Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Hi Straggler, still struggling with your personal lies eh? The problem you have, is one entirely of your own fabrication, a fantasy of your own mind - precisely the thing you argue against. Remember this post? Message 138

quote:

---

ROFLOL de LOL. You just CANNOT GET DEITIES OUT OF YOUR MIND, can you. You just CANNOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT MY ARGUMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEITIES, can you.

​

NEWS FLASH:

​

RAZD ARGUMENT ON THE VALUE OF SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEITIES!!!

​

.... for more on a logical argument regarding the value of subjective evidence that has nothing to do with deities stay tuned for more of my posts ....

​

sheesh! What is WITH you and DEITIES? Bad childhood experience?

---

I had a feeling I would be referring to that post again. Note that every time you state that my position involves deities\supernatural concepts you are lying. Curiously, this does not change the conclusion you quoted. Interestingly, all you have stated is a tautology: undetectable objects cannot be detected, and have insisted on conflating that with anything supernatural. Fascinatingly, we do not know for a fact that supernatural occurrences are necessarily undetectable, just that none have been verified to be detected.It seems to me that you are afraid of accepting any subjective evidence as a possibility of reality, not because it is illogical (it isn't), but because you are afraid of opening a door to the possibilities of things you refuse to acknowledge. You conflate any discussion of subjective evidence with one of deities because of that fear.Let's review the real RAZD position on what has been problematically referred to as "subjective evidence":

1. the "subjective evidence" in question refers specifically to an experience by a conscious and aware individual,
2. 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,
3. 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,
4. however, such experiences do become notable when they are novel, unexpected, or unusual,
5. we do not question that the mundane experiences can be indicative of reality,
6. 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,
7. without additional validation of the experience, however, one cannot logically progress beyond an unknown possibility of validity,
8. 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.
9. 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,
10. such philosophical considerations, to be valid, must be logically consistent and not contradicted by any known evidence,
11. 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. Nope.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: You only object when you dislike or fear the concept in question, when you have decided a priori that they cannot be true.The experience in question in my argument is not defined further, so your conclusion of it applying specifically to your disliked\feared entities is all in your mind.The fact is that for months and across multiple threads you have been telling yourself lies about my position. The contradiction you seem to find is between your fabrication and reality. If you have any doubts, please refer to Message 138.One definition of a fanatic, is a person that cannot change their mind, and won't change the subject: this seems to fit your approach here, as it is always you bringing in the question of supernatural etcetera, and you seem totally incapable of discussing the validity of subjective evidence without it.Please note that I have also said, in other posts and other threads, that I do not consider it possible to gather what could qualify as objective evidence of gods, and that there are many logical reasons why this could be so. Not least of these is the blind men and the elephant analogy, which I have previously alluded to. This makes your many fantastic assertions and insinuations that my whole argument is somehow predicated on trying to "extend the idea of what can be evidenced by means of anecdotal evidence to supernatural entities" rather ludicrous at best.Note further, in this vein, that your "challenge" in Message 278 is as ridiculous as traste's (creationist) challenge to evolve a flagellum in the lab. There are many things you cannot document on a cell phone, and this is like asking someone to take a picture of the universe, or of dark stuffs, things I'm sure you are confident exist.Finally, if you consider this whole argument an attempt to justify an opinion that god/s may exist, I note that this is unnecessary: this tentative possibility is already de facto predicated by the fact that there is no evidence that invalidates the existence of god/s. Then I suggest you stop lying about my position and fabricating positions that have not been argued, and start reading for comprehension. For starters I'd like you to stop referring to my position, or if you do, then do so with substantiating quotes. You've told so many lies it is like a Gish Gallop having to deal with them.Enjoy.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.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : unreliableEdited by RAZD, : obEdited by RAZD, : not negativeEdited by RAZD, : finallyEdited by RAZD, : pick list, miss-impressions Edited by RAZD, : i

---

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) • • •

I'd hate to see you and Straggler become estranged again.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No one cares about your stupid tautology that something is either empirical or not. OR we are limited by our technology OR the entity can choose when it can be seen OR its something else that we haven't thought of yet...Your dichotomy (which now has more than two option) is false. Something that hasn't been empirically detected is not necessarily all in the mind.You seem so desperate to prove (to yourself?) that someone's experience of god couldn't possibly be anything else but imaginary.

No. You completely misunderstand my reasons for pursuing this discussion in the manner that I have. My aim in this extended discussion of ours has been to definitively establish whether or not there is any evidential basis upon which I should consider any one supernatural and inherently non-empirical concept to be more worthy of consideration than any other. In effect to determine whether or not my stated disbelief in the existence of empirically unevidenced gods and deities is as equally as evidentially justified as my similarly stated disbelief in the Immaterial Pink Unicorn. Based on your latest post I think we have finally established that we ultimately agree that my position on this is indeed completely evidentially justified. Really? We agree that all all non-empirical and scientifically unknowable entities are equally unevidenced? Fuck!! Why didn't you say so earlier? I would have sworn on my own life that the entire purpose of your IPU thread (itself borne from the deism thread) was to demonstrate the validity of subjective evidence as a means of evidentially distinguishing one supernatural inherently non-empirical entity from another. But if this is not the case then it seems we can at last agree that all supernatural entities are equally empirically unknowable and thus equally unable to be evidenced. I do indeed acknowledge this. However if we agree that only "singular subjective" experiences that are potentially empirical can be considered valid indicators of reality then any experiences relating to supernatural inherently non-empirical entities are, by definition, excluded as evidence in favour of the actual existence of such entities. To do otherwise would be to either include non-empirical evidence or to claim that the supernatural and inherently non-empirical are empirically evidenced. We both agree that the latter is contradictory and ridiculous. We have also both agreed previously that only potentially empirical experiences are valid as evidence (Message 145)So RAZ we agree!!!! You agree that there is no reason for me to consider any one supernatural entity as any more evidenced than any other. You agree that I have no more rational, logical or evidential reason to believe in your deities than I do the IPU. Dude if you had just said earlier that:

You only consider potentially empirical experiences to be valid evidence.

You do not consider any one supernatural and empirically unknowable entity to be any more able to evidenced than any other.

​

Then we could have both saved ourselves a great deal of time and effort. But I am glad that you have finally come round to my way of thinking.

​

Finally, if you consider this whole argument an attempt to justify an opinion that god/s may exist, I note that this is unnecessary: this tentative possibility is already de facto predicated by the fact that there is no evidence that invalidates the existence of god/s.

​

Precisely. There is also no evidence that invalidates the existence of the IPU. So again we agree that both concepts are equally philosophically possible as well as being equally evidentially unfounded. Both are entirely evidentially equal. Marvellous!!

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

CS what exactly do you think is meant by the term "empirical"? You seem at times to conflate it with validated. You do realise that an isolated and unverified experience can still be empirical right? When someone implies that a god has been experienced visually whilst also claiming that the same god is immune to scientific empirical investigation they are in effect claiming that gods are both empirical and non-empirical simultaneously. My "tautology" is in response to this contradiction. Are you saying that you yourself have never unwittingly assumed this contradictory position? Really? That is not actually what I said. What I said was: Technology is only a factor if we accept that gods are inherently able to be investigated by scientific means and that it is only our current technological ineptitude that is preventing this. This is a possibility if you accept that we may discover gods in the future. That leaves sixth sense, "magic" or some other equally unevidenced and desperate ploy with which to justify your subjective expereinces of the scientifically undetectable as externally real. Have you heard yourself advocating a sixth sense and gods that switch between being empirical and not? I don't deny that such things are possible. But I do deny that we have any reason to think them to be true other than a desire to validate and justify ones personal experiences as real.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

From Message 304: Your disbeliefs may be equally justified, but mine are not. I do have reasons to believe in my god, unlike you having no reason at all to believe in the IPU. The problem arrises when you go a step further to say that I have the same evidence for my god that you do for the IPU. We're not saying that our reasons for believing in god should be an evidential basis to establish your belief.From Message 305: Yes, but how do you determine if it was, in fact, empirical?... Validation.For a single personal experience, I am unable to know if it was empirical or not, other than my ability as a sane person to determine if an experience was external to my mind or not (which, admitedly, can be unreliable). You are asking if that experience was of an entity that is empirical or not and, frankly, the answer is that I don't know. Now, we can discuss the ramification of whether it is empirical or not, but considering the entity to be of a less than perfectly empirical nature does not necessitate that it was all in my mind. It isn't dichotomy like that like you are demanding. If we assume the entity was absolutely non-empirical then you get to bust out your tautology, but that really doen't get to the heart of the actual experience nor the actual belief.And then for you to go further to question my motive for discussing the reasons for my belief

A reason for belief is not evidence for the actual existence of deity X. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for god as there is for the IPU. You have a reason to believe in your god that is not available to you for the IPU, but don't assume that it's evidence.I think this will help the argument: Do you believe God is empirically knowable. Do you think it would be possible to take a picture of one of these religious visions or record the voice of god speaking to you? Or do you believe God is not empirically knowable and all interaction with him is subjective?

I have, in fact, had dreams about the Immaterial Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (completely honest - likely due to our discussions here, but that part is irrelevant).Is that a reason for me to believe that either of them actually exist?Is a dream an empirical method of detection or observation?If I feel an overwhelming sense of wonder at the amazing complexity and never-ending stream of fascinating revelations about the Universe around us, and attribute this sense of wonder to the IPU/FSM, am I justified in doing so? Is attributing such a sense of wonder to the IPU/FSM any different from attributing it to the Christian God or any other deity?Roughly a decade ago, I was a firm believer not only in God, but in ghosts persisting on Earth. I and a group of friends would take photographs late at night in areas where we knew (or at least believed) traumatic experiences and even violent deaths had occurred, and captured what we believed to be ghosts on film (they typical smoky figures and "unexplained" lights that ghost hunters frequently report), and tended to feel a sense of unease and dread in certain areas that we were convinced was caused by a ghost.Certainly my experiences were convincing to me back then. Did my sincerity constitute a legitimate reason to believe that ghosts actually exist? Did my photographs, which I personally was unable to explain, provide real evidence that ghosts exist? Was I or was I not being arbitrary in saying "I don't know what that is, ergo ghosts?" Did my emotional reactions of fear and dread in distinct areas constitute an empirical method of detection and observation of ghosts? Why, or why not?Disregarding the fact that I found my "evidence" to be convincing at the time, was my belief in ghosts rational? Was it delusional? Was it logically justified? Did I have an objective reason to believe in the actuality of ghosts, as opposed to simply an unsupported possibility?What about when I and my friends became convinced that there was a ghost specifically inside of a crypt in a nearby graveyard, which watched us and gave off a feeling of malevolence? What about when I and a few of my friends became convinced through "feelings" that we were being specifically followed by ghosts? These were not isolated incidents. I and a group of 3-5 friends did this frequently, sometimes several times in a single week. All of us reported the same "feelings" of fear and dread. In one case, one of my friends and I became convinced that an unusually strong and recurring wind blowing away from our intended investigation site was a "warning" to stay away. We took many photographs, and many of those contained the visual anomalies I described.Were my beliefs actually justified? Were they rational, or reasonable? Clearly I had more reasons to believe in ghosts than I did to believe in the IPU or FSM based on a few dreams. Were those reasons legitimate, or were they based on poor thinking, numerous logical fallacies, and basic traps of human psychology?I don't care whether you think my reasons would be convincing to you, just as you don't require your reasons for believing in God to convince us. But I'd like to know if you think my beliefs were justified. Was I being rational in believing in ghosts? What parts of my evidence, if any, was empirical?

Not necessarily, it depends on how you define evidence and what the actual reason is. I disagree. I don't have any reason to believe in the IPU. I guess we're just not talking about the same thing when we use the word evidence... I don't know.

To me, evidence is something I can show someone else and have them reach the same conclusion as me. If the same bit of information can lead to multiple conclusions, it's not evidence for any one of those conclusions, but it may be enough to convince me, personally. So, for me, it would be a reason to believe, but not evidence that what I picked was actually true. I admitted that, but by using the definition above, the evidence is the same.

Straggler specifically started this thread to respond to the idea that non-empirical things could be evidenced by empirical means. If you're not sure if god is non-empirical, then many of Straggler's arguments don't pertain to you.

Sure, well... I suppose it matters how much detail you're putting into "ghosts". I'd say that you were justified and rational for believing that it was possible that there was actually something ouside of your mind that you were experiencing. When you start to ascribe details like them being dead people's spirits n'stuff is when you're becoming irrational, depending on the specifics of the experience. The parts that you received with your senses would be the empirical parts, by definition. I don't know, how would you tell? Because science hasn't found them it had to all have been in your mind?

Possibility is quite different from actuality, CS. I didn't believe in the possibility, I believed there were actually ghosts following me and my friends, that we were photographing ghosts, etc.Was I really justified in thinking that I was experiencing something outside of my own mind? Does a vague "feeling of dread and fear" actually support that notion?What definition of "ghosts" could we use that is loose enough to still be called "ghosts" and not just "something," but still lets me rationally suggest that vague photographical anomalies are being directly caused by the "ghosts?"Does the validation of my "feelings" from my friends, who reported similar feelings, justify believing that there is actually something outside of our minds directly causing those feelings? Were my vague "feelings" empirical? Does my emotional state count as a sense with which I can receive information from the outside world? You tell by critically examining the thought process, CS, to determine if it was based on fallacious reasoning.Let me give you my take, and the reason I no longer believe in ghosts.Feelings, by definition, are subjective. They do not exist outside of our minds. The fact that my friends also felt those feelings is a red herring - we were out at 3 am in graveyards and in a place commonly referred to as "the rape trail" (an area between the University of Connecticut and off-campus apartments that has a jogging path and exercise equipment; it was unlit until not many years before I came, and rumor had it many rapes were committed in the woods off the path) looking for ghosts. Feelings of dread and fear are to be expected. It was simple confirmation bias, a logical leap (ghosts must be causing our emotional state, not our own mindset, for no reason at all), and validation from the rest of the group.The photographs were empirical - but what they showed was inconclusive. We had vague wispy, cloudy shapes, small lights, etc. It was Connecticut, and it was cold at 3am. The cloudy shapes were far more likely the result of breathing while photographing, and the lights were almost certainly simple reflections or other mundane phenomenon. "Ghosts" was an unfounded leap in reasoning - it occupied the same role as "goddidit," in that anything we could not immediately explain was attributed to what we were looking for: ghosts.The "ghosts" that followed us were simply the result of paranoia and fear, strengthened by validation from the group. Any time you think about someone invisibly watching you, you can feel the same thing.The "malevolent force" in the crypt? Turns out it wasn't a crypt at all - it was a maintenance shed made up to look like a crypt for aesthetic purposes. We had partially seen a light that was on inside. Our paranoia and confirmation bias took care of the rest.The "warning" wind was, obviously, nothing but the wind.We had plenty of "subjective evidence," and even physical evidence we thought supported our belief in ghosts. And yet our beliefs were based on one logical fallacy after another. We arbitrarily assigned any phenomenon we were unable to explain to what we were looking for. We credited our subjective "feelings," which by definition can only exist within our own minds, to external entities.Our beliefs were totally unjustified. The conclusion that ghosts exist in actual reality (not the possibility but the actuality) was based on an arbitrary choice that ghosts were responsible. Why not God? Why not Satan? Why not aliens, or vampires, or a mind-controlling frog? Why not the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? We had absolutely no reason to attribute our experiences to "ghosts" instead of any of the other choices...and we completely dismissed out of hand the most obvious and parsimonious choice of all - we were experiencing totally mundane phenomenon and attributing it all to extraordinary causes without any corresponding extraordinary evidence to support it.We had the following hypotheses:If ghosts exist, we should be able to detect them through an emotional reaction when they are present.If ghosts exist, we should be able to detect them through photography despite being unable to see them with the naked eye, and these photographs should have strange distortions like "clouds" and "mists" or lights that were not observed when the photographs were taken.In both cases, we were making the unfounded and completely arbitrary assumption that ghosts cause direct emotional changes, or that our internal "feelings" constitute a "6th sense," and that ghosts produced specific phenomenon on film that is not captured by the naked eye. We had no reason to do so. In one case we were trying to detect somewhat-empirical entities through non-empirical means; in teh other, we were just demonstrating poor thinking - we had no mechanism by which ghosts could magically manifest on film but not to our eyes, nor did we have a reason to think such manifestations should take the form of "mists" and lights. Our hypotheses were invalid, because they were founded on faulty logic.We also didn't take any control pictures, didn't document our feelings, the location, and time of our photographs, we used low-quality, disposable cameras most times, didn't independently write our emotional reaction to prevent causing sympathetic emotional responses throughout the group (ie, I'm afraid, so you become afraid), etc.How then does this translate to god(s)? Well, my experience with ghosts is somewhat analogous to my experience with God, so let's go through the exercise again.When I was a believer, I had several reasons for my faith. First was the Bible. I made the arbitrary choice to consider the Bible to hold some "truth," while discarding other texts that were equivalent (the Koran, the Vedas, etc). Empirically and objectively verifiable falsehoods in the Bible (the Flood, etc) did not sway this belief. I had emotional experiences (the "love" of God, etc) that I attributed to God rather than any other possibility due to wishful thinking and confirmation bias. I had prayers "answered," while conveniently dismissing those prayers that were not, due to confirmation bias. My beliefs were validated by a community of believers who were each individually basing their beliefs on the same logical fallacies.Again, none of this was about the possibility of a deity - I skipped straight to the actuality. It's absurd to speak of possibilities when discussing faith and religion, which hold that the objects of their faith are actualities, not simply possibilities.My "God Hypothesis," like my ghost hypothesis, was based on false pattern recognition, wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and a series of unfounded arbitrary leaps of logic. The hypothesis was completely invalid.Dismissing any considerations of possibilities as irrelevant, was my faith in the actuality of God justified? What about ghosts? That's absurd, and irrelevant. Nobody is asserting the impossibility of either ghosts or deities, or even the IPU or the FSM.Because my reasoning was logically fallacious, my hypothesis was invalid.
Because I relied on non-empirical means of detection, whatever I detected was by definition non-empirical - and therefore almost certainly all in my mind.Because I had no empirical evidence with which to support the assertion that ghosts exist outside of my mind, I have no rational reason to have confidence that they do actually exist outside of my mind.The same with god(s). While I have plenty of subjective, non-empirical reasons to believe in a deity, I don't see how such experiences can possibly grant confidence in the actuality of god(s) existing - and my attribution of those experiences to god(s) is completely arbitrary and based upon logical fallacies to boot. In the absence of empirical evidence supporting the existence of deities, I am forced to conclude that I have no confidence in the actuality of the existence of deities.Any other conclusion would be irrational and unjustified.

Fine. But I have no evidence for either the IPU or your god. So why should I consider one any more evidenced than the other? 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). 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? Preferably ones that don't require me to first believe in the existence of a sixth sense or gods that are non-empirical but simultaneously and contradictorally able to be perceieved by human empirical senses. Yes fair question. If the entity in question is in principle potentially able to be investigateed by the methods of science then this is indeed a problem. I think I agree with everything you say. As long as the being, entity or concept in question is in principle able to be investigated by the methods of empirical science. Whether present technology currently allows this or not is beside the point.RAZD has described his deities as "inherently unknowable". He has also stated unequivocally that he only accepts evidence that is at least potentially empirical in nature (Message 145). If he is going to claim that the "inherently unknowable" can also be "evidenced" then he is quite obviously contradicting himself and talking nonsenseFrankly CS if you think your god might be empirical in nature then this opens up a whole seperate kettle of evidential worms for you. But at the same time it does exclude your god from most of my arguments in this thread. If you want to start your own thread to explore the notion of gods that are empirically detectable and thus able to be investigated by scientific methods then I will be happy to take part in that thread and highlight the difficulties with that point of view.But I readily concede that none of my arguments highlighting the contradiction of considering the "unknowable" as "evidenced" apply to concepts that are potentially empirical in nature. Not Nessie. Not aliens. Not Bigfoot. And (apparantly) not your empirically testable god. So take your empirically and scientifically knowable gods elsewhere.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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.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.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.