Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Then the confusion is in the terminology. I should have used the word "empirical" in the OP. Empirical in the sense of referring to our 5 empirical senses. Whether directly or indirectly (i.e. by means of technology).To my knowledge nobody here is saying that "Large God Accelerators" or somesuch coul be used to eventually detect gods if we could just develop the technology to do so. As I understand it gods are immaterial entities not made of matter or energy as we understand the terms. Entities that are immune from material detection.In which case if we restrict ourselves to the 5 senses as the sole form of evidencing external reality, gods by definition cannot be evidenced by "experiences". Whether single and isolated (i.e. subjective by the definition we appear to be using here) or otherwise.So the Immaterial Pink Unicorn remains as unevidenced as any other immaterial god concept. Regardless of anyones "experiences". Exactly as I have been saying for some time now...................Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

We all agree that our 5 empirical senses are our only means of gaining "perception of any external experience" (as you phrase it in Message 150)Therefore we must all also agree that concepts such as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn cannot, by definition, be evidenced by any "experience". Subjective or otherwise.Thus we must also all conclude that any other immaterial, supernatural entity that is beyond the ability of our 5 empirical material senses to detect remains completely unevidenced by ANY "experience". Whether this experience is "subjective" or not. Wise words from Percy. I wish I had listened to them earlier.I don't know what form your materially detectable, and thus "evidenced", gods take. Nor do I understand why you think these materially detectable entities are "scientifically unknowable".
If anyone can specifically explain this to me it would be much appreciated.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Message 150 - the actual full quote with context: In other words all experiences may contain true perceptions of reality. Notice that reality does not cease to exist for the insensate person incapable of sensing the world, only that they cannot sense it through the 5 senses. An obvious corollary is that there are many elements of reality that we are unable to sense, being limited as we are to 5 senses. There can also be rare events that cannot be replicated and due to chaotic circumstances among other reasons.Hence we can correct your most recent misrepresentation: We agree that any experience that (appears) to be due to our sensing of reality is viable for forming testable hypothesis. Our best way of gaining verifiable evidence of reality is through tested experiences. Some experiences cannot be tested, for a number of reasons, however this just means a lack of reasonable conclusion. Curiously, if this were so, there would be no talk of the IPU. What we have, in fact, is a plethora of subjective evidence. Your biased preconceptions are showing again, once more limiting your ability to reach a logical conclusion.Something that has not been observed does not mean that it necessarily cannot be observed, it only means that it has not been observed in a way that has yet been able to be verified.Your insensate person is incapable of experiencing reality as we know it, however this does not mean that reality ceases to exist for this person - a position your conclusion inevitably leads to: for such a person reality is the same as the IPU and your (limited) "immaterial, supernatural entity".Something that has been experienced, but not been verified does not mean that it has not been observed.Something that cannot itself be observed does not mean that effects cannot be observed.Which, of course, means that your conclusion is false.Your problem is that you are trying to reach a conclusion before you have tested the evidence.We can agree that the best method we currently know for testing evidence of reality is through replication and documentation. What this means is that we can place the evidence along a spectrum:(1) at one end: tested and validated evidence, where we can tentativley conclude that they represent actual reality,(2) at the other end: tested and invalidated evidence, where contradictory evidence shows that the initial experience was misinterpreted, and(3) in between: all other evidence, where the most we can conclude is that there is insufficient evidence pro or con to reach a reasonable conclusion, ie that we don't know.We take the things caught in the net of testing and place them into two piles - (1) tested and validated: those we tentatively believe are true aspects of reality, and (2) tested and invalidated: those we are highly confident are falsified aspects of reality - and all other concepts fall back through the net, to remain in the pool of possibilities until a better net becomes available. It appears that your biases and preconceptions are preventing you from considering all the possibilities.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : 150

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi RAZD, So then we could not in any way interact with them, and none of our "experiences" can be said to have been a result of, our due to, these "elements of reality that we are unable to sense." Right?So we cannot perceive them in any way. But even in rare events the original sensing must have been through the use of our 5 sense, right? Here is where you completely lose me.What are the other means by which we perceive reality?- Oni

What did you mean by "perception of any external experience was impossible........."? Impossible? This is completely and inarguably inconsistent with your current position. But I don't dispute, and never have, that an immaterial "reality" might conceivably exist. The IPU might exist. My argument is that they are not, and indeed cannot be, evidenced as you claim they are. So just to be absolutely clear: You are now saying that a conscious and aware person utterly incapable of empirical sensation is capable of "experiences" that you consider to be valid indicators/evidence of reality external to his own mind?1) Is the above correct?
2) Do you think this has position has been clear and unambiguous all along? Does it relate to Nessie for example? Bigfoot? Aliens? Or just immaterial entities of the sort you have repeatedly refused to discuss?
3) How exactly are phenomenon that cannot be experienced by means of the material senses "experienced"? A sixth sense?4) Most importantly - Can you give us a specific example of an "experience" that our empirically insensate witness could have that you would consider as evidence of an immaterial external phenomenon such as a god. This is desperately unclear.Be specific. And unambiguous.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This is what I meant previously by "non-empirical evidence". Let's call it "immaterial evidence" to avoid further terminological confusion (unless you can think of a better term)RAZD's position on "evidenced" gods has always quite obviously been reliant upon evidence that cannot be detected by our 5 empirical material methods of sensation. This is what Message 327 was all about.RAZD has been evading admitting this demonstrably unjustifiable position for months. Now that he has finally had it dragged out of him will he attempt to justify it? Lets see.Edited by Straggler, : Fix link

The woman in the woods who describes what she saw with her 5+ senses.
That gang at the watercooler in the morning telling you what happened after you left the Christmas party.The pictures taken by your friends of a trip to the Grand Tetons.If you are blind, the chance to touch the statue of David - indeed even if you are not blind - as a way of grokking what David may have been in the past - even if reconstructed as it is in the imagination, but not having alien tentacles sprouting from it head and large wheel-like things instead of what we generally regard as human feet.etc.2nd hand evidence.

---

- xongsmith

How can you have 2nd hand evidence of something that cannot have been materially "experienced", and thus evidenced, in the first place?Immaterial entities cannot be "expereinced" by means of our 5 empirical methods of sensory perception. Thus they cannot be evidenced. Not first hand. And not second hand.This whole "subjective" evidence thing (meaning 2nd hand anecdotes of "single isolated experiences") is just a giant smokescreen. A method of obfuscation. With regard to the evidential claims of immaterial entities it is completely irrelevant.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Onifre, Or have the appearance of being sensed, yes, but what we have is that something was sensed. What was sensed may be an incomplete view of the cause of the experience or it may have been something of an after effect.The insensate brain of Straggler's extrapolation would still "black-out" at 3g's of acceleration even though it was completely incapable of sensing the environment around it that cause the acceleration. Thus reality is still able to affect the experiences of the insensate person in spite of them not being able to sense what was going on or to explain what happened in terms of what was sensed. There is no way that the insensate person could make a testable hypothesis of what caused the blackout, or test it if they did.The ultimate after effect, of course, would be if god/s created everything to behave the way it does, as then everything sensed is evidence of that creation, but we just don't know that we are sensing it. One other way is by comparing notes, by looking at other unexplained experiences. Another way is by looking for anomalies in the behaviors of things. Secondary experience.A third way is to make extrapolations like Straggler did about the existence of life on other planets, using an evidence set of one (1) as a basis, a projection of possibilities that are not contradicted by known evidence of reality.Another way would be through dreams and hallucinogenic states. As I've said before, any idea can form an initial basis, the critical element to me is that we have a way of testing those experiences to determine the validity of the concept, not what the initial concept was. Many an engineering or scientific breakthrough has come during dreams, however they were only validated by later work.Now before anyone jumps up and down and has a tantrum, please note that I still only choose to discuss those experiences that we know, or are fairly certain, come from immediate sensations of an aware and conscious person, because I have a high confidence in such experiences being real possibilities that can be validated, and that even with such limitations on the experiences considered, we end up with possibilities that lie outside the box of Rummie's "known knowns", so we don't have to search for additional unknowns.We agree, you and I, that not every concept can practically be considered and tested, and this is how I draw a line between what I consider practical and what I don't.This is why I see no validity in discussing the reality of god/s and supernatural without additional evidence, there are too many unknowns.Do we only play inside the sandbox, where the boundaries are known, or do we play outside the box? If we go outside, how far, practically, do we go?Straggler needed to have a foundation for his extrapolations of alien life. To me the experiences of conscious and aware individuals that at least appear to be experience through the senses form a relatively solid basis for investigating possibilities as these are most likely to be validated by additional experiences.It's still one end of the spectrum of all experiences, but the focus is a little wider.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

No, just that I see no point in discussing it. Message 398So what I have been discussing is "completely irrelevant" to what I have NOT been discussing? Stunning observation.Here's another misrepresentation Message 401: Nope. Curiously Straggler still doesn't provide any quote of mine saying so, even though he promised to put up or shut up. Another lie?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : do you think there is a reason?Edited by RAZD, : /iEdited by RAZD, : another lie

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

It was you that first raised subjective evidence as the defining difference between different concepts of immaterial gods. I put it to you that you are simply unable to justify that specific position. Which is why you have been evading it ever since. "Off topic". "Irrelevant". "Not interested". Etc. Etc. Evasion. Pure and simple.Please give us a specific example of an "experience" that our empirically insensate witness could have that you would consider as evidence of an immaterial external phenomenon (such as a god). This is desperately unclear.Be specific. And unambiguous.And if you cannot do that how can you continue to hold the ridiculous and irrational position that some immaterial god concepts are evidenced whilst others are not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

More unsubstantiated lies.Once again, see Message 138 (quoted in it's entirety): Still not one post of mine quoted as substantiating the claim by Straggler about my argument and my position.He has absolutely failed to justify his straw man versions of my arguments by actually going back to the original sources as challenged to do so on Message 332, a challenge he accepted in Message 334Another lie it seems.Sad.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

RAZD has requested closure. Since we're at 400 posts this makes a lot of sense. Time to post summations, here are the rules:

• Please post only a single summation.
  ​
• Please do not reply to any message. At most post a single summation.
  ​
• Please, no new participants. If you haven't posted to this thread already, then please don't start now.
  ​
• Passions might be running a little high, so just a reminder to please keep your summation in line with the Forum Guidelines.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

My summations are at Message 338, Message 351 and Message 353, and I don't need to add anything to those to cover my position.The contents of these summations have not been debated nor challenged further, so I safely assume that they are still valid and nothing needs to be recanted or restated in answer to a valid criticism.It seems that my actual posts of my actual positions are not really challenged nor debated.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

My intention when I posted Message 403 was to leave this thread open two or three days to give people adequate opportunity to post summations. I don't know how this thread was closed, I suppose I could have done it myself by accident, but anyway, it's open again.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director