Identifying false religions.

Indeed, the gods that theists believe in are limited by their imaginations. It would, theoretically, be impossible to believe in gods that were beyond their imaginations, just in the concept of "things beyond the imagination."This ends up as "I believe in something, but I cannot know what it is".There wouldn't be a word for it. And if a word was given to it, it would be meaningless.One thing that may be beyond the imagination is pure complete nothing.

Only if you could falsify the supernatural one.It would require establishing the existence of just one supernatural being of any genre beyond reasonable doubt.

"Creators" are things we can imagine. A creator of all things seen and unseen would have created itself, and written this post.That might be stretching the imagination. Of course not. They could all be worshipping colliding branes or quantum fluctuations without knowing it, if you want to look at things that way. My theory that all supernatural beings are figments of the imagination is a strong theory, not a "proof".The theory that all animals are born from other animals is not a proof, either, just as modern evolutionary theory is not a "proof" that naturalistic evolution explains everything about life on earth.Strong theories give us the rational default positions in relation to the evidence available at any particular time.On the topic, any individual described religion involving supernatural beings should be considered very likely to be false as the default position.That is, by those who wish to be considered rational. Others can believe that Tinkerbell created the universe if they feel like it. As you point out, why not?

I didn't say that it couldn't be. We were talking about things that could exist that are beyond the human imagination. "Stretching the imagination" doesn't mean "not existing". It's you who suggested that things that folks worshipped might have something to do with a real entity you call GOD, not me. Sheesh.

You really don't know the difference between a scientific theory and a random hypothesis, or baseless guess, do you? Do you want some clues? Would you like to point to a bluegenes post in which the claim is made that bluegenes can make a probability calculation on what books you've got in your room? Would you like to point to a bluegenes post that makes the claim that bluegenes can make probability calculations on everything in the world?Board members with basic reading comprehension will have missed these posts.What bluegenes claims is this: It is rational and productive to make probability estimates on many things without being able to mathematically quantify the probability.I can demonstrate this to you. I'll list 100 things that I estimate as "very improbable" to be in your house. In every case, no member of this board will be able to give a mathematical figure on the probability to within an order of magnitude. In fact, they won't be able to say anything but "very improbable", or, in your unique case, "I'm completely uncommitted because I cannot know". If I'm right on every single one, I will have demonstrated that my way of viewing the world is correct in this respect.If I'm wrong on one single thing, then I'll send you 100,000 dollars.If none of the things can be found in the house, you send 1,000 dollars to Percy to help with the site.Agreed? Show some confidence.

My personal opinions and world views are based on intelligent assessments of the available evidence.It's my personal opinion and world view that, if you go into your bathroom, it's very improbable that you'll find a mermaid in the bath. It's my personal opinion and world view that, if you go into your bedroom, you won't find any fairies there.I can make 1000 such statements with a very, very, very high level of confidence without ever having been in your house, and sitting thousands of miles away from the place. You check it out, and I'll be right every time. 100%. Why?According to you, because I cannot know whether or not there are mermaids in your bathroom, or fairies in your bedroom, I should be uncommitted. So who is rational?Now, how can I assess the precise mathematical probability of a mermaid being in your bathroom, or fairies being in your bedroom? I can't.But if I can be right 1000 times, my estimates must be very, very good.Now, on scientific theories.
Do you understand why your: is not a scientific theory, just an unsupported assertion? Creationists make such unfalsifiable assertions all the time, and it's hard to believe that you've been here on EvC for six years without understanding what's wrong with this."All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" is a theory/law for which I can present positive evidence (loads), which can be falsified, and which makes many predictions (Obama won't turn out to be the anti-Christ, for example).The human mind is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as horses are the only known source of horse shit, and bulls are.......well, err, someone's posts on this thread that contain the phrase "confirmation bias" might challenge that law. Making probability estimates is rational. Read and learn.

Only if you're limited to them. I'd go to work on my magic carpet if I could.

There are no speed limits on carpet flying, and it's pollution free.You don't know the traffic jams and parking problems in my area.With the carpet, you just magically open your office windows, fly in and park on the floor, and it becomes part of the office furniture.Then I would put my feet up and enjoy watching the elves who are doing the work for me.

That's a very definite statement coming from someone who is completely uncommitted on whether or not Satan is manipulating his mind. It would certainly be irrational behaviour for such a person to express any opinions on anything.But, to explain your behaviour as being the result of a mind manipulating Satan would be explaining it with a random baseless explanatory hypothesis, wouldn't it? And smart people who rate their opinions highly know that such hypotheses are always very unlikely to be correct.

When my doorbell's not ringing, I assume the default position that no-one is there. I cannot know that no-one is there, but 100 random visits to the door when the bell's not ringing will demonstrate that I'm being very, very rational to take that default position.When my doorbell does ring, I assume the default position that it will not be a supernatural being doing the ringing. Decades of door answering have shown me to be very, very rational in making this assumption. You claim that it is irrational to claim that something is highly unlikely to exist?I think it's very unlikely that your house was built by elves. I think it's very unlikely that house-building elves exist.The only known source of houses is human construction.The only known source of supernatural beings is the human imagination.Therefore, it's very unlikely that house-building elves exist.Even without those observations, "elves built your house" would be a random, baseless hypothesis, and as such, very unlikely to be true. 1,530,000 uses of the phrase "very unlikely" here, on google scholar.

Hi, Bikerman, and welcome to EvC.Just a couple of practical points. You must have hit the "general reply" button to make the post I'm replying to. Using the reply button on the bottom right of the specific post you're replying to will give you the effect you see on this post, and make it clear what you're replying to by the links at the top and bottom of your post.It will also inform the other poster with an automatic Email, if he or she hasn't cancelled that process.For further clarity, using the shaded quote boxes and [qs=Buzsaw] would have made it easy for readers to see whom you are quoting (I can guess, because I recognise Buz's prophecy content!!).There's a "peek" facility on each post, which is an easy way to see how everything's done.Welcome again.