Probability of the existence of God

Not necessarily.There are countless examples of people conjuring up imaginary individuals whilst continuing to function in what the rest of us assume to be an objective reality.
We don't therefore have to assume that we are all the product of the imagination of one such deluded individual just because such individuals exist.The error you repeatedly make is that you selectively justify your flawed position on the all or nothing scenario.It is possible everything is just the product of your imagination. It is also possible that it is not.
I suspect that you, as much as I, assume the latter but whatever the case the logical conequence of the latter is that independently corroborated evidence is verifiable.In the event of the latter scenario being true your belief in an imaginary wife that nobody else has ever seen or heard and for which there is no material physical evidence whatsoever would suggest that you have invented an imaginary wife. Not that we are all the product of your imagination.Seriously - If nobody else could see or hear your wife wouldn't it at least cast the seed of doubt in your mind as to whether or not you were seeing and hearing things that were not actually there?If belief in God is evidence for God's existence why is belief in Pixies not evidence for the existence of pixies? Or do you think there is evidence for pixies as well?

Independant? And how would I establish the independance of that which is supposed to be independant of me - other than assume that which I am trying to demonstrate?Which is all off the point anyway. The point didn't concern the existance of my wife-to-be. It concerned the evidence I have for her having had a significant impact on my life. And the fact that some of that evidence is non-empirical.Which of course means that evidence need not be empirical in order to be classed as evidence.

Your argument has so many flaws it is difficult to know where to start.Rather than try and tackle them all at once lets just first try and clear up the very practical problem of the highly selective application of your arguemnt you seem to be applying here. Is a genuine belief in the existence of pixies (i.e. a 'knowldge' that pixies definitely do exist) a form of non-empirical "evidence" for the existence of pixies?
If not why not?
How exactly is the non-empirical "evidence" for pixies, ghosts, the tooth fairy, father Christmas, Lakshmi, Apollo or the Easter bunny different to the non-empirical "evidence" for your wife or for God?Anyway, gotta go. I am having dinner with Zeus, Thor, Frodo and Gandalf. Should be fun.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Which means your entire point was a red herring in the first place, since the existance of an "impact" on one's life is not the topic of this thread, and that's a subjective point in any case.The point of the thread is the probability of the existence of an entity, not whether that entity has had an impact on your life.Known-fictional characters have had an "impact" on people's lives since the first person told a story. Santa has an "impact" on children's lives. Zeus had an "impact" on the lives of the ancient greeks.Does that mean they actually exist, iano? Does it mean they are more or less likely to exist than a fictional character that does not have an "impact" on your life?Do people who do not have any impact on your life not exist?Your argument could just as easily be used to describe "evidence" for Santa, fairies, trolls, Zeus, or Thor as for "god" or even your wife. Entities that have a "large impact" on your life do not necessarily exist at all.

How about starting with the argument itself rather than continue in this diversion regarding my wife-to-be's existance. I would remind you that ... ... or zeus, or thor or apollo. Rather ... If interested by all means refer to the example I gave.

Your repeated and ongoing evasion has been noted. The topic of this thread is how we determine the probability of the existence of a given entity. Specifically God in this case but presumably the standards of evidence on which we base any such conclusion can be applied to any other entity we choose to consider. Yes all of those. Or your wife. Or you. Or me. Or anyone else we care to consider the actual existence of.
Or are you claiming that the standards of evidence as applied to the existence of your God should be different to everything else? The example you gave concerns the impact that your wife has had on your life. I don't dispute the fact that she has had an impact on your life. I do dispute that this can feasibly be construed as any sort of evidence for her actual existence. Non-empirical evidence of what exactly?
If you are not claiming this as evidence for her actual existence then I do not see what possible relevance the impact of your wife on your life has to the topic at hand?
Perhaps you can explain?Whether real or imaginary something can have a profound impact on one's life. An imaginary wife could potentially have as much, or even more, impact on your life as a physically real wife.
As Rahvin points out, fictional characters and ancient gods have had profound impacts on people's lives. This does not make them any more or any less fictional. You have been peddling your 'non-empirical evidence' line of argument in relation to God in one form or another in this thread and numerous others for as long as I have been a member of EvC. However I have never seen you justify why the same argument cannot be applied to anything else anyone claims they believe/"know" to exist.So I ask yet again - Is an absolute belief in the existence of pixies* and associated impact on ones life evidence for the existence of pixies?
If not why not?*Feel free to replace "pixies" with whatever imaginary entity floats your boat (Tooth Fairy, Zeus, Thor, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Imaginary Friend, Easter Bunny etc. etc. etc.)Please stop being evasive and just answer the question.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Can we conclude from your silence that you are unable to answer the question asked in Message 126 and that you therefore agree that the "non-empirical evidence" for the existence of pixies is equally as (in)valid as the "non-empirical evidence" for the existence of God?Straggler's question - Could it be that "non-empirical evidence" for anything is so pointlessly unreliable that the term "evidence" is completely unwarrented in such a context?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As has your attempt to twist one point being made in order to raise another. I made the claim that not all evidence need be empirical in order that it be considered evidence - in oppostion to someone who claimed this was not the case. I gave an example of where this would be the case. So far so good - I've not heard back from them. I'm not posing it as evidence of her existance. I'm posing it as demonstration of the fact that evidence need not be empirical in order to be evidence. A narrow point spreadeagled by you...Once establishing that evidence need not be empirical in order to be evidence, I report myself satisfied as to Gods existance (on the basis of non-empirical evidence leading me to that conclusion). Is this presented as proof of God's existance. Or presented as increasing the probability of God's existance? Nope. It's a statement made. An assertion. I couldn't give a flying fiddlers that others introduce their (assumed-for-the-sake-of-argument) beliefs in fairies or spagetti monsters. Does the attempt at guilt-by-association so much as scratch the surface of the point made: that I can know God exists and that knowledge was conveyed by non-empirical evidence? Not on your nelly.- I've been peddling this argument for somewhat less time than folk have been peddling the notion that the existance of a.n.other thing is (of necessity) ultimately and supremely established by empirical evidence. Were it only so ...The notion that I should first assume (note) the existance of 10 people who will nod and tell me "Yes, your wife-to-be does indeed exist - an that's empirical" to offset the possibility that I might be incorrectly discerning the existance of my wife-to-be - strikes me as the height of circular dottiness. But that is the essence of what is being proposed by the purveyors of this notion.- "Absolute belief" requires clarification. Is the belief arrived at via evidence (empirical or non-empirical) or is that a blind (unevidenced) belief. Yes in the first case (obviously) and No in the second (obviously).

quote:

---

'm not posing it as evidence of her existance. I'm posing it as demonstration of the fact that evidence need not be empirical in order to be evidence. A narrow point spreadeagled by you...

---

Since the "demonstration" only works if it IS evidence then you are admitting that your argument fails.But in fact you went even further. You implicitly claimed that unless it was accepted as solid evidence of her existence you would have to deny the existence of everybody else, too. Which means that either you reject all other evidence of her existence or you have none (and hence she really does not exist).So this latest statement only makes your argument even crazier than it was before.

Now that the demonstration has been transmitted empirically, the recipient is in a position to look to the nature of his own non-empirical thoughts and judge that they do indeed help bring him to conclusions. And he would agree that his non-empirical thoughts are, as per definition, evidence. Non-empirical evidence.Anybody prepared to take a stand and say that their thoughts don't help them form judgements and come to conclusions?No-one?- I implicitly did nothing of the sort (assuming I understand what you mean by 'it'). I did explicitly reject the notion that some arbitrary notion of "solid" could assume the higher ground.Unempirical assumption sit at the root of it all - it can't be helped. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Now that the demonstration has been transmitted empirically, the recipient is in a position to look to the nature of his own non-empirical thoughts and judge that they do indeed help bring him to conclusions. And he would agree that his non-empirical thoughts are, as per definition, evidence. Non-empirical evidence.

---

Your "definition" includes reasoning, but reasoning is not evidence. Thoughts help us reach conclusions through reasoning, they are not evidence in themselves for anything external.

quote:

---

I implicitly did nothing of the sort (assuming I understand what you mean by 'it'). I did explicitly reject the notion that some arbitrary notion of "solid" could assume the higher ground.

---

Rubbish. I've read your posts. In Message 114 you started asserting that thinking of your wife-to-be was evidence of her impact on your life. Had you stopped there you would have been just about OK (provided you accepted that non-existent people could also have such an impact) but in Message 118 you insisted that it was her very existence that was the question - and something that you simply assumed.So far as I can tell you assume that this imaginary woman exists because you think of her and you would rather deny that everyone else exists than accept the fact that she is purely imaginary. If that isn't what you mean then Message 118 is appallingly badly written

My definition wasn't based around reasoning. The evidence revolved around frequency of occurance of thought, occasion of occurance of thought, response to occurance of thought - without necessarily reasoning things out. Which is not to say there was no reasoning.That I reasoned such occurances indicative of significant impact on my life doesn't affect the unreasoned aspect of the evidence.- Correction: "thoughts turning towards..."I'd insert "perfectly fine" for "just about ok". A minor and subjective quibble.- Your probably referring to msg 119. I do assume she exists given that assumption is the basis for my supposing anything exists outside me. Given that non-existant things can have an impact as well as existing thing I don't see that it matters much whether she does or doesn't. Exist.- Assuming an imaginary person exists would mean I'm aware she is imaginary but somehow assume she is real. And you tell me I'm appallingly badly written Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

My definition wasn't based around reasoning

---

I didn't say that it was. I said that it included reasoning. i.e. that reasoning fit the definition and thus the definition was wrong.

quote:

---

Correction: "thoughts turning towards..."

​

I'd insert "perfectly fine" for "just about ok". A minor and subjective quibble.

---

Your "correction" is a minor and insignificant quibble. And "perfectly fine" is wrong, since it must be admitted that an imaginary person does not truly have any impact because they do not exist. It is the concept of such a person that has the impact.

quote:

---

Your probably referring to msg 119. I do assume she exists given that assumption is the basis for my supposing anything exists outside me. Given that non-existant things can have an impact as well as existing thing I don't see that it matters much whether she does or doesn't. Exist.

---

On the contrary, this thread is about the EXISTENCE of God. Not of the subjective impact that your idea of God has on your life. And if you simply assume that your wife-to-be exists - if you truly have no evidence that leads you to that conclusion - then it seems overwhelmingly likely that she does not truly exist. Yet if you do have such evidence then rejecting your "non-empirical" evidence as evidence for her existence does not even entail rejecting her existence. Which ever way you cut it your "non-empirical" evidence has not been shown to be of any use in determining the existence of a person - and thus it does not support the idea that equivalent "evidence' is of any use in determining the existence of God (which is, I remind you, the subject of this thread).

quote:

---

Assuming an imaginary person exists would mean I'm aware she is imaginary but somehow assume she is real. And you tell me I'm appallingly badly written

---

Do you know that your God is only imaginary ?After all, if it were the case that your God did not exist and your "non-empirical evidence" were really your imagination at work would you not be arguing that an imaginary person exists on the basis of your imagination ?

Straggler wites Iano writes Well I think we can safely assume that the evidence for pixies is non-empirical.As the resident expert on non-empirical "evidence" perhaps you can tell us the sort of thing that would constitute the non-empirical "evidence" on which we could viably conclude the existence of pixies (or anything else)?(AbE) The viability of non-empirical "evidence" is fairly key to your entire position (in this thread and many others) so it seems only fair to examine exactly what form(s) this evidence can take and to determine whether or not you are willing to apply these same standards of evidence to entities other than your personal version of God.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Iano
Given that the concept of non-empirical "evidence" is so inherently fundamental to almost every argument I have ever seen you put forwards at EvC and given that it is so key to what would seem to be your whole world view - I am surprised that you are so reticent and un-forthcoming when it comes to exploring this in detail?If your argument is as valid and "obvious" as you repeatedly suggest you should have no need for caveats, conditions, delays or debating tactics.A simple example of what constitutes non-empirical evidence is all that is being requested? Is that such a difficult question?Straggler asks - It is my conclusion that non-empirical "evidence" can be used to demonstrate the existence of any entity that anyone can conceivably imagine. Therefore such "evidence" is so pointlessly unreliable as to render the term "evidence" as completely unwarranted in this context.
Thus your whole position falls apart at the seams and your whole argument is shown to be little more than an ill conceived debating tactic.So please do tell us exactly what form this non-empirical "evidence" of yours takes and then let us see if we can equally apply this form of "evidence" to demonstrate the existence of the evidently ridiculous such that we can determine the validity (or otherwise) of such "evidence".