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

[Rubee]

How would you define “spiritual” proof?

I’m asking you because you demanded it. I brought up NDEs because they suggest a non-physical consciousness since the veridical proof happens when the body/brain has shut down.

 

[Freddy]

How would you define “spiritual” proof?

I reckon if someone experiencing an nde could find something that was lost. Like an article of clothing for example. Like…a sock perhaps. Yeah, that could be spiritual proof as far as some people might be concerned.

 

[Abrosz]

I brought up NDEs because they suggest a non-physical consciousness since the veridical proof happens when the body/brain has shut down.

But it has NOT shut down. Not even close. It is merely deprived of some of the oxygen it usually gets. I still don’t know what are the criteria for some evidence (not proof) to qualify as “spiritual”.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias accused me to restrict to empirical evidence, even though I never said it.

You sure about that? Let’s see…

Gorgias:

Let’s correct that assertion: “rather, there is no empirically-verifiable reason to assume that they exist.”

What other kind of verification exists? Remember, the only “window” to the external reality are the signals transmitted through our senses.

Yep. Sure looks like you’re making the case that the only kind of “evidence” that you would accept for verifying the existence of spiritual beings (you know, the kind that would interface with the physical world?) is empirical, physical, sense-perceptible evidence.

What a hypocrite!

Pot, meet kettle.

Now I explicitly invite some spiritual evidence, whatever it might be. And now he has a problem with that.

I have no problem with that! In fact, I already identified a source of evidence: eyewitness accounts of those who witnessed God’s and Jesus’ presence in the world. Yep… in the Bible. However, @Abrosz, you have already stated that you refuse to consider such evidence.

So, yep… you ask for evidence that cannot be provided, and you refuse to consider the kind of evidence that can be provided. It’s a nice dodge, actually.

I just say I have not seen sufficient evidence for them.

That gets to the heart of my claim in the OP: there’s no way to predict when “spiritual phenomena” will occur, so there’s no way to ensure that we can measure or record them. Moreover, the “evidence” that’s always requested is physical evidence. That’s problematic: why would we expect non-physical beings to create physical evidence? Moreover, when all you have left is physical evidence, it’s all too easy to claim “that doesn’t prove anything spiritual; it’s just physical evidence” or “there never was an illness to be cured, anyway” (both of which claims @Abrosz has literally made in response to offers of proof of miracles!).

So… the problem isn’t that “you have not seen sufficient evidence”; it’s that you’re not admitting that such a thing is impossible. When you ask for the impossible, and don’t receive it, you haven’t satisfied the null hypothesis.

 

[Abrosz]

Yep. Sure looks like you’re making the case that the only kind of “evidence” that you would accept for verifying the existence of spiritual beings (you know, the kind that would interface with the physical world?) is empirical, physical, sense-perceptible evidence.

I guess you still don’t understand the difference between a question: “What other kind of verification
exists?” and the explicit denial of of such “evidence”. As it turns out all you have is some alleged “testimonial evidence”.

I have no problem with that! In fact, I already identified a source of evidence: eyewitness accounts of those who witnessed God’s and Jesus’ presence in the world. Yep… in the Bible.

Alleged eye-witness accounts of assumed events. Of all the indirect approaches the reference to thousand-years old testimonies is the least reliable, or acceptable. But even if one accepts them, they are STILL physical, empirical pieces of evidence.

I asked you and others several times to present non-physical, “spiritual” evidence, and none of you are capable of doing so.

That gets to the heart of my claim in the OP: there’s no way to predict when “spiritual phenomena” will occur…

There is no need for the skeptic to be able to predict. Something that cannot be explained in natural means - not just now, but in principle (!) - definitely would point to something “supernatural”.

On the other hand, the believer is required to make a prediction, so we can verify the claim: “there IS something supernatural”. The skeptic merely waits for a verifiable event, but does not predict it.

That is why I mentioned the BET. The believer asserts that supernatural exists. That is a positive claim. The skeptic doubts that claim. And asks the believer to put his money where his mouth is. As long as the believer declines to make the bet, he displays his OWN doubt in the veracity of his OWN claim.

The cop-out that we do not deal with money, rather with the fate of our “eternal soul” is the weakest possible evasion.

 

[STT]

Two reality without physical interaction are mutuality separated. Therefore, spiritual and physical reality are one reality.

 

[Gorgias]

I guess you still don’t understand the difference between a question: “What other kind of verification
exists?” and the explicit denial of of such “evidence”.

Uhh… right. Whatever.

Alleged eye-witness accounts of assumed events.

Like I said: you refuse to consider the evidence that is able to be presented.

I asked you and others several times to present non-physical, “spiritual” evidence, and none of you are capable of doing so.

Tell us what would count, in your eyes, as such, and we’ll try to help. But, what won’t be useful is to run through a litany of suggestions and hearing at each turn: “nope”; “not valid”; “I reject even considering it”. Not gonna happen, friend.

There is no need for the skeptic to be able to predict.

There is if you want to have your equipment at the ready in order to capture evidence!

And asks the believer to put his money where his mouth is. As long as the believer declines to make the bet, he displays his OWN doubt in the veracity of his OWN claim.

Fine: I bet that miracles will occur, but skeptics / materialists / agnostics / atheists will always reject any assertions of them. (And that’s a bet I win. )

 

[Abrosz]

Like I said: you refuse to consider the evidence that is able to be presented.

Just like you refuse to consider the presented “evidence” of ALL the other religions. The difference between the believers and the skeptics is that the skeptics disbelieve in one MORE religion than the believers disbelieve. Because you are just as skeptical about other religions, as I am about yours.

Tell us what would count, in your eyes, as such, and we’ll try to help.

I already did. Any event that cannot be explained by natural means, not just today, but in principle. And there was an actual suggestion: “try to convince your deity to rearrange the stars to display some readily understandable text, for example the Kama Sutra, or maybe the Communist Manifesto.”

There is if you want to have your equipment at the ready in order to capture evidence!

But I am not interested in conducting experiments to support YOUR hypothesis. That is your job.

Fine: I bet that miracles will occur, but skeptics / materialists / agnostics / atheists will always reject any assertions of them .

Tell me what “miracles” will happen, and when, and then we can evaluate your claim. Open ended claims, like: “I predict that something, somewhere will happen” cannot be verified. And that i the best you can do…

 

[Freddy]

Abrosz:

There is no need for the skeptic to be able to predict.

There is if you want to have your equipment at the ready in order to capture evidence!

And so I brought up Zeitoun. But what did we get? ‘Hey, why didn’t you guys test it!’ And then a claim that there wouldn’t be any evidence we could examine anyway - it would be like a mirage.

 

[Gorgias]

Just like you refuse to consider the presented “evidence” of ALL the other religions.

No; I consider it, but reject it on the basis that I believe the accounts in the Bible. You merely reject them because you think they’re implausible. Apples and oranges.

The difference between the believers and the skeptics is that the skeptics disbelieve in one MORE religion than the believers disbelieve.

That’s a cute meme. Keep telling yourself that. It’s a content-free assertion, though.

I already did. Any event that cannot be explained by natural means, not just today, but in principle.

And some have been provided. And rejected by you.

And there was an actual suggestion: “try to convince your deity to rearrange the stars to display some readily understandable text, for example the Kama Sutra, or maybe the Communist Manifesto.”

What a silly suggestion! “Tell God to do my will.” If you ever want to make a serious suggestion, we’ll be all ears.

But I am not interested in conducting experiments to support YOUR hypothesis. That is your job.

And we’re already convinced in the truth of our assertions, and not interested in conducting experiments to refute YOUR hypothesis. After all… that’s your job.

Tell me what “miracles” will happen, and when, and then we can evaluate your claim.

And I’m telling you that they’re unpredictable.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Abrosz:

There is no need for the skeptic to be able to predict.

There is if you want to have your equipment at the ready in order to capture evidence!

And so I brought up Zeitoun. But what did we get? ‘Hey, why didn’t you guys test it!’ And then a claim that there wouldn’t be any evidence we could examine anyway - it would be like a mirage.

The thing is, though, that believers don’t need to test it, when there’s already belief. The only reason to test it is for ya’ll … and, I’m sure there’s a cottage industry in attempting to debunk, so… why isn’t the skeptic community interested in doing so?

And then a claim that there wouldn’t be any evidence we could examine anyway - it would be like a mirage.

I’m not making the claim that this is always what happens. Just that it’s within the realm of possibility.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Gorgias:

Abrosz:

There is no need for the skeptic to be able to predict.

There is if you want to have your equipment at the ready in order to capture evidence!

And so I brought up Zeitoun. But what did we get? ‘Hey, why didn’t you guys test it!’ And then a claim that there wouldn’t be any evidence we could examine anyway - it would be like a mirage.

The thing is, though, that believers don’t need to test it, when there’s already belief. The only reason to test it is for ya’ll … and, I’m sure there’s a cottage industry in attempting to debunk, so… why isn’t the skeptic community interested in doing so?

Why on earth spend time discounting other people’s claims? To be brutally honest, I really don’t have the slightest interest in people claiming to have seen an apparition or claim a miracle healing. It has zero effect on me (well, I did travel through Lourdes as a place of interest once). Except when I am having a discussion about it and there is a suggestion that there is some interaction between the spiritual and the physical.

Is there? Rock and roll…let’s see what evidence we can get from it. But you immediately back peddle and say we need something that’s predictable so we can measure it. OK, there was Zeitoun. How would you examine that for evidence?

And then you back peddle again and say that it’s skeptics who should be doing the investigation.

And not only that but you then further step back and say that there wouldn’t be any evidence anyway.

I’m not sure why you started this thread in the first place as you seem to be doing your best to avoid investigating this ‘interaction’ problem anyway.

 

[Gorgias]

OK, there was Zeitoun. How would you examine that for evidence?

Given that it happened 50 years ago? Or, do you mean “if Zeitoun were happening today, what evidence could be collected?”

If today? I dunno… lots of cell phone video, I guess. Don’t you think?

And not only that but you then further step back and say that there wouldn’t be any evidence anyway.

No… I say that there might not be physical evidence.

I’m not sure why you started this thread in the first place as you seem to be doing your best to avoid investigating this ‘interaction’ problem anyway.

I’m discussing why – in the absence of evidence – non-believers claim it’s our fault and that we should shut up if we can’t substantiate it with physical evidence. I’m claiming that physical evidence is typically uncollectible, and even when it is collected, it’s pooh-poohed. And, that the evidence that can be presented (eyewitness reports) are discarded out-of-hand and a priori.

So… yeah. That’s the reason for the thread.

 

[Neithan]

Just like you refuse to consider the presented “evidence” of ALL the other religions. The difference between the believers and the skeptics is that the skeptics disbelieve in one MORE religion than the believers disbelieve. Because you are just as skeptical about other religions, as I am about yours.

Whence this presumption? I accept that credible evidence is credible evidence, without prejudice or prior commitment to some reductionist view of reality (e.g. materialism, naturalism). Unless you are a radical skeptic, you’re merely a different kind of believer.

 

[Abrosz]

No; I consider it, but reject it on the basis that I believe the accounts in the Bible.

That is called “blind faith”. Not because you investigated them, and found them wanting. I reject ALL the religions, because their claims are implausible. No apples and oranges here.

That’s a cute meme.

And true! Very true. Everyone is an atheist toward someone else’s religion. Why does this need to be pointed out?

And some have been provided. And rejected by you.

I guess, I missed them. What event can you provide which cannot be explained by natural means… in principle? The rearrangement of the stars would be pretty impressive. Or maybe mixing sodium and chlorine and find a piece of Godiva chocolate in the beaker.

What a silly suggestion! “Tell God to do my will.”

Ask God for help. Look up all the millions of supplicative prayers, (The sub-forum of “Prayer intentions” would be a promising start) all of which try to “nudge” God to interfere on their behalf. Of course in your assessment they are ALL wrong (in lieu of a much stronger expression).

Yes, I did have a suggestion, but you explicitly reject it.

And we’re already convinced in the truth of our assertions, and not interested in conducting experiments to refute YOUR hypothesis. After all… that’s your job.

Since I have NO hypothesis, you are wrong. (How many times do I have to repeat this??) I merely wish to see a supporting evidence for YOUR claim. And all I see is some unfounded “testimonials”.

And I’m telling you that they’re unpredictable.

And yet, you just made an open-ended prediction that miracles WILL occur. Would be nice if you were aware of what you, yourself claimed a just a few minutes ago.

 

[Gorgias]

That is called “blind faith”.

No, it’s not. “Blind faith” would be that I find nothing to substantiate it, but believe it anyway. In fact, I do find much to substantiate it. Whether or not you believe in it doesn’t cause my faith to be labeled “blind.” After all, by that standard, we could likewise call your lack of faith ‘blind.’

Not because you investigated them, and found them wanting.

As I encountered them, and saw where they deviate from what I’ve concluded is true, I’ve found them wanting. Yep – same standard as yours… except you’re unwilling to admit that. From your perspective, apparently, you’re a ‘bright’ and were ‘dulls.’

Everyone is an atheist toward someone else’s religion. Why does this need to be pointed out?

Because it’s false.

What event can you provide which cannot be explained by natural means… in principle?

Transubstantiation.

Ask God for help.

Except that… this isn’t really what you’re doing. See, if you really were just asking, then when it didn’t happen, you’d conclude “I guess God didn’t want to do what I asked.” Since you decide “God isn’t really real”, it reveals that you were demanding proof. Of God’s existence. From God Himself. Like I’ve said before… good luck with that one.

Since I have NO hypothesis, you are wrong. (How many times do I have to repeat this??)

Until you come to see that you do have a hypothesis. “God doesn’t exist” is your hypothesis. Or, perhaps, “all the claims about God are false.”

And yet, you just made an open-ended prediction that miracles WILL occur.

Yep.

Would be nice if you were aware of what you, yourself claimed a just a few minutes ago.

Would be nice if you read what I claimed. Not that I could predict when or where. Just that I predict that they will occur. Subtle difference. Sorry you missed it.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

OK, there was Zeitoun. How would you examine that for evidence?

Given that it happened 50 years ago? Or, do you mean “if Zeitoun were happening today, what evidence could be collected?”

If today? I dunno… lots of cell phone video, I guess. Don’t you think?

You could have suggested literally anything at all to determine evidence of the spritual and you say…take out your cell phone and snap a piccie.

You know what really made me smile when I was reading about Zeitoun? That somebody wrote that the police force scoured the surrounding area encompassing many city blocks for any electronic equipment that could have been used by someone to fake the apparition. Someone many moons ago (might have been this forum) even brought that up as proof that it was real. As opposed to walking up onto the roof to check. It’s that simple.

But if that’s the best you’ve got then we no longer have a problem. If there’s a photo of it then it must be real.

 

[STT]

I don’t understand what you are still discussing. Spiritual cannot affect physical if there is no interaction between them, so you cannot experience spiritual reality, for example you cannot see ghosts, etc. Spiritual and physical belong to the same category if there is a interaction between them.

 

[nicholasG]

2000 years. No proof of:

Miracles
Big Foot
Aliens
Alien abductions
Loch Ness monster
Ghosts
Etc…

Except on YouTube. If it’s on YouTube it must be true.

 

[Abrosz]

Transubstantiation.

That is getting ridiculous. How can you “substantiate” that the bread turns into flesh, when it does not. Only by blind faith.

Until you come to see that you do have a hypothesis. “God doesn’t exist” is your hypothesis. Or, perhaps, “all the claims about God are false.”

My stance is that I do NOT BELIEVE that God exists. And it is not a hypothesis. The difference is huge, even if you don’t understand it.

Would be nice if you read what I claimed. Not that I could predict when or where . Just that I predict that they will occur. Subtle difference.

Oh, I did. And THAT is the problem. Your “prediction” boils down to: “something miraculous WILL happen sometime, somewhere.” If you don’t understand that such an “open ended prediction” is useless, then I think it is time to put you on ignore. I have never met anyone as irrational and as self-conceited as you are.

Good bye.