What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[commonsense]

Show me a duck evolve into a worm evolve into a man.

Right. There's no evidence of macro-evolution, even among lower species: dogs don't change into birds, or paramecia into cats. There is some evidence of intra-species modifications, such as red cats, black cats, orange cats, taller cats, etc. But none of cats-to-whales, or whatever.

Moreover, since the earlier frauds like the archaeopteryx have long been debunked, we're missing a whole ton of "links" in the evolutionary narrative. Moreover, what's needed is not just one sample -- like the archaeopteryx -- but all the billions of proposed "evolutionary fails" that the theory would require.

And we just don't have them. Why would that be?

Yes. And yet the appearance of a black cat when there had only been orange cats beforehand is a change that represents I evolution when spread across vast numbers of cats.

[Immanuel Can]

Show me a duck evolve into a worm evolve into a man.

Right. There's no evidence of macro-evolution, even among lower species: dogs don't change into birds, or paramecia into cats. There is some evidence of intra-species modifications, such as red cats, black cats, orange cats, taller cats, etc. But none of cats-to-whales, or whatever.

Moreover, since the earlier frauds like the archaeopteryx have long been debunked, we're missing a whole ton of "links" in the evolutionary narrative. Moreover, what's needed is not just one sample -- like the archaeopteryx -- but all the billions of proposed "evolutionary fails" that the theory would require.

And we just don't have them. Why would that be?

Yes. And yet the appearance of a black cat when there had only been orange cats beforehand is a change that represents I evolution when spread across vast numbers of cats.

No, that's variation WITHIN a species, not the evolution of one species into another. Both cats will remain interfertile and of the same genus.

What you'd need is a cat in the process of becoming a dog...or a dog becoming a bird...or a fish becoming a cat...and not just one, but the entire species being in process of converting into some genetically different kind of thing. And it's just not what we observe.

[commonsense]

Right. There's no evidence of macro-evolution, even among lower species: dogs don't change into birds, or paramecia into cats. There is some evidence of intra-species modifications, such as red cats, black cats, orange cats, taller cats, etc. But none of cats-to-whales, or whatever.

Moreover, since the earlier frauds like the archaeopteryx have long been debunked, we're missing a whole ton of "links" in the evolutionary narrative. Moreover, what's needed is not just one sample -- like the archaeopteryx -- but all the billions of proposed "evolutionary fails" that the theory would require.

And we just don't have them. Why would that be?

Yes. And yet the appearance of a black cat when there had only been orange cats beforehand is a change that represents I evolution when spread across vast numbers of cats.

No, that's variation WITHIN a species, not the evolution of one species into another. Both cats will remain interfertile and of the same genus.

What you'd need is a cat in the process of becoming a dog...or a dog becoming a bird...or a fish becoming a cat...and not just one, but the entire species being in process of converting into some genetically different kind of thing. And it's just not what we observe.

Got it. Thanks.

[Will Bouwman]

Internal consistency or formal correctness is A requirement of the relation between logic and truth...

Do you know of a logical argument that proves a relation
between logic and truth?

You're not going to know, because you're able to make up "alternatives" you would find "plausible" to that sort of claim.

Do you think that because you can't make up a plausible alternative to your current belief, that what you currently believe is true?

Since I can't tell you what you find "plausible," I've been asking you what you would find a plausible demonstration of the existence of God. And so far, there's no answer, it seems. So it cannot be a great surprise to you that you don't find the existence of God plausible, can it?

Can you explain why you think I don't find the existence of God plausible?

[Immanuel Can]

Internal consistency or formal correctness is A requirement of the relation between logic and truth...

Do you know of a logical argument that proves a relation between logic and truth?

Do you know a person who lifts himself off the ground by pulling on his own bootstraps?

You're not going to know, because you're able to make up "alternatives" you would find "plausible" to that sort of claim.

Do you think that because you can't make up a plausible alternative to your current belief, that what you currently believe is true?

I can make up alternatives, though not anywhere near as plausible. One can always make up anything. The real question is, will reality prove it?

Since I can't tell you what you find "plausible," I've been asking you what you would find a plausible demonstration of the existence of God. And so far, there's no answer, it seems. So it cannot be a great surprise to you that you don't find the existence of God plausible, can it?

Can you explain why you think I don't find the existence of God plausible?

You tell me.

[Will Bouwman]

Can you explain why you think I don't find the existence of God plausible?

You tell me.

It's a serious question. You apparently believe that the only explanation you find plausible must be the truth. I think I have made it clear that the existence of God is plausible, so evidently we don't mean the same by plausible. What then do you mean by plausible?

[Age]

Firstly, you CLAIMED that 'come from' MEANT, 'create', which MEANS 'bring into existence / cause to exist'.
This time, you CLAIM that 'come from' MEANS, to originate from or derive from

Exhibit A:

First off, EVERY thing IS, and WAS, 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things.

Create: 'bring into existence / cause to exist'

Your initial claim before I entered the conversation said every thing was created.
Your words.

YES, 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things.

Thus, the Universe, Itself, IS 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things, namely; 'matter', AND, 'space'.

Now, and ALSO, are you AWARE of the significance of my use of single quotation marks around word/s?

Either way, MY ACTUAL WORDS, IN MY INITIAL CLAIM, here, BEFORE WAS, EVERY thing was created from the coming-together of at least two other things.

(And, for those who are Truly INTERESTED the ACTUAL Inaccuracy, in what I ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE, here, could have been CAUGHT OUT WITH just plain old simple, what I call, 'childhood logic'. That is; if one's whole PURPOSE was to just CATCH OUT another.)

But, AGAIN, even with your OWN definitions what I SAID and WROTE, STILL, STANDS.

Exhibit B:

LOL So, 'what' then did the 'Thing', which the 'Universe' word is REFERRING TO, come FROM, EXACTLY?

come from: to originate from or derive from
origin: the point at which something comes into existence

Your initial question to me upon showing your claim presupposed an origin within it's terms [which I disagreed with].

BUT, MY INITIAL QUESTION NEVER 'presupposed' ANY such thing.

AGAIN, what you, the reader, INFERS is NEVER necessarily what me, the writer, MEANT.

Your question.
-

I denied all is created. Referencing your initial claim.

And, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE to DENY ANY thing is created.

So, if you REALLY WANT TO DENY ALL IS CREATED, then LIST THE 'things' that you WANT TO CLAIM ARE NOT CREATED.

I denied all has origin. Referencing your initial question.

AGAIN, you are ABSOLUTELY FREE TO DENY ANY thing has an origin. AND, AGAIN, FEEL FREE TO LIST ANY or ALL OF 'those things'.

Also, and by the way, just because you DENY some thing NEVER EVER MEANS that your DENIAL ALIGNS WITH what IS ACTUALLY True and/or Right, in Life.

So, what are THE 'things', which you DENY were created AND have an origin.

Your initial claim, and your initial question to me - are different.
In each case, you introduced terms which you want to avoid.

'you' can TELL 'me' what I WANT TO AVOID or DO NOT WANT AVOID, but DOING SO MAY WELL END UP BEING VERY FOOLISH, on YOUR PART.

You say create was used 'loosely'.
You claim ignorance as to how 'come from' implies an origin.

LOOK you are, STILL, 'TRYING' your HARDEST TO FIGHT FOR 'your position' WITHOUT even YET FULLY KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING what I have even SAID, and MEANT, EXACTLY.
-

Perhaps if you type less, and read more -
you'll be able to keep track of what's been said.
You're wrong.. again.

LOL 'This one' ACTUALLY thinks or even BELIEVES that LOL just SAYING and WRITING, 'you are wrong', IS ENOUGH.

And, JUST MAYBE you have NOT YET FULLY COMPREHENDED and UNDERSTOOD what HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SAID, and MEANT, here.

But, you WILL NEVER EVER even just CONSIDER this, let alone ACTUALLY QUESTION it.

Considering that you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that the 'totality of existence' (the Universe) IS 'created' FROM the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things, [...]

You: "First off, EVERY thing IS, and WAS, 'created', from the 'coming-together' of at least two OTHER things."
Me: "The totality of existence (universe) is a thing, and does not adhere to your flawed thinking."

Does not adhere to = does not match criteria set.

In response, you declare I absolutely believe a position directly opposing what I immediately just stated.

Another time, wrong.

Did you EVER STOP TO WONDER IF I LEFT OUT A WORD LIKE, 'NOT', for example?

Did you EVEN THINK TO SEEK OUT and OBTAIN ACTUALLY CLARITY, BEFORE you JUST WENT OFF ASSUMING some thing, AGAIN, while JUMPING TO ANOTHER False, AND Wrong, CONCLUSION, AGAIN?

See, if you HAD, then you would 'now' BE REALIZING that I MAY WELL have NOT been DECLARING 'the position' that you ABSOLUTELY BELIEVING I DID.

Being wrong so frequently indicates a low regard for truth -

Seeing as you are OBVIOUSLY TOO AFRAID and TOO SCARED TO PRESENT your ACTUAL 'positon/s', here, and you just CONTINUALLY CLAIM that, 'you are wrong' WITHOUT ANY thing ELSE other than your OWN ASSUMPTIONS, CONCLUSIONS, and BELIEFS, ONLY, you are NOT in ANY REAL POSITION TO MAKE SUCH CLAIMS as this one, here.

not great for a philosophy forum.

The 'Thing', known as the Universe, or Everything, Totality, or ALL-THERE-IS, ALSO ONLY exists BECAUSE OF 'two things' 'coming-together', or CO-EXISTING. [...]
The Universe, Itself, is One Thing, which consists of two things, namely; 'matter', AND, 'space'. The One Thing came FROM the two things.

Existence is the foundation for any thing to be.

SO WHAT?

I have NOT SAID nor CLAIMED OTHERWISE.

If any thing is, then existence is.

AGAIN, NOTHING TO DO WITH MY ACTUAL CLAIM/S, here.

If existence was not, then no thing could ever be.

So, you are more or less JUST AGREEING WITH me, ANYWAY.

Existence does not require any other thing, or combination of things to be.

SO, TO you anyway, 'Existence', Itself, CAN BE, even WITHOUT ANY thing AT ALL.

Which MEANS, 'you are wrong'.

And, ACCORDING TO 'your way' of DOING 'things', 'this' IS ALL I NEED TO SAY, and CLAIM, here.

Existence is what allows things to be - it is the per-requisite for all things.

If so, then what IS 'Existence', Itself, EXACTLY?

HOW DID 'Existence', Itself, COME-TO-BE, EXACTLY?

you have NOT JUST A VERY NARROWED VIEW, and PERSPECTIVE, OF some things, you ALSO HAVE A COMPLETELY CLOSED PERSPECTIVE, AS WELL.

Some hypothetical examples to broaden your narrow perspective:

It is possible that existence has the capacity to create space/matter from it's absence -

LOL So, "ben js" BELIEVES that it IS POSSIBLE FOR A 'thing', which exists IN CONCEPT, ONLY, and ONLY IN human being's CONCEPTS, to have HAD the CAPACITY to CREATE the very things, which OBVIOUSLY EXISTED BEFORE human beings, and NOT JUST 'this capacity' but ALSO 'this capacity' EVEN WHEN 'Existence', Itself, did NOT even EXIST.

that before the big bang, there was no space or matter.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here 'we' have ANOTHER one who BELIEVES, ABSOLUTELY, that the Universe BEGAN AT or WITH A so-called 'big bang' and that there WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL BEFORE 'that moment'.

Which just SHOWS and PROVES HOW CLOSED some people REALLY COULD BE, and WERE.

If so, existence would still be - even before space/matter existed.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, what 'this ones' is DOING, here, is, REALLY, just USING the word and label, 'Existence', when others would just USE the word and label, 'God, instead.

However, it does NOT, and did NOT, matter ONE IOTA what word NOR label that USE/D, they ALL FELL INTO the EXACT SAME OLD TRAP.

It is possible that only awareness exists,
with space and matter being false constructs.
In this case, existence would still be.

Maybe so. But, you are just talking ABOUT what IS POSSIBLE, ONLY, and NOT ABOUT what IS.

Also, if 'awareness', ALONE, ONLY exists, then WHY would 'awareness', itself, be MAKING UP False ASSUMPTIONS and False constructs?

There is much we do not know about existence.

There may well be MUCH that 'you', "ben js", do not know ABOUT 'Existence', itself, but do NOT FORGET that 'I' am NOT necessarily in 'your' 'we', here.

We're still learning of the laws that govern space & energy,
that exist beyond them.

'you' REALLY DO HAVE SO MUCH MORE TO LEARN, and UNDERSTAND, here.

And, DO NOT FORGET that 'I' am NOT 'you', NOR necessarily WITHIN 'your' 'we', here, AT ALL.

The TOTALITY OF Existence, [the Universe], Itself, is NOT just One FIXED and/nor UNCHANGING Thing.

This is likely a core component of our disagreement.
I believe in Eternalism or the B-Theory of time.

And, here, is the IRREFUTABLE PROOF of just HOW CLOSED you REALLY ARE, here.

For your education:

Eternalism:
1. Under standard eternalism, temporal locations are somewhat akin to spatial locations.
[...] When someone says that they stand ‘here’, it is clear that the term ‘here’ refers to their position.
‘Back’ and ‘front’ exist as well. Eternalists stress that ‘now’ is indexical in a similar way.
[...] Events are classified as past, present, or future from some perspective.

'This' is ONE CLOSED view AND perspective.

-
2. Some forms of eternalism give time a similar ontology to that of space, as a dimension, with different times being as real as different places,
and future events are "already there" in the same sense other places are already there, and that there is no objective flow of time. [...]
It is sometimes referred to as the “block time” or “block universe” theory due to its description of space-time as an unchanging four-dimensional “block”.

Talk ABOUT over complicating what IS ESSENTIALLY and ACTUALLY EXTREMELY SIMPLE.

Also, if you, REALLY, WANT TO CONTINUE with 'models' and/or 'theories', then so be it.

But, 'this' EXPLAINS WHY people, like 'this one', are SO, SO FAR BEHIND.

-
3.
Let us distinguish between two senses of “x exists now”.
In one sense, which we can call the temporal location sense, this expression is synonymous with “x is present”.
The non-presentist will admit that, in the temporal location sense of “x exists now”, it is true that no non-present objects exist now.
But in the other sense of “x exists now”, which we can call the ontological sense, to say that “x exists now” is just to say that x is now in the domain of our most unrestricted quantifiers.
Using the ontological sense of “exists”, we can talk about something existing in a perfectly general sense, without presupposing anything about its temporal location.

Okay. BUT WHY even 'TRY TO' COMPLICATE what is NOT?

B-Theory of Time:
B-theorists think all change can be described in before-after terms.

LOL "theorists".

They typically portray spacetime as a spread-out manifold with events occurring at different locations in the manifold (often assuming a substantivalist picture).
Living in a world of change means living in a world with variation in this manifold.
To say that a certain autumn leaf changed color is just to say that the leaf is green in an earlier location of the manifold and red in a later location.
The locations, in these cases, are specific times in the manifold.

You are wrong.

The totality of existence (Universe) is a Thing, and does not adhere to your flawed thinking.

if 'we' were to USE your OWN DEFINITIONS

I'm using standard definitions from dictionaries / encyclopedias.
Each were copied verbatim from the source.

GREAT. That MAKES what I SAID and CLAIMED even MORE accurate AND correct.

What I SAID and CLAIMED FITTED IN, PERFECTLY, with those, 'now', so-called 'standard definitions from dictionaries / encyclopedias.

They are not my own, but in the absence of an alternate definition,
I'll take for granted people are using terms in accord with their standard usage.

If you'd like me to direct you to the definition source of any word,
all you need to do is ask.

NO NEED TO.

AS SHOWN and PROVED ABOVE MY CLAIMS FITTED IN, PERFECTLY, ANY WAY.

===
===

Go ahead and sting that strawman, Age.
I plan for this to be my last response to you within in this thread.

Here, 'we' have ANOTHER example of one who JUST RUNS AWAY, when they are NOT ABLE TO back up and support 'their CLAIMS', and/or can ACTUALLY NOT COUNTER NOR REFUTE what I have SAID, and CLAIMED, here.

I've said what I wanted, and seen enough to my satisfaction.

YES, you HAVE EXPRESSED your BELIEFS, and, ONLY, SEEN, and HEARD, what you WANTED TO SEE, and HEAR, to SATISFY your 'CONFIRMATION BIASES'.

It was a pleasure - til next time.

you HAVE PROVED ALL ON your LONESOME just HOW WRONG you HAVE BEEN, here, AND HOW the Universe, Itself, AND what I HAVE SAID and CLAIMED, here, does NOT adhere TO 'your' OBVIOUSLY FLAWED and FAULTY thinking, here.

you have SHOWN your REAL 'self', that is one who just MAKES False CLAIMS, and then just LEAVES WHEN you are CHALLENGED, and QUESTIONED.

[Age]

Ben, my best recommend is not to talk to it, you will eventually understand why.

Age is like a beehive.
I recognized this before interacting.
I expected to be stung before I engaged.
I intentionally provoked them with a stick,
to get direct feedback as to what they're about.

you WANTED TO GET DIRECT 'feedback', AND you GOT STUNG, ABSOLUTELY.

Thanks for the heads up.

Taking ADVICE FROM one who DOES the EXACT OPPOSITE OF what they ADVICE is NOT the MOST SMARTEST thing that you DO.

[Immanuel Can]

Can you explain why you think I don't find the existence of God plausible?

You tell me.

It's a serious question. You apparently believe that the only explanation you find plausible must be the truth. I think I have made it clear that the existence of God is plausible, so evidently we don't mean the same by plausible. What then do you mean by plausible?

Plausibility isn't an on-off switch. It's a scale. The flat earth is "plausible" in the view of those who have no further information, because from where one stands, it looks flat. People have believed it, and with great confidence, even. It was "plausible" to them; that doesn't mean it was ever true.

This is also the problem with calling epistemology "aesthetics." One may like a view (aesthetically), and it still be untrue; or one may hate a view (aesthetically), and it still be true. We might like the view that, for example, the US or the UK are eternally guaranteed entities -- but it isn't true: they are invented, and can be dissolved, as unpalatable a thought as we might find that. Or we might hate the current administrations in both, without that making them any different than they are. People believe many things for aesthetic reasons, but that has nothing to do with their value as truth, or with their relation to reality.

But as to what you "find plausible," how can I tell you that? I would have to be inside your head. What's your personal test for the plausibility of a belief? That, you have to tell me.

[Will Bouwman]

People believe many things for aesthetic reasons, but that has nothing to do with their value as truth, or with their relation to reality.

Well again, there are philosophical questions precisely because there is no way to know what the truth about them is. My point is that anyone who studies, say ontology, will be confronted with a series of options that are equally supported by exactly same evidence. For instance, there is no empirical difference between idealism and dualism. Once you grasp that, it is clear that anyone who commits to one, either doesn't understand, or is making an aesthetic choice. By the same token, there is no empirical difference between actual experience of God, and delusional experience of God. Again, anyone who takes a position either doesn't understand, or knows they are making an aesthetic choice.

[Immanuel Can]

People believe many things for aesthetic reasons, but that has nothing to do with their value as truth, or with their relation to reality.

Well again, there are philosophical questions precisely because there is no way to know what the truth about them is.

Well, to be blunt: I think this is a misunderstanding of both truth and of epistemology. Human epistemology of all kinds -- with the exception of formally-closed systems like maths and formal logic -- is ALWAYS probabilistic, not absolute. So people who say they "know" something can never say they "know" beyond the wild possibility of all doubt: even science itself is not that exact. But they can still say with appropriate and non-deceptive meaning that they "know" things. To "know" is to venture to fix one's faith on the proposition that has the highest sort of probability, not to be omniscient about it.

My point is that anyone who studies, say ontology, will be confronted with a series of options that are equally supported by exactly same evidence.

But not equally plausible or equally realistic or equally data-supported options. "Equal" is actually an impossible thing, outside of maths.

For instance, there is no empirical difference between idealism and dualism.

Yet in this line, you just (accidentally?) privileged Empiricism. Why should "empirical" have precedence over other options? Is that choice merely aesthetic?

Once you grasp that, it is clear that anyone who commits to one, either doesn't understand, or is making an aesthetic choice.

But that's clearly not the case. Even in your own wording, you privilege Empiricism.

By the same token, there is no empirical difference between actual experience of God, and delusional experience of God.

Sure there is. There's a big difference between hallucinating a visit to Detroit and having been to Detroit. The former is a case of being deluded, because there is no reality corresponding to the experience; in the latter, the perception is disciplined by the reality of being in Detroit.

[Will Bouwman]

People believe many things for aesthetic reasons, but that has nothing to do with their value as truth, or with their relation to reality.

Well again, there are philosophical questions precisely because there is no way to know what the truth about them is.

Well, to be blunt: I think this is a misunderstanding of both truth and of epistemology. Human epistemology of all kinds -- with the exception of formally-closed systems like maths and formal logic -- is ALWAYS probabilistic, not absolute. So people who say they "know" something can never say they "know" beyond the wild possibility of all doubt: even science itself is not that exact. But they can still say with appropriate and non-deceptive meaning that they "know" things. To "know" is to venture to fix one's faith on the proposition that has the highest sort of probability, not to be omniscient about it.

No, what scientists know is what happens. They know, for example, that most objects with mass will accelerate at 9.8ms² because of Earth's gravity. They know that is consistent with Newton's law of universal gravitation, and they know that Einstein's field equations are even more accurate. What few scientists will claim to know is the truth of any proposition about the cause of gravity.

My point is that anyone who studies, say ontology, will be confronted with a series of options that are equally supported by exactly same evidence.

But not equally plausible or equally realistic or equally data-supported options. "Equal" is actually an impossible thing, outside of maths.

Well, just as an unmarried man = a bachelor, equally supported by exactly same evidence and equally data-supported are the same thing. Given two propositions that are equally data-supported they are equally plausible and equally realistic.

For instance, there is no empirical difference between idealism and dualism.

Yet in this line, you just (accidentally?) privileged Empiricism. Why should "empirical" have precedence over other options? Is that choice merely aesthetic?

I have not privileged empiricism, I am referring to the rationalist Descartes's point that we can only know that there is empirical data; our own perceptions.

Once you grasp that, it is clear that anyone who commits to one, either doesn't understand, or is making an aesthetic choice.

But that's clearly not the case. Even in your own wording, you privilege Empiricism.

As above: no I don't.

By the same token, there is no empirical difference between actual experience of God, and delusional experience of God.

Sure there is. There's a big difference between hallucinating a visit to Detroit and having been to Detroit.

How are you going to convince anyone that being in Detroit is equivalent to knowing God? If someone claims to have been to Detroit, their description of their experience can be compared to demonstrable facts; maps and photos for example. What can one hold in their hands after a visit to God?

The former is a case of being deluded, because there is no reality corresponding to the experience...

The thing about being deluded is you don't know that you are deluded.

...in the latter, the perception is disciplined by the reality of being in Detroit.

That doesn't make any difference to the reality of the experience; again, as Descartes pointed out, the experience is the only thing we know is real.

[Immanuel Can]

Well again, there are philosophical questions precisely because there is no way to know what the truth about them is.

Well, to be blunt: I think this is a misunderstanding of both truth and of epistemology. Human epistemology of all kinds -- with the exception of formally-closed systems like maths and formal logic -- is ALWAYS probabilistic, not absolute. So people who say they "know" something can never say they "know" beyond the wild possibility of all doubt: even science itself is not that exact. But they can still say with appropriate and non-deceptive meaning that they "know" things. To "know" is to venture to fix one's faith on the proposition that has the highest sort of probability, not to be omniscient about it.

No, what scientists know is what happens. They know, for example, that most objects with mass will accelerate at 9.8ms² because of Earth's gravity. They know that is consistent with Newton's law of universal gravitation, and they know that Einstein's field equations are even more accurate. What few scientists will claim to know is the truth of any proposition about the cause of gravity.

But ultimately, they don't even "know" that, if "know" means something absolute. How can they be 100% sure that we are not a "brain in a vat," as the old Idealist thought experiment would suggest? How do they "know," then, that objects fall at any particular rate, since no objects would actually fall in reality? Of course, they don't know that, if "know" means "100% certainty." But probability-wise, they're fine.

My point is that anyone who studies, say ontology, will be confronted with a series of options that are equally supported by exactly same evidence.

But not equally plausible or equally realistic or equally data-supported options. "Equal" is actually an impossible thing, outside of maths.

Well, just as an unmarried man = a bachelor, equally supported by exactly same evidence and equally data-supported are the same thing.

But that never happens. "Equal," in reality, is simply not available.

For instance, there is no empirical difference between idealism and dualism.

Yet in this line, you just (accidentally?) privileged Empiricism. Why should "empirical" have precedence over other options? Is that choice merely aesthetic?

I have not privileged empiricism, I am referring to the rationalist Descartes's point that we can only know that there is empirical data; our own perceptions.

That, too, has been questioned. Some have suggested that the "I" in the cogito is still uncertain or undefined; in which case, there is no actual data, and no actual data-collector...

I don't suppose that. But in any case, you're still going to have to refer to a belief in the reliability of Empiricism in order to claim that there's data...and none of it will ever be "equal" to any other data. True equality only exists in maths.

By the same token, there is no empirical difference between actual experience of God, and delusional experience of God.

Sure there is. There's a big difference between hallucinating a visit to Detroit and having been to Detroit.

How are you going to convince anyone that being in Detroit is equivalent to knowing God?

Both can be experiential.

If someone claims to have been to Detroit, their description of their experience can be compared to demonstrable facts; maps and photos for example.

"Demonstrable" facts? To whom will you, as a Cartesian, "demonstrate" them? And since, according to Descartes argument, reality itself is not absolutely certain, where are these "maps" and "photos" going to exist, and why would they be more than delusions? And why would a "map" drawn by somebody else be a more certain guide than an experience had personally by somebody else? If I "map" a place I'm only deluded about, what makes that "map" epistemically reliable?

What can one hold in their hands after a visit to God?

Two stone tablets, apparently.

The former is a case of being deluded, because there is no reality corresponding to the experience...

The thing about being deluded is you don't know that you are deluded.

That doesn't change the answer. A delusion has no corresponding reality, whereas a perception of reality does. And, as the old aphorism points out, "reality is that which pushes back against our wishes." Delusions are freely shaped by the patterns of our cognitions.

We might also note that even the concept "delusion" presupposes the existence of reality. If reality itself were an illusion, it would not be possible to be wrong about it, and not possible to say of anybody that they were "deluded."

[Will Bouwman]

No, what scientists know is what happens. They know, for example, that most objects with mass will accelerate at 9.8ms² because of Earth's gravity. They know that is consistent with Newton's law of universal gravitation, and they know that Einstein's field equations are even more accurate. What few scientists will claim to know is the truth of any proposition about the cause of gravity.

But ultimately, they don't even "know" that, if "know" means something absolute. How can they be 100% sure that we are not a "brain in a vat," as the old Idealist thought experiment would suggest? How do they "know," then, that objects fall at any particular rate, since no objects would actually fall in reality?

Well, yes, as I have repeated ad nauseum, there are only two propositions that are 100% sure, which we owe to Parmenides and Descartes. As Parmenides noted, "Being is" is a necessarily true statement and, as Descartes deduced, every time a perception is perceived, it is necessarily true that perception exists. So yeah, anyone who demands absolute knowledge, won't know much. So in the strictest sense, you are absolutely right, and I will happily rephrase my claim to there being a perception that there has been a perception that there exist scientists who are met with perceptions that falling objects close to the surface of Earth, accelerate at 9.8ms².

Well, just as an unmarried man = a bachelor, equally supported by exactly same evidence and equally data-supported are the same thing.

But that never happens. "Equal," in reality, is simply not available.

Nor is perfection, which torpedos any ontological argument for God, but I think you misunderstand. It is not two data sets that are compared, it is hypotheses that are attempts to account for one set of data that are compared.

How are you going to convince anyone that being in Detroit is equivalent to knowing God?

Both can be experiential.

Why do you think saying that will convince anyone?

If someone claims to have been to Detroit, their description of their experience can be compared to demonstrable facts; maps and photos for example.

"Demonstrable" facts? To whom will you, as a Cartesian, "demonstrate" them?

I'm not a Cartesian.

What can one hold in their hands after a visit to God?

Two stone tablets, apparently.

Great. Show me the tablets.

The thing about being deluded is you don't know that you are deluded.

That doesn't change the answer. A delusion has no corresponding reality, whereas a perception of reality does.

What difference would an external reality make to a perception?

[Age]

No, what scientists know is what happens. They know, for example, that most objects with mass will accelerate at 9.8ms² because of Earth's gravity. They know that is consistent with Newton's law of universal gravitation, and they know that Einstein's field equations are even more accurate. What few scientists will claim to know is the truth of any proposition about the cause of gravity.

But ultimately, they don't even "know" that, if "know" means something absolute. How can they be 100% sure that we are not a "brain in a vat," as the old Idealist thought experiment would suggest? How do they "know," then, that objects fall at any particular rate, since no objects would actually fall in reality?

Well, yes, as I have repeated ad nauseum, there are only two propositions that are 100% sure, which we owe to Parmenides and Descartes.

'This one' SPEAKS as though NO other human being EVER had WORKED OUT and COME TO the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION/S as these two did. Which REALLY IS BEYOND ABSURDITY.


As Parmenides noted, "Being is" is a necessarily true statement and, as Descartes deduced, every time a perception is perceived, it is necessarily true that perception exists. So yeah, anyone who demands absolute knowledge, won't know much.[/quote]

Yet, as was POINTED OUT you DID SAY, and CLAIM, ' what "scientists" KNOW IS ....'.

So in the strictest sense, you are absolutely right, and I will happily rephrase my claim to there being a perception that there has been a perception that there exist scientists who are met with perceptions that falling objects close to the surface of Earth, accelerate at 9.8ms².

Or, you could have re-phrased 'it' BETTER and/or MORE CORRECTLY.

Well, just as an unmarried man = a bachelor, equally supported by exactly same evidence and equally data-supported are the same thing.

But that never happens. "Equal," in reality, is simply not available.

Nor is perfection, which torpedos any ontological argument for God, but I think you misunderstand. It is not two data sets that are compared, it is hypotheses that are attempts to account for one set of data that are compared.

How are you going to convince anyone that being in Detroit is equivalent to knowing God?

Both can be experiential.

Why do you think saying that will convince anyone?

If someone claims to have been to Detroit, their description of their experience can be compared to demonstrable facts; maps and photos for example.

"Demonstrable" facts? To whom will you, as a Cartesian, "demonstrate" them?

I'm not a Cartesian.

What can one hold in their hands after a visit to God?

Two stone tablets, apparently.

Great. Show me the tablets.

The thing about being deluded is you don't know that you are deluded.

That doesn't change the answer. A delusion has no corresponding reality, whereas a perception of reality does.

What difference would an external reality make to a perception?

Just ABOUT EVERY thing. After all just about EVERY perception came from 'the external reality'.