I can not see it, so it does not exist

[A Vestigial Mote]

You do realize that a spiritual practice is a personal practice?

Then why are you so worried about what nonbelievers think?

 

[Revoltingest]

Many things exist that I cannot see or otherwise somehow verify.
But the usual issue is whether to claim that such things exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?"

The proper approach is a question of in the end a sort of morality; i.e what we claim knowledge, how ought we treat knowledge as a methodology. Or in other words knowledge is prescriptive on one sense.

Well, I get those skeptics. I used to be one. So in short evidence as science works in practice, but it is limited.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

The problem is when the skeptics try to switch to useful and morality or even metaphysics.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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.

You making it so difficult for you self with all this doubt you carry
I believe Gods and Buddhas exist, you do not. It really does not matter to the other what we believe our not. It is and still will be a personal belief or disbelief.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You making it so difficult for you self with all this doubt you carry
I believe Gods and Buddhas exist, you do not. It really does not matter to the other what we believe our not. It is and still will be a personal belief or disbelief.

Believe me... my doubt in this area is, hands down, the easiest thing in my life to maintain. You have no idea, I am sure.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Then why are you so worried about what nonbelievers think?

I am not worried at all, I just hope that non believers will accept that some people believe without the physical "evidence" non believers claim must be there to believe something.
Spiritual practice arise from within us, not from the physical world

 

[ppp]

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.

I am unjustified in believing that any gods exists until that existence has been demonstrated.
I am unjustified in believing that ghosts exists until that existence has been demonstrated.
I am unjustified in believing that Spiritual beings exists until that existence has been demonstrated.

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

No. But I am not justified in believing that you exist until I have sufficient evidence of your existence. Sight is just one form of evidence.

Since I was a kid I have wondered why people have such a hard time comprehending the difference between not believing in the existence of X and believing that X does not exist.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem is when the skeptics try to switch to useful and morality or even metaphysics.

No problem at all.
We just don't claim that morality is "true". It originates
in the person, not from the universe. This is supported
by the fact that those claiming truth cannot agree, & also
by their having irreconcilably different sources.

My morality is simply what I hold to be moral.
It's neither right nor wrong.

As for @Amanaki....
His posting here is evidence of his existence. But this
is not proof that he exists as a person. He could be a
simulated person.

 

[George-ananda]

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?

The physical senses are only designed to give us information about the physical three-dimensional plane. God and spirits are posited to be outside that range. In fact science tells us 95% of the matter in the universe is outside the range of our physical senses (so-called Dark Matter).

 

[ppp]

No problem at all.
We just don't claim that morality is "true". It originates
in the person, not from the universe. This is supported
by the fact that those claiming truth cannot agree, & also
by their having irreconcilable different sources.

My morality is simply what I hold to be moral.
It's neither right nor wrong.

As for @Amanaki....
His posting here is evidence of his existence. But this
is not proof that he exists as a person. He could be a
simulated person.

There are various scientific disciplines who make an objective study of morality. Ethologist seem to have standardized metrics for studying and quantifying morality in social animals. Do you think they are not legitimate?

 

[Revoltingest]

There are various scientific disciplines who make an objective study of morality. Ethologist seem to have standardized metrics for studying and quantifying morality in social animals. Do you think they are not legitimate?

It's a perfectly cromulent field of study.
But all these moralities will vary between individuals, groups, &
species. Thus no one morality is the singularly "true" morality.
Were something to be held as "true", then it should be derived from
inerrant absolutely true premises. What are those premises?
What makes them "true" for all species in all locations for all time,
as opposed to just currently commonly desired by us?

 

[Aith Thoth Aten]

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?

 

[Aith Thoth Aten]

The greatest superstition of this modern age is that G-d and gods and goddesses and ghosts and guardians (and demons and angels and djinn, etc.) do not exist.

That we cannot express to our satisfaction in words or names what these fields of energy are does not deny their existence.

 

[ppp]

It's a perfectly cromulent field of study.
But all these moralities will vary between individuals, groups, &
species. Thus no one morality is the singularly "true" morality.
Were something to be held as "true", then it should be derived from
inerrant absolutely true premises. What are those premises?
What makes them "true" for all species in all locations for all time,
as opposed to just commonly desired by us?

I think that we have to differentiate between what morality is, and how we determine what actions are moral..

In ethology, morality is a measure of fairness, empathy, compassion, reciprocity and obligation in a given social species/group. . We all have those moral tendencies, just like we all have arms. These are facts of our biology. Correct?

I would go on to say that our respective moral tendencies will vary from person to person, just as our arms do. But even with that variation, we can determine whether or not you have an arm and whether or not your actions align with those moral tendencies. I will never mistake a cucumber protruding from your shoulder as being an arm. I will never mistake torture for fairness, empathy, compassion, reciprocity or obligation.

I will stop here and let you course correct.

 

[ppp]

The greatest superstition of this modern age is that G-d and gods and goddesses and ghosts and guardians (and demons and angels and djinn, etc.) do not exist.
.

How about unicorns, pixies, faeries, molemen, and gremlins? Is not believing that those things exist also part of "the greatest superstition of this modern age"?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that we have to differentiate between what morality is, and how we determine what actions are moral..

In ethology, morality is a measure of fairness, empathy, compassion, reciprocity and obligation in a given social species/group. . We all have those moral tendencies, just like we all have arms. These are facts of our biology. Correct?

It is a fact that people tend to share these traits.
But not all humans do. And degrees of it vary.

I would go on to say that our respective moral tendencies will vary from person to person, just as our arms do. But even with that variation, we can determine whether or not you have an arm and whether or not your actions align with those moral tendencies. I will never mistake a cucumber protruding from your shoulder as being an arm. I will never mistake torture for fairness, empathy, compassion, reciprocity or obligation.

I will stop here and let you course correct.

What's to correct?
Some moralities being commonly held doesn't make them
inerrant, universal, absolute, or "true". It is nothing more than
wide agreement in societies about what is moral. And these
societies don't always agree. A moral value such as "do not
murder" seems so obvious to us that some believe it to be
a universal truth. Yet others don't believe that, & will believe
just as fervently in their "truth".

 

[ppp]

Cucumbers & arms being objectively definable doesn't relate
to claims of "true" for all morality.

I guess this is where we diverge. I think that they do relate. That like an arm, morality for a given species has a definition with a variation tolerance. Things that fall outside of that tolerance are either unknown, amoral, or immoral. If u have a limb that is made of cells with cell walls then it is not an arm. If you take actions that do not take fairness, empathy, reciprocity, etc into account, then you are not acting morally.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess this is where we diverge. I think that they do relate. That like an arm, morality for a given species has a definition with a variation tolerance. Things that fall outside of that tolerance are either unknown, amoral, or immoral. If u have a limb that is made of cells with cell walls then it is not an arm. If you take actions that do not take fairness, empathy, reciprocity, etc into account, then you are not acting morally.

Are you saying that if a morality is common then it's "true"?
I've no objection to shared morality, but it all boils down to
the majority deciding to impose what it feels upon us all.
(Sometimes this feeling is based upon the Bible, sometimes
the Koran, & sometimes personal whim/preference.)
It's not true.
But it's useful.

Sometimes I'll go against the universal morality, eg,
military draft resistance. Sure, sure, the "social contract"
as accepted by the majority, & codified into law says
that I must submit to the state's will, & go kill the enemy.
But I reject government's & society's claim of such
great authority over me.
Society vs me....which of us is right, & which is wrong?
Neither. We simply disagree.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

Put differently, are your experiences or mine the only valid experiences?

I've never drunk acid and I've never seen anyone do so, either.

 

[ppp]

Are you saying that if a morality is common then it's "true"?
I've no objection to shared morality, but it all boils down to
the majority deciding to impose what it feels upon us all.
(Sometimes this feeling is based upon the Bible, sometimes
the Koran, & sometimes personal whim/preference.)
It's not true.
But it's useful.

Sometimes I'll go against the universal morality, eg,
military draft resistance. Sure, sure, the "social contract"
as accepted by the majority, & codified into law says
that I must submit to the state's will, & go kill the enemy.
But I reject government's & society's claim of such
great authority over me.
Society vs me....which of us is right, & which is wrong?
Neither. We simply disagree.

I don't think that moral tendencies are true or false. They simply are. Just like my arm. Its not true or false. It just is. They are features of my biology. When I my moral tendencies to guide my actions, I am acting morally. When I don't, I am not.

Now this only speaks to what morality is. It does not address the question, How do we determine what is fair, or what is compassionate. For that we need a goal. I am mostly in accord with the Moral Landscape in that the goal is the well-being of thinking beings.