Any regular EvC member or reader will know that this thread is but one in a long line of related topics. This post is about that wider debate.
Back in March I said in
Message 207
Percy way back in March 2009 writes:
while RAZD probably cannot step back from his own mind and provide us a roadmap
Straggler way back in March 2009 writes:
The normal theistic arguments go something like this:
1) Your position requires just as much faith and reliance on subjective interpretation as does mine.
2) My evidence is just as valid as yours.
3) Whatever evidence does or does not exist you cannot prove that my god does not exist so I win anyway.
RAZD's "world view" assertion is a relatively sophisticated version of 1) above. I guess it remains to be seen if any of the other strategies from the theists standard playbook will be employed.
I would say that the wider debate has exactly followed the path predicted above. Albeit with some complexities and intricacies worthy of RAZD's superior debating skills thrown in. We started with the whole "world view" debate in the original deism thread
Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?.
Then we had the "subjective evidence" fiasco that spanned multiple threads but eventually culminated in
Immaterial "Evidence". And now finally we reach the "I challenge you to disprove" position effectively advocated in this thread. In this thread that final position has been shown to be deeply inadequate.
In prior threads it has been shown that immaterial "subjective evidence" is indistinguishable from biased guesswork. Or more accurately guesswork that is derived from common cultural influences and very human desires shared by those who have had, or believe in the validity of, similar convincing but wholly subjective experiences.
In this thread it has also become clear that further claims of "evidence" in favour of "the divine" amount to nothing more than circular confirmation bias of believing that if enough other people believe in similar unevidenced nonsense that it must be true. No different to the reasoning put forward by every religion or theistic contingent large or small the world over. Past present and, almost certainly, future.
So having run the full gamut of the standard theistic playbook and been refuted at every point where else is there left to go? I don't doubt RAZD's ingenuity and debating skill and have little doubt that he will come up with another angle from which to approach this subject. But surely we are close to concluding this elongated and bitterly disputed multi-thread debate? Or am I just being an optimistic fool?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
