Featured Is Materialism scientifically validated?

[AgnosticBoy]

That's a lot of important details on how to think about these issues involving lack of evidence. I think the strongest case the materialist can make against the validity of your claim is the following...

Lack of Direct Evidence: Materialists tend to rely on empirical evidence, and there is no direct empirical evidence indicating that planets possess consciousness. The evidence for intelligent life on Earth can be explained through evolutionary processes and natural selection without necessarily invoking planetary consciousness.

And even that has its limitations because while there is no direct evidence, but there can be inferences based on the evidence or evidence that suggests planetary consciousness.

Getting back to the no evidence scenario. If we're honest, I think the nature of the claim does matter. Thinking of my past debates on the resurrection, supernatural claims (or similar sounding claims) tend to be dismissed a priori while UNevidenced natural claims (such as Jesus's body being stolen) are not dismissed outright. Clearly, there is a double standard here in terms of how UNevidenced claims are treated and in terms of what's considered possible.

 

[William]

That's a lot of important details on how to think about these issues involving lack of evidence. I think the strongest case the materialist can make against the validity of your claim is the following...

It is important to take what GPT offers and correct such where necessary. I shared what GPT offered without making any adjustments and the adjustment I make re that particular "strongest case" is the following:

Lack of Direct Evidence: Materialists tend to rely on empirical evidence, and prefer to see no direct empirical evidence indicating that the planet possess consciousness. They believe the evidence for intelligent life on Earth is explained through evolutionary processes and natural selection without having to agree with the idea of planetary consciousness, even though consciousness is part of evolutionary processes and natural selection and there is no reason not to apply that to a planet which is directly involved in said process.

And even that has its limitations because while there is no direct evidence, but there can be inferences based on the evidence or evidence that suggests planetary consciousness.

Getting back to the no evidence scenario. If we're honest, I think the nature of the claim does matter. Thinking of my past debates on the resurrection, supernatural claims (or similar sounding claims) tend to be dismissed a priori while UNevidenced natural claims (such as Jesus's body being stolen) are not dismissed outright. Clearly, there is a double standard here in terms of how UNevidenced claims are treated and in terms of what's considered possible.

I agree. There is a double standard and those who care to do so, should work at making sure neither materialists or supernaturalists get away with that.

Please prove that souls exist and that they are either resurrected or reincarnated - Page 49 - Debating Christianity and Religion

debatingchristianity.com