Immaterial evidence. Non-empirical evidence. Call it whatever you will. Can any entity that is completely and inherently immune from detection by means of our five empirical material senses, or related scientific instruments of physical detection, possibly be considered to be evidenced by personal experience?
Is it possible for immaterial entities or beings to be evidenced as aspects of reality external to the mind by personal experience?
http://www.yourdictionary.com/immaterial writes:
im·ma·teri·al (im” tir” l)
adjective
not consisting of matter; incorporeal; spiritual
http://www.yourdictionary.com/incorporeal writes:
in·cor·po·real (in”kr pr” l)
adjective
not consisting of matter; without material body or substance
of spirits or angels
I say no. I say this on the basis of the following:
1) How? If a concept inherently cannot be detected by our empirical senses then how can any "experience" relating to such a concept be anything but internal to the mind? A sixth sense?
2) What is evidence? If a form of "evidence" cannot ever be shown to lead to results that are superior to just guessing then how can this form of "evidence" be deemed worthy of the term?
Once the beguiling terminology and various conflations have been cast aside most theistic positions that claim an evidential basis for the object of belief ultimately boil down to a dependence on "immaterial evidence". Does the concept have any value at all? Or is it just an exercise in confirmation bias whereby those who believe in immaterial beings manage to convince themselves that the object of their belief
can be, and therefore is, evidenced by means of personal experience?
If promoted then "Is It Science" is the obvious place for this.
This thread is being proposed as a result of RAZD's response
Message 393 in the "Is My Hypothesis Valid" thread. In this post RAZD strongly indicates that immaterial entities undetectable by empirical means can indeed be somehow evidenced by "subjective evidence". I want to find out exactly what is meant by this.
For months RAZD has trumpeted the value of personal experience ("subjective evidence" as he calls it) as a means of evidence. I challenge him to justify this with specific regard to
immaterial entities that are unable to be detected by means of empirical material sensory perception. Aliens, Nessie, Bigfoot, gravity, G forces, cats crossing roads and any other such material concepts are "off-topic". As are any creationist style claims that gods are empirically evidenced by geology, the balance of physical constants or whatever else. Personal experiences. Immaterial entities. Only.
FAITH: NOT INTERESTED AND OFF TOPICFinally let me make it absolutely clear that this thread is not about personal faith. I have no desire to discuss the personal faith based beliefs of others and no desire whatsoever to convince deists/theists that they should be atheists.
I simply want to know whether or not there is any
rational reason for
me to consider the actual existence of some immaterial entities as more likley than others. And yes, in case it isn't obvious, that does include using our dear old friend the "Immaterial Pink Unicorn" (IPU) as a point of comparison.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : Add faith qualifier to avoid confusion and eliminate that misconception.
Edited by Admin, : Fix non-printing unicode characters. Minor grammar fix. Major edit to 2nd to last paragraph.