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

Which, curiously, is not my position. Let me know when you want to address the position and not your straw man version. And yet they will disagree among themselves about conclusions reached based on their world views when they run out of evidence pro or con, and when they run off into what they consider logical extrapolations, and nobody can say that one is right.My position is simple: science and logic can only get you so far, in finding the "ultimate answer to the questions of life, the universe and (oh) everything" - and that when you exceed that boundary you cannot claim to be correct or right ... or logical. No matter how hard you try you will never derive or deduct a real answer, rather that what you will get is a conclusion consistent with your world view. You will, of course, also conclude that your answer is logical and rational.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 find it curious that the definition of faith is "belief without evidence," and yet it seems the first, second, and last question atheists ask about, is where the evidence is. It seems to me that they don't understand that the question is essentially pointless. Let's try this:
(1) Your position regarding the realms of science and logic requires just as much evidence and logic as mine, they are both equally valid within the realms covered by science and logic, but the realms of science and logic are limited.
(2) When you run out of evidence, when you reach the limits of primary extrapolations, then any further conclusions are based on a logical house of cards and on what you believe to be true -- your world view.
(3) Nobody has an absolute answer.There are some things that cannot be explained by logic and science. Faith is one.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 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) • • •

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) • • •

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 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) • • •

Hi Straggler. My objection here, is that I would look at those as (1), (2) ... and (10) -- that there are a lot more possible gradations between (2) and (3) than there are between (1) and (2).For instance, let me propose a (2.1): untestable philosopical considerations, and (2.2): things where a person or persons have experienced something they do not understand. They cannot explain it, but they also know that they have experienced something.The empirical evidence is that there are a lot of people who have experienced something that they cannot explain in normal terms. For example, love is something I have experienced but cannot explain. Does it mean destiny? The poet in me says that is one possibility, while the skeptic demurs that there is no destiny. Is it just chemicals, and all you need is the right mix of chemicals and you will fall in love with whoever happens to be there (love potion #9). Or is there some other answer? Perhaps it is a subconscious subjective evaluation of many factors that we just don't consciously realize is going on.You like to say that there is a lot of evidence that people make things up, I accept this is so, to a degree, however it does not explain the reality of experience, rather it explains what people say to explain an experience they do not otherwise understand or can explain in normal terms.This would, of course, apply to everyone, including people who pride themselves on their logic and empirical outlook. They will make up a logical explanation that allows them to discredit what they do not understand: it's just a brain malfunction, a hallucination, it's made up. Especially if you have not had any similar experience.Unfortunately, such explanations of other people's experience does not really explain why the experience occurred. Love is something I have not been able to make up, have you? I experience it, but I cannot explain it as a made up experience, I just accept that there are people I love and people I don't, though I can't say why some are included and some are not.Take the issue of alien life. You rate the probability of alien life elsewhere in the universe as high, based on your extrapolation of the evidence of (1 example) of life on earth, however you reject the possibility of such alien life being responsible for any UFO sightings, even though this is just more extrapolation from the same evidence with the same logic. Somewhere you make a subjective evaluation that the evidence does not convincingly support the conclusion, while it supports earlier conclusions.For me, while I remain skeptical of such event happening, I also cannot rule out the possibility that it has. Personally, I think Mark24's argument is more logically consistent, even though I do agree with you that alien life is probable if not even inevitable, due to the pervasiveness of pre-biotic chemicals in space. I remain optimistic that life will be discovered elsewhere.Curiously, I still don't fit your description. I remain skeptical, but open minded, about a lot of concepts, not just UFO's, aliens and other beliefs. Ask Mod about Nessie for example. Is it subjective to remain open minded? Is it embracing to be skeptical? The only pure type (3) phenomenon are constructs like the IPU - ones that are not based on any experiences, and once you get beyond the words immaterial, pink, and unicorn, there is no there there, nothing to be open minded about. In other words, you use your worldview when evaluating what you consider to be good "educated estimations of probability and likelihood" and what you consider to be bad "educated estimations of probability and likelihood" when you are off the end of empirical evidence, and onto extrapolations of secondary or higher levels of remove from conclusions based on evidence.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) • • •

Refuted by the contrary conclusion of Mark24. You still miss the reality here: faith is not a conclusion, not a choice, and that no logic, good, bad or indifferent is used. Until you realize that your argument here is false (and why) you will never see why the IPU argument is flawed.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 again Mark24, I understand this, and concur, that this one factor is increased by an increase in numbers. What this doesn't answer is whether the final probability is increased, due to the numerous off-setting factors that can also be increased, and thus the net result could remain the same.Would you agree that your position overall is not swayed significantly by an increase in the number of planets because of offsetting factors?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ,,

---

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 Straggler, still struggling? Message 244
Are you arguing that speculation about elves and fairies is "an evidentially supported logical possibility"? That may be your opinion of how it works, but it is not my experience, not does it match what I said: "faith is not a conclusion, not a choice, and that no logic, good, bad or indifferent is used."There is not one thing I know of that contradicts or is inconsistent with what I believe, and thus it is not irrational nor is it "evidentially inconsistent" with the known world.Nor do I see the contrary conclusions between you and Mark24 (among others) as evidence of "a rational and evidentially consistent world view" as the intellectual property of atheists. What I see is that the conclusions are essentially subjective, based on differences in your world views that include other aspects beyond your shared scientific knowledge and atheistic beliefs.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 Mark24, Near the start of the IPU thread you said (edited for clarity): Message 21

quote:

---

Believing alien life exists is just as absurd as believing invisible pink unicorns exist. It doesn't matter how large the universe, how many planets there are. The fact of the matter is that we have no idea what the probability is of life occurring. In the same way we have no way of quantifying that the IPU exista. Life happened once, here, is the best we can say. It's entirely possible that the universe is finite, but the possibility of life occurring even once is remote, we just got lucky in this universe. In the same way that finding a molecule of active ingredient in a homeopaths cup is unlikely. If the universe were rerun a trillion times, as far as were are concerned it could be utterly sterile every time.

​

At the end of the day it doesn't matter. No evidence = no acceptance.

​

I don't accept that the statement that life exists elsewhere in the universe is true because we have no evidence, I do hold it as a possibility, however.

---

Forgive me if I am in error, but this appears to me to conclude that the existence of alien life elsewhere in the universe is possible but highly unlikely. Open-minded skepticism.Possible yes, probable no.Increasing the number of planets could increase the probability of life, or it could just increase the probability of more sterile planets due to the offsetting factors that make so many planets sterile.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) • • •

Well Straggler,I have to laugh every time you try to claim victory and close down the discussion. Classic avoidance behavior?My opinion is my opinion, just as your opinion is yours. Curiously you have come to this conclusion based on an absence of evidence of this behavior, and have in fact been told that, no, that is not how it works. So much for your objective pursuit of intellectual consistency. You are free to state your opinion as much as you want. However repeating it does not move the debate forward, and you have simply stopped moving forward.Yes this is just as correct as my stating that atheists believe absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Perhaps if you waited for the answer, or even better, participated in the development of the answer, instead of jumping in with hobnail boots and declaring victory, you would have one.Final Words? only for someone who does not want to question their conclusions.Enjoy.Please note before you once again try to claim victory by my absence from posting or that failure to answer your questions shows avoidance behavior, that I will be away on work all next week, that the rest of today will be dedicated to final preparations, that every day will be filled to the brim with work, and that I foresee very little time to react to you persistent misrepresentations.I expect you to ignore this, just as you have ignored previous notifications of my busy work schedule all last week in order to claim victory.

---

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 Straggler,I am now back but not well, yesterday spent entirely in bed under semi-induced coma -- bad cold * niquil for the last 24 hours. My replies will be brief.As anticipated I was not able to access the internet nor have any time for entertainment last week (my exhaustion contributing to my getting this cold), but I have thought about it during the last week. Perhaps we can also do without bolds and long posts that add nothing to the debate. A very good question. I note that there is a vast difference between any evidence at all and "ALL empirical objective evidence" - a difference that in our courts of law is filled with subjective evidence when it is available. A person who has experience regarding the question under investigation can testify what they believe occurred. This does not mean that such testimony is necessarily true, nor does it mean that the court must use it in reaching a decision. It also often brings into question the character of the person/s presenting such evidence. In some cases you have several witnesses that can each testify as to what they observed, and the consistency of their testimony helps to bolster the validity of the evidence presented.Would you not agree that when we have run out of "ALL empirical objective evidence" that is available that the existence of subjective evidence does not mean there is an absence of evidence?The other question that this scientific study of the mind of RAZD has brought out quite clearly is that different people consider different evidence in different ways - they weigh the evidence according to their worldviews, giving more weight to evidence that corresponds to their worldviews than to those that don't. This is most obvious with our creationist friends, but I also see it with my atheist friends. Thus you and Mark24 have different opinions about the possibility of life, even thought the evidence is the same and the logic is similar. Your conclusion is "deist-like" in concluding that there is a strong probablility for life on other planets, while Mark's is more "atheist-like" in concluding that it is highly improbable.This difference is not due the evidence but to the weighting of the evidence by your respective worldviews.Thus we have the gray area between (1) concepts where we have some basis on evidence and that appears logical but is not yet validated - say string theory as an example - and that is not contradicted by any other known evidence, and (2) concepts where there is an absolute absence of any kind of evidence, even from subjective anecdote - say the immaterial pink unicorn as an example. There are two parts to this: the absence of convincing evidence, and the absence of any evidence at all, subjective and objective.The immaterial pink unicorn falls distinctly into the later class, having no evidence nor experience for this concept, and the only purpose for it, is to (mis)represent concepts that fall into the former class.The problem is that some people, as noted above, give different weight to evidence - objective and subjective - than other people, and so what is class 1 for one person can be class 2 for another.This comes down to the question of how one validates concepts once the ability to test them scientifically ceases to apply due to the nature of the concept (unfalsifiable, etc), a question I have asked many times here and elsewhere, but have had little in the way of response as yet.⁽¹⁾So to answer this question properly one needs to define what they mean by evidence, so that we are talking about the same thing.Enjoy.ps - note that I basically agree with Percy (Message 274) and Daniel4140 (Message 273). The deist position is that god is unknowable, and thus logically you can make no conclusions about which god is involved nor even about how many or what their purpose is. This is very far from "choosing a god" as you often (and mistakenly) claim. Edited by RAZD, : ⁽¹⁾

---

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 you are not open minded.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) • • •