Immaterial "Evidence"

Ultimately it requires as much faith to conclude that your "evidence" is a true indicator of reality as it does to conclude that your god actually exists based on such "evidence".If you don't see the problem with that in terms of reliability then, like I said before - So be it. Then why do you keep telling me that I should be agnostic towards your god rather than atheistic?All of the objective evidence we have available points towards such expereinces being products of the human mind. Yet you, RAZD and others relentlessly tell me I should treat the idea of a sixth sense with which you have all somehow detected the immaterial being(s) (that you already believed in anyway) as a form of evidence that necessitates downgrading my desbelief in such things to the point of saying "I just don't know either way. It is 50-50. I am agnostic".Can you remind me again why I should be agnostic rather than have a degree of atheistic disbelief regarding gods based on the evidence available?

No worries. I too have noticed Petrophysics's rather lame hit and run tendancies.

If we were talking about sincerity you would have an argument clinching point here.But we are not. We are talking about reliability. And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that the "dreamt up" idea of the IPU is any more or any less reliable as a conclusion than the immaterial sixth sense requiring gods that you are advocating as so fundamentally different.If your only argument is conviction then you really have no argument at all.

Nobody is asking you to believe in the IPU. Nobody ever has.My question is, and in fact always has been throughout this extended discussion (with you, RAZD and others): Why should I give any more credence to the objects of your respective beliefs than I do the IPU?The answer in previous threads was "subjective evidence". We have now established that with respect to immaterial gods this form of evidence requires:A) That an immaterial "sixth sense" exist.
B) That we accept a form of evidence that is indistinguishable in terms of reliability to simply and unconsciously making things up.
C) That to accept this form of evidence at all requires as much faith as the object it is supposed to be evidencing.So remind me again - Why is agnosticism, rather than a degree of atheism, the rational and logical conclusion for me when all of the objective material evidence suggests that such experiences are the product of the human mind?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Whilst I appreciate the vote of confidence you would not believe the convuluted path it has taken me/us to get to this point. I have been out-debated in many respects and become something of a pantomime villain for the deistic contingent in the process. This thread is the culmination of several previous threads: Is My Hypothesis Valid???Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argumentPercy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?As well as more latterly How does one distinguish faith from delusion?Ultimately, despite the various conflations, debating tactics and disengenuous attempts to divert from the real topic at hand, we have now established the unrefuted position outlined in Message 48. Should those who advocate such things be willing I am more than happy for this thread to go down the route of examining the validity of "Consensus gentium" and, more generally, the difference between scientific consensus and seemingly compatible but nevertheless dispirate subjective experiences as constituting "objectivity".I also hope that Modulus would take part in any such discussion as his epistemological arguments are the best I have seen here at EvC.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That is way too simplistic.Why are human dreams of flying so common as a subjective experience? Why are kids nightmares of monsters under the bed so common as a subjective experience?Do they suggest an actual ability to fly? Do they suggest that the Bogie man really is under the bed? Or do they suggest a commonality of human culture, psychology, emotion etc. etc. etc? Similarly what is the common factor in the beliefs and experiences you speak of? Is it the actual existence of the dispirate and conflicting immaterial entities that are concluded? Or is it the very human need for explanation and desire for higher purpose of those making the supernatural conclusions?Is the commonality of experience you speak of not better explained by these highly objectively evidenced phenomenon? Rather than by the actual existence of immaterial entities that require an immaterial sixth sense to be detected at all?If you can get past sincerity and conviction and actually look at the evidence objectively I really don't see how you can claim that a degree of atheism is not the rational conclusion.

I have consistently, persistently and relentlessly questioned the reliability of such evidence. Primarily with regard to immaterial subjective evidence. I have never ever ever stated that it is invalid in the sense of being definitely wrong. I don't think anyone has? I did actually.But for the record I am not accusing anybody of actually randomly guessing. I am simply stating that unless the visions (or whatever) in question can be demonstrated as leading to conclusions that are more reliable than randomly guessing, or even intentionally making things up (which could also by pure fluke hit upon the "truth"), then there is no rational basis upon which to think that they are any more reliable indicators of reality than randomly guessing or making things up. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that where such internal visions are expereinced by those who already believe in the object that is "evidenced" unintentional subconscious confirmation bias is a far better explanation than "revelation". Biased "guessing" by any other name. In terms of reliability at least.Again it all comes back to which is better evidenced. The human ability to invent based on need, desire, comfort etc. etc. OR the actual existence of immaterial entities? Honestly LindaLou which is the best evidenced and most rational conclusion here? Which I suppose brings us full circle to where all this started so long ago. When RAZD was confronted by a host of atheists inventing all manner of "absurd" possibilities none of which were refutable by empirical evidence. I won't assault your intellect by introducing them here but are you really agnostic about ALL these things? I mean really?

Curiously it doesn't make sense to both suggest that I have not answered your questions whilst at the same time accusing me of reiterating the answers.Strangely I feel that both because I introduced this topic and because I believe that it is my line of questioning that has allowed things to develop to the point that makes this topic relevant I have every right to both ask questions of the poeple that participate in this thread and to express my own point of view. And if you want me to tackle your entire post point by point then believe me I will. Just let me know. Well if faith is your only basis for special pleading one unevidenced entity over any other then we seem to have concluded that atheism rather than agnosticism is the rational position.Exactly as I, and many others, have been saying from the very start of this extended discussion.Cheers.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I could say the same to both you and RAZD. The main difference is that if you ask me a question I answer it. But if I ask you a question you tell me it is "irrelevant". God forbid that you actually concede that point. But what interpretation do you think is reasonable from your previous post in which you appear to raise faith as the sole and defining difference between equally unevidenced concepts? Based on the objective evidence available is "It's 50-50 I just don't know" agnosticism or a degree of "the evidence points towards human invention" atheism the rational conclusion?It "narks me off" that you RAZD and others won't just explicitly answer questions like that because you unilaterally deem them "irrelevant".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I didn't know whether you wanted a long and full point by point response or a shorter "pick the main points" response. Given our recent history I went for the safer former option. I hope I don't "bore you shitless". That has never been my argument. My argument has been (and remains) that there is rationally no more reason for me to be agnostic about your gods than there is for either of us to be agnostic rather than atheistic about the Immaterial Pink Unicorn (IPU). And as I keep telling you based on any evidence that is demonstrably superior to biased guessing the rational conclusion is not to believe in the IPU. Or any other deity.All of the objective evidence suggests that the visions, voices, feelings etc. you cite as evidence are products of the internal human mind. We know as objectively evidenced fact that the mind is capable of producing these sorts of experiences. Yet you prefer to stick your head in the sand regarding this objectively evidenced fact and instead believe that these experiences are reliable indicators of some materially undetectable reality that cannot be sensed by any known form of sensory perception. How on Earth can you claim that this not denial of objective evidence? Denial of evidence in order to maintain a preconceived irrational worldview? If you find forms of evidence (visions, feelings etc.) that have been shown to be equivalent in terms of reliability to guessing convincing then that is up to you. But don't ask me to give any more credence to the objects of your belief based on such evidence than you would expect me to give to the IPU. The objective evidence suggests that both are ultimately products of human invention. Whether intentional inventions or otherwise. Ahem. There is no tautology. There is simply the very obvious fact that having any confidence at all in a form of evidence that in practise is unable to be distinguished in terms of reliability to randomly guessing is irrational. Do you really not see that? I still don't understand why you consider some wholly subjective experiences as superior indicators of immaterial reality than others (e.g. waking visions as compared to normal daydreams) given that no one such experience is able to be demonstrated as any more or less reliable than any other. It seems that you hold personal conviction as more important than demonstrable reliability when considering forms of evidence. This is also irrational. In a complete vacuum of objective evidence, a complete absence of evidence either for or against, you may well be right. But there is no such thing as a vacuum of all objective evidence. No it's not. The objective evidence suggests that the IPU is a human invention rather than a real entity. The objective evidence also suggests that any experience attributed to any immaterial deity is more than likely a product of the human mind. Humans have needs and desires and they have a proven track record of inventing false supernatural explanations to meet these needs and desires. Humans invent gods. This is a fact. The IPU is just one example of such a creation. That some specific god concepts have been falsified is all but indisputable. That humans invent gods is all but indisputable. That humans are very prone to creating such concepts is all but indisputable. That the default rational position regarding any immaterial god claimed by humanity should be a degree of atheism as opposed to belief in a sixth sense that has allowed the chosen few to experience some aspect of an otherwise unknowable supernatural entity, is all but indisputable.The "evolution" of god concepts to become less and less falsifiable does not detract from this argument. In some senses it enhances it by demonstrating yet another human need. The need to make ones cherished beliefs immune from refutation. The ultimate god of the ultimate gap argument. OK Hmmmm. If you look at the evidence with a blank slate then you must also include evidence in favour of the mutually exclusive alternatives. Namely the possibility that gods are human inventions. Are you willing to include evidence for that possibility in your blank slate assessment? There is no certainty. We don't know. I agree with that. I don't believe anyone on the atheist side of the debate has ever declared certainty in anything. Not even the non-existance of the IPU. But there is evidence and there is likelihood.CS - Given that there is no objective evidence in favour of gods and given that there is a great deal of objective evidence to suggest that humans are prone to inventing god concepts for various reasons which is the more rational conclusion?1) 50-50 "I just do not know" agnosticism OR
2) A degree of atheismWe can go over this endlessly. And given our track record very probably will. But I just do not understand how if you weigh up the objective evidence in favour of gods as human inventions as compared to the subejctive evidence in favour of gods as sixth sense detected entities, how you can possibly rationally come up with anything other than a degree of atheistic disbelief regarding any given god concept.As frustrating as you will no doubt find this post I remain genuinely bewildered by your attitude to this.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. It is a direct way of saying rationally there is no reason to believe in either. Belief in gods is irrational yes? We agree on that? The difference between us is that I say a degree of atheism is the rational and evidentially consistent response and you say that agnosticism is. If you tell me that I should be agnostic about a particular god whilst accepting my atheism as justified towards the IPU then you are special pleading one over the other. Why would I be agnostic to one and atheistic to the other when the objective evidence suggests that both are human inventions? No. I am saying that unless you can distinguish a form of evidence as being superior to randomly guessing in practise then having any confidence at all in such "evidence" is irrational. It relies entirely on personal conviction. Faith by any other name. No. I am not making an illogical IF SOME THEN ALL statement as you imply. I am making an evidence and reliability based statement. I am pointing out that if you have someone who after thousands of proclamations on a particular subject has a 100% failure record then you would be an idiot to put money on them making an accurate statement regarding that subject any time soon. Especially if you have other objectively evidenced reasons to think that they will continue to make such inaccurate but sincere proclamations for reasons that have nothing to do with external reality and everything to do with their own innate and internal needs. Especially if with every proclamation the claim in question gets ever more sophisticatedly undefinable and immune from refutation. Dude if you can show that visions, voices, feelings etc. etc. lead to conclusions that are demonstrably more reliable than guessing with regard to the material world then I would be much more open to you claiming that they should be given some sort of consideration with regard to less refutable things. To my knowledge the forms of evidence you are citing lead to results that are no more reliable than guessing in the material world. Thus your assumption that they are any more reliable with regard to the immaterial is a question of personal conviction alone. Faith by any other name. Why? Why is "some kind of god in general" immune from the objectively evidenced fact that humans keep inventing gods to fulfil their need for explanation, higher purpose and the feeling that there is "something" else out there?Is the claim that humans have invented gods, are deeply prone to inventing gods and will continue to invent gods better evidenced than the actual existence of gods?That is the question here.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I thought you said that you believed agnosticism to be the rational conclusion? Now you seem to be saying that belief in gods is rational. I thought belief in gods was based on faith. If we cannot even agree on the irrationality of faith I think I am going to just stop here. We are back at square one all over again. Which would be why I never said that. Stop arguing against proclamations of certainty when the position of your opponents is evidence based likelihood. No. I am saying that unless you can show a difference assuming that there is one is irrational. So which gods exactly do you think the evidence in favour of human invention does not apply to? And why are they immune? Remember we are talking likelihood not certainty here. Well given that I don't share your faith in your subjective evidence and given that there is overwhelming and undeniable objective evidence in favour of the fact that humans are prone to inventing supernatural answers can you explain why a degree of atheism rather than "It's 50-50 I just don't know" agnosticism is not rationally justified on my part?And please remember when answering that I am talking about likelihood rather than certainty here.

I didn't say it had. I said that immaterial subjective evidence is indistiguishable to randomly guessing in terms of reliability in any practical sense. Thus it is irrational to assume that it is superior in terms of reliability in any practical sense. To do so relies on personal conviction rather than reason. Faith by any other name. By citing subjective evidence as a reason to think something actually exists as superior to simply guessing that it exists you must be be assuming a difference between the two in terms of reliability. Otherwise you might as well call guessing evidence. I don't understand. Are you denying that there is evidence to suggest that humans are prone to inventing supernatural answers? I previously said the following with regard to my reasons for considering human invention as more likely than the actual existence of gods. You did not seem to dispute this reasoning at the time. So does the evidence available to me rationally result in "50-50 I just don't know" agnosticism or a does it rationally result in a degree of "the evidence suggests human invention as the most likely answer" atheism on my part?That is ultimately my question. This ultimately has always been my question.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

I am not measuring the reliability. You are assuming the reliability. You can't. Which is exactly why assuming any reliability at all is irrational. The human proclivity to invent gods is objectively evidenced. The ability of the human mind to hallucinate etc. is objectively evidenced. The actual existence of gods is not objectively evidenced. Unless you require me to accept the subjective evidence of others (which you have explicitly stated you are not doing) I only have one evidenced answer available to me. Based on the evidence available to me the likelihood of human invention is the most rational conclusion. No. You are not listening. I specifically said I am not making an IF SOME THEN ALL illogical argument. I am making an evidence based argument regarding the relative likelihood of two mutually exclusive possibilities. With regard to any claimed supernatural concept for which there is no supporting objective evidence we have two mutually exclusive possibilities.1) The concept in question is a human invention and experiences cited as evidence (visions, voices etc. etc.) are products of the human mind.
2) The immaterial concept in question actually exists and has been detected by an immaterial sixth sense.One possibility is objectively evidenced. The other is not. There is only one rational and evidence based conclusion regarding the relative likelihood available to me. Which part of this do you actually disagree with? 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 do allow for that possibility. I even allow for the possibility that the IPU is real. I allow for the possibility that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is an inspired guess. Do you? No. I have stated that the immaterial forms of evidence you cite are indistinguishable from biased guesses in any practical sense. Thus it is on the basis of irrational personal conviction (faith by any other name) that you request that they be distinguished. Yours is not a rational position. It is a faith based personal conviction position. Then you cannot rationally claim that the objects of belief evidenced by means of immaterial subjective evidence alone are any more reliable as conclusions than apparently making things up by means of possible "divine inspiration". Things such as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn. Both are effectively random guesses in terms of demonstrable reliability. Both are possibly true in a philosohical sense but very probably human inventions based on the objective evidence available. Aha - I see you are now abandoning subjective evidence alone and invoking objective evidence of gods as a reason to insist that I be agnostic rather than atheistic as the most rational conclusion. To some gods at least.Can you give some specific examples of the objective evidence that you are now citing as evidence that some gods actually exist?Can you also explain why for any given immaterial god concept that is not objectively evidenced in any way that the contrary and deeply objectively evidenced fact of human invention is not the rational and superior conclusion for me to make? Apparently only if the god concept in question is objectively evidenced.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.