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

I agree entirely. Which is a good reason not to exceed it. Instead, you say, with honesty: "I do not know the ultimate answer to to the questions of life, the universe, and everything, or even if there is such a thing". Simple. One doesn't need to try to answer unanswerable questions. By definition, it's a rather pointless passtime, don't you think?My "world view" is that honesty is the best policy, and that this thing called Faith is unnecessary, and fundamentally dishonest.However, if you're going to have Faith, I'd recommend the number 42, as it's as good as anything else.

I haven't.I don't have time right now to give it the time it needs.Do you understand that? I've only told you three times already. Once more, I don't think rational comes into it. You are off evidence and off direct logical extrapolation, so there is nothing to base a logical conclusion on. Which is STILL not my position. This is all I have time for tonight. Pissing into the wind is just as relieving as pissing downwind, the only difference is you get wet. You are refuted by Mark24 coming to a contradictory conclusion from the same evidence. This has been pointed out on two threads.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) • • •

If every single person participating in both threads is failing to understand or appreciate exactly what your position is then you must take some responsibility for not having explained it adequately. What do you make of the evidence in favour of humanity inventing gods?Do you think this has any relevance with regard to attempting to objectively evaluate the likelihood of particualr gods actually existing?Or not? True. But sticking a wetted finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing before starting to piss will only increase your chances of staying dry.I have a more sympathy with the sentiment of your position than you might think. Nobody is claiming that untested hypotheses have been rendered scientifically reliable. They most certainly have not.BUT this does not mean that scientific hypotheses are equivalent to illogical subjective claims that are derived from no objective evidence at all. Your subjective "world view" assertion completely fails to take this into account. They are not equivalent in terms of reliability and they are not equivalent in terms of providing a basis for further reasoned investigation. Your ongoing insistence that the IPU and the possibility of alien life are evidentially and logically equivalent demonstrates that you are still failing to appreciate or acknowledge this absolutely key point.Even if two or more contradictory but equally evidentially supported and logical conclusions arise we have still narrowed down the possibilities to those that are logical and evidentially supported. If we accept your subjective world views assertion then even this basic first step in the process of elimination becomes impossible.

SOME evidence is a superior position to NO evidence.

Logically derived untested conclusions are superior to illogical untested conclusions.

​

Straggler writes:

​

You have said nothing that refutes this in two threads now.

​

You are refuted by Mark24 coming to a contradictory conclusion from the same evidence. This has been pointed out on two threads.

​

You have placed a lot of emphasis on this now but I genuinely fail to see how Mark24's assertion refutes anything? Perhaps I too am failing to adequately explain myself. Let's try and clear up this particular misunderstanding.

​

INTERLUDE
Mark24 initially claimed that the number of planets in the universe had no bearing on the probability of extraterrestrial life existing elsewhere in the universe. No matter what other factors may also be relevant this assertion is just mathematically false. The number of planets in the universe is logically and indisputably a relevant factor. In mathematical terms the probability of alien life existing is proportional to some function of the number of planets in the universe. Yes there will be other relevant factors but the number of planets in the universe is most definitely one of them. If there are no other planets in the universe there will be no life on other planets. If there are an infinite number of planets in the universe then, unless you consider all other life to be absolutely impossible for some reason, extraterrestrial life is certain to exist. This is basic maths.
END INTERLUDE

​

Regardless - I have repeatedly stated that the absolute probability is irrelevant to my position. Instead it is the relative likelihood and the factors that contribute to this assessment that are important.

​

In the context of this argument I don't care whether Mark24 considers extraterrestrial life to be deeply unlikely or exceptionally probable based on the incomplete evidence available. The actual answer arrived at does nothing to invalidate the scientific nature of the question and the ability to give a rational, reasoned and evidentially supported answer.

​

It does matter whether he bases his conclusions on objectively definable and logically valid factors such as the number of planets in the universe, the hospitability to life of those planets, the abundance of certain elements, etc. etc. etc. Objective, logical factors which we can agree upon and then investigate further in order to strengthen or weaken the relative likelihood of the contradicting claims in the absence of actually finding direct and conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial life.

​

It also matters if he makes his claim on the basis of conversing with the spirits, reading tea leaves, seeking guidance from god, feeling an alien presence, astrological charts, interpreting Tarot cards, measuring the colour of his "aura" or any other entirely subjective methodology. Subjective methodologies which amount to nothing more than irrational claims of "I believe".

​

Your "world view" assertion utterly fails to differentiate between the validity of forming conclusions in an evidentially supported and logically consistent manner as compared to the multitude of subjective and incoherent decision-making strategies people employ.

​

As a result you are forced to conclude that the proposed possibility of life on other planets is evidentially and logically equivalent to the proposed existence of deities, Immaterial Pink Unicorns and a whole host of other such wholly un-evidenced "absurdities".

​

No matter how you phrase it, no matter how you conceive it, the two proposals are not evidentially or logically equivalent.

​

Whatever conclusion you may come to regarding the actual probability of life on other planets the possibility of such a thing, and thus the validity of the question, is derived from the scientific method.

​

Whatever conclusion you may come to regarding the existence of any particular god or deity is not based on any objective evidence or scientific methodology. Even the question of a particular god actually existing requires that we accept the subjectively derived validity of the question itself. Why would anyone rationally actually believe in something for which there exists no evidence to imply that the something in question even might possibly exist?

​

It is irrational. Whether your world view allows you to accept this or not.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Straggler, I never made that claim. I said that the number of planets didn't equate to evidence that exraterrestrial life exists. I concede that it would increase the likelihood, but having shitloads of planets isn't evidence that life exists elsewhere.I pointed this out to compare it with the IPU, which also has no evidence, or the deists god which also exists in a vacuum of evidence. Accepting one thing without evidence & rejecting another invokes the logical fallacy of special pleading & is intellectually hypocritical.Perhaps I should have said "an acceptable level of evidence", either way, it's still special pleading.Other than that, good post.MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Firstly apologies for using your name in vain.....RAZD has decided that your opinions regarding extraterrestrial life are the lynch-pin of his argument in favour of regarding all conclusions relating to directly unevidenced phenomenon as being equally subjective. Nor did I. I said that it increased the relative likelihood of extraterrestrial life existing. It is however objective, empirical evidence that increases the likelihood of such a claim being true. There is no such thing as a vacuum of evidence.Alien life is a possibility derived from the objective scientific evidence that we currently have available. A possibility whose likelihood can be debated, and indeed empirically investigated, in terms of rational, logical and evidential factors. Factors such as the number of planets in the universe.Gods, deities, the IPU etc. etc. etc. In contrast are not possibilities that have been derived from objective, scientific evidence. Nor can claims of their existence be evaluated in objective scientific terms. The proposed possibility of such entities has no rational or empirical foundation. Accepting and evaluating the possibility of something which is the result of objective evidence and the scientific method is very very very different to accepting and evaluating the possibility of something for which there is no evidence based reason to even think might exist. Is there a level of objective evidence sufficient to make the possible existence of extraterrestrial life a valid scientific question? Regardless of the actual likelihood concluded.Is there an "acceptable" level of evidence to make the possible existence of the IPU or any given deity a valid scientific question?That is the difference.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

First off, thanks mark24 for reaffirming your position: As opposed to the Straggler position that the sheer number of planets made alien life probable. When I pointed out that there was other evidence that countered the issue of numbers you rejected it. No, they are just proof that your claim of being able to reach logical and consistent conclusions is false when you are beyond testable scientific evidence and logic.What the difference in conclusions show is that the results are more subjective than objective or logical reasoning, and that once you reach that point in the argument, that you cannot show one opinion to be valid and another invalid. Ah now you are backing down? Do you want to track down your original statement on the probability of life or should I? But you still end up in the same position, regardless of whether you think one starts on evidence and the other doesn't. Which leads us to the question of if (a) there is a probability of life, then (b) are the claims of UFO peoples valid, as they are based on a level of objective evidence that you say makes alien life probable?If not, then where do you draw the line in the logic train?Where does the probability end?single cell life
multicell life
life with differentiated tasks
life with organs
life with skeletons
life that can manipulate objects
life that can manipulate it's local environment
life that can make objects
life that can make local environments
life that can send objects into space
life that can send life into space
life that can send objects out of their planetary system boundariesThese are all equally probable based on our sample of one out of all known planets.One can also ask how much a million years head start on technology would affect the equations - and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that alien life had such a head start, unless you want to plead that human life is special.Does this make UFO's reasonable to believe in? So there is evidence of UFO visits?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) • • •

You really really really are gettting the wrong end of the stick here. Maybe I am being unclear in my terminology. Maybe the conceptual difference between possibility and probability is too subtle and I need to be more explicit in what I actually mean here.THE POSSIBILITY OF EXTRATERRESTRIAL LIFE
The possibility of life on other planets is derived from the firm objective evidential foundation of knowing that life exists on this planet and knowing that other planets exist. Regardless of how probable one thinks this is you need to be neither Sherlock Holmes nor Einstein to conclude that the possibility of life on other planets is thus an evidentially supported and logically valid area of scientific investigation.Given this evidential basis the probability of of life on other planets can then be objectively evaluated in terms of what we know about the nature of life and the number of planets available to spawn such phenomenon. Conclusions regarding the probability of extraterrestrial life existing will depend on the information available. Nobody is disputing that. I don't believe that I have ever disputed that. I thought I had repeatedly stated that the objectivity of the factors involved was the important thing. Not the absolute probability.Hopefully this is now clear.THE POSSIBILITY OF UNEVIDENCED ENTITIES
The perceived possibility of any particular god or deity actually existing is derived from a purely subjective basis with no objective evidential foundation whatsoever. We have no objective reason to even consider the possible existence of such a thing. By even asking the question as to whether we believe in a particular entity of this sort the questioner is assuming a degree of validity to their subjective interpretation which I deny is rationally justified.The probability of any such unevidenced entities actually existing can only be objectively considered in terms of the observed propensity for humankind to invent such things. As there is no other objective evidence available on which to evaluate such a claim.THE DIFFERENCE
Essentially the difference between the atheist and the deist is one of intellectual consistency. In the presence of objective evidence both the atheist and the deist will dismiss the un-evidenced possibilities out of hand. Where there is no objective evidence the atheist continues to eliminate un-evidenced possibilities out of hand whilst the deist suddenly abandons rationality and embraces at least one such concept on the basis of faith.AFTERTHOUGHT
BTW - The possibility of the IPU and his friends are all equally as objectively unfounded as is any other god or deity. Hence the comparisons that you find so annoying.However you look at it the difference between the atheist and the deist boils down to Faith Vs Reason. As I have been saying for two threads now.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Just a slight clarification concerning me personally. For me as a deist it isn't a case of faith versus reason. When I'm thinking spiritually I realize my beliefs are based upon faith. When I'm thinking scientifically I'm hopeful my criteria are based upon evidence and reason. I would never consider mixing or attempting to reconcile the two, so it's never a case of one versus the other. It would be like trying to reconcile the rules of tennis with the rules of football - such an attempt would make no sense at all.--Percy

OK. This sounds very much like Gould's 'seperate and complimentary magisteria' argument.Is that the sort of thingh that you had in mind?A topic for another thread perhaps.

As I was writing that post I thought it likely the association with Gould's views might be drawn, but looking at me from within myself it doesn't feel the same as what Gould is saying. Science and religion don't feel like two things I'm consciously keeping separate. They're such different things that the possibility of disagreement between them would never occur to me. Anyone who thinks an explanation is required doesn't share my views. That's why I've contributed so little to this thread. For me it isn't something you can explain, it's just what happens to be within you.--Percy

Percy, Isn't that what intellectual compartmentalisition is?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

But given there is no such thing as a vacuum of evidence, is there therefore evidence of UFO's?

Well, sort of. I can, I suppose, slightly agree about the compartmentalization part, but when it comes to my spiritual beliefs I don't think there's much of any intellectual nature to them, so I disagree about that part.And I could even agree more strongly with the compartmentalization part as long as it isn't interpreted as implying any conscious application. In the same way that it takes people no effort to keep even similar things like sewing and knitting separate, there is no effort involved in me keeping my religious and scientific perspectives separate. They aren't separate because I keep them separate, but because that's just the way I'm constructed.And if you want to delve to a slightly lower level, I of course realize that that is only my internal perception of how I'm constructed.--Percy

Firstly I think that this is a distraction and a means of avoiding the points made regarding the evidential basis of some claims as compared to others.Do you intend to respond to any of the actual points made?
Or are you going to pursue this as a means of avoiding the real issues?The use of the term 'probable' has undeniably been employed by me. Given that the scientific consensus, and my own opinion, actually agrees with this assessment mixing of this term with the subtly different concept of relative likelihood actually required by my argument is "probably" inevitable to some degree.However to make out that I have suddenly changed position is complete nonsense. As you would know if you had ever actually read any of my previous responses to your or Mark24 specifically regarding this matter.Most recently: But over a week ago I wrote to you: Here - Message 99Nearly two weeks ago I wrote to Mark24: Here - Message 49To Iano on the same note: Even earlier I wrote: Where I first raised the whole issue of extraterrestrial life as an example, nearly three weeks ago now, I wrote: Here Message 123In numerous posts in both threads I have talked about relative likelhood rather than absolute probability. Along the lines of: As evidenced here Message 131So are you still going to quibble over terminology? Or are you going to accept that my argument, even if not the terminology employed, has remained consistent and actually deal with the points made?Namely that the possibility of some claims are derived from objective evidence and are thus inherently scientific whilst the proposed possibility of other claims, such as gods and deities, have no evidential basis whatsoever.

There is no firm objective evidential foundation for the claimed possibility that we have been visited by alien spacecraft. No.The only evidence that suggests such a thing even might be true are wholly subjective claims of personal experience.In contrast we have a wealth of objective evidence in favour of the fact that humanity is prone to making false claims of this nature.