(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.

(October 25, 2014 at 6:09 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 25, 2014 at 3:55 pm)trmof Wrote: If you're not willing to answer my questions, why should I answer yours?

You claim there is a being with certain characteristics. Show your evidence.

That's the way it works. We don't ask what evidence people need, we present it and it is evaluated.

Put up or shut up.

I've made no such claim. I haven't brought up my personal beliefs without being asked and I've also not tried to prove my beliefs to anyone, nor do I believe I could. I've made a statement about the philosophical nature of "evidence" and our individual standards for evaluating it, and why I think it's wise to question and discuss such things. If you would like to respond to that, please read the topic post.

---

(October 25, 2014 at 6:29 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(October 25, 2014 at 5:42 pm)trmof Wrote: 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.

It also doesn't mean the dead end is proven false. It means you've decided to stop examining it further.

Unfortunately my God regularly intervenes in my life to enrich and protect me, so I can say from experience that you are wrong. Whether you believe that or not has never been of any consequence to me, nor is that the subject of the thread.

---

(October 25, 2014 at 6:18 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(October 25, 2014 at 6:15 pm)trmof Wrote: This is exactly my point. If no evidence would be enough to convince you of a proposition, any proposition, then your opinion on the subject is unimportant and you should find better things to talk about.

If theists can offer no evidence except for appeal to their "feels," why don't they just say so? I'm sure if would save future generations a lot of unnecessary confusion and duress.

I'm explicitly saying so right now. You're right, they should probably keep their mouths shut and leave the serious debating to people like you and me who are capable of having a meaningful discussion about philosophy.

(October 25, 2014 at 6:33 pm)trmof Wrote:

(October 25, 2014 at 6:09 pm)Chas Wrote: You claim there is a being with certain characteristics. Show your evidence.

That's the way it works. We don't ask what evidence people need, we present it and it is evaluated.

Put up or shut up.

I've made no such claim. I haven't brought up my personal beliefs without being asked and I've also not tried to prove my beliefs to anyone, nor do I believe I could. I've made a statement about the philosophical nature of "evidence" and our individual standards for evaluating it, and why I think it's wise to question and discuss such things. If you would like to respond to that, please read the topic post.

You described a being with certain characteristics, then straw-manned an argument about how others would react.

Your question is not well-considered or well-formed. Evidence is verifiable.

Quote:

(October 25, 2014 at 6:29 pm)Chuck Wrote: 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.

It also doesn't mean the dead end is proven false. It means you've decided to stop examining it further.

Unfortunately my God regularly intervenes in my life to enrich and protect me, so I can say from experience that you are wrong. Whether you believe that or not has never been of any consequence to me, nor is that the subject of the thread.

Please present evidence of God's intervention in your life. Without that, your assertion is simply not credible.

(October 25, 2014 at 6:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(October 25, 2014 at 6:13 pm)trmof Wrote: They are easily testable: Ask him to reveal himself to you in a humble manner and wait with some little patience for some form of experiential evidence that will move you personally.

How do we remove ambiguity and isolate the actual phenomena at work?

(October 25, 2014 at 6:13 pm)trmof Wrote: It is admittedly not currently falsifiable, which is part of my original point. Multiverse theory is currently non falsifiable, though that may change in time. That doesn't prevent us from having interesting conversations about it.

Of course not, but it does make knowledge statements about its nature and abilities redundant. How can you know anything about this god, including whether it's even there at all?

Question 1) We don't, and I've never claimed to be able to. Question 2) Because of my personal experiences with him. The fact that I can't transfer them to you does nothing to convince me that they are not true.

(October 25, 2014 at 6:45 pm)trmof Wrote:

(October 25, 2014 at 6:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote: How do we remove ambiguity and isolate the actual phenomena at work?


Of course not, but it does make knowledge statements about its nature and abilities redundant. How can you know anything about this god, including whether it's even there at all?

Question 1) We don't, and I've never claimed to be able to. Question 2) Because of my personal experiences with him. The fact that I can't transfer them to you does nothing to convince me that they are not true.

But that makes it not evidence.

(October 25, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 25, 2014 at 6:33 pm)trmof Wrote: I've made no such claim. I haven't brought up my personal beliefs without being asked and I've also not tried to prove my beliefs to anyone, nor do I believe I could. I've made a statement about the philosophical nature of "evidence" and our individual standards for evaluating it, and why I think it's wise to question and discuss such things. If you would like to respond to that, please read the topic post.

You described a being with certain characteristics, then straw-manned an argument about how others would react.

Your question is not well-considered or well-formed. Evidence is verifiable.

Quote:It also doesn't mean the dead end is proven false. It means you've decided to stop examining it further.

Unfortunately my God regularly intervenes in my life to enrich and protect me, so I can say from experience that you are wrong. Whether you believe that or not has never been of any consequence to me, nor is that the subject of the thread.

Please present evidence of God's intervention in your life. Without that, your assertion is simply not credible.

I find your lack of assertions not credible for the same reason. There is absolutely no way to test whether either of us is right. The sooner you come to accept this and learn to agree to disagree about things, the sooner you will be able to have a real and meaningful intellectual exchange with someone you disagree with.

---

(October 25, 2014 at 6:46 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 25, 2014 at 6:45 pm)trmof Wrote: Question 1) We don't, and I've never claimed to be able to. Question 2) Because of my personal experiences with him. The fact that I can't transfer them to you does nothing to convince me that they are not true.

But that makes it not evidence.

No, that makes it testimonial evidence from a witness. If you choose to not believe it, that is one thing. But you are attempting redefine a form of evidence you don't agree with as "No True Evidence." You are asking for DATA, not evidence. I don't have any data for you.

---

(October 25, 2014 at 6:43 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 25, 2014 at 6:33 pm)trmof Wrote: I've made no such claim. I haven't brought up my personal beliefs without being asked and I've also not tried to prove my beliefs to anyone, nor do I believe I could. I've made a statement about the philosophical nature of "evidence" and our individual standards for evaluating it, and why I think it's wise to question and discuss such things. If you would like to respond to that, please read the topic post.

You described a being with certain characteristics, then straw-manned an argument about how others would react.

Your question is not well-considered or well-formed. Evidence is verifiable.

Quote:It also doesn't mean the dead end is proven false. It means you've decided to stop examining it further.

Unfortunately my God regularly intervenes in my life to enrich and protect me, so I can say from experience that you are wrong. Whether you believe that or not has never been of any consequence to me, nor is that the subject of the thread.

Please present evidence of God's intervention in your life. Without that, your assertion is simply not credible.

I assumed a being with certain characteristics for the sake of discussion. There is no straw man. I addressed a possible response and asked a further question about it.

I'm afraid you are confusing evidence with data. Testimonial evidence is evidence. You are using semiotics to assume of different definition of evidence than is commonly applied. You are engaging in a "No true evidence" fallacy.

(October 25, 2014 at 6:49 pm)trmof Wrote: I find your lack of assertions not credible for the same reason. There is absolutely no way to test whether either of us is right. The sooner you come to accept this and learn to agree to disagree about things, the sooner you will be able to have a real and meaningful intellectual exchange with someone you disagree with.

Your first sentence does not make sense.
And since I am not making a claim, I am neither right nor wrong. I am saying I don't accept your unevidenced assertion.

Quote:

---

(October 25, 2014 at 6:46 pm)Chas Wrote: But that makes it not evidence.

No, that makes it testimonial evidence from a witness. If you choose to not believe it, that is one thing. But you are attempting redefine a form of evidence you don't agree with as "No True Evidence." You are asking for DATA, not evidence. I don't have any data for you.

Testimony alone is not credible evidence. It is no more credible than my claiming there are pixies in my garden.

Quote:

---

I assumed a being with certain characteristics for the sake of discussion. There is no straw man. I addressed a possible response and asked a further question about it.

I'm afraid you are confusing evidence with data. Testimonial evidence is evidence. You are using semiotics to assume of different definition of evidence than is commonly applied. You are engaging in a "No true evidence" fallacy.

You have provided no testimony, let alone evidence, of God's intervention in your life.

The sooner you stick to the point, the sooner you can have a meaningful discussion.

Do you see what's happening here? We've gone from insinuations that we will reject outright any evidence for your (or any) god claims, to evidence that you admit cannot be acceptable evidence to anyone but yourself, alongside admissions that you have no mechanism even to verify said evidence objectively.

Congratulations: you've defined yourself into a nice, safe corner.

Meanwhile, until you present us with some justification for any of your claims that we can examine, I'm breaking out Hitchens' Razor - that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

(October 25, 2014 at 7:18 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Do you see what's happening here? We've gone from insinuations that we will reject outright any evidence for your (or any) god claims, to evidence that you admit cannot be acceptable evidence to anyone but yourself, alongside admissions that you have no mechanism even to verify said evidence objectively.

Congratulations: you've defined yourself into a nice, safe corner.

Meanwhile, until you present us with some justification for any of your claims that we can examine, I'm breaking out Hitchens' Razor - that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

The respondents are the ones who have asked me to define myself. I've never expressed any interest in doing so. All of philosophy can be asserted without evidence; for example, there is absolutely no evidence that anything but my consciousness is real, or any way to prove to me otherwise besides an appeal to your personal authority, which, if you are not real, is meaningless. Wow, what an interesting topic to explore the connotations of, which is what this entire post was about in the first place. If you aren't interested in philosophical dissecting a philosophical question such as this without constantly reminding everyone about your beliefs or lack thereof, then it kind of makes one question why you are commenting on a post headed under "philosophy" if you are not interested in discussing the philosophical implications behind the question.

---

(October 25, 2014 at 7:11 pm)Chas Wrote:

(October 25, 2014 at 6:49 pm)trmof Wrote: I find your lack of assertions not credible for the same reason. There is absolutely no way to test whether either of us is right. The sooner you come to accept this and learn to agree to disagree about things, the sooner you will be able to have a real and meaningful intellectual exchange with someone you disagree with.

Your first sentence does not make sense.
And since I am not making a claim, I am neither right nor wrong. I am saying I don't accept your unevidenced assertion.

Quote:

---

No, that makes it testimonial evidence from a witness. If you choose to not believe it, that is one thing. But you are attempting redefine a form of evidence you don't agree with as "No True Evidence." You are asking for DATA, not evidence. I don't have any data for you.

Testimony alone is not credible evidence. It is no more credible than my claiming there are pixies in my garden.

Quote:

---

I assumed a being with certain characteristics for the sake of discussion. There is no straw man. I addressed a possible response and asked a further question about it.

I'm afraid you are confusing evidence with data. Testimonial evidence is evidence. You are using semiotics to assume of different definition of evidence than is commonly applied. You are engaging in a "No true evidence" fallacy.

You have provided no testimony, let alone evidence, of God's intervention in your life.

The sooner you stick to the point, the sooner you can have a meaningful discussion.

The topic of this post is asking what are your personal standards for examining non falsifiable evidence, and getting an interesting cross-section of opinions about that topic. You are trying to change the point to being about my personal beliefs and whether or not I can prove them; if I wanted to discuss that, I would have started a post about that. If you would like to have arguments about the existence of God with non-atheists I'm sure there are plenty of more suitable threads to do that on. Not this one.

You're the one who chose to define things as unfalsifiable. You're the one who chose to start a thread about evidence for your god claims in the philosophy section. If you want to go ahead with masturbating your personal experiences, knock yourself out with it. Just don't try to equate my inability to falsify your subjective testimony as a lack of interest in the subject.

Oh, and there is evidence for consciousness. Compare EEG readings of living brains with those of dead ones, like I have.

And as I said, if you're going to hide behind solipsism, why should I give a flying fox about any of this?