Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?

To everything there is an end.Let's agree to disagree and call it closed, as I am tired of your ugly attitude and browbeating mannerisms. You gloat over your "victory" over Iano, yet I doubt you changed his mind, just his willingness to reply to you. Most of these posts on these two threads involve several replies from you to particular posts, that range from incredulity to outright mocking. Enough. When you distill it down your argument comes down to "people make things up" and then you conclude that this means there is no evidence of gods.The difference is that you exclude a class of evidence from consideration, and this leaves you with a narrow view for finding answers.I include that class of evidence in consideration, and this leaves me with more avenues, even though it may not increase the amount of answers available.In both cases we have evidence leading to conclusions leading to testing of conclusions against reality.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

THE ARGUMENT
Question: What is the difference between atheism and deism?Answer: Evidential and intellectual consistency.Atheists do not engage in the logical fallacy of special pleading by considering any one unevidenced entity more or less possible than any other. Non-belief is thus consistent.I am an atheist because I consistently do not believe in the actuality of that for which there is no evidential reason to even think possible.RAZD started this argument by relentlessly declaring that the atheist position amounted to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". He relentlessly and repeatedly asserted this despite numerous actual atheists telling him that this was not their position at all.RAZD was wrong.Only by ignoring evidence that conflicts with ones world view can one draw this conclusion.If ALL of the objective evidence available is taken into account then the only logical position is a degree of non-belief. A degree of atheism.This is demonstrated here Message 247And here Message 175The only deistic response to this was an advocacy of the flawed concept of "subjective evidence". After much protest it became obvious that this amounts to nothing more than the subjective intepretation of objective evidence.In the case of gods, where there is no supporting objective evidence, this amounts to an interpretation of nothing. In short a conclusion that is no more reliable than a random guess plucked from the near infinite array of unevidenced possibilities.This is demonstrated here Message 329Thus the only possible conclusion is that deism is irrational, illogical, evidentially inconsistent and in contradiction of the objective evidence available.I don't say that any deist should not believe on this basis. I don't even suggest that they should care.But what cannot be justified, and what RAZD has attempted to justify here, is the claim that irrational deistic beliefs are no more or less un-evidenced, inconsistent, illogical or irrational than the conclusions of atheism. There is no evidence of gods. Nor is there any evidence to suggest the possibility of gods. If there was such evidence gods would be evidentially viable concepts. If there was such evidence faith would be redundant.You all too readily dismiss the evidenced fact that "people make things up". One of the most evidenced and demonstrable facts that it is possible to identify. Humanity's capacity for invention, creativity and seemingly infinite imagination is truly miraculous. It should be celebrated and acknolwledged. Not swept under the carpet as you are attempting to do.The only problem with this remarkable ability is that it is rather a major stumbling block when it comes to deriving remotely reliable objective truths, or even remotely valid possible truths, in the absence of any supporting evidence.Anyway the fact of human invention is both exceptionally well evidenced and much much more powerful than you seem ready yet to acknowledge.This is your loss. In my opinion.THE DEBATE You should go back and read your early posts in this thread. The manner in which you mockingly, dismissively, arrogantly and repeatedly asserted your now refuted point set the tone. Too confident were you in the inherent untouchability of your 'unknowable' deistic conclusions from critical and evidential analysis. Once you started with the accusations of cognitive dissonance the gloves were off as far as I was concerned. If you said something worthy of mockery I saw no reason to hold back.And talking of cognitive dissonance.....I have answered everything you have thrown at me honestly and consistently. Even if at times mockingly. If there is anything you think I have not addressed then ask it now and I will address it. If there are any holes in any argument that I have presented then you have failed to show this to be the case.In contrast:1) In nearly 600 posts spanning two threads you have never once acknowledged the fact that the absence of evidence claim upon which your entire argument is founded is false if ALL of the objective evidence available is taken into account. There is evidence 'against' the actuality of gods even if there is no evidence 'for'.Ignoring uncomfortable evidence — Cognitive dissonance indicator 1.2) Refusal to acknowledge refutation of your arguments — You have just stopped responding to anyone who points out that the IPU has been fully validated as a means of demonstrating that the logical fallacy of special pleading is required to differentiate one wholly unevidenced entity from another. But you have never once acknowledged that this has now been validated.Inability to acknowledge ones errors even when laid bare for all to see — Cognitive dissonance indicator number 2.3) Wilful conflation - Wilful conflation of probability and possibility despite being explicitly told multiple times that my argument relies only upon the former and not the latter. Wilful conflation on the basis that your position can only logically apply to the latter.Intentional conflation of concepts to make them more amenable to your own argument — Cognitive dissonance indicator 3.4) The use of opinion rather than argument as evidence - Mark24 disagrees with you thus you are refuted.Need I say more — Cognitive dissonance indicator 4.5) The ad-hominem fallacy — You have repeatedly used the argument that if all atheists are not evidentially consistent then this is somehow proof of the atheist position being evidentially inconsistent.Use of logical fallacy which you are fully aware is a logical fallacy — Cognitive dissonance indicator 5.6) Ignoring uncomfortable questions — Read through this thread and see just how many questions you have repeatedly ignored.Repeated evasion of questions which cause ones argument to be analysed too thoroughly — Cognitive dissonance indicator 6.So the next time you are tempted to start hurling around accusations of cognitive dissonance I suggest that you review your own performance in both this and the IPU thread first.Enjoy.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In practical terms I don't think anybody disagrees with this.But after 300+ posts it would seem that from a philosophical and 'approach to evidence' perspective that there is, in some cases at least, a gaping and unbridgable chasm between the two positions.

The example of alien life visitations shows the difference clearly.You include the possibility of alien visitations based on a logical extrapolation from the known objective evidence - life on earth + the existence of other planets.You exclude the possibility of alien visitations based on subjective reports of alien sightings.You see no difference between believing in alien visitations based on this subjective evidence and the IPU etc argument, because you exclude subjective evidence from your evaluation.I include both the extrapolation from known evidence and the possibility of subjective evidence being true.Thus I do see a difference between believing in alien visitations based on this subjective evidence and the IPU etc argument, because I include subjective evidence in my evaluation, an element that is completely missing from the IPU and similar arguments. When you look at the complete picture it is still evidential and intellectual consistency. The only difference is in what is considered within the realm of evidence.In both cases the conclusions drawn are tested against what we know of objective reality, and concepts that are contradicted by objective are discarded or modified.Not one argument advanced by Straggler or others leads me to change my mind on this, as I find the arguments incomplete and unconvincing. The claim that the evidence shows that "people-make-things-up" does not explain the experiences, and in the end it is as useful (useless) in reaching conclusions as the theistic "god-did-it" rationalization. It answers by excusing you from further investigation. Yes, people make things up, all the time - all theories are "made up" explanations of experience. The difference between just accepting a made up explanation and testing it against reality is what differentiates the scientific process from the (myth)theological process. Curiously your argument, and others, has been consistently that there is no reason to believe in something for which you have no (convincing\allowed) evidence. You then go to great lengths about how there is an absence of (convincing\allowed) evidence for god/s and use this to justify a lack of belief. Q.E.D. Your "evidence against" is your claim that people make things up. You will excuse me if I don't find this compelling for the reasons stated above. See above. It is only valid if you exclude a class of evidence that I do not exclude. That such evidence also provides a causal difference for one belief over another also excludes the special pleading claimed. Your statement is true only if you exclude subjective evidence, and I don't.I stopped repeating answers to repeated questions that have been answered. Questions that are based on your exclusive point of view are irrelevant. No, rather what was demonstrated was that your extrapolation leads to a conclusion of the possibility that alien visitation observations could be based on truth, yet you still reject the viability of such evidence. No, the point of the use of opinion was to demonstrate that it was opinion - subjective - not "evidentially based" - objective - as you have claimed. You have acknowledged this, but only after many repeated confrontations with this evidence. Difference of opinion demonstrates that the conclusion is not objective only. No, first off that is not an ad hominem and second that was not the argument. The argument was on the inclusion of subjective evaluation of the relative merits of different evidence due to your world views being (necessarily) different. Your claim of intellectual consistency of atheists versus deists is invalid once you accept the reality of this process occurring in all people. The difference in conclusion is due to the difference in what is considered relevant evidence and the relative weighting of the evidence, whether you are atheist or deist or theist, and can be just as intellectually consistent based on the (convincing\allowed) evidence for the person involved.Are all world views equivalent? Of course not. I don't believe any two world views are ultimately equal. The only way we know to test the validity of world views is to see where and how they are contradicted by known objective reality markers - things we agree on as evidence of reality. Thus we all test our world views against the objective evidence of reality, and (if we are intellectually consistent) discard concept/s that are invalidated - or deny that the evidence that invalidates the concept/s is valid evidence. I think you will find that the relevant questions are answered, not necessarily in direct response to your questions, nor necessarily in a manner you like, but answered.There are thus, imho, five broadly defined groups or classes of concepts:(1) concepts that are supported by objective and subjective evidence, that are testable and that are not contradicted by objective evidence.(2) concepts that are supported by objective and subjective evidence, that are not testable, and that are not contradicted by objective evidence.(3)concepts that are supported by subjective evidence, that are not testable, and that are not contradicted by objective evidence.(4) concepts that are not supported by subjective or objective evidence, that are not testable, and that are not contradicted by objective evidence.(5) concepts that are contradicted (falsified) by objective evidence.The first are scientific concepts, the second include your extrapolation of the possibility of alien life on other planets and the possibility of alien visitations, the third includes alien visitation experiences (UFO's etc), the fourth is the IPU class (russel's teapot, the garage dragon, etc), and the fifth includes a young earth. You only include class (1) and (2), while I include (1), (2) and (3). Note that I don't necessarily speak for anyone else. Message 333
Why this should come as a surprise to you is a mystery to me, as the basic conclusions re the possibility of god/s are contradictory.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : msg 333

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Then your conclusion regarding my position on this issue is just simply wrong. If you had read my answers to these points previously you would know this already.LOGICALLY POSSIBLE:
I include the logical possibility that this could occur based on the known facts alone.PRACTICALLY PROBABLE:
I doubt the practical probability of this occurring in terms of what we know about the physics of space travel, abiogenesis, hospitability of nearby planets etc. etc. but readily concede that my knowledge of the evidence is insufficient to draw a definitive conclusion on this. As much as anything I am reliant on the views of experts with regard to these matters. It seems much more likely that we might communicate rather than meet aliens. But regarding the assessment of probabilities there is much of your "world view" argument that I agree with. It just isn't relevant to purely logical possibilities derived from facts.SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION:
I largely exclude the actuality of alien visitation having actually occurred on the basis that what you are calling "subjective evidence" is actually nothing more than the subjective interpretation of objective evidence. None of the objective evidence available to interpret suggests that alien visitations have actually occurred without a monumental slice of subjective interpretation on top. Especially given the exceptional and non-mundanely evidenced nature of the claim.As much as anything it is a question of "could it happen", "might it happen" and "has it happened". They are subtly different questions. But questions that are indisputably different regardless of "world view".Honestly - Do you think alien visitation has actually occurred? Which part of the above reasoning do you actually disagree with? In a science thread I really do not think that your conclusions would differ significantly to mine on this issue. Untrue. Alien visitation is nothing like the IPU at all evidentially. Alien visitation is a logical possibility. The IPU is not. There is world of difference.You are conflating logical possibilities, evidence based assessment of probabilities and subjective personal experiences.Do you genuinely really not see the inherent difference? Genuine ignorance I can rectify but wilful ignorance is unjustifiable. There is no such thing as "subjective evidence". THIS is THE flaw in your thinking.Every example you have given from courtroom testimonials to applied maths is an example of the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence".Nobody disputes the validity of this form of evidence. Only the reliability depending on the evidence being interpreted.In the case of alien visitation the objective evidence being interpreted is exceptionally meagre and can in no way be used to reasonably conclude that alien visitation has actually occurred. Especially given the exceptional nature of the claim.In the case of gods there is no objective evidence to interpret. But so do I see a difference between the two. A difference that has nothing to do with the flawed concept of "subjective evidence". That is the point you keep missing by relentlessly conflating logical possibilities, evidenced assessments of probability and wholly subjective personal experiences.Alien visitation and the IPU are almost certainly untrue but for different evidential reasons.Gods and the IPU are almost certainly untrue for identical reasons. You are conflating "subjective evidence" with the subjective interpretation of objective evidence.Every example you have provided of subjective evidence has actually been an example of the subjective interpretation of objective evidence.You have taken the validity you grant these examples and extrapolated back to zero evidence to arrive at the flawed concept that is at the root of your beliefs. Namely the notion of subjective evidence.The problem with this is that in the case of no objective evidence at all the subjective interpretation of objective evidence becomes an interpretation of nothing at all.The interpretation of nothing at all is identical to a random guess.If you wish to demonstrate that subjective evidence is a viable concept, distinct and separate from the subjective interpretation of zero objective evidence, then you need to show that from no objective evidential foundation at all, from what appears to be a random guess in evidential terms, that you can derive conclusions that are significantly more reliable than actual random guesses.If you cannot do this to verifiable examples then there is no reason to believe that this method of deriving conclusions is any more reliable when applied to unverifiable conclusions.If there is no reason to believe that this method of deriving conclusions is better than a random guess when applied to unverifiable conclusions then your conclusion of gods on the basis of such evidence is itself no better than a random guess.Thus, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, in any evidential terms your beliefs are invalidated. Unless you can show that subjective evidence is valid there is no reason to think gods even possible. Never mind worthy of our consideration with regard to their actuality.No more so than the IPU or any of his host of "absurd" allies. Not really.My argument is that human invention is one of the most outrageously evidentially supported and demonstrable facts you could conceive of.Is the fact of humanity's ability for invention any less evidenced than the fact of life's ability to evolve? Think about it.In contrast even the possibility that gods might actualy exist is completely unfounded and, according to you, conveniently unknowable.Evidentially there is no contest between the two positions.You can find that as compelling as you wish. But don't claim you are being evidentially consistent if your conclusions fly in the face of the facts. On what basis do you conclude that subjective evidence, as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence, is any better than a random guess?You are simply unable to answer this question even to yourself. You can only conclude this if you conflate logical possibilities, with evidence based assessments of probability and flawed concepts of subjective evidence. With regard to logical possibilities derived purely from facts your argument just does not apply.Life exists. Other planets exist.Is life on other planets possible or impossible?Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.No interpretation or world view or opinion is required. Sorry. I am useless at knowing the latin names of those fallacy thingamijigs. What is the name of that one? But I do accept this.The problem for your argument is that it does not apply to possibilities derived purely from logic and indisputable facts.Humans are capable of inventing false god concepts. This is an objectively evidenced and indisputable fact.Is it possible or impossible that any claimed concept of gods is a false human invention?Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.No interpretation or world view is required.In contrast concluding that the actual existance of gods is a real possibility has no factual basis and is 100% the product of your subjective world view.THIS is why you are being evidentially inconsistent. THIS is your problem.I URGE......
I know you don't like long posts and I have certainly concluded that you don't read them very thoroughly but if you do read this I would urge you to consider on what basis you distinguish "subjective evidence" from the subjective interpretation of objective evidence such that you can conclude that in the presence of no objective evidence whatsoever your conclusions are any more reliable than a random guess.See Message 329 for details.AbE - I have the utmost respect for your contributions at EvC despite my evident frustrations in this debate. I also accept that I am not the most succinct poster in the world. However I am thorough. After so many posts I just cannot see how you can have such a misconceived notion of my position if you have read anything that has been written to you. It does sometimes seem that you are scanning posts to confirm the position you would like me to have rather than the one that I do have. This is exceptionally frustrating.Call me arrogant if you will but at this point in time I think the difference between you and I purely in terms of the debate is that I genuinely understand your argument and deem it to be inherently flawed whilst you only see the argument you think I have and deem it to be flawed.Until you genuinely want to understand my PoV this will remain the case.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Trivial grammar change - I am a confessed tinkerer.

The problem with the third group is that subjective "evidence" cannot be evaluated by an observer. An example of what you are calling subjective evidence would be "Mark says he feels funny." We don't really have a clearly defined concept of what "funny" is, and we don't have any practical method to test if Mark is actually feeling it or simply lying or confused. Subjective evidence is impossible to assess unless you are the generator of said subjective evidence, in which case it is synonymous with "preference".Straggler is dismissing out of hand your claim that a theory based on personal preference is valid, and I am inclined to agree. Why would you ever attempt to get someone else to acknowledge the merit of something that only exists in your own mind?

Precisely!!!I subjectively know that strawberry ice cream is superior to chocolate ice cream. I am utterly convinced of this. I have complete faith in this fact. There is nothing that anyone can ever possibly say to me that will change my opinion regarding this matter.But I don't go round claiming that my "subjective evidence" regarding this matter tells us anything objectively true about the relative merits of different flavoured ice cream.I certainly don't claim that anybody else should accept my "subjective evidence" as anything distinct and seperate to me.In my opinion deists/theists should consider their wholly subjective religious experiences in much this same way.Obviously I am not suggesting that they should treat it as trivially as a preferred ice cream flavour if the conclusion drawn is deeply personally meaningful and important. That is not what I mean.BUT in principle faith is like a personal preference. It is not "evidenced" in any way. It is just known from purely subjective personal experience. Experience that has no bearing on shared objective reality.Because faith does mean so much more to people than mere preference for ice cream flavour I think that people unjustifiably seek to validate it with false concepts of "evidence" in ways that they do not with mere preference in other situations. There is a perceived and flawed need to match the legitimacy of the foundation of the belief with the importance placed on the conclusions.Percy is the most rationally irrational person I have ever come across in this respect.RAZD is, in my opinion, conflating the importance that his conclusions have for him personally with the legitimacy of the foundation he normally requires for conclusions of such importance.But there really is no need for this if one genuinely has 'faith' as far as I can see.But what do I know? Faith of that sort is something I have never experienced. Maybe if I did I too would insist that everyone else accepted my "evidentially" supported conclusion.But I would like to think not.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

And?You are mistaking the need for an observer to evaluate subjective evidence with the veracity of the evidence.What you can conclude is that you don't know, but that there is a possibility that mark does indeed feel funny. There is also a possibility that he is making it up, but to conclude that is the only valid possibility is a logical falsehood.Likewise, if a number of people report feeling funny after sharing an experience, one could conclude that there is some relationship between the experience and feeling funny, even though you have no other evidence to go on, and thus it does open up an avenue of investigation. Saying "people made it up" doesn't do that.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Not so, I am associating it with my willingness to accept the veracity of the evidence. I'm not saying that it cannot be true, I am saying that there is no reason for me or anyone else other than you to think that it is true. It does open up an avenue of investigation, an investigation where you start looking for objective evidence to bring it out of the realm of hearsay. The odd thing is you seem to be treating this like it is a new issue; "News flash, there are rumors of a God character! More at 11!" The investigation didn't start yesterday, it has been going on for thousands of years! Don't you think that if something was going to be discovered to back up these experiences it would have been presented by now? I know, I know, it does not definitively disprove the concept but it has become something of a factor when considering it. You are saying "Hey, give it a chance," but it has *had* a chance. It has had many chances! At this point it is appropriate to go with people making it up and only readdress the issue if we get some objective evidence.It is also about time to quit parroting the same subjective opinions. We have heard it, we know, and we don't care. Unless you provide objective you are not bringing anything new or useful to the table, and if anything lessening the chances that people will listen if objective evidence is found.

And you are mistaking subjective experience as necessarily evidence of something objective. If Mark genuinely feels funny then Mark feels funny. This is indisputable proof that Mark feels funny.But is it evidence of anything objective or external to Mark?I feel happy when I think of my little son.Do you consider this feeling of happiness to be subjective evidence for the objective existence of my son?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That really is the end then.1) The notion of "subjective evidence" upon which your entire position is founded is a euphamism for "biased guess". A form of confirmation bias gone mad. It has been thoroughly refuted here Message 329.2) Nobody is disagreeing with most of your "world view" and "opinion" argument. It just has little relevance to the position I have presented.SUMMARY
Humans are capable of inventing false god concepts. This is an overwhelmingly objectively evidenced and indisputably demonstrable fact.
Is it possible or impossible that any claimed concept of gods is a false human invention?
Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.
No interpretation or "world view" is required.
In contrast concluding that the actual existance of gods is even a real possibility has no factual basis and is 100% the product of your subjective world view. Nothing more than a culturaly biased guess. The conclusion does not come as a surprise to me. It is the fact that this difference in conclusion is derived purely from the acceptance of biased guessing as a valid form of evidence that surprises me.If you do want to continue this debate at all then I have set up another thread. The linked to message further refutes the validity of "subjective evidence. Message 5Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add link.

On the contrary, we do. It may not be the belief in these specific entities, but how is an invisible pink unicorn or a tiny green toilet goblin any different than, say, kappas? Or the kelpie?There is plenty of evidence of faith in these and any number of seemingly absurd creatures and although some or even most of the modern "belief" is just a tacit acknowledgment of one's culture done with a wink and a smile, sometimes it is real and has real implications (google fairy belief in Iceland and its impact on development).Just because you think introducing magical creatures into a discussion about gods isn't worthy of consideration doesn't mean that it is not a valid point.People believe in all manner of ridiculous things, including gods (whether they are the clockmaker type or fire and brimstone sadists).Also, couldn't it be safe to say that, based on your arguments for a creator god based on cross cultural belief for such a thing, a similarity between magical water dwelling creatures who will eat children if they are bothered (like both of my examples above and many, many others) provides enough evidence for you to believe in such creatures?If not, why not?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

RAZD's whole "subjective evidence" position amounts to biased guessing.As demonstrated here Message 329This really amounts to nothing more than self justification for believing that the things one wants to be true are actually true. Confirmation bias gone mad.There is a new thread covering this here Message 1Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Wrong, but if you want to believe that I won't stop you. You, after all, seem obsessed with justifying my position within yours.Have fun.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Every example you have given (possibility of alien life, courtroom testimonials, applied maths) has been an example of the subjective interpretation of objective evidence.In the "absence of evidence" that you are so keen on telling us about there is no objective evidence to interpret. Thus you are just guessing.If your claim of "subjective evidence" has any validity at all it needs to be shown that "subjective evidence" is superior to just guessing.You cannot do this. Thus your whole position is refuted.See Message 329 for details. I cannot stop you believing whatever you want but I can show the flaws in your argument.Apparently all you can do is assert that I am wrong.Well done.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.