The whole "subjective evidence" argument has been used to relentlessly cloud the issue of what can be evidenced and what cannot. It is a smokescreen. A means of disguising and obfuscating the underlying and unjustifiable claim that some wholly immaterial entities are somehow ambiguously evidenced by personal "experience". "Evidenced" despite the fact that these immaterial entities are immune to material detection by means of the five empirical senses and thus cannot be evidenced by any rational or meaningful definition of the term.
ORIGINS RAZD first introduced the concept of subjective evidence (essentially a confusing rebranding of anecdotal evidence and personal experience) here Message 276 in the thread Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? . In that thread RAZD bases his entire claim that some immaterial god concepts are evidenced whilst others, such as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, are not on the validity of subjective evidence. Subjective evidence as applied specifically in a thread exploring the evidential validity of immaterial "scientifically unknowable" deities.
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.
RAZD, as a direct riposte to claims made in the deism thread, then went onto dedicate a whole new thread to demonstrating the validity of subjective evidence in defiance of the Immaterial Pink Unicorn argument Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument. Unfortunately in that thread RAZD point blank refused to discuss subjective evidence as applied to ANY example that was both subjectively evidenced and immaterial in nature. The very concepts the IPU is intended to expose as irrational. The very concepts that prompted the IPU to be invoked in the first place. Such discussion was "Off Topic", "Irrelevant" or an affront to his supposedly evidence-independent beliefs. Evasion by any other name.
CURRENT THREAD In this current thread RAZD once again took the opportunity to promote the validity of his much vaunted "subjective evidence" concept. Clearly with previous discussions in mind and with the blatant intention of relighting our past personal and prolific philosophical differences. Yet again any attempt to discuss the validity of subjective evidence with regard to immaterial entities, those concepts that RAZD first raised "subjective evidence" as a means of evidencing, was met with beliigerent denial, dismissive mockery, cries of "Not Interested" and other such disengenuous evasion tactics.
BACK TO REALITY So where are we now? Well in the final posts of this thread I hope we have finally reached the point where everyone can see that any claim of evidenced immaterial entities requires that we accept the existence of evidence that cannot be detected by means of the five empirical material senses. Immaterial entities cannot be evidenced by means of the material senses. It is obvious really. Whether this evidence is "subjective evidence" or not is completely irrelevant. RAZD has led us a merry dance with his beguiling terminology and dictatorial debating style but I believe we have at last returned to a state of sanity and reason solely with regard to this simple point at least.
WHAT NEXT? Now that we have got past the mesmerising terminology and moved on from RAZD's confusing conflations with off-the-wall but very material concepts (alien visitation, Nessie, Bigfoot etc. etc. etc.) we have the genuine opportunity to explore whether or not there is actually any validity to the claim that immaterial entities can be evidenced by means of personal experience. I say this is impossible as per here Immaterial "Evidence"
CHALLENGE If RAZD still feels able to justify his claim that some immaterial gods are evidenced* now that his "subjective evidence" obfuscation has been eliminated from the equation then I challenge him to do so. Admin has called an interlude to this ongoing multi-thread debate for reasons that are all to obvious. But once things have calmed down I fully intend to get to the bottom of this notion of "evidenced gods" by pursuing my on-hold Immaterial "Evidence" thread in a couple of weeks time. Whether or not anybody else chooses to join me on that quest is of course up to them...........
*Of course IF RAZD has in fact never claimed that there is any evidence for any gods and my interpretation of his entire position is purely a figment of my imagination, as he now implies, then he can just accept my arguments regarding evidence and immaterial entities and move on. Something he seems bewilderingly unable to do whenever that particular position is challenged Agreement and Closure (Message 392). Despite his recently repeated protestations that he has in fact never claimed that any gods are actually evidenced. More unsubstantiated lies. (Message 402). Yeah riiiiiiiiight! Lies? Or more word games RAZ?.
Clarification - a(nother) summary of where Straggler went wrong.
I know that replies are not supposed to be made, however new issue were not supposed to be presented either. Straggler has raised an issue that requires clarification: what subjective evidence is valid for in a practical world, according to my argument/s.
RAZD first introduced the concept of subjective evidence (essentially a confusing rebranding of anecdotal evidence and personal experience) here Message 276 in the thread Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? . In that thread RAZD bases his entire claim that some immaterial god concepts are evidenced whilst others, such as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, are not on the validity of subjective evidence. Subjective evidence as applied specifically in a thread exploring the evidential validity of immaterial "scientifically unknowable" deities.
Color in pink to highlight the false representation of what I actually said, as quoted, now in full context with the quote-mine highlighted:
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. ... 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.
Please note that if this is the best Straggler can do to find evidence in my old posts to substantiate his claims that I am talking about deities etc, that then he has absolutely failed to do so.
There is such self-evident difference between these two highlighted statements that I would think this clarification would not be necessary. Straggler's persistent myopia in this regard, and his pervasive confirmation bias twisting of comments like this, has proven that a simple statement of fact is not sufficient.
What I said is that a subjective experience, no matter what it entails, is valid cause for a person to believe that what they experienced was indeed an experience of reality.
The astute observer will note that this is the very same concept as the aware and conscious individual having a singular experience through, or apparently through, their senses, the very same kind of experience that Straggler has agreed is a valid starting place to look for further evidence, perhaps evidence that would be vindication of the experience. Curiously, what this means is that if this is "evidence" for Straggler's "immaterial god concepts" for me, that then they are evidence for him as well, as he agreed with it. This seeming contradiction is resolved by seeing that Straggler's logic is incomplete and poorly constructed, and that the conclusion is forced and invalid.
The astute observer will understand that this means a person who has experienced a yeti sighting, an alien sighting, or whatever, is perfectly justified in believing that this indeed is what they saw, without committing the "special pleading" fallacy.
The astute observer will understand that a person with a "yeti experience" but not an "alien experience" has no such cause to believe that an "alien experience" is valid.
The astute observer will also note that this is not a claim that this is actually evidence that actually supports such concepts, ie that it is evidence of anything - as falsely claimed by Straggler above - just that they are sufficient cause for the individual observer to think they are real while not obligating them to think any other concept is real.
If RAZD still feels able to justify his claim that some immaterial gods are evidenced* now that his "subjective evidence" obfuscation has been eliminated from the equation
The astute observer will note that this is more false representation of the message quoted, and is just additional evidence that (a) Straggler has not found any real substantiation for this claim in any of my old posts, and (b) Straggler fails to evidence any understanding of the simple concepts stated here and elsewhere, but rather seems to prefer shoehorning them into something convoluted, complicated, and confusing of his own entirely subjective invention, evidence that Straggler is attempting to make something out of my argument that . just . is . not . there.
*Of course IF RAZD has in fact never claimed that there is any evidence for any gods and my interpretation of his entire position is purely a figment of my imagination,
The now bored astute observer will note that no "IF" would be needed IF he had indeed looked over my old messages as he promised he would do. Straggler has obviously still failed to find any substantiation of such a claim, either by looking and not finding, or by not even looking to see that his claims had any substance.
They will also realize that this does not mean I am in any way bound to accept the further false logic of Straggler's many twisted claims, answer his misrepresentations, nor be in any way encumbered to answer a single one of his questions.
The amused observer will note that Straggler is so obsessed with my position and playing "gotcha" that he cannot formulate a summary position on this thread without basing it entirely on his messed up impressions of my position and ignoring the whole point of his own thread -- the validity of an hypothesis formed from evidence and logic.
Anybody doubting this only needs to read the next post.
Is his hypothesis (about my position) valid? Obviously not. Conclusions based on false premises are necessarily invalid.
Is his hypothesis (about other positions) valid? We don't know, as he has wasted almost all his time on this thread discussing something else, and he has provided no summary of any other position.