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

I'd like to suggest that in the context of this thread RAZD be considered an experimental subject under study rather than a discussion participant. I said something similar earlier on in the thread. Again, sorry RAZD, but this seems like a valuable opportunity to study the psychology of the other side while it is being displayed by one of our own.--Percy

In light of Percy's comments above let us cease any further claims of refutation on both sides and stick to the primary difference between our positions such that we can better understand your thinking. Namely what exactly constitutes an "Absence of evidence".I am going to indirectly refer to the Immaterial Pink Unicorn here. Before you throw your arms up in despair and accuse me of making fun please note that I am using this example not to take the piss out of anyone but because it is symbolic to the argument at hand in a way that everyone understands and also because I cannot think of a better less contentious relevant example. Please please do read onI do not understand specifically what you mean when you use the term "Absence of evidence". This needs clarification if we are to gain any insight into your position at all.In a complete and utter absence of ALL empirical objective evidence how can we know what properties material or immaterial things can or cannot have?

​

In a complete and utter absence of ALL empirical objective evidence what does the concept of colour, or the specific term 'pink', even mean?

​

In a complete and utter absence of ALL empirical objective evidence why is a unicorn any more unreal or absurd than a chair, a human being, Oliver Twist or indeed any other possible conceptual entity?

​

In a complete and utter absence of ALL empirical objective evidence how can any one concept be considered any more or less real or valid or true than any other concept?It seems to me that when you talk about an "Absence of evidence" you are including the evidence against those things in which you DO NOT believe. You are including the distinct and evidenced possibility that unicorns are the product of human invention and you are including evidenced conclusions about the material nature of colour.It seems to me that when you talk about an "Absence of evidence" you are ignoring the evidence against those things which you DO believe. You are ignoring the distinct and evidenced possibility that deistic concepts are the product of human invention. Intentional or otherwise.In short rather than considering concepts in a vacuum of ALL evidence you are in fact picking and choosing to ignore or include evidence that suits your deistic world view.I do not understand how a complete vacuum of ALL objective evidence CAN possibly exist either in practical terms or without making ALL concepts equally valid.QUESTION: Given the above can you clarify exactly what you mean by "Absence of evidence"?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

With regard to science there is no difference since the deist does not allow for divine intervention. The god of the deist is disinterested in the universe and therefore does not interfere.

---

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

I don't know that I could agree that the deist's God is disinterested in the Universe. I think this is a possibility, but it could also be that he is intensely interested in seeing how what he set up plays out.--Percy

Percy,
By "disinterested" I meant that a deist god does not intervene in the the project of the universe. He just winds it up and lets it go. I suppose such a god might be interested to observe when things crash. But such a god is immoral in the extreme. But not intervening, he has no interest in the betterment of the world when things go wrong. So you might as well be an atheist.
On the other hand, the proof that the Biblical God does intervene is in the bible. My expertise is biblical chronology -- and the solution, and it is self verifying if you care to find out that the Biblical God is better than the deist god. See the link below.

---

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

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) • • •

No. I would not agree.We are empirical beings living in an empirical world. There is always empirical objective evidence at hand. In the absence of any empirical and objective evidence at all in favour of a claim we have the clear and objectively evidenced possibility that the claim is a purely human fictional invention.We are an inventive and imaginative species whose penchant for subjective and creative thinking far outweighs our natural ability to derive objective truth. There is a wealth of objective evidence of this fact.By ignoring this fact you are selectively ignoring half the evidence avilable. No. No. No.Why do you not believe in the IPU? Be specific.I do not believe in the actuality of entities for which there is no evidential reason to think even possible.You do. Sometimes (e.g. your deity). You don't. Sometimes (e.g. the immaterial pink unicorn)My position is evidentially, logically and intellectually consistent. Yours is not. I am sorry but this is just bollocks.There is a clear distinction between those completely unevidenced concepts and those derived from the logical extrapolation of evidence.We have seen, and even agreed this, in the discussion of the possibility of alien life etc. etc.For you to claim that you know an objective truth of reality (that a deity exists) on the basis of no evidence at all is akin to an ancient hunter gatherer from the dawn of humanity being inspired to conclude that reality is made up of quantum fields.As a philosophical possibility there is nothing to actually stop this leap of inspirational insight occurring but the likelihood of it actually occurring is infitesimally small.Why should I credit your subjectively derived "conclusions" with my agnosticism?What other of the infinite array of unevidenced but conceivable entities must I claim agnosticism towards?Other than your deity what other of the infinite array of unevidenced but conceivable entities do you believe in?Why is the question of your deity existing even a valid question? I do not believe that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" as you relentlessly assert.Rather I maintain that your chances of having stumbled across an intrinsic truth of objective reality on the basis of no objective evidence at all is just about zero to all practical intents and purposes.Thus I do not believe in your deity. Nor anybody elses.Your position is evidentially unjustifiable whilst mine is consistent with ALL of the objective evidence available.What is it you say to creationists.....? "Follow the evidence".Good advice. You should follow it.Enjoy.

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) • • •

Being so open minded as to allow your brains to fall out of your head is neither noble nor intellectually justifiable.There is ample evidence against the reality of deities. Evidence that you continue to ignore.So do you accept that there is objective evidence in favour of the possibility that the IPU is a non-existent human invention?Or not?Do you accept that there is objective evidence in favour of the possibility that deities and gods are non-existent human inventions?Or not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : spellingEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Strange how the use of subjective evidence in court doesn't require everyone in the justice system to allow their brains to fall out of their heads, while pursuing justice. Should one conclude you think justice is neither noble nor intellectually justifiable?I see you have finally answered the question about alien visitation claims, and that your answer contradicts your logical extrapolation, as expected. I know of no experience related to the existence of them, and the only records I see of them are for the purpose of argument.I cannot out of hand doubt an experience, especially where there is evidence of life changing behavior. Thus I remain open minded on all similar experience related claims.Subjective evidence is used in a court of law when there is no other evidence available to guide the court in its decision.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 is it an evidenced possibility that gods and deities are human inventions?Or not?If someone came to you claiming to have derived the objective existence of a testable and verifiable entity (a comet, an undiscovered particle - something like that) on the basis of subjective "evidence" alone (i.e. no empirical evidence or prior knowledge to support the claim at all) - How would you rate the chances of that claim actually being verified as true?A) Almost certain to be verified
B) High
C) 50/50
D) Low
E) Essentially zeroPlease be honest.Bearing Percy's suggestion in mind maybe you could explain your answer.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes, let's be honest.Straggler and RAZD both observe the world and make interpretations of what occurs here.What is the probability that their observations and then their interpretations are correct?Well for RAZD it would be "B.high or perhaps almost certain to be verified" (if it is something that can be verified). I also have a high level of confidence in his ability to observe the world without bias.For Staggler it would be "D.Low or perhaps essentially zero" I have no confidence in his ability to observe the world without bias.My observation is based on having read thousands of each of their posts, nothing more or less.It appears to me both atheists and creationists in general bias their observation of the world while deists in general do not.A deist considers all of human existence and experience while the atheist and creationist picks and chooses what to deny out of hand.A deist has no "answers" for you, you must find it out for yourself, they are not sure of the answers to this existence so are always looking.The atheist and creationist both know completely what is going on here, and will tell you over, and over, and over, and over, and over again how they have it all figured out. Don't agree with them and you are bound for hell, or irrational with your brains spilling out on the floor.The difference between deists and atheists/creationists is actually quite large psychologically.Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.

That might all be true, but I can't help but feel there is a flaw in the reasoning.The deists in this thread, say that they believe a god exists even though it is not rational to come to that conclusion and that the correct conclusion is 'we don't know', but regardless they believe that a god-entity exists.The atheists in this thread seem to be saying that of course we don't know, we can't know, the 'god' entity under description is unfalsifiable and unverifiable (perhaps by design). Since they see no reason to believe in such an entity, the atheists hold no belief that such a god entity exists. As such the atheists are lacking a belief that god exists and therefore they are atheist.If you are trying tell us that the deists have more epistemic humility than the atheists I'm not convinced. The atheist position seems to be making fewer claims about reality than the deist one.What am I missing?

---

And of course, you'll not find RAZD saying anything about those that disagree with him are committing 'logical fallacies' or suffering 'cognitive dissonance' or anything like that in this thread or its sister thread

So Petrophysics - Not a fan huh? If you can explain how RAZD's (or your own) deistic conclusion, based on no objective evidence whatsoever, is even remotely likely to be true - then lets hear it.If you can explain how such conclusions, based on no objective evidence whatsoever, are to be deemed anything other than the product of human invention without contradicting all of the evidence we have in favour of such things being the product of human invention - then let's hear it.If you can explain why subjective "evidence" is ignored as completely unreliable and utterly pointless in the presence of objective evidence but suddenly becomes the benchmark of evidential certainty whenever we are considering "irefutable" deities and other matters of faith - then lets hear it.If you can explain why the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is NOT a logical argument in purely evidential terms against those concepts which are equally derived from no evidential basis at all - then lets hear it.If you cannot explain any of these things don't bother replying. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.I do not believe in the actuality of those things for which there is no evidence based reason to think even possible. In this I am totally consistent.I recognise human experience and existence as exactly that. Human experience and existence. I do not deny it. I embrace it.I do not feel the need to diminish that human experience or existence by inconsistently and irrationally picking and choosing amongst all the possible fantasy beings available so that I can instead attribute my human experience and existence to an "invisible friend" of some sort.I don't think human experience is so inadequate as to require such fantasies in order to validate it.It is the deist and theist who pick and choose the evidence they will or will not accept. Evidential and intellectual inconsistency. How else can faith in one wholly unevidenced thing but not another possibly be justified?

petrophysics, Utter bullshit. You should feel ashamed even making the assertion. Why? Because you have it exactly wrong as pertaining to atheists & deists.Atheists like straggler & I accept things which meet an evidential standard, deists do this [i]except[i/] when it comes to their "god".MarkEdited by mark24, : No reason given.

---

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