Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Hi, Straggler. This is not true.I have only invalidated hypotheses that explicitly include the claim that untestable alternatives are categorically false.Real scientific theories do not include this claim. Bluegenes’ "theory" does.-----I will explain this in detail, using a different approach from one I've used before. This is just for thoroughness.Any data set of notable size will include some data points that do not fit well with the rest of the data: outliers. Ecological data sets, such as I am accustomed to working with, often contain very many outliers.When creating scientific theories, outliers are ruled out as aberrant data points, and no attempt is made to explain them scientifically.This is perfectly normal and statistically defensible, because if only a small percentage of data points defy the model, the model is still a good and useful approximation of the data set as a whole.Scientific theories do not claim to explain outlying data points (in fact, the tests used clearly conclude that the theory cannot explain these points: that’s what makes them outliers). We generally just chalk these up to stochastic factors, and leave it at that.If these outliers are due to supernatural causes, it doesn’t matter, for two reasons: (1) because the model still explains most of the data, which means we can be confident that the model is pretty damn good; and (2) because no scientific theory includes the clause that supernatural factors cannot explain the few outliers in the data set.That is, of course, except for Bluegenes’ theory. Bluegenes’ theory is explicitly a statement that there will be no outliers to the model. It claims that something untestable is never correct.This problem is compounded by the fact that any data supporting the alternative view cannot be confidently determined as such, which means that they cannot be included from the data set. The aggregate result of this is that the only data points that can be included in analyses are data points that support the theory that is purportedly being testing. This obviously means that the test can only return an answer that is consistent with the theory it is supposed to by testing.So, in summary, we can't have confidence in any theory that claims that something untestable does not exist.But, we can have confidence in mainstream scientific theories, because they don’t claim that untestable things do not exist.

---

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

Bluejay, perhaps you can explain a bit more.By my understanding Bluegene's theory is that all Gods are in fact imaginary. This is not a claim about data, it is a claim about the explanation of the data. An outlier would simply be data that did not clearly fit the theory, but should not be regarded as falsifying it. Generally outliers are taken as problems with the data, not the theory.So it is far from clear to me that Bluegene's theory says that there should be no outliers any more than any scientific theory does. I'm not aware of any reason to think that it says that the data should be perfect. Can you explain why you think that Bluegene's theory rules out the possibility of outliers ?

Then you have completely misunderstood bluegenes whole argument. You are making the same persistent mistake that RAZD does of conflating the phraseology of theories with statements of fact.The theory that "All supernatural beings are products of human imagination" is a theory in exactly the same way that "All filament bulbs produce light and heat by means of electrical resistance" is a theory.In neither case is anybody stating that these are certainly true. If they were they wouldn't be called theories now would they? Nor, in either case, is anybody denying the possibility of an unevidenced supernatural cause of the phenomenon in question.In both cases a well evidenced naturalistic explanation has been put forward to explain an observed phenomenon. This is what science does. And in doing so, by the terms of your own arguments, any advocacy of supernatural causes for the phenomenon in question is both unwarranted and irrelevant to the confidence we can have in that naturalistic explanation. So we cannot say that supernatural causes of light and heat in filament bulbs are impossible. But we can confidently ignore such possibilities as unlikely to the point of irrelevant because we have a well evidenced naturalistic explanation for that phenomenon in place.Likewise with the source of supernatural concepts. For every evidenced naturalistic explanation for any phenomenon you can name I can posit an unevidenced and unfalsifiable alternative supernatural cause. But by the terms of your own arguments this has no effect on our confidence in the evidenced naturalistic explanation.The human imagination is a well evidenced naturalistic explanation for the origin of supernatural concepts.So why is the possibility of a supernatural cause relevant to our confidence in this naturalistic explanation but no other?This is nothing more than special pleading.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I like to summarise it with a nice cartoon I came across:

Hi, Straggler. Nonsense. I’m not talking about the tentativity of his theory: I’m talking about the claimed scope of his theory. A universal claim---even a tentative universal claim---is not a scientific theory.If, by, All gods* are made up by humans, what Bluegenes really means is just, Humans make up gods, then I suppose you’d be right that his theory is logically identical to all other scientific theories, and that we can have confidence in it. Clearly, though, in this non-universal form, his theory is entirely different from it’s universal form. *I’m going to use the word god from here on, instead of supernatural being, because it’s easier and less awkward to write. Please note that I am not trying to change the substance of the theory by altering the wording.This is not the case for real scientific theories.Look at natural selection. Any data set collected for natural selection has random noise, outliers and/or aberrant data points. But, the fact that natural selection can run into data that it could theoretically explain, but fails to explain in reality, does not utterly destroy the theory of natural selection. Natural selection coexists perfectly fine with genetic drift and sexual selection, and would still coexist perfectly fine with, But God put a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian.Look at the Biogenetic Law. All life from an egg is obviously not entirely true, but Biogenesis still coexists just fine with Abiogenesis, and would also coexist just fine with human-designed organisms or with, But God created Opabinia.Look at relativity. We’ve run into a number of data points that have unequivocally demonstrated themselves to be unexplainable by the current model, but relativity still coexists just fine with these singularities, and would also coexist just fine with, And God is responsible for these singularities.Now, look at Bluegenes’ theory. If there were one aberrant data point, one outlier, then the theory could not be recovered in any recognizable form. It will have completely lost its power. It cannot coexist just fine with, But Zeus is real.This is the difference between Blugenes’ theory and real scientific theories. It is wholly dependent on its own universality. Proposing universality, even proposing it tentatively, is not what scientific theories do, and is not what is required of scientific theories to do. Scientific theories are not about accounting for all the data: they are about identifying real mechanisms and processes. But, Bluegenes’ theory is explicitly about accounting for all the data.If you can’t see this, then I don’t know what else I can say to you.Edited by Bluejay, : "and/or" instead of "and"Edited by Bluejay, : added "though," in the second paragraph

---

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

The tentative statement that All gods are the product of human imagination is no different from tentatively saying that All species on Earth are the result of natural selection or tentatively saying that All filament bulbs produce light and heat by means of electrical resistance.The only difference between any of these three is that you have a personal bias against one of them. OK. Hold that thought. Now let's consider the issue of "universality" that you are having such a problem with.We can legitimately have confidence beyond the known fact that humans invent gods. As the only known (and highly evidenced) source of such concepts we can justifiably have confidence in human imagination as able to account for ALL god concepts.Just as we can have high confidence in natural selection as able to account for ALL species on Earth.
Just as we can have high confidence in electrical resistance as able to account for the light and heat produced by ALL filament bulbs.The fact that some god concepts might possibly be derived from the actual existence of the supernatural is no more relevant to our confidence in the human imagination theory than the fact that some supernatural selection might possibly have taken place is to the theory of evolution by natural selection.The fact that some god concepts might possiblybe derived from the actual existence of the supernatural is no more relevant to our confidence in the human imagination theory than the fact that some filament bulbs might possibly be powered by supernatural means is to the electrical resistance theory.Such unevidenced considerations are unfalsifiable and thus logically possible. But we don’t have a single damn reason to give them any credence at all. And that applies equally to all three examples mentioned.If you are going to special plead that it applies only to some but not others you need to explicitly explain why this is justified. No more or less so than evolution can cope with rabbits in the pre-cambrian. Or with the discovery of a single filament bulb powered by some other means. It casts doubts on the universality of the theory as a whole but the human imagination still remains perfectly able to account for all other god concepts.Why do you think it is so fundamentally different?Edited by Straggler, : Outliers

Bailey
I have finally worked out what the hell you are talking about. And in doing so I can see why your thinking is so confused.You think that because out of ignorance someone can look at a fire and conclude that is supernatural whilst another person will look at an eclipse and out of a different form of ignorance conclude that is supernatural — That the term supernatural refers directly to whatever phenomenon one is personally unable to explain. On the basis that a disparate array of phenomenon have at one time or another been labelled as supernatural you thus conclude that the term has no defined meaning whatsoever.Is that right? If so the following is why you are wrong.The term supernatural is an adjective. Not a noun. The fact that it has been applied to a wide range of nouns (fire, eclipse etc.) no more makes it objectively meaningless than the fact that red can be applied to books, toasters, apples or windmills results in the term red being meaningless.When we describe something as supernatural we mean that it is inherently materially inexplicable because it is neither derived from nor subject to the laws of nature. Now the fact that people have (and do) apply this adjective erroneously to things which it later turns out are perfectly explicable in natural terms does not make the term meaningless or devoid of common conceptual content. The fact that it is highly improbable that anything genuinely supernatural actually exists does not make the term meaningless or devoid of common conceptual content. It is a descriptive term. One that that is all too often applied erroneously as the result of ignorance I agree. But that does not mean the term itself has no meaning.. The phenomenon may change but the attributes believers imbue these with can be meaningfully called "supernatural.Without wanting to get too grammatically pedantic on your arse — Basically you are conflating nouns (fire, eclipse etc.) with the adjective (i.e. supernatural) used to describe (correctly or otherwise) the attributes of those nouns.

I guess this is where we strongly disagree. How can you come to the assumtion that something which is not derived from or subject to natural law can logically exists?Show me how you reached that conclusion...using what as evidence? Just saying it doesn't help me understand why you're saying that. So can you elaborate more, please... Where do you get your logic from if not some kind of evidence? I get that aspect of the common definition of the word, but it can then be ascribed to anything anyone feels violates natural law - as though something can do that.In the end, it ends up, whatever the phenomenon was, explained by natural means, historically, and the word shipped off to another question for which an answer is not yet conclusive.In this sense is how and why I see the word meaning nothing. I await the answers to the above questions before I accept that my premise is false. Just saying it is doesn't make it so.- Oni

I think so. Message 388 and upthread for reference Are you denying that it possibly can? Why does evidence have to do with the logical possibility of something existing? Unless you are saying that nothing currently un-evidenced can possibly logically exist? Well by your premise anything which exists is natural by definition. But if (for example) a genuinely divine and miraculous Jesus (not derived from or subject to natural laws) does exist he is not natural is he?So either you are saying such a being is logically impossible (unjustified) or your premise is false. It is an adjective. It can (erroneously or otherwise) be applied to describe nouns. That it can be applied to many different nouns has no bearing on it's conceptual meaningfulness as an adjective. Are you saying it is impossible that anything genuinely miraculous can possibly exist? If you define it out of existence - Either on the basis of a false premise or the unjustifiable assertion that some things are logically impossible - Then you will indeed render the term meaningless.But not justifiably so.

I'm questioning why it is even suggested.For me to make a decision on whether or not it is plausible, I would have to know that there is even a question to answer. I did ask the question in the post, how can you come to a logical conclusion about something without some kind of evidence? How can something exist and not be subject to natural law, how can anyone even suggest that? I am saying that there are many things that can happen that can seem to fit the common use of the word, but in an of itself miraculous is nonsense. All it means is that you/they/somone didn't understand it.You seem to be suggesting that there is something unambiguously supernatural by definition, AND THEN, there is something called supernatural but ends up being natural.If this is your position and I've understood it properly, how do you make the distinction?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi, Straggler. But, the theory of natural selection does not say this.And, in fact, evolutionary biology does not conclude this, either. Not all of the data is explained by natural selection, and there is no theory that claims that all the data is explained by natural selection.The actual claims of the theory of natural selection are not parallel to the universal claims of Bluegenes’ imaginary-gods theory or your light bulb theory.Why is it that you can’t grasp this?----- Do you understand what the word confidence means in relation to hypotheses and statistics?
You are using it in a much more general and non-rigorous way than it is actually used in relation to scientific hypotheses and theories.The confidence you would have in the theory that supernatural things are invented by humans is not the same thing as the confidence you would have that that theory can account for all the data.I’m going to call them -confidence and -confidence. -confidence:Your confidence in the human invention theory is based on the statistical methodology called hypothesis testing: evidence is gathered, and the probability that patterns in the evidence actually represent genuine deviations from a null model is calculated. -confidence can be quantified and expressed as a percentage (95% is the generally-accepted cut-off point).Hypotheses that pass this kind of testing can eventually grow up to be theories. -confidence:Your confidence in the full accountability claim is not based on hypothesis testing (which also means the claim is not a theory): it is based on a zero-one rule. This means the claim either meets the criteria for -confidence, or it doesn’t: it cannot be quantified. Either an alternative explanation has be found for some of the data, or it hasn’t.This means that -confidence is entirely independent of the strength of the evidence for the one existing theory, because it isn’t based on that evidence, but on the lack of evidence for something else. So, a theory based on 8 data points can be assigned just as much -confidence as a theory with 17,843 data points, so long as no alternatives explain any of the data.This means that -confidence in a brand-new theory, for which no alternatives have yet been conceived, is exactly identical to -confidence in an old theory for which several alternatives have been proposed, but discredited.So, contrary to your claims, adding evidence to the human invention theory does not improve confidence in the full accountability of the human invention theory. Thus, the confidence you can reasonable have in this claim is not the same as the confidence required for a scientific theory.So, I still reject your claim that you can have confidence in the ability of a theory to account for all the data. Any confidence that you can have is not quantifiable and has nothing to do with scientific theories.----- I have provided at least three different explanations for this now. Your response so far has been to pretty much ignore them all and explain for me the same process of reasoning that you posted in your very first post to RAZD about the subject of the supernatural.The reasoning you are using is not quantifiable, not rigorous, and not scientific, so I still reject your contention that it counts as anything more than a practical heuristic.

---

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

You're ahead of RAZD, but I'll explain how I've done this.You've read about the creation stories I've mentioned. Here's how to do a "Fisherian" statistical test on them in relation to my theory.We take the bluegenes "they are human inventions/figments of our imagination" hypothesis as the null hypothesis. Then, if you want to use an alternative hypothesis, the most challenging is probably "one or more of them is true".Then we take 100 of the stories, and examine each one in relation to our modern scientific knowledge in areas like cosmology, geology and biology.The result, I can tell you, is that all the stories are demonstrably false, and the null hypothesis passes with 100% score on that particular test, indicating high confidence.On your other point. There was nothing wrong with cell theory when it was first stated as universal. Its future could not be predicted, but it has no problem adapting to the few exceptions made.It was based on good observations, and could afford to be brash.My theory is the same. Speculating as to whether an adjusted version would arise if it were falsified in its present state is irrelevant at this point. It would become relevant when and if the existence of something that can be described as a supernatural being is verified beyond all reasonable doubt.BTW, your alternative "humans invent gods" is a verifiable fact, and even if it weren't, couldn't be a scientific theory because it would be unfalsifiable (who could demonstrate that no human ever invented a god?).Also, I must say, that you're demonstrating in a few posts a far more concise and comprehensible criticism of the theory than RAZD seems to manage in a book's worth of words, even though I disagree with you entirely!

Hi stragg - all the best to you & yours .. I appreciate the compliment, however the possiblity remains there's a more obvious reason for your lack of comprehension ..Regardless, I'll try to tone it down to a more pithy approach that better satisfies the apparent needs¹ of your intellect and wit. This is a good thing, as I've yet² to state they do.That said, which part of 'I don't.' (Message 152, Message 163, etc.) are you unable to comprehend in such a lengthy, rambling two word response? What I think the term means is irrelevant³.You've already demonstrated in this thread that it means whatever you need it to. Why should one believe you that a god is necessarily underived from, nor subjectable to, extant natural laws.Because you have the universe mapped out in its entirety or simply because creationists may support you? Why are you moving the goal posts? In your last reaction you claimed .. In this statement you made a strong appeal to creation science, so let's deal with one blasphemy at a time.Do you still feel creationism provides 'supernatural explanations'? If so, why? If not, why not? Again, I've yet to state 'they would they require a supernatural explanation'. The better question may be, why do you feel they don't?Can you respond to that honestly without answering a question with another question? So, a god must necessarily provide the 'spark o' life' outside of a naturalistic framework because a god is necessarily unsubjectable to known natural laws?This appears to be circular reasoning at its finest - you provide an unevidenced assertion to support your unfalsifiable assumption.In other words, 'because these tenets best support the framework of my forced atheological rhetoric' - why didn't you just say that? So close, yet so far away ..More simply, I'm suggesting you require the concept of 'supernatural explanations' when you're personally unaware of natural ones.Indeed, that's likely the only reason anyone would attempt such a thing within the confines of rational scientific discourse.One Love ¹ ~ I kid, I kid ² ~ Article 1 (Message 137) was presented as an example of a phenomena that evades a definitive natural context and as a satirical exercise in thought - it's good to stay in shape.³ ~ I'd suggest the concept of 'supernatural' is best represented as some order of existence beyond the small portion of the universe that has a veritable scientific framework; perhaps even a departation from what's usually expected, which may appear to transcend the boundaries of our known natural laws. Edited by Bailey, : sp.

---

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

RAZD seems to be under the bewildering misapprehension that citing unfalsifiable supernatural alternative explanations to evidenced naturalistic theories invalidates them. And you (at least did) seem to agree with him to some extent. If (for example) a chimp colony genetically modified by humans for increased intelligence started displaying primitive theistic tendencies this would obviously render the universal form of bluegenes theory All god concepts are the products of human imagination to be false in the same way that All species on Earth are the result of evolution by means of natural selection can be rendered false by species that are developed in a lab.But in both cases these would be exceptions that have little bearing on the validity of the over-arching theory in question.It is the ability to provide an evidenced naturalistic explanation for an observed phenomenon that can be verified by prediction which is what we are talking about here. Well why don’t you explain how your statistical analysis was applied to the specific example of the Big Bang hypothesis such that it has rightfully achieved the status of high confidence. High confidence that ultimately arose as a result of the discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation.Can you make clear what the null hypothesis was, what statistical data was analysed and how the hypothesis met the requirements of high confidence based on this statistical methodology.

Because it is not impossible. Therefore it must be considered possible. Your premise denies even this possibility and is thus invalid. All that is required of a logical possibility is that it is not internally contradictory. A square cannot be a circle. An omniscient being cannot be ignorant of it’s omniscience. These things are self contradictory and thus logically impossible. The existence of something which is neither derived from nor subject to natural laws is NOT logically impossible. Therefore it must be considered logically possible. No matter how unevidenced or unlikely we may deem it to be. Humans have a long record of erroneously believing that perfectly natural things are genuinely inexplicable in natural terms. This does not in itself preclude the possibility that there are things which are genuinely supernatural (this remains logically possible) but it does add weight to the argument that the whole idea of things which are not subject to natural laws of any sort is a human fiction. Plausibility has nothing to do with possibility. As you well know I think the actual existence of a divine and miraculous Christ is deeply implausible. But it is not impossible. Thus you cannot define it to be so. Which is what your false premise unjustifiably does. This is my position step by step. Tell me where you think it is wrong:

That which is possible is not restricted to that which is currently evidenced.

The actual existence of the genuinely supernatural (e.g. a genuinely divine and miraculous Christ who is neither derived from nor subject to laws of nature) is a possibility.

Your premise defines that which actually exists as being necessarily natural.

Should this genuinely supernatural entity (e.g. Christ as above) actually exist, by the terms of your premise, it would be natural.

Something cannot be both natural and supernatural simultaneously. This is a logical contradiction.

Thus your premise is necessarily false.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.