But I still disagree with your use of "God" which has rather obvious shortcomings and will likely cause confusion. — S

I use "god" because I believe that what I call the experience of god is closely related to a belief in god. There is an experience which many people have that influences them to believe in god. Not to start us off on a new tangent, but that can also be said of love, pain, anger, and celery. Which is not to say that, if you have the experience, you have to believe.

Certainly you wouldn't expect courts to let someone go free merely because only witness testimony is available. — Echarmion

Most definitely I would. That we can convict someone on testimony only is a horrible, horrible idea in my opinion.

But the whole point is about what the experience is actually of. If it's only an experience of something which might be other than god, but which nevertheless influences them to believe in god, then why not just be clear about that? That would avoid the problem. At times it's like you don't even understand the problem, in spite of my efforts. I have certainly experienced love, pain, anger, and celery. That's not problematic in the same way, and I think that you know it. The problem here is the sort of problem with saying that you've experienced goblins and flying horses. A common reaction would be, "No you haven't!", or an assumption that you were talking about something else, like people in costumes or a film. Are you just going to continue to act oblivious to this problem, or...?

I use "god" because I believe that what I call the experience of god is closely related to a belief in god. There is an experience which many people have that influences them to believe in god. Not to start us off on a new tangent, but that can also be said of love, pain, anger, and celery. Which is not to say that, if you have the experience, you have to believe. — T Clark

You used forms of "believe" and "belief" four times in that short paragraph, T...and I truly am not sure of what you were trying to convey.

Your first use is considerably different from your second and third use...and your third use seems different from the other three.

You may refuse this next request and consider it a useless, waste-of-time exercise, but I would love to see you write that paragraph not using the words "believe" or "belief"...and give me an idea of what you actually were saying.

Any chance?

At times it's like you don't even understand the problem, in spite of my efforts. — S

That's what you wrote, but what you really wanted to write is:

At times it's like you don't even understand the problem, in spite of my efforts, Sonny Jim.

We're not getting anywhere.

And we'll remain stationary with unhelpful replies like that, Jimmy Clarky Sonny Boy My Laddy Lil' Scamp.

Your claim that my kind of atheism is "just faith" is not only unwarranted, but ludicrous. — S

Please prove that human reason is qualified to deliver credible answers, or even credible theories, on the very largest and most fundamental of questions. This is the very same challenge you reasonably present to holy books, but are not intellectually honest enough to present to your own chosen authority. Very normal, very understandable, very bad philosophy.

Your suggestion that reason is unqualified for the task at hand is self-defeating through performative contradiction. You rely on reason to reach the same conclusion that I do. — S

You're not reading what I'm writing, and are rejecting an assertion of your own invention. I never said reason is unqualified for everything. It may not even be unqualified for the very largest of questions. But you have not proven that it is qualified, so all of your clever fancy pants logic dancing can be dismissed with a casual wave of the hand, just as you dismiss Bible claims for the same reason.

What's so absurd about your rhetoric, is that behind it all, I have reached the same conclusions that you have, and we've both done this through reason. — S

You have no idea what my conclusions are because like most people on philosophy forums you are trapped inside the tiny prison cell of the God debate. Very normal, very understandable, not very impressive or persuasive.

Is it that you see the word "atheist" and you become like a wild bull who has seen red? That's what I suspect. A bit like "nuclear weapons". It's just a word. We don't even have to call it that. You don't have to get so triggered at the mere mention of it. Calm down, dear. You're not being reasonable when you get yourself all worked up and start spouting nonsense. — S

Stick it up your ass my friend, stick it up your ass. Thank you very much. :smile:

But the whole point is about what the experience is actually of. — S

That's the whole point for YOU. My contention is that it is the experience itself that matters, not anybody's explanation of it.

no just don't want to waste time with you. — Rank Amateur

How dare you be rational on a philosophy forum. How Dare You!!! You sure won't find me pulling any stunts like that mister.

And we'll remain stationary with unhelpful replies like that, Jimmy Clarky Sonny Boy My Laddy Lil' Scamp. — S

@Buxtebuddha used to call me "Clarkie." (a tear), although, as you can see, he used to spell it correctly.

Yeah, I don't really like the way that came out either. I've filled this space a couple of times with clarifications then erase them. Now I've come to the conclusion that I can't deal with it without heading off on a big tangent. Maybe I'll start a separate thread.

Well, in my humble opinion you should reconsider the matter. In the theism-atheism debate we have arguments from both sides. Yes, none of these arguments are perfectly sound and so the problem. But people believe what they believe only based on a logical argument they connect with. For example problem of evil is quite convincing atheistic argument and the ontological argument is a ''sound'' theistic argument.

All I'm saying is people believe based on logic and it's not just guesswork.

Most definitely I would. That we can convict someone on testimony only is a horrible, horrible idea in my opinion. — Terrapin Station

So, according to you, we should ignore any kind of abuse that doesn't leave lasting marks? Even if it leaves lasting marks, the identity of the perpetrator can often only be established by witness testimony, so as long as you get away from the crime scene, many kinds of assault would be impossible to prosecute. As would theft and robbery perpetrated using only non traceable utensils, like a kitchen knife.

But it doesn't end there. According to your opinion, I cannot really know anything about the live of other people, unless I was actually physically there. This includes most information about the rest of the world, current and especially past events. Most of the scientific knowledge is right out as well, because it's based on the testimony of scientists or, more commonly, the hearsay testimony of secondary literature.

This makes your approach barely better than the flat-earther's "zetetic method". Given that your justification is that witnesses are inherently unreliable because they might lie or be mistaken, you can not accept any knowledge that is more than tangentially based on testimony. That means you also have to mistrust videos and images because their genesis is only established by witness testimony.

I am fairly certain you cannot actually apply that standard in everyday life. Which begs the question how you could possibly arrive at a position this absurd.

↪Frank Apisa
Well, in my humble opinion you should reconsider the matter. In the theism-atheism debate we have arguments from both sides. Yes, none of these arguments are perfectly sound and so the problem. But people believe what they believe only based on a logical argument they connect with. For example problem of evil is quite convincing atheistic argument and the ontological argument is a ''sound'' theistic argument.

All I'm saying is people believe based on logic and it's not just guesswork. — TheMadFool

We are in complete disagreement on this, MadFool.

A "belief" in this area is NOTHING more than a blind guess...and the word "belief" is used just to disguise the fact that it is. A blind guess is not based on anything...although often arguments are invented to rationalize blind guesses. Rationalizing a blind guess that no gods exist because evil exists is FAR away from "a convincing atheistic argument"...and there are no ontological arguments that an assertion "there is at least one god" logical.

Anyone who asserts that no gods exist is just guessing. Anyone who asserts there is at least one god is just guessing.

Let's discuss that more...or just agree to disagree.

So, according to you, we should ignore any kind of abuse that doesn't leave lasting marks? — Echarmion

Legally, in my view we should not prosecute anyone where there isn't "physical evidence" of someone being a perpetrator, yes, definitely. I also think it's outrageous that we prosecute people for murder, say, when there is physical evidence but no body.

, I cannot really know anything about the live of other people, unless I was actually physically there. — Echarmion

Only I didn't actually say that, and I rather explicitly said otherwise. There just needs to be "physical evidence" at some stage of the process if we're dealing with empirical claims, and then removed from that, good evidence that there was reliable access to physical evidence at some stage in the process. For legal purposes, I'd make direct presentation of evidence necessary, because the future of others' lives is in the balance, but not everything is the legal system.

Given that your justification is that witnesses are inherently unreliable — Echarmion

Again, I didn't say that. I also didn't say, and there's no reason for you to have known, that on my view relying on testimony only (sans good evidence of reliable access to physical evidence at the initial stage) is worthwhile proportionate to just how important or significant the upshots of trusting the testimony are.

I am fairly certain you cannot actually apply that standard in everyday life. — Echarmion

It's difficult to comment on that without getting rid of the straw man portions first.

Legally, in my view we should not prosecute anyone where there isn't "physical evidence" of someone being a perpetrator, yes, definitely. I also think it's outrageous that we prosecute people for murder, say, when there is physical evidence but no body. — Terrapin Station

That blows a hole the size of a truck into the legal system that anyone with sufficient planning can walk through. You're saying we should ignore evidence even if there are no grounds to distrust the specific evidence in question, on the grounds that such evidence could potentially be forged. That makes no sense.

Only I didn't actually say that, and I rather explicitly said otherwise. There just needs to be "physical evidence" at some stage of the process if we're dealing with empirical claims, and then removed from that, good evidence that there was reliable access to physical evidence at some stage in the process. — Terrapin Station

For the quoted bit, no such physical evidence exists. You even pointed out reporters, specifically, as unreliable.

You have not really explained how this chain of physical evidence is supposed to work. When you write:

For example, having evidence that so and so won't testify to something unless they had solid physical evidence to support the testimony, even then the person removed from the physical evidence there didn't actually witness the initial physical evidence themselves. — Terrapin Station

This sounds like you're just referring to the person being trustworthy. But of course if that's sufficient, every chain of trustworthy witnesses also has a chain of physical evidence. This would be just a standard evaluation of the weight of the testimony. You obviously mean to set up an additional requirement that can only be met by specific limited kinds of testimony.

What about normal, everyday events? Does someone reporting an event they saw have physical evidence?

For legal purposes, I'd make direct presentation of evidence necessary, because the future of others' lives is in the balance, but not everything is the legal system. — Terrapin Station

You realize that not prosecuting someone also has consequences on other's lifes?

Again, I didn't say that. — Terrapin Station

How else am I supposed to interpret your statement?

The grounding is that the facts can't be wrong about the facts. But a reporter can be, including that reporters can be dishonest/they can weave fictions (so that it would turn out that they're not actually reporters at all), they are biased in many different ways, etc. — Terrapin Station

You explicitly say a witness might be lying, biased or mistaken where physical evidence would not be.

I also didn't say, and there's no reason for you to have known, that on my view relying on testimony only (sans good evidence of reliable access to physical evidence at the initial stage) is worthwhile proportionate to just how important or significant the upshots of trusting the testimony are. — Terrapin Station

You actually did not give any of these qualifications before. Do you have different epistemological systems for different situations?

You're saying we should ignore evidence — Echarmion

Yeah, when it's only people making accusations.

even if there are no grounds to distrust the specific evidence in question, on the grounds that such evidence could potentially be forged. — Echarmion

The grounds are that there's no way to bootstrap testimony-only.

For the quoted bit, no such physical evidence exists. — Echarmion

Say what? No idea what you have in mind there.

I'll answer the rest later, but I don't want to get into increasingly longer posts back and forth. I hate doing that. I'll let you answer this first, and then I'll get back to the rest afterwards . . . unless you respond to this with another couple thousand words. Hopefully not, though.

Yeah, when it's only people making accusations. — Terrapin Station

So you're fine with me walking up to you in the middle of the street, punching you in the face and walking away free? You only have your testimony, and perhaps the testimony of others to convict me.

The grounds are that there's no way to bootstrap testimony-only. — Terrapin Station

But you haven't shown why testimony needs to be bootstrapped in the first place. It's potentially unreliable. So is all other evidence.

Say what? No idea what you have in mind there.

I'll answer the rest later, but I don't want to get into increasingly longer posts back and forth. I hate doing that. I'll let you answer this first, and then I'll get back to the rest afterwards . . . unless you respond to this with another couple thousand words. Hopefully not, though. — Terrapin Station

What's the physical evidence for everyday events? A red car drove by. I saw you punch someone. I performed experiment X with result Y. Do these count as "physical testimony"?

So you're fine with me walking up to you in the middle of the street, punching you in the face and walking away free? You only have your testimony, and perhaps the testimony of others to convict me. — Echarmion

Why wouldn't there be physical evidence re my face and your fist? The bruise on my face, the abrasions or bruise on your fist, etc. aren't only someone making an accusation.

Why wouldn't there be physical evidence re my face and your fist? The bruise on my face, the abrasions or bruise on your fist, etc. aren't only someone making an accusation. — Terrapin Station

It's very unlikely you can detect any damage on my fist from one punch, especially not hours or days later. There'd potentially be physical evidence that an injury happened, but not who did it. Obviously you can hurt people in ways that don't leave lasting marks.

It's very unlikely you can detect any damage on my fist from one punch, — Echarmion

This is actually not true, unless it was a very light punch--in which case it shouldn't be a legal issue anyway, because there's not going to be much of an effect on the other person, either.

If it was days later, and the punch was light enough to not be able to detect anything days later, then sure. Don't wait days to report something like that unless it's serious enough that evidence would still be detectable.

Obviously you can hurt people in ways that don't leave lasting marks. — Echarmion

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but I'd not have any hurt that doesn't have a longer-term physical effect as something that's legally prosecutable anyway.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, but I'd not have any hurt that doesn't have a longer-term physical effect as something that's legally prosecutable anyway. — Terrapin Station

You'd be fine if people came around and slapped you across the face everyday? No physical evidence on the hands of the people that lasts more than hours.

Anyways I can create examples for days, why don't you answer my question?

What's the physical evidence for everyday events? A red car drove by. I saw you punch someone. I performed experiment X with result Y. Do these count as "physical testimony"? — Echarmion

I said that your claim that my kind of atheism is "just faith" is not only unwarranted, but ludicrous. You reply with a red herring I've already addressed.

I quote what you said word for word, dispute it, and give my reasons for doing so. You reply by saying that I'm rejecting an assertion of my own invention.

You clearly said that we're too ignorant to know what theists and strong atheists claim. This is obviously a conclusion which you've reached. I have reached the same conclusion. You reply by saying I have no idea what your conclusions are.

Then there's your childish retort, "Stick it up your arse".

Then there's your stated opinion I don't care about, namely that, for you, the experience matters, but the explanation doesn't. Well, if you don't care about the explanation, which is a very unphilosophical attitude, then don't bother me with your opinion, just keep quiet about it or go bother someone else.

And it's hilariously absurd that you think that Rank Amateur is being rational when he psychologically closes himself off from engaging his beliefs rationally like that, yet you accuse my highly rational approach of being "just faith".

Okay, so, just to be clear, you're signalling that you'd rather focus on irrelevancies and trivialities than the main philosophical point I made. I will try to remember that the next time I consider addressing something that you've said.

Okay, so, just to be clear, you're signalling that you'd rather focus on irrelevancies and trivialities than the main philosophical point I made. I will try to remember that when I next consider addressing something you've said. — S

Yes, what you've written is correct. Please do remember.

Yes, it's coming back to me now. We've had this problem before. You are the type of person who has a tendency to care more about tone or wording than philosophical substance, even to the extent that you'll ignore the latter and only focus on the former, whereas I'm very much the opposite.

Yes, it's coming back to me now. We've had this problem before. You are the type of person who has a tendency to care more about tone or wording than philosophical substance, even to the extent that you'll ignore the latter and only focus on the former, whereas I'm very much the opposite. — S

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/268762

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/269170

Then there's your stated opinion I don't care about, namely that, for you, the experience matters, but the explanation doesn't. Well, if you don't care about the explanation, which is a very unphilosophical attitude, then don't bother me with your opinion, just keep quiet about it or go bother someone else. — S

Nobody is bothering you. Nobody can bother you in this medium. You're CHOOSING to read my posts. If you'd like to make another choice that would be entirely fine with me.