Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Immaterial "Evidence"
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 1 of 154 (516669)
07-26-2009 5:40 PM


Why The
Immaterial evidence. Non-empirical evidence. Call it whatever you will. Can any entity that is completely and inherently immune from detection by means of our five empirical material senses, or related scientific instruments of physical detection, possibly be considered to be evidenced by personal experience?
Is it possible for immaterial entities or beings to be evidenced as aspects of reality external to the mind by personal experience?
http://www.yourdictionary.com/immaterial writes:
im·ma·teri·al (im” tir” l)
adjective
  • not consisting of matter; incorporeal; spiritual
  • http://www.yourdictionary.com/incorporeal writes:
    in·cor·po·real (in”kr pr” l)
    adjective
  • not consisting of matter; without material body or substance
  • of spirits or angels
  • I say no. I say this on the basis of the following:
    1) How? If a concept inherently cannot be detected by our empirical senses then how can any "experience" relating to such a concept be anything but internal to the mind? A sixth sense?
    2) What is evidence? If a form of "evidence" cannot ever be shown to lead to results that are superior to just guessing then how can this form of "evidence" be deemed worthy of the term?
    Once the beguiling terminology and various conflations have been cast aside most theistic positions that claim an evidential basis for the object of belief ultimately boil down to a dependence on "immaterial evidence". Does the concept have any value at all? Or is it just an exercise in confirmation bias whereby those who believe in immaterial beings manage to convince themselves that the object of their belief can be, and therefore is, evidenced by means of personal experience?
    If promoted then "Is It Science" is the obvious place for this.
    This thread is being proposed as a result of RAZD's response Message 393 in the "Is My Hypothesis Valid" thread. In this post RAZD strongly indicates that immaterial entities undetectable by empirical means can indeed be somehow evidenced by "subjective evidence". I want to find out exactly what is meant by this.
    For months RAZD has trumpeted the value of personal experience ("subjective evidence" as he calls it) as a means of evidence. I challenge him to justify this with specific regard to immaterial entities that are unable to be detected by means of empirical material sensory perception. Aliens, Nessie, Bigfoot, gravity, G forces, cats crossing roads and any other such material concepts are "off-topic". As are any creationist style claims that gods are empirically evidenced by geology, the balance of physical constants or whatever else. Personal experiences. Immaterial entities. Only.
    FAITH: NOT INTERESTED AND OFF TOPIC
    Finally let me make it absolutely clear that this thread is not about personal faith. I have no desire to discuss the personal faith based beliefs of others and no desire whatsoever to convince deists/theists that they should be atheists.
    I simply want to know whether or not there is any rational reason for me to consider the actual existence of some immaterial entities as more likley than others. And yes, in case it isn't obvious, that does include using our dear old friend the "Immaterial Pink Unicorn" (IPU) as a point of comparison.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : Add faith qualifier to avoid confusion and eliminate that misconception.
    Edited by Admin, : Fix non-printing unicode characters. Minor grammar fix. Major edit to 2nd to last paragraph.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by Stile, posted 08-12-2009 11:46 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 9 by Straggler, posted 08-13-2009 12:28 PM Straggler has seen this message but not replied
     Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 08-15-2009 4:14 PM Straggler has replied
     Message 12 by slevesque, posted 08-16-2009 3:15 AM Straggler has replied
     Message 15 by straightree, posted 08-16-2009 12:24 PM Straggler has replied
     Message 18 by mike the wiz, posted 08-17-2009 5:46 AM Straggler has seen this message but not replied
     Message 19 by mike the wiz, posted 08-17-2009 6:09 AM Straggler has seen this message but not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 3 of 154 (519165)
    08-12-2009 6:33 AM


    Editing completed.
    Over to you for final consideration.

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 6 of 154 (519220)
    08-12-2009 12:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by Stile
    08-12-2009 11:46 AM


    Re: Subjective Evidence - Oxymoron
    I agree with your assessment of "subjective evidence" as applied to material entities (e.g. rare birds) on the whole. But in this thread I want to specifically target "sightings" (or whatever) of things that are supposedly visually, and otherwise empirically, undetectable.
    A rare bird may or may not have been seen. Ultimately who knows until further sightings are made? But if someone "sees" or "hears" an immaterial empirically undetectable god how can the experience possibly have been anything other than an internal vision? How? A sixth sense?
    Birds and gods are inherently different in terms of whether or not they can be evidenced at all. Whether or not we accept "subjective evidence" (i.e. single isolated unverified sightings) as valid is immaterial to that point.
    (pardon the pun )
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by Stile, posted 08-12-2009 11:46 AM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by Stile, posted 08-12-2009 12:52 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 8 of 154 (519236)
    08-12-2009 2:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by Stile
    08-12-2009 12:52 PM


    Re: Subjective Evidence - Oxymoron
    Good post Stile. I'll just respond to clarify my own position on a couple of points.
    With immaterial aspects, we can never compare two "sightings." How can it be determined that one person's subjective, immaterial experience is the same as another person's subjective, immaterial experience? There will never be external, verifiable things that could happen that would bump such subjective reasoning into the realm of actual evidence.
    I would go further. Not only is it impossible to compare and verify. I don't see how any experience of an immaterial entity can possibly relate to any reality external to the mind. How can it have been detected at all if immune to detection by our material senses?
    We are no longer able to objectively discern between imagination and reality. Such difference may possibly exist, but we will never know.
    Oh I have never once disputed that immaterial entities might conceivably exist. But I do dispute that we can in any way experience them. Unless we invoke a sixth sense or something.
    It's not that it's strictly impossible for inherently immaterial beings to exist, it's that if we allow ourselves to make non-objective methods valid in finding them... we begin a downward spiral where we already know the outcome.
    It is philosphically possible that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn exists. Certainty and impossibility are not being cliamed by anybody regarding anything here.
    And, of course, if something (even an inherently immaterial something) cannot affect objective reality in any way, and therefore never has and never will... is it worth pursuing?
    If it is genuinely immaterial then I see neither how it could be pursued nor how it could have been experienced in the first place to inspire the idea that there is something to pursue?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by Stile, posted 08-12-2009 12:52 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 9 of 154 (519380)
    08-13-2009 12:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
    07-26-2009 5:40 PM


    Immaterial Argument
    Alas RAZD has declined to take part in this thread and continues to insist that I am a "liar" Message 161. I repeat that RAZD's faith is of no interest to me. Any conflation between personal experience as a source of faith or a form or evidence is entirely of his own making. Regardless of the whole "who said you said what" shenanigans the bottom line here is this:
    Does RAZD consider the existence of immaterial entities to be evidenced or not?
    If "Yes" then perhaps he would like to justify that position by tackling the problems cited in the OP of this thread? Also if "Yes" then I must be the most perceptive person in the universe as, apparently, RAZD has never given us any reason to think that subjective evidence and gods are connected in any way whatsoever.
    If "No" then we can all agree that no immaterial entity is any more evidenced than any other. Thus we can also all agree that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is a legitimate argument when deployed to expose the need for special pleading and irrational judgements when treating some immaterial entities with less atheism than others.
    I am happy either way.
    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 message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2009 5:40 PM Straggler has seen this message but not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 13 of 154 (519694)
    08-16-2009 11:35 AM
    Reply to: Message 10 by Blue Jay
    08-15-2009 4:14 PM


    Abuse
    Hey Bluejay
    Good to have some input from our resident thoughtful theist.
    Certainly, you couldn't detect it like you detect light or hearing. In fact, I can't imagine that an organ could be made to detect it. The mode of detection would have to be internal and unquantifiable, wouldn't it?
    I have been thinking about how I would answer my own question if I were a theist. I think I would claim that humans have an immaterial component that is able to detect immaterial entities. A "soul" by any other name.
    The question I would then ask is how we differentiate that claim from delusion, wishful thinking and biased guessing? At that point I think personal subjective conviction and circular reasoning (i.e. I must have a method of detecting the immaterial because I know I have detected the immaterial by means of the immaterial inner soul that I must therefore have)
    What do you make of my attempt at thinking theistically....? Pretty poor huh?
    I know this makes it hard to use as evidence, but, what else could it be like?
    If it's only distinguishable feature from biased guessing is the degree of personal conviction it induces then I would argue that the term "evidence" is being abused.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 08-15-2009 4:14 PM Blue Jay has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 08-17-2009 7:42 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 14 of 154 (519695)
    08-16-2009 11:40 AM
    Reply to: Message 12 by slevesque
    08-16-2009 3:15 AM


    Re: Why The
    Jesus, by all accounts (and if he existed), was a material entity. Thus he has no bearing on this discussion. Sorry to be so brusque but I can just see this discussion heading down the "gods are empirically evidenced" route when that is exactly what I am trying to avoid. That is another question.
    Immaterial entities. Personal experience (AKA subjective evidence). Only.
    The question remains - How can any genuinely and wholly materially undetectable entity be evidenced given that we only have material senses?
    And if you believe it can (e.g. sixth sense) how do you show that this "evidence" leads to superior results than just guessing?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by slevesque, posted 08-16-2009 3:15 AM slevesque has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 17 by slevesque, posted 08-17-2009 4:04 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 16 of 154 (519700)
    08-16-2009 12:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 15 by straightree
    08-16-2009 12:24 PM


    Re: Why The
    Its a very well stated pertinent question. The simplest and more direct answer to it, is NO. We have not any sensual capabilities to detect inmaterial entities.
    OK we agree on that it seems.
    If you consider that your intelligence can work on entities and concepts that do not come through your senses, then, maybe your personal experience and reasoning can lead you to believe in the existence of inmaterial entities, mainly in God. Then, it may be that you can arrive to consider that all that comes through your senses belongs to a world created by God, and then all your sensations are evidence of God.
    Which god? Is the obvious question but very probably leading off topic.......
    Experience and reasoning? Or bias, wishful thinking, emotional need, desire for higher purpose and a whole host of other very human and very compelling needs, wants and desires?
    So, in fact is a question of all or nothing.
    Maybe. But also maybe not...... I am not sure.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 15 by straightree, posted 08-16-2009 12:24 PM straightree has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 25 by straightree, posted 08-18-2009 1:32 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 21 of 154 (519806)
    08-17-2009 1:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 20 by Blue Jay
    08-17-2009 7:42 AM


    Re: Conundrum
    That was also my first impulse.
    Maybe I am better at thinking theistically than I gave myself credit for. Or maybe you are better at thinking atheistically than I gave you credit for.
    The real problem for that argument is that it only shifts the problem back a notch: try explaining how your immaterial component interacts with your material component without running into the same problem.
    Ah yes the "mind body" problem. In so many words.
    I don't have an answer for it. The only thing I could offer would be that "immaterial" doesn't necessarily mean "undetectable," but then I'd be left with the question of why we don't detect more immaterial things on a regular basis.
    In my theistic thinking mode I considered that too. To accommodate both this and the sort of experiences that people claim as evidence of gods I think we would have to consider gods that consciously pop in and out of materiality/detectability such that they are only ever exposed to isolated unverifiable situations. In short the exact sort of experiences most rationally accounted for by "delusion".
    The only point that I was trying to make is that I would suspect that, for most who believe in immaterial entities, evidence is entirely beside the point. In fact, I would argue that most Christians believe that the lack of actual evidence for spiritual things is an essential characteristic of spiritual things.
    I thought so too until recently. I thought claims of evidence were limited to creationists and the like. But the whole "subjective evidence" thing seems to cloud that issue for some. Message 100
    {AbE: Arguing with me probably isn't very fun, is it?}
    You are my shining light of relief, respite and sanity in the otherwise all to confrontational situations I seem intent on putting myself in
    Edited by Straggler, : Spelling - I keep typing "expereinces"
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 08-17-2009 7:42 AM Blue Jay has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 22 of 154 (519813)
    08-17-2009 2:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
    08-17-2009 4:04 AM


    The Topic
    Isn't seeing someone walking on water a subjective experience ? (In that all you will have as empirical evidence will be my word for it)
    Or do you define a subjective experience as an experience that excludes the physical senses?
    By the terminology that has been insisted upon by RAZD elsewhere I am taking "subjective evidence" to mean single isolated and unverifiable experiences. But in this thread I am limiting the application of such evidence to those entities which are wholly materially undetectable.
    RAZD spent three threads trumpeting the value and validity of subjective evidence by applying it to Nessie, Big Foot, Alien life, alien abduction, cats crossing roads, comets, lions and a whole host of other very material concepts. But apparently he has never applied this form of evidence or even commented on it's validity with regard to immaterial entities (despite each of the 3 previous threads in which he raised subjective evidence specifically mentioning immaterial deities of one sort or another as a fairly fundamental aspect of the OP). Apparently RAZD's argument on the validity of subjective evidence has "NOTHING" to do with deities or other immaterial entities. See here Message 402
    So in this thread I hope to explore the idea of whether or not truly immaterial entities can be evidenced by means of personal experience (AKA subjective evidence). Thus I am limiting the topic to discussing only materially undetectable entities.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 17 by slevesque, posted 08-17-2009 4:04 AM slevesque has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 23 by slevesque, posted 08-17-2009 10:38 PM Straggler has replied
     Message 26 by straightree, posted 08-18-2009 3:11 AM Straggler has seen this message but not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 29 of 154 (519918)
    08-18-2009 12:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 23 by slevesque
    08-17-2009 10:38 PM


    Re: The Topic
    Would a ghost be considered an immaterial entity ? because all ghost reports are made with someone seeing them with their eyes, and so one of their material senses.
    Well if a ghost can be seen it can also be detected by cameras right? It must reflect or emit light of an observable wavelength.
    If a ghost can be heard it can be audio recorded right? It must cause longditudinal waves in a medium like any other sound.
    If a particular immaterial entity cannot be detected by any material method of technology (present or future) then I don't see how it can have been "seen" or "heard" by our senses.
    My understanding is that gods are considered to be inherently immune from material detection. If this is not the case, if it is just that they are beyond our current technological scope then I hope one day to see some material evidence for gods. Right?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 23 by slevesque, posted 08-17-2009 10:38 PM slevesque has not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 30 of 154 (519923)
    08-18-2009 12:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 25 by straightree
    08-18-2009 1:32 AM


    Topic
    What a paradox, I think God produced evolution, you think evolution produced god.
    Maybe that is a fair summary.
    But unless that god is entirely immaterial yet evidenced by means of personal experience He/he/She/she/It/it is off topic.
    Sorry to be so brusque but the whole evolution as evidence for God thing is just gonna hijack this thread down so many paths it was never intended to explore.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 25 by straightree, posted 08-18-2009 1:32 AM straightree has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 31 by straightree, posted 08-19-2009 5:52 PM Straggler has seen this message but not replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 32 of 154 (520368)
    08-21-2009 7:44 AM


    Believability and Reliability
    RAZD writes:
    Indeed. Straggler has made it abundantly clear that he is unwilling to consider anything that violates his worldview.
    Message 269
    Who is this other Straggler that keeps being mentioned? He sounds like a completely unreasonable immovable zealout and ignorant pain in the ass. If ever I meet him I will put him right on one or two things.
    RAZD writes:
    His whole attempt to parse and divide evidence into two categories are clearly attempts to put them in two different piles: (a) those he thinks are valid (conform to his worldview) and (b) those he thinks are invalid (violate his worldview) -- without considering the possibility that the evidence could reflect reality.
    Well this Straggler hasn't denied any possibilities at all.
    This Straggler has simply pointed out that citing a form of evidence that is both undetectable without an immaterial sixth sense and that is utterly unable to be distinguished from blind chance, biased guessing or even just intentionally making things up in terms of it's reliability as an indicator of reality, is a rather weak position. Some might go so far as to say desperately weak.
    If the proponents of immaterial subjective "evidence" cannot see that they are effectively rebranding personal conviction and subjective notions of "believability" as "evidence" then I am not sure what else there is to say on the matter.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 33 by petrophysics1, posted 08-22-2009 3:16 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 34 of 154 (520628)
    08-22-2009 5:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 33 by petrophysics1
    08-22-2009 3:16 PM


    Re: Believability and Reliability
    Not a fan huh Petrophysics? Oh well, we all have our crosses to bear. I'll cope.
    I notice that you don't actually have anything to add to the debate on immaterial subjective forms of "evidence". I notice that you cannot actually refute the arguments presented in the OP or elsewhere.
    Straggler writes:
    This Straggler has simply pointed out that citing a form of evidence that is both undetectable without an immaterial sixth sense and that is utterly unable to be distinguished from blind chance, biased guessing or even just intentionally making things up in terms of it's reliability as an indicator of reality, is a rather weak position. Some might go so far as to say desperately weak.
    Petrophysics writes:
    Not a big deal, I see people like Straggler do this all the time.
    And I see people who have deep conviction but no actual argument make these sorts of comments all the time too.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 33 by petrophysics1, posted 08-22-2009 3:16 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-22-2009 7:17 PM Straggler has replied

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10333
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    (1)
    Message 36 of 154 (520723)
    08-23-2009 2:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 35 by New Cat's Eye
    08-22-2009 7:17 PM


    So Be It
    Hi CS
    I started writing a detailed point by point reply to your post but stopped. I just don't see the point anymore. It has taken us six months to reach the point where we are actually discussing the true nature of the evidence involved. Namely immaterial evidence (visions, hallucinations, voice of god experiences etc. etc.) I now have neither the patience nor interest to further try and decipher what it is you guys actually mean based on the drip feed of information that you think is "relevant" to such discussions. Rightly or wrongly it feels evasive to me. It feels like trying to get blood out of an unwilling stone.
    So if you are content considering some forms of purely internal personal experience (e.g. visions) as genuine evidence of external reality whilst not others (e.g. daydreams) despite there being no way to differentiate them in terms of practical reliability as true indicators of external reality then - So be it.
    If you find convincing forms of evidence that are both undetectable without an immaterial sixth sense and that are utterly unable to be distinguished from blind chance, biased guessing or even just intentionally making things up in terms of practical results and thus demonstrable reliability as a true indicators of reality then - So be it.
    If you find these things personally convincing and that is enough for you then - So be it.
    And if you can't accept that people are being honest and simply trying to make sense of their real experiences by discussing them along side ways that are more reliable, and that they're not really trying to "rebrand evidence", then you are not going to have anything else to say.
    I do not deny, and never have denied, that people have deep conviction that what they are saying is true. I am not calling them liars. I am not and never have doubted their sincerity. Which part of this are you guys not understanding? Why does pointing out the groundless basis of confidence in such conclusions in terms of demonstrable reliability equate to calling people dishonest deceptive liars who are lacking conviction in what they believe?
    Regardless of honesty, sincerity, personal conviction, strength of belief or whatever other cherished feelings it seems I have offended recently - If the "evidence" being cited is simply unable to be distinguished from the results of making things up (whether intentionally or unintentionally, whether consciously or unconsciously, whether sincerely believed or not, whether products of wishful thinking need and desire rather than reality OR not) in any practical sense whatsoever then the fact is that there is no rational reason for anyone else to accept such conclusions as any more or less true than simply making things up. Conviction has no bearing on the nature of reality or the quality and reliability of conclusions drawn regarding the nature of reality.
    I think there can be little doubt that people would invent gods and other supernatural explanations whether any actually exist or not. That we consistently tackle the unknown by invoking such things is a highly objectively evidenced fact. But if you still think that internal visions (or whatever) of gods are better and more reliably and rationally explained by the actual existence of materially undetectable gods rather than by humans finding wholly internal methods of fulfilling their innate need for answers and purpose etc. etc. then - So be it.
    I really don't see what else there is to say on this matter.
    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 message is a reply to:
     Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-22-2009 7:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 37 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-27-2009 11:30 AM Straggler has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024