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

Nothing that you are calling subjective evidence here is equivalent to the evidence required to conclude that gods exist. No it isn't. The issue with regard to gods is the value of wholly subjective evidence with no evidential foundation whatsoever.The subjective interpretation of some objective evidence is monumentally different to conclusions drawn on the basis of no objective evidence at all. The latter is logically and evidentially equivalent to the IPU. The former isn't.When will you start to grasp the quite startlingly evident difference between some and none? False.Courts accept the subjective interpretation of objective evidence.The notion of subjective evidence requires a whole different paradigm and is utterly non-equivalent.For details see Message 329Are you talking about Mark24 again? Did you ever read what he actually said to you while you were away? Did you see that he disagrees with every argument you are attributing to him? Message 268Life exists. Other planets exist. These are indisputable facts.Is life on other planets possible or impossible?Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.No interpretation or world view is required or even possible.Anyone who does conclude that life on other planets is logically impossible based on these two facts alone is indeed just factually and logically wrong. Facts are facts and logic is logic.If people want to argue that life on other plants is improbable even to the point of impossible in practical terms based on other less evidenced knowledge then that is another question and a different set of evidence altogether.I have stated to you the difference between logical possibilities and probability at least ten times now across the two threads.Why do you continue to confuse and conflate the two? Is it because your subjective world view argument applies much more easily to probabilities whilst being completely irrelevant in the face of purely logical possibilities derived from fact?You keep trying to argue against the position you want me to have rather than the one I do have. Having had this pointed out to you I am confident that you will desist from this disingenuous behaviour. Is that why you are getting so upset? You think I am denying that subjective interpretation exists at all? Period!!! Oh it all becomes so clear now. How hilariously and bewilderingly stupid of you.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I have never once said that. Ever. Anywhere. At all. No. No. No.What a monumental straw man you have constructed for yourself. Well done!OF COURSE subjective interpretation of objective evidence exists. BUT this is in no way equivalent to subjective evidence. See Message 329 for details.With regard to the specific POSSIBILITIES under consideration here there is no subjective interpretation required and thus no world view bias is possible.Life exists. Other planets exist.Is life on other planets possible or impossible?Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.No interpretation or world view is required.Humans are capable of inventing false god concepts. This is an objectively evidenced and indisputable fact.Is it possible or impossible that any claimed concept of gods is a false human invention?Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.No interpretation or world view is required.In contrast concluding that the actual existance of gods is a real possibility has no factual basis and is 100% the product of your subjective world view.THAT is the difference RAZ. THAT is the difference.Enjoy.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : I have just realised that RAZD thinks that my argument is to deny that subjective interpretation of evidence is ever possible!! A monumental straw man!!Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. WHOLLY subjective.My condition is that the nature of the evidence used is identical to that you use to conclude gods exist.Unless you concluded the existence of gods via mathematical extrapolation how is your example remotely relevant? How can one use maths to derive the existence of an undiscovered particle without starting from maths that is used to describe reality as we know it?Were they just writing down random equations and hoping for supernatural inspiration?Your answers are disingenuous and evasive. Until you keep your form of subjective evidence straight no sensible argument is possible.Can you apply the exact sort of wholly subjective evidence from which you conclude gods to the testable world?Or not?Until you give an example of subective evidence that is more reliable than randomly guessing you have no argument. If all your examples are going to be the subjective interpretation of objective evidence then you evidently have no justificaion for subjective evidence. And thus no evidential basis of any sort for your deistic beliefs.Your whole deistic position will be founded on demonstrably false concept.See Message 329. I have never ever claimed or concluded that it has.You are arguing against a straw man yet again. Ahem. Straw man alert. Again.Yet again you argue against the straw man of probability when my argument is only concerned with evidenced possibility. I think you do this because a case for your world view argument is much easier to make as applied to assessing probabilities whilst being utterly refuted with regard to purely logical possibilities derived from facts. Your repeated and ongoing attempts to confuse and conflate the two have been pointed out to you numerous times. Please desist from doing this.Life exists. Other planets exist.Is life on other planets possible or impossible?Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.No interpretation or world view is required. I am being totally straight and totally consistent by applying exactly the same logical method that I do to the possibility of alien life to human claims of gods.Humans are capable of inventing false god concepts. This is an objectively evidenced and indisputable fact.Is it possible or impossible that any claimed concept of gods is a false human invention?Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.No interpretation or world view is required.In contrast concluding that the actual existance of gods is a real possibility has no factual basis and is 100% the product of your subjective world view.The two possibilities are not evidentially equal. The possibility that gods are human inventions is indisputably and significantly evidentially superior. Thus, on the basis of objective eveidence alone, a degree of atheistic non-belief rather than pure agnosticism must be the logical conclusion. It is you who is claiming that applied maths, courtroom testimony, alien abduction stories and religious revelatory experiences are all evidentially equivalent.If you cannot see the absurdity of this position then it is no wonder that you are so confused.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.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Every example you have provided of subjective evidence has actually been an example of the subjective interpretation of objective evidence.You have taken the validity you grant these examples and extrapolated back to zero evidence to arrive at the flawed concept that is at the root of your beliefs. Namely the notion of subjective evidence.The problem with this is that in the case of no objective evidence at all the subjective interpretation of objective evidence becomes an interpretation of nothing at all.The interpretation of nothing at all is identical to a random guess.If you wish to demonstrate that subjective evidence is a viable concept, distinct and separate from the subjective interpretation of zero objective evidence, then you need to show that from no objective evidential foundation at all, from what appears to be a random guess in evidential terms, that you can derive conclusions that are significantly more reliable than actual random guesses.If you cannot do this to verifiable examples then there is no reason to believe that this method of deriving conclusions is any more reliable when applied to unverifiable conclusions.If there is no reason to believe that this method of deriving conclusions is better than a random guess when applied to unverifiable conclusions then your conclusion of gods on the basis of such evidence is itself no better than a random guess.Thus, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, in any evidential terms your beliefs are invalidated.Sorry.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Percy I know that you wanted this to be a sort of analysis of RAZD’s mind. Although it may not always look like it I am genuinely trying to understand where he is coming from on this.I think I have just gained a significant insight into RAZD’s thinking.Throughout the argument it seems that he has assumed that by denying personal subjective experience as evidence that I am denying that people subjectively interpret evidence to form conclusions. This has just become clear to me and explains a lot about RAZD’s approach to this debate and towards me.Of course I am not denying that subjective interpretation of evidence exists and never would argue such a stupid position.BUT the point is that what I am calling interpretation RAZD is calling evidence.Now this could just be a case of semantics but I think it is massively more fundamental than that. How else can we explain RAZD’s otherwise bewildering assertions that courtroom testimonials or hypotheses derived from applied maths are in any way evidentially equivalent to religious experiences?RAZD sees every conclusion as fully evidenced. Fully evidenced in the sense that:Conclusion = objective evidence + subjective evidenceWe can think of this graphically in the sense that there is a scale with wholly subjective conclusion at one end and objectively derived fact at the other. The marker for any given conclusion moves up and down this line but the line itself never changes size. Just the relative proportions of objective and subjective evidence represented by the moving marker.In contrast I see every conclusion as:Conclusion = objective evidence + interpretation of objective evidenceMy line of evidence represents only objective evidence and changes length in every individual case. Where there is no objective evidence there is no line. Where there is a known fact the line is at maximum length. The interpretation component of the conclusion is not part of the line itself.Now most of the time, where some objective evidence exists, the difference is subtle if even present BUT at the point where no objective evidence is deemed to exist the two views are absolutely worlds apart.RAZD sees a conclusion derived purely from subjective evidence, at the extreme end of his scale of evidence admittedly, but nevertheless still on the scale.Instead I see that, in the absence of absolutely any objective evidence at all to which we can apply interpretation, in the absence of any scale at all, absolutely anything goes. Thus we arrive at the IPU and his host of unevidenced but ridiculous allies which remain logically and evidentially equivalent to every other unevidenced entity.This is why the two sides are so unable to meaningfully agree on anything. One believes that subjective thought is in itself evidence and the other cannot possibly see how you can interpret evidence when there is no evidence to interpret.Who is right and who is wrong depends on whether or not the notion of subjective evidence can actually be shown to work or not. If the use of subjective evidence alone can be shown to result in conclusions that are better than random guesses then it has been validated as a form of evidence. If not it is refuted as a form of evidence.RAZD needs to distinguish the subjective interpretation of objective evdience from the notion of subjective evidence itself.
RAZD needs to derive a conclusion from subjective evidence ALONE, exactly as he has done his god, but instead for something testable.I would bet everything I have on him being unable to do this so confident am I that the very notion subjective "evidence" is an oxymoronic folly.I would be interested in your relatively impartial assessment of this insight into RAZD's thinking. Do you think I have hit the nail on the head or that I am barking up the wrong tree.WOOF! AbE - This view of RAZD's mindset also explains why he is utterly unable to incorporate evidence against his deistic position. Where would it fit on his scale of evidence?Thus his refusal to even acknowledge this concept in nearly 600 posts spanning two seperate threads.In contrast I see any evidence in favour of a mutually exclusive alternative (e.g. evidence in favour of gods being the product of human invention) as a severe problem for a claim that has no objective evidence to support it (e.g. gods exist)Thus I would argue that RAZD's view of evidence is inherently unable to cope with ALL of the relevant evidence where no objective evidence exists in favour of a claim. It just cannot take account of 'negative' evidence.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.

THE ARGUMENT
Question: What is the difference between atheism and deism?Answer: Evidential and intellectual consistency.Atheists do not engage in the logical fallacy of special pleading by considering any one unevidenced entity more or less possible than any other. Non-belief is thus consistent.I am an atheist because I consistently do not believe in the actuality of that for which there is no evidential reason to even think possible.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.RAZD was wrong.Only by ignoring evidence that conflicts with ones world view can one draw this conclusion.If ALL of the objective evidence available is taken into account then the only logical position is a degree of non-belief. A degree of atheism.This is demonstrated here Message 247And here Message 175The only deistic response to this was an advocacy of the flawed concept of "subjective evidence". After much protest it became obvious that this amounts to nothing more than the subjective intepretation of objective evidence.In the case of gods, where there is no supporting objective evidence, this amounts to an interpretation of nothing. In short a conclusion that is no more reliable than a random guess plucked from the near infinite array of unevidenced possibilities.This is demonstrated here Message 329Thus the only possible conclusion is that deism is irrational, illogical, evidentially inconsistent and in contradiction of the objective evidence available.I don't say that any deist should not believe on this basis. I don't even suggest that they should care.But what cannot be justified, and what RAZD has attempted to justify here, is the claim that irrational deistic beliefs are no more or less un-evidenced, inconsistent, illogical or irrational than the conclusions of atheism. 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.You all too readily dismiss the evidenced fact that "people make things up". One of the most evidenced and demonstrable facts that it is possible to identify. Humanity's capacity for invention, creativity and seemingly infinite imagination is truly miraculous. It should be celebrated and acknolwledged. Not swept under the carpet as you are attempting to do.The only problem with this remarkable ability is that it is rather a major stumbling block when it comes to deriving remotely reliable objective truths, or even remotely valid possible truths, in the absence of any supporting evidence.Anyway the fact of human invention is both exceptionally well evidenced and much much more powerful than you seem ready yet to acknowledge.This is your loss. In my opinion.THE DEBATE You should go back and read your early posts in this thread. The manner in which you mockingly, dismissively, arrogantly and repeatedly asserted your now refuted point set the tone. Too confident were you in the inherent untouchability of your 'unknowable' deistic conclusions from critical and evidential analysis. Once you started with the accusations of cognitive dissonance the gloves were off as far as I was concerned. If you said something worthy of mockery I saw no reason to hold back.And talking of cognitive dissonance.....I have answered everything you have thrown at me honestly and consistently. Even if at times mockingly. If there is anything you think I have not addressed then ask it now and I will address it. If there are any holes in any argument that I have presented then you have failed to show this to be the case.In contrast: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'.Ignoring uncomfortable evidence — Cognitive dissonance indicator 1.2) 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.Inability to acknowledge ones errors even when laid bare for all to see — Cognitive dissonance indicator number 2.3) 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.Intentional conflation of concepts to make them more amenable to your own argument — Cognitive dissonance indicator 3.4) The use of opinion rather than argument as evidence - Mark24 disagrees with you thus you are refuted.Need I say more — Cognitive dissonance indicator 4.5) 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.Use of logical fallacy which you are fully aware is a logical fallacy — Cognitive dissonance indicator 5.6) Ignoring uncomfortable questions — Read through this thread and see just how many questions you have repeatedly ignored.Repeated evasion of questions which cause ones argument to be analysed too thoroughly — Cognitive dissonance indicator 6.So the next time you are tempted to start hurling around accusations of cognitive dissonance I suggest that you review your own performance in both this and the IPU thread first.Enjoy.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.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In 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.

Then your conclusion regarding my position on this issue is just simply wrong. If you had read my answers to these points previously you would know this already.LOGICALLY POSSIBLE:
I include the logical possibility that this could occur based on the known facts alone.PRACTICALLY PROBABLE:
I doubt the practical probability of this occurring in terms of what we know about the physics of space travel, abiogenesis, hospitability of nearby planets etc. etc. but readily concede that my knowledge of the evidence is insufficient to draw a definitive conclusion on this. As much as anything I am reliant on the views of experts with regard to these matters. It seems much more likely that we might communicate rather than meet aliens. But regarding the assessment of probabilities there is much of your "world view" argument that I agree with. It just isn't relevant to purely logical possibilities derived from facts.SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION:
I largely exclude the actuality of alien visitation having actually occurred on the basis that what you are calling "subjective evidence" is actually nothing more than the subjective interpretation of objective evidence. None of the objective evidence available to interpret suggests that alien visitations have actually occurred without a monumental slice of subjective interpretation on top. Especially given the exceptional and non-mundanely evidenced nature of the claim.As much as anything it is a question of "could it happen", "might it happen" and "has it happened". They are subtly different questions. But questions that are indisputably different regardless of "world view".Honestly - Do you think alien visitation has actually occurred? Which part of the above reasoning do you actually disagree with? In a science thread I really do not think that your conclusions would differ significantly to mine on this issue. Untrue. Alien visitation is nothing like the IPU at all evidentially. Alien visitation is a logical possibility. The IPU is not. There is world of difference.You are conflating logical possibilities, evidence based assessment of probabilities and subjective personal experiences.Do you genuinely really not see the inherent difference? Genuine ignorance I can rectify but wilful ignorance is unjustifiable. There is no such thing as "subjective evidence". THIS is THE flaw in your thinking.Every example you have given from courtroom testimonials to applied maths is an example of the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence".Nobody disputes the validity of this form of evidence. Only the reliability depending on the evidence being interpreted.In the case of alien visitation the objective evidence being interpreted is exceptionally meagre and can in no way be used to reasonably conclude that alien visitation has actually occurred. Especially given the exceptional nature of the claim.In the case of gods there is no objective evidence to interpret. But so do I see a difference between the two. A difference that has nothing to do with the flawed concept of "subjective evidence". That is the point you keep missing by relentlessly conflating logical possibilities, evidenced assessments of probability and wholly subjective personal experiences.Alien visitation and the IPU are almost certainly untrue but for different evidential reasons.Gods and the IPU are almost certainly untrue for identical reasons. You are conflating "subjective evidence" with the subjective interpretation of objective evidence.Every example you have provided of subjective evidence has actually been an example of the subjective interpretation of objective evidence.You have taken the validity you grant these examples and extrapolated back to zero evidence to arrive at the flawed concept that is at the root of your beliefs. Namely the notion of subjective evidence.The problem with this is that in the case of no objective evidence at all the subjective interpretation of objective evidence becomes an interpretation of nothing at all.The interpretation of nothing at all is identical to a random guess.If you wish to demonstrate that subjective evidence is a viable concept, distinct and separate from the subjective interpretation of zero objective evidence, then you need to show that from no objective evidential foundation at all, from what appears to be a random guess in evidential terms, that you can derive conclusions that are significantly more reliable than actual random guesses.If you cannot do this to verifiable examples then there is no reason to believe that this method of deriving conclusions is any more reliable when applied to unverifiable conclusions.If there is no reason to believe that this method of deriving conclusions is better than a random guess when applied to unverifiable conclusions then your conclusion of gods on the basis of such evidence is itself no better than a random guess.Thus, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, in any evidential terms your beliefs are invalidated. Unless you can show that subjective evidence is valid there is no reason to think gods even possible. Never mind worthy of our consideration with regard to their actuality.No more so than the IPU or any of his host of "absurd" allies. Not really.My argument is that human invention is one of the most outrageously evidentially supported and demonstrable facts you could conceive of.Is the fact of humanity's ability for invention any less evidenced than the fact of life's ability to evolve? Think about it.In contrast even the possibility that gods might actualy exist is completely unfounded and, according to you, conveniently unknowable.Evidentially there is no contest between the two positions.You can find that as compelling as you wish. But don't claim you are being evidentially consistent if your conclusions fly in the face of the facts. On what basis do you conclude that subjective evidence, as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence, is any better than a random guess?You are simply unable to answer this question even to yourself. You can only conclude this if you conflate logical possibilities, with evidence based assessments of probability and flawed concepts of subjective evidence. With regard to logical possibilities derived purely from facts your argument just does not apply.Life exists. Other planets exist.Is life on other planets possible or impossible?Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.No interpretation or world view or opinion is required. Sorry. I am useless at knowing the latin names of those fallacy thingamijigs. What is the name of that one? But I do accept this.The problem for your argument is that it does not apply to possibilities derived purely from logic and indisputable facts.Humans are capable of inventing false god concepts. This is an objectively evidenced and indisputable fact.Is it possible or impossible that any claimed concept of gods is a false human invention?Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.No interpretation or world view is required.In contrast concluding that the actual existance of gods is a real possibility has no factual basis and is 100% the product of your subjective world view.THIS is why you are being evidentially inconsistent. THIS is your problem.I URGE......
I know you don't like long posts and I have certainly concluded that you don't read them very thoroughly but if you do read this I would urge you to consider on what basis you distinguish "subjective evidence" from the subjective interpretation of objective evidence such that you can conclude that in the presence of no objective evidence whatsoever your conclusions are any more reliable than a random guess.See Message 329 for details.AbE - I have the utmost respect for your contributions at EvC despite my evident frustrations in this debate. I also accept that I am not the most succinct poster in the world. However I am thorough. After so many posts I just cannot see how you can have such a misconceived notion of my position if you have read anything that has been written to you. It does sometimes seem that you are scanning posts to confirm the position you would like me to have rather than the one that I do have. This is exceptionally frustrating.Call me arrogant if you will but at this point in time I think the difference between you and I purely in terms of the debate is that I genuinely understand your argument and deem it to be inherently flawed whilst you only see the argument you think I have and deem it to be flawed.Until you genuinely want to understand my PoV this will remain the case.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.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Trivial grammar change - I am a confessed tinkerer.

Precisely!!!I subjectively know that strawberry ice cream is superior to chocolate ice cream. I am utterly convinced of this. I have complete faith in this fact. There is nothing that anyone can ever possibly say to me that will change my opinion regarding this matter.But I don't go round claiming that my "subjective evidence" regarding this matter tells us anything objectively true about the relative merits of different flavoured ice cream.I certainly don't claim that anybody else should accept my "subjective evidence" as anything distinct and seperate to me.In my opinion deists/theists should consider their wholly subjective religious experiences in much this same way.Obviously I am not suggesting that they should treat it as trivially as a preferred ice cream flavour if the conclusion drawn is deeply personally meaningful and important. That is not what I mean.BUT in principle faith is like a personal preference. It is not "evidenced" in any way. It is just known from purely subjective personal experience. Experience that has no bearing on shared objective reality.Because faith does mean so much more to people than mere preference for ice cream flavour I think that people unjustifiably seek to validate it with false concepts of "evidence" in ways that they do not with mere preference in other situations. There is a perceived and flawed need to match the legitimacy of the foundation of the belief with the importance placed on the conclusions.Percy is the most rationally irrational person I have ever come across in this respect.RAZD is, in my opinion, conflating the importance that his conclusions have for him personally with the legitimacy of the foundation he normally requires for conclusions of such importance.But there really is no need for this if one genuinely has 'faith' as far as I can see.But what do I know? Faith of that sort is something I have never experienced. Maybe if I did I too would insist that everyone else accepted my "evidentially" supported conclusion.But I would like to think not.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

And you are mistaking subjective experience as necessarily evidence of something objective. If Mark genuinely feels funny then Mark feels funny. This is indisputable proof that Mark feels funny.But is it evidence of anything objective or external to Mark?I feel happy when I think of my little son.Do you consider this feeling of happiness to be subjective evidence for the objective existence of my son?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.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That really is the end then.1) The notion of "subjective evidence" upon which your entire position is founded is a euphamism for "biased guess". A form of confirmation bias gone mad. It has been thoroughly refuted here Message 329.2) Nobody is disagreeing with most of your "world view" and "opinion" argument. It just has little relevance to the position I have presented.SUMMARY
Humans are capable of inventing false god concepts. This is an overwhelmingly objectively evidenced and indisputably demonstrable fact.
Is it possible or impossible that any claimed concept of gods is a false human invention?
Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.
No interpretation or "world view" is required.
In contrast concluding that the actual existance of gods is even a real possibility has no factual basis and is 100% the product of your subjective world view. Nothing more than a culturaly biased guess. The conclusion does not come as a surprise to me. It is the fact that this difference in conclusion is derived purely from the acceptance of biased guessing as a valid form of evidence that surprises me.If you do want to continue this debate at all then I have set up another thread. The linked to message further refutes the validity of "subjective evidence. Message 5Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add link.

RAZD's whole "subjective evidence" position amounts to biased guessing.As demonstrated here Message 329This really amounts to nothing more than self justification for believing that the things one wants to be true are actually true. Confirmation bias gone mad.There is a new thread covering this here Message 1Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Every example you have given (possibility of alien life, courtroom testimonials, applied maths) has been an example of the subjective interpretation of objective evidence.In the "absence of evidence" that you are so keen on telling us about there is no objective evidence to interpret. Thus you are just guessing.If your claim of "subjective evidence" has any validity at all it needs to be shown that "subjective evidence" is superior to just guessing.You cannot do this. Thus your whole position is refuted.See Message 329 for details. I cannot stop you believing whatever you want but I can show the flaws in your argument.Apparently all you can do is assert that I am wrong.Well done.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

By conflating the subjective interpretation of objective evidence with your flawed concept of "subjective evidence" you have done nothing but relentlessly rail against a monumental straw man of your own creation.Need I remind you that you equated courtroom testimonial and applied mathematics with spiritual experience.......? And yet the specific foundation that you have stated as being at the root of your beliefs, namely "subjective evidence", amounts to no more than a biased guess. You are simply unable to address this.See Message 329 for details. Thus your position is refuted.If nobody can show that "subjective evidence" is any more reliable than astrology or even just guessing then on what basis do you conclude that it is?Your inability to accept this refutation whilst simultaneaously being unable to demonstrate why it is wrong is a fine example of why some "world views" are inferior to others.Not all "world views" are evidentially or intellectually consistent. Yours is a case in point.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You are quite evidently just unable to demonstrate that conclusions borne from "subjective evidence" alone are any more reliable than guessing. See here for details Message 329. If you are simply unable to demonstrate that "subjective evidence", as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence, is any more reliable than just guessing then why not just concede the point and move on? You have repeatedly stated that THE difference between the IPU and any other "subjectively evidenced" god is that at one time or another people have actually believed in these other gods but not the IPU. Belief itself is the "subjective evidence" by which you distinguish between these otherwise equally unevidenced entities.If belief in gods is itself considered to be evidence in support of believing in gods then you are engaging a degree of self amplifying circular logic that amounts to confirmation bias gone absolutely mad.See here for details - Message 5If your faith based "world view" means that you are simply unable to see the inherent circularity in your thinking then there is nothing I or anybody else can ever say that will demonstrate this to you.However it is irrefutable and your position regarding "subjective evidence" is entirely untenable.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling.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, : Attribute quotes correctly.

Testing against the evidence of objective reality is exactly what I have repeatedly asked you to do to validate your flawed notion of "subjective evidence". Message 329Have you ever actually tested the conclusions of wholly "subjective evidence" alone against the evidence of objective reality? You can only conclude that conclusions made on the basis of "subjective evidence" alone, as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence, are any more reliable than guessing if you have actually tested such conclusions against reality. I suspect that you have never applied "subjective evidence" alone to anything that can be verified or refuted. I suspect that you only ever use truly "subjective evidence" to justify belief in the unverifiable. Certainly in this thread you have consistently conflated the "subjective interpreteation of objective evidence" with "subjective evidence".I would like nothing more than to test a conclusion that is derived from the same evidential foundation as the conclusion that gods exist. If you would actually supply us with a verifiable conclusion that is derived from "subjective evidence" alone, as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence, then we could wrap this whole thing up once and for all.Either "subjective evidence" is no more than biased guessing or it can be demonstrated to be significantly more reliable than just guessing. It should be a simple matter of testing conclusions made by means of this form of evidence.Previously I asked: In response you mentioned two members of EvC who are highly trained physicists and alluded to Einstein. You equated applied mathematics as a method of drawing conclusions with the reasons people find to believe in gods. All of this after relentlessly insisting that the "subjective evidence" from which gods are concluded in the absence of all objective evidence is no different to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence considered valid in courtroom situations.Excuse me if I have little faith in your ability to differentiate between conclusions derived from no objective evidential foundation whatsoever (e.g. gods) and the conclusions that we all make by extrapolating objective evidence and prior experience of objective reality. The latter are partially evidenced conclusions made in the context of our "world view". The former have no more validity than just guesses until you can show that "subjective evidence", as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence, has any validity at all. Yes. Exactly as we can test the reliability of "subjective evidence", as opposed to the subjective interpretation of objective evidence, by testing it against the evidence of objective reality. If you are simply unable to demonstrate that conclusions derived from "subjective evidence" alone are any more reliable than just guessing then why not just concede the point and move on?Until you can demonstrate this the bedrock of your position has been refuted and there is no further point to this conversation.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.