The so-called "interaction problem" of spiritual/physical

[Freddy]

OK, the response is exactly what we started this thread off with: unless you can demonstrate a method guaranteed to predict when and how the interactions will take place, then it’s impossible to prepare for and conduct an “empirical evidence gathering” campaign.

Which is why I originally brought up Zeitoun. It was a regular event. Lasting for up to an hour each time. Over a period of many weeks. But when we have an example of something you could practically guarantee will occur and that you could most definitely investigate, you say it’s not actually ‘real’. It’s not really there. It’s just God changing our perception of the world.

And to confirm:

After all, “ghosts, poltergeists and other imaginary beings” are said to be physically present in the world and therefore, expected to be able to be empirically measured. God and other spirits are not

Seems like that will cover all ‘interaction problems’ with the physical. You say there isn’t one. You could have said that at the outset to save us all a lot of time.

 

[Abrosz]

If the evidence is impossible to gather, as such, and you know that this is the case, then yeah… it is unreasonable.

Ah, so you say that the evidence is impossible to gather… which makes your belief in the “spiritual” unfounded… or based upon blind faith. Glad to see that finally you understand the problem.

OK, the response is exactly what we started this thread off with: unless you can demonstrate a method guaranteed to predict when and how the interactions will take place, then it’s impossible to prepare for and conduct an “empirical evidence gathering” campaign.

That is not my job, it is yours. It is YOU who asserts that “miracles” (or interactions) occur, mine is that they do not. In other words, you BET on the existence of miracles (or interactions), and I BET against them. Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is? I could use some extra cash.

To clarify: I am willing to entertain YOUR hypothesis, that there is some spiritual realm, and that there is some interaction between it and physical realm. Repeating: “This is YOUR hypothesis, not mine.” Therefore you have two options. One is to admit that your hypothesis is unfounded and based upon some blind faith. The other is that you can demonstrate the interaction. As such it is your task to set up the experiment. Not mine.

I hope you finally understand your conundrum.

 

[Gorgias]

But when we have an example of something you could practically guarantee will occur and that you could most definitely investigate, you say it’s not actually ‘real’. It’s not really there. It’s just God changing our perception of the world.

Two thoughts:

• So then, where were the agnostic / atheist skeptics, engaging in the effort to gather data to prove or disprove the apparition? Believers being cool not taking empirical measurements makes sense… but, if it happened over a three year period, where were the so-called lovers of reason and logic, taking measurements to bolster their claims?
• Even if it were along the lines of an ‘interior’ rather than ‘external’ event, it would still qualify as an ‘apparition’… right?

Seems like that will cover all ‘interaction problems’ with the physical.

It really doesn’t. It only covers the question of “apparitions”. Materialists will often pooh-pooh the notion of God’s “sustaining” of the universe, and demand physical evidence of that action.

Ah, so you say that the evidence is impossible to gather… which makes your belief in the “spiritual” unfounded… or based upon blind faith.

Neither, thank you very much.

“Unfounded”? Nope – just not verifiable by your personally-beloved methods.

“Based on blind faith”? Again… nope. I use reason and the illative sense to reach a conclusion on the accounts of eyewitnesses. You do the same, but reach a different conclusion. Neither of us is “blind.”

Glad to see that finally you understand the problem.

Oh, I’ve understood it since you arrived at the forum. The ‘problem’ is that you think you know better than us, and wish to heckle at every turn. The ‘problem’ is that you’re less rational and open-minded than you’d like to think that you are. The ‘problem’ is that you think you’re smarter than believers.

All of those ‘problems’ are yours, and not ours. I wish you success in working through your problems.

That is not my job, it is yours.

It really isn’t. If you wish to prove that we’re mistaken… then prove it!

In other words, you BET on the existence of miracles (or interactions), and I BET against them. Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is? I could use some extra cash.

We’re not betting ‘cash’, but something far more valuable: eternal salvation. It’s sad to see that you’re betting on the wrong horse.

I hope you finally understand your conundrum.

I do: you’re here to heckle, not discuss. Good luck with that. I’ll continue to defend my position, and refute yours.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Materialists will often pooh-pooh the notion of God’s “sustaining” of the universe, and demand physical evidence of that action.

There is no evidence of the universe sustaining itself either. Dark matter and dark energy are theoretical artificial constructs to try to explain why the universe has not collapsed following standard astrophysics.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Seems like that will cover all ‘interaction problems’ with the physical.

It really doesn’t. It only covers the question of “apparitions”. Materialists will often pooh-pooh the notion of God’s “sustaining” of the universe, and demand physical evidence of that action.

Your own op asks about the interaction between the spiritual and physical thus:

The first problem speaks directly to the materialist’s claim: if there really were spiritual beings who interacted with us, we’d be able to document these interactions, and since there is no documentation as such, then the claim is false. That seems short-sighted for a couple of reasons:

• inability to predict a-priori when these interactions will occur
• inability to predict what form these interactions will take (such that we might be prepared to measure them empirically)

No-one has discussed, nor would likely want to discuss, God ‘sustaining the universe’. Let’s keep this applicable to your own question and the problem of predicting when an event might take place and what form it may take. Zeitoun covers this.

So if we are to examine if it’s genuine and if it actually interacts with the physical world then we have an excellent example with which to do so.

And to pass the buck in such a blatant way by suggesting that it’s those who do not believe have a responsibility to prove it to be false is breathtaking. If someone wants to claim a spiritual interaction with the physical world then ‘Prove there isn’t’ is a sure way to end the conversation.

 

[Abrosz]

It really isn’t. If you wish to prove that we’re mistaken… then prove it!

Done. He, who makes a positive proposition should present evidence for it. Elementary, my dear Watson.

I have no positive proposition. You do: namely you assert that there is a spiritual realm. As such you are supposed to provide evidence for it. As I said quite a few times: “I do not wish to restrict you to any special evidential method”. You are free to use whatever you desire. I can promise that I will listen to your argument, evaluate it and then come to a conclusion. And this openness is now a “negative” approach in your eyes. Not commendable.

Your demand that I should restrict the conversation to the empirical method is irrational and unreasonable. By the way, the epistemological method of referring to alleged eye-witnesses is also a physical endeavor - NOT spiritual. It is just the lowest level of credibility.

Once more: “do you have any non-physical (spiritual) evidence for your claims?”

We’re not betting ‘cash’, but something far more valuable: eternal salvation.

You worry about your eternal salvation, and I will worry about mine. If so, then you should be willing to bet a “lesser value” against my betting a “greater value”. Are you scared?

I do: you’re here to heckle, not discuss.

Not very “charitable” to make unfounded accusations. Do you have information about my internal desires?

“Unfounded”? Nope – just not verifiable by your personally-beloved methods.

I keep asking you to present some evidence for the existence of the “spiritual realm”. ANY EVIDENCE!!! Not just empirical. You keep on declining it. Even if the testimonials would be sufficient, they are STILL physical and not “spiritual”.

When will you realize that in this physical realm every evidence is physical. No human being can have access to the “spiritual” realm. It is amazing that this simple fact needs to be explained and you still do not accept it.

 

[Neithan]

By the way, the epistemological method of referring to alleged eye-witnesses is also a physical endeavor - NOT spiritual. It is just the lowest level of credibility.

You’re assuming that people are not spiritual, and prejudicing their credibility. The credibility of a witness is assessed by their competence and veracity. If you have a number of credible witnesses to an event, you have credible evidence of that event.

 

[Abrosz]

You’re assuming that people are not spiritual, and prejudicing their credibility.

Any evidence, any proposition, any interaction between humans is physical. The credibility of a witness is not a given, it must be established. But, be as it may, any proposed evidence is always PHYSICAL, words, writs, propositions, ideas, testimonials, whatever. We are simply not equipped to have direct access to some “spiritual” evidence - whatever it might be.

Gorgias accused me to restrict to empirical evidence, even though I never said it. Now I explicitly invite some spiritual evidence, whatever it might be. And now he has a problem with that. What is the expression: “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”? and then HE accuses ME of “bad faith”?

What a hypocrite!

 

[Freddy]

Abrosz:

By the way, the epistemological method of referring to alleged eye-witnesses is also a physical endeavor - NOT spiritual. It is just the lowest level of credibility.

You’re assuming that people are not spiritual, and prejudicing their credibility. The credibility of a witness is assessed by their competence and veracity. If you have a number of credible witnesses to an event, you have credible evidence of that event.

“Memory doesn’t record our experiences like a video camera. It creates stories based on those experiences. The stories are sometimes uncannily accurate, sometimes completely fictional, and often a mixture of the two; and they can change to suit the situation. Eyewitness testimony is a potent form of evidence for convicting the accused, but it is subject to unconscious memory distortions and biases even among the most confident of witnesses. So memory can be remarkably accurate or remarkably inaccurate. Without objective evidence, the two are indistinguishable.” Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence – Association for Psychological Science – APS.

See how good a witness you’d be…

 

[Rubee]

I keep asking you to present some evidence for the existence of the “spiritual realm”. ANY EVIDENCE!!! Not just empirical. You keep on declining it. Even if the testimonials would be sufficient, they are STILL physical and not “spiritual”.

What about Near-Death Experiences where the ‘dead’ person gave veridical proof of seeing/hearing things their senses had no access to? Would that count?

 

[Freddy]

Abrosz:

I keep asking you to present some evidence for the existence of the “spiritual realm”. ANY EVIDENCE!!! Not just empirical. You keep on declining it. Even if the testimonials would be sufficient, they are STILL physical and not “spiritual”.

What about Near-Death Experiences where the ‘dead’ person gave veridical proof of seeing/hearing things their senses had no access to? Would that count?

Hypoxia will get you every time. Are we going to hear about someone finding his lost sock again?

 

[Rubee]

Are we going to hear about someone finding his lost sock again?

Would NDE veridical proof count as “spiritual proof” or not?

 

[FiveLinden]

The participating examiners were given a sample of the miraculous flesh and not told where it came from.

Were they? Where is this documented? Where is it published in scientific literature? What precautions were taken against fraud?

 

[FiveLinden]

Materialist here. I don’t think any of the things people here think I think. I don’t claim that god(s) and spiritual phenomenon do not exist. I just say I have not seen sufficient evidence for them. Widespread belief means these things are worth looking at, and seeking evidence about, but that applies also to astrology, witchcraft, homeopathy, healing touch and the use of disinfectant taken internally to fight COVID-19.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Are we going to hear about someone finding his lost sock again?

Would NDE veridical proof count as “spiritual proof” or not?

There’s a difference between acceptable evidence and proof. Whaddyagot?

 

[Rubee]

There’s a difference between acceptable evidence and proof.

Proof

noun
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

“you will be asked to give proof of your identity”

I will repeat the question:

Would NDE veridical proof count as “spiritual proof” or not?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There’s a difference between acceptable evidence and proof.

Proof

noun
evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

“you will be asked to give proof of your identity”

I will repeat the question:

Would NDE veridical proof count as “spiritual proof” or not?

If you have something interesting to post, Rubee, then I’d love to hear about it. Otherwise thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Rubee]

If you have something interesting to post, Rubee, then I’d love to hear about it. Otherwise thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Same to you: You butted in on a question I wasn’t even posing to you with a “proof is not evidence” gotcha (you thought); you’re the one derailing here because you obviously don’t want to deal with the question of what counts as “spiritual proof.”

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If you have something interesting to post, Rubee, then I’d love to hear about it. Otherwise thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Same to you: You butted in on a question I wasn’t even posing to you with a “proof is not evidence” gotcha (you thought); you’re the one derailing here because you obviously don’t want to deal with the question of what counts as “spiritual proof.”

No lost sock then. Ah well…

 

[Abrosz]

What about Near-Death Experiences where the ‘dead’ person gave veridical proof of seeing/hearing things their senses had no access to? Would that count?

No, it would not. First, they are just anecdotes. But even if they could be replicated under properly designed laboratory circumstances, all they would “prove” that the brain can produce some strange results when deprived of sufficient oxygen.

How would you define “spiritual” proof?