Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 8:03 PM
26 online now:
Dr Adequate, DrJones*, edge, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (5 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
25Next
Author Topic:   Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 286 of 375 (503305)
03-17-2009 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by RAZD
03-16-2009 7:05 PM


Courtroom Equivalence - NOT!
Straggler writes:

Being so open minded as to allow your brains to fall out of your head is neither noble nor intellectually justifiable.

Strange how the use of subjective evidence in court doesn't require everyone in the justice system to allow their brains to fall out of their heads, while pursuing justice. Should one conclude you think justice is neither noble nor intellectually justifiable?

BWEAHAHAHAHAHA!

Subjective evidence? Court? Are you mad? Or are you just confusing informed opinion with wholly subjective "evidence" yet again?

JUDGE: So how do you know the defendant?

WITNESS: I don't.

JUDGE: Do you know of the defendant?

WITNESS: No.

JUDGE: But you are here as a witness for the defence. Is that correct.

WITNESS: Yes your honour.

JUDGE: On what basis?

WITNESS: Subjective evidence your honour.

JUDGE: OK......... So tell us what does your subjective evidence tells us about this case?

WITNESS: The defendant is innocent.

JUDGE: Really? How do you conclude this?

WITNESS: I can feel his innocence. I know he is innocent. I have faith in his innocence. I have had a personal subjective experience that can only be explained by means of his complete innocence. Thus it is true. He is innocent. There is no convincing evidence to suggest otherwise so my evidence must be taken into account.

JUDGE: Get this idiot out of my courtroom.

So RAZ - Do you really think that the sort of subjective personal experience that leads you to have faith in your deity is the sort of "evidence" that would be allowed in a court of law?

:laugh:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2009 7:05 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2009 7:25 PM Straggler has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 287 of 375 (503316)
03-17-2009 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Straggler
03-08-2009 4:51 PM


Re: The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
VROOOM VROOOM - A car can be heard to go by a windowless room in an isolated area nowhere near Disney Land containing an atheist and a deist (of the RAZD variety).

Atheist: It sounds like a car just went past. I believe that a car just went past. Do you believe that a car just went by as well?

Deist: Yes I concur. The objective empirical evidence does indeed suggest that a car just went by.

Deist goes to door and steps outside. While outside a second similar sound can be heard, Deist looks and sees a flying saucer go by, and then shoot into the air and disappear. Amused he walks back inside.

"Guess what I just saw" he says. "Another car" says the atheist. "Nope, I believe it was a flying saucer."

"No it was a car, all the objective evidence points to it being another car. You don't think you're subjective experience is equal to the objective empirical evidence that I have for it being another car do you? You do realize that people make things up, don't you?"

"But you were just arguing that it was perfectly logical to deduct that alien life had probably visited earth based on the likelihood of life in the universe and the large number of possible planets supporting life" says the deist.

"That's different" says the atheist, "that is a logical and rational conclusion based on objective evidence and logic, not one that rests on your subjective interpretation."

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. (to quote Bill Cosby).

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : cl


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2009 4:51 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by mark24, posted 03-17-2009 6:44 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 294 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 2:40 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3275 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 288 of 375 (503317)
03-17-2009 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by RAZD
03-17-2009 6:39 PM


Re: The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
RAZD,

And yet there still isn't enough evidence for us to conclude a flying saucer flew past.

And there still isn't enough evidence for us to conclude that your deistic god exists.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2009 6:39 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2009 6:54 PM mark24 has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 289 of 375 (503319)
03-17-2009 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by mark24
03-17-2009 6:44 PM


Re: The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
Which is why the deist was amused.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by mark24, posted 03-17-2009 6:44 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by mark24, posted 03-18-2009 4:36 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 290 of 375 (503323)
03-17-2009 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Straggler
03-17-2009 2:37 PM


Re: Courtroom Equivalence - NOT!
Straggler,

Re: Courtroom Equivalence - NOT!

You are correct that your silly straw man is not representative of subjective evidence used in courtrooms, perhaps you have reached the limits of your logical arguments that you need to resort to such a poor argument.

Is there, or is there not, a gray area between absolute objective reality, and the necessarily subjective experience of that reality?

If there are repeated subjective experiences of something, when does it become objective evidence?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Straggler, posted 03-17-2009 2:37 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 2:35 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 291 of 375 (503324)
03-17-2009 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by petrophysics1
03-17-2009 8:10 AM


Re: "Absence" Of Evidence
Thank you petrophysics1, nice to see you again,

A deist considers all of human existence and experience while the atheist and creationist picks and chooses what to deny out of hand.

A deist has no "answers" for you, you must find it out for yourself, they are not sure of the answers to this existence so are always looking.

I'd say that is fairly accurate, certainly after being through these two threads. I'm not sure that I am unbiased, just that I try to be open-minded while skeptical.

This is also why I feel it is absolutely pointless to discuss what I have experienced, or what I have concluded from that experience - I do not need to prove my experience or belief to anyone, nor do I think that my experience or belief is information others can use.

It seems that after nearly 300 posts, there has been little clarification of the degree of agnosticism that exists within the atheist community, no matter how often they claim it, rather that there is a strong bias to reject consideration of possible gray areas, leading to the typical black and white answers.

To summarize the topic (one more time):

The atheist is adamant that there is no empirical objective evidence of deities or spiritual dimensions to existence, and thus, because there is no (convincing to them) evidence, finds no reason to believe in deities or spiritual dimensions.

The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works. There is no claim to have experienced any supernatural being nor to have assumed any characteristics of one.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by petrophysics1, posted 03-17-2009 8:10 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 2:51 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 292 of 375 (503340)
03-17-2009 9:14 PM


onifre - moved here
Message 192 onifre states:

I don't think you've understood my argument. If RAZD, or anyone, is saying that they can "interact" with said god outside of their experience, as in some physical way, then I agree with you guys; it is the same argument as the IPU.

But as I have stated before, I would like a better definition from RAZD because I don't think he's claiming to be able to "interact" with what he has described to be "god".

Re-read my posts in their entirety, you'll see that my argument has not been in support of god, but in support of the experience itself. I was curious as to how RAZD correlated that to a god specifically, or is he using god as a default answer for lack of a better definition.

Once, again, onifre, thanks.

But as I have stated before, I would like a better definition from RAZD because I don't think he's claiming to be able to "interact" with what he has described to be "god".

How would you "interact" with something/s that is/are unknowable and for all intents and purposes seems indifferent?

Re-read my posts in their entirety, you'll see that my argument has not been in support of god, but in support of the experience itself. I was curious as to how RAZD correlated that to a god specifically, or is he using god as a default answer for lack of a better definition.

It would have to be default terminology - look at Percy's explanation as well. Again, how could you specify something you regard as unknowable? At best, all I can do is make some general personal hypothesis, and see where they lead me. That is a personal quest that I will not discuss.

What it does involve though, is a search for truth, for ways to ascertain truth, for a world view as close to reality as possible, especially for concepts not parsable by the scientific method.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 293 of 375 (503350)
03-18-2009 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by RAZD
03-17-2009 7:25 PM


Re: Courtroom Equivalence - NOT!
There is a reason that ones own mother is not usually considered a suitable character witness for the defence in a court of law. Something called lack of objectivity………

Your notion that courtroom evidence of any sort somehow validates purely and wholly subjective personal experience as a form of evidence in favour of gods existing is truly ridiculous.

You are correct that your silly straw man is not representative of subjective evidence used in courtrooms

But is it representative of the subjective evidence used to conclude that gods exist?

If your whole argument genuinely rests on courtroom character witness testimonial being evidentially equivalent to personal experiences of spiritual revelation then........well how the once mighty have fallen.

If you are not saying that courtroom character witness testimonial is evidentially equivalent to spiritual revelatory experience then why bring it up at all in this context?

You have refuted your own example.

perhaps you have reached the limits of your logical arguments that you need to resort to such a poor argument.

Well when you simply refuse to answer repeated questions I have to find other ways to amuse myself. I will try asking the same question yet again:

Is it an evidenced possibility that gods and deities are human inventions?

Or not?

Is there, or is there not, a gray area between absolute objective reality, and the necessarily subjective experience of that reality?

There is no grey area between those concepts which are objectively evidentially founded and those which are not.

We have long ago established that the IPU, deities and claims of alien abduction are evidentially equivalent in this respect. We have long ago established that the possibility of alien life existing elsewhere in the universe is not.

Your relentless obsession with covering this same refuted ground over and over and over again is just tedious.

If there are repeated subjective experiences of something, when does it become objective evidence?

How many times must you have the same dream before it becomes real?

Is repeat experience really the measure of objectivity?

Your insistence that wholly subjective evidence is valid in any way is utterly refuted by your own refusal to use such "evidence" in any situation where the result can actually be verified or refuted.

If someone came to you claiming to have derived the objective existence of a testable and verifiable entity (a comet, an undiscovered particle - something like that) on the basis of subjective "evidence" alone (i.e. no empirical evidence or prior knowledge to support the claim at all) - How would you rate the chances of that claim actually being verified as true?

A) Almost certain to be verified
B) High
C) 50/50
D) Low
E) Essentially zero

Please be honest.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2009 7:25 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 294 of 375 (503351)
03-18-2009 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by RAZD
03-17-2009 6:39 PM


Re: The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
Deist goes to door and steps outside. While outside a second similar sound can be heard, Deist looks and sees a flying saucer go by, and then shoot into the air and disappear. Amused he walks back inside.

"Guess what I just saw" he says. "Another car" says the atheist. "Nope, I believe it was a flying saucer."

And this is the evidence of alien visitation you keep relentlessly banging on about? Wow!

I am sure I have heard you tell creationists/theists that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".......No?

But if you really are this gullible I know of a few nice Nigerian billionaires who just require your bank account details so that they can give you lots and lots of money........

Post them here and I'll pass the details on to them.

:rolleyes:

What it does involve though, is a search for truth, for ways to ascertain truth, for a world view as close to reality as possible, especially for concepts not parsable by the scientific method.

And therin lies the problem.

Subjective methods that we all deem to be utterly useless and wholly unreliable when it comes to establishing objectively verifiable scientific truths are suddenly deemed to be excellent indicators of truth when it comes to establishing the actual existence or otherwise of undetectable entities.

Why?

Why does subjective evidence have no validity in one situation and complete validity in another?

Why this inconsistent approach to evidence? How is this justified?

It is this inconsistency that lies at the heart of the atheist-deist faultline.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2009 6:39 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 10:39 AM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 295 of 375 (503352)
03-18-2009 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by RAZD
03-17-2009 7:52 PM


Follow the Evidence
The atheist is adamant that there is no empirical objective evidence of deities or spiritual dimensions to existence, and thus, because there is no (convincing to them) evidence, finds no reason to believe in deities or spiritual dimensions.

1) The possibility of deities actually existing has no objective evidential foundation whatsoever.

Nobody has disputed this

2) Objective evidence in favour of the possibility that gods and deities are the product of human invention does exist.

Despite literally hundreds of opportunities to refute or even deny this across two threads no attempt has been made to do so.

3) Subjective evidence is worthless in terms of differentiating between truth and falsehood with regard to objective reality.

Your laughable courtroom comparison apart it has not even been suggested that wholly subjective “evidence” can be applied to anything that might actually be able to be verified or refuted. This tells us all we need to know about your faith in the reliability of this form of “evidence”.

So if we "follow the evidence" - as you are so keen on telling our creationist friends - where do we end up?

We end up in a position of non-belief with regard to the proposed existence of any particular unevidenced being actually objectively existing.

We end up at the atheist position of non-belief.

So explain to me again, if you "follow the evidence" why is it that you are not an atheist…….?

Surely not just because it would require a name change?

Personally I think RAZA has quite a nice ring to it ;)

Question: What is the difference between deism and atheism?

Answer: Evidential and intellectual consistency.

It seems that after nearly 300 posts, there has been little clarification of the degree of agnosticism that exists within the atheist community, no matter how often they claim it, rather that there is a strong bias to reject consideration of possible gray areas, leading to the typical black and white answers.

In nearly 600 posts spanning two threads you have failed to once acknowledge the evidenced possibility that deities could be a human invention.

An evidenced possibility that puts paid to your entire "absence of evidence" based position.

And you have the gall to talk about others evading evidence on the basis of cognitive dissonance!

Jeez.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2009 7:52 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2009 6:44 PM Straggler has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3275 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 296 of 375 (503357)
03-18-2009 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by RAZD
03-17-2009 6:54 PM


Re: The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
RAZD,

Which is why the deist was amused.

You're amused that you don't have a reasonable level of evidence for something you hold to be true? You don't have a reasonable level of evidence for things you don't accept, either.

Special pleading, again.

Mark

Edited by mark24, : No reason given.


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2009 6:54 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2009 9:52 PM mark24 has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 375 (503372)
03-18-2009 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Straggler
03-18-2009 2:40 AM


Re: The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
And therin lies the problem.

Subjective methods that we all deem to be utterly useless and wholly unreliable when it comes to establishing objectively verifiable scientific truths are suddenly deemed to be excellent indicators of truth when it comes to establishing the actual existence or otherwise of undetectable entities.

Why?

Because it's convincing (or at least has convinced the person having the experience).

Why does subjective evidence have no validity in one situation and complete validity in another?

Because the one situation can have objective evidence and the other cannot.

And the situation that's its valid in isn't expected to be believed by other people based on the available evidence.

People don't expect others to accept that god exists based on their own subjective evidence like they do when objective evidence is involved. Its just that their subjective evidence was evident enough to convince them.

Why this inconsistent approach to evidence? How is this justified?

Maybe its because of the inconsistent way in which (subjective) evidence is dealt.

It is this inconsistency that lies at the heart of the atheist-deist faultline.

I just figured that the atheists are positivists and the deists aren't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 2:40 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 12:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 298 of 375 (503379)
03-18-2009 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2009 10:39 AM


Re: The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
Thanks for the answers CS.

I have another question.

If someone came to you claiming to have derived the objective existence of a testable and verifiable entity (a comet, an undiscovered particle - something like that) on the basis of subjective "evidence" alone (i.e. no empirical evidence or prior knowledge to support the claim at all) - How would you rate the chances of that claim actually being verified as true?

A) Almost certain to be verified
B) High
C) 50/50
D) Low
E) Essentially zero

Because it's convincing (or at least has convinced the person having the experience).

Why is it convincing?

Because the one situation can have objective evidence and the other cannot.

Why does the absence of objective evidence suddenly make subjective "evidence" even potentially valid or reliable?

Can subjective evidence ever be reliable?

Can we ever actually use it to distinguish truth from falsehood and if not why do you deem it to have any worth at all?

Calling it "evidence" seems like nothing more than an unnecessary justification of belief.

People don't expect others to accept that god exists based on their own subjective evidence like they do when objective evidence is involved. Its just that their subjective evidence was evident enough to convince them

If I subjectively prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry ice cream nobody would even dream of considering this as evidence that chocolate ice cream is in any way objectively superior to strawberry.

Why is subjective experience of god considered to be "evidence" of the objective existence of god but subjective experience of ice cream preference not considered to tell us anything objective about the relative merits of different flavour ice cream?

I don't mean this flippantly.

Seriously what exactly and specifically is the difference in the two subjective conclusions that means one is deemed to have objective relevance and the other not?

And the situation that's its valid in isn't expected to be believed by other people based on the available evidence.

In which case non-belief rather than belief would be the natural default logical position.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 10:39 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 1:00 PM Straggler has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 375 (503383)
03-18-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Straggler
03-18-2009 12:13 PM


Re: The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
I have another question.

If someone came to you claiming to have derived the objective existence of a testable and verifiable entity (a comet, an undiscovered particle - something like that) on the basis of subjective "evidence" alone (i.e. no empirical evidence or prior knowledge to support the claim at all) - How would you rate the chances of that claim actually being verified as true?

A) Almost certain to be verified
B) High
C) 50/50
D) Low
E) Essentially zero

I don't know. What do you mean by "verified as true"? It also depends on the credibility of the person.

If my mom told me she saw a flying saucer, then I would believe her. That would be enough to convince me that a flying saucer was indeed up there. But I wouldn't say that it was "verified as true" in the scientific sense.

Why is it convincing?

Because it seems real.

Why does the absence of objective evidence suddenly make subjective "evidence" even potentially valid or reliable?

Because that is all that's left.

Can subjective evidence ever be reliable?

Not reliable enough for something to be "verified as true" but reliable enough to convince a person to believe something is true.

Can we ever actually use it to distinguish truth from falsehood and if not why do you deem it to have any worth at all?

I think we can use it to distiguish truth from falsehood to certain degrees. I'm not the only one who believes they have subjectively experienced god. When many people share experiences and corroborate, we can rule out some things from the experience. I think the IPU can be ruled out because nobody has actually experienced it and it is obviously made-up. I don't think our corroboration can be used to say that the subjective experiece is from Jesus, himself. But I do think we can say that we are on to something. A very general god-like thingy seems to fit in a loose sense with the experiences that people are having so I don't think it has been ruled out like the IPU.

Calling it "evidence" seems like nothing more than an unnecessary justification of belief.

Other than it was something that did happen that I did not make up that I'm using as grounds for a belief, i.e.... evidence.

If I subjectively prefer chocolate ice cream to strawberry ice cream nobody would even dream of considering this as evidence that chocolate ice cream is in any way objectively superior to strawberry.

What if it was chocolate ice cream vs. manure ice cream and everybody agreed with you?

Why is subjective experience of god considered to be "evidence" of the objective existence of god but subjective experience of ice cream preference not considered to tell us anything objective about the relative merits of different flavour ice cream?

I guess because the superiority of ice cream is an opinion and god's existence is an objective claim.

Seriously what exactly and specifically is the difference in the two subjective conclusions that means one is deemed to have objective relevance and the other not?

Because a god existing has objective relavance and someone's opinion on ice cream does not.

And the situation that's its valid in isn't expected to be believed by other people based on the available evidence.

In which case non-belief rather than belief would be the natural default logical position.

Yes, in the absense of any subjective evidence. But if your subjective experience convinces you that god does exist, then you will believe it. You can believe that chocolate ice cream is better too. But neither porition is being claimed to be objectively verified as true. Its just that the person is convinced that its true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 12:13 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 300 of 375 (503400)
03-18-2009 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2009 1:00 PM


Re: The Material Pink Mickey Mouse Shaped Balloon
Straggler writes:

If someone came to you claiming to have derived the objective existence of a testable and verifiable entity (a comet, an undiscovered particle - something like that) on the basis of subjective "evidence" alone (i.e. no empirical evidence or prior knowledge to support the claim at all) - How would you rate the chances of that claim actually being verified as true?

A) Almost certain to be verified
B) High
C) 50/50
D) Low
E) Essentially zero

I don't know. What do you mean by "verified as true"?

Verified as in scientifically verified.

I am asking you to assess the worth of applying subjective evidence to something that is detectable for a change rather than something that isn't.

What are the chances of the particle or comet or whetever other physical detectable entity has been predicted on the basis of subjective evidence alone actually being discovered?

It also depends on the credibility of the person.

Why?

Is subjective evidence only evidence if it is sourced from someone that you subjectively trust?

Are we not just piling subjective folly upon subjective folly to form an evidential stairway of sponge?

Straggler writes:

Why does the absence of objective evidence suddenly make subjective "evidence" even potentially valid or reliable?

Because that is all that's left.

Well given your answers in this thread and the IPU thread I am still bemused as to how you can have such absolute conviction in conclusions drawn from evidence which you deem to be utterly and totally unreliable 99% of the time, including every single instance where conclusions from such evidence can actually be tested.

I would further add that even when there is no other evidence available the objective evidence to suggest that deities and gods are human inventions far outweighs the reliability of any subjective "evidence" in favour of the concept in question.

But at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think. You have your reasons and are welcome to believe whatever you want. Nobody, leat of all I, is disputing that.

Straggler writes:

In which case non-belief rather than belief would be the natural default logical position.

Yes, in the absense of any subjective evidence. But if your subjective experience convinces you that god does exist, then you will believe it.

In terms of this thread I think that you and I have little argument.

You are welcome to apply whatever level of reliability you deem fit to your own subjective experiences.

I disagree with your conclusion and find the reliance you place on subjective "evidence" in certain situations but not others inconsistent but that is not really the point.

Unlike RAZD you seem to think that the conclusion of disbelief and atheism is the rational and evidentially consistent conclusion if based solely on the objective evidence available.

Would you agree?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 1:00 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 4:18 PM Straggler has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
25Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019