Inductive Atheism

We have a plethora of supernatural concepts. We have a multiplicity of concepts whose source of origin is known to be human imagination beyond all reasonable doubt. This includes intended to be fictional entites such as Casper the ghost, Bram Stoker's Dracula and the supernatural cast of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It also includes specific concepts which conflict with scientific peer reviewed conclusions in areas such as evolutionary biology, fertility, meteorology, cosmology etc. etc. etc. This includes a truly vast array of historical but effectively refuted gods such as Thor. We also have some supernatural concepts whose source of origin is strictly unknown.Based both on inductive reasoning and on the wealth of evidence to suggest that humans invent such concepts for a variety of human reasons that have nothing to do with veracity - We tentatively conclude that ALL supernatural concepts are sourced from human imagination. Bluegenes theory inductivley and (thus) tentativley concludes that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination. The basis of this conclusion is summised above. Which part of the above do you think doesn't apply directly to the concept of Jesus Christ the miracle capable, born of a virgin, son of God?Or the IPU?

What might you list here for some of these? These are the interesting ones, because they provide the opportunity to test bluegenes' theory. I'd have some obvious usual suspects, like Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha.... Yes...just a restatement of bluegenes' stuff. It applies. Why are you asking me this?I'm talking about the investigation of whether bluegenes' prediction, that, when the source of the Jesus story is known, it will be human imagination - that the prediction will be affirmed. We have some cases already where this has been determined. We are interested in them because they could show the techniques, the tools of the laboratory if you will, of how to go about getting the source known. They may be helpful in that regard. We want to confirm or falsify the theory in this instance. Currently the source is not known. We may have suspicions that may be similar to the whispered secret around the room game, starting with something very unusual but not supernatural, working its way around through imperfectly copied versions, until we get to what we see today. But suspicions are not evidence. There are qualified archeologists still out there trying to gather the best evidence they can, such as it is. They are getting their hands dirty. Ah well. This should be far easier to investigate than the Jesus story. For one thing, I don't think we'd need any archeologists. Maybe some garbologists to dive through some very old trash?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

So EVC now has a theory using inductive reasoning to debunk the supernatural, by infering anything supernatural is a product of the human imagination and therefore does not exist.
Going on to define the supernatual as not derived from the natural world and inexplicable.By defining the supernatural as not being natural, by default the supernatural does not exist by this definition. Since the very word Supernatural means just that.
But if the supernatural is a product of the human imagination then it is a natural part of the universe, since the human mind is also a natural part of the universe.
The human mind also derives other inexplicible concepts such as ideas. Is an idea real? Does it exist?
Just a thought.

I know how much you like argument by story. So here is one. One of my college lecturers had a lucrative sideline. He used to assess patent requests for perpetual motion machines. This basically involved him sitting in his armchair and scribbling in the margins of the design document as to where the design in question violated the second law of thermodynamics. He didn’t need to repeatedly re-establish the second law of thermodynamics. The groundwork had been done. If the hands of some are not as dirty as you seem to expect it is only because they are standing on the shoulders of those whose hands are very dirty indeed. I have repeatedly explained to you (in the Peanut Gallery thread) why it is that any concept pertaining to an inherently empirically undetectable entity that is unable to be perceived is going to have it’s origins in human imagination (regardless of whether the entity in question actually exists or not). But if you think the origin of the Immaterial Pink Unicorn concept specifically is able to be ascertained in some other way as well then be my guest to research this. But just be aware it really isn’t necessary. The most common method of refuting a specific god concept as real is to fill the gap in human knowledge that the concept in question fills. The concept of Thor has been refuted beyond all reasonable doubt through our understanding of weather and meteorological phenomena. Likewise Scarab the godly dung beetle who drags the Sun across the sky and Apollo with his flaming chariot. I previously gave you several lists of supernatural concepts that have been refuted in this manner. But there are other methods. Mutual exclusivity is one. And in relation to something like Jesus archaeological or historical evidence would I suppose be the best bet. But as with any scientific theory proving every conceivable case is entirely unnecessary.But if you want a little project I suggest you investigate the source of the Easter Bunny. This is a specific concept which RAZD has suggested belief in the non-existence of as being evidentially invalid and pseudoskeptical. We look forward to your report back of your findings.

In your own roundabout way you seem to have come to the realisation that there is a perfectly valid naturalistic explanation for the existence of supernatural being concepts. Well done.

From the Peanut Gallery: So if we assume that god exists AND we assume that god is empirically detectable AND we assume that god will be perceived completely differently by different cultures - THEN we have an explanation for the mutually exclusive god concepts in existence. There are a number of problems with this:

The individual god concepts created by different cultures are still themselves human inventions.

Mutual exclusivity is resolved by inventing an ambiguous but empirically detectable god concept as the source of all the others. Is RAZD inventing yet another all-encompassing god concept really an answer to a theory about humans inventing god concepts?

That is a lot of highly dubious assumptions.

(**Bump for Xongsmith**)Where do you stand on the Hindu elephant hypothesis?

5.7 dawkins. Very much doubt. I leave a glimmer of a possibility, but currently am choosing to live my life as if there was nothing there.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Well you just described a 6 on the Dawkins scale. So why the 0.3 reduction? Other than to keep you out of conflict with your old mate. Why not just make it 5.99 and be really obvious about it? Edited by Straggler, : Add scale

Because 57 is his favorite number from a long time ago (early 60's).BTW, he aint an old mate - he's actually my brother.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Ahhhhhaa. It all makes sense now. I had seen you call him brother before but assumed you meant this in the more colloquial sense rather than referring to the bilogical relationship.Christ - Christmas with you two must be a right bundle of laughs!!!

OK I will ask it here instead then (you didn't think I would be so easily silenced did you RAZ? - surely you know me better than that by now)I am still following your Great Debate with Bluegenes and you appear to be getting more and more hysterical and making less and less sense. You ignored my question posted in the Peanut Gallery thread but it appears to have become even more relevant to your seemingly incoherent arguments in the Great debate thread. So I am gonna ask it again while I can see you are online.
In Message 127 you say: So here I am asking you. Can you explain how this objective empirical evidence doesn't falsify the existence of the very specific supernatural concept that is the YEC god who formed the universe less than 10,000 years ago, formed humans from dirt, caused a global flood and all the rest of it?The specific concept of God that millions of people actually believe in. Not some more reasonable variant. But that specific concept. How can you possibly claim that the evidence doesn't falsify this particular concept of God?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I a copying this Message 1067 to this thread. I will answer it here.

No. The theory is, essentially, that at present we cannot distinguish between supernatural beings and supernatural being-concepts. So I use them interchangeably. We need to establish the existence of just one SB that exists for real outside our minds to change this.With horses, for example, which have an observable existence outside our minds, we can distinguish, and we can also see that the real external horses are the origin of our horse concepts. FigmentFigments are things that exist only in our minds. A scientific theory is a construct of the mind, but relates to external reality, although it's not an externally real thing. "Necessarily" is maybe not the best word to use when we're talking about theories. There's no known reason why SBs shouldn't be demonstrated to exist. "Supernatural" does not mean "indetectable" at all. Indeed, they're reputed to do very noticeable things that you'd hardly forget if you witnessed them.If you do see a man transform into a wolf or a bat, let us know, and try to photograph the event. The same if you see a woman wave a wand at someone and transform that person into a frog.We can all keep our eyes open.

Nothing has changed except your comprehension of what we are all talking about. Have you actually read the thread in question?Bluegenes: "If you're arguing that I should have used the awkward phrase "supernatural being concepts", which I think I have used in earlier posts, then I think you're being pedantic." Message 48Bluegenes: "In the real world, I presented not only evidence, but essential proof that human beings can and do make up supernatural beings. Strictly speaking, and more correctly but clumsily phrased, "supernatural beings- concepts". Message 57I could go on. If you 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 beings then it is no wonder you have been so confused. No. It could be sourced from reality. E.g. trees. Or cheese. Etc. They are sourced from objective reality. If all you are saying is that in the absence of humans there would be no human concept of trees then my response is - So what? We all agree that some concepts have a naturalistic source. This includes those derived from reality (e.g. trees) and those that are all but indisputably derived from human imagination (e.g. Casper the Friendly Ghost)But some people (e.g. you) claim that some concepts are not derived from naturalistic sources. Instead you claim that some human concepts are derived from the actual existence (and presumably human experience of) actual supernatural beings. Question: Where a well evidenced naturalistic explanation for a given phenomenon exists is it ever reasonable to invoke an unevidenced supernatural explanation as superior or even comparable?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.