Peanut Gallery

Si, Signor. Why do you think I put the Spanish bit in the description?{ABE}Or, rather "No, Signor.Edited by bluegenes, : marked

It could happen any day!

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

bluegenes says: 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

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.

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?

I am flabbergasted as to your inability to grasp this. Let's do this step by step shall we?

You accept as an evidenced fact that we are limited to our physical senses as our means of experiencing any reality external to our own minds. Check.

​

We know as a deeply evidenced fact that the human mind is capable of creating such concepts regardless of any basis in external reality. Check.

​

The entity in question is defined such that it is imperceptible. Check.

​

If it cannot be perceived by our physical senses then even if it exists we have no way of ever experiencing this entity. Yes?

​

If we can never experience this entity as an aspect of external reality then any conception of this entity is necessarily derived purely from the internal workings of the human mind. Yes?

​

Therefore the entity in question can accurately be described as "made-up". Yes?

​

Whilst said entity might actually exist this is nothing more than the philosophical possibility that by some miraculous co-incidence the human imagination has stumbled across some entirely imperceptible truth by pure chance. Yes?

​

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?

Hi, Straggler. 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.

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. 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.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

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.

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 quotesEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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.

Hi, Straggler. 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.

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

Don't take it out of context; certain things are describable and not supernatural. 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. 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.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You cannot have confidence that any supernatural idea came from human imagination when it is inherently impossible to demonstrate that it is otherwise.

---

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.