Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Regardless of winners, losers, perpetual stalemates, accusations of misrepresentation, evasion, ambiguity and whatever else we have actually achieved something in this thread. We have unequivocally and categorically established that an acceptance of non-empirical experience as a valid form of evidence underlies the entire basis of your wider argument. Namely that some supernatural non-empirical god concepts are more evidenced than others. I think this is exceptionally important. Even if you don't. Others can apply their own judgement.The exact nature of this non-empirical evidence remains unknown. You haven't said what it is that does constitute non-empirical evidence. You have only ever stated what doesn't. However this is immaterial (pardon the pun). If the evidence in question is not ultimately empirical then it is not valid. Non-empirical "evidence" is demonstrably logically invalid as a concept in itself. I have absolutely no doubt that I can demonstrate this to be true given the opportunity. But I guess that is another topic for another day.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and minor rewording.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I can see why you, and quite probably everyone else, thinks this.But I disagree to the extent that it has at long last been unequivocally concluded that non-empirical "evidence" is required for RAZd's position on "evidenced gods" to have any validity at all.I think non-empirical evidence is logically unjustifiable. I also think I can show that. However given that everybody is quite evidently sick and tired of our antics I will leave any discussion of that for another day and another thread. At that point people (including RAZD) can then either show my thinking to be fallacious or just simply ignore me on the basis that I am a desperate crank with a chip on his shoulder, as they see fit.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Firstly let me just say that I have no problem or dispute with people believing in whatever they choose on the basis of faith. It is only when it is insisted that belief in gods is justified on the basis of evidence that I will disagree. Something empirical that is not yet evidenced (and indeed may never be discovered) is not the same as something that is inherentlly immune to empirical discovery and can, by definition, never therefore be empirically evidenced. Gravity and electricity are both indisputably empirical regardless of the state of human knowledge at any given time. Gods, so I am told by those who believe in them, are not. I have repeatedly stated that the philosophical possibility of such things existing must be acknowledged. I have never ever denied this. But such things cannot be both immune from empirical investigation and yet still be considered to be "evidenced" by any meaningful definition of the term "evidence". Non-empirical "evidence" of reality external to ones own mind is just not possible. But here we enter that other topic. No. That is not what I mean but I can understand why I may come across like that. Overzealousness on my part is probably to blame. I'll try and explain (although Rahvin did a fine job explaining this a few posts ago in this thread so maybe check that out if you are actually interested Message 349)Do you consider the Immaterial Pink Unicorn to be evidenced? No? Are you agnostic towards it's existence? Or atheistic? Why? Because you think somebody just made it up to prove a point? Yes I think that too. But is there not also evidence that humans make up other gods? History is littered with once worshipped deities that are now redundant or refuted. Gods that people genuinely believed in as real and "unknowable" in their day. I would argue that there is enough such evidence to say that we know that people make up gods for all sorts of very human reasons as a fact. So it is not an "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" approach as you are suggesting. My atheism is based on a complete lack of evidence in favour of god concepts (assuming of course that I can show non-empirical evidence to be invalid) and a great deal of evidence suggesting that god concepts are in nfact human inventions borne of need, desire and search for purpose.Edited by Straggler, : Add link to Rahvin post

Let's cast the net wider and try one last time. Can anyone unambiguously explain RAZD's position on the following to me?Can a person who is fully aware and conscious but who is incapable of any empirical sensation at all (i.e. has none of the 5 known senses) have "experiences" that RAZD would consider to qualify as evidence? RAZD seems to say here that conscious, aware AND able to experience the phenomenon in question by means of empirical sensation are all basic requirements for any experience to qualify as evidence. Am I "misinterpreting" here?

Can gods, deities and other such supernatural entities be detected by means of our 5 empirical senses?

If they can then in what way are they inherently immune to scientific investigation? In what way are they "scientifically unknowable". Is it just a question of inadequate detection technology?

If however they are inherently immune from empirical sensory detection then how, with the restriction of being detectable by empirical perception agreed above, can they possibly be considered to be evidenced in any way at all?

​

If anyone thinks they can explicitly and unambiguously explain how deities can be simultaneously "evidenced" whilst also being "scientifically unknowable" given the additional restriction that evidence be detectable by our 5 known senses then I would genuinely love to have it explained to me.

​

Because at the moment it is undeniably unclear. I might even go so far as to say contradictory. But obviously, as RAZD is our resident paragon of clarity and consistency, it must be me that is at fault here. So if anybody can help me understand, incapable fool that I am, that would be very much appreciated.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In Message 150 you unequivocally restrict "evidence" to experiences that are detectable by means of our 5 empirical senses. If you wish to dispute this fact say so now. Given this restriction this whole argument becomes a very simple three step exercise in logic.

Can gods, deities and other such supernatural entities be detected by means of our 5 empirical senses?

​

If they can then in what way are they inherently immune to scientific investigation? In what way are they "scientifically unknowable" as you have claimed them to be.

​

If however they are inherently immune from empirical sensory detection (which if they are supernatural and non-empirical entities surely must be the case) then how can they possibly be considered to be "evidenced" in any way at all?

​

So which is it?

​

If you restrict evidence to that which can be detected by our five empirical senses then either deities are actually "scientifically knowable" or they are unevidenced. But they cannot possibly be both simultaneiously

​

Do you now understand the inherent contradictory nature of your claims?

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If you "see" Nessie who knows? If you "see" a non-empirical entity how can you have seen it by means of empirical sight? Nessie and all of RAZD's other favorite conflations can, if they exist, be detected with our 5 senses and scientific instruments of detection. Gods apparently cannot.Can Nessie, Bigfoot etc., if they exist, be photographed? Can gods be photographed? Is this just because we don't have the technology to record gods on camera? What is the difference between the two classes of concept? Why will RAZD only talk about physical entities in his examples? If RAZD wants to invoke any form of "evidence" that is unable to be detected by our 5 senses he needs to explain how this evidence is detected at all. A sixth sense?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Once we get past the confusing terminology RAZD's argument falls apart with regard to the supernatural. It has some merit with regard to concepts which are physical (e.g. dinosaurs in lochs) and he uses that to unjustifiably extend it to the supernatural. This is why he resists talking about deities and insists on talking about aliens et al.If something is expereinced by means of the 5 senses then, regardless of it being a single isolated experience or not, can it be an experience of the supernatural? If the supernatural can be detected by our 5 senses why can they not also be detected by our scientific instruments? In what way are they "scientifically unknowable"? In fact how are they supernatural at all?Most of what RAZD is saying can apply perfectly well to Nessie, Bigfoot, aliens or any of the other very physical concepts that he is willing to talk about. But none of us are disputing that Nessie and bigfoot can be detected by eyes, ears, cameras or sound equipment etc. etc. If they exist they can be seen, heard, smelt, touched (and should one so wish) tasted. Can deities? Are we saying that we just don't have the technology to find gods?When it comes to deities RAZD is trying to have his cake and eat it. He is saying the expereince might be have been detected by our five senses (and thus should be considered as possible evidence) whilst also saying that the entity in question definitely cannot be investigated empirically.But if he is restricting himself to the 5 senses as per Message 150 then either his deities are natural, knowable and poorly evidenced by isolated anecdote OR supernatural and completely unevidenced.But they cannot be both. Am I making sense here?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 wrote the topic and I included supernatural entities in the OP. So whather RAZD is willing to confront the problem of claiming that supernatural entities are evidenced by natural means or not is irrelevant. I say it is on topic.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Jeez lets not confuse things any more than RAZD has already succeeded in doing!! But yes. Physical senses. Senses that are "empirical" by most common definitions of the term. Ours methods of detecting the natural world that exists external to our own minds.If gods exist and are inherently immune to our methods of investigating the natural world (as most theists claim) then it cannot also be logically claimed that they are evidenced by means of normal natural sensory perception.It is just contradictory. But RAZD only accepts the normal natural methods of sensory perception to constitute valid evidence of external reality Message 150. Thus I don't see how he can claim that supernatural entities can be evidenced? Actually it is the same topic! But RAZD previously was unilaterally dictating what he would and would not discuss in terms of evidenced concepts. Apparently he makes no distinction between physical concepts like Nessie and ethereal "unknowable" entities like gods because they are all "evidenced" by means of "experiences". Whether they can be sensed by empirical methods of sensory perception seems to be something he wishes to gloss over or ignore altogether.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.

This is exactly where I thought I was back in Message 323. It was soon after this that RAZD started throwing around wild accusations. In my opinion because his reliance upon non-empirical "evidence" (i.e. that which cannot be detected by the 5 senses) had been found out and he needed a way out of looking ridiculous. But that is obviously my own personal view of things. It matters not. If RAZD's deities are evidenced by "experiences" that might be empirical (borne from the 5 senses) then RAZD must also concede the possibility that his deities are potentially scientifically knowable.However if RAZD insists that his deities are scientifically unknowable (i.e. inherently unknowable - not just due to inadequate technology) then he cannot also claim that they are evidenced by our fives senses. What can our eyes detect that the most conceivably advanced camera cannot (for example)?Are gods either natural and poorly empirically evidenced by means of unverified anecdote alone (like Bigfoot or Nessie for example) OR non-empirical, supernatural and utterly unevidenced as a result of being immune to human empirical sensory perception (i.e. all the methods RAZD agrees are essential in Message 150)It is an either or situation. He needs to decide which it is. But he cannot say it is both, or even that it might be both, without invoking silly concepts like a sixth sense.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Who knows what RAZD really means?What do you think he means?If something can be detected by means of our 5 senses can you explain to me how it can be immune from scientific investigation?Do you think RAZD is saying that gods might be explored one day if we can just invent the technology capable of doing so? Is that what you believe about your god? Are deities just ethereal "Higgs Bosons" waiting to be empirically discovered? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I readily confess that RAZD's beguiling use of terminology has led us all a merry dance. However the very simple basic problem with RAZD's position remains.If we all only accept that which can be observed by means of our 5 empirical senses as evidence then the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is simply unable to be evidenced by ANY "experience". Subjective or otherwise. And so are any other immaterial non-physical entities. Like gods.So all such immaterial gods and other supernatural entities are equally unevidenced. Exactly as I have been saying.Simple really.I know how much RAZD enjoys his dictionary definitions so here are some. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then the confusion is in the terminology. I should have used the word "empirical" in the OP. Empirical in the sense of referring to our 5 empirical senses. Whether directly or indirectly (i.e. by means of technology).To my knowledge nobody here is saying that "Large God Accelerators" or somesuch coul be used to eventually detect gods if we could just develop the technology to do so. As I understand it gods are immaterial entities not made of matter or energy as we understand the terms. Entities that are immune from material detection.In which case if we restrict ourselves to the 5 senses as the sole form of evidencing external reality, gods by definition cannot be evidenced by "experiences". Whether single and isolated (i.e. subjective by the definition we appear to be using here) or otherwise.So the Immaterial Pink Unicorn remains as unevidenced as any other immaterial god concept. Regardless of anyones "experiences". Exactly as I have been saying for some time now...................Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

We all agree that our 5 empirical senses are our only means of gaining "perception of any external experience" (as you phrase it in Message 150)Therefore we must all also agree that concepts such as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn cannot, by definition, be evidenced by any "experience". Subjective or otherwise.Thus we must also all conclude that any other immaterial, supernatural entity that is beyond the ability of our 5 empirical material senses to detect remains completely unevidenced by ANY "experience". Whether this experience is "subjective" or not. Wise words from Percy. I wish I had listened to them earlier.I don't know what form your materially detectable, and thus "evidenced", gods take. Nor do I understand why you think these materially detectable entities are "scientifically unknowable".
If anyone can specifically explain this to me it would be much appreciated.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What did you mean by "perception of any external experience was impossible........."? Impossible? This is completely and inarguably inconsistent with your current position. But I don't dispute, and never have, that an immaterial "reality" might conceivably exist. The IPU might exist. My argument is that they are not, and indeed cannot be, evidenced as you claim they are. So just to be absolutely clear: You are now saying that a conscious and aware person utterly incapable of empirical sensation is capable of "experiences" that you consider to be valid indicators/evidence of reality external to his own mind?1) Is the above correct?
2) Do you think this has position has been clear and unambiguous all along? Does it relate to Nessie for example? Bigfoot? Aliens? Or just immaterial entities of the sort you have repeatedly refused to discuss?
3) How exactly are phenomenon that cannot be experienced by means of the material senses "experienced"? A sixth sense?4) Most importantly - Can you give us a specific example of an "experience" that our empirically insensate witness could have that you would consider as evidence of an immaterial external phenomenon such as a god. This is desperately unclear.Be specific. And unambiguous.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.