All three sources agree about the fact that troops are being built up in A, and their disagreements are about the interpretation of that fact rather than the evidence for that fact. So it’s not a counterexample.
Ok. So, your example holds even when agents in B had said—they are massing 5000 extra troops in our border. Agents in C had said that they are massing 5000 troops at our border (assume these borders are separate) and agents in A (who work at an armament factory) had said production has been ramped up for around 4000 troops.
What can we agree on - there is a production rampup going on for atleast 4000 troops. Position remains uncertain.
Now, take this example to the much more complex example of theism.
95% of humanity believe in a supreme force, and their disagreements are about the interpretation of that force. Written manuscripts are handed down and most people treat these as evidence. For the better part of history religious practices are on. These are the B’s and C’s of our example. Directly contradictory evidences.
But then, come a bunch of people (the theosophists, new agers, “law of attraction” followers )who say—look, there is no need to totally and completely believe every word of manuscript. Follow some practices sincerely until you feel the presence yourself—something which a whole lot of dedicated believers do everyday. Unfortunately there is no way to mechanise this yet, since it is something like human intelligence, only one working demo, with no other examples, not yet replicated outside the cranium.
The point that they are saying is—There is something real about spirituality. This is evidence/interpretation that A brings to our table. Not quantitatively the same as B or C, but supporting the argument that there is something real going on there.
Maybe we can say that there is something real to spiritual practices/ritual that would be true even if there were no ‘G’.
So, if there is something real, what spiritual practices are you adopting as your own?
who say—look, there is no need to totally and completely believe every word of manuscript. Follow some practices sincerely until you feel the presence yourself
And are promptly condemned as heretics by every other faction. If there were a group that made claims that were supported by most other groups, then we might take them as real experts. But if their rationality is in dispute even among people who share their partial conclusion, then they are just another faction.
Is “a supreme force” the kind of thing you can add up like troop movements? A main point of the original argument is that the supreme forces claimed are mutually exclusive, whereas troop counts are not.
If the counter-claim is to be as vague as, “There is something real about spirituality,” we can all agree on some level. Some people will go with the level of common problems in human psychology that lead to the delusion of spirituality. Others will go with the existence of a supreme being. Taking these points together and adding them up to “something real” is not solid conceptualization. (Similar problems with adding together the belief in a supreme being and those who explicitly believe in a non-personal supreme force.)
Alternate approach: taking the Simulation Hypothesis seriously means having a significant prior for the existence of some kind of creator. I doubt that theists or people accepting the Simulation Hypothesis would say that their beliefs mostly overlap on the important points.
All three sources agree about the fact that troops are being built up in A, and their disagreements are about the interpretation of that fact rather than the evidence for that fact. So it’s not a counterexample.
Ok. So, your example holds even when agents in B had said—they are massing 5000 extra troops in our border. Agents in C had said that they are massing 5000 troops at our border (assume these borders are separate) and agents in A (who work at an armament factory) had said production has been ramped up for around 4000 troops.
What can we agree on - there is a production rampup going on for atleast 4000 troops. Position remains uncertain.
Now, take this example to the much more complex example of theism.
95% of humanity believe in a supreme force, and their disagreements are about the interpretation of that force. Written manuscripts are handed down and most people treat these as evidence. For the better part of history religious practices are on. These are the B’s and C’s of our example. Directly contradictory evidences.
But then, come a bunch of people (the theosophists, new agers, “law of attraction” followers )who say—look, there is no need to totally and completely believe every word of manuscript. Follow some practices sincerely until you feel the presence yourself—something which a whole lot of dedicated believers do everyday. Unfortunately there is no way to mechanise this yet, since it is something like human intelligence, only one working demo, with no other examples, not yet replicated outside the cranium.
The point that they are saying is—There is something real about spirituality. This is evidence/interpretation that A brings to our table. Not quantitatively the same as B or C, but supporting the argument that there is something real going on there.
Maybe we can say that there is something real to spiritual practices/ritual that would be true even if there were no ‘G’.
So, if there is something real, what spiritual practices are you adopting as your own?
And are promptly condemned as heretics by every other faction. If there were a group that made claims that were supported by most other groups, then we might take them as real experts. But if their rationality is in dispute even among people who share their partial conclusion, then they are just another faction.
Is “a supreme force” the kind of thing you can add up like troop movements? A main point of the original argument is that the supreme forces claimed are mutually exclusive, whereas troop counts are not.
If the counter-claim is to be as vague as, “There is something real about spirituality,” we can all agree on some level. Some people will go with the level of common problems in human psychology that lead to the delusion of spirituality. Others will go with the existence of a supreme being. Taking these points together and adding them up to “something real” is not solid conceptualization. (Similar problems with adding together the belief in a supreme being and those who explicitly believe in a non-personal supreme force.)
Alternate approach: taking the Simulation Hypothesis seriously means having a significant prior for the existence of some kind of creator. I doubt that theists or people accepting the Simulation Hypothesis would say that their beliefs mostly overlap on the important points.