Peanut Gallery

Modulous says: Wait a minute. Did bluegenes back off of his original challenge? I forget...perhaps he did later. He may have meant "supernatural concepts", but that wasn't the origination of what is now running into thousands of posts in EvC.If he did mean concepts, then indeed it amounts to saying "all human imagination comes from human imagination". Color me unimpressed.Modulous then gets uncharacteristically sloppy in an offhandish way: The first ever watch was the the rising and setting of the sun and measuring how high it was in the sky to determine what part of the day we's at. Human beings did not make that watch.Wait a minute. Maybe this is semantics? What's a watch? Maybe Modulous was thinking of a Sundial? No! - more likely the familiar old device of gears and escapement mechanisms and multiple intricate jeweled movements and then later on by the electronic versions - essentially saying "all watches made by mankind are made by mankind"...wow. The True Scottish Watchmaker smiles.And I can also describe a source of rain that did not come from clouds if anyone should want to go that far. I also dealt with the rabbits and genetics and the human ear on the back of a rat.Come on, Team bluegenes, we can do better than this.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Gosh!! Are we talking about CONCEPTS? Message 89How many times must the same shit be repeated......? Here is bluegenes answer to your same point previously: Or we could consider what bluegenes has actually said in the great debate thread itself: If after all this time you still don’t understand the difference between a theory seeking to explain the indisputable fact that supernatural concepts and human belief in such things exist, with a theory that explicitly denies the existence of supernatural entities then what further point is there in talking to you on this matter?

I think Straggler addresses this satisfactorily in Message 1172. I have a horse concept. This concept did not derive from my imagination, it derived from experiences with actual horses. Even though when I think on horses, I imagine a horse - the source of that horse concept is not solely my imagination, rather it is derived from my memory of experiences I've had regarding horses.The theory predicts that no person has a concept about the supernatural that is derived from experiences of the supernatural in the same way my concept about horses is derived from experiences of the equine kind. First, calling any regularity a 'watch' would be stretching the concept beyond breaking point. However, for the sake of argument I will consider this as adequate falsification of my theory. Further, For the sake of argument, I will happily consider those theories falsified. You seem to think it is a perfectly sensible response when presented with a theory, to try and find exceptions that might serve to falsify it.And that is what bluegenes is expecting, and what has not been presented in the case of the supernatural. Indeed, the notion that such examples should be presented is almost seen as unreasonable. It is the theory that all watches that have gears etc., are all man made. The theory is not 'all watches made by mankind are made by mankind'. If I were to stumble upon a watch which had no maker's identification, I cannot prove it was not made by chimpanzees, an unknown non-sapiens hominid population, aliens, genies etc. The theory predicts it will be man made.

So, bluegenes makes a blanket statement and simply wants it falsified on purpose? If you do then it proves it's unlikley supernatural beings exist? Minus any evidence that His statement is indeed true?How does he know what are the evidences of the thousands of religions around the world claiming to know a supernatural being exists? Has he tested these claims to see? How could he? If he can't, then how is his staement any different? Once he investigates EVERY single claim by ALL religions and TESTS their claims only then can he make the claim he did. What if he can't? What if it can't be tested? Then his claim is like RAZD said, wishful thinking. To say then, "well, if you can't test it then IT must be the product of the imagination" is simply a copout. An empty claim with no substance, but you feel substance is what is needed to refute it. THAT is circular reasoning at it's finest.So, to want his "theory" falsified by someone, necessarily it has to have some substance FOR it to be. It seems he is taking the lazy approach and not putting any work into his "theory".It's clear that the burden of proof is on him to prove his statments true and NOT dependant on someone falsifying his absurd claim just to prove a point.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

You are applying standards of evidence inconsistently. Why do you feel the need to demand greater levels of "proof" for theories that you subjectively don't like? The "blanket statement" in question is no different from any other inductively derived tentative and falsifiable theory that states that "ALL X are sourced from Y". You have already agreed that "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" is a strong theory if clouds are the only source of raindrops known to science. You didn't feel the need to test every single raindrop in order to ensure that it wasn't derived from some other conceivable source did you? Why do you apply a different standard of evidence to bluegenes theory? Because you don't agree with the conclusion? You have agreed that disproving unevidenced sources of raindrops (e.g. angels pissing) has no bearing on the strength of the "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" theory. Why do you apply a different standard of evidence to bluegenes theory? Because you don't agree with the conclusion? Is it circular reasoning to conclude that "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" without actively eliminating every other conceivable source of raindrops? Including the impossible task of eliminating all of those designed-to-be-unfalsifiable conceivable sources? There is. There is swathes of evidence in favour of the fact that humans can and do invent supernatural concepts. Do you dispute this? That ALL supernatural concepts are sourced from human imagination is a strong theory because it is backed up by reams of positive evidence regarding human imagination as the only known source of such concepts combined with the as yet unfalsified nature of this theory.No different in status to the "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" theory. No. If you can't falsify the theory then it is unlikley that there is any source of supernatural concepts other than human imagination.

Yes, kind of. In science we make general statements based on specific examples and challenge those that disagree to falsify them. Newton did not examine every motion of all entities throughout all time before he formulated the general rules of motions...he used specific examples he had access to.Darwin did not examine all life on earth before concluding that it was related, but he did provide a number of ways that his theory could be proven false and challenged those that disagreed to do so.That's basically the way science works. Falsifiiability is the cornerstone of any good scientific theory...just ask Popper! I recommended earlier that RAZD or his supporters try and show that the induction is weak, but they have tried instead to focus on unfalsifiable objections. He doesn't. No more than Newton knew of every cooling body before describing how bodies cool under convection. But then it wouldn't be a falsifiable theory, it would be a strongly established fact. Are you still getting facts and theories confused? Theories can be false, or only partly true, they are not established as completely true. If you are defining supernatural as being something which cannot be evidenced or understood or comprehended, then it must be the case that it is imagined rather than experienced/understood etc. It could be no other way. It might still be true, but only by coincidence.If you are defining supernatural as being something which can be evidenced then the claim is that it has not. If you wish to prove this claim false you need to provide evidence.Those are your two avenues of objection when it comes to defining supernatural. Agreed. And we know that humans confabulate stories to explain their unusual experiences. We know that humans are prone to detecting agency where none exists. We know that humans see patterns in random noise (especially life based patterns such as animals and faces in clouds). We know that some proposed supernatural beings are mutually contradictory, meaning that at least some of them are necessarily fabrications.We do not have any knowledge of an actual supernatural being. Most of the work bluegenes as had to do has been to rebut RAZDs unreasonable demands. If RAZD had actually dealt with the theory rather than imagining unfalsifiable objections - we might have seen some more interesting work being put into the theory. As it is, more work has been put into the theory in this very thread. Bluegenes has provided evidence that in all the known cases, imagination is a coherent explanation. RAZD has provided no evidence that would falsify the theory. The balance of probabilities seems to favour bluegenes.The contradictory nature of superanatural claims means that some supernatural beings are necessarily made up.
Further, the prevalence of supernatural beings in known fiction is evidence that humans are skilled at inventing supernatural beings.Is there any evidence that the theory is false?We have supporting evidence, there exists no falsifying evidence...what more can you ask for in a theory?

The phrase "All supernatural beings are figments of the imagination" automatically states that supernatural beings exist only as concepts. To help people with poor English comprehension who might want to make semantic arguments about my theory (they might be silly enough to think that such arguments are important in science), I've sometimes used the clumsy phrase "supernatural natural beings - concepts". But those who read English well will understand that if I'd added the word "concept" to the title, it would be rather redundant. I'll colour you wrong. The concepts in our minds of things that actually have an external existence do not have their origin in our imaginations. We didn't make up trees, just our word for them. I'm theorizing that the difference between trees and Dryads is that the former have a real existence external to our minds, and the latter don't.It's very straightforward, and the intelligent members of the board seem to have no problem understanding what I'm saying.Currently, there's a guy criticizing my theory on this thread (Chuck77). Like RAZD, he seems to have no understanding of how inductive scientific theories and laws work. But he does, at least, seem to understand the phrase "All supernatural beings are figments of the imagination", even though he regularly spells "whether" as "weather", and can't distinguish the word "its" from "it's". And he's a creationist.So, surely you should be ashamed of yourself if you can't even reach that level. Considering that you think the sun is a watch, I think I may have found out where you get most of your information from: When it rains, is it the Angels in Heaven crying, or just God peeing?

So, you're saying the only way to falsify bluegenes "theory" is to have a real supernatural experience with a supernatural being and be able to prove it? OR it's all just your imagination?Isn't that putting bluegenes ARROGANT statements on a pedistal with the likes of " I know there's a God, prove me wrong that there isn't? If you can't then God is real?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

But wouldn't you take that to be a valid way of thinking if we were talking about anything else?If I present the theory: "There are no pigs with wings", then the only way to falsify it is to find a real pig with wings and prove it. That's what it means to falsify the theory. Well, it's a question of the burden of proof. I think you and I have discussed this before.If one person says: "There are no pigs with wings. Prove me wrong by finding one"; and another person says: "There are pigs with wings. Prove me wrong by examining every pig in the universe and showing that there isn't", then the advantage lies with the first person. You yourself don't regard the two arguments as equally valid, do you?And there is a reason for this. If there really were winged pigs, it would be reasonable to ask to see one; but if there really were no winged pigs it would be unreasonable to ask to see every pig in the universe to check that they were all wingless.All people are doing here is applying the same sort of reasoning to supernatural beings as they do to everything else. If you don't like them doing so, then what does that tell you about supernatural beings? I believe in the existence of giraffes, and if someone held this belief of mine to the same standard I'd have no problem with it. I'd start producing photographs and video and eyewitness accounts. If all else failed, I'd buy them tickets to the zoo. But when the same doubt is raised about supernatural beings you wish to monkey with the burden of proof. Perhaps you should spend a few minutes thinking about why you find this necessary.

Wheather I spell weather/wheather the right way or not or wheather I use its or it's incorrectly at times has no bearing.How's it going with the Invisible\Imperceptible Pink Unicorn (IPU)? As RAZD pointed out Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

No. I'm saying the only way to falsify bluegenes theory is to produce evidence of a supernatural being or the theory is not falsified. This does not mean it definitely is ones imagination, but the theory does predict that the origins of such a belief lie in the human breast. No. It's like science saying 'I have a theory that x is the way y works. It is supported by a set of evidence z. You can prove me wrong by providing q'

Indeed. It is the height of arrogance to criticize an inductive theory without even bothering to find out what that means, and to understand how such things work. I agree. And we all make typos sometimes. I was just laughing at xongsmith and his more important problems with language, which relate to comprehension.Although, it could be said that learning to spell common words in your own language might be a little easier than understanding the subject you've chosen to tackle on this thread. We shall see. Has he found one? That's just RAZD demonstrating that he has no idea what inductive scientific theories and laws are. Several people on this thread have already tried to explain to you what's wrong with this. "Newton, your first task is to show us that your universal laws apply on the far side of the moon. Failure to do so means you lose the debate. Then show us that they work in other galaxies".Do you understand what's wrong with requesting this?Read what I was saying on the thread about Pasteur's Law. If you pointed to a particular rabbit in a field and asked Pasteur to prove that it had been born from other rabbits rather than being conjured out of a real magicians hat, or created individually ex nihilo by a god, he couldn't do it. That's the equivalent of your IP Unicorn request.Rabbits remain the only known source of other rabbits, and human invention remains the only known source of supernatural beings.One thing that might help you is if you stop thinking about the supernatural beings that you yourself believe in. Perhaps that's a version of the Jewish tribal god, and maybe angels, Satan, etc. Also, ignore all the many other gods, whole pantheons, that you must presumably agree are human inventions. I'm not just theorizing about gods.Supernatural beings are any beings who are not constrained by the physical world in the way that we are. So, think of things that you (presumably) don't have an emotional attachment to, like fairies, elves, vampires and werewolves. There are thousands of such concepts in the many different cultures of the world, and some of the concepts are very old; thousands of years old and perhaps more.Yet with all those numbers and all that time, no-one has ever established the existence of one single supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.Think about it. I'd say that when people make the (unsupported) claim that my theory is weak, they do so from personal desire, not from a reasonable assessment of the evidence.And consider that I'm trying to make falsification as easy as possible. Just one little fairy, or any supernatural being of any type will do.Now, do you agree, at least, that human invention is the norm, or do you think that thousands of different supernatural beings actually exist?

Others have addressed the meat of your posts. But I am interested in your attitude to the whole issue: Why is it arrogant and unreasonable to describe "ALL supernatural concepts are sourced from human imagination" as a high confidence theory but not arrogant or unreasonable to describe "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" also as a high confidence theory?Not every supernatural concept has been tested and not every single raindrop has been tested. So why the willingness to accept one theory as perfectly valid whilst reacting so emotively and defensivley to the other?You really really need to stop and think about why it is that you demand such a different standard of evidence the moment the word "supernatural" is mentioned.

So, one little fairy will do? Basically, you are asking for empirical evidence for an actual supernatural being, etc. to falsify a hypothesis based on your "belief" that they don't exist? If you are convinced something does not exist why are you asking for impossible evidence that it does? You shouldn't need it. I mean you have the proof they don't right? Like I said to Modulous, how is this any different than me saying "I know God is real, prove me wrong, God is real because millions of people have had real experiences and have testified to it being true, even journaled it, wrote books on it etc etc."? It appears they have falsified your theory based on these experiences, which is no different than your non-experience. I dont agree. It doesn't matter if 5 trillion supernatural beings exist or wheather or not they are hanging out in my bathroom. That's not the point.The point is, how do we know that these god(s) or supernatural beings are not influencing or directing the experiences people have and has nothing to do with imagination only UNTIL after the experience takes place? All they are doing is writing, talking about what they experienced? (The imagination is a result of experience, just like you would imagine your next house to be based on one you already owned. Would it be reasonable to say "houses are a direct result of human imagination"? No, because people haved owned houses. Well, HOW do you know people have not had experiences? You don't, just like you don't know " the only known source of supernatural beings is the imagination".)I'd say it's as good a hypothesis as yours, and there's more evidence for this than your theory.So, all you have to do to falsify my theory is simply prove that every experience anyone ever claimed to be supernatural was a direct result of their imagination, if you can't prove every one then you can't falsify my theory. All it takes is one persons experience to be true for my theory to be right. Better get going...Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : changed "hypothesis than yours" to " hypothesis as yours"

If I start a thread on this will you agree to take part and to provide this evidence?