Thanks for your response, Kaziglu
You are welcome, and thanks for participating.
By evidence, I assume that you mean physical evidence. ie you assume that the physical paradigm is the fundamental reality and then ask for evidence of the spiritual paradigm.
I assume the physical paradigm because when it is tested, it works. It provides answers, advances technology, civilization, and knowledge. I have yet to see a single
example of religion actually doing anything
However the physical paradigm has no more right to be assumed fundamental than is the spiritual paradigm.
Why not? The physical paradigm works exactly the way it says it will. It makes predictions and tests them. If the predictions are true, they can be use to make other predictions, so on and so on, and our knowledge base of the world is built upon this process.
What exactly is the spiritual realm? What assumptions are made when the spiritual realm is assumed? In what way is this stuff useful? What ARE the rules for the spiritual paradigm as opposed to the physical paradigm, how can you demonstrate their efficacy, what is their purpose, how do we recognize them, why do they only seem to work for people who believe in them as opposed to the physical paradigm which works REGARDLESS of whether one believes in it?
An aspect of the alternative can be seen here -
A. I am a body that manifests as having will, spirit or consciousness (known by some as 'soul').
plenty of reason to believe this is true.
B. I am a soul (will, spirit, consciousness) that manifests as having a body and living in a world.
plenty of reason to believe that this is not true.
On a larger scale -
A. Physical/material reality is fundamental. Any non physical phenomenon is simply a manifestation of some of these physical processes.
Same as above.
B. Consciousness (experience, will, spirit, soul) is fundamental. Any physical phenomenon is simply a manifestation within consciousness.
same as above. You have yet to actually tell us how we could even KNOW that the spiritual paradigm is a correct, or at the very least, a useful one. We can obviously demonstrate the usefulness of the physical paradigm, because we wouldn't be having this discussion on an internet forum without it.
When you talk about evidence you are assuming paradigm A correct and are then asking that paradigm B be verified by use of the rules of A - which simply begs the question (assumes what you are trying to prove).
Then again, I ask, what ARE the rules of your paradigm? How can you even imply we should consider this paradigm valid if you can't even really explain WHAT IT IS?
Ultimately, we choose a paradigm.
I'll go with the one that WORKS, thanks.
The paradigm is the set of underlying assumptions. So for example before science can begin, a set of underlying assumptions must be set down (chosen). The assumptions cannot be verified within the paradigm itself.
You're very stubborn. If you make a prediction based upon a set of assumptions, and time and time again the prediction works, and allows you to make even better predictions, the assumptions are no longer assumed BECAUSE they have been demonstrated to work!
It's not like the assumptions for the physical paradigm are all false, but it somehow works anyways, while the assumptions for the spiritual paradigm are true, while it doesn't work at all. That would be utterly fatuous, and it really seems to be an underlying assumption of yours.
So, how should we choose a paradigm ? (remembering that science cannot be used before paradigm A has been chosen)
I would respond with why SHOULD I choose the spiritual paradigm? I know the argument for the physical one, I'm waiting for you to give me the argument for the spiritual one. What are the rules in this paradigm?