E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
I'm with NS in that I buy into the concept of not really knowing anything.Increasingly I think that what God boils down to is not a thing, but a feeling.
Oh and just to add, saying that we are forced to assume an external reality, is using experience as a method.
And surely any measurements of being wet etc are perceptions. What happens if you have lots of people they agree with you that you are swimming, and that by their measurement you are wet? Besides we are talking about the use of language here not just science, and I use language to talk about facts in not solely a scientific way. I accept the existence of other people as sentient beings but without the assumption of breaking hard solipsism it isn't an objective fact. Indeed even with scientific facts they exist only with a subjective assumption of an axiom.
I suggest you take that up with Hope who disagrees.
I know from long experience that slamming my fingers repeatedly in my patio doors would be more productive and less painful.
No you are wrong, wet in this sense refers to moisture content. That is objective and not subject to opinion. You could drop someone into the Pacific ocean and they could say it's not wet as much as they like but they would be wrong. Otherwise language means nothing.You can push the hard solipsism line as much as you like but all you do is close down debate as we can know nothing. Not that Hard solipsism might not be true. I have never said we can't be wrong.
Fair enough.Don't get me wrong here. It is Hope that claims there is a way of verifying the supernatural. There seem to be (at least) three possibilities.1) Hard solipsism is true. (Don't know anyone who proceeds down this route)Well this all pointless.2) Material things exist / there is an external reality. (atheists and theist seem to agree).We can tell the likely true form the likely untrue via established methods.3) Material and supernatural things exist. (Seems the realm of theists)We can tell the likely true for the likely true via.......I would also like to add a not on experience.Of course experience (data about reality modelled in the brain) can be useful. I am considered an expert in my (limited) field of science. I am often asked to recommend ways forwards in the area. Is my experience 100% predictive? No
And all perception, method is experienced. The question raised by hard solipsism isn't about it being true but the issues it causes for claims to objectivity. You seem to be going down a route which assumes the basis of knowledge rather than justifies it. And again note this isn't about a position that makes any such assumption rather an acceptance of the limit of that knowledge. None of this is seeking to justify Hope's claims, just expanding the discussion to try and see what others mean when they say their god is a fact to them.
Actually I think we probably agree on things. I am interested in how we experience / describe things differently. Hence the reason I asked the question the Brownie.Hopefully she will engage and an interesting discussion will proceed.I notice that you suggest (in a previous message) that I might be trying to limit discussion. This is not intentional.Perhaps you could help mediate such a discussion?
I know that you are interested, Stephen, but you and others seem to want to limit the verification system to the physical alone.
And since I haven't said solipsism is my position, perhaps you should stick to just reading the posts in that thread.
I'm sure we probably do agree substantially, and I am also sure that you do not intend to shut down discussion I raised the question of hard solipsism because it seems to me that people use the whole 'god is a fact' to me in entirely different ways. Reading Brownie, it seems to me her statement is about experience, not a claim about methodology. There are many who, I think, dress claims up with the caveat that things are 'True for them'. This seems just an acceptance of the difficulty in establishing something while still giving it that patina of 'truth'.
If god and Jesus want us to believe they actually exist, why is there no verifiable evidence to support that scenario? Making their existence merely a matter of faith is crazy in the extreme, and cruel if lack of faith has consequences! So many dogmas, doctrines and sects have sprung up attributed to Christianity, some more bonkers than others. People make assertions about what god and Jesus are thinking, when the truth of the matter is they can have no idea, lacking any evidence to back up their claims.The most credible explanation is that god has never existed in reality, but was created by humans, and is continuously reinvented by those with vivid imaginations. As for Jesus, who supposedly popped up to heaven after his resurrection and has stayed out of sight ever since, it is much more likely when he was executed he stayed dead! The guy's death was very unpleasant if he was crucified, but he was a bit of a WUM, where the religious mafia of the day were concerned. It is strange his family didn't seem to rate him much according to the gospel of St John. So why would a 'loving' god not ensure that no one had any doubt that it existed?
Lots of talk about evidence here.What about the evidence that those executed in Salem, Massachusetts were real witches practising real magic?Altogether, 19 people were executed. The governor of Massachusetts (William Phips) was involved. A court was established with prosecutors, defenders and judges all respected pillars of the local communities.Thorough investigations were carried out and witness were cross-examined. A lot of evidence was gathered and many people confessed. All these proceedings were documented with sworn affidavits, interviews and other court documents. The Salem Witch Trials were fairly recent and we have the original documents, not copies of copies made centuries later. We have the sworn and signed eye-witness testimonies from the very people who observed the magical events taking place.There are even volumes written by witnesses to the trial. The evidence and testimonies are plentiful and are far in excess of any supporting evidence there is for Jesus.If we look at what happened in Salem the same way that we look at what happened in Jerusalem, how can those people not have been witches? How can they not have been flying through the night sky on their broomsticks and carrying out acts of magic?
This is a lie. Stephen and others - including me - only want to limit the verification system to that which can be verified. The clue is in the thread title.
But only using the definition of 'verified' that you are happy with. That is where the discussion flls down because you assumme that the only way something can be verified in by a naturalistic method
- whereas we verify a number of elements in our lives by other means. For instance, when you fall in love, do you go though a raft of naturalistic tests to check whether this is love, as opposed to merely lust or desire?
Do you refuse to acknowledge it until you have chemical tests on your bodily fluids to confirm that the right exzymes and markers that indicate 'love' are present? I doubt whether any of us do that - we simply take the experience and run with it.
But only using the definition of 'verified' that you are happy with. That is where the discussion flls down because you assumme that the only way something can be verified in by a naturalistic method - whereas we verify a number of elements in our lives by other means. For instance, when you fall in love, do you go though a raft of naturalistic tests to check whether this is love, as opposed to merely lust or desire? Do you refuse to acknowledge it until you have chemical tests on your bodily fluids to confirm that the right exzymes and markers that indicate 'love' are present? I doubt whether any of us do that - we simply take the experience and run with it.
whereas we verify a number of elements in our lives by other means. For instance, when you fall in love, do you go though a raft of naturalistic tests to check whether this is love, as opposed to merely lust or desire?
Whether you are in love or not is subjective. If you are claiming that a god is objectively real, you need an objective verification method.
This is really simple: how can we objectively test whether there is a god or not ...
... and, if there is, which of the many on offer is the real one...?
It doesn't have to be 'naturalistic' (whatever that even means) - just objective.
No I don't, but I've never attempted to verify objectively that anybody is in love. I can tell you that I am in love with person X, but if you asked me to verify it objectively, I couldn't.
