Is My Hypothesis Valid???

I'm not a lawyer, and don't claim to have a lot of knowledge in this area, but I rather doubt that any jury would convict a murderer with no objective evidence.For one, a dead body would be objective evidence of a murder. From what I understand, one person saying, "I saw that guy murder someone," would not lead to a conviction. It would take some sort of corroborating evidence, or at the very least, a number of witnesses, all pointing the finger at one person, with sufficiently similar stories of the events, and some sort of proof showing the witnesses didn't concoct some conspiratorial story to convict an otherwise innocent person. If these things were not present, and the jury still convicted, the convict could justifiably, IMO, appeal citing an incompetent attorney.

But that subjective evidence, while it may be enough to prevent the hermit from putting his life at risk to test the claims of the villagers, does not give us a reliable way to discern the objective, real world.Science, in striving to remove as much subjectivity as possible from the process, has provided a far superior method of determing what's objectively real than naively believeing anyhting a group of people tells you, despite not even being aware of the things they claim to exist and having nothing presented as proof beyond their say-so. If we, in general, did so, then Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormon Church would find it much easier to convert people, they'd just have to send larger groups out.

But then it's exactly the same as nothing. If having no evidence whatsoever allows you to randomly guess, then how does subjective evidence, which only gets you to the level of randomly guessing, become better than nothing?

Again, most courts would require some sort of objective evidence, at the very least, a dead body or a weapon that had been used.But beyond that, because a jury or a judge finds the argument compelling does not make it correct. The sheer number of convicts on death row that have been over turned by genetic evidence proves that our court system is not the be all and end all of truth. In fact, it would seem to argue in favor of objective evidence versus subjective evidence, depending of course on the actual specifics of the testimony in the orignal court case.

I misunderstood what you said then, but yes, I would argue that it doesn't get you any higher than the ground unless there is some sort of objective evidence that you may not be considering.When someone tells me something, I have objective evidence to fall back on when interpreting the claim. If what the person tells me is completely devoid of any and all objective evidence, I relegate the claim to, at best, the "merely possible but not very probable" bin. Unsurprisingly, if I were to make a wild guess about something for which I have no evidence or knowledge, it would go in the exact same bin.

Hearing it makes it empirical, or at least possibly empirical. What Straggler is getting at, if I understand what he's been saying for three threads now, is that for something that by definition cannot be heard, touched, tasted, seen, or smelled, how can you grant any certainty to its existence if your basis for evidence relies on empiricality?

I have a sneaking suspicion that this all comes from the fact that RAZD is a deist, and objects to the IPU argument as a means to showing that believing in something without evidence, but disbelieving in something else that has the same amount of evidence (none) is inconsistent.Straggler has maintained that there is no evidence for a god. RAZD at some times says he has evidence, but doesn't want to discuss his beliefs. SO Straggler is trying to get around that by asking what RAZD considers evidence. Now that Straggler has gotten what he thinks is RAZD's admission that evidence requires empiricality, and that RAZD's inherently unknowable deity cannot be empircal and still inherently unknowable, he thus cannot have evidence for his deity.It's a long convoluted path they stagger, but it does lead to some interesting argumentation. It's sort of like a car wreck, you can't look away, yet you know someone's going to get hurt.

Not RAZD's "inherently unknowable" deity. And as a side note, the only "evidence" for a god are similar to the evidence an hallucination or delusion would create...which leads me to consider it less than convincing. Empircal doesn't mean verified, it merely means objective or, perhaps, able to be verified. RAZD himself has said his deity is inherently unknowable, which seems to mean unempirical. Which is what set Straggler off on his quest. This is the whole thrust of this thread. Straggler indeed asserts that evidence must be empirical or it fails the definition of evidence. He claims to have gotten RAZD to admit that evidence must be empirical, and thus claims victory. RAZD then asserts that Straggler has misrepresented what he's said and so the cycle continues.I happen to agree with Straggler. A feeling in your mind doesn't constitute evidence, it at best could point to a possibility. Straggler, I think, would admit the possibility, but would hold it in the same category as the possibility that any other mythical creature could exist, but that it is so unlikely as to be disregarded barring any evidence indicating its presence.

I understand your position, or at least I think I do. I was merely trying to let CS know what the genesis of this thread was and why Straggler keeps bringing up the nature of evidence. It's his axe to grind, not mine.I personally, try to keep my beliefs logically consistent and rational, and you don't seem to require that. That's fine by me, we all have our own world-views.

Then wouldn't it be more clear to say their god is "unknown" rather than "unknowable?" I have hallucinated before. Usually brought about by extreme sleeplessness, but I have on occassion hallucinated for other reasons. I have not experienced any "evidence" for god, and I suppose I can't say with 100% certainty that they are one and the same. Perhaps you could tell me how the two experiences differ? The definition I believe Straggler is using (and how I am reading the debate) is through definition 3. This may be one of the reasons some of us kind of speak past each other. I do indeed see things as either empirical, able to be experienced (through the senses), or inherently unknowable. Why is your belief in your god different from a Druid's sincere beliefs, or a Shintoist's sincere beliefs in animism? Why is your belief some special kind and theirs is mere delusion? What sets you apart as being able to tell what's real, and they get confused by mythical creatures?Can you at least see how, from an outsider/non-believer's standpoint, all these beliefs (as sincere as they all are) look to be the same and just as improbable? We're merely being consistent. We have no belief in garage demons, dragons, animistic spirits, Shiva, Allah, YHWH, and fairies. You, however, agree with us on all counts but one...what makes your exception worthy of being excluded from the disbelief of all other possible sincerely held beliefs?

This is the very question at hand. Can something that is not sensed by the 5 senses we use to observe the external, objective world be said to be anything other than just inside the mind? How would something that is external to the mind affect the mind if it doesn't do so through the mechanisms by which the mind receives information?

You don't have to make this claim, you only have to make this claim of things that can interact with us. It could be that there are things all over the place that we can't detect, but we don't see or feel any effect from them because if they interacted with us, we could detect it. QEDWhat CS or RAZD have to show is that something can interact with us in a way not currently known, otherwise, we have no reason to believe anything can or does.

Correct, I will maintain it's a possibility, just as I maintain it's a possibility that God, the IPU and the FSM exist. It's just that, until I am shown some sort of evidence in their existence, I will disbelieve in their existence.

A reason for belief is not evidence for the actual existence of deity X. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for god as there is for the IPU. You have a reason to believe in your god that is not available to you for the IPU, but don't assume that it's evidence.I think this will help the argument: Do you believe God is empirically knowable. Do you think it would be possible to take a picture of one of these religious visions or record the voice of god speaking to you? Or do you believe God is not empirically knowable and all interaction with him is subjective?

To me, evidence is something I can show someone else and have them reach the same conclusion as me. If the same bit of information can lead to multiple conclusions, it's not evidence for any one of those conclusions, but it may be enough to convince me, personally. So, for me, it would be a reason to believe, but not evidence that what I picked was actually true. I admitted that, but by using the definition above, the evidence is the same.