I can not see it, so it does not exist

[night912]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claim of the existence of Amanaki is not extraordinary, but the claim of Loki or Krishna, is.

Here's the extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here's the extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim.

...

So basically you are making an appeal to emotion in the form of a joke.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The statement in the headline is not from me
But I got me thinking, does a thing, a being, a place not exist just because we can not see it?

Some examples.

God can not exist, I have never seen him/her/ it
Ghosts does not exist, I never seen proof of them ( that I accept)
Spiritual beings can not exist, science has not proven it.

Question: who do you think is making these sorts of arguments?

Amanaki asks : Do I not exist because you have not seen me?

I have no idea if you exist or not.

I've run into enough cases where people online were made-up personas that I don't generally assume that people I "meet" online are real. Do you?

 

[Stevicus]

The statement in the headline is not from me
But I got me thinking, does a thing, a being, a place not exist just because we can not see it?

Some examples.

God can not exist, I have never seen him/her/ it
Ghosts does not exist, I never seen proof of them ( that I accept)
Spiritual beings can not exist, science has not proven it.


Amanaki asks : Do I not exist because you have not seen me?

Well, obviously, someone under the user name "Amanaki" is posting here, so whoever that might be, that person exists. I don't have to see you personally; just your posts.

 

[night912]

Amanaki asks : Do I not exist because you have not seen me?

You do exist because I am able to see you.

You are Amanaki, and you look like this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree i could put the " i dont know" but it's not often to hear non believers say i dont know. Often they are sure notting vanlige exist if they can not see it's, or touch it

Is it that they don't believe in anything that they can't see? I've never met a non-believer who thinks that, say, electrons or gravity don't exist.

Is it more that they just don't accept crappy claims?

Something makes me curious, though:

It seems to me that the thing you're objecting to is when people take an absence of evidence as evidence of absence... right?

... but this still means you're conceding that there's an absence of evidence. So why do you believe these claims, then?

I mean, in this post above, you said that the reasonable position would be "I don't know..." so why do you claim to know?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it that they don't believe in anything that they can't see? I've never met a non-believer who thinks that, say, electrons or gravity don't exist.

Is it more that they just don't accept crappy claims?

Something makes me curious, though:

It seems to me that the thing you're objecting to is when people take an absence of evidence as evidence of absence... right?

... but this still means you're conceding that there's an absence of evidence. So why do you believe these claims, then?

I mean, in this post above, you said that the reasonable position would be "I don't know..." so why do you claim to know?

Well, I can do, I don't know for everything using standard Western philosophical skepticism, but I got tired of that and figured out that beliefs work better that just doubting everything.
So in practice that I know, is just a strongly held belief, what appears to work based on the conditions I set for what works means to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, I can do, I don't know for everything using standard Western philosophical skepticism, but I got tired of that and figured out that beliefs work better that just doubting everything.
So in practice that I know, is just a strongly held belief, what appears to work based on the conditions I set for what works means to me.

Seems like you're also conceding that your claims aren't supported by evidence, but you feel justified in believing them because acting as if they're true hasn't resulted in any problems.

Do I understand you correctly?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Seems like you're also conceding that your claims aren't supported by evidence, but you feel justified in believing them because acting as if they're true hasn't resulted in any problems.

Do I understand you correctly?

Yes. In a sense it is truth as what works for me. Now we properly share some objective aspects of the everyday world, but even objectivity is limited.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The statement in the headline is not from me
But I got me thinking, does a thing, a being, a place not exist just because we can not see it?

Some examples.

God can not exist, I have never seen him/her/ it
Ghosts does not exist, I never seen proof of them ( that I accept)
Spiritual beings can not exist, science has not proven it.


Amanaki asks : Do I not exist because you have not seen me?

It is most probable that you do, indeed exist, @Amanaki. I wouldn't say I am 100% sure, because I have not seen a sufficient demonstration of your existence, however all evidence I am aware of on the topic would indicate that you do. Let's take a look at that evidence:

1. You make posts to an internet forum. In the end, this has to be getting done by something/someone.
2. The most likely candidate to blame your posts on is a human being - and this because your posts contain a certain amount of human fallibility. Some slight grammar issues, spelling errors at times, and relaying of opinions (and strong categorizations of the same opinions) time and time again.
3. You have also many times admitted fallibility, and that you aren't sure of yourself - these are all things I wouldn't necessarily expect from a machine or "bot" unless it was explicitly programmed to do so.
4. A bot programmed to "be Amanaki" on an internet forum, and be convincing to the degree that you are convincing as a human being, would take quite an effort from a programmer, and such an effort would not, at all, be worth it for the amount of "return" your interaction might generate on this site. It would take an insane genius to program a bot to be what I have seen behave as "Amanaki" - one who did not care about getting any sort of pay-back for all his/her effort put into creating a convincing "Amanaki."

And here is the most important point: in the end, it doesn't matter too very much to the content and continuance of my life if what I know as "Amanaki" doesn't actually exist. I can confidently continue in my normal activities unabated if it turned out you were a bot or not actually out there somewhere. However, to find out that God were real, and that He was out there, thinking on the merits of my existence, and having to accept that there were any sort of consequences to be had based on my actions here as compared to His arbitrary judgments and expectations - well, that's a lot closer to the side of "life-changing." I can believe in "Amanaki" on what might be deemed insufficient evidence without having to worry about it too much - it doesn't affect much, so I am willing to believe easily. With the weight that "God" might carry in my life, it is going to require FAR BETTER EVIDENCE before I will accept the proposition. It's like the difference between someone telling you they own a particular breed of dog, even though you haven't seen it, and someone telling you that you should sell all your possessions and follow them into the mountains because it is the only way to survive the coming apocalypse. Do you see the difference between those two claims (red vs. blue)?

And lastly, take a look at the evidence points I made above and tell me how you can possibly compare that caliber of evidence to that which has been produced for the existence of "God." In other words - the evidence for the existence of "Amanaki" that I have seen over the past several months is millions of times more compelling than any evidence that has been provided for the existence of God in the whole history of humanity.

 

[Thief]

The statement in the headline is not from me
But I got me thinking, does a thing, a being, a place not exist just because we can not see it?

Some examples.

God can not exist, I have never seen him/her/ it
Ghosts does not exist, I never seen proof of them ( that I accept)
Spiritual beings can not exist, science has not proven it.


Amanaki asks : Do I not exist because you have not seen me?

Covid does not exist

the effect exists
but there is confusion over the symptoms
and whether or not the test is accurate

no real proof

can't see it

 

[MJ Bailey]

Here's some food for thought on the subject; who can say that something or someone does not exist? We "exist" in an extremely vast Universe, therefor just because someone or something does not exist within your own existence does not mean necessarily it doesn't exist. The sun, moon, and stars exist, but personally I will not deny their existence just because I haven't tangibly touched their existence beyond one sense.

 

[rational experiences]

Sometimes I have not seen things, but felt them by sensory perception. Some times I have been physically touched or physically changed by the presence of spirit. Some times when I was very quiet and most peaceful I got to see spirit in my psyche/mind/vision, the only place of sight that I own that is not the same sight as my eyesight.

When I was attacked, I saw how the evil spirit visions emerged out of black wispy or brown wispy smoke, like watching t.v. Why I believe what I have never at times seen.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. In a sense it is truth as what works for me. Now we properly share some objective aspects of the everyday world, but even objectivity is limited.

Okay. I just wanted to clarify because these sorts of discussions often get muddled.

I wanted to confirm that the question of this thread is "what's the proper approach when a claim isn't supported by evidence?" and not "why won't those skeptics accept the evidence I claim to have?"

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Note: I do not bash non believers in this tread. I trying find answer to how someone can refute so hard that something they have not seen, or gotten proof of can not exist.

It is super, super easy, and I guarantee there are areas in your life where you do the same thing.

Let's say a police officer is asking to enter your home to search it for clues pertaining to a recent murder. Might you ask to see his credentials first, or a warrant for the search? I would do this. What if HE COULDN'T PROVIDE YOU THESE DOCUMENTS? Would you believe him anyway? What if, when you asked him for such evidence of his authority, he simply said "Well, you cannot prove that I am not a police officer, so I obviously am such an officer."? That's what you're asking a non-believer to do - believe even though you haven't produced any credentials and indeed, cannot.

In the analogous case I present above, the person claiming to be a police officer with warrant to enter and search your home is the one who should provide evidence that he is an authorized authority. It is not my job to prove he isn't a cop. But, by your logic, if I can't prove that he isn't then he should automatically get a free pass to enter my home and search it. That's ridiculous.

 

[Spirit of Light]

In what sense?

That there should not be discrimination of religious for believing in a God just as those who believe in science should not be discriminated by believers. Both are belief.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That there should not be discrimination of religious for believing in a God just as those who believe in science should not be discriminated by believers. Both are belief.

Here we are again, though, at the point where (I believe) criticism, questioning and scrutiny is being labeled as "discrimination." if you can't produce the goods, then you can't produce the goods - end of story. Just own up to it, admit it, and move on. Trying to convince others of something outlandish without evidence is a fool's errand - which is why you're going to be asked questions, you are going to find your beliefs scrutinized, and I admit that that can be an uncomfortable process - it is not, necessarily, discrimination however. Discrimination would be if I offered everyone in the room a cookie, but when I got to you I told you that you couldn't have a cookie based on what religion you follow. Something like that. NOT you being asked a question, and when you find you are unable to answer, you get upset and feel confused. That is NOT discrimination AT ALL.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It is super, super easy, and I guarantee there are areas in your life where you do the same thing.

Let's say a police officer is asking to enter your home to search it for clues pertaining to a recent murder. Might you ask to see his credentials first, or a warrant for the search? I would do this. What if HE COULDN'T PROVIDE YOU THESE DOCUMENTS? Would you believe him anyway? What if, when you asked him for such evidence of his authority, he simply said "Well, you cannot prove that I am not a police officer, so I obviously am such an officer."? That's what you're asking a non-believer to do - believe even though you haven't produced any credentials and indeed, cannot.

In the analogous case I present above, the person claiming to be a police officer with warrant to enter and search your home is the one who should provide evidence that he is an authorized authority. It is not my job to prove he isn't a cop. But, by your logic, if I can't prove that he isn't then he should automatically get a free pass to enter my home and search it. That's ridiculous.

His paper could be fake too, so it's not a proof, but I have faith the policeman is who he say he is. So I let him in. Belief and spirituality start with faith, then develop to wisdom

 

[Spirit of Light]

Here we are again, though, at the point where (I believe) criticism, questioning and scrutiny is being labeled as "discrimination." if you can't produce the goods, then you can't produce the goods - end of story. Just own up to it, admit it, and move on. Trying to convince others of something outlandish without evidence is a fool's errand - which is why you're going to be asked questions, you are going to find your beliefs scrutinized, and I admit that that can be an uncomfortable process - it is not, necessarily, discrimination however. Discrimination would be if I offered everyone in the room a cookie, but when I got to you I told you that you couldn't have a cookie based on what religion you follow. Something like that. NOT you being asked a question, and when you find you are unable to answer, you get upset and feel confused. That is NOT discrimination AT ALL.

You do realize that a spiritual practice is a personal practice? I don't have to prove to anybody only have trust in the teaching and teacher, other people can say what they want.
A spiritual person up on their own experience, physical worldly proof isn't what we seek. Those who doubt will seek physical proof yes.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

His paper could be fake too, so it's not a proof, but I have faith the policeman is who he say he is. So I let him in. Belief and spirituality start with faith, then develop to wisdom

But again, what if he specifically said (sort of as you have regarding God) "YOU can't prove I am not a police officer, so let me in!" Would that not make you VERY SUSPICIOUS? I would be extremely suspicious with a statement like that made. And so it is with believers who ultimately end up saying "You can't prove God doesn't exist" in response to lines of questioning. It's a red flag that what you're listening to is completely unfounded.