Peanut Gallery

If Buz, ICANT and Chuck actually get into an extended discussion, then I'm in heaven!--Percy

Well, I get to use RAZD's comments to defend myself. This outta be easy. I'll start with bluegenes first: Ok, the goal is set. Ok, now for the theory (which curiously, turned into an hypothesis) That's from message three. It's a pretty far cry from His original "high" confidence "theory". He goes on: Evolution? Now he's comparing his "theory" to the TOE? Goodness gracious. Yes, proving bluegenes' theory(which we don't even know yet) wrong is like debunking the TOE. Such arrogance, it's comical. I may be reading the wrong thread I submit, but wasn't it bluegenes that said he had a "strong" High" confidence "theory" that supernatural being do not exist? ALL RAZD is trying to do(patiently) is get that "theory" out of bluegrass, and all we get is: Wow, in the very next sentance after claiming to have a theory(which he still hasn't provided) he now WANTS RAZD to show positive proof of supernatural beings??? WHY, so he can say "SEE RAZD you can't do it" Which WAS NOT the original topic. The point here in the debate is FOR bluegenes to show HOW his theory disproves ANY supernatural beings. If he has a theory, then he already has positive proof they exist(right?) or what good is a "strong high confidence theory" trying to disprove?bluegrass is switching the goalposts 2 minutes into the debate and asking RAZD for positive proof of the supernatural to which bluegenes will try to debunk AFTER RAZD complies(sort of a "strong high confidence theory on the go"). RAZD hasn't complied( but in his graciousness has logically provided that they could, or in the very least that you can't disprove that they don't, which is the point, which bluegenes can't comprehend) because well, quite frankly, he doesnt have TO! He wasn't the one claiming they existed, bluegenes was the one claiming he had a THEORY that they didnt.Im not going to debate the whole thing over for people. Go read it. RAZD is pummeling this poor lad and the refs aren't stepping in. (so far)ps: Messages 42(by bluegenes) and 43(by RAZD) is a good start if you don't want to start at the beggining( for anyone who wasn't already following along) In message 42 it's clearly shown bluegenes doesn't have a theory and his hypothesis isn't supported by any evidence. In Message 43 RAZD simply points it out.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Thanks for that I was going to say that you must have had the participants reversed and this proves that I was correct. RAZD is the one taking an unreasonable position, not bluegenes.It's pretty well-known that the IPU was made-up, just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and I assure you that RAZD believes it). And we know why they were both made up - to point out that if you can argue for the existence of God you can also argue for the existence of more obviously silly beings.

It appears that that you are unable to grasp the difference between the two either.What is it with believers and this bewildering obsession with absolutely proving and disproving things?

Man, you guys really just don't get it. When someone (i.e. bluegenes) makes a claim that he does in fact have a "strong" theory that disproves supernatural beings DO NOT exist and someone (RAZD) takes the CHALLENGE to try and DISPROVE what the other person is asserting in his "theory" it is bluegenes job to support the theory with evidence for which HE has stated NOT RAZD's responsibilty to refute straw man arguments.It is NOT RAZD's responsibility to do anything OTHER than try to disprove bluegenes's (supposed theory/hypothesis). Thats it. bluegenes is passing the responsibilty to RAZD asking him to disprove his wild assertions while constantly building straw man arguments. FINE, simply say "I have no theory or hypothesis that supports my assertion and lets start a new debate about weather or not you can prove supernatural beings exist.". Which RAZD has already proved COULD be a possibility logically speaking but doesn't know, nor claim to have a theory to support it,( which is what bluegenes claimed, only the opposite) EVEN tho he didn't HAVE TO. RAZD has been dragged all over the place and forced to comply with bluegenes absurd notions while He consistantly goes wildly off topic, changing the goal posts every quarter and diverting away from his original argument. It was RADZ'z FIRST comment that bluegenes couldn't handle, and he never rebounded.I don't think people fully appreciate what RAZD's has had to put up with here. He is proving that all of bluegenes arguments are logical fallacies while at the SAME time proving that whatever theory/hypothesis bluegenes COULD have come up with would not pass as a scientific theory OR can be supported by any evidence for which he has a hypothesis for ANYWAY.( it was later changed to coming up with a hypothesis and not a theory, curiously). Even tho bluegenes didn't deserve that type of respect, RAZD gave it to him anyway.In essence, RAZD is simply giving bluegenes the benefit of the doubt over and over and over that eventually he will come up with something to support what he ORIGINALLY said and at the same time proving whatever it was ( no one knows) would be disproved anyway. This debate was over on page one. RAZD simply offered bluegenes the benefit of the doubt that eventually he would get around to presenting his argument in the way he claimed he would, which hasn't happened.What is so hard to understand?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

The theory is that all supernatural being concepts are products of the human imagination. Did you miss my post where I pointed this out that you felt the need to repeat the charge? Did you forget that you had already quoted it? Because showing positive proof of a supernatural being is required to falsify the theory. The only legitimate reason for mentioning specific supernatural beings such as the IPU is if they are being presented as falsification of the theory. Otherwise, what is the point of bringing it up? bluegenes has not made a claim that he has a theory that disproves suparnatural beings exist.He has made a claim that the only known source of supernatural beings is the human imagination and that by using inductive reasoning this can lead from the specific known cases to the general statement that all supernatural beings have their origins in the human mind. And RAZD has not provided any evidence to suggest that we know of another source. He has been unable to falsify bluegenes' theory. Are you able to put bluegenes' argument in your own words?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I guess that you just don't get it. RAZD starts using logical fallacies in the first post - while falsely accusing bluegenes of having done so. While I wouldn't go to the lengths of describing bluegene's proposal as a theory, it is quite clear that RAZD is the chief abuser.Can you name one single scientific theory that has been absolutely proven in every single conceivable case ? Because that is what RAZD demands right upfront. You admit that RAZD has the responsibility to disprove bluegene's claim. But right in the first post he tries to duck that responsibility by demanding unreasonable and unrealistic standards of proof: In fact this is clearly false. To disprove bluegene's claim, RAZD has to produce a valid counter-example. He clearly shirks that responsibility.

This is precisely backwards, I would say. The burden of evidence is always on those who propose the existence of supernatural entities, not on those who suggest that they probably don't exist. RAZD's argument relies on the assumption that only the existence of supernatural entities explains the widespread belief that supernatural entities exist. But bluegenes has done yeomans' work providing a more reasonable alternate explanation - they're just made up. And how do we know that they can be made-up?Because bluegenes has demonstrated that they can be made-up by making some up. RAZD's counter-argument that bluegenes has to somehow demonstrate evidence that he really did make it up and didn't just identify an existing supernatural being by accident is an absurdity. Only an idiot thinks it works like that.

I would suggest that it is you who doesn't get the difference between proof and evidence based conclusions.I suggest that you read the opening post of this linked to thread and pursue your line of reasoning there: Inductive AtheismSee message 1140 above (again)Edited by Straggler, : Fix link

I don't need to put bluegenes argument into my own words, simply because it isn't an argument he's presenting. It's wishful thinking. I think RAZD did just fine here: It seems pretty clear that RAZD's is not the one who bears the burden of proof. He didn't make the claim NOR did he say supernatural beings existed. He simply took the challenge that bluegenes offered and quickly found out the bluegenes in FACT did not have a funtional working hypothesis that was supported by any evidence let alone a "strong" theory, for which he said he did. RAZD points out what he needs to do: That's only of the claims bluegenes made, the rest are briefly:" The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings", " this is a strong theory", " A high level of confidence theory".Im still not sure how it's RAZD's responsibility do anything other than refute this claim made by bluegenes and not try to get into a debate using circular logic, which bluegenes has done so well. The TOE is a falisifiable theory. Why bluegenes would use that as an example to his own (whatever it is) is unknown.

Straggler, Modulous and PaulK. All three of you are arguining in favor of what you pounce on Creationists for. Basically using the Bible to prove the Bible is true. It's the same logic here. Bluegenes is doing the SAME exact thing that you argue against when it comes to Creationist tactics.Curioulsy, here tho for some reason, it doesn't bother you.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

See Message 491 in the Inductive Atheism thread.

Sure. You have the a)clouds, b) can visibly see water falling from them,c) make predictions based on observing said clouds. It's very strong. No one would argue against it. It's good Science.Your response would be "great, well now were on the same page. In order for it to be a theory you don't have to disprove angels piss"Now, back to the real matter at hand.bluegenes "theory/hypothesis" (philosophy). He is claiming that :A) "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".B)" The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ..."To predict this assumption, what test would you use?When a Creationist states " The God of the Bible is real, I know he is, He's not a figment of my imagination" you would simply ask " what empirical evidence do you have to support such a claim?" Right? If he were to say "the Bible" you would point out the Bible cannot prove the Bible. Im even going much further using the Bible as evidence compared to what bluegenes has done. (Im giving him more credit than he deserves by even using this illistration, atleast the Bible is a piece of evidence, regardless of the outcome, or weather it's reliable to even use as evidence, it's more than bluegenes has produced in comparison with his theory). You would claim circular reasoning. Yet, bluegenes states "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination". He backs that claim up with " He claimed a "strong theory" and immediatly turns the tables on RAZD. bluegens needs to produce a theory that can prove what he said with evidence to back it up. When I make a claim the Bible proves the existance of God and then were to say to you, show some positive proof it doesn't, you would surley say the burden of proof is on me. Yet, All bluegenes has done is (again) compare his "theory" to the TOE as it is at all comparable. He cannot make such a claim just as I cannot make such a claim according to the Bible. Just because I say it's true doesnt make it true. Just as bluegens says " The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ..." doesnt make it true, where's the evidence supporting his claim? How does he know there aren't other ways to discover supernatural beings? What's his test to predict this?If he's so "confident" his assumption is true why hasn't he provided anything other than logical fallacys and wishful thinking?He has to demonstrate that there is NO other way for supernatual beings to exist other than the imagination. Im not sure how in the world he can. How would he test such a thing? How could a human being know such a thing? It's the same as me saying I "know" God exists. Again, you would call out on it to prove my claim, and rightly so. In essence, he WOULD have to be a god, to claim such a thing. Maybe he is, after all.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

OK, but unless you can put his 'wishful thinking' into your own words I can only suspect that you don't understand it and I am in no position to explain what it is that you have misunderstood. This makes discussion very difficult. I've not suggested otherwise. There is a phenomena that needs explanation, the conception of supernatural beings. There are at least two possibilities. One is that the conception is the source of those beings. Another is that some supernatural being concepts derive from experience with actual supernatural beings.Bluegenes simply needs to point out that every single time the source has ever been identified, it is the human mind. From this observation an inductive leap can be made from the specific known examples to a general theory of all examples.In order to show the induction to be false, a single counter-example is all that is required. 'All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination' was not a claim, it was the theory. You seem to be getting confused like
RAZD has between a theory and factual claim. The theory is a general principle derived from specific examples. If you wish to assert that there are other known sources of supernatural beings, you need to show evidence that this is true. The only source that I know of is the human mind.Do you accept that the only known source of supernatural beings is in the human mind? If you do not, what is the other known source? That's right, RAZD needs to refute the evidence which is that the only known source of supernatural beings is the human mind and that the human mind has a promiscuous tendency for creating supernatural creatures. Which he has failed to do. This failure is evidence that the only known source is the human imagination, because if anyone could do it, RAZD could. This means the induction survives. Could you get any more vague?What is it that bluegenes is doing exactly that is like what creationists are doing? What is it that I have done, that reminds of you of creationists? Which holy book are we using as proof that there are no supernatural beings? Surely RAZD's unfalsifiable 'Hindu Hypothesis' is closer to the argument that creationists use?You've accused us of circularity. How is it circular to do the following:All known sources of supernatural beings have turned out to be the human imagination along with its tendency towards creating such minimally counter-intuitive entities coupled with their hyper-active agency detection tendencies. Therefore, by induction, it is an unfalsified theory that all such beings are products of the human mind. IF someone where to produce evidence of such a being the theory is false.So pony up, lose the vague criticisms and get specific.

quote:

---

Straggler, Modulous and PaulK. All three of you are arguining in favor of what you pounce on Creationists for. Basically using the Bible to prove the Bible is true. It's the same logic here. Bluegenes is doing the SAME exact thing that you argue against when it comes to Creationist tactics.

---

You made the claim now you have to support it.You might like to consider the fact that you were wrong in your assessment of the debate, that RAZD started out by demanding a grossly unreasonable level of proof, and I demonstrated it by quoting RAZD himself. In contrast you rely almost entirely on RAZD's assessment of the debate without considering his obvious bias. You need to show that bluegene's really is arguing in this way - and that I support it - instead of relying on "RAZD says so".And let me ask you a question. If bluegene's case is so weak, why does RAZD make such an obvious attempt to rig the debate against him in the very first post ?