Arriving at a Theistic Belief

[RestlessSoul]

Well, yes. You have a point, but you are assuming a somehow positive metaphysics. As a skeptic I can do what you do without metaphysics.

Whatever works for you is good. That, imo, is the acid test for any belief system; does it work, ie does it enable me to live a better, more meaningful life than I might otherwise do?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Human imagination is not evidence for the supernatural.

No, but it is evidence for the fact of this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Your method of demanding evidence doesn't work, because your demand is without evidence. You are using a norm that can be done differently, yet you apparently don't treat it as a norm. It appears to function as a sort of dogma.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whatever works for you is good. That, imo, is the acid test for any belief system; does it work, ie does it enable me to live a better, more meaningful life than I might otherwise do?

Yes, and if I can do it differently, then don't assume yours as universal. You are sometimes doing that.

 

[KWED]

Obviously you don’t.

So to claim it does exist is an unreasonable claim, yes?

However, because something is not readily detectable using the toolset you are most familiar with, does not mean it is undetectable to everyone.

Either it is detectable or it isn't. If it is detectable, then the results of that detection must be testable and repeatable - otherwise it tis merely a claim.

To say, “If we can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist”,

Straw man.

To say, “If I can’t detect it, it doesn’t exist”, is an example of a mind in thrall to ego.

1. Another straw man.
2.To say, “If I say I can detect it, it does exist, even if no one else can detect it" is an example of a delusional mind.

And the ego will go to almost any lengths to keep one’s mind in thrall. Until you learn to silence the ego, it’s clamour will drown out much that the senses could perceive.

I'm sure that made perfect sense to you when you wrote it.

 

[KWED]

I'm not claiming it .. I'm saying that it is worth investigating.

Depends what their claim is.

However, that was not the initial argument made. That was "Many people claim x, therefore their claims are evidence for x being true".

 

[RestlessSoul]

Ironically, it is you who is displaying the irony with your analogy.
You are the person insisting that your beliefs must be true because you have not seen any refuting evidence.
You are using the argument from personal incredulity by claiming that there must be something more.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in thy philosophy."

Not sure how this an "argument from personal incredulity". It's not an argument, it's a philosophy and one that has the ring of intuitive truth.

I am not, however, insisting I am right and everyone else is wrong; I don't demand proof or evidence of your disbelief. I only see (some) atheists trying to impose that sort of dogmatic certitude on all and sundry.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So to claim it does exist is an unreasonable claim, yes?
...

Yes, for a certain subjective assumption about what reasonable is. The problem is that I can do that subjectively different for another assumption. We are playing limited cognitive relativism.

 

[KWED]

No, but it is evidence for the fact of this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

You keep posting that link showing a load of things that science does not claim to address.
I have no idea why.

Your method of demanding evidence doesn't work, because your demand is without evidence. You are using a norm that can be done differently, yet you apparently don't treat it as a norm. It appears to function as a sort of dogma.

Would you like some dressing with that?

 

[RestlessSoul]

So to claim it does exist is an unreasonable claim, yes?

Either it is detectable or it isn't. If it is detectable, then the results of that detection must be testable and repeatable - otherwise it tis merely a claim.

Straw man.

1. Another straw man.
2.To say, “If I say I can detect it, it does exist, even if no one else can detect it" is an example of a delusional mind.

I'm sure that made perfect sense to you when you wrote it.

Round and round we go. In ever decreasing circles, in which you try to impose your own limited paradigm on those who see the world differently than you.

You seem locked into this cycle, and only you can break it, if you so choose. But I am not willing to participate any further. Claim a win, if you like. Feed your ego.

 

[KWED]

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in thy philosophy."

There may or may not be "more things".
Simply claiming there are does not make it so.

Not sure how this an "argument from personal incredulity". It's not an argument, it's a philosophy and one that has the ring of intuitive truth.

If you claim that there must be a spiritual/supernatural element because you can't see how/why the universe would work without it, that is personal incredulity.
If you are simply saying that there may or may not be such things, and that you do not see any need for them, then fair enough. However, that is not the impression you give with your arguments.

I am not, however, insisting I am right and everyone else is wrong; I don't demand proof or evidence of your disbelief. I only see (some) atheists trying to impose that sort of dogmatic certitude on all and sundry.

If you claim that there are definitely more things, then yes, I would like to see the evidence supporting your claim.
If you are saying there may or may not be more things, then I could tend to agree with you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You keep posting that link showing a load of things that science does not claim to address.
I have no idea why.

Would you like some dressing with that?

You are taking for granted a certain set of cognitive assumptions and then doing normative evaluations as if those are apparently somehow facts.
What we know about cogitation has moved on past the idea of an universal standard for reasonable.

 

[KWED]

Round and round we go. In ever decreasing circles,

Hopefully, at the centre of those circles, you will understand the flaws in your position.

in which you try to impose your own limited paradigm on those who see the world differently than you.

You seem locked into this cycle, and only you can break it, if you so choose. But I am not willing to participate any further. Claim a win, if you like. Feed your ego.

And as per usual, when you are asked to clarify or provide evidence or rational argument, you accuse others of a lack of capacity or understanding and decline to respond.

It really is a simple concept.
If something is undetectable to anyone, is it reasonable or unreasonable to insist that it does exist?
Why the reluctance to state your preference?

 

[KWED]

You are taking for granted a certain set of cognitive assumptions

Which ones, and where?

and then doing normative evaluations as if those are apparently somehow facts.

Again clarify.

What we know about cogitation has moved on past the idea of an universal standard for reasonable.

"Reasonable" has always depended on context, so not sure what you are basing that claim on.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, and if I can do it differently, then don't assume yours as universal. You are sometimes doing that.

I don’t consider my experience or perspective to be universal, but I do know, as well as I can be said to know anything, that they are not unique to me.

And I do consider the spiritual to be as real and as significant to me as the physical and mental are. This belief, nay conviction, is experiential not intellectual.

I have learned to trust what has been called the God Consciousness within as much as I trust my own conscious mind and physical perceptions. I make no apology for that, but neither do I insist that other’s should feel, see, or believe the same.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Hopefully, at the centre of those circles, you will understand the flaws in your position.

And as per usual, when you are asked to clarify or provide evidence or rational argument, you accuse others of a lack of capacity or understanding and decline to respond.

It really is a simple concept.
If something is undetectable to anyone, is it reasonable or unreasonable to insist that it does exist?
Why the reluctance to state your preference?

True reason, true understanding, may be more mercurial than you conceive them to be, and are best arrived at with subtlety and patience.

Those Victorian butterfly collectors both destroyed the beauty, and missed the true nature, of their subjects by pinning them down.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It really is a simple concept.
If something is undetectable to anyone, is it reasonable or unreasonable to insist that it does exist?
Why the reluctance to state your preference?

You are doing it again..
You try to limit people to binary decisions of yay or nay.
It is a form of bullying.

You won't find truth like that, but I don't think that you are even looking for it.
You hide behind a veil of empirical rationality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which ones, and where?

Again clarify.

"Reasonable" has always depended on context, so not sure what you are basing that claim on.

So here is a technique used sometimes.

P1: There is no evidence for the supernatural.
C: Therefore it is unreasonable to claim it as true*.

*C can vary but it is always with your tribe somehow "wrong", "bad", "irrational" or some other negative evaluation.
Now I have never read in a book or otherwise found someone who can make a deduction that is both valid and sound.

In other words for the following fact of the everyday world as connected to this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Science as a result of its methodology can show that there is no evidence for the supernatural. But science can't tell you if it useful or not to believe in it.
That is in effect the Is-Ought problem. How ever you try, if you are no different than all other humans in recorded history, you won't be able to show in any form as an evaluation to the effect of the ought as objective, universal, external to the mind and what not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are doing it again..
You try to limit people to binary decisions of yay or nay.

Well... it is a yes or no question...

It is a form of bullying.

No.

You won't find truth like that, but I don't think that you are even looking for it.

He's not asking you about truth.
He's asking you if it is reasonable to insist that a certain something exists, even though it is undetectable to anyone.

You hide behind a veil of empirical rationality.

Wow. A "veil" of empirical rationality. As if that's a bad thing.

Yes, sure... how horrible of us... to "hide" behind silly things like rationality and evidence when we tell you why we don't believe a certain evidence-less claim.

Yeah, we are so stupid.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well... it is a yes or no question...



...



He's not asking you about truth.
He's asking you if it is reasonable to insist that a certain something exists, even though it is undetectable to anyone.

...

If you can't give objective evidence for that reasonable, my world breaks down. You have to come through. The whole of humanity rests on your shoulders. Evidence!!!

 

[BilliardsBall]

It there any external evidence for the supernatural contents of the Bible, other than people claiming to believe in it?

We can start with the Bible's extraordinary prescience, much of it verifiable since it concerns Israel since 1948!