Evidence (Creator, experience, atheist, verse)

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

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.

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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.

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

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]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

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]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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

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

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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.

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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?

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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.

Originally Posted by Willamena

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]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

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]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

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]