Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Presumably. Pretty much, yeah. Yes, that correct. Well, there's faith, for one.But lets say you had a "vision" and it looked like Jesus looks in pictures. That might lean you towards those speicifics being correct. But, is that vision empirical or not? With an isolated incident the person cannot know if it was in their mind or external to them. If Jesus was using some sixth sense to zap mind visions into your head

If you have no reasons to believe in gods then weak atheism is the objective, logical and rational conclusion. Strong atheism would require some kind of evidence that god does not exist. If you want to remain objective, logical and rational then your evidence would have to fit that criteria. I don't know about the likelyhood, but that the person has actual reasons to believe in the particular entity makes it more evidenced than the IPU. No, they don't have to be products of the mind. Maybe the god has some actual empirical-ness, or maybe there is a sixth sense. But now you're getting back to your tautology again. (where "knowingly evidenced" = "empirically detected") When you begin to allow for non-empirical detection, ie that sixth sense, or allow for un-verified/non-empirical reasons to be evidence, then you're no longer talking about the same thing. That's when you start getting into how things become verified as empirical etc.

Then the discussion has no relevance to the actual beliefs that people hold and is a pointless waste of time.

I don't know what the definitions of weak or strong atheism are. But my position is that given the complete lack of empirical evidence for gods, given that any claims of experiencing non-empirical gods must logically be products of the internal mind and given the long history of once "unknowable" god concepts being refuted by the steady march of of scientific evidence....... Given all of this a degree of doubt, and thus disbelief, in the existence of any gods can be the only objective, rational and logical conclusion. How exactly? You are conflating reasons to believe with evidence for that which is believed. Believing in the IPU because you like the coulour pink is a reason for believing in the IPU. But it is not evidence in favour of the actual existence of the IPU. Similarly believing in a particualr god because your mother does is a reason for believing in that god. But that does not mean that the actual god in question is any more evidenced than the IPU. But it was you that stipulated that the god in question was nonempirical. Now you are citing "empirical-ness" as a get out clause for evidential comparison with the IPU! In the absence of a sixth sense are all non-empirical god concepts logically evidentially equivalent to the IPU? Or not? The only reason to conclude that a sixth sense even might exist is the need to convince oneself that ones seemingly real experiences of the non-empirical are inded real. Rather than being wholly of the mind despite this being the logical and rational conclusion. Confirmation bias run riot. Do you know of any means of experiencing a reality external to your own mind that is not empirical? A concept can be unverified and yet still be empirical in nature. To cite RAZD's favourite example nobody is claiming that Nessie is undetectable by cameras. Nessie is an empirical concept whether verified or not. Gods that cannot be photographed, videoed or otherwise scientifically investigated and detected however must non-empirical.If you (and possibly RAZD) are relying on a sixth sense of some sort at the root of your argument then why has it taken until now for you to say this? Something is empirical if it can be detected by empirical sensory equipment. Does it reflect or emit light such that it can be seen by our eyes and our cameras? Does it make sound such that vibrations in a medium can be detected by our ears or other audio sensing devices? Is it made of matter such that it can be touched in the sense of being made of atoms, molecules etc. etc. There really is no great mystery to this CS.So is your god able to be detected by our empirical senses and thus by our instruments of scientific empirical investigation? Or are experiences of your god restricted to internal visions? It must logically be one or the other. So which is it?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are reasons for belief the same as evidence in favour of the actual existence of that which is believed? You seem to be determined to conflate the two.If a liking for pink is cited as a reason for believing in the IPU is that evidence that the IPU actually exists?If a family history of Christianity is cited as a reason for belief in Christ is that evidence in favour of the actual existence of the Christian God? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

By 'vision' am I correct in interpreting that, not as in "I saw it physically in reality," but more like a "mental vision?"If it's the latter then I think this crosses over into Stragglers argument about it manifesting solely in the mind, and as such cannot be empiricaly evidenced.However, if the person claims to have actually seen something in physical reality, then at the very least we have some empirical evidence to work with. Of course an isolated incident won't help establish anything about the actual, physical image, but the person should not be swayed by that single isolated incident either. ...if that's the case I'm praying for nude images to be zapped into my head of Jessica Biel.How shitty to have a mind vision of some dude in a robe, wearing sandles and being preachy all the time. - 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

Hi Straggler, We are agreed on that. However, it is sufficient to believe that it may be indicative of reality. If there is nothing to contradict this indication, then it is a valid premise. So you keep saying, however you still have the problem that you are putting the cart before the horse - on the basis of a singular experience you don't know yet whether or not further evidence of an objective nature can be discerned. Here we have the essence of our disagreement. I would say the initial evidence can just as easily be a singular subjective experience. There are many examples where such experiences have lead to further evidence of the existence of many things based on following the lead of the original experience. Your insistence on first having validation of a concept in order to be able to study it for more validation is an unnecessary additional step, if not actually begging the question. Such validation is found by pursuing the evidence of the first experience.You started with the precept that the concept/s had not been validated yet, and this seems to be a moving of the goalposts. I would say All that is required of the concept in question, is that it must be able to be verified or refuted empirically (etc) for it to be a valid scientific hypothesis (that has not yet been tested). Would you say that the existence of sasquatch\yeti is a testable concept? We've discussed the validity of the scientific search for Nessie, yes? It seems that search was done in a valid scientific manner, with the result that it appears that the concept of a large prehistoric anachronism is invalid.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : on not one

---

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) • • •

Hello RAZ. I'm glad to see that we are talking again. Anything that can in principle be empirically detected can potentially be the subject of valid scientific research. This includes both Nessie and Yeti. I don't believe I have ever once disputed this. The problem that I have with your position is when you extend the idea of what can be evidenced by means of anecdotal evidence to supernatural entities that are empirically undetectable and thus inherently scientifically unknowable. Internal visions, which logically is what "sightings" of the non-empirical must be, are not objective evidence of any sort and cannot thus form the basis of any sort of hypothesis. We both agree that alien life, sasquatch and Nessie can in principle be tested scientifically. Thus I do no see what relevance discussion of these empirically knowable concepts has in relation to your "Perceptions of Reality" thesis? In turn I fail to see the relevance of your thesis with regard to that which can form the basis of a hypothesis? Experiences of the supernatural, inherently non-empirical and scientifically undetectable can never be considered to be "objective" in any sense whatsoever. Experiences that cannot possibly be empirical in nature can only logically be products of the internal mind. Unless of course one advocates a sixth sense of some sort. I have no problem with a single experience forming the basis of further investigation. I only have a problem if the experience in question relates to a supernatural non-empirical entity that cannot possibly have been experienced empirically. If it is claimed that an entity has been seen whilst at the same time is claimed that this entity is immune to detection by cameras and video then there is an inherent contradiction. Either the conclusion that a non-empirical entity was empirically experienced is wrong or the experience was actually "all in the mind". Logically there can be no "grey area" with respect to this. This is a straw man. I insist on no such thing. Single lone un-validated experiences are an unreliable means of drawing actual conclusions but a perfectly valid basis for further investigation. I only stipulate that the experience in question must at least potentially relate to something external to the mind of the experiencee. The concept in question must be empirically detectable in principle. Otherwise how could it possibly be an experience of anything external to the mind of the experiencee? The fact is that for months and across multiple threads you have been insisting that various non-empirical and scientifically unknowable entities can be, and indeed are, evidenced. Yet in this thread you have unequivocally stated that you consider only those experiences which can be empirical as valid forms of evidence with regard to the actual existence of things external to the mind of the experiencee Message 145. In effect for the last few months you have been unwittingly claiming that the empirically unknowable are empirically evidenced.Regardless of validation or the number of experiences cited - How can you possibly consider an entity, being or concept to be both inherently immune to empirical scientific detection and and yet also be validly evidenced as something external to the mind of an experiencee by means of personal empirical experience. The contradiction is inherent and obvious.I do consider your ongoing refusal to confront this exposed contradiction in your thinking to be shockingly intellectually dishonest.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.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Let's not get dragged down the "isolated and unverified experience" rabbit hole yet again. If the person has actually seen something in physical reality then this entity must also in principle be able to be videoed, photographed and otherwise detected by our scientific instruments of light detection. Isolation of experience or lack of validation has absolutely no bearing on this principle.The key point I am trying to get across to CS (and RAZD) is that regardless of isolation or number of witnesses EITHER gods and other such concepts are empirical entities that can be genuinely seen (i.e. light detected by the eyes) and are thus inherently able to be scientifically investigated in principle OR such experiences are inherently not empirically detectable and are thus "all in the mind". It is logically an "either or" situation. Unless one advocates a sixth sense of some sort.For too long this distinction between empirical and non-empirical has been conflated and obfuscated by talk of single lone witnesses having "subjective experiences" of obviously empirical concepts. Nobody disputes that rocks, aliens, Nessie, Sasquatch or any of the other examples cited by RAZD in defence of "subjective evidence" are empirically detectable concepts in principle. Whether experiences of such concepts are isolated and unverified or otherwise. Thus, regardless of isolation of claimed experience, the evidential basis for such concepts is utterly incomparable to similar claimed experiences of inherently empirically undetectable entities such as gods.What must not be allowed to continue in this discussion (for the sake of my sanity if nothing else) is the underlying contradictory assumption that entities inherently unable to be detected by the methods and instruments of empirical science can still somehow be evidenced by genuinely empirical sensory personal experiences. This is logically contradictory and thus impossible.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes, it should be able to be empirically evidence by photograph, video or any other scientific instrument, and if you cannot, then that persons single isolated experience is not evidence for anything existing in physical reality - currently. And, until such time that it can be evidenced, it will be held as a subjective experience not representing anything in physical reality - currently.But that single experience can cause someone to be swayed to believing in a particular god, they can, if they want to, use that experience as evidence for themselves, if in fact their mental image was of that particular god.What you quoted was in this context, in my discussion with CS. Not in reference to your discussion with RAZD. (I think I'm about to test your sanity )I personally feel that we humans don't know enough about reality to say that with absolute confidence.If we are talking about the god(s) of scriptures or mythology then, yes, I would agree with you. These are silly, man-made entities ascribed all kinds of human-type characteristics that seem, IMO, almost juvenile to accept.However, that it could be evidence for something greater than our current understanding, IMO, is yet to be determined.That is why I asked CS, how does one get from an experience of "something greater than my understanding" to "it was Jesus?"The experience can be evidence of something not understood yet, but we cannot ascribe characteristics to it and call it a specific god(s). That cannot be confirmed by simply having "an experience." You must first assume that the current methods of detection are the only means of detecting all things in reality. Are you willing to make that claim?Our instruments have one key down fall: they are only as good and as accurate as we've made them. Human ingenuity is limited to human knowledge.I would say this, with our current methods of detection it seems that these claims are nothing more than "in the mind," but I would not say that as an absolute statement. And I also wouldn't say that they can never be detected in the future. I don't know everything about reality yet to make such a bold statement.*PS. I'm glad to see mom and dad have returned to the dinner table to continue the discussion - dinner was getting cold. - 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

You don't have to make this claim, you only have to make this claim of things that can interact with us. It could be that there are things all over the place that we can't detect, but we don't see or feel any effect from them because if they interacted with us, we could detect it. QEDWhat CS or RAZD have to show is that something can interact with us in a way not currently known, otherwise, we have no reason to believe anything can or does.

I get what you're say and I agree, we have no reason to believe that it does show that somthing can interact with us. But I hold that belief tenetively.I personally can allow for the possibility of it showing that we can interact with something not yet known, but by our current means of detection, external to the human mind and senses, it cannot be verified.That is why I made this final statement: - 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

Correct, I will maintain it's a possibility, just as I maintain it's a possibility that God, the IPU and the FSM exist. It's just that, until I am shown some sort of evidence in their existence, I will disbelieve in their existence.

I have no problem with personal belief and whatever reasons people have for such beliefs. I would not dream of denying anybody their right to believe whatever their personal experiences cause them to personally believe. No no no. That would be utterly ridiculous. You misunderstand me. Let me restrict myself to the empirical sense of sight for simplicity in my subsequent explanation.If something can be seen with the human eye then surely you agree that, in principle at least, it can be detected with scientific instruments of light detection and imaging. Whether technology of the required sensitivity is available now or not. The "thing" in question must reflect or emit light in order to be perceived by the human eye. Surely you agree with this?Now if someone says that they have "seen" something but they also then tell you that it is inherently immaterial, that it is not made of matter as we know it, that it does not reflect or emit light as we know it. A supernatural entity. An entity that is inherently unknowable to empirical detection and analysis, an entity exactly like our old friend the IMMATERIAL Pink Unicorn. THEN we must conclude that our witness did not actually SEE the "thing" in question. How possibly could they?In which case they must either have misinterpreted a genuine sighting of something empirical and made a wrong conclusion about the nature of the what was actually seen OR the experience was all in the mind OR there is a sixth sense beyond sight as we know it in effect. How logically can it be otherwise?It has nothing to do with technological capability. It has nothing to do with whether or not the expereince was isolated or unvalidated. It is simply logically contradictory to claim that inherently supernatural entities can be seen. Can there be evidence of something greater than our current understanding? Yes. Of course!! Only a fool would deny this!!! But either such things are empirically detectable and it is merely a matter of current technology that restricts us. Or they require a sixth sense as yet unknown to us.If one claims that ones god is inherently immaterial and inscrutable to any form of empirical investigation, that it is in principle inherently unknowable to human scientific investigation of any sort now or in the future - Then claiming that ones "sighting" is a genuine empirical experience is just ridiculously contradictory. The isolation of the incident makes no difference to this.Are RAZD and CS really saying that it is technological limitation that is the reason that gods and other supernatural entities cannot be scientifically empirically investigated? Or are they claiming that such things are "inherently unknowable" to all forms of scientific empirical investigation available now and in the future? My understanding is the latter.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.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Of course it is a possibility. Who is denying that? It was me that first suggested to CS that a 6th sense was a possible means of reconciling the otherwise contradictory claim that supernatural non-empirical entities external to the mind might actually be detected.But why would anyone currently conclude the actuality of such a 6th sense? As far as I can see only to give validation to experiences that otherwise cannot logically relate to anything external to the mind. Confirmation bias.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.