quote:Are you claiming that we can find empirical evidence for the soul (for example) if we just look hard enough?
No no no. Not what I was going for. I was just exemplifying that the absense of evidence really can be used to conclude that something doesn't exist, but that it doesn't "prove" it.
But that's becasue the burden of proof is on the person claiming (entity) does exist. When the person making the claim fails to meet the burden of proof, it can be concluded that there is no reason to believe the claim.
Me and millions of other people thinking that it exists is enough for me to not be certain that it does not.
Appeal to Popularity. The popularity of an idea is still not a good reason to suggest that it does exist.
quote:Or if there is give me an example of a form of non-empirical and what conclusion you can draw from this "evidence".
It feels like I have a soul so I conclude that I do have one.
"It feels like my every action is being directed by an invisible pink unicorn, so I conclude that the invisible pink unicorn exists."
Subjective "evidence" is not really evidence of anything whatsoever. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that subjective "evidence" with nothing empirical to support it is actually evidence of delusion.
quote:In which case the claims of every nutjob on the planet should be treated as equally as valid as any religious claims for the soul and such like.
Pretty much, except that we can add plausibility in there.
Personal incredulity is not a valid method of testing claims.
Seriously, CS, how plausible is the idea that an inivisble man lives in the sky, and that he came to Earth as his own son and sacrificed himself to himself to pay the price of a debt he set in the first place?
Is that more or less plausible than invisible fairies controlling the weather? Than Zeus controlling lightning? Than the invisible pink unicorn I "feel" is standing right next to you?
Your entire argument really boils down to two things:
1) Really popular ideas might be true even if they have no empirical support. 2) You can't prove that unfalsifiable ideas are false, so they might be true if they sound "plausible" to me.
These are flawed arguments. The first is a combination Appeal to Authority and reversal of the burden of proof. The second is a mix of personal incredulity and anotehr reversal of teh burden of proof.
The only logical conclusion given a lack of any empirical evidence to support a claim is that the claim is very likely false. "Non-empirical evidence," such as subjective "feelings" or appeals to popularity are not evidence of anything whatsoever. In fact, in the absence of any and all empirical evidence to support a claim, "non-empirical evidence" is evidence of nothing mroe than delusion.
Why would people buy something called life insurance when they have to die for their beneficary to collect?
Straggler there are many things that science does not have an answer for. But scientist keep looking for the answers in the hopes that one day they will find the answer.
When it comes to God and if a person has a spirit that will live forever I do not have empirical evidence . But one day I will have empirical evidence. It is similar to the life insurance except my beneficary won't have the evidence one way or the other but I will. The same goes for everybody as the last time I checked the death rate was 100%.
You could have simply stated "I have nothing relevant or useful to add to this conversation. Also, Pascal's Wager."
You haven't given any reason to believe one evidence-lacking position as opposed to any other. You've given no way of distinguishing unfalsifiable claims.
You've given no reason whatsoever to believe anything you say.