(October 25, 2014 at 5:42 pm)trmof Wrote:(October 25, 2014 at 5:25 pm)Chuck Wrote: Exactly. No one can deny people see things. We want some standard of evidence that would have provision for achieving high probability of excluding "people seeing things".
You effectively have no standard of evidence and can be convinced by a whole hoste of mental phenomenon which is other cases have been show to be creations of the mind unrelated to reality.
You are arguing we should not lower our standard of evidence but ditch them all together, and accept not what feels good to us, but what feels good to you.
No, I'm simply proposing that if such a God existed, your standard of evidence would prevent him from letting you know. Your standard of evidence for non falsifiable propositions is the same as your standard for falsifiable propositions. That's fine, but philosophy is all about exploring non falsifiable propositions through intuition, personal experience and logic. That's why I chose to post this under philosophy. I would propose that your standard of evidence prevents you from even discussing philosophical matters in the first place.
I am proposing that if your God didn't exist, your standard of evidence would still cause you to build an entire world view upon the proposition that he does. So your standard of evidence is good for, when averaged over all it is likely to produce, nothing.
No, philosophy is not "all about" exploring proposition through intuition and personal experience and logic. Philosophy is partially about exploring propositions, and it is not beyond philosophy to try dead ends. The fact that it tried a dead end does not mean the end is thus made live.
