10 people look at a painting. 3 declare it beautiful, 7 don't. Are the 3 correct?

10 people witness an act. 3 declare it immoral, 7 don't. Are the 3 correct?

10 people pray. 3 declare the presence of God, 7 don't. Are the 3 correct?

10 people measure a table. 3 declare it to be 1 metre long. 7 don't. Are the 3 correct?

^For #'s 1-3, the three people are correct. So are the seven.

For #4, I can't answer until I know how the measuring implements were calibrated, if all ten people were properly trained in the use of those instruments, and if everyone involved is using the same definition of 'meter'.

Boru

(August 22, 2023 at 5:30 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ^For #'s 1-3, the three people are correct. So are the seven.

For #4, I can't answer until I know how the measuring implements were calibrated, if all ten people were properly trained in the use of those instruments, and if everyone involved is using the same definition of 'meter'.

Boru

It's interesting that you find a statement like, 'God is here', is correct. And incorrect at the same time. Can you explain this more, since it appears at face value a contradiction?

(August 22, 2023 at 5:41 am)FrustratedFool Wrote:

(August 22, 2023 at 5:30 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ^For #'s 1-3, the three people are correct. So are the seven.

For #4, I can't answer until I know how the measuring implements were calibrated, if all ten people were properly trained in the use of those instruments, and if everyone involved is using the same definition of 'meter'.

Boru

It's interesting that you find a statement like, 'God is here', is correct.  And incorrect at the same time.  Can you explain this more, since it appears at face value a contradiction?

It’s not a contradiction. If the same person declared the presence of God and denied the presence of God, it would be.

But God is (according to the handbook) a non-material being. Therefore, ‘God is/is not here’ is a statement of feeling, of perception and not a veridical fact, like the length of a table.

If a person has a religious experience, no one can gainsay that they had an experience, but we may question its origin without doubting that person’s sincerity or honesty.

Boru

Unfortunately, a fire ravaged through the testing center, there were no survivors.

(August 22, 2023 at 6:30 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(August 22, 2023 at 5:41 am)FrustratedFool Wrote: It's interesting that you find a statement like, 'God is here', is correct.  And incorrect at the same time.  Can you explain this more, since it appears at face value a contradiction?

It’s not a contradiction. If the same person declared the presence of God and denied the presence of God, it would be.

But God is (according to the handbook) a non-material being. Therefore, ‘God is/is not here’ is a statement of feeling, of perception and not a veridical fact, like the length of a table.

If a person has a religious experience, no one can gainsay that they had an experience, but we may question its origin without doubting that person’s sincerity or honesty.

Boru

But surely 'God is here', whether material or not, is a statement claiming a veridical fact? It may not be testable in the same way (or even at all), but if God doesn't exist, for example, then surely the claim would be false? It is, then, like the table statement a True/False proposition, albeit one not so easily verifiable.

Or have I gone wrong?

(August 22, 2023 at 6:49 am)FrustratedFool Wrote:

(August 22, 2023 at 6:30 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It’s not a contradiction. If the same person declared the presence of God and denied the presence of God, it would be.

But God is (according to the handbook) a non-material being. Therefore, ‘God is/is not here’ is a statement of feeling, of perception and not a veridical fact, like the length of a table.

If a person has a religious experience, no one can gainsay that they had an experience, but we may question its origin without doubting that person’s sincerity or honesty.

Boru

But surely 'God is here', whether material or not, is a statement claiming a veridical fact?  It may not be testable in the same way (or even at all), but if God doesn't exist, for example, then surely the claim would be false?  It is, then, like the table statement a True/False proposition, albeit one not so easily verifiable.  

Or have I gone wrong?

Exactly - it’s a statement claiming a veridical fact, which doesn’t make it one. I can claim my cats all speak fluent Swahili, but I’m the only one who can hear it.

Yes, it’s a false statement as to the existence of God, but it is not a false statement with respect to the person’s sense that God is present. 

The table statement is a whole other kettle of fish of a different colour. A table is a discrete, physical object of particular dimensions. A person’s claim about the length of the table can be verified as being or not being exactly one meter long. But someone with a less than accurate measuring device can determine the table to be 1.1 meters long. Their perception of that length would be correct (assuming they trusted their ruler), but it doesn’t alter the actual size of the table.

If Person A says they sense God, I don’t doubt that there have a sensation that they take to be the presence of God, so they’re correct. If Person B has no sensation of God, I’m happy to take them at their word, and they would also be correct.

There’s a huge epistemological difference between an unverifiable feeling (the presence of God) and the size of a physical object (the table).

Boru

I agree there's a huge epistemological difference between an unverifiable/unfalsifiable statement and a verifiable/falsifiable statement. But is there are difference in them being truth claims? I can't see that there is.

I think you may have got tangled between the statement, 'I feel the presence of God' and the statement 'God is here.' One is making a claim about someone's subjective sense perceptions, one making a claim about the existence of a person and their locality (as well as an implied claim about their sense perceptions).

The statement 'This table is 1m long' is a truth claim and verifiable. It can be answered true or false.
The statement 'A bear is here' is also a truth claim and verifiable. It is answerable true or false. And I can't see much difference between the two.

And the statement 'An ethereal bear is here' also seems a truth claim, the same as the two above, though now it doesn't seem verifiable in the same way. It is going to be either true or false, but we can't decide which using the same method. It may be we can never know for sure.

The difference, it seems to me, is whether or not it can be ascertained to be veridical, not whether it's a true or false statement.

Edit: Someone smarter may be able to tease these apart in terms of ontology and epistemology. Each is a T/F claim about the existence and properties of X (ontology), but our ability to access the reality of the situation and see if the statement or its reverse best maps onto that reality is different in each case (epistemology). We could even discuss whether making an unfalsifiable claim is reasonable. But I still can't see how a statement about the existence and properties of an externally existing being can be both correct and incorrect (true and false) at the same time.

Without the evidence to back it up, people are only as correct as they personally, subjectively believe that they are.

The principle of insufficient reason says that, given no way to tell the answers apart other than by name, we assign equal probability to each. The odds of the seven people being wrong is less than the odds of the three people being wrong, so the three people are the most likely to be wrong.