One of the things about looking at both sides of the argument is that one has more chance of learning something.
I would agree. That is exactly what goes on at this website.
Stating what you think is possibly going on is, by the definition of the word, a claim.
Claim: "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof".
I am not asserting anything IS the case, only that it might
be the case, which is not the same thing.
The problem you ran into in that thread, if I understood all the commentary properly, is that the discussion went from philosophical talk to a more scientific slant. You admitted that you didn't want to actually debate the topic though, so I agree requests for evidence were superfluous.
Though it was not a problem
that science was part of the subject because the subject was specific to the physical universe, something science is employed upon to examine. What was attempted in order to make it a problem was the demand for scientific evidence to back up the idea presented in the OP - an idea that is not overall a question of science in which science can obtain the answer.
In my particular view that is why philosophical debates are often useless, because they aren't based on anything verifiable.
Which is precisely why philosophical and theological ideas exist and persist because they are largely things of the mind which is something presently out of the reach of science. Scientists of course are free to examine such concepts and even experience alternate states subjectively. Anyone is.
Just an FYI: Dark matter cannot be seen but it's effect on other matter can. Invisible is not a limitation to discovery...
This is not invisibility in the context given. It is without any seen form, but can at least easily be seen
to interact with other stuff, thus providing something which can be measured thus not truly invisible.
It isn't totally a bad analogy to use in relation to the subject of GOD (and related experiences) but those experiences are largely subjective to the individual and organised religion has been used to control and shape beliefs in order to 'explain' the experiences and even own them, often with political secular agenda - and that adds to the confusion but must be considered as part of the whole process.
At this time they cannot be shown to exist. Personally I don't try to put limitations on what can and can't be determined scientifically in the future...
Nor I. But for now, I am speaking of 'for the time being - in the present moment'
This is the same with many ideas of God.
If a claim that a god exists but is not able to be seen (is invisible) then no burden of proof need be required or otherwise demanded. To do so is, simply put - a fallacy. A false demand. An illogical demand.
Sorry but I disagree. Any specific positive claim of anything, especially when that thing interacts in a universe with conversation laws, is not only prudent but necessary, because empirical evidence MUST exist as a result of those interactions.
As indeed it does, through the experiences of a great deal many individuals, coming from all manner of cultures (baggage and all) and aligned with some notion of an alternate reality interacting with our one through individual experience.
Of course, science is unable to work with the subjective without the objective agreement of the scientists. Therefore, scientists are limited to pursue the examination of the physical universe rather than of the mind. In relation to the mind, there is brain which is - at present - as far as they can go.
But science is unable to absorb philosophical and theological idealism in any way in which to fully eradicate it from the human mind, short of manipulating the brain in order to attempt to bring such thinking to an end.
Even that a person might claim that an invisible god (or intelligent designer(s) ) exist (or might exist) there is no reason to believe that person, so still no reason to demand evidence.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. That they believe it, and that someone else asks for their evidence as to why they believe it, is perfectly fair and appropriate. If someone doesn't want their claim challenged, don't come onto a public forum and make them.
This hearkens back to conversation laws you mentioned but misunderstands the nature of personal experience to the degree that it demands "show up or shut up", neither of which is acceptable or appropriate to that one who had/continues to have the experience(s).
What it amounts to is that the individual making the demand has to make the effort rather than the 'evidence' being given to the demanding on a silver platter so to speak.
Someone else's experiences are no substitute for your own, and all that can be said is to encourage the demanding to seek for themselves and see what might happen...
...Remembering the nature of the subject spoken about. It is something which seems more than willing to prove itself under certain circumstances, none of which stem from the attitude of demand or to directly pamper the purpose of science.
Another reason why someone might want to speak of their experiences and subsequent beliefs regarding those experiences is that they wish to test them out in the face of opposition to see if the opposition can come up with reasonable arguments which may, at the very least, separate beliefs that have attached themselves to the experience(s) from the experiences themselves.
Lots of reason really, to speak up. Even that there is nothing particularly scientific to present in relation to evidence.
I apologize if I am wrong here, but I have seen this tactic by cultists in the past, but don't know if this is your end game. They want to make their god creature claims but don't want anyone challenging them. That way some wayward person can visit this site and read their unsupported conjecture and possibly think it is true. To let any such speculation go unchallenged, regardless of the topic, is irresponsible of a society. Ideas should always be debated and discussed. Not all ideas are of equal value, and the better ones should win out over the lesser ones. Letting bad ideas go unchecked is itself a really bad idea...
I have no 'end game' that I am aware of. I am propelled by a number of reasons which could be considered agenda, but specifically not really my agenda, or my idea.
One of those reasons is that I see the human potential to transform the present systems of disparity inherited down the line, into a system of parity.
Given the systems of disparity currently honed to near perfection in this day and age, it can be logically argued that they can be sourced at a cult-like initial position and have and thus will continue to have a negative affect on the majority of humanity.
Such systems are taught to be protected, invested in, fought for, and die for by the very population controlled by said systems.
Why? Because it is the result of letting bad ideas go unchecked and thus, yes - a really bad idea overall.
Thus also why the predominance of alternative realities influencing the mind of the greater population - faiths and hopes focused primarily on what GOD can do for human beings because it is very apparent that those human beings who have the power influence and wherewithal to seriously assist with building a shared type of Utopia as a system of parity, are at present somewhat busy building their individual micro utopias for themselves and their significant others.
All under the banner of "It is only natural - science shows us so."
Yeah right. Depends on how the evidence is interpreted.
But anyhow, no use complaining and making demands which amount to 'show us god or shut up' as it ain't obviously going to happen.
Thus, it is illogical to demand that it does/should happen, otherwise 'we no listen'
and business as usual.
My thoughts on GOD are not about applying faith but reason. In that I may well be outside the more common religious/cult type dogmas. IMHO the idea of GOD cleans up quite nicely once those things are washed from it.