Peanut Gallery

Which god? The sun god, Thor, the one that lives in the volcano, George Carlin...? You use the word god as though there is an agreement on what it is. But if an eclipse was once considered a supernatural event by a supernatural entity, then it can be understood. It seems like you guys just want to say there is one particular version of that word that can't be understood. But on what basis?- Oni

Can you point to one single piece of evidence, other than "I can imagine it," that suggests anything close to that is possible?- Oni

Hi, PD. Someplace supernatural, of course.----- One of the qualifications for a scientific theory is falsifiability. Thus, there has to be a way to test it such that it could potentially be falsified.Bluegenes has identified the test that he thinks would falsify his theory: And, yes, if this could be established, it would falsify Bluegenes’ theory.The problem is that this cannot be established with any degree of confidence at all.Let’s assume that RAZD presents some allegedly supernatural being to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural, and Bluegenes begins the testing to see whether this being is actually supernatural.Ultimately, the testing can only come to one of two conclusions: either it will find a naturalistic explanation, or it will not. It cannot actually find a supernatural explanation, because the supernatural will only register as a failure to find a naturalistic explanation.So, everything that is actually supernatural will be relegated by the tester to the we don’t know how to explain it bin. And, things in the we don’t know how to explain it bin don’t get considered when creating theories. But, things that we can explain do get incorporated.Thus, the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings is a conclusion drawn from doctored data: all data that might actually demonstrate the alternative is excluded because we don’t have a way to ascertain that it actually does demonstrate the alternative.I’ll grant that I know of no allegedly supernatural being that has caused a problem for the test. But, since the test is rigged in the first place, this doesn’t really seem like an important detail to me.

---

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

Exactly. Which is all that falsifiable ever means. Theoretically falsifiable in respect to our knowledge at the time. We can never know if a theory is actually falsifiable, because the theory could be 100% correct. Here you're assuming something we don't know. Fishermen may net a mermaid tomorrow, for all we know, and bring her into port for verification. That blows out my theory.Claiming that my theory is unfalsifiable, as you have, is tantamount to saying that it's a scientific fact, which it certainly isn't.

Would it? Could that mermaid not possibly have a natural explanation, meaning your theory would still stand? Why would a mermaid have to be a supernatural creature necessarily?

Not really. It would be a kind of "natural" so far beyond our understanding that it's essentially the same thing. It would completely transform our view of the world, so I'd concede the theory falsified.

By the terms of your own argument a supernatural cause cannot be ascribed to something for which there is an alternative evidenced naturalistic explanation.For the phenomenon under discussion (the source of supernatural beliefs) there is a hightly evidenced natural explanation (human imagination).Thus, by the terms of your own argument, a supernatural cause (i.e. the actual existence of the supernatural) cannot legitimately be cited as the reason that such concepts exist. Demanding disproof. The last desperate gasp of the theist.Do you really lack confidence in the non-existence of lightbulbs that rely on ethereal salamanders rather than electrical reistance to produce light and heat? Really? I understand perfectly that humans have designed their cherisheed supernatural beliefs to be as unfalsifiable as possible.But the magically undetectable Easter Bunny is also unfalsifiable. And if a man of your years cannot confidently state his disbelief in the magically undetectable Easter Bunny on the basis of it being a human fiction something has gone seriously amiss in your life.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I understand where you and JUC are coming from. But your "supernatural means nothing" position is based on a false premise. Premise: If something actually exists it exists in nature and thus is, by definition, natural.On the basis of this premise you go on to conclude that the term "supernatural" is just a placeholder for those things which actually exist (i.e. which are necessarily natural by the terms of your premise) but which are not yet understood in natural terms. Anything truly "supernatural", by the definition of your premise, cannot actually exist. And thus you conclude that term is meaningless.All of which sounds very reasonable. But this is nevertheless wrong.Things which are not derived from or subject to natural laws can exist in nature. They are not logically impossible. Things such as the concept of a divine and genuinely miraculous Jesus Christ. These possibilities cannot be investigated or explained in natural terms. These possibilities can meaningfully be described as "supernatural".Thus the starting premise of your position is false.There are good evidential reasons for being deeply sceptical about the actual existance of a divine and miraculous Jesus Christ. And indeed all other supernatural concepts. But simply defining the supernatural out of existence on the basis of a false premise is not a justifiable position.

Hi, Straggler. Yes, you’re right. And this is a heuristic, not a high-confidence theory.And, as I explained to Purpledawn, the evidence used to uphold naturalism over supernaturalism is doctored.There is no way to positively separate it’s supernatural from we don’t know how to explain it yet. Thus, all the real candidates for genuine supernatural beings have been thrown out of the final data set, allowing the theory to be formed using only the evidence that supports it.You know how you say, all beings for which we know the origin originated in the human imagination"? Well, that’s you doctoring the data, by excluding all the data that stands a reasonable chance of disproving your theory.Thus, there really is no alternative evidenced naturalistic explanation.

---

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

Well given that you specifically asked about the IPU I am flabergasted by your own falbergastion.But anyway - The exact same argument applies to ANY entity which is defined as being empirically undetectable. Whether it be the Immaterial Pink Uniorn, the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel or some desitic god that exists outside the universe and has had no interraction with the universe since it created it. So am I. Which part of the steps I detailed are you disputing? Here they are again.

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 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:

​

What is scientific evidence that something is made up?

​

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?

Well how confident are you that there are no light bulbs that produce light and heat from ethereal salamanders rather than electrical resistance?According to you we can never have any confidence in any scientific conclusion because we cannot disprove the supernatural alternatives.The age of the Earth? Who knows. It could have been magicked into existence fully formed seconds ago.Do all baby rabbits derive from adult rabbits? Who knows. Unless we can disprove that some baby rabbits are simply popping into existance ex nihilo.You name any scientific conclusion and I will give you a supernatural reason which will, according to your arguments, require that it be reclassed from having a high confidence value.So according to you we can no confidence in any scientific conclusion at all.Well done. You know how we say "all filament bulbs produce light and heat by means of electrical resistance"? Am I doctoring my lightbulb data when I exclude the all those salamander powered light bulbs which have never been discovered? To anything. Anything at all. According to your argument.

My premise can be reduced to: If something exists it exists. Natural is the given, we know of nothing else. And all the presupposed realms are baseless in their inception as a concept. I'm not trying to be stubborn on this, I do get what you mean. But this word, throughout history has meant many different thing. There isn't once concept of it. It could literally have meant anything anyone has ever wanted it to mean, from a volcano eruption, to an eclipse, to Jesus, strings. If you agree with that, then explain how that differs from it, essentially, meaning nothing at all? It is just a gap filler, a place holder - not to the believe, that I'll concede on.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

And therein lies your problem.If something can logically exist you cannot justifiably present an argument which makes it's existence logically impossible.Something which is not derived from or subject to natural laws can logically exist. We have no grounds for the claim that such entities are impossible. Such things can also meanigfully be called "supernatural".Thus the "natural is a given" in reference to anything that exists part of you premise is false. Evidentially baseless. Absolutely. But not logically impossible. Not really. It always means a cause for something which is itself "unknowable" in natural terms.It is the angry volcano god or the moon spirit riding his ethereal chariot past the sun gods house. Or whatever.The individual concepts vary but the meaning of "supernatural" as applied to them does not. The concept of a divine and genuinely miraculous Jesus is not "nothing" or "meaningless".In the unlikley event it actually exists it will be very much "something" and really rather "meaningful".Don't let the evidential weakness of that possibility draw you into making the logically fallacious argument that this genuinely supernatural entity cannot both exist and be supernatural because you are tied to your false premise that all which exists is necessarily natural.

It seems that the side comments to the RAZD / bluegenes debate have very much become a debate pretty independent of that "Great Debate". That is not the intended function of this topic.Please start a new topic to cover this situation.If needed, this topic will be temporarily closed to enforce this.Adminnemooseus

---

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. ​ Report a problem etc. type topics: Report discussion problems here: No.2 Thread Reopen Requests 2 Topic Proposal Issues ​ Other useful links: ​ Forum Guidelines

Admin writes: ​ It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. ​ There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. ​ Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150

quote:

---

Someplace supernatural, of course.

---

Except that the supernatural is also a product of human imagination. So the source is still the human mind.

quote:

---

Ultimately, the testing can only come to one of two conclusions: either it will find a naturalistic explanation, or it will not. It cannot actually find a supernatural explanation, because the supernatural will only register as a failure to find a naturalistic explanation.

---

Why?If evidence of the creature cannot be found in the world around us and the only evidence of the creature is in the mind of man, then the mind of man is the only source. Our minds are part of nature and that would be a naturalistic explanation.

quote:

---

Let’s assume that RAZD presents some allegedly supernatural being to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural, and Bluegenes begins the testing to see whether this being is actually supernatural.

---

Realistically the person who presents a supernatural being as not being from the mind of man would need to show where the supernatural being can be found outside the mind of man or where knowledge of the supernatural being originated.

quote:

---

So, everything that is actually supernatural will be relegated by the tester to the we don’t know how to explain it bin. And, things in the we don’t know how to explain it bin don’t get considered when creating theories. But, things that we can explain do get incorporated.

---

If something is actually supernatural, then we explain it by saying it is supernatural. Not being able to explain something doesn't mean it is supernatural. When scientists can't explain something do they really put it in a supernatural category?

quote:

---

Thus, the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings is a conclusion drawn from doctored data: all data that might actually demonstrate the alternative is excluded because we don’t have a way to ascertain that it actually does demonstrate the alternative.

---

I find it difficult to work in the abstract in a subject like this since the subject is abstract. I'd rather work with a real example. We don't know what the data is.