Is My Hypothesis Valid???

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.

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.

I think we have comprehensively established that we both agree that all non-empirical experiences are equally invalid as forms of evidence. As per your comments cited in Message 145. Observing something "unknowable" and citing it as evidence of the "unknowable" remains a contradictory and irrational position. But how rational is the conclusion in question? It is contradictory, and thus irrational, to conclude that an audio-visual experience is evidence of an inherently non-empirical and scientifically unknowable entity. It is logically impossible to consider any supernatural inherently non-empirical entity, being or concept to be evidenced in any way at all if one restricts oneself to empirical evidence. This is simply inarguable.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As long as we both agree that no form of non-empirical evidence is valid no one supernatural and inherently non-empirical scientifically unknowable entity, being or concept can possibly be considered to be any more or less evidenced than any other.As long as we agree that in evidential terms the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is identical to any other god or deity you and I have no argument at all.Given that we totally agree about the need for evidence to be empirical it seems that we can logically have no argument regarding this point.Why break this new age of agreement and conviviality with silly and irrelevant pictures? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You have unequivocally stated that you only accept empirical observations and experiences to be valid evidence of any sort (Message 145)Can supernatural inherently non-empirical entities, beings or concepts be observed empirically? Obviously not. That would be contradictory.As long as we both agree that no form of non-empirical evidence is valid no one supernatural and inherently non-empirical scientifically unknowable entity, being or concept can possibly be considered to be any more or less evidenced than any other. As long as we agree that in evidential terms the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is identical to any other god or deity you and I have no argument at all.Given that we totally agree about the need for evidence to be empirical it seems that we can logically have no argument regarding this point. I think we all agree that red cars are empirically observable entities.

Finally. At long long last the true nature of your flawed position is revealed. How many times have I told you that you are seeking to include non-empirical evidence by means of conflation and ambiguity and how many times have you twisted and contorted you argument in order to evade conceding this fact? So RAZ - On what rational basis do you conclude that non-empirical evidence is even potentially superior to biased guessing in terms of reliability? And if you cannot then on what basis can such a thing be called "evidence"? I am guessing you won't actually answer these questions. Well maybe if I pursue you for another three threads you might eventually be shamed into confronting these inherent difficulties in your position I suppose...............For the sake of completeness lets remind ourselves of your previous position on the validity of experiences that cannot be empirically perceived. So non-empirical evidence that cannot be experienced by an empirically challenged insensate witness is in fact a feature of RAZD's argument. Are we now clear of RAZD's position? Enlightened?Rather than be tempted to make any derogatory comments that RAZD will no doubt respond to as a means of evading confronting the flaws and contradictions in his position I will leave it to others who have witnessed our 3 thread (and counting) battle on the nature of evidence to judge for themselves whether his position is rational and consistent or not. But I must say that I am experiencing the really rather warm (and very non-empirical) glow of vindication at the moment. 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.

The context of this is the evidential basis for concluding that supernatural inherently non-empirical entities might actually exist in a reality external to the mind of the experiencee. If the evidence and the conclusion are both non-empirical how can either be derived from anything perceived externally to the experiencee? A sixth sense would necessarily be required.If evidence is non-empirical and the conclusion is non-empirical how can we establish that any conclusions drawn on the basis of non-empirical "evidence" (even regarding mere possibilities) are superior to simply randomly guessing as to what might exist?If a form of "evidence" cannot be shown to lead to superior results to guessing then on what basis is that "evidence" meaningfully called "evidence" rather than just "guessing"? OK. Then you too must conclude that the possibility of empirically unknowable gods is evidenced by means of experiences that can only be products of the mind. Unless one assumes that a sixth sense exists as a means of detecting otherwise undetectable phenomenon.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Actually I am trying to establish with RAZD whether there is actually any more evidence to positively suggest the existence of some god concepts over any any others. I say no. He says yes. I would have thought that me, you and RAZD would all agree that there exists no empirical evidence in favour of any gods? No? Or are you claiming that we have empirical evidence in favour of gods? If not that leaves us only with non-empirical.Our empirical senses are our only known method of interfacing with any reality external to our minds. If the evidence in question is non-empirical and relates to the existence of something external to ourselves how has this evidence been detected? By definition it cannot have been detected by means of our empirical senses. Thus a sixth sense is logically required for any non-empirical "evidence" to be detected. Do you dispute this logic? I agree entirely. If RAZD can demonstrate that the sort of experiences he is including as non-empirical "evidence" actually result in testable confirmable results that demonstrate such evidence to be more reliable than simply guessing then his forms of evidence should indeed definitely be given some credence. I have challenged him previously to apply the same evidence that he is applying to conclude that deities might exist to something testable and he has repeatedly ignored me. We first need to unambiguously establish exactly what RAZD does mean by "non-empirical evidence". In the context of our ongoing discussion it is my understanding that he is talking about waking visions, and hearing the "voice of god" inside ones head type experiences and citing these as valid forms of "non-empirical evidence" (not dreams apparently as these are not waking visions but unconscious visions). On the basis of such "evidence" he tells me that the IPU is evidentially distinguishable from other inherently non-empirical supernatural beings. Is that your understanding too?Your example seemed to be interpreting RAZD's non-empirical evidence claim to be something else. So let's ask him for an explicit and unambiguous definition of what he does mean and then continue this if we actually disagree? See Message 334Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I will put up or shut up. But you have only just announced (some might say conceded after much evasion) your reliance on non-empirical evidence after an entire thread on deism, an entire thread exploring the Immaterial Pink Unicorn and this 300+ post thread on the nature of evidence. So challenging me to refute this new position of yours immediately seems a bit rich. First we need to establish what this new position of your actually entails:If you genuinely have confidence in your newly cited position based on non-empirical "evidence" then you won't need to be anything but explicit and unambiguous. So let's start by getting in some unambiguous and explicit answers as to exactly what your latest position actually is:1) Can you categorically state whether or not non-empirical evidence is the only evidential basis upon which you consider it possible to distinguish one supernatural inherently non-empirical entity from any other? (e.g. the IPU and any other supernatural inherently empirically unknowable entity as per Message 325)2) Can you please state the sort of expereinces that you do include as valid forms of non-empirical evidence. For example are waking internal visions valid forms of non-empirical evidence? Are "voice of god" inside ones head type experiences considered to be a valid form of non-empirical evidence? What exactly do you include as valid non-empirical evidence and what exactly do you exclude as valid forms of nonempirical evidence?

I want to definitively establish whether or not it can be rationally shown that one supernatural inherently non-empirical entity is actually any more evidenced than any other. Or if concepts such as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn are as equally evidenced as a deity or any other such inherently non-empirical being. Note: This is not a direct attack on your personal beliefs. It is a quest to examine the nature of evidence and rational belief (or lack of it) based on this evidence (or lack of it). Do you at least accept that as a valid aim? I think we can both be quite feisty and I personally think that is all part of the fun, but lets not let our personality defects express themselves to the point of obstructing meaningful discussion. Yes RAZ. It appears that I am. I find it hard to believe that I am alone in this as it seems to be very inconsistent with regard to the both the reliance on, and acceptance of, non-empirical evidence. Your response quoted in Message 145 suggest that you definitely DO NOT consider the experiences available to our blind, deaf etc. witness to be valid as evidence. Whilst your response quoted in Message 327 suggests that you DO consider experiences available to our empirically insensate witness to be valid evidence. Surely you can see how these statements might be considered contradictory? With that in mind:1) Can you categorically state whether or not non-empirical evidence is the only evidential basis upon which you consider it possible to distinguish one supernatural inherently non-empirical and "scientifically unknowable" entity from any other? (e.g. the IPU and any other supernatural inherently empirically unknowable entity as per Message 325)2) Can you please state the sort of experiences that you do include as valid forms of non-empirical evidence. For example are waking internal visions valid forms of non-empirical evidence? Are "voice of god" inside ones head type experiences considered to be a valid form of non-empirical evidence? What exactly do you include as valid non-empirical evidence and what exactly do you exclude as valid forms of nonempirical evidence?To avoid further confusion please be explicit and unambiguous in your response to these questions. I am asking you if they need to be empirical to be considered as valid evidence? I think that they do and will be happy to expand upon that claim once you have unambiguously stated your position on non-empirical "evidence" as per the above questions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

There is evidence to suggest that gods are created by humans. We have been through this before. I don't believe in gods because there is evidence that they are made up human constructs. I don't believe in the IPU because there is evidence to suggest that it is a made up human construct. You seem to agree that there is no evidence to positivley suggest that gods exist. Do you dispute that there is evidence to suggest that gods are the product of human invention?If you do maybe you should start a thread to discuss that question as it is slightly different from the one being tackled here (i.e. whether or not there is any positive evidence of any kind to suggest that any one god concept is evidentially superior to any other) It seems to confirm the notion that all gods are equally unevidenced whilst accepting the notion that people have reasons to believe in things that rationally cannot be evidenced.

If you agree that all gods are equally unevidenced then I don't see how any disagreement fits, even in the loosest sense, into a topic on the foundations of hypotheses?Like I said in my post - If you want to debate whether or not there is positive evidence to suggest that unevidenced gods are actually human creations then I am happy to take part in such a thread.

It appears that I should have listened to Percy all those months ago. Message 114You cannot put forward a position on the nature of evidence, whether based on singular experiences or otherwise, that point blank refuses to differentiate between the validity of empirical evidence as compared to other notions of evidence. That is just blatantly absurd.UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
1) Can non-empirical entities be evidenced by means of empirical experience?
Surely, by very definition, they cannot. Thus the only means by which they can then be evidenced is by some concept of non-empirical "evidence".2) What forms of non-empirical evidence do you consider to be valid? Are waking visions a valid form of non-empirical evidence? Are "voice of god" experiences inside ones head valid forms of evidence?You just adamantly refuse to state which isolated and singular experiences you are actually including as evidence. I think the reason for this is an unwillingness to look ridiculous by answering honestly. Non-empirical entities cannot be evidenced empirically, by definition, so how else can non-empirical entities be evidenced but by such outlandish means?EMPIRICAL OR NOT?
I genuinely tried to get to the bottom of what you do and do not consider to be valid evidence by invoking my empirically insensate "brain in a body" witness example. At that point you seemed to answer pretty unequivocally: My emphasis. I fail to see how this can be taken as anything other than a categorical denial of the validity of any form of non-empirical evidence. Regardless of whether or not such experiences are singular and isolated or not. From this I concluded the following:CASE CLOSED?

Non-empirical entities cannot, by definition, be evidenced by means of empirical experiences.

RAZD unequivocally only accepts empirical experiences as valid forms of evidence.

Therefore RAZD cannot consider non-empirical entities to be evidenced. Whether by single isolated experiences or otherwise.

Case closed.

​

BUT NO.....
However when faced with this seemingly argument clinching dichotomy you suddenly invoke non-empirical evidence!!

​

Straggler writes:

​

As long as we both agree that no form of non-empirical evidence is valid.....

​

For verifying concepts, however we can also agree that non-empirical evidence can form a logical basis for further investigation. From Message 326

​

I had thought this whole thread was about the evidential basis for further investigation? Yet 300+ posts and only now, in apparant contradiction to previous statements, you suddenly reveal that non-empirical evidence lies at the heart of your position. Not to mention the two other related threads (one on the evidential differences between atheism and deism and one on the IPU) in which you also completely failed to make any distinction between single isolated experiences that are empirical and those that are not.

​

FINALLY
Does whether or not evidence is empirical matter when discussing the nature of evidence? Can non-empirical entities be evidenced by means of empirical experience without this being inherently contradictory? Is your position on this consistent? Is non-empirical "evidence" a viable concept in itself? Ultimately others can make up their own minds. I have made my own assessment abundantly clear.

​

ONE LAST THING
If any further discussion takes place then I am confident that I can completely refute any position based upon non-empirical evidence. However firstly RAZD needs to decide what sort of experiences he is actually citing as evidence for supernatural non-empirical entities. Beyond the fact that they are "singular and isolated" I wonder if he actually knows himself.

​

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.

Now who is the fanatic? Now that you have finally and unequivocally been pinned down with regard to your reliance on non-empirical evidence* do you want to see if you can actually defend that position?(*Have we done that? Or is that a "misrepresentation" of yet another ambiguous position? Who can tell?)Even after all your latest antics it is still unclear whether or not you consider someone conscious and aware but incapable of empirical sensation as capable of experiences that you would accept as evidence? If you are as clear and consistent as you claim why don't you just tell us? Are waking visions valid forms of non-empirical evidence? Are "voice of god" inside ones head experiences valid forms of non-empirical evidence? Or are you relying on empirical evidence to validate non-empirical concepts? Both positions are demonstrably logically unjustifiable.But why do I keep asking when I know you won't answer? Because I keep foolishly assuming that, like me, you want to test the rationality, logic and veracity of your own arguments against someone else. But you don't do you? Not really? You want to play chess games with words and avoid defending your actual position in case it is found out.Are you trying to win the debate or the argument here RAZ? If the debate then I am not interested. If the argument then stop hiding behind ambiguity and and see me in the Great Debate thread where we can establish exactly what it is that you do actually mean.Up to you.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.