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

And this is the evidence of alien visitation you keep relentlessly banging on about? Wow!I am sure I have heard you tell creationists/theists that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".......No?But if you really are this gullible I know of a few nice Nigerian billionaires who just require your bank account details so that they can give you lots and lots of money........Post them here and I'll pass the details on to them. And therin lies the problem.Subjective methods that we all deem to be utterly useless and wholly unreliable when it comes to establishing objectively verifiable scientific truths are suddenly deemed to be excellent indicators of truth when it comes to establishing the actual existence or otherwise of undetectable entities.Why?Why does subjective evidence have no validity in one situation and complete validity in another?Why this inconsistent approach to evidence? How is this justified?It is this inconsistency that lies at the heart of the atheist-deist faultline.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

1) The possibility of deities actually existing has no objective evidential foundation whatsoever.Nobody has disputed this2) Objective evidence in favour of the possibility that gods and deities are the product of human invention does exist.Despite literally hundreds of opportunities to refute or even deny this across two threads no attempt has been made to do so.3) Subjective evidence is worthless in terms of differentiating between truth and falsehood with regard to objective reality.Your laughable courtroom comparison apart it has not even been suggested that wholly subjective evidence can be applied to anything that might actually be able to be verified or refuted. This tells us all we need to know about your faith in the reliability of this form of evidence.So if we "follow the evidence" - as you are so keen on telling our creationist friends - where do we end up?We end up in a position of non-belief with regard to the proposed existence of any particular unevidenced being actually objectively existing.We end up at the atheist position of non-belief.So explain to me again, if you "follow the evidence" why is it that you are not an atheist.?Surely not just because it would require a name change?Personally I think RAZA has quite a nice ring to it Question: What is the difference between deism and atheism?Answer: Evidential and intellectual consistency. In nearly 600 posts spanning two threads you have failed to once acknowledge the evidenced possibility that deities could be a human invention.An evidenced possibility that puts paid to your entire "absence of evidence" based position.And you have the gall to talk about others evading evidence on the basis of cognitive dissonance!Jeez.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Thanks for the answers CS.I have another question.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 zero Why is it convincing? Why does the absence of objective evidence suddenly make subjective "evidence" even potentially valid or reliable?Can subjective evidence ever be reliable?Can we ever actually use it to distinguish truth from falsehood and if not why do you deem it to have any worth at all?Calling it "evidence" seems like nothing more than an unnecessary justification of belief. If I subjectively prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry ice cream nobody would even dream of considering this as evidence that chocolate ice cream is in any way objectively superior to strawberry.Why is subjective experience of god considered to be "evidence" of the objective existence of god but subjective experience of ice cream preference not considered to tell us anything objective about the relative merits of different flavour ice cream?I don't mean this flippantly.Seriously what exactly and specifically is the difference in the two subjective conclusions that means one is deemed to have objective relevance and the other not? In which case non-belief rather than belief would be the natural default logical position.

Verified as in scientifically verified.I am asking you to assess the worth of applying subjective evidence to something that is detectable for a change rather than something that isn't.What are the chances of the particle or comet or whetever other physical detectable entity has been predicted on the basis of subjective evidence alone actually being discovered? Why?Is subjective evidence only evidence if it is sourced from someone that you subjectively trust?Are we not just piling subjective folly upon subjective folly to form an evidential stairway of sponge? Well given your answers in this thread and the IPU thread I am still bemused as to how you can have such absolute conviction in conclusions drawn from evidence which you deem to be utterly and totally unreliable 99% of the time, including every single instance where conclusions from such evidence can actually be tested.I would further add that even when there is no other evidence available the objective evidence to suggest that deities and gods are human inventions far outweighs the reliability of any subjective "evidence" in favour of the concept in question.But at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think. You have your reasons and are welcome to believe whatever you want. Nobody, leat of all I, is disputing that. In terms of this thread I think that you and I have little argument.You are welcome to apply whatever level of reliability you deem fit to your own subjective experiences.I disagree with your conclusion and find the reliance you place on subjective "evidence" in certain situations but not others inconsistent but that is not really the point.Unlike RAZD you seem to think that the conclusion of disbelief and atheism is the rational and evidentially consistent conclusion if based solely on the objective evidence available.Would you agree?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't know the case specifics of the giant squid discovery but knowing that squids exist based on empirical evidence and speculating that much larger squids might also exist hardly seems comparable to concluding that gods exist on the basis of no objective evidence in favour of gods existing.One possibility is evidentially founded and the other conclusion is not. I would be very surprised if they didn't.Let's substitute "human" for any creative, imaginative, investigateive species that is more naturally adept at creating answers than deriving objective truth. When you said this: And then this: It seesm that you find a form of evidence that you consider to be wholly unreliable to also be wholly convincing.I think that this demonstrates an inconsistent aproach to evidence.No? Uh oh. Here we go again. I do not believe in the actuality of those things for which there is no objective evidential reason to think even possible.Nor do you for 99.99% of the unevidenced conceptual possibilities.Should we be agnostic about all unevidenced claims? Or just the ones that you have convincing yet unreliable evidence of? Do you deny that people have invented demonstrably false concepts including gods?Or do you deny that there is objective evidence in favour of this fact? Really? What about the undetectable face sucking jellyfish? Thor? Odin? Apollo? Allah? Vishnu? Shango? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.The list is literally endless. Are you really agnostic? I mean really? Or do you actually not believe in this entities? C'mon be honest. You can tell me. There is no objective evidence in favour of the IPU or any gods.There is objective evidence to suggest that the IPU and gods are human inventions.We both agree that subjective evidence is exceptionally unreliable with regard to establishing objective truth.So, as they say - Do the math.

Then not only is your assessment of the reliability of subjective "evidence" inconsistent from situation to situation. Your whole method of evaluating what is evidentially convincing and what is not evidentially convincing is also completely inconsistent from situation to situation.This unequivocably demonstrates an inconsistent approach to evidence on your part. Why? If there is nothing to even suggest that a particular concept is even a possibility why is the question of it's actual objective existence even a valid question?I deny the validity of the question and deem the concept unworthy of consideration. Never mind actual belief.Otherwise I must logically open the door to the infinite array of wholly unevidenced crackpot concepts imaginable. If not objective evidence then what are you relying on to make your atheistic conclusions?Is it that sponge stairway notion of wholly unreliable but wholly convincing subjective "evidence" rearing it's ugly head again? So it would seem that you agree that the possibility of deities being false concepts that are the product of human invention is indeed objectively evidenced and indeed verified fact.Is the possibility of deities actually existing objectively evidenced? Is the possibility of deities actually existing a verified fact?If we solely follow the objectively verified evidence what conclusion must we draw?Do the math.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't grant wholly subjective experiences with any more reliability in the absence of objective evidence than I do in the presence of objective evidence. Or do they just have utterly unreliable yet aparently very convincing subjective experiences? I don't. From the point of view of any reliable or objectively meaningful evidence you might as well spend your time trying to figure out that whole Immaterial Pink Unicorn thing.There really is no difference. You have agreed that there is objective evidence in favour of the fact that humans create false god concepts.You have repeatedly stated that subjective evidence is valid in the case where there is an absence of objective evidence in favour of any of these god concepts actually being true.Thus, given that I have no subjective experience of the sort that you apparently find convincing, what conclusion am I to draw on the basis of the objective evidence alone? Please explain.

So objective evidence which cannot possibly exist does still exist?The faith based conclusions that you have repeatedly stated require no evidence are suddenly evidenced?Are you drunk? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAre you still equating courtroom character witness testimonials and informed opinion to personal and wholly unevidenced subjective experiences of god?There is a reason that ones own mother is not usually considered a suitable character witness for the defence in a court of law. Something called lack of objectivityYour notion that courtroom evidence of any sort somehow validates purely and wholly subjective personal experience as a form of evidence in favour of gods existing is truly ridiculous.See here Message 286 and here Message 293So the next time you tell a creationist to "Follow the evidence" and they pull out a subjective interpretation of the bible in response you will presumably not be hypocritical enough to dismiss such notions as unevidenced folly?I will ask my questions yet again in the forlorn hope that you might actually answer them......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.

So you are saying that we should take subjective evidence into account when establsishing the truth huh? Subjective evidence such as people's claims of alien visitation (to get back to your long standing favourite topic).And your justification for this is that the courts allow the use of this sort of subjective evidence?JUDGE: Where were you on the night of 16th March?DEFENDENT: I was on a flying saucer your honour.JUDGE: Erm.. Pardon?DEFENDENT: I was abducted by aliens and taken aboard their flying saucer where I was probed in various ways. I was gone all night.JUDGE: That is your alibi?DEFENDENT: Yes. RAZD told me that my wholly subjective and personal experiences were valid as evidence in a court of law.JUDGE: Get this idiot out of my sight and somebody find this RAZD character. He has some answering to do.In the IPU thread it took you over 150 posts to concede that the evidenced possibility of alien life somewhere in the universe and the wholly unevidenced actual existence of deities are not evidentially equivalent.Please don't make us go through the same painful process again before you grasp the quite evident notion that the eye witness testimony used in law courts is not equivalent to the deeply personal and wholly subjective religious experiences that are (well...should be) under discussion here. Nobody is claiming either of these things. If that is what you think anyone here is saying then you are fighting a straw man.If you want to refute the conclusions of those that oppose you here then you need to show that there is reason to think that wholly subjective experiences (such as religious experiences but NOT courtroom testimony) tell us anything even marginally reliable about objective reality.Of course if you prefer to keep fighting your straw man then just carry on as you are............

Making the object of your belief immune to direct refutation, whether this is intentional or unintentional, conscious or unconscious, does not eliminate it from the very distinct and evidenced possibility that it is the product of human invention.It is an objectively evidenced fact that god concepts are the possible product of human invention.An evidenced possibility derived from indisputable facts in exactly the same way that the possibility of alien life is an evidenced possibility derived from indisputable facts.As, in the case of alien life at least, you have conceded.It is not an objectively evidenced fact that any god concept is the possible product of the actual existence of gods.Deities and the IPU are identical in evidential terms.If one follows the objective evidence alone, if one has no subjective evidence of gods to fall back on, then it can only be concluded that god concepts are more likely to be the result of human invention than the result of gods actually existing?You have failed to address this simple point in nearly 600 posts spanning two threads..Instead you choose to relentlessly assert conclusions that relate to an absence of objective evidence when in fact there is no such thing as an absence of objective evidence.Why do you do this? What?We can predict the existence of particles, comets and various other objective physical entities on the basis of indirect objective evidence. We can do this and in many cases we can have an extremely high degree of confidence in the reliability of our conclusion. We do not first need to know the answer to do this.In such cases we can then verify or refute those predictions and thus test the validity of conclusions drawn and the methods used to draw those conclusions.Why can we not undertake this same process, and thus test the validity of subjective evidence as a viable means of drawing reliable conclusions, by applying subjective evidence based predictions to verifiable entities instead of unverifiable gods?That is all I am asking you to do.[AbE]For the record I would estimate the chances of a verifiable discovery being made on the basis of wholly subjective evidence to be very close to zero. If you answer the question below differently then maybe we can determine a way to test the validity of subjective evidence in some way[End AbE]So if somebody whose judgement and subjective evidence credentials you trust greatly, but who has no empirical knowledge of particle physics, predicts that a particle with verifiable and detectable properties exists on the basis of wholly subjective evidence alone - How would you rate the chances of their prediction being correct?A) Almost certain to be verified
B) High
C) 50/50
D) Low
E) Essentially zeroOr does subjective evidence only have any worth when it's predictions are inherently untestable? A group of people who totally and completely independently can be reliably determined to have had the exact same personal and wholly subjective experience without any other external factors, or mere chance being more likely responsible for the commonality of experience?A sort of subjective equivalent of a random sample of a 1000 people being independently shown a picture which they are then asked to both describe and copy before the results are all pooled to see if the people reliably described and drew the same thing?That sort of test?Yes I honestly would definitely think that such a subjective experience would have more objective validity if the results of such tests were consistently superior to the results expected by mere chance.Is that honest enough for you?I have answered every single question you have thrown at me in two threads. It would be nice if you did the same.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add AbE comment.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

True.But it is also true that simply suggesting an individual wholly unevidenced concept from the infinite array of possible wholly unevidenced concepts no more makes the forced consideration of that concept any more valid than any of the others.If, that is, objective evidence is your sole criteria for assessing the validity of concepts and their relevance to objective reality.In which case the question of any deity you choose to suggest is no more or less valid than any IPU type entity I care to confront you with. There is no such thing as a vacuum of all objective evidence.It is an objectively evidenced fact that god concepts are quite possibly the product of human invention.It is not an objectively evidenced fact that god concepts are the possible product of the actual existence of any gods.Every single god concept ever presented that can be refuted by means of objective evidence has been refuted.And you are telling me that based on objective evidence alone the answer to the question - "Are god concepts objectively real or are they the product of human invention" - Should be "I don't know. It is 50-50 either way".Is that what you are saying?How can it be 50-50 either way in terms of objective evidence if one possibility is objectively evidenced and the other is not? So ALL of the falsifiable god concepts turned out to be false but there is nothing to remotely suggest that the inherently unfalsifiable ones might also be false...........?Hmmmmmm.Do you really think that choosing a deistic concept that is so immune to direct refutation that it would be impossible to conceive of anything more immune to direct refutation if one intentionally tried to, makes your deistic concept more believable?Frankly it smacks of a desperate need to invent something that cannot be taken away from you. Wrong. Taking into account ALL of the objective evidence both FOR and AGAINST gods actually existing does not logically result in agnosticism.See Message 247Maybe direct answers regarding the validity or otherwise of agnosticism are better placed there.But what I would ask is this - Why is it so important to you guys to convince yourselves and everyone else that the objective evidence available no more points towards the non-existence of gods than it does the existence?If the subjective "evidence" on which you base your beliefs is so damn convincing then why do you need to consistently deny that a position of non-belief is the most objectively evidenced?Why do you and RAZ relentlessly insist on talking about "absence of evidence" when all you really mean is an inability to directly and fully verify or refute.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I wrote a post earlier in this thread titled "The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap" Message 175I was not aware of just how pointlessly ambiguous the deistic concept of god was at that point.I guess my post titling at the time was a product of knowledge borne from that paragon of reliability and indicator of supreme truth that we are all so fond of. Namely subjective "evidence".Somehow I just knew.......

Back in Message 207 I wrote: We have had RAZD's "world view" version of 1) above.We are currently engaged in a version of 2) with regard to subjective evidence.I think that both Catholic Scientist and RAZD are rapidly approaching a version of stage 3) above with their insistence that unknowable gods are immune from any objective evidence either for or against.It is depressing and dissappointing that a poster of RAZD's quality has followed the theists playbook so religiously.But at least he has stopped asserting that the atheist position amounts to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" and drawing that silly Venn diagram.Finally I would like to point out that I have been telling RAZD that there is no such thing as a vacuum of objective evidence ever since the beginning of this debate and that in nearly 600 posts spanning two threads he has never once even acknowledged the notion that there is evidence 'against' the actuality of gods even if there is no evidence 'for'.Or maybe it was just that subjective evidence thing again. Allowing me to just know the future state of the debate...... I think that would be an interesting topic.However I am not sure that RAZD in particular is taking the relentless challenge to his obviously deeply held religious beliefs well and it would be a very short debate if no advocates of subjective evidence take part.

Oh for fucks sake...... Again!!!??? What opinion?Life is a fact. Other planets existing is a fact.No more interpretation, evidence, world view, opinion, tarot readings, subjective "evidence", reading of tea leaves, scientific research, astrological charts, personal testimonies or discussion is required to derive the purely logical possibility of life existing on other planets.WHICH PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?The practical probability of this can then be assessed in terms of the objective factors involved. But the nature of that question is different.Why are you so unable to grasp the difference between logical possibilities derived from known facts, objective evidence based assessments of probability and the purely subjective claims of actual alien visitation?Do you really consider the only objective evidence in favour of something to be the direct observation of it?Is all else subjective world view? No. Actually I would not. You are just confusing and conflating possibilities, probabilities and subjective claims. AGAIN.See Message 209 and the following posts for previous answers to these same tedious points.If you want to refute the conclusions of those that oppose you here then you need to show that there is reason to think that wholly subjective experiences tell us anything even marginally reliable about objective reality.I have challenged you to do this and you have repeatedly failed to do so. It only fills a void if you can demonstrate that wholly subjective evidence is in any way superior to just randomaly guessing.You cannot.Thus your subjective "evidence" is inavlidated. There are shades of grey with regard to objective evidence.It is these that you ignore when you intentionally conflate possibilities and probabilities to construct straw man arguments.There are no shades of grey with regard to subjective evidence. Wholly personal subjective experience is NOT objective evidence. There are no exceptions. No matter how much you flog this dead horse.Unless you can demonstrate that subjective evidence can in any way distinguish betwen truth and falsehood.But you cannot. Prove it.Give me a single example of wholly subjective evidence, the sort upon which you apparently base your faith, being used to reliably draw a testable verifiable conclusion rather than one that relates to inherently unknowable gods. We can test whether or not subjective evidence can make reliable conclusions regarding verifiable aspects of objective reality.If it cannot be demonstrated to to be any more reliable than guessing when applied to testable aspects of objective reality then on what basis do you conclude that it is any more reliable when applied to undetectable entities?Undetectable entities that all the objective evidence available suggests are false human inventions?Give me a reason to accept subjective evidence over objective evidence and I will.But I won't hold my breath waiting. Oh so I get to answer my own question whle you evade YET AGAIN.OK I will. Becuase I can whilst you obviously cannot.It is essentially a subjective personal experience that we will all superficially accept as evidence because we all have a wealth of historical empirical evidence of our own to support it as being probably true. The claim does not operate in a vacuum of evidence.By attempting to use common occurrances as examples of people accepting personal experience as evidence you are committing "Iano's folly".See here for the details Message 145But if you just change 'Iano' to 'RAZD' the following applies nearly as equally to you and what you are trying to do here with this latest tactic. It is worth noting that Iano has never since put forward his brand of non-empirical "evidence" argument at EvC.I suppose I will have to change the name to "RAZD's Folly" now.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You are evading the question.You are not applying wholly subjective evidence.Why don't you go away and do whatever it is you do to get your subjective evidence that leads you to believe in gods but, for a change, apply your finely tuned subjective evidential instincts to something, anything testable.Then come back tell us what you predict and then we will test it. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.So extrapolating the maths that we have constructed to describe the reality we have objectively tested is "wholly subjective evidence" with no empirical foundation?BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHANo RAZ that is objective verified evidence + logic in it's purest form.No wonder you think that subjective evidence is valid. You cannot differentiate between personal experiences that lead you to god from applied maths or courtroom testimony.To you they are all the same.It is no wonder you are so damn confused.