God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[jeremyp]

Fair enough! But how to detect phenomena that is not directly detectable by our senses or our instruments?

Don't you know?

Well, of course, first you have to detect the phenomenon indirectly, otherwise howe would we know there is something there to be detected? Then we have to speculate about the nature of the phenomenon and how it might be directly detected. Then we build the machine to do the detecting. If it works: excellent. If it doesn't work, back to the drawing board, but at least we can eliminate one possibility of the nature of the phenomenon.

This is how it's been done since at least the Age of Enlightenment. We've become remarkably good at it.

Subjective experiences are one way. That is where spiritual experiences come in.

Nobody denies that people have spiritual experience. It's just that the people who claim they are anything other than psychological phenomena never come up with ways of showing that they might be right.

[Sriram]

Don't you know?

Well, of course, first you have to detect the phenomenon indirectly, otherwise howe would we know there is something there to be detected? Then we have to speculate about the nature of the phenomenon and how it might be directly detected. Then we build the machine to do the detecting. If it works: excellent. If it doesn't work, back to the drawing board, but at least we can eliminate one possibility of the nature of the phenomenon.

This is how it's been done since at least the Age of Enlightenment. We've become remarkably good at it.
Nobody denies that people have spiritual experience. It's just that the people who claim they are anything other than psychological phenomena never come up with ways of showing that they might be right.

How can they prove that they are right when we are agreed that the phenomenon cannot be detected by the senses or by instruments? 

The experience itself is the proof especially when it can be experienced by many others across the world using specific techniques and methods.

[Stranger]

The experience itself is the proof especially when it can be experienced by many others across the world using specific techniques and methods.

  Proof that certain techniques and methods produce certain subjective experiences, nothing more. There is no evidence of any 'detection' going on just because of similar experiences.

[Sriram]

That is all that is possible given the situation...I guess.  People who follow the methods have the experiences and others don't, that is it!  No objective 'proof' is possible nor necessary.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

That is all that is possible given the situation...I guess.  People who follow the methods have the experiences and others don't, that is it!  No objective 'proof' is possible nor necessary.

These “experiences” are opinions (that’s what the “subjective” part means), and there as many of those as there are people to have them. People then filter their experiences through whatever cultural narratives are most proximate to them. That’s why the ancient Romans “experienced” the Roman gods, Christians “experience” Jesus etc. Which is all fine and dandy so far as it goes, but if you also want to claim any of these experiences also to be objectively true then “proof” (ie, evidence) is very much necessary.       

And that’s your problem.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sriram,

These “experiences” are opinions (that’s what the “subjective” part means), and there as many of those as there are people to have them. People then filter their experiences through whatever cultural narratives are most proximate to them. That’s why the ancient Romans “experienced” the Roman gods, Christians “experience” Jesus etc. Which is all fine and dandy so far as it goes, but if you also want to claim any of these experiences also to be objectively true then “proof” (ie, evidence) is very much necessary.       

And that’s your problem.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sriram,

These “experiences” are opinions (that’s what the “subjective” part means), and there as many of those as there are people to have them. People then filter their experiences through whatever cultural narratives are most proximate to them. That’s why the ancient Romans “experienced” the Roman gods, Christians “experience” Jesus etc. Which is all fine and dandy so far as it goes, but if you also want to claim any of these experiences also to be objectively true then “proof” (ie, evidence) is very much necessary.       

And that’s your problem.

Is this your own work?

[Sriram]

Sriram,

These “experiences” are opinions (that’s what the “subjective” part means), and there as many of those as there are people to have them. People then filter their experiences through whatever cultural narratives are most proximate to them. That’s why the ancient Romans “experienced” the Roman gods, Christians “experience” Jesus etc. Which is all fine and dandy so far as it goes, but if you also want to claim any of these experiences also to be objectively true then “proof” (ie, evidence) is very much necessary.       

And that’s your problem.

People don't experience Roman gods or the Christian God. People just have spiritual experiences which they interpret according to their cultural teachings.

The experiences are common...which is the point I am making. Interpretations and images could be different....similar to NDE's.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

People don't experience Roman gods or the Christian God. People just have spiritual experiences which they interpret according to their cultural teachings.

Yes to having no grounds to justify the claims of actually experiencing gods etc, but “spiritual experiences” is overreaching. You have all our work ahead of you to get from “feeling emotionally overwhelmed from time-to-time” or similar to “spiritual experience”. You might want to start with a definition of “spiritual”.   

The experiences are common...

Feeling emotionally overwhelmed one day might be a “common” experience, but that’s all.

…which is the point I am making. Interpretations and images could be different

“Interpretations and images” are culturally determined, which is the point I was making. That’s why previously undiscovered Amazonian tribespeople don't report “encounters” with Jesus, and Christians don't report encounters with Amazonian tree spirits. 

....similar to NDE's.

NDAs are bollocks for the reasons that have been explained to you many times here already. A near death experience tells you no more about actual death than sex tells you about actual child birth. They're qualitatively different categories of being.   

[Dicky Underpants]

So all the sightings of God in the Old Testament were lies then?

Seems like he's not answering that, Jeremy. One text from the NT outdoes anything in the OT, including Isaiah's vision in chapter 6*, apparently. As I said, he seems to be an absolute Marcionite. He of course can be what the fuck he likes, but I'd like to see some consistency in his thinking.

*Just to remind you, Vlad, here is the relevant scripture:

In the year that King Uzziah died, I SAW the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. 3 And they were calling to one another:

“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
    the whole earth is full of his glory.”

[Dicky Underpants]

Since God cannot be empirically detected those who detected the divine did so by some other ability. These were not Christians(how could they be) but some became Christians subsequently

You have decided, on your understanding of god which you wish to foist on us, that this god cannot be detected by the ordinary senses, despite all the assertions in the OT, that people did indeed see 'him'. This is just playing with words. At the Transfiguration, was Jesus empirically detected, or was he by this time only half spiritual, but with just enough of the material to allow him to be seen? And when he appeared to Mary Magdalen, was he still in a halfway house situation? This sounds like a reductio ad absurdum summary, by it does highlight the ultimate absurdity of your own initial speculations, which are only based on a faith position from the first - and the contradictions in that are only too apparent, as many here have pointed out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have decided, on your understanding of god which you wish to foist on us,

No, I'm just saying what my understanding of God is.
As an agnostic atheist, In any discussion with a theist I would often jump to the time honoured accusation that they were "ramming it down my throat". I conclude now that I was being irrationally defensive against God himself. Have you considered that possibility?

The Bible is repleat with references to God's empirical invisibility.
The trouble of course is fallaciously equating empirical susceptibility with actual existence/ reality. Fallacious because of the circularity of the argument "Only things which can be empirically detected exist because they are the only things which can be empirically detected". There is the added problem that that is itself a concept and not a thing which can be empirically detected.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, I'm just saying what my understanding of God is.

“Beliefs about”, not “understanding of”. The latter implies an epistemic certainty that you've yet to justify. 

As an agnostic atheist, In any discussion with a theist I would often jump to the time honoured accusation that they were "ramming it down my throat". I conclude now that I was being irrationally defensive against God himself. Have you considered that possibility?

As an agnostic a-leprechaunist, in any discussion with a leprechaunist I would often jump to the time-honoured accusation that they were "ramming it down my throat". I conclude now that I was being irrationally defensive against leprechauns themselves. Have you considered that possibility?

What would be the point of “considering a possibility” when there’s nothing to suggest it might be any more than that?

The Bible is repleat with references to God's empirical invisibility.

It’s “replete”, and the Harry Potter books are replete with characters flying around on broomsticks too. So?

The trouble of course is fallaciously equating empirical susceptibility with actual existence/ reality.

Straw man. Do you know of anyone who actually does that?

Fallacious because of the circularity of the argument "Only things which can be empirically detected exist because they are the only things which can be empirically detected". There is the added problem that that is itself a concept and not a thing which can be empirically detected.

Which is not an argument anyone either you or I know of actually makes, so why bother with the straw man?

Oh, and the actual fallacy here is your shifting of the burden of proof. If you want to claim that something exists, then it’s your job to justify your claim. Complaining that the supposed object isn’t amenable to empirical detection and that that’s a problem for empiricism is either idiotic or dishonest, or both.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

“Beliefs about”, not “understanding of”. The latter implies an epistemic certainty that you've yet to justify.

But cannot there be epistemic certainty AND the justification of epistemic certainty?

As an agnostic a-leprechaunist,

As an agnostic a - leprechaunist any claim that anybody is ramming anything "Leprechaun" down your throat sounds complete shite. Moreover, since you are the chief mentioner of Leprechauns around here, it's just another instance of your talent for projection. Some call that a gift, others, a character flaw.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But cannot there be epistemic certainty AND the justification of epistemic certainty?

Yes, but you’ve never yet been able to provide any of the latter. That’s your problem.

As an agnostic a - leprechaunist any claim that anybody is ramming anything "Leprechaun" down your throat sounds complete shite.

You never have grasped how analogies work have you. It’s not for lack of explaining it to you though is it. Ah well. 

Moreover, since you are the chief mentioner of Leprechauns around here, it's just another instance of your talent for projection. Some call that a gift, others, a character flaw.

No, it’s a “talent” for explaining to you that your attempts at reasoning are “shite” when they apply equally to leprechauns.

Oh, and I see you’ve just run away from my explaining your efforts at a straw man and the shifting of the burden of proof fallacies. ‘twas ever thus I guess. 

[jeremyp]

How can they prove that they are right when we are agreed that the phenomenon cannot be detected by the senses or by instruments?

If you can't detect a phenomenon, you can't possibly know if it exists. 

The experience itself is the proof especially when it can be experienced by many others across the world using specific techniques and methods.

No. The experience is only proof that you had an experience. It doesn't mean it was caused by something outside of your own mind. You need an objective test to do that.

[Outrider]

How can they prove that they are right when we are agreed that the phenomenon cannot be detected by the senses or by instruments?

If something can't be detected, in what way is it a phenomenon? It's at best a rumour... 

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you can't detect a phenomenon, you can't possibly know if it exists.  No. The experience is only proof that you had an experience. It doesn't mean it was caused by something outside of your own mind. You need an objective test to do that.

But Jeremy this post is merely about your belief which is rooted in empiricism which is based on circular argument and does not itself have the empirical evidence it says is needed to validate itself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But Jeremy this post is merely about your belief which is rooted in empiricism which is based on circular argument and does not itself have the empirical evidence it says is needed to validate itself.

Utter bollocks. It’s only “rooted” the reasoning that, if you think empiricism isn’t up to the job of validating your claim of an objective truth (gods, leprechauns, whatever) then it’s your job to find another method that is. Repeatedly straw manning empiricism instead isn’t helping you here.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Utter bollocks. It’s only “rooted” the reasoning that, if you think empiricism isn’t up to the job of validating your claim of an objective truth (gods, leprechauns, whatever) then it’s your job to find another method that is. Repeatedly straw manning empiricism instead isn’t helping you here.   

Stop turdpolishing.
Empiricism is based on a circular argument and does not have the requisite empirical evidence it requires to support itself. Further empirical detection does not necessarily equate to knowledge since instruments detect but know nothing.

Is experience, opinion?.......Don't think so.

[jeremyp]

But Jeremy this post is merely about your belief which is rooted in empiricism which is based on circular argument and does not itself have the empirical evidence it says is needed to validate itself.

No it isn't. It's a statement of fact. You may not like it, but it is trivially true.

[jeremyp]

Stop turdpolishing.
Empiricism is based on a circular argument and does not have the requisite empirical evidence it requires to support itself. Further empirical detection does not necessarily equate to knowledge since instruments detect but know nothing.

Is experience, opinion?.......Don't think so.

OK. You tell us how you can know something is real without being able to detect it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Stop turdpolishing.

Falsifying your lousy reasoning isn’t “turdpolishing”.

Empiricism is based on a circular argument…

No it isn’t. Your straw man version of it may be, but empiricism itself isn’t.

…and does not have the requisite empirical evidence it requires to support itself.

Yes it has. Try jumping out of a window to test my claim that you’ll hit the deck shortly afterwards against your claim that an angel will float you gently to the ground if you don’t believe me. That’s empiricism.   

Further empirical detection does not necessarily equate to knowledge since instruments detect but know nothing.

Stop evading. If you think there’s a god and you give this god the characteristic of being beyond the scope of empiricism to detect, that’s not a problem for empiricism. It’s a problem for your claim and, until and unless you can come up with another method to distinguish your claim from just guessing, then guessing is all you have. Try to remember this.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK. You tell us how you can know something is real without being able to detect it.

With your innate God detector of course.
Of course, You don't have to know how your sense of smell works to smell.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

With your innate God detector of course.

Oh of course - “innate God detector” eh? Riiiiggghhhttt… (backs away slowly, making sure to remove any sharp objects along the way etc).

So that would differ from my innate leprechaun detector how exactly?

Of course, You don't have to know how your sense of smell works to smell.

Of course we do though know how the sense of smell works…

… so how does this “innate God detector” thingy of your work then? Does it work only for one or for several gods? Which ones and why? Does it show up in MRI scans? How would you know even if you could demonstrate such a thing when it is and isn’t accurate? What if I think I've "detected" leprechauns too?

Do tell!