Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Your position has become the tautology that I was never arguing against.

Please explain to me how the IPU and your god are not identically un-evidenced to anyone who has not had the same expereinces that you have had?Or are you going to insist that others treat your experiences of god as evidence?

Somebody actually holds a sincere belief in the existence of my god and nobody holds a sincere belief in the IPU.Another person could use my belief as evidence to convince them that god does exist. They should recognize that the experiences that I have had that have convinced me of god's existence put my belief in a different category than the belief in a randomly made-up creature.

So belief itself should be considered as evidence in favour of that which is believed in? Well logically and evidentially your experiences of inherently non-empirical gods can be nothing but the product of your internal mind.Unless you are claiming the existence of a sixth sense? Why should anyone but you consider your god to be anything other than an obviously "made-up" creature?It seems that you are requiring others to accept your feelings of conviction as a form of evidence. Despite the fact that logically your experiences of the inherently non-empirical can be nothing but the product of your internal mind.This also seems contradictory to what you have said previously about non-empirical experiences being considered as evidence only for the experiencee.................Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No, not as in circular reasoning Are you trying to understand what I'm saying, or are you just trying to come up with a way that I must be wrong? I'm growing tired of this discussion.My belief in god does not evidence my belief in god. It could, though, evidence another (different) belief in god. Not necessisarily. There could be a sixth sense like you've brought up. We don't know.But it doesn't matter because my god is not inherently non-empirical. Nah, I don't know if there's a sixth sense or not. Because they too have had experiences that convinced them that god exists and they didn't make up theirs. If they don't find it convincing then it won't be evidence for them. What I'm "requiring" is that others accept that my feelings of conviction could be a form of evidence for another person.You're requiring that that is not even a possibility, but it is. If the god is inherently non-empirical and there is no such thing as a sixth sense. Nobody else can have my experiences, so they can only be evidence for me. But the results of those experiences that other can have could be evidence.

Hmmmmmm.So you don't actually dispute that the gods that you consider to be empirically unknowable require a sixth sense to exist in order for them to be evidenced as something external to the mind.Then why will you not just explicitly state this?Is it because you think it sounds silly but cannot think of a better answer?Is it because you still think that experiences of the inherently non-empirical can be evidence of something external to ones own mind despite the fact that you have no logical or evidential basis for such an argument other than that it feels right to you?Again - Why not just explicitly admit this and move on?

I don't consider god to be empirically unknowable.

Radical claim!!!Well the next time you experience your god can I request that you pull your mobile camera-phone out of your pocket and put this debate to rest by recording that experience? I extend this request to anyone else experiencing empirically detectable gods. So the internet should soon be awash with such recorded experiences.....?Are you seriously claiming that the only reason gods are not empirically evidenced is because nobody has ever yet managed to pull their camera-phone out of their pocket quickly enough? It is not even a logical possibility that your experiences of the non-empirical pertain to anything external to your mind unless one either accepts the existence of a sixth sense or assumes that gods can actually be empirically evidenced. Marvellous!! It seems that we agree on that at least. Please note that I will refer to this statement should you feel compelled to change your empirically-knowable-god stance for any reason at all in the future.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then why is there no empirical evidence of your god?Magic?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes the scientific method is the best means of progressing and validating any given claim. But simply believing that ones experience is objective is not enough to conclude that such an experience is, or can be, objective in nature. Only concepts that can be empirically, and thus objectively, evidenced can meaningfully form the basis of a hypothesis. If you are describing the basis for personal introspection and self analysis then - Yes, I suppose so.However with regard to the formation of a scientific hypothesis (i.e. the topic at hand) the mere subjective preference for a particular concept or theory is not a sufficient basis at all. Rather the basis of a hypothesis must be empirical evidence that suggests the concept in question is at least a viable and logical possibility. Additionally the concept in question must be able to be verified or refuted empirically. At least in principle. Even if current technological limitations make this impossible at present. True-ish. But if we seek to include supernatural beings, entities or concepts within this paradigm of evidence then we necessarily incorporate forms of non-empirical anecdotal "evidence" that cannot logically be at all objective. Experiences of such non-empirical entities can logically only be products of the mind and are thus invalid as forms of evidence. We therefore cannot form either the basis of a hypotheses nor any means of verification or refutation upon such experiences. Yes? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Awesome!!! Sure, logically those experiences are in the mind. BFD.Still though, one could believe in an inherently non-empirical god and that belief could be different than belief in the IPU. The lack of empirical evidence doesn't mean that there has to be absolutely no reason at all to believe in one thing over another. One reason could simply be because your mom believes it. Or that so many people in the world have a belief in god(s) ergo there's probably something out there. Having those reasons to believe, aka 'evidence', distinguish the belief from some random made-up one. Why?

So is your belief in god equal to say the belief in Zues for the Greeks?Or does the argument fall apart once specific characteristics start to be asigned to god(s)? Unless the origin of the god(s) proves to be completely made-up.I think your position holds up when you say "something out there." But when the god(s) have specific stories and characteristics (likes, dislikes, laws, motives) your position doesn't seem to hold up. It's not enough that one believes there is "something out there," now that something out there sent his son to earth, helped certain tribes, doesn't want certain acts commited by it's people, etc.How does one go from "something out there," to a specific god, of a specific religion, without empirical evidence for that specific god?- "I had an experience and I believe there is something greater than us out there."- "I had an experience and it was Jesus, and not any other god."I can see how no empirical evidence would be required by individuals to confirm the conclusion for the first scenario, but I can't see how the second one wouldn't require empirical evidence.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Absolutely. But, once again, I am not disputing the right of anyone to personally believe in whatever specific gods they want for whatever personal reasons they choose. I have no beef with personal belief whatsoever and never have done. I am mainly interested in establishing whether belief, agnosticism or a degree of atheistic non-belief is the objective, logical and rational conclusion with regard to gods concepts more generally.You are conflating reasons for belief with the rationalisation of belief. Somebody may believe in particular god because their mother does. Somebody may believe in the IPU because they like the colour pink. These are both arguably valid reasons for personal belief. But neither of these reasons adds any weight at all to the idea that the object of that belief actually exists externally to the mind of the believer. Do you not see the difference?With that in mind I fail to see how the fact that somebodies mother believes in a particular non-empirical entity makes the actual existence of that non-empirical entity any more or less likely or more or less evidenced than the actual existence of the IPU? Both are equally un-evidenced in any objective terms. Both must logically be products of the human mind. Right? Is that not what we have just agreed with regard to non-empirical entities? Because in the wider debate that RAZD, I, you and numerous others (Rahvin, Modulus, Oni etc. etc.) have been engaged in the notion that it is necessary for gods to be empirically detectable in order for them to be knowingly evidenced is a fairly significant step forwards.Also if you are now claiming that gods are empirically detectable then this begs the obvious question of why we have no empirically recorded evidence of such entities actually existing? Is that not a fairly gaping hole in the argument that such things do indeed actually exist?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Oni Unless either the thing that is "greater than us" was empirically detected or we have reason to believe that humans have some sort of sixth sense then I am not sure how even the first conclusion can be rationally deemeed as anything other than a product of the internal mind? How can it possibly be related to anything "out there" unless the experience was potentially empirical in nature? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

How, precisely? If exactly the same amount of objective evidence exists in support of the IPU as for any and all deities, how would the belief be different? Is it different because non-IPU beliefs are "more sincere?" Since when does sincerity have anything to do with whether a belief is rational or not? There are people who sincerely believe in fairies, even today; children holda sincere belief in Santa Claus. Sincere belief clearly has absolutely nothing to do with whether the belief is true. You mentioned previously the difference between the loose definition of "evidence" and the strong definition - and yet you've been conflating the two for msot of your participation in this thread. The topic, as Straggler has mentioned several times recently, regards actual objective evidence for deities, and whether belief in deities is rational or logical. This is simultaneously an appeal to authority, popularity, and tradition, CS. This qualifies as the loose definition of "evidence," meaning a reason for holding a belief, but does not meet the more strenuous definition. If my mother holds a sincere belief in the IPU, is that a rational reason for me to believe in it? Simply because "my mother says so" is a rather poor reason for believing that something otherwise completely unevidenced exists in objective reality. After all, I believed in Santa when I was a child because my mother said so, and Santa turns out to be a fictional character. Same with the tooth fairy, the "stork" that brings kids, and any number of beliefs. Does the sincerity of my mother's belief in God make that particular evidenced entity more likely to actually exist? How? Be specific. Remember that many people still sincerely believe in fairies, 6-day Creation, and a global Flood. This is absolutely ridiculous. You're appealing to a popularity that doesn't even exist here. A more accurate statement would be "so many people in the world have a belief in mutually exclusive god(s), many of which have absolutely nothing in common save the term 'god' (and, of course, the complete absence of evidence supporting their existence),and so there's probably something out there."We all know that the popularity of a belief carries no weight as to the belief's validity. Belief in a Flat Earth was awfully common 1000 years ago, and yet that belief was still incorrect. But in this case you can't even point to a popularly common belief - most of the deities are completely mutually exclusive.Do you think that the popularity of belief in god(s), even when those beliefs contradict each other, supports the notion that god(s) actually exist? Why? Be specific. Once again, you're conflating the loose definition of evidence with the more stringent one. None of these things are actual evidence, CS, any more than popular belief was evidence for a Flat Earth, or the sincere belief of a parent somehow provides evidence for a fairy. It may be a reason that a person holds a belief, but that reason is not logical as it depends on committing various logical fallacies. Your "evidence" does not actually support the objective existence of deities even one jot - it equally supports the idea that human beings are by nature irrational and gullible, two things we actually do know to be true and have objective, testable, repeatable evidence for, unlike the existence of a deity.Frankly CS, your argument is bollocks. "But people sincerely believe in (deity x), so that makes (deity x) different from the IPU!" Utter nonsense. Give me 6 months, and I'll wager I can manufacture a group of people who sincerely believe in a deity purely of my own manufacture. Cults do it all the damned time. The objective evidence supporting the objective existence of both deities and the IPU remain exactly the same: there isn't any. Your appeals to tradition, authority and popularity don't change that very simple fact.Your "difference" is of no relevant consequence. You may as well point out that god(s) and the IPU are "different" because typically god(s) are neither pink, nor unicorns. It's still a red herring argument, a blatant and rather poor attempt to dismiss the fact that no actual evidence (in the strict sense, since that's all that matters for this discussion) exists supporting either any deity or the IPU, making them for all practical purposes related to this discussion equivalent.