Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 2:58 PM
34 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,151 Year: 9,187/19,786 Month: 1,609/2,119 Week: 369/576 Day: 44/128 Hour: 6/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
232425Next
Author Topic:   Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 316 of 375 (503607)
03-20-2009 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by New Cat's Eye
03-19-2009 12:37 PM


Re: Follow the Evidence
Right, so in the absence of any suggestion of a concept, there is no consideration.

True.

But it is also true that simply suggesting an individual wholly unevidenced concept from the infinite array of possible wholly unevidenced concepts no more makes the forced consideration of that concept any more valid than any of the others.

If, that is, objective evidence is your sole criteria for assessing the validity of concepts and their relevance to objective reality.

In which case the question of any deity you choose to suggest is no more or less valid than any IPU type entity I care to confront you with.

Once a concept that cannot be objective evidenced is suggested, the default position, in the complete absence of any evidence, is agnoticism. Nothing suggests yes or no, so you remain at I don't know. To move to atheism (or to the 'no' side), you have to have something there to make that consideration. So if there's no objective evidence, what do you use?

There is no such thing as a vacuum of all objective evidence.

It is an objectively evidenced fact that god concepts are quite possibly the product of human invention.

It is not an objectively evidenced fact that god concepts are the possible product of the actual existence of any gods.

Every single god concept ever presented that can be refuted by means of objective evidence has been refuted.

And you are telling me that based on objective evidence alone the answer to the question - "Are god concepts objectively real or are they the product of human invention" - Should be "I don't know. It is 50-50 either way".

Is that what you are saying?

How can it be 50-50 either way in terms of objective evidence if one possibility is objectively evidenced and the other is not?

Straggler writes:

You have agreed that there is objective evidence in favour of the fact that humans create false god concepts.

For specific falsifiable dieties, yes. But not for general unfalsifiable ones.

So ALL of the falsifiable god concepts turned out to be false but there is nothing to remotely suggest that the inherently unfalsifiable ones might also be false...........?

Hmmmmmm.

Do you really think that choosing a deistic concept that is so immune to direct refutation that it would be impossible to conceive of anything more immune to direct refutation if one intentionally tried to, makes your deistic concept more believable?

Frankly it smacks of a desperate need to invent something that cannot be taken away from you.

CS writes:

Agnosticism.

You have to use something other than objectively verified evidence to conclude otherwise.

CS writes:

Its because of the basis of objective evidence alone. On the basis of objective evidence alone, a subjective unfalsifiable conclusion must remain in the realm of unknowing because we don't have any objective evidence to suggest one way or the other.

Wrong. Taking into account ALL of the objective evidence both FOR and AGAINST gods actually existing does not logically result in agnosticism.

See Message 247

Maybe direct answers regarding the validity or otherwise of agnosticism are better placed there.

But what I would ask is this - Why is it so important to you guys to convince yourselves and everyone else that the objective evidence available no more points towards the non-existence of gods than it does the existence?

If the subjective "evidence" on which you base your beliefs is so damn convincing then why do you need to consistently deny that a position of non-belief is the most objectively evidenced?

Why do you and RAZ relentlessly insist on talking about "absence of evidence" when all you really mean is an inability to directly and fully verify or refute.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2009 12:37 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Rahvin, posted 03-20-2009 3:25 PM Straggler has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1353 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 317 of 375 (503608)
03-20-2009 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by Straggler
03-20-2009 2:09 PM


Re: Follow the Evidence
Just to pick this out:

Do you really think that choosing a deistic concept that is so immune to direct refutation that it would be impossible to conceive of anything more immune to direct refutation if one intentionally tried to, makes your deistic concept more believable?

Frankly it smacks of a desperate need to invent something that cannot be taken away from you.

The deist "concept" being talked about in this thread is so general and nonspecific that it cannot even be pinned down as a singular concept discrete from any other. An "unknowable" deity can be literally anything because it has no attributes to differentiate it from something else. It's not a concept at all - it's a halfhearted "unknown."

This goes far beyond mere unfalsifiability. The Immaterial Pink Unicorn is unfalsifiable, but it's still a discrete concept - an Immaterial Yellow Bunny is easily identified as a similar but separate concept. The "unknowable" deity proposed by deists in indistinguishable from any individual concept that anyone anywhere identifies as simply "god." This means the deistic deity is indistinguishable from the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, YHWH, Zeus, or a Holy Teacup.

Therefore I maintain, as I said earlier to CS (and was ignored), the deistic deity is the final extrapolation of the "god of the gaps." When no more unknowns exist for "god" to be hidden in, the only remaining path is to make "god" itself unknowable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 2:09 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 3:37 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 318 of 375 (503609)
03-20-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Rahvin
03-20-2009 3:25 PM


Re: Follow the Evidence
Therefore I maintain, as I said earlier to CS (and was ignored), the deistic deity is the final extrapolation of the "god of the gaps." When no more unknowns exist for "god" to be hidden in, the only remaining path is to make "god" itself unknowable.

I wrote a post earlier in this thread titled "The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap"

Message 175

I was not aware of just how pointlessly ambiguous the deistic concept of god was at that point.

I guess my post titling at the time was a product of knowledge borne from that paragon of reliability and indicator of supreme truth that we are all so fond of. Namely subjective "evidence".

Somehow I just knew....... ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Rahvin, posted 03-20-2009 3:25 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Rahvin, posted 03-20-2009 3:50 PM Straggler has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1353 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 319 of 375 (503610)
03-20-2009 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Straggler
03-20-2009 3:37 PM


Re: Follow the Evidence
I guess my post titling at the time was a product of knowledge borne from that paragon of reliability and indicator of supreme truth that we are all so fond of. Namely subjective "evidence".

Somehow I just knew.......

It occurs to me that a discussion is warranted on why some subjective experiences are touted as having relevance to objective reality, while the vast majority are not.

For example, a dream in which I had a chat with Jesus could potentially be given more value than a dream in which I fell off of a cliff. Or a dream which, after the fact, can be interpreted as "prophetic" could be given more credence than the hundreds of others that had no relevance to the waking world regardless of interpretation.

It would seem that those who rely upon subjective experiences as "evidence" supporting their "unknowable" deity must engage in special pleading - those subjective experiences and feelings that support their deity must be regarded as having more relevance to reality than all of their other subjective experiences.

Perhaps later today I'll write up a new thread topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 3:37 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 4:20 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 358 by RAZD, posted 05-07-2009 10:23 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 320 of 375 (503612)
03-20-2009 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by Rahvin
03-20-2009 3:50 PM


The State of the Debate
Back in Message 207 I wrote:

Straggler 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.

We have had RAZD's "world view" version of 1) above.

We are currently engaged in a version of 2) with regard to subjective evidence.

I think that both Catholic Scientist and RAZD are rapidly approaching a version of stage 3) above with their insistence that unknowable gods are immune from any objective evidence either for or against.

It is depressing and dissappointing that a poster of RAZD's quality has followed the theists playbook so religiously.

But at least he has stopped asserting that the atheist position amounts to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" and drawing that silly Venn diagram.

Finally I would like to point out that I have been telling RAZD that there is no such thing as a vacuum of objective evidence ever since the beginning of this debate and that in nearly 600 posts spanning two threads he has never once even acknowledged the notion that there is evidence 'against' the actuality of gods even if there is no evidence 'for'.

Or maybe it was just that subjective evidence thing again. Allowing me to just know the future state of the debate......

It would seem that those who rely upon subjective experiences as "evidence" supporting their "unknowable" deity must engage in special pleading - those subjective experiences and feelings that support their deity must be regarded as having more relevance to reality than all of their other subjective experiences.

Perhaps later today I'll write up a new thread topic.

I think that would be an interesting topic.

However I am not sure that RAZD in particular is taking the relentless challenge to his obviously deeply held religious beliefs well and it would be a very short debate if no advocates of subjective evidence take part.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Rahvin, posted 03-20-2009 3:50 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 8:01 PM Straggler has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 321 of 375 (503631)
03-20-2009 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by Straggler
03-20-2009 4:20 PM


Re: The State of the Debate
We have had RAZD's "world view" version of 1) above.

And we have evidence of your use of your subjective opinion on the possibilities of life on other planets to substantiate your conclusion based on your world view. We have your acknowledgment that it is "just opinion" rather than a consistent approach that always ends with the same result.

We have your admission that the possibility of alien life visiting earth is logically feasible by the same logic as you use to conclude the probability of alien life, but you absolutely, categorically, refuse to consider that a single person's claim of an alien visitation could actually be validating evidence for this probability.

Why? Because you would have to admit that subjective evidence can be true.

We are currently engaged in a version of 2) with regard to subjective evidence.

No, the claim is that subjective evidence is as valid as subjective evidence, not that it is equal or can invalidate objective evidence.

What subjective evidence does, is fill a void between the available objective evidence and an absolute absence of all kinds of evidence.

You have claimed that such a void does not exist, but cannot explain why our court systems use it when there is an absence of objective evidence.

You try to shoe-horn everything into a black and white world, when in fact there are shades of grey, and part of that shades of grey is the dividing line between objective and subjective evidence.

You are still left with the reality that subjective evidence can be true.

3) Whatever evidence does or does not exist you cannot prove that my god does not exist so I win anyway.

Meanwhile, you keep claiming that all subjective evidence is made up, people make things up and that we cannot prove that these things are not made up so you "win" either way? Sheesh.

As stated way back at the beginning, the logical conclusion is that we do not know. Cannot know. You seem to think we can.

I think that would be an interesting topic.

A broader topic would be "what is the nature of evidence" and what is different between subjective and objective.

If only one person sees\experiences a "shooting star" is it subjective evidence? You can find no objective evidence other than your personal experience of your "shooting star" - so is it real? is it made up? is it subjective? objective? What's your answer:

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

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 320 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 4:20 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 9:00 PM RAZD has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 322 of 375 (503641)
03-20-2009 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by RAZD
03-20-2009 8:01 PM


RAZD's Folly
And we have evidence of your use of your subjective opinion on the possibilities of life on other planets to substantiate your conclusion based on your world view. We have your acknowledgment that it is "just opinion" rather than a consistent approach that always ends with the same result.

Oh for fucks sake...... Again!!!??? What opinion?

Life is a fact. Other planets existing is a fact.

No more interpretation, evidence, world view, opinion, tarot readings, subjective "evidence", reading of tea leaves, scientific research, astrological charts, personal testimonies or discussion is required to derive the purely logical possibility of life existing on other planets.

WHICH PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

The practical probability of this can then be assessed in terms of the objective factors involved. But the nature of that question is different.

Why are you so unable to grasp the difference between logical possibilities derived from known facts, objective evidence based assessments of probability and the purely subjective claims of actual alien visitation?

Do you really consider the only objective evidence in favour of something to be the direct observation of it?

Is all else subjective world view?

We have your admission that the possibility of alien life visiting earth is logically feasible by the same logic as you use to conclude the probability of alien life, but you absolutely, categorically, refuse to consider that a single person's claim of an alien visitation could actually be validating evidence for this probability.

Why? Because you would have to admit that subjective evidence can be true.

No. Actually I would not. You are just confusing and conflating possibilities, probabilities and subjective claims. AGAIN.

See Message 209 and the following posts for previous answers to these same tedious points.

If you want to refute the conclusions of those that oppose you here then you need to show that there is reason to think that wholly subjective experiences tell us anything even marginally reliable about objective reality.

I have challenged you to do this and you have repeatedly failed to do so.

What subjective evidence does, is fill a void between the available objective evidence and an absolute absence of all kinds of evidence.

It only fills a void if you can demonstrate that wholly subjective evidence is in any way superior to just randomaly guessing.

You cannot.

Thus your subjective "evidence" is inavlidated.

You try to shoe-horn everything into a black and white world, when in fact there are shades of grey, and part of that shades of grey is the dividing line between objective and subjective evidence.

There are shades of grey with regard to objective evidence.

It is these that you ignore when you intentionally conflate possibilities and probabilities to construct straw man arguments.

There are no shades of grey with regard to subjective evidence. Wholly personal subjective experience is NOT objective evidence. There are no exceptions. No matter how much you flog this dead horse.

Unless you can demonstrate that subjective evidence can in any way distinguish betwen truth and falsehood.

But you cannot.

You are still left with the reality that subjective evidence can be true.

Prove it.

Give me a single example of wholly subjective evidence, the sort upon which you apparently base your faith, being used to reliably draw a testable verifiable conclusion rather than one that relates to inherently unknowable gods.

Meanwhile, you keep claiming that all subjective evidence is made up, people make things up and that we cannot prove that these things are not made up so you "win" either way? Sheesh.

As stated way back at the beginning, the logical conclusion is that we do not know. Cannot know. You seem to think we can.

We can test whether or not subjective evidence can make reliable conclusions regarding verifiable aspects of objective reality.

If it cannot be demonstrated to to be any more reliable than guessing when applied to testable aspects of objective reality then on what basis do you conclude that it is any more reliable when applied to undetectable entities?

Undetectable entities that all the objective evidence available suggests are false human inventions?

Give me a reason to accept subjective evidence over objective evidence and I will.

But I won't hold my breath waiting.

If only one person sees\experiences a "shooting star" is it subjective evidence? You can find no objective evidence other than your personal experience of your "shooting star" - so is it real? is it made up? is it subjective? objective? What's your answer:

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

Oh so I get to answer my own question whle you evade YET AGAIN.

OK I will. Becuase I can whilst you obviously cannot.

It is essentially a subjective personal experience that we will all superficially accept as evidence because we all have a wealth of historical empirical evidence of our own to support it as being probably true. The claim does not operate in a vacuum of evidence.

By attempting to use common occurrances as examples of people accepting personal experience as evidence you are committing "Iano's folly".

See here for the details Message 145

But if you just change 'Iano' to 'RAZD' the following applies nearly as equally to you and what you are trying to do here with this latest tactic.

Straggler writes:

IANO'S FOLLY
Iano would have us apply the same standard of evidence that we superficially apply to the mundane examples of everyday life to the existence of God.

He would have us apply the knowledge we gain through continual and historical experience of the empirically ordinary to the non-empirical and fantastic.

He feigns indignation and protests at the supposed unfairness and philosophical bias on our part when we refuse this. He objects when we impose higher standards of evidence for his very obviously not trivial or mundane claims of the existence of an omniscient omnipotent creator. Despite the fact that this is one of the most important, arguably improbable, and controversial claims it is possible for anyone to make.

Iano would ask us to treat his claims for the existence of God as we would treat a childs claims of seeing a cat in the street.
He would then insist that we equate this, in terms of validity, with the empirically tested conclusions of science.
Any fool can see that this is a wholly unjustified attempt at legitimising an indefensible faith based position.

CONCLUSION
Non-empirical "evidence" is so pointlessly unreliable as to be useless. By conflating and confusing the everyday and perfectly valid empirically borne assumptions that we all make in our everyday lives with evidence Iano has attempted to claim the existence of non-empirical evidence. This folly has been comprehensively debunked.

Furthermore the assertion that we should willingly equate the lowly standards of evidence that we require for specific cases of the everyday and familiar, to the controversial and spectacular (i.e. God) has been utterly refuted.

The tired argument that Iano has been making at EvC for as long as I have been a member here has finally been shown to be that which it is - Yet another failed attempt to legitimise blind faith based belief by falsely equating it with the knowledge and understanding gained through proper scientific investigation.

It is worth noting that Iano has never since put forward his brand of non-empirical "evidence" argument at EvC.

I suppose I will have to change the name to "RAZD's Folly" now.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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 321 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 8:01 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 9:37 PM Straggler has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 323 of 375 (503643)
03-20-2009 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Straggler
03-20-2009 12:04 PM


Re: Follow the Evidence
So if somebody whose judgement and subjective evidence credentials you trust greatly, but who has no empirical knowledge of particle physics, predicts that a particle with verifiable and detectable properties exists on the basis of wholly subjective evidence alone - How would you rate the chances of their prediction being correct?

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

Or does subjective evidence only have any worth when it's predictions are inherently untestable?

D

If it were Cavediver or Son Goku, and they showed me their (purely subjective) mathematical reasoning (and I could understand it), I would still pick D.

Now if my friend were a high-school drop-out working, in a patent office, and he had a new theory of physics, a new insight, that explained all current physics plus some current anomalies, then I would give it a higher rating.

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 315 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 12:04 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 9:33 PM RAZD has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 324 of 375 (503649)
03-20-2009 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by RAZD
03-20-2009 9:20 PM


Re: Follow the Evidence
You are evading the question.

You are not applying wholly subjective evidence.

Why don't you go away and do whatever it is you do to get your subjective evidence that leads you to believe in gods but, for a change, apply your finely tuned subjective evidential instincts to something, anything testable.

Then come back tell us what you predict and then we will test it.

If it were Cavediver or Son Goku, and they showed me their (purely subjective) mathematical reasoning (and I could understand it), I would still pick D.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

So extrapolating the maths that we have constructed to describe the reality we have objectively tested is "wholly subjective evidence" with no empirical foundation?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No RAZ that is objective verified evidence + logic in it's purest form.

No wonder you think that subjective evidence is valid. You cannot differentiate between personal experiences that lead you to god from applied maths or courtroom testimony.

To you they are all the same.

It is no wonder you are so damn confused.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 9:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 9:45 PM Straggler has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 325 of 375 (503650)
03-20-2009 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Straggler
03-20-2009 9:00 PM


Straggler's Misconception/s
Give me a reason to accept subjective evidence over objective evidence and I will.

But that is not the issue. The issue is the value of subjective evidence when there is NO convincing objective evidence.

True or False - the US courts use subjective evidence to reach conclusions when there is no convincing objective evidence available.

True or False - the fact that US courts use subjective evidence means they have decided that it has value.

Oh for fucks sake...... Again!!!??? What opinion?

Do I have to go back to quote your message again? Or are you special pleading that his was "just his opinion" but yours is fact?

The subjective evaluation of the relative importance of different evidence is part of all people's interaction between experience of reality and world views of reality. This is fact. Do you understand this, or are you still in denial of the reality of your own subjective evaluations of the relative merits of different evidence?

Life is a fact. Other planets existing is a fact.

The rest is your subjective opinion.

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 322 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 9:00 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 10:15 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19871
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 326 of 375 (503651)
03-20-2009 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Straggler
03-20-2009 9:33 PM


Re: Follow the Evidence
So extrapolating the maths that we have constructed to describe the reality we have objectively tested is "wholly subjective evidence" with no empirical foundation?

Please. Your condition was that it was subjective, now you are assuming a tested empirical foundation that was not part of the original condition.

Please try to keep your own argument straight.

And for the record: no mathematical extrapolation has proven anything about reality. It is why calculations of probability when you don't know all the factors are as false for IDists as they are for you. It is why your alien life conclusion is based on your own personal subjective views.

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 324 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 9:33 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 10:42 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 329 by Straggler, posted 03-21-2009 6:09 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 327 of 375 (503654)
03-20-2009 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by RAZD
03-20-2009 9:37 PM


Re: Straggler's Misconception/s
Nothing that you are calling subjective evidence here is equivalent to the evidence required to conclude that gods exist.

But that is not the issue. The issue is the value of subjective evidence when there is NO convincing objective evidence.

No it isn't. The issue with regard to gods is the value of wholly subjective evidence with no evidential foundation whatsoever.

The subjective interpretation of some objective evidence is monumentally different to conclusions drawn on the basis of no objective evidence at all. The latter is logically and evidentially equivalent to the IPU. The former isn't.

When will you start to grasp the quite startlingly evident difference between some and none?

True or False - the US courts use subjective evidence to reach conclusions when there is no convincing objective evidence available.

False.

Courts accept the subjective interpretation of objective evidence.

The notion of subjective evidence requires a whole different paradigm and is utterly non-equivalent.

For details see Message 329

Do I have to go back to quote your message again? Or are you special pleading that his was "just his opinion" but yours is fact?

Are you talking about Mark24 again? Did you ever read what he actually said to you while you were away? Did you see that he disagrees with every argument you are attributing to him? Message 268

Life exists. Other planets exist. These are indisputable facts.

Is life on other planets possible or impossible?

Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.

No interpretation or world view is required or even possible.

Anyone who does conclude that life on other planets is logically impossible based on these two facts alone is indeed just factually and logically wrong. Facts are facts and logic is logic.

If people want to argue that life on other plants is improbable even to the point of impossible in practical terms based on other less evidenced knowledge then that is another question and a different set of evidence altogether.

I have stated to you the difference between logical possibilities and probability at least ten times now across the two threads.

Why do you continue to confuse and conflate the two? Is it because your subjective world view argument applies much more easily to probabilities whilst being completely irrelevant in the face of purely logical possibilities derived from fact?

You keep trying to argue against the position you want me to have rather than the one I do have. Having had this pointed out to you I am confident that you will desist from this disingenuous behaviour.

Straggler writes:

Life is a fact. Other planets existing is a fact.

The rest is your subjective opinion.

The subjective evaluation of the relative importance of different evidence is part of all people's interaction between experience of reality and world views of reality. This is fact. Do you understand this, or are you still in denial of the reality of your own subjective evaluations of the relative merits of different evidence?

Is that why you are getting so upset? You think I am denying that subjective interpretation exists at all? Period!!! Oh it all becomes so clear now. How hilariously and bewilderingly stupid of you.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :laugh: :laugh:

I have never once said that. Ever. Anywhere. At all. No. No. No.

What a monumental straw man you have constructed for yourself. Well done!

OF COURSE subjective interpretation of objective evidence exists. BUT this is in no way equivalent to subjective evidence. See Message 329 for details.

With regard to the specific POSSIBILITIES under consideration here there is no subjective interpretation required and thus no world view bias is possible.

Life exists. Other planets exist.

Is life on other planets possible or impossible?

Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.

No interpretation or world view is required.

Humans are capable of inventing false god concepts. This is an objectively evidenced and indisputable fact.

Is it possible or impossible that any claimed concept of gods is a false human invention?

Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.

No interpretation or world view is required.

In contrast concluding that the actual existance of gods is a real possibility has no factual basis and is 100% the product of your subjective world view.

THAT is the difference RAZ. THAT is the difference.

Enjoy.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : I have just realised that RAZD thinks that my argument is to deny that subjective interpretation of evidence is ever possible!! A monumental straw man!!

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 9:37 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 328 of 375 (503658)
03-20-2009 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by RAZD
03-20-2009 9:45 PM


Evidenced Possibilities Vs Subjective World View
Please. Your condition was that it was subjective

No. WHOLLY subjective.

My condition is that the nature of the evidence used is identical to that you use to conclude gods exist.

Unless you concluded the existence of gods via mathematical extrapolation how is your example remotely relevant?

Please. Your condition was that it was subjective, now you are assuming a tested empirical foundation that was not part of the original condition.

How can one use maths to derive the existence of an undiscovered particle without starting from maths that is used to describe reality as we know it?

Were they just writing down random equations and hoping for supernatural inspiration?

Your answers are disingenuous and evasive.

Please try to keep your own argument straight.

Until you keep your form of subjective evidence straight no sensible argument is possible.

Can you apply the exact sort of wholly subjective evidence from which you conclude gods to the testable world?

Or not?

Until you give an example of subective evidence that is more reliable than randomly guessing you have no argument. If all your examples are going to be the subjective interpretation of objective evidence then you evidently have no justificaion for subjective evidence. And thus no evidential basis of any sort for your deistic beliefs.

Your whole deistic position will be founded on demonstrably false concept.

See Message 329.

And for the record: no mathematical extrapolation has proven anything about reality.

I have never ever claimed or concluded that it has.

You are arguing against a straw man yet again.

It is why calculations of probability when you don't know all the factors are as false for IDists as they are for you. It is why your alien life conclusion is based on your own personal subjective views.

Ahem. Straw man alert. Again.

Yet again you argue against the straw man of probability when my argument is only concerned with evidenced possibility. I think you do this because a case for your world view argument is much easier to make as applied to assessing probabilities whilst being utterly refuted with regard to purely logical possibilities derived from facts. Your repeated and ongoing attempts to confuse and conflate the two have been pointed out to you numerous times. Please desist from doing this.

Life exists. Other planets exist.

Is life on other planets possible or impossible?

Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.

No interpretation or world view is required.

Please try to keep your own argument straight.

I am being totally straight and totally consistent by applying exactly the same logical method that I do to the possibility of alien life to human claims of gods.

Humans are capable of inventing false god concepts. This is an objectively evidenced and indisputable fact.

Is it possible or impossible that any claimed concept of gods is a false human invention?

Based on these facts alone there is only one logically valid answer.

No interpretation or world view is required.

In contrast concluding that the actual existance of gods is a real possibility has no factual basis and is 100% the product of your subjective world view.

The two possibilities are not evidentially equal. The possibility that gods are human inventions is indisputably and significantly evidentially superior. Thus, on the basis of objective eveidence alone, a degree of atheistic non-belief rather than pure agnosticism must be the logical conclusion.

Please try to keep your own argument straight.

It is you who is claiming that applied maths, courtroom testimony, alien abduction stories and religious revelatory experiences are all evidentially equivalent.

If you cannot see the absurdity of this position then it is no wonder that you are so confused.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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 326 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 9:45 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 329 of 375 (503680)
03-21-2009 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by RAZD
03-20-2009 9:45 PM


The Subjective Interpretation Of Objective Evidence
True or False - the US courts use subjective evidence to reach conclusions when there is no convincing objective evidence available.

Every example you have provided of subjective evidence has actually been an example of the subjective interpretation of objective evidence.

You have taken the validity you grant these examples and extrapolated back to zero evidence to arrive at the flawed concept that is at the root of your beliefs. Namely the notion of subjective evidence.

The problem with this is that in the case of no objective evidence at all the subjective interpretation of objective evidence becomes an interpretation of nothing at all.

The interpretation of nothing at all is identical to a random guess.

If you wish to demonstrate that subjective evidence is a viable concept, distinct and separate from the subjective interpretation of zero objective evidence, then you need to show that from no objective evidential foundation at all, from what appears to be a random guess in evidential terms, that you can derive conclusions that are significantly more reliable than actual random guesses.

If you cannot do this to verifiable examples then there is no reason to believe that this method of deriving conclusions is any more reliable when applied to unverifiable conclusions.

If there is no reason to believe that this method of deriving conclusions is better than a random guess when applied to unverifiable conclusions then your conclusion of gods on the basis of such evidence is itself no better than a random guess.

Thus, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, in any evidential terms your beliefs are invalidated.

Sorry.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2009 9:45 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 330 of 375 (503712)
03-21-2009 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Percy
03-09-2009 6:50 AM


An Insight.
Percy I know that you wanted this to be a sort of analysis of RAZD’s mind. Although it may not always look like it I am genuinely trying to understand where he is coming from on this.

I think I have just gained a significant insight into RAZD’s thinking.

Throughout the argument it seems that he has assumed that by denying personal subjective experience as evidence that I am denying that people subjectively interpret evidence to form conclusions. This has just become clear to me and explains a lot about RAZD’s approach to this debate and towards me.

Of course I am not denying that subjective interpretation of evidence exists and never would argue such a stupid position.

BUT the point is that what I am calling “interpretation” RAZD is calling “evidence”.

Now this could just be a case of semantics but I think it is massively more fundamental than that. How else can we explain RAZD’s otherwise bewildering assertions that courtroom testimonials or hypotheses derived from applied maths are in any way evidentially equivalent to religious experiences?

RAZD sees every conclusion as fully evidenced. Fully evidenced in the sense that:

Conclusion = objective evidence + subjective evidence

We can think of this graphically in the sense that there is a scale with wholly subjective conclusion at one end and objectively derived fact at the other. The marker for any given conclusion moves up and down this line but the line itself never changes size. Just the relative proportions of objective and subjective evidence represented by the moving marker.

In contrast I see every conclusion as:

Conclusion = objective evidence + interpretation of objective evidence

My line of evidence represents only objective evidence and changes length in every individual case. Where there is no objective evidence there is no line. Where there is a known fact the line is at maximum length. The interpretation component of the conclusion is not part of the line itself.

Now most of the time, where some objective evidence exists, the difference is subtle if even present BUT at the point where no objective evidence is deemed to exist the two views are absolutely worlds apart.

RAZD sees a conclusion derived purely from subjective evidence, at the extreme end of his scale of evidence admittedly, but nevertheless still on the scale.

Instead I see that, in the absence of absolutely any objective evidence at all to which we can apply interpretation, in the absence of any scale at all, absolutely anything goes. Thus we arrive at the IPU and his host of unevidenced but ridiculous allies which remain logically and evidentially equivalent to every other unevidenced entity.

This is why the two sides are so unable to meaningfully agree on anything. One believes that subjective thought is in itself evidence and the other cannot possibly see how you can interpret evidence when there is no evidence to interpret.

Who is right and who is wrong depends on whether or not the notion of subjective evidence can actually be shown to work or not. If the use of subjective evidence alone can be shown to result in conclusions that are better than random guesses then it has been validated as a form of evidence. If not it is refuted as a form of evidence.

RAZD needs to distinguish the subjective interpretation of objective evdience from the notion of subjective evidence itself.
RAZD needs to derive a conclusion from subjective evidence ALONE, exactly as he has done his god, but instead for something testable.

I would bet everything I have on him being unable to do this so confident am I that the very notion subjective "evidence" is an oxymoronic folly.

I would be interested in your relatively impartial assessment of this insight into RAZD's thinking. Do you think I have hit the nail on the head or that I am barking up the wrong tree.

WOOF! :D

AbE - This view of RAZD's mindset also explains why he is utterly unable to incorporate evidence against his deistic position. Where would it fit on his scale of evidence?

Thus his refusal to even acknowledge this concept in nearly 600 posts spanning two seperate threads.

In contrast I see any evidence in favour of a mutually exclusive alternative (e.g. evidence in favour of gods being the product of human invention) as a severe problem for a claim that has no objective evidence to support it (e.g. gods exist)

Thus I would argue that RAZD's view of evidence is inherently unable to cope with ALL of the relevant evidence where no objective evidence exists in favour of a claim. It just cannot take account of 'negative' evidence.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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 271 by Percy, posted 03-09-2009 6:50 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2009 8:00 PM Straggler has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
232425Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019