|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
xongsmith writes: The only caveat, is that you & I could be in cahoots and I could be lying saying it's evidence for me. Si, Signor. Why do you think I put the Spanish bit in the description? {ABE}Or, rather "No, Signor. Edited by bluegenes, : marked
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
If we find a way to make rabbits such that a rabbit can be produced that was not born from other rabbits, that's fine by me. It would then falsify the theory from that point on, and would be an unusual situation in which the theory isn't falsified for the time which it was made, but becomes false. It could happen any day! - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
bluegenes says:
I don't mind if my theory about rabbits is falsified, or becomes false in the future. I don't even mind if you and your brother manage to construct a real fairy, vampire or god, but I don't think it likely. First off, I'm not on my brother's side on this. I'm on your side. I'm just trying to make your point stronger. Secondly, I do think the rabbit DNA conjecture is a much stronger analogy. It does a better job of throwing light on the issue, IMO. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
xongsmith writes: It could happen any day! Certainly. But all rabbits are born from other rabbits is still a strong theory until it does, and all supernatural beings come from the human imagination will still be a strong theory after the event. The analogy is mainly to point out that many people seem to accept the rabbit theory without thinking about it, but fail to do the same with the supernatural beings theory. I think that's inconsistent. Another example is the "all books are authored by human beings" theory. Easily accepted as strong except by those who believe that a god is responsible for one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Bluejay writes: Now, you could still conclude that supernaturalism is the only explanation, but only if you are able to reject all alternatives, and able to ascertain that no natural alternatives beyond those tested remain. This, essentially, amounts to absolute proof. So you are saying that the only circumstance under which the supernaturalistic position can be scientifically legitimate is if every conceivable naturalistic alternative has been exhausted. So by the terms of your own argument you agree with bluegenes over-arching thesis. Namely that the scientific conclusion must necessarily be that the very concept of the supernatural is derived from purely naturalistic origins. Naturalistic origins in the form of the human brain. Why didn't you just say you were agreeing with bluegenes in the first place?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Beyond the philosophical possibility of some miraculous co-incidence whereby the human imagination has stumbled across some entirely imperceptible truth by pure chance - We know that the IPU is a made-up entity. X writes: I ask how do we know this? I am flabbergasted as to your inability to grasp this. Let's do this step by step shall we?
So.......
Straggler in conclusion writes: Beyond the philosophical possibility of some miraculous co-incidence whereby the human imagination has stumbled across some entirely imperceptible truth by pure chance - We know that the IPU is a made-up entity. What more evidence do you require than the deeply evidenced facts on which the first two bullet pointed steps of the argument above are based?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes: So you are saying that the only circumstance under which the supernaturalistic position can be scientifically legitimate is if every conceivable naturalistic alternative has been exhausted. So by the terms of your own argument you agree with bluegenes over-arching thesis. Namely that the scientific conclusion must necessarily be that the very concept of the supernatural is derived from purely naturalistic origins. I’m extremely confused. How does your first paragraph lead you to the conclusion in your second? I’m honestly trying really hard to find a way to interpret this so that it doesn’t amount to inserting an a priori assumption that the supernatural doesn’t exist on your way to drawing the conclusion that supernatural beings can’t actually be supernatural. It seems like such an absurd leap of logic, that I’m having a hard time believing that you actually wrote it. My point is that exhaustion of every conceivable naturalistic alternative is the only possible way to conclude that supernaturalism is responsible for anything, even if supernaturalism actually is responsible. It means that the scientific conclusion about the supernatural is really just an assumption born from an inability to properly investigate anything that might exist outside of naturalistic constraints. It means that the inability to falsify Bluegenes’ theory is just an artifact of practical constraints on human capacity to investigate, and really has nothing to do with how well his theory actually explains the data. It means that concepts like theory and confidence cannot be applied to any idea that attempts to provide commentary on the supernatural. It means that Bluegenes’ theory amounts to nothing but an assertion that the supernatural doesn’t exist. That’s hardly convincing. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Bluejay,
It is amusing to me to watch the wlllful blindness of Straggler and the other pseudoskeptics that fail to see how flimsy their arguments are.
I’m honestly trying really hard to find a way to interpret this so that it doesn’t amount to inserting an a priori assumption that the supernatural doesn’t exist on your way to drawing the conclusion that supernatural beings can’t actually be supernatural. Welcome to Straggler-Land. Don't you know that it's the default position so it must be true? Your comments on the problems with bluegenes' hypothesis are also bang on. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
It is amusing to me to watch the wlllful blindness of Straggler and the other pseudoskeptics that fail to see how flimsy their arguments are. Could you elaborate on what you think they're not being sufficiently skeptical about? Because from my perspective, the one who promotes the supernatural (as you do) is by definition the one being the least skeptical. Also do you think you could increase the quality of your posts in your Great Debate thread? So far you've not even once meaningfully replied to Bluegenes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Bluejay writes: My point is that exhaustion of every conceivable naturalistic alternative is the only possible way to conclude that supernaturalism is responsible for anything, even if supernaturalism actually is responsible. So where an evidenced naturalistic explanation exists we don't need to consider the various unevidenced supernaturalist possibilities as anything other than pointless and irrelevant. Right? If I know that filament light bulbs produce light and heat by means of electrical resistence I don't need to go round worrying about all those filament bulbs that might be powered by ethereal salamanders do I? Surely you agree with this? Now the human imagination is an evidenced naturalistic source of supernatural concepts. So why would we treat the supernaturalist explanation for the existence of such concepts (i.e. the claim that such concepts are caused by the actual existence of the supernatural) as anything other than pointless and irrelevant? Which part of this are you not understanding? Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
RAZD writes: Welcome to Straggler-Land. Oh RAZ you should visit. You really should. Straggler-Land is a wonderful place. It is a place where one can rely on electrical lightbulbs because you don't have to worry about the ethereal salamanders that might be powering them going on vacation. It is a place where planets orbit reliably because of space-time curvature and you don't have to concern yourself with the idea that the immaterial gravity gnomes that might be responsible for holding planets in orbit have slippery hands. It is a place where evidenced natural explanations for things trump silly unevidenced explanations. Natural evidenced explanations like the human imagination being the source of certain godly concepts........ Come to Straggler-Land RAZ. Bluegenes is here too. We'll show you round together. You might even like it and choose to stay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes: Now the human imagination is an evidenced naturalistic source of supernatural concepts. So why would we treat the supernaturalist explanation for the existence of such concepts (i.e. the claim that such concepts are caused by the actual existence of the supernatural) as anything other than pointless and irrelevant? You cannot have confidence that any supernatural idea came from human imagination when it is inherently impossible to demonstrate that it is otherwise. What part of this are you not understanding? Edited by Bluejay, : took out the word "prove." -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
I am flabbergasted that you still think I am talking about the IPU.
I'm talking about made-up-ness. Forensic evidence that the entity was made up. This is existent tangible evidence in the form of fingerprints, film, tape recordings and even confessions by the perpetrators. The IPU was made up. Well, let's see the evidence. I'm not talking about einsteinian gedanken thought experiment arguments from the soft comforts of an armchair, I'm talking about actually getting out and doing the leg work. What is scientific evidence that something is made up? You seem to be dancing around to it via philosophical logic arguments. That is not where I want to go, although that would come up later in this particular Great Debate - if they ever get out of the starting box. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
If something can possibly exist it cannot accurately be described as nothing can it? Don't take it out of context; certain things are describable and not supernatural.
So it seems that we agree that it is possible that things which are neither derived from nor bounded by any natural laws and which are thus not explicable in any natural terms can exist Easy, I never said that. How on Earth can you know the extent of things that are bound by natural law? And not knowing that extent does not give terms like "supernatural" any more weight. They are made up terms to fill gaps in human knowledge.
People’s beliefs in the supernatural are real and, despite all of the evidence favouring human invention, it remains possible that the actual entities they believe in are real too. No it does not, Straggler. It means people have a limited understanding of the reality in which they live. It is easily recognized by the many different characteristics the supernatural takes. It is goal post moving every time another entity gets placed in the realm of supernatural. It doesn't answer anything it is just a gap filling word. And history shows that. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:So where else can a supernatural idea come from? Isn't that the whole point of what bluegenes is saying? What is another source of supernatural ideas other than human imagination? Until it can be shown that there is another source, then the human mind is the only known source. To say there could be an unknown source is a function of human imagination. They don't exist outside the human mind or expressions of human thought.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024