Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,178 Year: 5,435/9,624 Month: 460/323 Week: 100/204 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Immaterial "Evidence"
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2809 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 10 of 154 (519636)
08-15-2009 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
07-26-2009 5:40 PM


Re: Why The
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
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?
Look at it the other way around: if something immaterial could be detected, what would the sensation of detection be like?
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 know this makes it hard to use as evidence, but, what else could it be like?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2009 5:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Rahvin, posted 08-15-2009 5:46 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2009 11:35 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2809 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 20 of 154 (519784)
08-17-2009 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Straggler
08-16-2009 11:35 AM


Conundrum
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
think I would claim that humans have an immaterial component that is able to detect immaterial entities. A "soul" by any other name.
That was also my first impulse.
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.
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.
-----
Straggler writes:
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.
Of course. Rahvin provided a good summary of all that.
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.
So, most theists wouldn't even complain, even if your point were correct (and I think it is). It's that "faith" thing that you didn't want to talk about, I guess.
Yeah, it's a conundrum, for sure: it's just not one that a theist would understand.
{AbE: Arguing with me probably isn't very fun, is it?}
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2009 11:35 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Straggler, posted 08-17-2009 1:03 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024