Is My Hypothesis Valid???

This is what I meant previously by "non-empirical evidence". Let's call it "immaterial evidence" to avoid further terminological confusion (unless you can think of a better term)RAZD's position on "evidenced" gods has always quite obviously been reliant upon evidence that cannot be detected by our 5 empirical material methods of sensation. This is what Message 327 was all about.RAZD has been evading admitting this demonstrably unjustifiable position for months. Now that he has finally had it dragged out of him will he attempt to justify it? Lets see.Edited by Straggler, : Fix link

How can you have 2nd hand evidence of something that cannot have been materially "experienced", and thus evidenced, in the first place?Immaterial entities cannot be "expereinced" by means of our 5 empirical methods of sensory perception. Thus they cannot be evidenced. Not first hand. And not second hand.This whole "subjective" evidence thing (meaning 2nd hand anecdotes of "single isolated experiences") is just a giant smokescreen. A method of obfuscation. With regard to the evidential claims of immaterial entities it is completely irrelevant.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It was you that first raised subjective evidence as the defining difference between different concepts of immaterial gods. I put it to you that you are simply unable to justify that specific position. Which is why you have been evading it ever since. "Off topic". "Irrelevant". "Not interested". Etc. Etc. Evasion. Pure and simple.Please 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.And if you cannot do that how can you continue to hold the ridiculous and irrational position that some immaterial god concepts are evidenced whilst others are not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The whole "subjective evidence" argument has been used to relentlessly cloud the issue of what can be evidenced and what cannot. It is a smokescreen. A means of disguising and obfuscating the underlying and unjustifiable claim that some wholly immaterial entities are somehow ambiguously evidenced by personal "experience". "Evidenced" despite the fact that these immaterial entities are immune to material detection by means of the five empirical senses and thus cannot be evidenced by any rational or meaningful definition of the term.ORIGINS
RAZD first introduced the concept of subjective evidence (essentially a confusing rebranding of anecdotal evidence and personal experience) here Message 276 in the thread Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? . In that thread RAZD bases his entire claim that some immaterial god concepts are evidenced whilst others, such as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, are not on the validity of subjective evidence. Subjective evidence as applied specifically in a thread exploring the evidential validity of immaterial "scientifically unknowable" deities. RAZD, as a direct riposte to claims made in the deism thread, then went onto dedicate a whole new thread to demonstrating the validity of subjective evidence in defiance of the Immaterial Pink Unicorn argument Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument. Unfortunately in that thread RAZD point blank refused to discuss subjective evidence as applied to ANY example that was both subjectively evidenced and immaterial in nature. The very concepts the IPU is intended to expose as irrational. The very concepts that prompted the IPU to be invoked in the first place. Such discussion was "Off Topic", "Irrelevant" or an affront to his supposedly evidence-independent beliefs. Evasion by any other name.CURRENT THREAD
In this current thread RAZD once again took the opportunity to promote the validity of his much vaunted "subjective evidence" concept. Clearly with previous discussions in mind and with the blatant intention of relighting our past personal and prolific philosophical differences. Yet again any attempt to discuss the validity of subjective evidence with regard to immaterial entities, those concepts that RAZD first raised "subjective evidence" as a means of evidencing, was met with beliigerent denial, dismissive mockery, cries of "Not Interested" and other such disengenuous evasion tactics.BACK TO REALITY
So where are we now? Well in the final posts of this thread I hope we have finally reached the point where everyone can see that any claim of evidenced immaterial entities requires that we accept the existence of evidence that cannot be detected by means of the five empirical material senses. Immaterial entities cannot be evidenced by means of the material senses. It is obvious really. Whether this evidence is "subjective evidence" or not is completely irrelevant. RAZD has led us a merry dance with his beguiling terminology and dictatorial debating style but I believe we have at last returned to a state of sanity and reason solely with regard to this simple point at least.WHAT NEXT?
Now that we have got past the mesmerising terminology and moved on from RAZD's confusing conflations with off-the-wall but very material concepts (alien visitation, Nessie, Bigfoot etc. etc. etc.) we have the genuine opportunity to explore whether or not there is actually any validity to the claim that immaterial entities can be evidenced by means of personal experience. I say this is impossible as per here Immaterial "Evidence"CHALLENGE
If RAZD still feels able to justify his claim that some immaterial gods are evidenced* now that his "subjective evidence" obfuscation has been eliminated from the equation then I challenge him to do so. Admin has called an interlude to this ongoing multi-thread debate for reasons that are all to obvious. But once things have calmed down I fully intend to get to the bottom of this notion of "evidenced gods" by pursuing my on-hold Immaterial "Evidence" thread in a couple of weeks time. Whether or not anybody else chooses to join me on that quest is of course up to them...........*Of course IF RAZD has in fact never claimed that there is any evidence for any gods and my interpretation of his entire position is purely a figment of my imagination, as he now implies, then he can just accept my arguments regarding evidence and immaterial entities and move on. Something he seems bewilderingly unable to do whenever that particular position is challenged Message 392. Despite his recently repeated protestations that he has in fact never claimed that any gods are actually evidenced. Message 402. Yeah riiiiiiiiight! Lies? Or more word games RAZ?. 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, : Spelling

If you don't think any immaterial god concept is more evidenced than the "Immaterial Pink Unicorn" then why do you keep disagreeing with me? Message 392What is the form of this "evidence" that can allow any immaterial entity undetectable to our five sensory means of perception to be evidenced?If my arguments are as inept, pointless and erroneous as you keep suggesting then why do you keep responding to them?See you in the Immaterial "Evidence" thread in two weeks time huh? Dare ya.....!!!Please no replies to this message. Admin has forbidden them. Just let somebody else have the last word for once eh RAZ?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.