-->
@zedvictor4
Some might argue that spirituality is a state of mind rather than actual existence.
Some might argue that a fundamental difference between the two has yet to be substantiated.
What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?
Posts
Total:
436
If to exist is as I described, i.e. to have actual being whether material or spiritual, then "spiritually" would denote that which is wholly or partly not material.
How do we test for the existence of some "wholly or partly not material thing"? What does it mean to exist if you are not referring to material existence?
What even is spirit?Essence.
Ok please define essence.
If you believe that my argument meets the description of your assessment,
Well that is what I'm trying to fund out right now.
-->
@secularmerlin
How do we test for the existence of some "wholly or partly not material thing"?
Why does it need to be tested?
What does it mean to exist if you are not referring to material existence?
Make explicit the parameters of that which I've emboldened.
Ok please define essence.
The property without which one/it would lose its capacity to be identified as oneself/itself; an intrinsic quality that determines its fundamental character.
Well that is what I'm trying to fund out right now.
So you levied a bald assertion?
-->
@Athias
How do we test for the existence of some "wholly or partly not material thing"?Why does it need to be tested?
How else would we know it exists?
What does it mean to exist if you are not referring to material existence?Make explicit the parameters of that which I've emboldened.
Everything that I know of is a part of our local representation of space time (the observable physical universe) what do you mean by exist if you don't mean part of the observable universe?
Ok please define essence.The property without which one/it would lose its capacity to be identified as oneself/itself; an intrinsic quality that determines its fundamental character.
So just the actual thing itself? That just sounds like an ordinary physical object or energy wave. Unless you mean something else we fan dispense with the word spirit as being a useless term which does not differentiate between a material and non material thing.
Well that is what I'm trying to fund out right now.So you levied a bald assertion?
I made a prediction. If after this discussion it turns out I was wrong I will happily admit it but so far you are having trouble even defining terms.
-->
@secularmerlin
How else would we know it exists?
You're not answering the question. Why does it need testing?
Everything that I know of is a part of our local representation of space time (the observable physical universe) what do you mean by exist if you don't mean part of the observable universe?
You're "smuggling." (More so redefining ad hoc.) Substantiate the necessary biconditional between materialism and observation.
Note: in my description of perceive, the term "observe" is included.
So just the actual thing itself? That just sounds like an ordinary physical object or energy wave.
Your concern is not what it "sounds like." Sounds like is your impression, not a reflection of my statement.
Unless you mean something else we fan dispense with the word spirit as being a useless term which does not differentiate between a material and non material thing.
It is useless to differentiate the material and the immaterial, especially given that former is fundamentally informed by the latter.
I made a prediction.
You're a psychic?
If after this discussion it turns out I was wrong I will happily admit it
You'll have no choice but to admit, your happiness notwithstanding.
but so far you are having trouble even defining terms.
Really? Have I not defined every term you've requested?
-->
@Athias
How else would we know it exists?You're not answering the question. Why does it need testing?
Tested for. Detected. Observed objectively and measured. Otherwise how do we know it exists?
Everything that I know of is a part of our local representation of space time (the observable physical universe) what do you mean by exist if you don't mean part of the observable universe?You're "smuggling." (More so redefining ad hoc.) Substantiate the necessary biconditional between materialism and observation.Note: in my description of perceive, the term "observe" is included.
Our senses would seem to only react to physical material forces. If you cannot demonstrate some non physical thing let alone how we would detect one then you cannot blame such a thing exists.
Unless you mean something else we fan dispense with the word spirit as being a useless term which does not differentiate between a material and non material thing.It is useless to differentiate the material and the immaterial, especially given that former is fundamentally informed by the latter.
Since immaterial is colloquially considered to be a synonym for non being or a lack of existence perhaps you could define immaterial the way you are using it. Also you have not demonstrated this fundamental informing whatever that is. At the moment this proposed spirit/essence/immaterial spinds like nonsense. Is there any way you could clear this up?
So just the actual thing itself? That just sounds like an ordinary physical object or energy wave.Your concern is not what it "sounds like." Sounds like is your impression, not a reflection of my statement.
If I have the wrong impression I got it from you. The things that a knives have without which they cannot be defined or recognized as a knife are a blade and a grip (or at the very least a tang) those are physical objects. If this isn't what you meant then I request a more comprehensive/accurate definition.
I made a prediction.You're a psychic?
No but I have reasonable expectations about this conversation based on past experiences in fact I don't know exactly what psychic even means so unless you are prepared to offer a definition maybe we should drop it.
Clearly not as I am asking for clarification in this very message.but so far you are having trouble even defining terms.Really? Have I not defined every term you've requested?
-->
@secularmerlin
Tested for. Detected. Observed objectively and measured. Otherwise how do we know it exists?
You're still not answering the question. You're attempting to have me prove you wrong (i.e. "Otherwise how do we know it exists"?) rather than you proving your statement. Why does existence need to be tested for? That is your claim, not mine.
Our senses would seem to only react to physical material forces.
"Seem" is not an argument; seem is your impression.
If you cannot demonstrate some non physical thing let alone how we would detect one then you cannot blame such a thing exists.
I don't have to. It is your claim that existence needs to be tested for. You're making suppositions about existence and holding me liable in proving you wrong; it is you who are responsible for substantiating said suppositions.
An example of the non-physical would be a number.
Since immaterial is colloquially considered to be a synonym for non being or a lack of existence
Colloquial use is immaterial; my use is relevant since it's my argument and its semantics being examined.
perhaps you could define immaterial the way you are using it.
Conceptual. That is not to be confused with the manner in which I used it just above denoting "insignificance." There are quite a few "colloquial" uses of the term "immaterial." My point stands nonetheless.
Also you have not demonstrated this fundamental informing whatever that is.
Immaterial --> Concept --> Numbers --> Mathematics --> Physical Laws --> Materialism.
If my diagram is a bit unclear, here: the immaterial gives rise to concept; numbers are conceptual; numbers and arithmetic inform mathematics; Physical Laws are defined by mathematical proof; materialism claims existence is physical.
At the moment this proposed spirit/essence/immaterial spinds like nonsense. Is there any way you could clear this up?
What is nonsensical about it?
If I have the wrong impression I got it from you.
No, you did not. I don't concern myself with impressions in serious discussions. You'll never see me use the terms, "seems," "looks/sounds like," "appear," etc. in arguments I author because they are not relevant. Take responsibility for your faculties.
The things that a knives have without which they cannot be defined or recognized as a knife are a blade and a grip (or at the very least a tang) those are physical objects.
Sure, that would be the "spirit" of a knife. What is your essence?
If this isn't what you meant then I request a more comprehensive/accurate definition.
Verify the provided definitions at your leisure if you bear questions of their "accuracy."
No but I have reasonable expectations about this conversation based on past experiences
Experiences which have nothing to do with either me or my argument. They're not "reasonable" expectations; you're projecting.
in fact I don't know exactly what psychic even means so unless you are prepared to offer a definition maybe we should drop it.
Psychics claim to make "predictions" usually based on probing for intimate information.
Clearly not as I am asking for clarification in this very message.
Once again, take responsibility for your own faculties. If you need help understanding something I've stated, then I take no issue in helping you clarify; that is not however a reflection of my capacity to define especially since the descriptions I've provided are verifiable (even with a mere google search.)
-->
@Athias
Tested for. Detected. Observed objectively and measured. Otherwise how do we know it exists?You're still not answering the question. You're attempting to have me prove you wrong (i.e. "Otherwise how do we know it exists"?) rather than you proving your statement. Why does existence need to be tested for? That is your claim, not mine.
Things may exist that cannot be confirmed to exist but from pur perspective there is no difference between a thing which cannot be detected and a thing which does not exist. There doesn't need to be a test in order for something to exist necessarily but it must be a test before we can claim it e ists otherwise we are making an assumption, and argument from ignorance. You can make zero accurate statements about an unobservable and untestable thing.
Our senses would seem to only react to physical material forces."Seem" is not an argument; seem is your impression
Perhaps but without some demonstration that there is more than a physical component any hypothesis which includes one can be dismissed out of hand.
An example of the non-physical would be a number.
Any abstract concept relies on a thinking agent to conceive it. All thinking agents of which I am aware are physical in nature and so if we are going to consider abstract concepts nonphysical (something I remain unconvinced of since brain activity is physically measurable) then it is still an emergent property of the physical unless demonstrate otherwise
perhaps you could define immaterial the way you are using it.Conceptual.
Concepts as I have already explained are sufficiently explained by physical means.
Sure, that would be the "spirit" of a knife. What is your essence?
Apparently electrical signals and chemical reactions in my brain. So nothing immaterial or nonphysical.
I don't concern myself with impressions in serious discussions. You'll never see me use the terms, "seems," "looks/sounds like," "appear," etc. in arguments I author because they are not relevant.
Human beings may not be capable of one hundred percent certainty on nearly any point. I am only certain of one thing for example beyond the shadow of a doubt. I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be completely illusory. Now if I accept these experiences at face value then I can make certain determinations about this perceived reality especially through the rigorous application of the scientific method but knowledge claims that are too certain are generally a result of flawed reasoning. The only true wisdom lies in the understanding that we know nothing.
Psychics claim to make "predictions" usually based on probing for intimate information.
Ah! A hucksters. A conman or showman. A fraud. No I am not a psychic.
you need help understanding something I've stated, then I take no issue in helping you clarify
And yet
Verify the provided definitions at your leisure if you bear questions of their "accuracy."
Is my answer rather than a clarification of terms. So which is it? Are you willing to help clarify your language or am I to somehow verify what you mean when you use a term without your input?
-->
@secularmerlin
Things may exist that cannot be confirmed to exist but from pur perspective there is no difference between a thing which cannot be detected and a thing which does not exist.
"Our" perspective? I've made no such claims. Nonexistence is incoherent. In order to perceive the nonexistent, it must consist of no perceptible information on itself. How would one, for example, know something does not exist if it does not exist? If one is able to identify the nonexistent, much less identify it as "not existing," then the nonexistent provides perceivable information rendering it existent.
There doesn't need to be a test in order for something to exist necessarily but it must be a test before we can claim it e ists otherwise we are making an assumption,
The two clauses between "but" contradict.
and argument from ignorance.
That is not an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance presumes the substantiation of a proposition based solely on the inability to prove its inverse.
You can make zero accurate statements about an unobservable and untestable thing.
On what rubric do you base your standard of "accuracy"?
Perhaps but without some demonstration that there is more than a physical component any hypothesis which includes one can be dismissed out of hand.
You can dismiss at your leisure; that however is not pertinent to my argument; Once again: why does existence need to be tested for?
Any abstract concept relies on a thinking agent to conceive it. All thinking agents of which I am aware are physical in nature and so if we are going to consider abstract concepts nonphysical (something I remain unconvinced of since brain activity is physically measurable) then it is still an emergent property of the physical unless demonstrate otherwise/
Except none of that which you've stated is controlled for independent from the mind. Your notion of that which is required for empirical observation is just that: a notion. Your understanding of physicality: a notion. Your concept of the brain: a notion. Emergent properties and the like: notions. Because your experience, as is mine, is inextricably subjective.
Concepts as I have already explained are sufficiently explained by physical means.
You've asserted; you've not substantiated.
Apparently electrical signals and chemical reactions in my brain. So nothing immaterial or nonphysical.
Have you seen/observed your own brain? How would you rationalize what you see without concept? What would you see without concept?
Human beings may not be capable of one hundred percent certainty on nearly any point.
Making such a relation necessitates a grasp of 100 percent which is contradicted by the statement that one is not capable of 100% certainty.
I am only certain of one thing for example beyond the shadow of a doubt. I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be completely illusory.
In other words, "perception" is reality.
Now if I accept these experiences at face value then I can make certain determinations about this perceived reality especially through the rigorous application of the scientific method but knowledge claims that are too certain are generally a result of flawed reasoning.
In other words, you "believe" in the application of the scientific method. And if your belief precedes the scientific method, then you are making my point that the immaterial informs the material.
The only true wisdom lies in the understanding that we know nothing.
Wisdom lies in understanding that we know everything. Because everything is not objective; it's without fail subjective.
Is my answer rather than a clarification of terms. So which is it? Are you willing to help clarify your language or am I to somehow verify what you mean when you use a term without your input?
That's context; not definition. If you need help understanding the context in which I apply these definitions, I take no issue indulging you.
-->
@Athias
Exactly....Case not proven.
-->
@OntologicalSpider
Nothing can come from nothing, there must be an eternal entity that exists and can generate other entities.
Think logically, end of discussion.
-->
@Athias
"Our" perspective? I've made no such claims. Nonexistence is incoherent. In order to perceive the nonexistent, it must consist of no perceptible information on itself. How would one, for example, know something does not exist if it does not exist? If one is able to identify the nonexistent, much less identify it as "not existing," then the nonexistent provides perceivable information rendering it existent.
This more or less squarely misses the point. Though I don't necessarily disagree with any of the above a thing which doesn't exist produces an equal amount of evidence as a thing which does exist but which we cannot demonstrate to exist.
There doesn't need to be a test in order for something to exist necessarily but it must be a test before we can claim it e ists otherwise we are making an assumption,The two clauses between "but" contradict.
No they do not please see above for an explanation of why.
That is not an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance presumes the substantiation of a proposition based solely on the inability to prove its inverse.
You mean like claiming something exists which you cannot demonstrate simply because it cannot be disproved?
On what rubric do you base your standard of "accuracy"?
Independent and repeatable (preferably peer reviewed) scientific demonstration of the proposition in question. Depending on the extraordinary nature of the claim of course. Even then it is not necessarily accurate but only as accurate as human beings are capable.
why does existence need to be tested for?
Because your experience, as is mine, is inextricably subjective. Either we can test for the presence of a thing or we cannot. If we cannot then it necessarily either exists but we cannot demonstrate its existence or it does not exist. Since we cannot know which of the two is true then it is functionally identical to my perspective. If we cannot test for or detect something we should not maintain a belief in said thing.
Because your experience, as is mine, is inextricably subjective.
That is why existence needs to be tested for.
Concepts as I have already explained are sufficiently explained by physical means.You've asserted; you've not substantiated.
That is the consensus of neurologists. It is a sufficient explanation and it is observable and testable in reality. There is observably a measurable physical correlation. If you wish to claim some extra component it is you who must demonstrate your claim.
Have you seen/observed your own brain? How would you rationalize what you see without concept? What would you see without concept?
Seeing is irrelevant to proving the existance of a proposition. Our eyes can be deceived. I have had a CAT scan and I can inform you with a high degree of confidence that my brain is in my head.
Human beings may not be capable of one hundred percent certainty on nearly any point.Making such a relation necessitates a grasp of 100 percent which is contradicted by the statement that one is not capable of 100% certainty.
Yes. I will just have to settle for a high degree of confidence in the issue given my apparent inability to have objective certainty on any given issue except that I am experiencing something.
I am only certain of one thing for example beyond the shadow of a doubt. I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be completely illusory.In other words, "perception" is reality.
Just the opposite. Even "reality" may not exist. I accept our shared reality as a convenience only and only because it is the only "reality" that I can percieve.
In other words, you "believe" in the application of the scientific method. And if your belief precedes the scientific method, then you are making my point that the immaterial informs the material.
It would be far more accurate to say that I have confidence in the efficacy of the scientific method in separating fact from fiction only because of the physical effects on our world and our standard of life. Also a method, or set of behaviors, is an existent part of the physical world. The scientific method is not immaterial it is physical and the proof of its efficacy precedes my belief. So at most you have an immaterial thing (although I disagree that a belief is immaterial but instead a physical brain state) as an emergent quality of a physical reality (that science improves our lives by helping us understand our reality).
The only true wisdom lies in the understanding that we know nothing.Wisdom lies in understanding that we know everything. Because everything is not objective; it's without fail subjective.
This seems like a non sequitur to me. I am uncertain how you have determined that there is nothing that is objective or why that would lead to the ability to know everything let alone the necessity.
That's context; not definition. If you need help understanding the context in which I apply these definitions, I take no issue indulging you.
If you believe it will clear up the issue them proceed.
Just to make sure we are staying on topic here is your original argument
1. All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)
I have explained why I do not accept that perceived = existent
2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)
Your definition of percieved is to be aware, understand, identify and/or observe. Unless you can demonstrate that any one has ever become aware of understood identified or observed any actual (non imaginary) god(s) I do not accept that this is true though I am happy to accept that they have percieved stories told by other humans about some god(s) and or the concept of some god(s)
3. Therefore God exists.
This conclusion does not follow from your dubious premises. I can percieve fiction but if all you mean is that god(s) exist at least as fiction then as I predicted your argument isn't saying very much.
Please feel free to reformulate your argument in light of these issues
-->
@secularmerlin
Sooooooooooo.
Is it definitely one or the other sec.
God either, ( exists ) orrrrrrrrrr ( does not exist )?
-->
@zedvictor4
Exactly....Case not proven.
Non sequitur. "Proof" is not contingent on consensus. Proof is contingent on a sound argument. And I've provided a sound argument. You don't have to endorse it; but, you must concede its logical consistency as a patron of logic.
-->
@secularmerlin
a thing which doesn't exist produces an equal amount of evidence as a thing which does exist but which we cannot demonstrate to exist.
Explain and substantiate.
No they do not please see above for an explanation of why.
Yes they do. You're claiming that you acknowledge things can exist without being tested for, while simultaneously arguing those things cannot be claimed to exist or "expressed" as existent without being tested. Now if we apply your standard, how are you able to substantiate your first claim without conducting any tests? In your own words (in the absence of tests): "Otherwise, how do we know it exists?" Your statements contradict. Your standard through your own tacit admission is limited.
You mean like claiming something exists which you cannot demonstrate simply because it cannot be disproved?
No, I mean by arguing that a claim is true by virtue of the fact that it hasn't been proven false. One can claim whatever one wants.
Independent and repeatable (preferably peer reviewed) scientific demonstration of the proposition in question.
How and why does this standard apply to the spiritual?
Because your experience, as is mine, is inextricably subjective. Either we can test for the presence of a thing or we cannot.
Strawman argument with the use of an ad hoc redefinition. I'm not applying the term "presence," which is placement in a given space. I'm applying the term "exists," to which I've already provided the description. Second, why does it need to be tested for?
If we cannot then it necessarily either exists but we cannot demonstrate its existence or it does not exist.
This statement is unsubstantiated. This is what you must demonstrate. You've only redundantly claim it.
If we cannot test for or detect something we should not maintain a belief in said thing.
Why?
That is why existence needs to be tested for.
Why does experience's being inextricably subjective necessitate a test for existence?
That is the consensus of neurologists.
Irrelevant; consensus does not inform truth.
It is a sufficient explanation and it is observable and testable in reality.
You have to demonstrate the pertinence of a testable explanation.
There is observably a measurable physical correlation.
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Correlation is not causation.
If you wish to claim some extra component it is you who must demonstrate your claim.
It's not my obligation to prove your arguments "wrong." It's your obligation to prove them "right." You claim that Concepts have a physical explanation. Substantiate.
Seeing is irrelevant to proving the existance of a proposition. Our eyes can be deceived.
Hence I included "observe."
I have had a CAT scan and I can inform you with a high degree of confidence that my brain is in my head.
You observed an image. Did you observe your brain?
Yes. I will just have to settle for a high degree of confidence in the issue given my apparent inability to have objective certainty on any given issue except that I am experiencing something.
So your tests are subject to your confidence?
Just the opposite. Even "reality" may not exist. I accept our shared reality as a convenience only and only because it is the only "reality" that I can percieve.
If it is the only reality you can perceive, then why do you ponder that it "may not exist"? Are you capable of observing beyond your capacity to perceive? How so?
It would be far more accurate to say that I have confidence in the efficacy of the scientific method in separating fact from fiction only because of the physical effects on our world and our standard of life.
How is your "confidence" not fictitious especially if it precedes that which you "accept"?
Also a method, or set of behaviors, is an existent part of the physical world. The scientific method is not immaterial it is physical and the proof of its efficacy precedes my belief.
No it doesn't. You used your confidence in explaining the reason tests are necessary (and efficacious.) How then does the efficacy precede your "confidence"? And the scientific method is immaterial; it's a "method."
This seems like a non sequitur to me. I am uncertain how you have determined that there is nothing that is objective or why that would lead to the ability to know everything let alone the necessity.
"Seem" is not an argument; objectivity is incoherent because it necessitates rationalizations independent of one's observation.
I have explained why I do not accept that perceived = existent
You don't have to accept it. It needs only be consistent with the description I offered.
Your definition of percieved is to be aware, understand, identify and/or observe. Unless you can demonstrate that any one has ever become aware of understood identified or observed any actual
I'm aware of God; I identify God (obviously through his name); I've observed God. There: I've demonstrated a perception of God.
I do not accept that this is true
My argument does not require that you "believe."
This conclusion does not follow from your dubious premises.
Your doubting my premises does not make them dubious. My argument is consistent with my description; they are not consistent with your descriptions. And your descriptions aren't relevant.
Please feel free to reformulate your argument in light of these issues
There's no need to reformulate my argument. The only thing that needs reformulating is your understanding that my argument is not beholden to your understanding of existence. If you cannot demonstrate an inconsistency in my argument--i.e. my premises and conclusion, then I'll consider your challenge over.
I'm aware of God; I identify God (obviously through his name); I've observed God. There: I've demonstrated a perception of God.
Unless you can demonstrate some god(s) I have no reason to believe that you percieve, observe, identify and are aware of more than your own internalized feelings about the concept of some god(s). Unless of course you are willing to grant the existence of every god ever believed in by any human.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Sooooooooooo.Is it definitely one or the other sec.God either, ( exists ) orrrrrrrrrr ( does not exist )?
Tautologically yes.
-->
@secularmerlin
Unless you can demonstrate some god(s) I have no reason to believe that you percieve, observe, identify
My capacity to perceive, observe, or identify is neither validated nor contingent on your belief. (And I did demonstrate; I just stated that I perceive, identify, and observe God.)
and are aware of more than your own internalized feelings about the concept of some god(s).
You mean like the confidence that precedes your acceptance of the scientific method? Why does it have to be "more"?
Unless of course you are willing to grant the existence of every god ever believed in by any human.
I've never been unwilling. All gods exist.
-->
@Athias
You mean like the confidence that precedes your acceptance of the scientific method? Why does it have to be "more"?
No. My confidence does not precede the method the method showing its efficacy precedes my confidence. My confidence is contingent.
I've never been unwilling. All gods exist.
Well they all certainly have been equally demonstrated. Do you also believe in big foot, the lochness monster, alien abduction and fairy dust?
I just stated that I perceive, identify, and observe God.
This is called a bald assertion. It is a logical fallacy not a demonstration of reality.
-->
@secularmerlin
No. My confidence does not precede the method the method showing its efficacy precedes my confidence. My confidence is contingent.
Then you're applying circular reasoning because when asked, you stated you have confidence in the scientific method. And if the scientific method precedes your confidence, then what exactly are you confident in? Uncertainty?
Well they all certainly have been equally demonstrated.
Insofar as my argument would apply to them all, then yes.
Do you also believe in big foot, the lochness monster, alien abduction and fairy dust?
Do I believe in them? No. Do I believe they exist? Yes.
This is called a bald assertion. It is a logical fallacy not a demonstration of reality.
It's not a bald assertion. My statement concerns a single, subjective observer: I. My statements are true by virtue of my stating them. They're not falsifiable.
And fallacies typically comprise in errors of form, relevance, consistency etc. Which fallacy have I imputed?
-->
@Athias
Then you're applying circular reasoning because when asked, you stated you have confidence in the scientific method.
Yes after observing that it is an effective method. That us why I have confidence in it and not in faith based beliefs which cannot be demonstrated.
Do you also believe in big foot, the lochness monster, alien abduction and fairy dust?Do I believe in them? No. Do I believe they exist? Yes.
How do you justify haorsplitting between these terms?
It's not a bald assertion. My statement concerns a single, subjective observer: I. My statements are true by virtue of my stating them. They're not falsifiable.
When you baldly state something without some demonstration that is by definition a bald assertion. You cannot demonstrate your perceptions to anyone but yourself and peoples perception and senses are testable observably unreliable.
-->
@Athias
It seems far more logical to me, that something that cannot be proven to exist is unlikely to exist.
Proving that something doesn't exist is unnecessary, if said something cannot be proven to exist in the first place.
Let's take the flying spaghetti monster for example.....Do you find it necessary to disprove it's existence?
I think that this just goes prove, that logic is not reliably logical.
-->
@zedvictor4
Proving that something doesn't exist is unnecessary, if said something cannot be proven to exist in the first place.
Logical positivism.
-->
@Athias
...you stated you have confidence in the scientific method.
Efficacy is the ultimate validation.
-->
@secularmerlin
@Athias
I just stated that I perceive, identify, and observe God.
This is a statement of GNOSIS (which is functionally indistinguishable from OPINION).
-->
@RationalMadman
Nothing can come from nothing, there must be an eternal entity that exists and can generate other entities.
NOUMENON.
-->
@secularmerlin
@Athias
You're claiming that you acknowledge things can exist without being tested for, while simultaneously arguing those things cannot be claimed to exist or "expressed" as existent without being tested.
Historically, something like radio-waves (might be said to have) "existed" "before" they were demonstrated (colloquially).
HOWevER, NOBODY could CLAIM they "existed" before they were demonstrated.
Certainly anybody could HYPOTHESIZE that radio-waves existed before they were demonstrated.
But that HYPOTHESIS, could not be considered REAL-TRUE-FACT until AFTER empirical demonstration.
Now if we apply your standard, how are you able to substantiate your first claim without conducting any tests?
By historical analysis. We know "some things" "may exist" "undiscovered". This DOES NOT mean that everything we hypothesize must be "true".
In your own words (in the absence of tests): "Otherwise, how do we know it exists?" Your statements contradict. Your standard through your own tacit admission is limited.
The claim that "some things" may "exist" "undiscovered" DOES NOT CONTRADICT the fact that ANY claim of "existence" must be either empirically verifiable (demonstrable) or logically necessary.
-->
@secularmerlin
@Athias
How do we test for the existence of some "wholly or partly not material thing"?Why does it need to be tested?
It must be distinguishable from GNOSIS/QUALIA/PERSONAL-PRIVATE-EXPERIENTIAL/OPINION.
-->
@Athias
It is useless to differentiate the material and the immaterial, especially given that former is fundamentally informed by the latter.
MONISM.