The example of alien life visitations shows the difference clearly.
You include the possibility of alien visitations based on a logical extrapolation from the known objective evidence - life on earth + the existence of other planets.
You exclude the possibility of alien visitations based on subjective reports of alien sightings.
You see no difference between believing in alien visitations based on this subjective evidence and the IPU etc argument, because you exclude subjective evidence from your evaluation.
I include both the extrapolation from known evidence and the possibility of subjective evidence being true.
Thus I do see a difference between believing in alien visitations based on this subjective evidence and the IPU etc argument, because I include subjective evidence in my evaluation, an element that is completely missing from the IPU and similar arguments.
Answer: Evidential and intellectual consistency.
When you look at the complete picture it is still evidential and intellectual consistency. The only difference is in what is considered within the realm of evidence.
In both cases the conclusions drawn are tested against what we know of objective reality, and concepts that are contradicted by objective are discarded or modified.
Not one argument advanced by Straggler or others leads me to change my mind on this, as I find the arguments incomplete and unconvincing. The claim that the evidence shows that "people-make-things-up" does not explain the experiences, and in the end it is as useful (useless) in reaching conclusions as the theistic "god-did-it" rationalization. It answers by excusing you from further investigation. Yes, people make things up, all the time - all theories are "made up" explanations of experience. The difference between just accepting a made up explanation and testing it against reality is what differentiates the scientific process from the (myth)theological process.
RAZD started this argument by relentlessly declaring that the atheist position amounted to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". He relentlessly and repeatedly asserted this despite numerous actual atheists telling him that this was not their position at all.
Curiously your argument, and others, has been consistently that there is no reason to believe in something for which you have no (convincing\allowed) evidence. You then go to great lengths about how there is an absence of (convincing\allowed) evidence for god/s and use this to justify a lack of belief.
There is no evidence of gods. Nor is there any evidence to suggest the possibility of gods. If there was such evidence gods would be evidentially viable concepts. If there was such evidence faith would be redundant.
Q.E.D.
1) In nearly 600 posts spanning two threads you have never once acknowledged the fact that the absence of evidence claim upon which your entire argument is founded is false if ALL of the objective evidence available is taken into account. There is evidence 'against' the actuality of gods even if there is no evidence 'for'.
Your "evidence against" is your claim that people make things up. You will excuse me if I don't find this compelling for the reasons stated above.
2) Refusal to acknowledge refutation of your arguments — You have just stopped responding to anyone who points out that the IPU has been fully validated as a means of demonstrating that the logical fallacy of special pleading is required to differentiate one wholly unevidenced entity from another. But you have never once acknowledged that this has now been validated.
See above. It is only valid if you exclude a class of evidence that I do not exclude. That such evidence also provides a causal difference for one belief over another also excludes the special pleading claimed. Your statement is true only if you exclude subjective evidence, and I don't.
I stopped repeating answers to repeated questions that have been answered. Questions that are based on your exclusive point of view are irrelevant.
3) Wilful conflation - Wilful conflation of probability and possibility despite being explicitly told multiple times that my argument relies only upon the former and not the latter. Wilful conflation on the basis that your position can only logically apply to the latter.
No, rather what was demonstrated was that your extrapolation leads to a conclusion of the possibility that alien visitation observations could be based on truth, yet you still reject the viability of such evidence.
4) The use of opinion rather than argument as evidence - Mark24 disagrees with you thus you are refuted.
No, the point of the use of opinion was to demonstrate that it was opinion - subjective - not "evidentially based" - objective - as you have claimed. You have acknowledged this, but only after many repeated confrontations with this evidence. Difference of opinion demonstrates that the conclusion is not objective only.
5) The ad-hominem fallacy — You have repeatedly used the argument that if all atheists are not evidentially consistent then this is somehow proof of the atheist position being evidentially inconsistent.
No, first off that is not an
ad hominem and second that was not the argument. The argument was on the inclusion of subjective evaluation of the relative merits of different evidence due to your world views being (necessarily) different. Your claim of intellectual consistency of atheists versus deists is invalid once you accept the reality of this process occurring in all people. The difference in conclusion is due to the difference in what is considered relevant evidence and the relative weighting of the evidence, whether you are atheist or deist or theist, and can be just as intellectually consistent based on the (convincing\allowed) evidence for the person involved.
Are all world views equivalent? Of course not. I don't believe any two world views are ultimately equal. The only way we know to test the validity of world views is to see where and how they are contradicted by known objective reality markers - things we agree on as evidence of reality. Thus we all test our world views against the objective evidence of reality, and (if we are intellectually consistent) discard concept/s that are invalidated - or deny that the evidence that invalidates the concept/s is valid evidence.
6) Ignoring uncomfortable questions — Read through this thread and see just how many questions you have repeatedly ignored.
I think you will find that the relevant questions are answered, not necessarily in direct response to your questions, nor necessarily in a manner you like, but answered.
There are thus, imho, five broadly defined groups or classes of concepts:
(1) concepts that are supported by objective and subjective evidence, that are testable and that are not contradicted by objective evidence.
(2) concepts that are supported by objective and subjective evidence, that are not testable, and that are not contradicted by objective evidence.
(3)concepts that are supported by subjective evidence, that are not testable, and that are not contradicted by objective evidence.
(4) concepts that are not supported by subjective or objective evidence, that are not testable, and that are not contradicted by objective evidence.
(5) concepts that are contradicted (falsified) by objective evidence.
The first are scientific concepts, the second include your extrapolation of the possibility of alien life on other planets and the possibility of alien visitations, the third includes alien visitation experiences (UFO's etc), the fourth is the IPU class (russel's teapot, the garage dragon, etc), and the fifth includes a young earth.
THE ARGUMENT
Question: What is the difference between atheism and deism?
Answer: Evidential and intellectual consistency.
You only include class (1) and (2), while I include (1), (2) and (3). Note that I don't necessarily speak for anyone else.
Message 333In practical terms I don't think anybody disagrees with this.
But after 300+ posts it would seem that from a philosophical and 'approach to evidence' perspective that there is, in some cases at least, a gaping and unbridgable chasm between the two positions.
Why this should come as a surprise to you is a mystery to me, as the basic conclusions re the possibility of god/s are contradictory.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : msg 333
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) • • •
™ Version 4.2
