RE: Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?
December 28, 2018 at 8:36 am
(This post was last modified: December 28, 2018 at 8:37 am by polymath257.)
(December 28, 2018 at 12:26 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:No, those are functions of our sensory system. The brain them processes the information from our senses. And yes, of course, the senses can be fooled: our senses do not pick up perfect information and the subsequent processing is frequently 'best possible guess'. But that is precisely why we look at all sensory modalities, make hypotheses, and test those hypotheses. In other words, we use the scientific method.(December 27, 2018 at 11:45 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Evidence is that which is obtained through our senses. We then hypothesize laws to describe the regularities we suspect and test those laws with further observation. Again, the laws are descriptive, not proscriptive. They are 'dictated' b the behavior of what we can observe.
Seems kind of a generic answer. Do you have a source for that statement? I can dig it in part, but some of it seems limited in scope.
Touch, taste, sight, smell, sound. Although these are all functions of the brain and its ability to interpret, it doesn't include things like "thought" Also, senses can be fooled and misinterpreted. I believe it's called "foiling" when applied to our senses. But regardless, if we just assume the five senses, which sense would you need to use as evidence and what would that sense (or senses) need to interpret for it to be considered viable evidence? Obvious just because you hear or taste something, doesn't mean it's God or gods, or anything supernatural. At what point can we say, "yep, that's God."
That this doens't seem amenable to a 'supernatural' is *your* problem, not mine. For me, it just means that the term 'supernatural' is an incoherent concept.