server error caused a double post.

Oh well.

JB wrote:



No, it is not the same. The only way to determine whether or not evidence exists is to identify it and assess it's accuracy, relevance, and sufficiency. That which is unrevealed cannot be identified, because it is unknown. Evidence, to be considered as evidence must be shown as such. One cannot show that which is unknown.

That is not the same thing as saying the moon ceases to exist, in and of itself, when I am not looking at it.





There is no difference as far as whether or not the evidence can be shown. All evidence shares that, in some way. 'Unfound' presupposes that evidence exists. 'Unrevealed' presupposes not only that evidence exists, but also that there is *something* responsible for revealing such evidence.

Neither kind of description offers any objective evidence. We can only conclude from either of those that one thinks or hopes that there is evidence to be found or revealed accordingly. All evidence can be shown and assessed according to it's accuracy, relevance, and sufficiency.



Yes it does, but I did not write that, nor can that be logically concluded from my words.

Then let's examine what you did say:

Quote creative:
"I think that evidence not yet revealed amounts to no evidence. Faith therefore exists without evidence."

This is not true. There certainly could be evidence, not found and not revealed. If there is no one looking for it, finding it, revealing it, it (evidence) could still exist.



Quote creative:
"What exactly constitutes evidence not immediately revealed? Unrevealed evidence does not exist."

Wrong. Lets use an example. Let's say that someone was murdered. The evidence was not found and revealed, but there is still a gun with finger prints hidden in the drain pipe. It exists. No one may have it, but it still exists. It can't be used, but it still exists.
It has only to be found and used.


"Either there is evidence, or there is the hope that there will be evidence found, it cannot be both simultaneously."

The evidence exists, the hope that it will be found exists. Yes it can be both simultaneously.

Quote creative:

"The most important aspect when considering all evidence is the determination of it's sufficiency and relevance."

Determination by whom? The answer to that is the person that needs the evidence in order to be convinced that something is true.

JennieBean ...when I asked those that claim to have had an out of body experience for some "New Unknown Knowledge" that they would have obtained through a new or unnatural experience ....you kept insisting that there were no such thing ..so can you now explain why "Unrevealed Evidence" isn't the same as "New Unknown Knowledge"

I do so with objective means and knowing that I have evidence to support my claims. Evidence which exists independently of my thoughts. That is why my opinions are verifiable, and what they are based upon.

What do you think would be adequate?



That is why the focus is upon evidence. It is a matter of what that perspective is built upon. That is displayed through and determined by the examination of the evidence presented.



I suppose that is one way to look at it Abra, but what if that were actually true? All opinion would be equal in every way simply because of the subjective nature of human perception. Therefore, it must be false, because all opinion is not equal in terms of correlating to actuality. If the fact that all opinion is subjective meant that all opinion is equally correct and/or true then there would be no knowledge. Feelings do not determine relevance and/or sufficiency. That is determined by logically connecting the dots between that which is presented as evidence and that which the evidence is supposed to show.

My expressed opinions are verifiable by means of presenting evidence which exists independently of my own thoughts. In other words I have objective evidence that can be reviewed and further assessed. That is what this thread is about.

So, why not stay on topic and look at the evidence rather than keep focusing upon what you think about me.





The focus is not upon the fact that opinions are subjective, that is a given, has been conceded earlier by me, and is now just a redundantly moot point. It is completely irrelevant and inconsequential to this topic. This is true because of the fact that it does not follow that all opinions are equal in any other way. So what? Opinions are subjective. Let us look at what they are subject to.

What is of great consequence to all examinations of evidence, would be the identification of what any given opinion is subject to for it's grounds. Subjective opinions are only verified to be accurate through objective means. That requires that evidence being used for verification exist independently of the mind.



You 'see' things unwritten by me. You continue to focus on me. Focus on the words being written. Focus on the topic at hand. Keep the discussion in that context. I have asked you several times what you think would be adequate. Perhaps if this were addressed, there would be no need to think or write things like this.





What I consider to be relevant and sufficient is not the focus. How accuracy, relevancy, and sufficiency is established is. I do not determine those parameters, I simply ackowledge the usefulness and employ them, as do most other people who deal with the concept of evidence on a regular basis. Therefore, you're focusing upon what you think about me - once again - and the thread and my words are focused upon the examination of evidence which is being presented and how it is applied.

If it bothers you, we do not have to continue talking about your personal beliefs. I did not choose that direction. I am merely focusing upon the evidence being presented. If you would rather focus upon my words, I would prefer that anyway. It is about time to focus upon the objective side of the topic anway. We have focused upon yours enough, I think. Unless you would like to offer some objective evidence which exists independently of the mind to examine. Other than that, I see no reason to continue the assessment of the evidence you have presented. It is unsupported opinion. By it's very nature it has been presented without any attempt at your verification of it through objective means. In my own attempt at verifying your claims, I have came across and later offered opposing objective evidence several times, without your even acknowledging that to be the case.

Until then, the evidence you have presented is still unverified and therefore subjective opinion. If it is objectively verified through a means which does not depend upon your mind for it's existence, it could gain a new level. The concept is similar to a spell-check feature.

JB,

You way overthinking here. It cannot be considered as evidence until it is found. Just because there may be evidence does not necessarily mean that there is. In your example, you presupposed and even articulated that evidence did exist even though it had not been found. You would not know that, if it had not been found. It does not necessarily follow that evidence always exists in every case despite the fact that none has been found.

It is that simple.

Your assessments of my words do not make sense.

So you are only objecting to the evidence if it's presented by abra?
What diference does it make whoose mind is "verifying" it, it's all still subjective...

PeterPan wrote:



You are confusing your perception of actuality with actuality itself.

Abra being the one who is presenting the evidence has nothing to do with my assessment of that evidence. I am not focused upon who presents evidence, I am focused upon the concept of evidence, in and of itself. He is also not the only one I have responded to. I see no logical connection to what has transpired here and your first question.

That last question has already been answered. If you really want to know, you can look back through the thread and find it yourself.

I would say trust me, but instead I'll just state that I have no confusion about perception and actuality.

While addressing abra, u said "If it is objectively verified through a means which does not depend upon your mind for it's existence, it could gain a new level"

My question is then, what do you consider objectively verified?

That question was already answered in your quote.

I'm lost then? Should I have asked what the "means" were?

The means are objective, and must be for reasons already clearly expressed. That requires that the objective verification depend upon evidence that exists independent of that mind. Opinion cannot verify opinion. Who the mind belongs to is of little to no importance. Objective evidence consists of that which can be pointed to and assessed. While a written opinion is a form of evidence, it cannot verify itself, nor can the writer verify his/her own opinion on a matter with more of the same.

NO - NOT EVEN

because I owe you an apology.

When I wrote that last post, last night (with almost no sleep in 24 hours)that was not how it sounded in my head.

Reading it again tonight, it does sound like an attack (a pop psychology analysis) as you put it - but that was not what I meant.

What I was trying to do was to show that I had paid attention to your philosophy and was trying to relate to it.

I'll take responsibility for my error - in no way was it my intension to attack or to analyse other than to make comparisons meant to support what I was saying (which was obviously unrecognizable.)

Sorry Sky - Red

But if everything starts subjectively, who decides what's objective?
Just because there is agreement between subjective views, I don't think that makes it objective.
IMO, the only objective viewpoint would come from a fully-enlightened being or entity that has no concern of the evidence being evaluated. As humans, we try our best, but fail miserably.

But hey, that's just my subjective opinion.

That's all anyone can offer.

Unless I get enough people to agree with me???

Well you beat me to it. As I awoke this morning I was thinking that I wish I could have gone back in time and talked myself out of replying as I did. Whatever your intention - whether or not I interpreted it correctly - my reply did nothing but exacerbate the problem.

So I accept your apology and offer mine to you. I'm sorry.

Well, for what it's worth I'm already in agreement with what you said. If you can get 100% consensus with everyone else then there won't be anyone left to disagree.

Good luck!

We all have those days!

Or at least I do on occassion.

Wouldn't it be nice to telepathically change the content of a post in a dream.

Everything does not start subjectively.



I could not agree more.



I could not agree less.