- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 35,181
- Reaction score
- 15,237
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It depends what constitutes "evidence". It's unfortunate when material reductionists demand evidence for something that is ontological in nature. The two schools are entirely different. Ontological schools have different evidence requirements that material rationalist schools. The two schools are not in competition and one isn't more right than the other. They different philosophical branches.
I demand evidence that you exist, watsup, and aren't an algorithm.
Taken further... prove that anyone around you is conscious and not just a simulation. At the subatomic level we are all 99.8% empty space. Atoms contain almost nothing. Prove to me that this isn't all just some simulation.
Do you see the problem?
It's hard to demand evidence for ontological processes.
I feel that people like you need to understand that ontology is a huge part of the human experience, even if we're not talking about "God". Human function relies on so many day to day nonprovable assumptions that we take them for granted. The "God" one is low hanging fruit. I'd like to see somebody tackle why I should give a crap about any other human being, since they're not me and I can't prove that any other person has feelings like I do. I just assume that they do. Yet I can't see their thoughts so why do I do that? If I hurt somebody else, it's no skin off my back because I'm not the one in pain, assuming that these other creatures around me even register pain. Why can't I practice solipsism to the nth degree? What evidence do I have that I shouldn't?
Whatever. You’re a philosopher. I’m an atheist. No evidence, no God.