You should not accept any claim without sufficient evidence to justify that claim

The intentions of other human beings are, in fact, part of 'reality'.

this is a non sequitur.

I rejected this alternative extreme when I wrote

there are 3 possibilties.

you rejected 1:

I should only believe something exists if my world-facing senses provide sufficient evidence of that thing.

you rejected 2:

you should only believe something exists if your world-facing senses don't provide sufficient evidence of that thing. is that what you're claiming?

we are talking about 3:

you want to believe in some specific things that your world-facing senses don't help you detect but not other specific things.

here's what I said about 3:

fine. describe the methodology to me in detail that helps you determine which things exist that your senses can't help you detect. how do you determine which beliefs in things you can't detect actually map to reality and are not just conception?

and in response you talked about how someone might act when they do not want to take on the personal risk to themselves to determine something that falls under 1. so they refuse to do 1 in a situation where doing 1 is entirely possible. but i don't want to know about situations involving danger where the personal risk calculation rules that 1 is inadvisable. what i want to know about is the methodology, in detail that enables you to do 3 effectively. you don't seem to want to talk about that.

if you don't have a methodology, that's fine. no one ever does.

The hypothesis tested is that we have been provided with very helpful wisdom.

i responded to all this. i disagree that it's helpful wisdom overall. you can also find helpful wisdom in nearly any book written.

people from different religions find other holy books profound, helpful, inspiring, etc. nothing about that is an indication that something we can't detect lurks in the background whispering stories for people to write.

what is the methodology that differentiates them? in detail, please. or are you trying to tell me that your own personal sense of profoundness tells you what's correct? why should i trust your personal sense of profoundness?

Manifestly not.

the only time you've engaged with your rejection of 1 is when you talked about the woman escaping the possibly threatening man. a thing that can be fully evaluated using sense data. everything else you've said is not something that you can evaluate using sense data, and you've given no methodology that can differentiate them in any amount of detail. you've just talked about your own sense of profoundness.

i'm fairly unsurprised to find you aren't going to give me a methodology in any amount of detail that enables you to differentiate any of these things.

/r/DebateReligion Thread Parent