fail to see how this can be taken as anything other than a categorical denial of the validity of any form of non-empirical evidence. Regardless of whether or not such experiences are singular and isolated or not. From this I concluded the following:
CASE CLOSED?
Non-empirical entities cannot, by definition, be evidenced by means of empirical experiences.
RAZD unequivocally only accepts empirical experiences as valid forms of evidence.
Therefore RAZD cannot consider non-empirical entities to be evidenced. Whether by single isolated experiences or otherwise.
Case closed.
BUT NO..... However when faced with this seemingly argument clinching dichotomy you suddenly invoke non-empirical evidence!!
Straggler writes:
As long as we both agree that no form of non-empirical evidence is valid.....
For verifying concepts, however we can also agree that non-empirical evidence can form a logical basis for further investigation. From Message 326
I had thought this whole thread was about the evidential basis for further investigation? Yet 300+ posts and only now, in apparant contradiction to previous statements, you suddenly reveal that non-empirical evidence lies at the heart of your position. Not to mention the two other related threads (one on the evidential differences between atheism and deism and one on the IPU) in which you also completely failed to make any distinction between single isolated experiences that are empirical and those that are not.
FINALLY Does whether or not evidence is empirical matter when discussing the nature of evidence? Can non-empirical entities be evidenced by means of empirical experience without this being inherently contradictory? Is your position on this consistent? Is non-empirical "evidence" a viable concept in itself? Ultimately others can make up their own minds. I have made my own assessment abundantly clear.
ONE LAST THING If any further discussion takes place then I am confident that I can completely refute any position based upon non-empirical evidence. However firstly RAZD needs to decide what sort of experiences he is actually citing as evidence for supernatural non-empirical entities. Beyond the fact that they are "singular and isolated" I wonder if he actually knows himself.
On purely logical grounds, you should be agnostic. Without any evidence whatsoever for or against it, we're left in the position of not knowing.
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.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
