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

Nice. And irrelevant.You are still arguing that alien life is probable, or have you changed your argument - yes or no.How much you stomp your feet and jump up and down, the essential broken record of your argument is that alien life is probable.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 Percy, For me, it's more like they are orthogonal ways of looking at existence, and I can slide along either axis without affecting my position on the other.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) • • •

I, the astrobiologist community, and apparently you, do think alien life is probable.But that is not my argument and never has been. As you would know if you had read a single damn thing I had written in the two related threads.My argument is, and always has been, that whether or not we have direct evidence of extraterrestrial life we can assess the probability of such a thing existing based on logically relevant objective factors which have nothing to do with subjective world view. Increasing our knowledge of these factors will lead to a better assessment of likelihood. Even in the absence of direct evidence of alien life itself.You apparently disagree and have repeatedly claimed that any conclusion made in the absence of direct evidence is the result of subjective world view. If your argument is true then rather than studying abiogensis, astrobiology or the nature of the universe to draw conclusions regarding the possibility of alien life we might as well get out the tarot cards and wait to feel an inner alien presence as the basis on which to make our conclusion.If hypotheses derived from known evidence and logic are no more or less reliable or valid than subjective and illogical conclusions then your world view assertion necessarily denies our ability to make reasoned hypotheses. It thus denies the validity of the scientific method itself.You have yet to tackle any of these points. In either of the related threads. No matter how much you use avoidance tactics or argue against straw men the flaws in your argument will keep being raised until you either confront them or look persistently ridiculous by failing to do so.For example:QUESTIONS
1) Do you agree that the fact we know life exists on this planet and the fact that we know that there are other planets in the universe provides a firm objective evidential basis from which the proposed possibility of life on other planets is derived?2) Do you agree that the proposed possibility of any given deity/god actually existing is derived from nothing but subjective experience? That there is no objective reason to even propose that such a thing might exist?3) Do you agree that the IPU, Wagwah, face sucking jellyfish and all other such entities share this complete lack of objective evidential support and that in terms of derivation from evidence are thus equivalent to any other undetectable supernatural entities?4) 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?5) Are all world views equally subjective and unreliable or is a "world view" derived from objective evidence and logic superior in terms of objectivity and reliability?6) How is a scientifically valid hypothesis formulated? Would you expect a scientific hypothesis to be more or less likley to be true regarding an as yet unevidenced phenomenon than a wholly subjective conclusion regarding the same phenomenon?END QUESTIONSThese questions will keep being asked until you either answer them or your avoidance of them is blatantly evident to all.Why not save me and you a lot of time and just answer them specifically and explicitly? Personally I think answering these questions will induce a fair amount of cognitive dissonance as I don't think you are as convinced by your "world view" assertion as you are making out. But I guess we will see.I await your answers with eager anticipation..................And just a final reminder as to my position on the overall topic:

I have. The cognitive dissonance is that you do not recognize the answers.Meanwhile you don't answer the question of where on the logic train you step off. So you do agree that your conclusion is at odds with the one made by Mark24, and that this difference is not based on a difference in logic or evidence.Do you or do you not agree that this difference is due to subjective evaluation of the relative merits of evidence and logic? Once again, your world view is not only subjective. Your seeming failure to understand this simple concept is bewildering, especially when there is ample evidence of it from other sources. This is not an intentionally fabricated fiction.The fact that subjective opinions, that are a part of one's world view, flavor one's interpretation of evidence is documented. The different conclusions you and Mark24 reach on the probability of alien life is also objective evidence of this. The evidence of different scientific theories that attempt to explain the same thing in different ways is also objective evidence of this. Except that you cannot escape the subjective evaluation of the relative merits of different evidence and logic, as is demonstrated in the different conclusions you and Mark24 reach, as is demonstrated in different scientific theories based on the same evidence.You may think you can escape this, but that is hubris, a subjective conclusion based on your world view ... imho.Person A has an experience, such as witnessing an accident. Person B did not have the experience, and only has Person A's interpretation of the experience. Person B's interpretation of Person A's interpretation of the experience will also be subjective, no matter how much objective evidence is involved. But the interpretation is not the experience.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) • • •

So no answer to the questions then? Before continuing let's remind ourselves of the questions that you are so unwilling to directly confront. I beg to differ. But for the sake of summarising and clarifying your position, a position that you have repeatedly declared everybody is failing to understand BTW, maybe answering these questions explicitly would help.I think you are unable to answer them consistently without contradicting your "world view" position. But hopefully we will see.............And again here is my overall position regarding the topic at large ( a position you have not even acknowledged never mind refuted): I will answer your "Mark24 disagrees with you and this refutes everything you have said" (my paraphrase - obviously) in a different post. Because I would not want to give you yet another excuse to avoid actually answering the damn questions above.

Are untested conclusions derived by applying logic to known evidence superior to subjectively derived and wholly unevidenced conclusions in terms of objectivity and reliability?That is the question.STRAGGLER's POSITION
I say 'Yes'. I therefore claim that the probability of directly unevidenced scientific propositions can be determined from a foundation of evidence and objectivity that gives rise to a degree of confidence and accuracy that is only surpassed by direct evidence and actual scientific verification.With regard to the specific example in question it is my position that the probability of alien life existing elsewhere in the universe can be determined with a degree of confidence that is proportional to the amount of information we have regarding the logically relevant objective factors.Thus a quality of conclusion regarding the possibility of alien life can be achieved that is impossible when considering undetectable supernatural entities. Entities for which there is no objective evidential reason for even considering the existence of as a valid question.

Thus it is my position that a belief that alien life is possible, and even plausible, is NOT equivalent to belief in the existence of a deity.

​

RAZD's POSITION
You say 'No' and claim that any attempt to logically or objectively make conclusions about things which are directly unevidenced is like "Pissing in the wind". That all such conclusions will be the product of "world view" and that any talk of probability or plausibility is inherently flawed.

​

Thus you conclude that belief in the possibility of alien life elsewhere in the universe IS evidentially equivalent to belief in the existence of a deity

​

Now to the Mark24 "refutation" that you have made so much of.

​

So you do agree that your conclusion is at odds with the one made by Mark24, and that this difference is not based on a difference in logic or evidence.

​

Mark24 and I certainly do seem to have arrived at different conclusions regarding the absolute probability of life existing on other planets. This much of your over extrapolated point is trivially true.

​

I don't know what specific evidence mark24 is basing his conclusion on. I haven't asked him because my argument is only interested in whether or not he accepts that objective factors, factors such as the number of planets in the universe, provide the basis of such a conclusion. He seems to agree that they do.

​

Thus the question of how probable alien life on other planets is becomes a scientific and potentially investigatable one. Even in the abence of direct evidence of alien life the key to making a tentative conclusion regarding likelihood remains empirical, evidence based, logical and objective. The answer to the difference between Mark24's opinion and mine thus becomes one of agreeing on the objective facts available and requiring more relevant evidence.

​

This is in stark contrast to the inherently unexplainable and uninvestigatable nature of the IPU and other deities.

​

Do you or do you not agree that this difference is due to subjective evaluation of the relative merits of evidence and logic?

Once again, your world view is not only subjective. Your seeming failure to understand this simple concept is bewildering, especially when there is ample evidence of it from other sources. This is not an intentionally fabricated fiction.

​

I do understand the concept. Nobody is denying that the subjective interpretation of evidence is a factor of humanity. It is also a fact that the more evidence we have the more objective it is possible for our interpretation to be.

​

Are you denying that if we were to have a high degree of knowledge regarding abiogenesis, regarding the number and nature of the planets in the universe and regarding the abundance of certain elements in the universe that we cannot come to better evidentially supported, and thus more reliable, conclusions regarding the probability of life on other planets in the universe?

​

Are we just "pissing in the wind" by researching these things?

​

Nobody is claiming sceintifically verified answers here but there has to be something between the sort of subjectivity required to conclude that deities exist and the sort of objective verified evidence that is the fact of gravity.

​

Shades of grey Raz.......Shades of grey.

​

Once again, your world view is not only subjective. Your seeming failure to understand this simple concept is bewildering, especially when there is ample evidence of it from other sources. This is not an intentionally fabricated fiction.

​

I do understand that. But everytime I ask you if all world views are EQUALLY subjective you fail to provide an answer.

​

If you acknowledge that all world views are NOT equally subjective then you reach the inevitable conclusion that the "world view" that gives rise to the possibility of alien life and the "world view" that says deities exist are not objectively or evidentially equivalent.

​

In which case you really have no argument when confronted with an atheist who says that your deistic beliefs are unevidenced and irrational whilst also stating that the possibility of alien life is neither unevidenced or irrational.

​

Except that you cannot escape the subjective evaluation of the relative merits of different evidence and logic, as is demonstrated in the different conclusions you and Mark24 reach, as is demonstrated in different scientific theories based on the same evidence.

​

I am not attempting to escape from anything.

​

I am arguing that not all "world views" (if you insist on calling them that) are evidentially or objectively equally valid or reliable.

​

I am specifically arguing that the "world view" from which the possibility of alien life is derived is vastly and indisputably superior to the "world view" that concludes that deities exist in terms of objectivity, evidential support and reliability.

​

In short one is derived from a rational "world view" and the other is very much a product of an irrational "world view".

​

Now how about abandoning the avoideance tactics and answering those questions I keep putting to you?

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So is there evidence of UFO's or not? Should be a yes or no answer, shouldn't it?

---

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

Should it? Why?

bluegenes, Because either there is evidence, or there isn't. A question with only two possibilities asking a choice between the two requires only a yes or no.Mark

---

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

If this thread demonstrates anything it demonstrates that there are no 'yes or no' answers. There is no objective evidence to support the claim that we have been visited by alien beings.However to qualify things slightly:SCALES OF EVIDENCE1) There are those things which have been scientifically verified and which we thus have very good reason in which to believe.2) There are those things which we derive from scientific evidence but which in themselves remain untested conclusions (i.e. hypotheses). We have good reason to believe that these things might be true.3) There are those things for which we have no objective evidential reason in which to believe or even think possible at all.This scale can be broken down further until it is effectively graduated but this will suffice for now.Those who refuse to believe in phenomenon of type 1) are flying in the face of evidence. Creationists would be an example here.Type 2) leaves a great deal of room for difference of opinion and interpretation of evidence and is indisputably inferior to type 1) BUT the evidence under consideration is nevertheless empirical, objective and scientific. There can be very good reasons for thinking phenomenon of this type might be true. Good enough reasons to justify expending vast resources on investigating further (e.g. the LHC and the Higgs Boson). How good these reasons are depends on the specific nature of the evidence in each case. Ultimately verification or refutation is the true goal. If however technological practicalities make that impossible we can still make educated estimations of probability and likelihood on the indirect evidence that we do have. I am of course thinking of our much discussed alien life question here.Pure type 3) phenomenon are those which can only even be deemed to possibly exist by subjective and irrational means. Things for which we have no objective reason to think even might be true. Deities, the IPU and other such wholly unevidenced phenomenon. To believe that these things actually exist requires faith. Not evidence.My atheism is derived from the fact that I reject all type 3) phenomenon all of the time. [smug grin] I think that this form of atheism is intellectually consistent and thus rational.[/smug grin]Deists reject almost all type 3) phenomenon almost all of the time. However they suddenly abandon consistency, and thus rationality, by embracing one or more such concepts for subjective reasons.To get back to UFOs - Where would you place the possibility that we have been visited by alien life on this scale? If forced to choose based on my understanding of the evidence for such things I would definitely place my pin above the absolute type 3) phenomenon but well well below the 2). No. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and change of subtitle

Percy, It's not the same thing, though. If we are going to apply a methodology in order to come to conclusions about the universe then we should apply it consistently. Allowing a warm fuzzy feeling to guide us in one instance but reject everything else with the same level of evidence because we apply the scientific method is just plain daft. I guess that's what I mean by compartmentalising, seeing no problem in applying a double standard.Wouldn't it be more reasonable to accept that there is no evidence that would lead you to deism, & therefore not be a deist, but still accept that you have a "gut" instinct that there may very well be one. This is kind of where I am with alien life. I know there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life so I won't allow myself the luxury of accepting the proposition. But at the same time it seems likely that somewhere in some way, shape or form there is such a thing.Mark

---

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

There's an adjective at the beginning of UFO that deserves consideration. Given that, the evidence, obviously, is overwhelming. Why do you ask, when it's obvious?So, I was questioning your question. Did you mean "is there evidence for intelligent alien life forms visiting this planet"?And if so, although young RAZD would like to see this question as having some kind of obscure relationship to his belief in magical beings, do you see a connection?

bluegenes, But you missed the context.Mark

---

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

Perhaps. But do you see speculation in relation to life forms existing elsewhere as equivalent to speculation about elves and fairies?

In other words, wouldn't reality make more sense if I wasn't the way I am? Wouldn't I be more consistent if I was more the way you suggest?Sure.But I'm the way I am, and I'm just trying to describe it, inconsistencies and all.Because I believe the same as Straggler about alien life, I don't see any similarity between my religious beliefs and acceptance of the possibility of alien life. It makes no sense to me to think there's no evidence supporting the possibility. At least to me, the possibility of alien life seems much higher than the possibility that any of my spiritual beliefs are true.I appreciate the interest, but I've asserted throughout this thread that my spiritual beliefs make no sense. If you're trying to make sense of them then I think it's a lost cause.--Percy