Evidence

[Fluffy]

So you can't find a natural solution at all. Where do you look next?

Just to be clear, I'm not discounting a non-natural solution entirely. I simply do not see a sufficient reason to start looking for one and, in particular, I don't see your reason as sufficient.

Why have you equated "haven't" with "can't"? Da Vinci failed to invent a machine that would let him fly. It doesn't follow that we should then jump off a cliff in a box whilst praying. The lack of progress of naturalism in a particular area does bring merit to other approaches whilst the success of naturalism in others makes naturalism a reasonable method to utilise.

Just to be clear, I'm not discounting a non-natural solution entirely. I simply do not see a sufficient reason to start looking for one and, in particular, I don't see your reason as sufficient.

Atheists make fantastic assumptions, too, relying on on nothing more than consensus.

Right. It also always the least fantastical assumption.

Given two assumptions, which is the more likely? Go with that one.

Also, read Popper. All these kinds of assumptions are discarded and rightly so.

On another planet, perhaps. Even so, they fear to venture into new realms of thought pertaining to the inner life because of the lack of "empirical evidence."

Your observation that atheists have not done this would not be sufficient to justify the conclusion that they are afraid to do so. Therefore, please justify your argument.

I really have no idea what kind alternative you are offering. Instead of assuming I am afraid to understand, why don't you try and explain it as if you were talking to a person has never experienced what you have experienced. Using jargon like "unentangled awareness" and "inner life" is only useful for those who already know what you mean. Perhaps a 10 step programme that will allow us to reach conclusions that are just as likely as those based on evidence.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

It also always the least fantastical assumption.

Not always. (I've demonstrated that in other threads.)

Given two assumptions, which is the more likely? Go with that one.

Can't argue that...that's not an issue.

Therefore, please justify your argument.

In other words, where's the evidence of consensus?

I really have no idea what kind alternative you are offering. Instead of assuming I am afraid to understand, why don't you try and explain it as if you were talking to a person has never experienced what you have experienced. Using jargon like "unentangled awareness" and "inner life" is only useful for those who already know what you mean. Perhaps a 10 step programme that will allow us to reach conclusions that are just as likely as those based on evidence

In other words, where's the evidence of consensus?

Read the post again. It's about the over reliance on the very kind of "evidence" you're asking for, which comes at the expense of personal and subjective evidence. Turn your awareness within.

 

[Willamena]

Just to be clear, I'm not discounting a non-natural solution entirely. I simply do not see a sufficient reason to start looking for one and, in particular, I don't see your reason as sufficient.

What does "non-natural" mean? Can it have any valid meaning? Can there possibly be any attribute that does not fall within the concept of 'the nature of a thing'? (Hint: no!)

Don't back down, as your assumptions cannot be wrong if kept within their context.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Just to be clear, I'm not discounting a non-natural solution entirely. I simply do not see a sufficient reason to start looking for one and, in particular, I don't see your reason as sufficient.

Where do you draw the line between "natural" and "unnatural"? If it's real, it's "natural" regardless of the rarity, subjectivity, or the conceptual interpretation. As for "I don't see your reason as sufficient," you will, sooner or later. Just pay attention to the events in your life both within and without. More often than not, people are too entangled with affairs to notice correlations between inside and outside.

 

[Fluffy]

Not always. (I've demonstrated that in other threads.)

If you have a link then I am always interested in seeing such demonstrations.

In other words, where's the evidence of consensus?

Consensus? I'm not asking you to agree with me nor do I care, in this instance, whether others agree with me. However, if you want to make a claim about atheists in a debate then you can either state why you are making it or withdraw your claim. I don't care how you justify it even if you wish to do so with your inner awareness. If your alternative to evidence is pulling claims out of thin air then say so and let others judge your claim in that light. Anything less is dishonest.

In other words, where's the evidence of consensus?

Fine. I just know that your wrong. My personal experience tells me this. /parody

Either your alternative to "evidence of consensus" will provide a conclusion that is more likely or less likely. If your provide an example of how I can do so then I'll go away and test it for myself. If you can't then how can you expect me to do whatever it is you want me to do?

Read the post again. It's about the over reliance on the very kind of "evidence" you're asking for, which comes at the expense of personal and subjective evidence. Turn your awareness within.

So your alternative to evidence is personal and subjective evidence? It is impossible to ignore personal subjective evidence. Nobody does it. Not atheists, not anybody. It is our only access to reality if indeed it is accessing anything at all. Whatever we think will be determined by personal experience. "Experience of consensus" is personal experience: Personal experience of what I think others think.

What does "non-natural" mean? Can it have any valid meaning? Can there possibly be any attribute that does not fall within the concept of 'the nature of a thing'? (Hint: no!)

Don't back down, as your assumptions cannot be wrong if kept within their context.

I agree fully with you on this one. In fact that is normally the line I take but I felt that in this case, I felt it was more important to stress that I was not rejecting any non-natural solutions out of hand rather than to stress my reason for rejecting them.

 

[Willamena]

Where do you draw the line between "natural" and "unnatural"? If it's real, it's "natural" regardless of the rarity, subjectivity, or the conceptual interpretation. As for "I don't see your reason as sufficient," you will, sooner or later. Just pay attention to the events in your life both within and without. More often than not, people are too entangled with affairs to notice correlations between inside and outside.

Where do you draw the line between real and natural?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

If you have a link then I am always interested in seeing such demonstrations.

No offense, but I'm not going through that again.

I don't care how you justify it even if you wish to do so with your inner awareness.

Yes you do. Otherwise, you would not ask for evidence of subjective evidence.

I just know that your wrong. My personal experience tells me this. /parody

Cool.

If your provide an example of how I can do so then I'll go away and test it for myself.

Sages, gurus, and others more qualifies than me have been doing just that for centuries and telling their students test the validity of their teachings.

So your alternative to evidence is personal and subjective evidence?

The external supplements the internal.

It is impossible to ignore personal subjective evidence.

I agree. It's a question of how much we're aware of it.

 

[Willamena]

I agree. It's a question of how much we're aware of it.

Minus "it".

Otherwise, we're not talking about the subjective at all.

 

[Fluffy]

No offense, but I'm not going through that again.

None taken. I will have to search elsewhere.

Cool.

Do you find your debates are more like this? Monty Python - Argument Sketch

We can state our opinions all day but that isn't a debate. Perhaps you meant to post this under general discussion?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Minus "it".

Otherwise, we're not talking about the subjective at all.

I can go with that.

I first became aware of my awareness expanding when I began to see patterns and make correlations that years ago I would have called "nonsense" or "coincidence."

 

[Rolling_Stone]

None taken. I will have to search elsewhere.

FYI, every time I've posted the logical dilemma of unconsciousness matter-energy being the bottom line, things get out of hand.

Maybe this is posted in the wrong place, but I would like to know how it is that people can relate to the world as an outsider (by demanding physical evidence to the exclusion of their inner life) and still call themselves "realistic."

 

[Willamena]

I first became aware of my awareness expanding when I began to see patterns and make correlations that years ago I would have called "nonsense" or "coincidence."

No argument there.

I do, however, find myself in opposition to many of your other ideas.

 

[Fluffy]

FYI, every time I've posted the logical dilemma of unconsciousness matter-energy being the bottom line, things get out of hand.

That would probably be the point where my brain would stop understanding the sentences and I'd get confused and go away.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

 

[Fluffy]

I forgot about that! MERRY XMAS to you too

 

[Willamena]

Merry Christmas!

 

[Autodidact]

Show me someone who asserts that they make their life’s decisions based on evidence, or whose every discounting, cynical and intellectualizing argument includes “show me the evidence,” and I’ll show you someone who has never really considered what kind of “evidence” they are looking for: consensus. Truth-seeking is not an undertaking for cowards: it requires courage to invade new levels of experience and to attempt the exploration of unknown realms of intellectual and living. By limiting their life’s decisions to the “evidence” at hand, people build a cage around themselves that prevents them from exploring new avenues of thought.

Rationalism has gone bankrupt when it persists, in the face of each recurring phenomenon, in making its objections by referring what is admittedly higher back into that which is admittedly lower because the “evidence” for a purposeful Creator is scant. Consistency requires that it not discount religious experience on grounds of credulity while it persists in the assumption that man’s intellectual and philosophic endowments emerged from something that is utterly devoid of all thinking and feeling. “Intelligent men should cease to reason like children and should attempt to use the consistent logic of adulthood, logic which tolerates the concept of truth alongside the observation of fact.” They should be mature enough to acknowledge that not everything in life is reasonable, logical or empirical. The incessant demand for “evidence” at the expense of the inner life is also a demand to be an outcast in the universe, for reality doesn’t end where the skin begins.

Evidence may not be all that, but it beats the heck out of making stuff up.

 

[Willamena]

Evidence may not be all that, but it beats the heck out of making stuff up.

Philosophy does, too.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Evidence may not be all that, but it beats the heck out of making stuff up.

No matter what form it takes, religion is the intuitive discernment of the Infinite. It seems to me the incessant demand for “evidence” for something that, by definition, is infinite, shows an inability to intuit the presence of something which, by virtue of it being infinite, more than a “thing.”

Some years ago biorhythms were all the rage: you could go to any store and buy a book that charted good and bad days. I was interested, but basically thought it was a bunch of hooey. Now, years later, I’ve monitored the inner workings of my life to know that while the charts and graphs were a great way for people to make money, life does move to a rhythm that no clock can accommodate. There is absolutely no way to provide evidence that I am aware of non-physical forces at work. A light touch on the skin is more subtle than a punch in the face, but that doesn’t mean the former is “supernatural.” A black eye is evidence that someone punched me in the face, but how can I show that I was lightly touched?

I know that many religionists believe in God in a way that makes their religion vulnerable to criticism, and most of those believe as they do because it was something passed down to them rather than something experienced. Nevertheless, there are those that, while operating from obsolete ideas, genuinely intuit the presence of something working through them. Their concept of God may be underdeveloped and critics have every right to question the concept of God they employed, but there is no reason to ask for evidence because no evidence is possible other than the life of the religionist.

 

[Popeyesays]

To me the "evidence" is obvious. I pick up a stone and its very existence is evidence of Creation. It is a token of God. I am a token of God. The tree in my front yard is a token of God. The dirt under my feet is evidence as is the gravity which presses me to that dirt.

The stars in the night sky and the course and track they follow through the firmament is evidence of God.

That such is NOT evidence to others is immaterial to my perception.

Regards,
Scott