Well if something spoke to me in my head and told me things I didn’t and couldn’t know but could verify later, I’d be convinced they were real and not just a hallucination.
Of course you’d need to be really careful about the strength of the evidence. Basically p-hacking on coincidences is how people become convinced of both woo metaphysics and conspiracy theories.
Well if something spoke to me in my head and told me things I didn’t and couldn’t know but could verify later, I’d be convinced they were real and not just a hallucination.
Surely they would be “real”, but then the simulation hypothesis still trumps the God hypothesis as an explanation of the phenomenon, given my metaphysics.
I’m asking: What legitimate reasoning, given what sort of ~evidence would be able to convince me that God, e.g., in the Abrahamic sense, is real, or that Kami are real (plausibly partly through subverting my metaphysics)?
Well if something spoke to me in my head and told me things I didn’t and couldn’t know but could verify later, I’d be convinced they were real and not just a hallucination.
Of course you’d need to be really careful about the strength of the evidence. Basically p-hacking on coincidences is how people become convinced of both woo metaphysics and conspiracy theories.
Surely they would be “real”, but then the simulation hypothesis still trumps the God hypothesis as an explanation of the phenomenon, given my metaphysics.
I’m asking: What legitimate reasoning, given what sort of ~evidence would be able to convince me that God, e.g., in the Abrahamic sense, is real, or that Kami are real (plausibly partly through subverting my metaphysics)?