(November 21, 2017 at 6:56 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 6:55 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Philosophy slut.

Two of my favorite things.

Slutty/philosophy stuff glutton.

(November 21, 2017 at 6:55 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Philosophy slut.

---

---

Some people can't help it. They are so drawn to big, penetrating ideas that they just think about them until they are exhausted.

Some people can't help being philosophy sluts?

Huh? Philosophy is great. It's religion that sucks ass.

(November 21, 2017 at 6:26 pm)curiosne Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 2:05 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Anything that gives me reason to believe or not believe would be evidence. So yes, I would agree with your examples as evidence.

Edited to add: but it seems like your goal here is to make me not trust you, and to think that you are a liar.

No, my goal is trying to understand how you determine what is true of life and also what is true of reality. Let me know if this is getting too long winded and I'll try to close off my questions quickly...I'm new to this so my line of questioning might not be very succinct (apologies in advance).

Can you elaborate on the "anything" part of evidence? Are feelings counted as evidence? Or if I made a sound logical argument, would that also be evidence?

Because of the format, you may want to ask more than one question at a time, if it doesn't mess up the flow of your presentation. 

You ask good questions;  feelings, I waver on.  I think that they can be evidence, but as support only and in addition to other evidence.   A logical argument, or reason, I could see where it could technically be counted as evidence,  but I would normally separate them, with evidence being a part of ones reasons.

(November 21, 2017 at 10:14 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 6:26 pm)curiosne Wrote: No, my goal is trying to understand how you determine what is true of life and also what is true of reality. Let me know if this is getting too long winded and I'll try to close off my questions quickly...I'm new to this so my line of questioning might not be very succinct (apologies in advance).

Can you elaborate on the "anything" part of evidence? Are feelings counted as evidence? Or if I made a sound logical argument, would that also be evidence?

Because of the format, you may want to ask more than one question at a time, if it doesn't mess up the flow of your presentation. 

You ask good questions;  feelings, I waver on.  I think that they can be evidence, but as support only and in addition to other evidence.   A logical argument, or reason, I could see where it could technically be counted as evidence,  but I would normally separate them, with evidence being a part of ones reasons.

Good point, I'll try to limit the amount of questions I ask in one go.

So let's get logical question out of the way first....so are you saying that with a logical argument, you'd only accept that it represents reality if it's both sound and also that there's evidence that the argument is true.

Have I summed up your position on this correctly?

(November 22, 2017 at 1:32 am)curiosne Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 10:14 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Because of the format, you may want to ask more than one question at a time, if it doesn't mess up the flow of your presentation. 

You ask good questions;  feelings, I waver on.  I think that they can be evidence, but as support only and in addition to other evidence.   A logical argument, or reason, I could see where it could technically be counted as evidence,  but I would normally separate them, with evidence being a part of ones reasons.

Good point, I'll try to limit the amount of questions I ask in one go.

So let's get logical question out of the way first....so are you saying that with a logical argument, you'd only accept that it represents reality if it's both sound and also that there's evidence that the argument is true.

Have I summed up your position on this correctly?

Actually I was talking about increasing the questions in one post. If it won’t interrupt the flow of you approach. I can understand wanting to build a flow of logic.

As to your question.
No, while it’s going to be dependent on the particulars of the the claim/argument, I wouldn’t agree that physical evidence is always necessary, to bolster the reasons. Would you say that you have a lower view of logic in this way?

(November 22, 2017 at 7:01 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 22, 2017 at 1:32 am)curiosne Wrote: Good point, I'll try to limit the amount of questions I ask in one go.

So let's get logical question out of the way first....so are you saying that with a logical argument, you'd only accept that it represents reality if it's both sound and also that there's evidence that the argument is true.

Have I summed up your position on this correctly?

Actually I was talking about increasing the questions in one post. If it won’t interrupt the flow of you approach. I can understand wanting to build a flow of logic.

As to your question.
No, while it’s going to be dependent on the particulars of the the claim/argument, I wouldn’t agree that physical evidence is always necessary, to bolster the reasons. Would you say that you have a lower view of logic in this way?

No, it's not a lower view of logic but I think I understand where you're coming from. I'll approach this question in a different way then...

Do you believe that the Sasquatch (ie bigfoot) exists? If you do / not, what are your reasons for / not believing in it's existence?

Also when you say "feelings, I waver on.  I think that they can be evidence, but as support only and in addition to other evidence", are you implying that feelings are a lower quality / form of evidence hence you why you'd only accept it as a support as opposed to it being a stand alone form of evidence?

If I may interject . . .

. . . I would love anyone to give an example of what non-physical evidence of anything could even conceivably be in principle without being a self-contradictory concept. Doesn't the concept of evidence, by its very nature, presuppose something that can at least in principle be evident to us, and aren't we physical beings, and can't evidence only be evident to physical beings . . . physically?

(November 21, 2017 at 10:14 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(November 21, 2017 at 6:26 pm)curiosne Wrote: No, my goal is trying to understand how you determine what is true of life and also what is true of reality. Let me know if this is getting too long winded and I'll try to close off my questions quickly...I'm new to this so my line of questioning might not be very succinct (apologies in advance).

Can you elaborate on the "anything" part of evidence? Are feelings counted as evidence? Or if I made a sound logical argument, would that also be evidence?

Because of the format, you may want to ask more than one question at a time, if it doesn't mess up the flow of your presentation. 

You ask good questions;  feelings, I waver on.  I think that they can be evidence, but as support only and in addition to other evidence.   A logical argument, or reason, I could see where it could technically be counted as evidence,  but I would normally separate them, with evidence being a part of ones reasons.

(November 22, 2017 at 5:45 pm)Hammy Wrote: If I may interject . . .

. . . I would love anyone to give an example of what non-physical evidence of anything could even conceivably be in principle without being a self-contradictory concept. Doesn't the concept of evidence, by its very nature, presuppose something that can at least in principle be evident to us, and aren't we physical beings, and can't evidence only be evident to physical beings . . . physically?

I think it's all in the wording of it. Going back to one of my examples where I claim that I have $10 in my pocket, you would accept my claim (even without physical proof) that I actually have $10 in my pocket. Reason being that it's a mundane claim and hence you would not go to that extra step of searching me for the $10...ie me telling you that I only have $10 in money is sufficient for you to believe me.

I'm trying not to get tied up in semantics currently as my claim above is not really evidence, it's just a claim but one that you'd ordinarily accept.

(November 22, 2017 at 5:53 pm)curiosne Wrote: I think it's all in the wording of it. Going back to one of my examples where I claim that I have $10 in my pocket, you would accept my claim (even without physical proof) that I actually have $10 in my pocket. Reason being that it's a mundane claim and hence you would not go to that extra step of searching me for the $10...ie me telling you that I only have $10 in money is sufficient for you to believe me.

But I would accept your claim for a reason and that reason is itself physical.