Peanut Gallery

It amuses me what some people complain about. Simple: the topic is defined to have bluegenes show that he can show how he determines whether entities are fiction or supernatural.He doesn't need any validation from anyone to demonstrate that a concept is fiction or supernatural, he just needs to show how he does that.That is simple logic.(So far, absolute failure by bluegenes on that issue.)And yes, the author of the thread defines what the thread is about, and what it is not about.If you don't like it you can start your own.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)

You took the challenge he presented. He said how the theory could be falsified. So far I don't see that you've done that yet. Asking him to demonstrate that the IPU is absolutely fictional and not a supernatural being is not demonstrating that the IPU is a supernatural being.You must first demonstrate that the IPU (or any other entity you choose) is a supernatural being and doesn't just exist in the human mind or writings.Concepts exist in the human mind. You need to show that the entity exists outside of the human imagination to falsify his theory.It is your job to show that the entity in question is not fiction, not his. Invisible Pink Unicorn

Hi purpldawn, thanks for the opportunity to clarify this issue.Again.I am the author of the OP, I wrote it, I defined what it covers and what it does not cover in the OP. This defines the roles in this thread. If you don't like that, then write your own thread. He did not write the OP. He had that opportunity.The actual challenge was: It is not a theory.It certainly is not "strong" ... so that leaves assumption, opinion and wishful thinking.Therefore there is nothing for me to falsify, ... unless, and until, he can show that he actually has a theory. This is the pseudoskeptic double standard:

• They make a claim, and then say you need to falsify it.
• You make a claim, and they say you need to substantiate it.

No, all claims need to be substantiated, by objective empirical valid evidence: there is no special pleading, no assumption of "default" status, no passing the buck.This is simple objective impartial unbiased logic.The claim that needs to be substantiated is that there is a theory, rather than assumption based on wishful thinking, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and personal opinion/s etc etc etc. No, it is his job to demonstrate that his hypothesis works and is able to discern fiction from fact. The actual entity/s\being/s involved in such demonstration is irrelevant.The IPU is just one example of the kinds of entities that his hypothesis should be able to readily demonstrate how his hypothesis separates fiction from fact.This should be extraordinarily easy to accomplish if you believe 100% that you have an actual known fiction, don't you think?His apparent inability to demonstrate that his hypothesis is able to show that the IPU is actually absolute fiction, proves that his concept is absolutely useless in determining fiction from fact.This means that it is not a scientific theory, in any way shape or form, no falsification necessary.It's that simple.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)

What I have always taken issue with is, how is saying "supernatural being X is a concept" actually make it a concept? That's not a concept at all, it just a word salad.Then, to have the arrogance to expect someone to demonstrate, with objective empirical valid evidence, that these concepts are unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being, is absurd.- Oni

The original bluegenes text was, as I'm led to believe, this, from Message 167: Now my brother can get on your nerves at times (and he certainly gets on mine at times!), and certainly may have strayed that way a bit in this debate, but, sadly, those of you who are thinking that he is losing are wrong.When someone makes a blanket statement like that and also claims it is a high level of confidence theory, then they have to provide support for their claim - and on EvC the support is usually of the form of scientific objective evidence.RAZD is saying "ok...show me some evidence". bluegenes has has also asserted that he has "plenty of evidence".bluegenes essentially responded with Oni's characterization "You go first".bluegenes says This cannot be a call to provide such an example, but instead is a claim that the theory is falsifiable, so as to comply with the scientific method. Let's not get caught up in climbing down into that rabbit hole - bluegenes is going down the checklist of a well-formulated theory and sees the box "Is it falsifiable?" and he checks it off "Yes".purpledawn writes: But that does NOT mean RAZD has to provide an example - it's a check box for fitting the blanket statement into a well-proposed theory.So RAZD, in an effort to the ball rolling, suggests that bluegenes begin with the IPU, noting that this particular of a supernatural being should be easy to demonstrate as a figment of the human imagination.Yes - name-calling canards & sidebars of the electromagnetic spectrum may have obscured the debate.But please, lets see some scientific evidence that the IPU is a figment - afterall, many of us here in the Peanut Gallery, by and large, agree with bluegenes' premise, and we'd like to see some ammo to bring to bear in these sort of cases in the future. Help us out at the Atheist end of the Dawkins scale......

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Hi xongsmith, But xong, the fact that supernatural beings are only conceptually referenced, by definition, make it a by-product of the human mind/imagination? Nothing else can come up with a concept, supernatural or otherwise, other than the human mind, right?- Oni

Oni writes: "God is a concept by which we measure our pain." - John Lennon
What word would you want to use for the word cloud/salad "supernatural being X", Oni?He continues: ...but that, indeed, is what bluegenes has to do.Contrast with Those are 2 blanket statements may seem to be saying the same thing, but they are different.Edited by xongsmith, : Clarity

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Firstly how can you disprove (which is what RAZD is demanding) the existence of any empirically imperceptible entity?Secondly - If the entity in question (e.g. the Immaterial Pink Unicorn that he has demanded be disproved) is empirically imperceptible how can it be anything other than a concept derived solely from the internal workings of the human mind?It cannot have been perceived as part of external reality. So where else can it possibly be sourced from?

Hi, Xongsmith.I generally think Bluegenes has taken a good, logical approach to his debate with RAZD, but, like you, I think he's made just one blunder that may undermine his entire argument, and it's the same one that you brought up.Basically, how would one demonstrate that any certain being both exists and is supernatural, or has supernatural abilities?For instance, I can provide very strong evidence that Guan Yu existed. Guan Yu is worshiped as a deity in Chinese traditional religion, and believed to have aided many Chinese generals to victory through his post-mortal influence on the battlefield.Does this satisfy Bluegenes’ requirements for demonstrating the existence of a supernatural being?Well, no, of course not, because, even if I could demonstrate that Guan Yu did help the Ming emperor win the Battle of Lake Poyang, I would still have to demonstrate that it was actually supernatural.But, I submit that such a demonstration is not possible with any reasonable degree of confidence. Thus, I don’t think Bluegenes’ theory is falsifiable.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

None. Lets be honest and admit "supernatural" means nothing at all. Furthermore, lets accept that all concepts must be products of human imagination, otherwise, it is not a concept. How can a concept not be a fictional invention? Concepts can only be concepts. Concepts come from humans. If a human saw a being that had miraculous powers, it would still be here in our reality and thus natural, not supernatural. If it exists in some "outside of reality" realm, it is inherently unknowable, and exists only as a concept - derived from the human imagination.It's only logical that concepts come from our minds, esp. a suprernatural concept. Otherwise, it wouldn't be supernatural or a concept.- Oni

quote:

---

I am the author of the OP, I wrote it, I defined what it covers and what it does not cover in the OP. This defines the roles in this thread. If you don't like that, then write your own thread.

---

As the originator you define the topic and the parameters (if any) for the discussion; but you don't get to say that your opponent has to provide objective evidence for his position, but you don't.

quote:

---

It is not a theory.

---

It is a theory based on observation. So the actual challenge is not about whether it is a theory or not, but whether the theory is strong. Show evidence that the theory is weak without all the excess gobbledygook.Even by your OP the thread is not about bluegenes establishing that he actually has a theory. Just because you don't feel it is a strong theory doesn't mean it isn't a theory. You're changing the main point of the thread.

quote:

---

No, all claims need to be substantiated, by objective empirical valid evidence: there is no special pleading, no assumption of "default" status, no passing the buck.

---

Which means you also need to provide valid evidence. He provided evidence. The myths from the mind of man. Your own comments show that the stories are considered made up and not fact. The stories are made up to present a lesson or point. They come from the human imagination. Of course, that doesn't mean the lesson or point is made up. Just the characters.

quote:

---

No, it is his job to demonstrate that his hypothesis works and is able to discern fiction from fact. The actual entity/s\being/s involved in such demonstration is irrelevant.

​

The IPU is just one example of the kinds of entities that his hypothesis should be able to readily demonstrate how his hypothesis separates fiction from fact.

---

The hypothesis isn't to discern fact from fiction. Showing that a supernatural being is fact and not made up is what will falsify his theory. Since he doesn't see any facts concerning supernatural beings, it is up to you to falsify his theory by presenting a supernatural being supported by fact and independent of human imagination if you feel there are facts available.

quote:

---

His apparent inability to demonstrate that his hypothesis is able to show that the IPU is actually absolute fiction, proves that his concept is absolutely useless in determining fiction from fact.

​

This means that it is not a scientific theory, in any way shape or form, no falsification necessary.

---

Evidence is what will show that the IPU is fiction, not the hypothesis. If the IPU is fact and not fiction, then it would falsify his theory. Proving the IPU to be fiction doesn't falsify his theory. I've already shown you that the IPU is a creation of man's imagination.You are the one who wants to falsify his theory.Show that one of the supernatural beings in the myths isn't made up.

I dunno. Take Jesus. Now if the Jesus of the bible (born of a virgin, prophecised, here to atone for mans sins etc. etc.) really did exist as the son of God he would be a supernatural being capable of overcoming the laws of nature purely by means of his conscious will would he not? Throw in an ability to flit between the natural world and some sort of ethereal heavenly afterlife outside of time outside of material reality realm and I really don't see how you can call that natural rather than supernatural?If there is a second coming of Christ then that dude will be supernatural. I don't see how it can be otherwise. Likewise if Yahweh or any other god decides to reveal themselves (e.g. judgement day, armeggadon etc.) I really don't see how they can be described as "natural" if they are the source of natural laws rather than being limited or derived from them. I think conceptually it does. Otherwise how are we able to distinguish between explanations for as yet unknowns (e.g. the origins of the universe) that are natural and those that are supernatural?I guess if we wanna pursue this at all we should do it elsewhere. Maybe the Supernatural Hypothesis thread. But we don't have to make a big thing of it.

Hey brutha oni - long time no see!! I was going to post something similiar in the Supernatural Hypothesis thread yesterday, but didn't want to further obfuscate jar's points to Straggler.Great minds think alike, huh .. lolOne Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Hi stragg - hope things are well on your side of the pond .. I am curious has to why - or better yet, how, one should attempt to make a distinction between that which is unknown within a natural context and that which is non-evidently 'supernatural'. I mean, are they not both undefined to a degree that the distinctions which can be made are mostly superfluous?For example, fire and lightning have both taken on supernatural connotations within indigenous cultures, and so, it seems in a larger context what you present as 'yet unknowns (e.g. the origins of the universe) that are natural' and 'yet to be explained supernatural' occurences are really one in the same ..It appears the term 'supernatural' may simply be a cheap way to express that our scientific culture has yet to satisfactorily define a certain thing, no??One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Not really. Are colliding branes a supernatural explanation to the origins of the universe?Is the idea that an eternal omnipotent omnipresent omniscient being (e.g. the common Christia notion of God) created the universe a supernatural explanation?What is the difference between the two? Not really. The move from a supernatural answer to a naturalistic one is more than just making something once unknown known. For example Thor is a supernatural explanation for thunder and lightening. Static electrical build up in storms is a natural explanation. If we had indeed found that a divine super-being was responsible for storms etc. we wouldn't be looking for naturalistic answers to existing unkowns. We would instead be trying to determine what sort of divine being was responsible for magically sparking life into existence (or whatever).We wouldn't be scientificaly studying such questions. We would be seeking divinely inspired spiritual answers to such questions by praying (or otherwise seeking to communicate) with said spritual entity. Again not really. If you had been able to show those cultures that rather than some spooky mystical unknowable fire spirit imbued with the conscious will to spread and burn things fire was simply a controllable phenomenon which any man with the knowledge to do so could master, create and utilise much like a spear or any other more familiar concept - Then I don't think that is the same as making their concept of fire natural. Instead you have fundamentally changed what their concept of fire is. And replaced a supernatural explanation with a natural one.We really should take this to the other thread if you want to continue.......Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.