Immaterial "Evidence"

Whenever Straggler was not pounding his fists with frustration at the desperate bid by deists/theists to lead the conversation down evasive blind alleyways by invoking aliens, the Loch Ness monster, cats, lions and all manner of other very material concepts that have nothing to do with the deities under discussion he has been thoroughly consistent in his acceptance of the philosophical possibility of gods that cannot actually be disproven. Including the philosophical possibility that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn actually exists. Yes we can. The one that is overwhelmingly the most evidenced at the expense of the other mutually exclusive alternative. The human invention of gods and the ongoing ability of humans to invent gods is a deeply evidenced fact. The actual existence of gods remains utterly unevidenced by any form of evidence that is demonstrably superior to biased guessing in terms of reliability.The rational conclusion with regard to any given god concept is therefore a degree of atheism. You continue to deny this but have failed to give a reasoned argument as to why this position is flawed. Is the mountain lion immaterial? Can they be seen? Can they be heard, touched etc. etc. Are lions empirical entities? Do we know lions exist? Do we know mountains exist? Is the possibility of lions living in mountains thus an evidenced (no matter how unlikely it may seem) possibility? If so none of this has any relevance whatsoever to immaterial gods inhabiting an immaterial realm.Mountain lions are off topic unless they are invisible immaterial lions inhabiting immaterial mountains.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So are you saying that "subjective evidence" as the basis of faith amounts to nothing more than a warm and fuzzy equivalent of a tummy ache for the mind? That we might as well make conclusions about the nature and existence of immaterial reality based on our internal gastric experiences?

Actually I don't think this is a true representation of any of those you have been debating with. I realise it would be easier for you to debate unreasonable zealouts who hold simplistic, black and white positions based on certainty and definiteness at every point. But that just is not the case here. It is about likelihood not certainty. The main thing you miss in your example is that it is an objectively evidenced possibility (unlike any of the mystical possibilities that you cite) that a combination of selective memory, the human inclination to make connections that exist only in the mind, coincidence and that fact that phrases like "watch the red" might well be exceptionally common in dangerous jobs where danger areas are marked by red, offer a superior if more mundane explanation. How many times had he heard this particular phrase before without any mystical significance whatsoever?Appearing to hear something the source of which cannot be ascertained and then a week later connecting that to something that happens is not evidence. He could have missed red light and avoided a traffic accident and come up with the same sort of mystical connection. How about a year later? A decade later? At what point do we consider the connection contrived? People make honest and genuine attempts to understand the experiences they have and the connections they make. Nobody disputes this. But are those connections evidence of the supernatural? Or, based on the empirical evidence of human psychology, better and more reasonably explained as products of the mind? That is the question here. Which possibility is superior in terms of likelihood based on the evidence? Which is the rational conclusion? If either of these human abilities exist then it is the methods of science that will eventually allow us to understand them. Should this happen they will be "natural" rather than "supernatural". Telepathy has been tested, and as far as I am aware, has failed those tests. Precognition would require abandoning the laws of physics as we know them and seems an exceptionaly unlikely possibility. Maybe there was. But even if we accept that such supernatural entities might exist how an immaterial empirically undetectable entity external to the mind of the experincee can be detected remains a problem for this position. A sixth sense capable of such immaterial detectionas as per the OP is still required.Then you also have the fact that there are countless cases of people who hear voices inside their head. I would suggest that getting people to make predictions based on these voices rather than relying on connections made with hindsight would result in conclusions that are no better than guessing in terms of reliability. The form of "evidence" you are citing in favour of the supernatural would seem to be of no worth at all in terms of reliability.If you are determined to find cause to believe in the supernatural then of course you will. Humans are arguably very inclined to do just that. But whether you like or agree with the empirical conclusions, whether you consider them closed minded or not - The fact is that based on the material objective evidence, the evidence with a proven record of reliability, the human mind is a far more likely and rationally justifiable explanation than the actual existence of gods, spirits and the like.This much is undeniable.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As I have said repeatedly I believe that a degree of atheism rather than "it's 50-50 I just don't know" agnosticism is the rational conclusion regarding any given god concept for two reasons:1) Because the mutually exclusive possibility that any given god concept (and associated visions, voices etc. etc. that you are citing as "evidence") are products of the human mind is overwhelmingly objectively evidenced. We know that the human mind is both capable of, and incredibly prone to, such creations.2) There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that can be demonstrated as superior to biased guessing in favour of the possibility that gods actually exist. Aside from strong personal conviction that such things exist there seems to be no reason at all to believe that they actually do.If you can cite some form of evidence in favour of gods that is ultimately non-empirical (i.e. unable to be detected by means of our empirical senses) but that leads to results that are demonstrably superior in terms of reliability to guessing then I am all ears. Quite a lot of things would cause me to question my atheistic beliefs and we can go into those if you want.But this whole thing with RAZD and now more latterly with you and CS started when RAZD said that agnosticism was the rational conclusion and that atheism was wholly reliant upon "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" etc. etc. You and CS have said the same thing at different points too.I, and others, have since comprehensively demonstrated that this is not the case. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that based on the objective evidence a degree of "human invention is the most likely explanation" atheism rather than "it's 50-50 I just don't know" agnosticism is the rational conclusion with regard to any given god concept.In conversation both you and CS seem to grudgingly agree with all the individual steps that lead to this conclusion but for some reason will not make that final step and actually agree that a degree of atheism is wholly rationaly justified. I don't understand why and I am not sure you do either. And so the discussion relentlessly continues.......I have been saying the same thing in so many words since here: Since then RAZ has stopped speaking to me, you have repeatedly implied that I am some sort of simplistic black and white empiricist zealout and CS and I have had our various bad mouthed spats. But ultimately my position remains constant and, as far as I can see, completely unrefuted by any of you.I'll ask you directly - Is the rational conclusion for me a degree of atheism or is it "50-50 I just don't know" agnosticism? If the former then ultimately you and I have no disagreement. If the latter then I guess we continue on this little merry-go-round for a while longer.

Yes all the evidence points towards the IPU being a made up entity. Nobody disputes that at all. But the problem you face is that the same is true of all other immaterial objectively unevidenced supernatural godly entities.Rationally there is no reason for me to believe, or even be agnostic towards, any of them. That is the point I have been making for some time now.

Given that you have explicitly stated previously:
A) That you are not expecting me to take into account the subjective evidence of others when drawing conclusions regarding gods.
B) That even you are not actually assuming that immaterial subjective evidence leads to conclusions that are more reliable than guessing.Can you explain to me on what basis you continue to deny that a degree of "human invention is the most likely explanation" atheism is not justified over "It's 50-50 I just don't know" agnosticism with regard to any given objectively unevidenced god concept?Because given your current stated position on subjective evidence I do not understand on what basis you continue to disagree with me on this. Why? Why is a degree of atheism not the rational conclusion for me to draw? Forget certainties and definites. Nobody here is arguing in terms of certainties and definites except those misrepresenting the atheist position.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Any more? I am utterly astonished, given your participation at EvC over the years conversing with numerous atheists, that you have been operating under the complete misapprehension that atheism requires absolute certainty. If nothing else this series of threads have hopefully dispelled that myth for you. In the name of highting the consistency of this position I will refer you to my first ever EvC post Message 34 from 2006 which pertains to atheism and Dawkins 7 point scale of belief.By your definitions I am an agnostic with regard to the actual existence of the Immaterial Pink Unicorn. By your definitions Richard Dawkins himself is merely an agnostic with regard to the existence of gods. Personally I think you need to re-evaluate your terminology. However as long as the underlying concepts are understood I don't actually care what words you use and you are welcome to call me (and Dawkins) whatever makes you happy. Finally. Based on the objective evidence alone, the only evidence with any degree of demonstrable reliability, human invention IS the most rational answer and a degree of atheism is thus the rational conclusion. We seem to have at last found common ground. Common ground which does not incorporate the flawed notion that atheism (using mine, Mod's and Dawkins use of the term rather than your certainty based one) equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". The much Venn diagrammed flawed notion that so got my goat and set this ill tempered extended discussion in motion in the first place. I believe that any given god concepts (and associated visions, voices etc. etc.) are more likely products of the human mind than actual real entities. Is that not a degree of active disbelief? That is a rather simplistic and inaccurate misrepresentation. My position is as much about the ongoing ability and proclivity of humans to invent ever less refutable supernatural explanations for very human reasons as it is about the fact that this has been demonstrated to be the case time and time again throughout history. That we have a well proven track record of inventing falsified god concepts is (some of the) evidence in favour of that argument. It is not the argument itelf.But as long as we agree that the atheism I have been espousing all along is not purely based on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" as was initially insisted upon with a relentles series of Venn diagrams and is in fact derived from the objective evidence available to us - Then I am happy to finally lay this five thread discussion to rest. I hope so.

I am a 6 on the Dawkins scale. By your definitions it appears that I, along with Dawkins and Modulus, am an agnostic. In my case at least an agnostic who believes that the likelihood of any given god concept actually existing as opposed to being a human invention is very low. An agnostic who believes this based on the objective evidence available rather than "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Nor do I and nor does anyone else. But I think caling a Dawkins an agnostic would defy most people's definitions of the term. Well it is the objectively evidenced one. I thought you had agreed that based on the objective evidence alone a degree of "probably human invention" disbelief was rationaly justified? Nope. I can only say this so many times in so many ways. No claim operates in a total vacuum of objective evidence. That, if anything, has been my mantra in these threads. Very probably not.

Hey OniI appreciate you efforts to try and make some sense out of all of this mess. I will be as explicit and honest in my answers as I can. Honestly? Well at the risk of giving CS, RAZ or LindaLou a quote mining field day I would say that in all honesty I am 6 point plus but not a 7 regarding those. However if anyone wanted to argue with me that a straight 6 was the most that could be rationally declared with regard to any one of these then I wouldn't particularly disagree. Anything significantly towards 5 and I would fervently argue my case however. "Force"? I think it quite likely that there are things currently attributed to the "supernatural" or not yet even considered at all that will one day be considered very much part of objecive reality. Things that are essentially part of a material reality and detectable by material technological means of one sort or another even if that technology is currently way beyond anything currently imaginable. I could not begin to guess what they might be though. I would not call that a god. No.This definition of god doesn't meet any of the inherently unknowable immaterial yet conscious criteria that seem to be a bare minimum for most people's concepts of supernatural gods or deities.The deists/theists bare minimum position seems to me to involve the claim that there is some conscious aspect of reality external and independent to their own mind that is inherently unknowable ad thus inherently irrefutable yet bewilderingly just knowable enough to be somehow subjectively knowable to a degree that justifies some form of evidenced "faith". The former. But I would extend that to anything that is claimed to be conscious yet inherently unknowable and forever immune to objective experience whilst simultaeously also being somehow "knowable enough" to have been subjectively experienced. This just smacks of "the ultimate god of the ultimate gap" mentality.The questions I would ask a deist to determine if we mean the same thing by "god" are:Is it conscious?
Is it inherently immune from any form of material detection present or future?
Is it inherently immune from objective experience, not just now but fundamentally by it's very (super)nature.
Has it been experienced by you or anybody else?If the answer to the first three (r all 4) questions is yes then I would describe that as a "god" and my position as one of atheism towards it. If just the last three then I would be inclined to be pretty cynical but I am not sure I would call that a god so "atheism" may not be the correct term.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

My views on faith and atheism have changed considerably as a result of taking part on this board over the years. Not reversed but changed and arguably softened. Percy and Bluejay in particular have swayed me into really reconsidering my one time rather simplistic view of faith especially. Maybe I am genuinely not the immovable zeaout some would wish to paint me as. Your definition of agnostic seems to include absolutely everyone. Thus I dont see it as very useful. But call me whatever you want. Concepts not terminology are my preferred modus operandi. I think you are equating "failure record" to "refutation". However if "failure record" is shorthand for "once genuinely believed entities being superceded by modern understanding to the point of a high degree of atheistic disbelief and redundancy in all practical terms" then I maintain that my position stands.I mean are you not effectively atheistic (by the Dawkins scale rather than yours) to fertlity gods, fire spirits and the thousands of other such entities? Really? Look CS I am tired. I also think you are a person I would wanna hang out and have a beer with. But we are never ever gonna agree on ths stuff.As long as nobody is falsely asserting that I hold an irrational atheistic position because I believe that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" or because I believe that "IF SOME THEN ALL" is a valid logical argument then I basically have no problem with them.Can we agree on that and just be friends now? Please............!

If multiple and very often mutually exclusive gods have all been claimed by humanity then this demonstrates that some of those god concepts must have been invented. Humans can invent gods. This is just a fact. Cool. I suspect there is more heated debate to come in this and/or the "Pseudoskeptic" thread. But let's bear this in mind. OK. I get that. I personally think it unlikely that any of these are "supernatural" in the sense of being inherently immune to material detection of any sort past, present or future. But OK. This is currently unknown and may well never be known. Not really. It is all about the posibilities and how evidenced they are. Is it possible that gods in some form or other actually exist? Is it objectively evidenced? Is it possible that gods don't exist at all and that humans are just capable of inventing concepts that make them feel wonder, love, wanted, purposeful etc. etc. etc? Is this objectively evidenced?When I weigh up the objective evidence for the competing possibilities alone a degree of atheistic doubt seems inevitable to me.

I would be interested in that. No rush though.And to be clear I think that there are many aspects of nature that remain unknown. Some of which may currently be attributed to supernatural causes. Some of which we may understand in objective terms one day and which are thus not supernatural at all at root.But that is very very different from claims about things that are inherently supernatural and which can never ever be objectively known by their very nature. Things that effectively relate to the atheism vs theism/deism stuff going on in this thread and elsewhere.Edited by Straggler, : A string of spelling mistakes corrected.

In Smelling The Coffee: 2010 we have ended up talking about George W Bush's claim that God told him to invade Iraq.Now let's assume that GWB genuinely believes this to be true. Personally I think GWB is a dangerous fanatic. But I don't doubt his religious conviction.For those advocates of subjective evidence - Is GWB's claimed guidance from God an example of subjective evidence in favour of God's actual existence? Or not?