Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Yeah, well, its two different positions. Evidence for himself, yes. For me or anyone else, no.Part of my belief in god also comes from some sort of 'internal knowing' that is difficult to describe. I don't think this is empirical nor that it comes from one of the 5 senses, but it also is not simply imagined. I wouldn't expect anyone else to consider it evidence for them that god exists, but it is certainly convincing to me and I consider it to be a type of evidence. In addition to that, there are inferences that can be made that can be used in the same way that evidence can be used so I'd consider that a type of evidence too. Or if a trusted friend has an empirical observation that I did not experience, I could use that as evidence for a belief even though I have no empirical evidence. You're assuming that because it is the only known one then it is the only possible one. But you're just going to write them off as imaginary, which will allow you to maintain that they aren't evidence at all. If he has no senses then how is he going to be a witness in the first place?Is it impossible for him to come to conclusion about his world from his own subjective experiences and you not consider them to be imaginary?

Thoughts, feelings, emotions, desires etc. etc. etc. These are all internally "real" and "known" to the experiencee. These things could be experienced, and indeed "known", regardless of any ability of the mind to interract with an external reality. By empirical means or any other. That is what I mean by "internally knowable". It may be that purely by chance the product of your imagination happens to correspond to something that is completely undetectable but which does actually exist (if such undetectable things do indeed exist - and that is a very big IF). But what are the chances of guessing correctly even if we assume that such undetectable entities do exist? I would suggest that they are akin to a nomadic hunter gatherer from the dawn of humanity spontaneously conceiving the conclusions of quantum mechanics purely by chance and imagination. If one wants to guess as to what might exist but be beyond empirical detection then be my guest. But if people are going to claim that experiences of such entities are anything other than guesses, products of the mind, then they need to demonstrate how it is that these "experiences" were inspired by something that is external but empirically undetectable.If however we are talking about pursuing the empirically and scientifically detectable on the basis of educated guesswork then I am all for it. That is how science progresses. RAZD spent two previous threads belligerantly insisting in the face of mass opposition that comparisons of gods or deities to other non-empirical concepts like the Immaterial Pink Unicorn are wholly and utterly unjustified. He argued this purely on the basis that some inherently non-empirical and "scientifically unknowable" entities are "subjectively evidenced" (essentialy a confusingly-named rebranding of anecdotal evidence) in a way that "ridiculous" concepts like the IPU are not.In this thread, after a great deal of evasion and general bluster, he was finally forced to reveal that he actually agrees that only those experiences that can be experienced empirically can possibly be considered as any sort of evidence at all Message 145.Yet when the contradictory nature of considering experiences relating to the existence of empirically and scientifically unknowable entities as valid evidence, whilst at the same time only accepting empirical evidence as any form of acceptable and valid evidence (i.e. considering the empirically unknowable to be empirically evidenced) was pointed out to him he disengaged from direct discussion and instead chose to continue applying his flawed and refuted theories to rocks and other indisputably empirical concepts which are more than capable of being investigated by the methods of conventional science.I make no secret of the fact that I find his position, his inability to confront the contradiction at the heart of his thinking and his complete refusal to acknowledge when he is wrong as shockingly intellectually dishonest.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

To a person who has never consider the concepts of squares and balls, can't the realization of the contradiction of the concepts be considered "experiencing reality". The contradiction is real and they have experienced it.When you go through a thought experiement with someone about concepts in physics and get that "Oh yeah!" sensation after something all of the sudden makes sense to you, can someone not consider that to be experiencing reality even though they aren't sensing objects? If a further inference is based on that new information can we not consider that to be 'evidence'? The concept is real and they have experienced it.Or are your's the only defintions that people are allowed to use? You misunderstood me. The "something there" was not referring to life on other planets. It was refering to the supposed void of where there should be evidence. And you're a prick. Nope, not at all. You misunderstood me. Not really the same, more like similiar.

Wouldn't your logic, applied to any such situation, be a collection of empirical data aquired through your experiences?How do you know a 'square' ball doesn't exist?There is a prerequisite to applying logic. That being that your logic is a collection of your experiences. Unless you know of another way, reality is experienced through our sensory system and thus your logic is an emergent property of your senses. We can 'say it', but without empirical evidence it's still held as tenative. IMO, saying that there is life on other planets, without empirical evidence, is an hypothesis based on supporting empirical evidence.But the question was in reference to actual 'experiences'. In and of themselves, is there any other way to experience reality other than through our senses? Perhaps, but this particular argument: Does seem to be. But we don't. Empirically it has not been evidenced, yet. And when it does, then there will be empirical evidence for it. You're digging deep for this one my friend.Our confidence no more supports that there is life on other planets than it supported geocentrism. Cool, and I do, but would you?If not, why not? You said not necessarily, how so?If it's not through our sensory system, how else? Well if there is no empirical evidence for this '6th sense', how do we know it exists?- 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

Right. It is "evidence" for the person holding the belief. Not "at all", just that they don't count for other people but they can still count for the person who has them. Its conflating to different ways that something can be considered "evidence". Evidence for me isn't always evidence for you. But the contradiction dissolves when the conflation stops.

NO. No they cannot consider a thought experiment as experiencing reality. The fact that you would argue such a point is frankly shocking. It cannot be considered an experience of reality for one key reason: IT ISN'T REAL! It never HAPPENED!Excuse me for getting all high and mighty distinguishing reality from imagination, but we rational sentients are snooty that way. The void you refer to is the evidence that leads us to believe that life is possible elsewhere. We have access to that evidence directly, so what is your point? Cite? Show your reasoning please; turnabout is fair play, but you gotta' turn it about.

OK. But with respect to experiences relating to gods, deities and any other empirically and unscientifically unknowable concepts, entities or beings this is your position. Right? What exactly does that mean? Are the religious experiences of our empirically insensate witness evidence of gods that exist in a reality external to his mind or not? For the sake of argument lets assume that our witness is a devout Hindu who reguarly experiences visions and other empirical-seeming experiences of the gods in which he believes. Are these experiences evidence in favour of actual existence of Hindu gods? Or not?Would your answer be the same if he were a devout Christian who regularly experienced empirical-like sensations of Jesus Christ and claimed these as evidence for the existence of Jesus as an entity external to his mind? I have never once in the course of this extended discussion suggested that anyone is unjustified in believing whatever it is that their own experiences, choices or faith dictate or result in. Irrational yes. But not unjustified.What I adamantly oppose is RAZD's ongoing insistence that I (or indeed anyone else) should consider the personal experiences of others as evidence of gods, deities, or any other supposedly non-empirical entity, being or concept as things that actually exist external to the mind of the experiencee. Logic, reason and reams of evidence all tell us that such experiences of the non-empirical are, and indeed must be, wholly internal to the mind.Unless of course there is a sixth sense of some sort. Do we have any reason at all to think that there might be? Is that what you are actually claiming? Be explicit. Not at all!!!!!! Dude it is possible that the formation of the clouds can tell us about the otherwise empirically unknowable gods above. Maybe reading tea leaves is the way to divine what the gods want of us? Maybe reading the entrails of sheep intestines will reveal to us the nature of the otherwise undetectable pantheon of non-empirical beings that watch over us?All of the above are philosophically possible in the sense that they cannot be disproved!! All of the above have in fact been believed and used for such purposes in times gone past. Why do you reject these methods but embrace claims of empirical-like visions as evidence of non-empirical entities? Tell me how something non-empirical that is external to the mind can logically or possibly be experienced when our only means of experiencing that which is external to ourselves are our empirical senses. Surely this is just the application of pure logic?If you are claiming the existence of a sixth sense then be explicit. Before he had his accident our witness had a son. When he tells me that he loves his son I have no reason to disbelieve him. His emotions, thoughts, feelings etc. etc. are real and internal to him. When he dies those thoughts, feelings, memories, experiences will die with him but I have little doubt that they exist in some sense as long as he does.His claims relating to having empirical-like experiences of non-empirical entities that are distinct and seperate to his mind..... Those I do indeed doubt. Your previous answer "Evidence for himself, yes. For me or anyone else, no." suggest that you might agree with me.No?

Fine. No argument from me there. And there never ever has been. And again. No argument there either. You are welcome to find your own internal experiences as convincing as you like. As I have said repeatedly in three threads now. Just don't expect me to consider them as evidence of anything external to you. Don't tell me that I should warrant your internal experiences of the non-empirical as anything other than the product of your mind. Oh purrrrrlease! RAZD has spent three threads aggressively advocating "subjective evidence" (i.e. essentially anecdotal evidence) as something that should be taken into account with regard to objectively assessing the validity of everything from the possibility of alien visitation and the existence of Nessie to religious experiences of "the inherently unknowable" and various other off the wall phenomenon. Try reading his posts in this thread (e.g. from around Message 120) or pretty much anything from the earlier IPU and Percy Deist threads. But don't even try to make out that he has been making some sort quiet and perfectly reasonable case for the right to personal religious belief based on personal experience!!RAZD (and to a lesser extent you) have been telling me for months that atheism rather than agnosticism with respect to deities and gods is unjustified, irrational, closed minded etc. etc. on the basis that such things are evidenced in some way by the experiences of yourselves and others.So remind me again why I should be any less atheistic towards these concepts as you are to the existence of the IPU? It seems that you now agree that in the absence of any personal experience both are logically to be equall unevidenced products of the human mind. No?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.

Hey Straggler,I got half way through Message 262 and then went to dinner. And now you have more in Message 263. We've gotten past what I was writing so I'll just stop that, draw a line and start on #263...Here's what I had in reply to Message 262: Yeah His subjective experiences can be used as the evidence to convince him of his beliefs but I doubt they'd be convincing to anyone else (not that they couldn't be). If it convinces you then it is the evidence for your belief. And the belief wouldn't be something that you just imagined.And if, because you believe it, someone comes along and demands that you believe in the IPU, you can rightfully say: "No, you just made that up." Especially if you're not convinced because they did make it up. But that doesn't mean that you can't believe the EIW's claims, especially if they did convince you and you didn't make it up. EIW = empirically insensate witness I don't find them convincing that the specific Hindu gods exist so I don't consider them evidence for me that they exist but it does add confidence to there existing a god because we're both on to something (3 blind men examining an elephant metaphor). Pretty much. Heh, honestly, some of the Hindus seem more sincere in their beliefs than some of the devout christians, and I find those beliefs to be more convincing that there's a god than I do the christians beliefs for Jesus. Okay. And I'm not claiming that the evidence above is empirical. I just think that its rightfully called "evidence". Has he really tried to tell you that you too must find it convincing or is he just asking you to recognize how we can consider it evidence? But they are not wholly internal to the believer's mind. (like the IPU is)

---

Now from Message 263: Well I'll tell you that you should warrant them as different than some willy-nilly belief in the IPU. Now that is "a product of the mind" in the sense that the person who brings it up does so as a made up entity. They then say that another persons belief in god is the same because they don't have any evidence whatsoever, like, at all. But they're not the same as explained above with the whole evidence thing. I'm not really sure what's going on between you and RAZD. I think he's going a little farther than the above but not as far as telling you what you should believe. I read it as him explaining and rationalizing why he believes. If you have to regard all of our personal evidence as purely imaginary, like the IPU, to maintain that there cannot be any evidence of god whatsoever, like, at all, so that you can rationalize your atheism and claim logical victory then you're never going to gain any ground in understanding how we could answer this question: No, because they are different for me.

Is one way of expressing the difference to say :-- in relation to God, the believer has experiences that suggest to him or her that there is an external entity independent of him or herself.- in relation to the IPU, nobody has any experience of this kind because the IPU concept has been invented to make a point.Someone who has an experience of the first kind will not accept that their God is equivalent to an IPU.

I have had such experiences. I have "felt God's love" and "presence." I have had prayers "answered." I was certain that a deity existed.Until I examined those experiences, and realized that they almost certainly originated within my own mind. Self-delusion, wishful thinking, false pattern recognition, and confirmation bias.I accepted that the evidence for the IPU was identical to my evidence for my deity - there wasn't any, not really. Only subjectively interpreted experiences arbitrarily attributed to my deity of choice. A believer in the IPU, Thor, Zeus, Allah, or any other deity could have had the exact same experiences and attributed them to that deity.I accepted that my deity was equivalent to the IPU (or any other deity, whether actually worshiped or made up to prove a point).That's a large part of why I'm an atheist currently. Clearly, your assertion is false. A believer may not be inclined to compare their deity with the IPU, but for those to whom reason, logic, and intellectual consistency hold sway, consideration and even acceptance are very possible.

This is the very question at hand. Can something that is not sensed by the 5 senses we use to observe the external, objective world be said to be anything other than just inside the mind? How would something that is external to the mind affect the mind if it doesn't do so through the mechanisms by which the mind receives information?

CS seems to have concluded that similar subjective experiences (that is, experiences which exist solely in the minds of those who experience them but have similarities across many individuals) provide evidence of soemthing that exists outside of the minds of the individuals.This is rather like saying that, since many people have dreams about being able to fly, there must be some inherant human ability to fly. Or at least a common, supernatural "source"for the common dreams.We know that this is poor reasoning. CS has to assume a 6th sense of some sort for this to work - some means of perception other than the 5 senses, a means of perception he can provide no mechanism for and no evidence to support such an assertion. This is why he's avoided saying as much.The alternative is that phenomenon like visions of teh Virgin Mary observed in a water stain under an overpass, or Jesus' face on a grilled cheese sandwich actually represent real supernatural phenomenon. These are well-researched, and are nothing more than false pattern recognition. The water stain and the cheese sandwich both exist outside of the mind of the observer, but the images are subjective perceptions based on blurry, vague patterns resembling an expected image, no different from seeing a bunny shape in a passing cloud.In either case, there is no evidence that any of these experiences exist anywhere other than in the minds of those who experience them. They are not reproducable or independantly verifiable. They are not testable.The IPU may have been made up specifically to demonstrate the logical inconsistency of having increased confidence in one assertion over another when both are unevidenced and unfalsifiable, but that doesn't change the fact that there is still no evidence of any deity. These experiences that CS is trying to use to paint a difference are nothing of teh sort - they're simply subjective experiences that do not seem to exist outside of the minds of believers.CS needs to show that these experiences relate to an external source. To do that, he must either falsify the mundane explanations for water-stain-Mary's and grilled-Jesus-sandwiches, or he must support with evidence (or at lease propose a mechanism for) the existence of a 6th sense to allow external input other than through the five normal senses.

Let me try to make this as simple and clear as possible.Our only known means of interfacing with any sort of reality external to our own minds is by means of our five empirical senses. This is an inarguable fact. If a claim is made that a god, deity or any other supposedly empirically undetectable being/entity/concept has been seen, heard or experienced in any other way that involves empirical sensation we can logically say the following:1) The entity in question cannot both be empirically undetectable and empirically experienced. That would be completely contradictory and utterly illogical.2) THEREFORE: Either the experience in question is a genuinely empirical experience that has been grossly misinterpreted as evidence in favour of an empirically unknowable entity.3) OR: The experience in question is a genuinely non-empirical experience that has no possible bearing or evidential validity with regard to ANYTHING that is external to the mind of the experiencee.The ONLY logical possible alternative to the above two conclusions is provided by a sixth sense of some sort. A sixth sense that allows the mind of the experiencee to interface with an external and objective reality that includes entities unable to be expereinced by the other five senes.As far as I can see there is absolutely no reason to think that such a sixth sense even might exist. It seems that the only reason to advocate such a thing is the need to convince oneself that ones experiences of gods are somehow something other than a product of ones own mind. Just because one feels that ones experiences relate to something external to themselves does not mean that this can logically be the case.But if you are indeed advocating a sixth sense of some sort why will you not just explicitly say so? Fine. Again - Nobody is debating the fact that they are different for YOU and you alone. But to anyone who has not had such experiences or who takes the rational and logical view that any experience of the inherently empirically undetectable must be an internal experience confined to the mind of the experiencee alone, the IPU and any other inherently empirically undetectable entity is evidentially identical.To anyone but YOU both are logically the product of the human mind. Right?Or are you still going to insist that I treat your experience as some sort of evidence of something external to you just because you feel that it is true and not the product of your mind alone.Special pleading by any other name..............................!!Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In the loose sense of the word evidence, yes. But then, in that sense, anything that can sway your belief is evidence. I don't consider it to be evidence in the empirical sense, though. Not really. That would be using it more in the empirical sense.If you believed that people really could fly because of all the dreams that people have of flying, then those dreams would be the evidence for your belief. This is different than just making up some random ability (like invisible pinkness). No, I don't have to assume some 6th sense. Although a 6th sense would be another way around it, it isn't really necessary. Hmm, if they are not testable then how do you determine they are only in the mind? No, I don't. You're trying to force the evidence to be of the empirical sense.But it doesn't have to be to distinguish it from the IPU.