No such thing as a hierarchical causal series in the real world

  • Thread starter Thread starter lelinator
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
An old “fable” is now an argument?
No; it’s an illustration of the argument I’m making. You know… like the Bierce illustration you used. 😉
That “silver platter” would only provide the necessary information to make an informed decision.
Funny – it’s sufficient for many, many folks! Not for you, though? OK. Fair enough; but don’t attempt to tell us that this is God’s fault – it’s not! It’s your personal decision!
Yes, I would expect that they ALL prove their existence.
How many of them are purely spiritual and not at all physical? If none, then your comparison doesn’t hold up to reason.
And in my world, if you “love” someone, then you do whatever is necessary to help them in their predicament.
As long as you agree that it’s both necessary and reasonable. If not, then you don’t provide what they say they “need.”
All I say that IF you love someone, and IF you wish them to choose to be with you, then the bare minimum is to give them the necessary evidence about your existence so they would would have a real choice.
And who’s to say that God hasn’t already done that? Many assert that they have been given the necessary evidence. The fact that you disagree looks more like you’re the one with your head in the sand, and not God. 🤷‍♂️
 
Funny – it’s sufficient for many, many folks! Not for you, though? OK. Fair enough; but don’t attempt to tell us that this is God’s fault – it’s not! It’s your personal decision!
Sure, we are all different. For some people a second-hand testimony is sufficient, for others it is not. Many people - all the followers of other religions - assert that their evidence is sufficient for them, but that evidence is insufficient for you. Is it your personal decision to disregard the offered evidence? Could you make a conscious decision that from now on the evidence presented for Islam is sufficient but the evidence for Christianity is found wanting? Yes, or no?
And who’s to say that God hasn’t already done that? Many assert that they have been given the necessary evidence. The fact that you disagree looks more like you’re the one with your head in the sand, and not God.
Every skeptic, and every follower of every other religion, who evaluated the offered evidence, and found it insufficient. And no one, but NO ONE is in the position to declare that the evidence is (or should be) sufficient for someone else!

I do not question why Christians find the evidence satisfactory… I simply accept that they do. I don’t “blame” them for accepting it. I do not accuse them about having their head in the sand. I do not question why the Muslims find their evidence satisfactory. I do not question why the Mormons find their evidence satisfactory.

Every follower of every religion finds their evidence satisfactory and find the evidence for the other religions unsatisfactory. Surprising, neh? So many people with their heads in the sand? Eh?

Of course your whole post is one huge fallacy of “argumentum ad numerum”. (Many assert? Many people? Many, many folks?) What does the number of followers have to do with the “truth” of the evidence?

Better think about it for a second. Or a long time…
 
Last edited:
For some people a second-hand testimony is sufficient
You keep saying that – almost like you’re trying to convince yourself of it! The Gospels aren’t “second-hand testimonies”! They’re written either by the eyewitness himself or by the scribe to whom he provided his testimony. Look, I get it: you don’t want to believe in the Gospels. Still, if you’re going to go on about “intellectual honesty”, then you should practice it yourself. The OT? You can talk about “oral tradition” and “redactors”; no problem. But, if you want to paint the entire Bible with that broad brush, then you’re not being honest.
Is it your personal decision to disregard the offered evidence?
No; I evaluate it and find it lacking.
Could you make a conscious decision that from now on the evidence presented for Islam is sufficient but the evidence for Christianity is found wanting? Yes, or no?
If the evidence led me to that conclusion, yes! (It doesn’t, however.)
Every skeptic, and every follower of every other religion, who evaluated the offered evidence, and found it insufficient.
Actually, that’s not true. It’s a pretty well-known fact (even by skeptics and atheists!) that generally, people follow the religion of their culture, especially in cultures in which this is either endorsed (or disbelief is punished). The funny thing – which maybe you haven’t glommed onto yet – is that the “religion” of our current culture here in the west is “none”! Yep, you got that right: you’re following the religion that your culture endorses!!! (Feel so good about your personal rationality and ‘choices’ now? 🤣 )
Of course your whole post is one huge fallacy of “argumentum ad numerum”. (Many assert? Many people? Many, many folks?) What does the number of followers have to do with the “truth” of the evidence?
No, not really. I’ve never said that it’s true because many people follow it… but nice try using big words! 😉

The number of followers doesn’t prove the truth of an assertion. However, if many or most folks see a truck barreling down the road at them and step out of the way, but you refuse to see it and stay in the middle of the road… well, you gotta ask yourself why they’re all doing one thing and you’re ostensibly prepping to become windshield splatter, no?
 
The Gospels aren’t “second-hand testimonies”! They’re written either by the eyewitness himself or by the scribe to whom he provided his testimony.
The text you read today is second-hand testimony. The writers of the gospels assert that they are based on first hand observation, but there is no evidence for that. They have been written many years after the alleged events occurred. (The estimates are minimum 40 years, most are a 100 or even more.)
Look, I get it: you don’t want to believe in the Gospels.
This is another insult. Against the rules. Do not make assumptions about the other posters, argue against what they write. I am not “hostile” either against Christianity or the Gospels. I have no vested interest in discarding second hand testimonies.

By the way, you admitted - correctly - that the OT is different, it is even less established than the NT. That is the reason why I am asking about an authoritative list (issued by the Vatican) of the books, chapters and verses, which would withstand the TTA method. Just one! Carrying the “nihil obstat imprimatur”. And for each and every line the bible. Is everything the NT sufficiently established, so that the skeptics exhibit “obstinate, unfounded refusal, intransigence”?
No; I evaluate it and find it lacking.
But you do not accept that other people also examined your sacred text and find it lacking. Is it all “intransigence”? (By the way, how much time did you invest into analyzing the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the texts of Hinduism or Buddhism? The animistic religions, like ancient Egyptian belief system? Be honest… )
If the evidence led me to that conclusion, yes! (It doesn’t, however.)
Indeed. Do you accept the same for the skeptics, who examined your evidence and do not reach your conclusion? Or do you say that the sacred texts of Christianity are different, they are sufficiently established, but the sacred texts of every other religion are all lacking? This is how your arguments sound like.
Actually, that’s not true. It’s a pretty well-known fact (even by skeptics and atheists!) that generally, people follow the religion of their culture, especially in cultures in which this is either endorsed (or disbelief is punished).
Very true (I am glad I did not have to say it). Most people follow the religion of their surroundings. They are exposed to those views at a very young, impressionable age, before they would develop critical skills. Some, very few, will later examine their belief system. (Personally, I grew up in a religious environment, and only later, when I examined the evidence came to the conclusion that religion is unfounded.) Of course personal testimonies are irrelevant.
 
The funny thing – which maybe you haven’t glommed onto yet – is that the “religion” of our current culture here in the west is “none”! Yep, you got that right: you’re following the religion that your culture endorses!!!
I wish. Not yet, though it is slowly getting there. Much too slowly, but still. But there is a change. Most young people see nothing wrong with contraception or homosexual behavior (or women ordination), and this trend seems to go on uninterruptedly. Yes, here in the west the secularization process is growing, but it is still young. Barely a few decades old.
(Feel so good about your personal rationality and ‘choices’ now?)
Yes, thank you. Because I used to be a Christian, but investigated the claims, and found them unconvincing. (Before you ask, I did not investigate all the other religions. Because the concept of non-physical, supernatural existence makes no sense.)
No, not really. I’ve never said that it’s true because many people follow it… but nice try using big words!
Your “big” words indicated otherwise.
The number of followers doesn’t prove the truth of an assertion. However, if many or most folks see a truck barreling down the road at them and step out of the way, but you refuse to see it and stay in the middle of the road… well, you gotta ask yourself why they’re all doing one thing and you’re ostensibly prepping to become windshield splatter, no?
If only there would be a physical evidence for that truck, you would have a point. But there is none. That is why the lack of physical evidence is so important. The fact that you also use a physical example is very revealing.
 
The writers of the gospels assert that they are based on first hand observation, but there is no evidence for that.
OK: please re-read what you just wrote. It’s self-contradictory! Let me help you:
“The writers of the Gospels assert that they are first-hand accounts”. That’s your evidence right there. Glad I could help. 😉
40.png
IQ170:
(The estimates are minimum 40 years, most are a 100 or even more.)
I’d recommend that you keep up with recent Scriptural scholarship. Up through the '70s and '80s, that was the prevailing opinion. These days, “early authorship of the Gospels” is a more prevalent scholarly view, especially among Catholic Scripture scholars. So, the view of many scholars is that the Gospels were able to be written by (and listened to and read by) eyewitnesses. Again, if you’re willing to read up on the subject, I’d recommend you read Pitre’s “The Case for Jesus”.
40.png
IQ170:
This is another insult. Against the rules.
I’m not insulting you – I’m just summarizing what you, yourself, have written here. You don’t believe in the Gospels, because you continue to argue that there’s no evidence for their truth value. That’s not “insult”, that’s merely repeating what you’ve told us. :roll_eyes:
40.png
IQ170:
By the way, you admitted - correctly - that the OT is different, it is even less established than the NT.
Not “less established”; just “established differently.”
40.png
IQ170:
I am asking about an authoritative list (issued by the Vatican) of the books, chapters and verses, which would withstand the TTA method.
There’s no such thing as a “TTA method”, so why do you continue to act as if there were? You might as well ask for a list that holds up to the “pink unicorn method”…
40.png
IQ170:
But you do not accept that other people also examined your sacred text and find it lacking.
Certainly I recognize that this is true! It doesn’t make their conclusion correct; but it’s their conclusion. And, any time they say “I don’t find it compelling”, I accept that data point. On the other hand, when you say “there is no evidence”, I merely ask you to act with that “intellectual honesty” that you bemoan you’re not finding here: just admit that it’s your personal opinion, and not something that’s proven and true.
40.png
IQ170:
Do you accept the same for the skeptics, who examined your evidence and do not reach your conclusion?
I conclude that they’re mistaken. Some, in terms of their approach and process, others in terms of their interpretation of the data, and still others in terms of their conclusions. But, just like anyone else, they’re entitled to their opinion.
 
40.png
IQ170:
(Personally, I grew up in a religious environment, and only later, when I examined the evidence came to the conclusion that religion is unfounded.)
Time for an honesty check: did you come to your conclusion based on your personal experience of your childhood religion? To my experience, that – rather than some glorified “objective rational reason” – is what drives people away.
40.png
IQ170:
If only there would be a physical evidence for that truck, you would have a point.
Good insight. Now, extend that analysis to something that is purely spiritual and not physical. Does your request for “physical evidence” still hold up as reasonable? Not so much…
40.png
IQ170:
The fact that you also use a physical example is very revealing.
Nope. I used it because you seem enamored of strictly physical examples, my friend… 😉
 
“The writers of the Gospels assert that they are first-hand accounts”. That’s your evidence right there.
What someone writes/asserts is not evidence, even it they say that it was personal experience. Anyone can say that he was an eye-witness, but that is not evidence. Especially since there is no original text. The Muslims assert all sorts of miracles and according your view, those are also “first hand” accounts - and yet, you discard them. There is no difference between the Christian apologists (or eyewitnesses) and the Muslim apologists.
Again, if you’re willing to read up on the subject, I’d recommend you read Pitre’s “The Case for Jesus”.
The expression is: “the blind leads the unsighted”.
I’m not insulting you – I’m just summarizing what you, yourself, have written here.
The insult is to assert that I DON’T WANT to believe - because it indicates intransigence. Beliefs are not subject to volitional acceptance or rejection. There is no choice involved in the matter. Now instead of the word “insulting” I could have chosen a much stronger expression, but that would be against the forum rules.
Not “less established”; just “established differently.”
What is the difference? Both of them are hearsay. I am aware of the teaching / opinion that “only the God of Christianity is real”, all the other gods are “wicked impostures” as Bierce said, or “fake news” as the orange genius would prefer to say. There is no evidence for anything “supernatural”.

The fact of the matter is, that it is possible to set up all sorts of experiments for the existence of the “supernatural” (based upon their alleged interaction with the physical world), but every one of them comes back with the “stamp”: “nope! there is nothing there”. In the real world, when someone presents a hypothesis and offers an experiment for it, and the experiments all come back with a negative result, the only acceptable conclusion is that the hypothesis was incorrect.

You need to realize that everything pertaining to the “supernatural” is treated as a hypothesis.
There’s no such thing as a “TTA method”, so why do you continue to act as if there were?
You don’t get it. The question is "established AS IF it would be observed by a time traveler. AS IF!! And that is a perfectly valid way to approach it. The honest answer is just an admission that there is no such evidence.
 
I conclude that they’re mistaken. Some, in terms of their approach and process, others in terms of their interpretation of the data, and still others in terms of their conclusions.But, just like anyone else, they’re entitled to their opinion.
That would be perfectly acceptable, if only you would also realize that your beliefs are also nothing more than opinions. That your alleged evidences are exactly as unconvincing to skeptics as the Muslim’s evidence is unacceptable for you. That there is no difference between the different religions. That would be a great point to say: “let’s agree to disagree”.
Time for an honesty check: did you come to your conclusion based on your personal experience of your childhood religion?
No. My experiences were all positive. Only later, when I tried to apply the teachings to the reality, that is when the house of cards collapsed. One example: “IF God would love us, then he would supply the necessary information about his existence AND his love toward us.” And “IF God would love us, then he would not allow gratuitous suffering”. And if something looks gratuitous, then it is gratuitous - UNLESS explained otherwise. But to withhold the explanation is also the sign of lack of love.
Now, extend that analysis to something that is purely spiritual and not physical .
There is no evidence for the existence of something “spiritual”. Your objection that there is no physical evidence is without merit. What other evidence is there? IF the non-physical (spiritual) interacts with the physical, then there MUST be a physical evidence. The next possible objection, namely that the spiritual entity has volition, and decides to skew the results in order to stay hidden - is even worse; because t would indicate malice or dishonesty. Besides, we humans have free will, but that does not invalidate the statistical analysis of our behavior.

Summary: you discard the evidence for all the other religions, and declare that the evidence for your religion is the only one that is correct. Since there is no method to establish either one of these claims, they are both unsubstantiated. Remember, asserted without evidence, discarded without evidence. If you disagree, present your evidence. I am STILL ready to entertain it.
 
Last edited:
What someone writes/asserts is not evidence, even it they say that it was personal experience. Anyone can say that he was an eye-witness, but that is not evidence.
It’s testimony. It’s evidence. You can decide how to evaluate it, but it’s evidence. And, if you choose to reject it, you need to provide the rationale for rejecting it. C’mon… this is basic stuff. 😉
There is no difference between the Christian apologists (or eyewitnesses) and the Muslim apologists.
There are competing claims, and there are varying conclusions. Yet, there are differences. If you can’t see them, then just admit it. But please… don’t tire our patience by claiming that “there’s no difference.”
The expression is: “the blind leads the unsighted”.
No, the expression is “there are none so blind as those who would not see.” 😉
Beliefs are not subject to volitional acceptance or rejection.
Ahh, that old red herring! Yes, beliefs are subject to volition: but that’s a different argument…
Now instead of the word “insulting” I could have chosen a much stronger expression, but that would be against the forum rules.
Ahh… go for it! It would clearly identify who you really are and what your project really is… 😉
The question is "established AS IF it would be observed by a time traveler. AS IF!! And that is a perfectly valid way to approach it.
Right: as if you were working from a rational perspective. Got it. 😉
That would be perfectly acceptable, if only you would also realize that your beliefs are also nothing more than opinions.
Who says anything otherwise? I just happen to think that the Christian opinion is true. 😉
No. My experiences were all positive. Only later, when I tried to apply the teachings to the reality, that is when the house of cards collapsed.
OK – so, hang on: you’re trying to sell us on the proposition that your religious experience was uniformly uplifting, but you left it anyway? Umm… that sounds like ‘volition’, but you say that this ain’t possible, right? 🤣
There is no evidence for the existence of something “spiritual”.
Wait – let me fix that for you, since you seem to keep wanting to make the same mistake:
There is no empirical, physical evidence for the existence of something purely spiritual.
There we go. Glad to clear that up for you. :roll_eyes:
 
Summary: you discard the evidence for all the other religions, and declare that the evidence for your religion is the only one that is correct.
“Reject”, not “discard”. We could talk about why Christians reject it in favor of the evidence for Christ… but I suspect you’re not interested.
If you disagree, present your evidence. I am STILL ready to entertain it.
No, you’re really not, as much as you claim that you are. It’s been presented, but you reject it without so much as polite consideration. But hey… if you want to keep calling yourself “objective”, “rational”, and “open-minded”… keep trying. 😉
 
This will be a long post, at least two or maybe even three segments. Sorry.
It’s testimony. It’s evidence.
You managed to “transform” ANY proposition into “evidence”. Someone comes up to me and says that he met with a “purple unicorn” and you say that this is “evidence” for the existence of a purple unicorn. Maybe for you, but I am more discerning.
There are competing claims, and there are varying conclusions. Yet, there are differences. If you can’t see them, then just admit it. But please… don’t tire our patience by claiming that “there’s no difference.”
There is no difference in their act of expressing their own opinion, asserting that they are right and the other one is wrong. And they do it without any evidence for their opinion. Every religion proclaims that they are the only arbiter of “truth” and every other religion is “wrong”. In THIS sense there is no difference. Sure, in some details there are differences.
Ahh, that old red herring!
Nonsense. Can you demonstrate the volitional aspect of a belief by changing it to something that you did not believe before? Which is diametrically the opposite of your previous belief? That and only that would substantiate the volitional aspect of a “belief”.
Who says anything otherwise? I just happen to think that the Christian opinion is true.
That is much better. So your Christian belief is now just an opinion, without any objective evidence for it. And an opinion without evidence has no relevance either. Sure you have “evidence” like the one of a stranger coming up yo you and “testifies” about that pink unicorn.

OK, you accept that Christianity is merely an opinion, just like Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism, or atheism. Fine by me. No one tries to take it away from you.

I would be fine with your assertion that atheism is “just” an opinion, after all the nonexistence of God or gods cannot be proven. (Every time I see someone demanding “prove that there is no God”, I have a chuckle, because that someone is so irrational (short and polite substitute for drooling idiot) that it cannot be taken seriously.)
OK – so, hang on: you’re trying to sell us on the proposition that your religious experience was uniformly uplifting , but you left it anyway? Umm… that sounds like ‘volition’, but you say that this ain’t possible, right?
You don’t get it. I was never abused, and my experience was positive, and emotionally uplifting, but it was not intellectually satisfying (once I reached the level of discerning intellectualism) due to the rationally unacceptable teachings. And eventually… I lost my faith - which was NOT a volitional decision either. It was not a welcome process, after all Linus loves his security blanket, and so did I. If you think about this, you will understand that beliefs cannot be changed willy-nilly.
 
Last edited:
You say that God is good, despite the way he treats us. You say that God cannot be measured with a human measuring stick. You say that morality absolute and genocide is ALWAYS evil, but the flood killing every creature is just fine… after all God is the creator of life so he can take it as he wishes, and we are not in the position to criticize him. Sure, you are welcome to hold that position, but realize that for a rational person it is sheer nonsense. This kind of opinion is unacceptable for me. If you can reconcile it with reality, then you exhibit the “doublethink” from 1984.
Wait – let me fix that for you, since you seem to keep wanting to make the same mistake:
Just get off your high horse. Show me something that is “spiritual” and I will consider it. Tell me which one of your senses allows you to experience that “spiritual” something. After all “nihil est in intellectu…” you recall?
“Reject”, not “discard”.
Same difference.
No, you’re really not, as much as you claim that you are.
That is another insult. Looks like that I am either a liar, or an imbecile - in your opinion, of course.
It’s been presented, but you reject it without so much as polite consideration.
Interesting that you now claim to have information about my internal thought processes. Do you claim to be omniscient. too?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

It would be nice if you realized that there is only one kind of evidence for the claims about the objectively existing external world, and that is the empirical, physical evidence. After all the assumed “spiritual” world is also alleged to have interaction with the physical reality, and as such there is an interface, and the interface can be physically measured.

And if you are unable to provide any physical evidence then you are in the not-so-admirable position as the one who asserts that the fairy-tale characters (like the leprechauns) are “real”, but since they are magical, they can always disappear as soon as they detect your desire to investigate them.
 
The problem with your arguments is that you change your tune every time you “miss the mark”. When I said that the biblical evidence is insufficient for me, your response was that “for many people the biblical evidence is convincing” as if the number of such people would be relevant. When I pointed out this fallacy, you quickly changed your tune and said “if many people warn you of a runaway truck and you reject their testimony, it is your fault if the truck hits you”. Of course I replied that IF they would present a physical evidence for that physical truck, then their warning would be heeded. Your reply was that I cannot expect a physical evidence for the spiritual danger. DUH! Then why do you use a physical example? And then your response: “Because you are enamored by physical evidence.” It would be better if you admitted that there is NO such thing as spiritual “evidence”. But, of course it always I am the one who is at fault. God presented all the necessary evidence, it is always I am who is intransigent - after all many people find the evidence sufficient.

The merry-go-round just keeps spinning. I say ‘A’, you say ‘B’. I refute ‘B’ and you say ‘C’. I refute ‘C’ and you return to ‘A’. I suggest you read this thread from the beginning and see how many times you changed your tune every time the “wind” blows. That is why I am not able to respect you any more. And those self-aggrandizing, condescending “Glad that I could help you!” exclamations are not helpful either. I really suggest that you wipe it out from you arsenal of arguments, because they are haughty, and condescending… again I use a very polite assessment. My real feeling is much worse.
 
Someone comes up to me and says that he met with a “purple unicorn” and you say that this is “evidence” for the existence of a purple unicorn. Maybe for you, but I am more discerning.
Ahh, but it is evidence. You get to analyze it and decide whether to discard it or not, but eyewitness testimony is evidence.
And they do it without any evidence for their opinion.
Again – no. Perhaps it’s evidence that you disregard; but it’s still evidence. The question, then, becomes, “how and on what basis do we evaluate the evidence?”
Nonsense. Can you demonstrate the volitional aspect of a belief by changing it to something that you did not believe before? Which is diametrically the opposite of your previous belief? That and only that would substantiate the volitional aspect of a “belief”.
This really is a red herring. One cannot believe in something that he has already decided isn’t believable – but that doesn’t mean that belief isn’t volitional. I’ve had this precise argument with another of our worldview confreres on this site: for some reason, ya’ll seem to think that the act of choosing isn’t volitional – and oddly, that having made a choice volitionally, the unwillingness to choose against one’s reason implies a lack of volition at all! If that passes for ‘rational’, I’ll stick with ‘irrational’, thank you very much! 🤣
 
So your Christian belief is now just an opinion, without any objective evidence for it.
No: ‘opinion’ does not imply ‘without objective evidence’. Until you can see that, you’re going to come up with all kinds of invalid conclusions!
OK, you accept that Christianity is merely an opinion
It is a conclusion, reached through rationality, to which I subscribe. The fact that you don’t, doesn’t imply that there’s a “lack of evidence” – it merely means that you reject that evidence.
it was not intellectually satisfying (once I reached the level of discerning intellectualism) due to the rationally unacceptable teachings. And eventually… I lost my faith - which was NOT a volitional decision either.
You’re contradicting yourself, again. 😉

You rejected it – on the basis of your rational decision – and therefore, you chose not to believe in it. That was volitional, based on the operation of your intellect.
If you think about this, you will understand that beliefs cannot be changed willy-nilly.
They proceed from not only faith but also reason. Which, if you recall, is precisely what the Church teaches. 😉
You say that morality absolute and genocide is ALWAYS evil, but the flood killing every creature is just fine
I’m not saying that “the flood killed every creature”. I would say that this is the way that the inspired writer chose to tell the story; but that doesn’t imply (again) that this is “the 7pm Evening News with Walter Cronkite”. For some reason, you want to make out Catholics to be Biblical Fundamentalists, and thereby, throw away the faith on that account. We’re not; and you cannot – unless you wish to tilt at windmills of your own creation.
Just get off your high horse.
My, my. Touchy, aren’t we, when our mistakes are corrected, eh? 😉 But, allow me to engage you in your continued irrational demands: “one of our senses” cannot, by definition, “experience spiritual somethings.” Why do you continue to demand that we suggest that it be so?
Same difference.
No. You discard evidence as if it were not; that allows you to (mistakenly) claim “no evidence!” Really, what you’re doing is rejecting it, which should lead you to the conclusion “I disagree with the evidence presented.” However, that would force you off your “high horse”, which seems a unpleasant option for you. 🤷‍♂️
That is another insult. Looks like that I am either a liar, or an imbecile - in your opinion, of course.
No – I just think you’re mistaken. Again, not an insult – unless you’re so enamored of your notion that you’re the only rational one around here that it’s insulting to you to consider that we are, too. 😉
 
Interesting that you now claim to have information about my internal thought processes. Do you claim to be omniscient. too?
No… I’m simply able to see what you write – and you reject the evidence out of hand. Not internal – external.
It would be nice if you realized that there is only one kind of evidence for the claims about the objectively existing external world, and that is the empirical, physical evidence.
This, I think, is the source of our disagreement. With all apparent honesty, you keep saying “give me physical evidence of non-physical realities”, as if that’s logical and rational. (It ain’t.) And, if this is the point where we diverge, then there’s little hope of reaching consensus. We’ll both walk away, thinking the other is irrational. (Or am I reaching too deeply into the ‘internal’ again? 🤣 )
 
Ahh, but it is evidence. You get to analyze it and decide whether to discard it or not, but eyewitness testimony is evidence.
As I said, you managed to dilute the meaning of “evidence” into becoming meaningless. You call any proposition from the mouth of anyone (does not have to be an alleged eye witness, even a well trained primate, or a hopelessly confused imbecile or some drug user being on “high”) will qualify to be evidence FOR the veracity of the proposition. In other words you believe that anything and everything is evidence. Again, I need to emphasize: “evidence for the veracity of the claim!!! - not just evidence in general.”
One cannot believe in something that he has already decided isn’t believable – but that doesn’t mean that belief isn’t volitional.
The point is that there was no conscious, or volitional decision in the process - non-conscious decision would be an oxymoron. (I even explained it detail how it happened in my case.) You really need to learn about the activity of the brain, both the grey cells and the white cells.
But, allow me to engage you in your continued irrational demands: “one of our senses” cannot , by definition, “experience spiritual somethings.”
In that case the “reality” of the spiritual somethings cannot be distinguished from the “reality” of the fairy tales. Of course I already asked what kind of other or alternative evidence can you offer, and you only talked about “ancient stories without any actual evidence” - which is not surprising since you cannot provide physical evidence for the “spiritual things”. By the way, this approach renders God and Jesus to be mere physical beings, since they were detected by our senses.

So there is no difference between stories about magical fairies, leprechauns or space aliens and the stories about some “spiritual” beings, angels, demons or gods.

However, those spiritual beings allegedly interact with our physical reality, and as such they could be caught “red-handed” at the point of the interface - IF they existed. I have seen the attempt to avoid this conclusion by stipulating that the physical activities of those spiritual beings cannot be measured like one measures the efficacy of a new drug - because those spiritual beings have free will, and they are able to “cheat”, to “skew or distort” the reality to cover their tracks, to pretend that they do not exist. So they are just like those magical leprechauns, who can detect your desire to observe them and can (magically) disappear before you can turn your head toward them.

Well, that does not work either. The methods of statistics can overcome this trickery - but not “magic”. Humans also have free will, but they cannot avoid to be detected or evaluated by statistical analysis. So you are left with no ammunition, except stipulating “magic”.

Yes, I think this is a good place to bid farewell. Best wishes.
 
there is only one kind of evidence for the claims about the objectively existing external world, and that is the empirical, physical evidence. After all the assumed “spiritual” world is also alleged to have interaction with the physical reality, and as such there is an interface, and the interface can be physically measured.
To arrive at an understanding, let’s consider what else was written in that post.
God is the creator of life so he can take it as he wishes, and we are not in the position to criticize him. Sure, you are welcome to hold that position, but realize that for a rational person it is sheer nonsense.
What is morally good would be one very real aspect of existence that cannot be measured physically.

Here we demonstrate an awareness of something we may classify as psychological and also spitirtual. There’s not an interaction so much between the physical and these two dimensions, but rather these are different ways of understanding our world, which is grounded in Existence itself. Pain is emotionally bad, as a mental phenomenon reflecting certain physical somatic events. Pain inflicted by someone is evil, recognizing the spiritual realities of knowledge and will.

This might be a start.
 
Last edited:
Again, I need to emphasize: “evidence for the veracity of the claim!!! - not just evidence in general.”
Umm… all evidence can be used as “evidence for the veracity of the claim”. In each and every case, however, the observer has to decide whether he’ll accept or reject the evidence. I think we’re saying the same thing, but I’m breaking it down more finely or you’re skipping a step that I’m claiming exists.
The point is that there was no conscious, or volitional decision in the process
That’s not at all what you described to me: you mentioned that you looked at the religion of your youth, from an intellectual perspective, and made the volitional decision that you found it lacking. As a result, you found that you could no longer believe in it. It’s all part of a process, which you initiated – volitionally! – and followed through to its logical conclusion. To turn around, then, and say “faith isn’t volitional” is to miss the point.
In that case the “reality” of the spiritual somethings cannot be distinguished from the “reality” of the fairy tales.
When only relying on empirical methods? I agree. Yet, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t ways to proceed, or that there isn’t evidence that can be considered. Eyewitness testimony is one of those means; but, you’re unwilling to even consider that it falls into the realm of “evidence.” If that’s your approach, you’re guaranteed to fail (or, as we’ve seen, to keep exclaiming “there’s no evidence!”).
However, those spiritual beings allegedly interact with our physical reality, and as such they could be caught “red-handed” at the point of the interface - IF they existed.
But only if you can predict when and where you might catch them “red-handed”. After all, if you want to catch a bank robber, but you stand in the middle of the desert, or if you have no way to predict where they’ll hit next, then you’ll never catch them. Yet, you wouldn’t be able to claim (reasonably) that “they don’t exist.”
Yes, I think this is a good place to bid farewell. Best wishes.
👍
Good luck. I hope you find peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top