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

That atheists usually reject consideration of the possibility of god/s out of hand, usually with attitude and logical fallacies, like the argument from ridicule: However, we are not talking about beliefs in ad hoc straw man arguments that nobody uses as a basis for religions nor have claimed to be part of a religious experience, nor are there any people with faith in the existence of such a silly vision jellyfish , etc.We are talking about the distinction between atheism and deism. If you don't know much about deism then perhaps you should bow out of the conversation or become educated\informed. Curiously that does not mean than none exist, and does not answer the question - do you or don't you agree with the distinction posted in Message 84:

quote:

---

The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).

​

The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.

---

Agreeing that god/s are unknowable would be agreeing with deists. The typical deist has faith that god/s exist, but that it\they are unknowable, and that all natural laws etc are the result of the way the universe was created. Thus everything is evidence of creation, but doesn't prove a creator - we only have a sample of 1, and cannot compare a created universe with a non-created one.Would you say that the atheist position is that the existence of god(s) is, for all intents and purposes, unknowable, and therefore they don't exist?After all, from your analogy we are intended to believe that your silly vision jellyfish does not exist, yes?Enjoy.psBox jellyfish - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The box jellyfish is the only jellyfish with an active visual system. It possesses four sets of eyes, in clusters known as "rhopaliea", one centered on each of the four lateral faces of its bell.

​

Each cluster consists of six eyes: Four simple photoreceptors capable of distinguishing light from dark, and two more sophisticated "camera eyes"--an "upper" and a "lower"--both comprising a cornea, lens and retina. The lower camera eye also possesses a mobile iris, which expands and contracts in response to light.

---

Curious that they have 16 light sensors and 8 focusing eyes but no brain, don't you think?

---

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 sure how far off topic we can go here, seeing as moose was initially very strict about the topic and closed it down due to off-topic discussion. I'm assuming he reopened it per your request, but not to allow it to stray too far again. Yes, it starts with faith. This is similar to what Percy said, in Message 26

quote:

---

Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't say I'm happy about accepting the possibility of the supernatural. Conflicted is more like it, which is why I prefer to describe myself as believing in a higher purpose, becoming more ambiguous after that.

---

My position here can also be compared with what Percy said in Message 34

quote:

---

... Thinking scientifically, I cannot prove anything. I can only support my position with evidence that can never become "proof", a concept that doesn't exist within science..

---

His take on the distinction between atheist and deist is belief in a higher purpose (Message 63):

quote:

---

This is a minor point, but I would guess that many deists are like myself in that we believe a scientific approach is the best means we have for gaining an accurate understanding of the nature of the universe. Supernaturalism is not a forgone conclusion for all deists. This is why I say I believe in a higher purpose rather than in a God who created the universe, even though I do believe in God. From here descriptions of my position have to dissolve into ambiguity since I'm well aware of the irresolvable contradictions. Who can explain one's inner beliefs?

---

Yet any mention of anything that could be taken as supportive evidence is met with ridicule and dismissed as hallucination or the workings of the brain (which can explain how but not why). See what I mean? You are predisposed to consider the concept silly or delusional rather than possible. You then go on - as is typical in these discussions - to create\fabricate\invent as silly or delusional a god as you can think of ad hoc with the pretense that it is a reasonable analogy for the faith people have.This rejection by ridicule is also typical of cognitive dissonance behavior. Here I suspect that the dissonance is between the stated position of being open conflicting with the behavior of rejecting the concept of a reasonable god, thus having to make it seem silly to believe. Typical. Predictable. The question is whether you can take what someone actually believes and demonstrate that it is silly\delusional.Is Percy's belief in a higher purpose silly or delusional? Strangely that does not deal with the issue of actual deists having actual faith in god/s other than to imply that it is stupid and made up, once again getting back to what seems to be the atheist knee-jerk reaction to ridicule and belittle any belief, while claiming to be unbiased.As far as this thread topic goes, we still have (Message 4):

quote:

---

The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).

​

The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.

---

With the addendum that atheists think that any evidence that deists consider supportive is silly, ridiculous, delusional and not worth consideration.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : engish

---

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 strictly on topic but what the heck, Yep, sounds like a good candidate for the Silly Design Institute. Putting eyes on a creature that can't appreciate the femme fatale sounds like the ultimate irony ....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) • • •

Hi Mod, we've been over this issue before, and reached no conclusion then. Curiously I have not called anyone deluded, silly, irrational nor suggested that they suffering hallucinations, etc. How does this really differ from:

quote:

---

Would you say that the atheist position is that the existence of god(s) is, for all intents and purposes, unknowable, and therefore they don't exist?

---

1 (I don't believe in things for which I can find no reason to believe) + 2 (I find no reason to believe in any proposed deity) = "the existence of god(s) is, for all intents and purposes, unknowable"3 (Therefore: I do not believe in any proposed deity) = "therefore (I believe) they don't exist"You say it's not your position, and then you essentially say exactly the same thing. Yes, it is in response to comments that (certain) atheists don't necessarily reject god/s, while the evidence is that they do. It's pretense. And the consequence is that I believe and you don't Message 4

quote:

---

The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).

​

The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.

---

The deist believes and the atheist doesn't. Back to square one once again.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) • • •

Hi Mod Game - Battleground God, see Message 1Perhaps what you are seeing is frustration in being attacked like this while not dealing with the issue, the difference between atheist and deist. Can you explain why you used the definition of clinical delusion for your subtitle? I find them close enough that the difference is irrelevant to the issue. Do you believe in a god? Not believing in a god vs not believing in the existence of a god is really the same thing is it not? Didn't we cover this with Nessie? If I don't see any difference in your argument and my version, then you qualify - I thought that was evident in my response.Let's go back to Message 4, the original statement (square one): [quote]The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).[/qs]And compare that to your syllogism Versus
1. I don't believe in things for which there is an absence of evidence.
2. I find no evidence for belief in any proposed deity.
3. Therefore: I do not believe in any proposed deity. Which is what I said in Message 4. It amuses me that every "correction" keep repeating the same basic position:1. I don't believe in things for which there is an absence of evidence.
2. I find no evidence for belief in any proposed deity.
3. Therefore: I do not believe in any proposed deity.Can you show me how this contradicts my original argument in Message 4?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) • • •

Hi Straggler, How is this different from the absence of evidence being evidence for absence? It is based on your world view first, and logic second. This is the basis of cognitive dissonance, yes? For someone of faith the existence of a god is not unreasonable, particularly when the majority of people around you believe in a god of some kind. Whoa, back the bus up. Is this what has you guys\gals in a !NOT!?Sorry, but I never said it was the product of a logical fallacy. For my part I know that faith comes first, belief comes first, based on your world view: then you figure out "logical" reasons for it. Sometimes those do hold up to good logic, sometimes they don't.There are psychological studies that show this applys to people in general. Experience with the concepts. Consider Heisenberg uncertainty. It seems so silly at first, but then you become accustomed to it.We have all most likely heard and talked about and hypothesized on the existence of aliens, watched the "X files" read science fiction, known some UFOlogists, etc. The UFO skeptic and the UFOlogist will have different views based on their individual world views.Wagwah comes across as an ad hoc argument invented purely for the sake of the argument to be unbelievable, and with no intention of being serious about it.This difference in experience means they relate to our world view in different ways: the first is familiar, with known responses, the second is seen as being ridicule rather than serious argument, the ad lapidem attack. I accept that my faith is not based on logic or evidence. So I recognize that having a strict logical basis does not always apply, particularly when there is no conclusive yea or nay evidence.In these situations we will base conclusions on world view. This explains the severe lack of agnostics, especially in our culture, eh? See, this is where I have that basic problem, of saying it is "reasonable and rational," when I cannot apply those terms.When we have "unevidenced claims that do not actually contradict any evidence" the subjective conclusions that different people have cannot be based on "reasonable and rational" processes because you have no basis to make such decisions. You rely on your world view, and it is purely subjective.We know at least ONE is subjective when two different people look at the same evidence and see different things, yes? It is the "other guy" that is being subjective while we are "reasonable and rational" ...My conclusion is "reasonable and rational" to me because it fits my world view.Your conclusion is "reasonable and rational" to you because it fits your world view.This is universal.When you say that I am NOT being "reasonable and rational" you are applying your world view to me, and when it comes to "unevidenced claims that do not actually contradict any evidence" we cannot really determine who is right or wrong.By and large all we can do is compare world views, and see how they agree. Perhaps we can assume that the more people agree with our world view regarding something that is an "unevidenced claim that does not actually contradict any evidence" the more we can tentatively accept that this is a possibility.But this is a process that is not able to measure up to the scientific process, and one person asking another for scientific evidence for their world view on some "unevidenced claim that does not actually contradict any evidence" is really not productive.As long as your personal world view is not contradicted by any known evidence of reality, it is "reasonable and rational" ... and as long as there are other people that agree with your world view, it is "reasonable and rational" ... and that's about the best you can do. That god/s exist, but are unknowable. That nature is what it is, and we can understand some of how it works, each in our own limited way.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : silly addition

---

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) • • •

Hey RDK Therefore your example of the silly vision jellyfish is not representative of my faith in god/s, thank you for showing that your argument was a false straw man from the start.Curiously all these types of arguments, by exaggeration to the point of being ridiculous, also fail the same logic test of all A is B:Your argument is like this argument
This argument is ridiculous\silly\delusional\etc
Therefore your argument is ridiculous\silly\delusional\etc Um, I missed that. What I see is arguments of the type:1. In my world view I don't believe in god
2. In my world view I believe my conclusions are based on logic and reason
∴ Therefore my belief there is no god is based on logic and reason. Simple: deists believe in god/s, atheists don't. Do you?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) • • •

Hello all,There are too many posts trying to make similar points, but not coming to any real agreement, so I will try to hit what I consider the "high points' of your arguments. If you have a cherished point I miss, try again. There's only one of me.

---

bluegenes Message 127
To be able to calculate probabilities you have to know the possibilities, or you are just using assumptions that fit your world view and pretending they are valid. Curiously this is what I am accused of doing, and that it is invalid when I do it. So let's assume that god/s are undefinable. That's not a stretch from the position that they are unknowable, is it? Consider the problem of the blind men defining an elephant, with each one touching a different part. They disagree and none of them would define the elephant reality. Possibly because all the various religions are blind people describing an elephant. Part of that nature is the nature of belief, if you'll allow a petty equivocation for emphasis. I believe it is possible to become enlightened in the buddhist sense, and that prophets are enlightened people, and that momentary enlightenment is what a religious experience is. Personal opinion. This doesn't necessarily mean they saw part of the elephant, just that they experienced something, possibly outside nature.Let's call this "subjective evidence" for clarity, as it is not based on objective reality, rather it is based on common experiences, and they are subjective. It is older than what is currently called ID, and what is currently called ID is not deism per se but a hack straw man version made by christians trying to outsmart the legal system into supporting christianity. If you want to see what I think of ID see Is ID properly pursued?ID may "grow up" to be deism, but it has a long way to go. Curiously I think that teaching ID in schools (as philosophy) would tend to speed this process, as well as enlighten people on one of the founding religions of this country.Modulus Message 129Except that you don't have objective fact. What you have is your opinion, and that is "subjective evidence" and does not compare with - for instance - phydeaux's denial of 222Rn in the polonium halo when the picture is right in front of him. That halo is objective reality, the measurements match the peer reviewed published data. And vice versa?from Message 4
from Message 116
OR
1. I don't believe in things for which there is an absence of evidence.
2. There is an absence of evidence for belief in any proposed deity.
3. Therefore: I do not believe in any proposed deity.Seems pretty straightforward to me. Either way you don't believe in god, and your justification is that there is no evidence, so I don't see what the big outrage is. Gosh no, Modulus, what I was doing was what you just suggested -- but framing your argument with my words to show that they are the same. I anticipated you. The clue is what is in the [qs] box and what isn't. Your justification is that you do not see any evidence for god/s. Correct. Each has a different world view, and they interpret the evidence around them according to that world view. When we have a concept that is not testable by objective reality type evidence all we have are the subjective justifications built on our world view. Yes, this is your subjective justification for your position. Mine is different.Would you say that the absence of evidence that would convince you is sufficient subjective justification, based on your rational empiricist world view, for you to reject the proposition that god/s exist?I have shortened that down to "evidence for absence" ... if for no other reason than to emphasis that the logic is based on subjectivity, not objective fact, and not on prepositions that can be validated by objective fact.mark24 Message 130
The comparison of faith to straw man arguments of ad hoc dreamed up reductio ad absurdum arguments for the purpose of make an ad lapidem attack do not refute the faith. It is not a matter of how many silly\ridiculous\delusional\etc concepts exist for this is just another logical fallacy: because one of these concepts is silly\ridiculous\delusional\etc does not mean they all are. As Straggler pointed out in Message 123

quote:

---

The proposal that alien life of some sort is likely to exist somewhere in the universe, I think most would agree is a rational conclusion that is both itself strictly unevidenced but which also contradicts no known evidence (I don't want to drag this thread down the "aliens exist" route however so let's not get too caught up in the specifics)

---

So how many of the "trillions of potential propositions we also have no evidence for" are reasonable? How may that seem silly etc could still be true?Straggler Message 131
When you try to justify your belief based on your world view in a manner that is also consistent with your world view that your beliefs are rational and logical.Modulus bends over backwards to talk about possible evidence of god/s ("strictly speaking there is lots of evidence of god(s)"), but then eliminates it as not being convincing to him and his world view, then claims there is not sufficient evidence to rationalize belief. It's a subjective opinion.It seems to me that you (many atheists) try to convince yourself that your subjective opinion is formed on the basis of careful consideration of the facts and logical deduction. It is important in your world view to be logical and rational. Everyone incorporates evidence into their world view, in one way or another. That is why I made the point of saying

quote:

---

As long as your personal world view is not contradicted by any known evidence of reality, it is "reasonable and rational" ... and as long as there are other people that agree with your world view, it is "reasonable and rational" ... and that's about the best you can do.

---

Tested by evidence of reality first, but that only covers part of the picture, and when you get beyond the realm of concepts that can be tested by objective reality, about the best test you have is consensus with others having similar world views. Of course it is not perfect, but I have not heard of anything else to use, although I have asked this question many times on this forum (and not just in Perceptions of Reality).cavediver Message 132
And of course it depends on what the meaning of "absence" is in the opinion of the person involved. The creationist sees an absence of evidence to convince him of macroevolution, by staunchly denying that any evidence exists, while the evolutionists point to mountains of evidence. Within the target area. The old story about losing your car keys in the dark, and the place to look is under the streetlight, as that is the place you will see them if they are there.RDK Message 134
But the significant point is that not all such arguments are silly and ridiculous, just one end of the spectrum. So you agree that "the difference between a deist and an atheist is that deists believe in god/s, atheists don't" then?Then the next question is where on that spectrum, from reasonable to silly\ridiculous\delusional\etc, for concepts that cannot be tested by objective reality, do you think the untestable concept that there is no god would fit?Catholic Scientist Message 135Correct, your world view is based on your experiences and your knowledge, and you interpret the world through it. And this is the problem once we reach the limits of what concepts can be tested against objective reality, we can't tell who's world view is true\false. The problem is that, ultimately, the reason is subjective.bluegenes Message 138
Or both are describing different parts of the elephant in a manner consistent with the world view of the original describers.onfire Message 139
Curiously this does NOT apply to deism, where god/s are unknowable and not described.

---

I've spent all evening on this, and I'm not sure how many more times I can be interested in repeating the basic points.The essential difference is that deists believe in god/s and atheists don't.The essential similarity with all people is that we base our opinions on our world views, where world views are based on experience and knowledge. The belief comes first, then it is justified by applying our world view to the belief.The similarity between deist and atheist is that we both feel there is sufficient subjective evidence to logically conclude that our opinions are valid.For the deist this justifies faith.For the atheist this justifies no need for faith.It's late in my corner of the world - according to my world view. Goodnight all.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) • • •

(1) The difference, as has been amply demonstrated, is that

• Deists believe in god/s, and they believe this position is rational as it is not invalidated by any known evidence, and they believe this is sufficient justification to keep believing in god/s.
  ​
• Atheists don't believe in god/s, and they believe this position is rational, as they feel there is a lack of convincing evidence for belief in gods, and they believe this is sufficient justification to keep not believing in god/s.

(2) The comparison of any belief in god/s or whatever to belief in invisible pink unicorns is a logical fallacy, a Hasty Generalization. I have started another thread to discuss this logical fallacy, so further discussion of it here is pointless as well as being off-topic.

---

Now we can argue about whether the above is similar to Message 4 or not^[1], but that argument does not address the topic.We can argue about the difference between convincing and non-convincing evidence, and whether evidence can be dismissed as non-convincing because of subjective opinion, but that does not address the topic.And we can argue about invisible pink unicorns as a logical fallacy, but that does not address the topic either.Finally, all I have seen lately is repetition of old arguments, and nothing new has been said in a quite while.Thus I am done answering on this thread.Enjoy.^[1] - for the record, Mod, I do still consider them the same, I am unconvinced by your argument of any significant difference.Edited by RAZD, : lackadaisyEdited by RAZD, : footnote

---

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) • • •

For Cavediver: Curiously, this is not really what I said. What I said was that we all have a world view, and that when we have an absence of evidence one way or the other, that we then make decisions based on consilience with our world views.One of those (seems almost universal) world view beliefs is that we personally are rational and logical beings who make decisions based on rationality and logic. Thus the first reaction to any claim that your personal belief is irrational or illogical is met with scorn and anger. This is a natural result of cognitive dissonance between our belief and the contradictory claim. I've been there, done that, have the bloodied t-shirt for evidence.The conclusion I have come to is that agnosticism\uncertainty is the only rational position when confronted with concepts where there is no (reasonable, convincing, world view consilient) evidence, thus my personal view is not rational\logical, it is just not ruled out by what is rational\logical. That I also consider atheism to be another concept that is also not ruled out by what is rational\logical, does not mean that I consider it to be based purely on rationality and logic.For Modulus: Not one of the differences, for I don't claim there is logic in my position, it is based on faith first. I just don't see EITHER argument as being based ONLY on logic, especially when there is evidence of flawed logic.Nor do I claim that it is foundational to the atheist belief, rather that it is perceived as supportive reasoning for the position.From Message 116
Restated:
1. I don't believe in things for which I can find no reason an absence of ^[1] evidence to believe.
2. I find no reason an absence of ^[1] evidence to believe in any proposed deity.
3. Therefore: I do not believe in the presence any proposed deity. ^[1] - insert "convincing" here if you think it makes the argument better. So strangely, I still see no significant difference between that and "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" ...General reply:As regards the invisible pink unicorn, etc., the logical, rational answer is the same: that we don't know. We cannot be certain, even if the concept is knowingly made up to be a strawman, because there is a lack of evidence for or against the concept. Thus our personal decision, sans evidence, is not based on logic and rationality, but on consilience of concepts with our world view.Enjoy.nuff said

---

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) • • •

Thanks Moose I'd agree with that. Here again I refer to the issue of worldviews for how we all interact with the world of reality: When two people agree on all the known scientific information, then the only difference in their opinions will be the result of the rest of their worldviews.When there is no way to reach a substantiated conclusion by the scientific method, then one must extrapolate as logically as possible and reasonable within their worldview. From outside, this has the appearance of a coin-toss, where the theist\deists see the coin landing on heads, the atheists see the coin landing on tails, and the agnostics see it landing on edge.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) • • •

Thanks Stile In other words you are saying "I haven't thought about it ..." or "(I) don't care" ... and this defaults to "we (I) don't know"Strangely this too is another extrapolation "as logically as possible and reasonable within their worldview" for people concluding "we (I) don't know" Curiously, I don't consider the existence of god/s "pressing" - nor do I believe this is so for atheists either. Which is a classic cognitive dissonance position, defining the issue as of little importance, and it looks suspiciously like what creationists do to ignore inconvenient information.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) • • •

Of course, however, what do we do about opposing opinions that are not contradicted by reality? Is there an absolute answer to who "has it right" between democrat and republican ideologies? Most of the interactions you have with people are not on the basis of scientific knowledge and known objective facts. What you share is a common society and social values that are ... part of your world view by definition.It becomes rather self-evident or tautological that if you define the world view as the gestalt of a persons whole being, that it is inevitably the basis on which that person's opinions are based.This includes their scientific knowledge as well as their political and social leanings.Logical people don't fall in love, for love is not logical or reasonable or rational. And yes, part of my world view includes the people I love without knowing why. It is non-reasonable\rational, neither reasonable\rational nor unreasonable\irrational. Love does not make conclusions based on evidence, it makes conclusions about evidence based on love.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) • • •

Yes, showing that people come to different conclusions on things with no clear conclusion, with no clear pro or con evidence, is really an outrageous use of the concept.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) • • •

No, what it realizes is that when you run out of evidence, when you run off into the world of extrapolations, however logically or supported by evidence you think they are, you have no way to ascertain that one view is any better than another, other than relying on your own particular world view and how congruent it is with other world views. Claiming that your world view is more logical than others at this point is just hubris, imho.Should we include the nut that thinks he is Napoleon? No, we have evidence that he isn't the Bonafide Napoleon, and in similar vein we can readily exclude world views that contain beliefs contradicted by evidence of reality. What you fail to consider is you can have two world views that are "equally objective, logical or evidentially supported" but which reach contradictory conclusions.Any claim that yours is more correct than the other on the basis of it being logically consistent with your beliefs, what you consider logical extrapolation, and what you consider valid evidence, etc. etc. etc. is just pride in your personal opinions, the ones that form your extrapolations. You want to run that one by again? The evidence of trying to twist someone's argument into something it is not, is when it begins to be incoherent.My "implicit assertion" is nothing more than my stated assertion: when you run out of evidence pro or con, and when you run off into what you consider logical extrapolations, you are basing your conclusions on your opinions concerning what is a logical extrapolation, and thus two different people can reach contradictory conclusions from the same evidence. The plain fact that contradictory conclusions can be reached is, to my humble way of looking at such things, evidence that such extrapolations do not provide a means of testing them for validity.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) • • •