Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8945 total)
32 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 27 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,726 Year: 20,762/19,786 Month: 1,159/2,023 Week: 110/557 Day: 40/70 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 36 of 222 (580832)
09-11-2010 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by bluegenes
09-02-2010 4:56 AM


bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes,

I'll get back to you in greater detail later, if necessary. Unfortunately I am in hospital again, shingle, not cancer, and not pretty.

I certainly have. Are you trying to demonstrate publicly on the internet that you're a fool?

Curiously I cannot find a single name that you have shown by objective empirical valid evidence to be documented as having been made up.

Either way, it is fictional, and its characters and their actions come from the human imagination.

In allegory the fictional part serves a purpose for telling the universal truth. This is why the Hindu Hypothesis refutes your claim of "mutual contradiction" and you have failed to answer that at all.

Your logically unfounded leap to conclude that therefore gods are made up is based entirely on your cognitive dissonance (dismissing the Hindu Hypothesis as "completely baseless") and confirmation bias (seeing only what you want to see) and it is not a valid logical conclusion: it does not follow from your premises even if your premises were true.

I have demonstrated that there are many holes in your hypothesis and the basis you have provided for it, and these holes show that all you have is wishful thinking rather than any form of scientific theory.

Apparently you can't even demonstrate that the IPU is made up.

Do you agree that the human imagination is the only source of supernatural beings known to science?

If not, what is the other known source or sources?

Curiously, I have already answered these questions and given you a LIST of several alternatives that are well known in literature.

The fact that you ignore the response does not mean that it has not been made, nor that it is in "Swahili"

Enjoy

bluegenes and RAZD only

Edited by RAZD, : banner


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by bluegenes, posted 09-02-2010 4:56 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by bluegenes, posted 09-12-2010 1:59 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 39 of 222 (582706)
09-22-2010 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by bluegenes
09-12-2010 1:59 AM


back for a bit ... at a time
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes, and thanks. Yes that neuralgia is a pain. I only have the mental energy to deal with bits and pieces (rather than my usual approach).

Let's see if we can start with some basic points:

A scientific theory is one developed using the scientific method. This is what differentiates it from the common layman use of the term "theory" as just a guess. The scientific method has several steps:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html

quote:
... The scientific method has four steps

  1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
  2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
  3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
  4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.


Key here, imho, is that it is not a scientific theory until these four steps have been done, and the hypothesis proves useful in predicting new knowledge.

A similar view is seen here:

Background research precedes the hypothesis, and it involves objective empirical data where you know that the hypothesis is true, because you have derived the hypothesis from the data. Even when you start with a question, that is not the hypothesis, it structures how you do your background research to then use to derive your hypothesis.

Again from the above link:
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html

quote:
... Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. ...

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. ...

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. ... The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."


Again, we see that the scientific theory is a tested hypothesis that produces consistent positive results, and again we see that the hypothesis rests on cases of objective empirical evidence where the derived hypothesis is known to be true.

Do you agree with this?

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by bluegenes, posted 09-12-2010 1:59 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by bluegenes, posted 09-27-2010 12:08 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 41 of 222 (584011)
09-29-2010 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by bluegenes
09-27-2010 12:08 PM


and a bit more.
Hi bluegenes, just a couple simple points.

On your definitions. Your 4 point description of the modern scientific method seems fine for our purposes here ...

Good. We have a common understanding then. (and I am not too worried about what "historians of science, and philosophers of science" would have to say, as those are not strictly science fields).

You quote the guy from Rochester making this point:
A scientific theory can't be "proved", as your source points out, just falsified.

Agreed, however he also says:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html

quote:
Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. ...

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. ...


This is what I see in your denial (rather than refutation) of the points I have raised that show your evaluation of evidence to be incomplete. You wave off the contrary evidence as if that can make it disappear.

As for your own comments, I find this strange:

RAZD writes:

Background research precedes the hypothesis, and it involves objective empirical data where you know that the hypothesis is true, because you have derived the hypothesis from the data.

What do you mean by"true"? Because a hypothesis is based on data doesn't mean it's true.

Going back to the 4 points that you have agreed with:

quote:
... The scientific method has four steps

  1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
  2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
  3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
  4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

The hypothesis is based on the observation\description of the original set of evidence, and it is true for those instances of evidence. Whether it is univerally true or not is the matter of later testing and evaluation.

As a simple example, we have three data points (Xa,Ya), (Xb,Yb) and (Xc,Yc).

From these three points we can derive a simple curve, say of the form

y = ax^2 + bx + c

From the three points we can solve the equation for the values of a, b and c, and with these solved values we can then hypothesize that this curve explains the evidence, predict that new data will fit this same curve, and test to see whether or not the new data does or does not fit the curve.

If it does, then we continue to make predictions and test them.

If it does not, then we revise the curve to fit the new data and then make new predictions and test them.

In every case, the curves derived will be true for the points (Xa,Ya), (Xb,Yb) and (Xc,Yc).

This is a necessary basic condition for any scientific hypothesis, because the initial evidence\data is what is used to develop the hypothesis, and it would be silly to hypothesize a curve\explanation that did not account for all the known evidence\data: that would be starting out with a case that invalidates the hypothesis.

If you do not have a set of evidence\data where you KNOW that your hypothesis is true for that evidence\data, then all you are doing is guessing, rather than applying the scientific method.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by bluegenes, posted 09-27-2010 12:08 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 09-30-2010 9:09 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 43 of 222 (584730)
10-03-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by bluegenes
09-30-2010 9:09 AM


beginning to get there
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes, well it appears you have stopped trying to pretend that you had a theory. Progress is made.

My position from the beginning has been that you did not have a scientific theory and that your hypothesis was not supported by evidence.

So far this has proven to be the case: out of 20 posts you have made so far, you are 0 for 20 in demonstrating evidence that would form the foundation for a scientific theory that supernatural entities are products of human imagination.

Briefly, on points (1) and (2).

quote:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.


Phenomena: Human beliefs in and descriptions of supernatural beings of all kinds. These are beings whose existence and description cut clearly across the laws of nature as we currently know them. Magical beings. Observing these, we can see that there are many thousands of such beings that are or have been believed in in the world's many different cultures, and others that we seem to invent largely for amusement. We can also see that there has been no scientific verification of the actual existence of a single individual such being of any type or genre.

An added observation is that there are mutually exclusive beliefs from different cultures. Examples of this are seen when different groups of supernatural beings in different numbers and of different descriptions and different supposed origins are credited with the same action, like creating the first human beings. We can also note the many different mutually exclusive "true" religions believed in around the world today.

Based on such observations, I propose the following as a hypothesis on the origins of supernatural beings:

Hypothesis: Supernatural beings and their descriptions are human inventions (figments of our imagination) and do not have any real external existence.

This is where you should have started, and the fact that you are just getting around to this now, means that you never did the work before, and you did not have a theory or an hypothesis in the scientific sense before - that you are in fact now working on developing one.

Ergo, what you had before was just an opinion based on your worldview, biases and beliefs. As I said at the beginning.

faith –noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
...

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. ....

be·lief –noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
...

2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. ...
3. Something believed or accepted as true. ....

That you are convinced of the validity of your belief does not mean that your faith in your beliefs is based on science, evidence or logic.

Some additional points regarding your comments:

We can also see that there has been no scientific verification of the actual existence of a single individual such being of any type or genre.

Curiously, I have yet to see scientific verification that a "single individual such being of any type or genre" has been demonstrated to be entirely a product of human imagination.

To me that says that neither position has been adequately demonstrated at this point, and that the logical (agnostic\skeptical\default) position is that we still don't know the answer to whether god/s exist or not.

Magical beings. Observing these, we can see that there are many thousands of such beings that are or have been believed in in the world's many different cultures, and others that we seem to invent largely for amusement.

I'm not sure I would use the word "amusement" in the context of religions, however I will note that we can (and have) observed that humans do like to embellish stories over time, so that over time the stories evolve. Fanciful elements are added as time passes, thus the existence of some fanciful elements in a story does not mean that the original story was fanciful or made up. IOW you need to demonstrate more than just some fanciful elements in order to properly conclude that a story is made up from human imagination, you need to demonstrate that all supernatural elements are made up, especially ones about supernatural beings, to support your concept.

Factual elements can also be lost, especially when knowledge and understanding is incomplete (for example, creationist explanations of evolution).

Examples of this are seen when different groups of supernatural beings in different numbers and of different descriptions and different supposed origins are credited with the same action, like creating the first human beings.

As noted previously, the Hindu Hypothesis explains these apparent differences as either allegorical elements or as different aspects of the same universal truths. For example, the creation of humans from dust, tree trunks or balls of organic matter, can all be seen as allegorical descriptions, of abiogenesis, of the division of the tree of life, and the diversification of species from original organic matter (single cell life forms?).

Likewise, the different descriptions of the god/s involved are descriptions of different aspects of a being (or beings) not fully understood by any one description.

In previous posts (Message 25 and Message 34), I have pointed out several valid reasons for considering the stories should not be considered as absolute truths, while still able to convey the universal truths involved, especially when taken all together, rather than individually.

quote:
There are many good reasons why the creation stories can be taken as allegorical:

  1. Many people in many religions
    1. state that they believe them to be allegorical and
    2. believe that god/s created the earth, universe, life, etc.

  2. The language used in the stories is language common to metaphor and analogy (see (2) below), rather than to scientific explanations,
  3. Dreams and visions are
    1. commonly taken to be symbolic rather than factual experiences, AND
    2. commonly considered to carry some valid meaning (when interpreted), AND
    3. there are recorded instances of dreamed concepts being found to be true.

  4. Metaphor and analogy are a common way to teach children, especially when concepts are beyond their (current) ability to understand (or you do not want to go into greater detail at the time). The "birds and the bees" for example.
  5. Any god/s involved in the vision\dream\explanation\etc may not have been directly involved in the creation, and thus not fully able themselves to explain it.
  6. It is unlikely that humans, especially humans several thousand years ago
    1. would be able to understand a scientific explanation of the actual creation process/es used by god/s, so
    2. god/s likely treated them the way we treat children, and
    3. tailored the specific story for the specific person, or
    4. did not give a complete explanation, and
    5. even then were likely to be misunderstood, because

  7. human understanding of the actual creation process/es would require competence in that field, a competence that is currently lacking in the world today (or we could create universes).

That you have failed to invalidate\falsify the "Hindu Hypothesis", also means that you have not shown your hypothesis to be the only valid explanation, NOR have you presented any way to discern that your hypothesis is true and the "Hindu Hypothesis" is false.


Treating the stories only as absolute truths is a straw man argument, and does not deal with the many valid reasons for treating them as allegorical stories.

We can also note the many different mutually exclusive "true" religions believed in around the world today.

And also as noted previously, your position relies entirely and completely on all these different stories only being taken as absolutely true. As soon as you consider them allegorical, this argument falls to pieces. Thus the question you need to address is not whether you can considered these to be "true" stories today, based on evidence of such beliefs today, but whether they were originally intended to be taken as true stories versus allegorical.

When you only address the stories as being "true" rather than as allegorical stories, you are using a straw man argument, rather than considering the actual positions that actual people take and have actually taken.

It's not that I wave it off. It's just that we seem to have different ideas as to what constitutes "contrary evidence". For example, you seemed to express a view that some people believe that the creation mythologies have some kind of underlying truth in common. I don't doubt that some people believe this. But that's sociological data, not scientific evidence supporting the supposed underlying truth. ...

Actually, it is valid objective empirical evidence that the stories are not taken as absolute truths, but as allegorical stories about creation, and hence invalidating your straw man argument.

What I'm doing at the moment (when I've got the time and inclination) is going through the mythologies, taking the hypothesis that "supernatural beings are human inventions" as the null hypothesis, and, in each case "the story fits the scientific data" as an alternative hypothesis, and comparing these accounts to what we know from modern cosmology, geology, and biology.

So far, having examined more than 20, I'm in the 95% to 100% confidence bracket that's considered standard to pass the null hypothesis.

An exercise in confirmation bias, imho, and one which can only establish that the stories cannot all be taken only as absolute truths, but says nothing about the stories being taken as allegorical descriptions of universal truths via symbolic language and fanciful culturally specific images, with different stories tailored to different cultures.

... I can easily imagine such ideas too.

Then you have work to do, to consider the stories as allegories rather than only as absolute truths.

That should be enough for now (it's taken me three days to get this out, due to problems with the neuralgia).

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 09-30-2010 9:09 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by bluegenes, posted 10-04-2010 7:47 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 03-04-2011 9:36 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 45 of 222 (586164)
10-11-2010 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by bluegenes
10-04-2010 7:47 AM


stuck on step one (backwards)
Hi bluegenes, only time and energy for a couple of points.

What I'm doing is demonstrating how the theory can be built up from scratch, starting with the stated hypothesis.

Curiously, this is not how the scientific method works. It starts from evidence and then deduces the hypothesis.

This is more like pseudo-science in general and creation-science in particular.

I've actually demonstrated that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings known to science, and that's taken 20 posts because I'm discussing this with you.

Actually you have NOT demonstrated anything of the kind. I gave you a listt of other possible sources, and you dismissed them. That too is how pseudo-science in general and creation-science in particular is done.

You need to actually demonstrate that those other methods cannot contribute ideas and information. Way back in Message 14 I said:

quote:

On communication possibilites

Human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings. If you disagree, tell the world about the other known source or sources.

In several religiions there are beliefs involving god/s appearing as humans or animals to assist people reach enlightenment or assist them in finding truth.

Many eastern religions believe in enlightenment, which involves a level of understanding universal truths.

Other religions claim that religious experiences are means to communicate with god/s.

And of course there are religions (like the australian one you listed above) that believe in dreamtime experiences.

That's four different ways that various religions have claimed to have a source of knowledge about supernatural beings\entities\etc. -- and ones that you should have been already aware of.

Your task, if you claim that "human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings," is to falsify these as means of having an outside source for concepts of supernatural beings\entities\etc.

It doesn't appear that you have done this.


And as far as I can see you still have not done this. You have made an unsupported claim.

Amusingly, I note that there are several instances where people have said that an idea came to them in a dream, which can be taken as objective evidence of new concepts and information coming from dreams.

I also note that it is entirely possible for someone else to tell me a concept\idea that is new to me, and that I am not able to discern whether that person is a god appearing as a human or not - do you know of a way?

You appear to assume that your hypothesis is right, and then use that to claim that this refutes any other possible source, so that you can conclude that your hypothesis is right.

This is nothing more than begging the consequent and circular reasoning, pure and simple.

RAZD writes:

Curiously, I have yet to see scientific verification that a "single individual such being of any type or genre" has been demonstrated to be entirely a product of human imagination.

Perhaps you need help.

1) There's a mermaid who lives in your bath,....

And still not one "single individual such being of any type or genre" has been demonstrated to be entirely a product of human imagination.

The fact that you can make up stuff does not mean that any other concept is made up.

The rest of your post is not worth time to read/respond to, as it is just more of your tendency to go off on silly tangents, your apparent inability to confront the issue honestly, and instead need to attack me and make up stuff that has nothing to do with your argument.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by bluegenes, posted 10-04-2010 7:47 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 10-12-2010 10:51 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 47 of 222 (587796)
10-20-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by bluegenes
10-12-2010 10:51 AM


Pseudoscience or fraud?
bluegenes and RAZD only

Well bluegenes, I don't know whether to laugh or feel insulted.

Supernatural being of the day. The five-eyed, seven legged backwards-walking backwards-talking mind bending magical monster who will force you to write your next post backwards with the last word in the top left and the first, bottom right.

More like the pseudoscientific dodge of the day.

As evidence for your concept, you failed to demonstrate that this is a figment of human imagination.

If you have made this up, then there are two problems:

  1. it is just fictional word salad, rather than being established as a believed supernatural entity, and
  2. you are guilty of making up evidence for an hypothesis, emblematic of pseudoscience and fraud.

If you have not made this up then there are two problems:

  1. you have not referenced it to your source of information, another mark of pseudoscience and fraud, and
  2. you have not established that anyone has ever considered it a supernatural entity.

Most certainly this is not how science is done.

Strong theories give high confidence predictions.

And you still have yet to establish that you have a theory. So far it appears that all you have is evidence that you can make up stuff. If that is all you have to support your concept, then you are dealing in either pseudoscience or fraud.

Let me give you an analogy for what I think your concept and your "predictions" amount to:

I have a theory that all numbers fall between 1 and 2 - it is a strong theory.

Prediction of the day from my theory. You will not falsify it in your next post, and no-one on the peanut gallery will falsify it in the next ten posts.
Strong theories give high confidence predictions.

1.5

Now, rather obviously I can go on posting number after number after number after number between 1 and 2, as there are an infinite number of these particular entities, however not one of these number I produce will demonstrate in any way that my theory is a "strong theory," even though you will be completely incapable of falsifying any one of my "predictions" -- this is what you are doing. Staying in the "safe" zone does not mean that you have a theory, and most especially does not demonstrate that your concept is strong (unless you mean strong like day old fish).

I wasn't aware that your "theory" was that all the fictional characters you can make up are products of the human mind, however if you want to amend it to that tautology, then I will agree with you.

If not, then the question is when will you get out of the sandbox and start providing some real evidence.

You have yet to demonstrate that a single supernatural entity from a single documented belief is made up, with a citation for the source of the entity and documentation that someone does or has beleived in it at some time.

Anything less is waisting your and my time.

You bring up people's religious beliefs in an attempt to attack my theory while talking about pseudo-science. Are you trying to make me laugh?

No, I'm trying to get you to deal with the real issues facing you, and to debate in good faith, rather than pretending to do science or have something that you do not have. You made a claim and you need to support it.

bluegenes Message 11: Human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings.

Amusingly, I see that you are now equivocating, and trying to change this.

Human invention is the only source of supernatural beings known to science.

Now you have another assertion to substantiate: you have not demonstrated that a single supernatural being is actually known to science, and thus cannot claim to have a known source.

That's four different claims that you cannot verify or support.

So says the pseudoskeptic pseudoscientist.

Wrong again.

What I have claimed is that there exists objective empirical valid evidence that people think these methods of communication with supernatural entities exist, this evidence is abundent, and thus you need to have some explanation for it. That is what science does when confronted with anomolous information.

I can also point to any number of religious texts as a source of information on supernatural entities, and note that you have not demonstrated that a single one is a product of human invention.

Unsupported and unfalsifiable claims can only be accepted by science if and when properly supported by positive evidence.

Then you should not be making them,if you are going to claim to have a scientific theory. Note that I have pointed out several times that (a) your claim is unsupported (yet) by objective empirical valid evidence and (b) that your purported falsification test is not sufficient to cover all possible cases.

Amusingly, I note that there are several instances where people have said that an idea came to them in a dream, which can be taken as objective evidence of new concepts and information coming from dreams.

It's happened to me, and that's the same as saying that our minds can come up with ideas that turn out to be good, even occasionally when in dream or semi-conscious mode. It has nothing to do with magic.

Curiously, once again you have just asserted something without actually demonstrating that it is true. You have failed to demonstrate that this is not a possible means of communication with supernatural entities.

I also note that it is entirely possible for someone else to tell me a concept\idea that is new to me, and that I am not able to discern whether that person is a god appearing as a human or not - do you know of a way?

You could go on the fact that you have plenty of evidence that humans are real things, but no positive evidence that gods actually exist. I'd look for behaviour that smashes the laws of nature, personally, and if absent, I'd assume the default evidence based position that what appears to be human very, very probably is human.

In other words, you would assume you are right, rather than devise some test that could positively distinguish a human from a god posing as a human. Again, you have failed to demonstrate that this is not a possible means of communication with supernatural entities.

You appear to assume that your hypothesis is right, and then use that to claim that this refutes any other possible source, so that you can conclude that your hypothesis is right.

This is nothing more than begging the consequent and circular reasoning, pure and simple.

Again, a scientific theory is regarded as falsifiable, which is the opposite of assuming that it's right.

>>So you should stop doing it.

In science theory testing, one of the things normally done is to assume that the converse is true, and then make predictions of what you would find if that were the case. This is how you develop good falsification tests.

In this instance we would assume that other forms of communication mentioned exist or were possible, and then try to develop methods that would distinguish them from human imagination.<<

I was not aware that any valid science was done by making up evidence or by just assumng that your hypothesis is correct and disregarding evidence to the contrary.

Again from the previous link on the scientific method:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/...appendixe/appendixe.html

quote:
... Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

... The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way....


Pseudoscience or fraud, your pick.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Edited by RAZD, : >>added by edit<<


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 10-12-2010 10:51 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by bluegenes, posted 10-25-2010 4:47 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 49 of 222 (590099)
11-05-2010 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by bluegenes
10-25-2010 4:47 AM


another dodge, another delusion
Hi bluegenes, don't know how far I'll get tonight.

You must think I am naive or gullible to even pretend that you have an argument here based on fictions.

You've demonstrated it for me. In addition, your comments about pseudoscience seem to indicate that you're not aware that experimentation is very much a part of science.

When people imagine up supernatural beings in testable areas, it can be demonstrated that people can and do invent them, and that's the purpose of the several little experiments I've done on this thread.

Actually all you have demonstrated is that you have an imagination, something that was not in doubt. Yes your "experiments" demonstrated that much.

Unfortunately, for you, they do not demonstrate anything else.

To explain I will use a couple of examples from well known fiction:

  1. Philip Marlowe is a fictional detective created by Raymond Chandler, and he appears in several novels. The fact that he is made up does not mean that all private eye detectives are necessarily figments of imagination.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Marlowe

    Phillip Marlowe is a fictional caricature of actual private eye detectives. We know that actual private eye detectives exist, so this logical structure of yours is invalid.

  2. Casper the Friendly Ghost was created in the late 1930s by Seymour Reit and Joe Oriolo, and appears in thousands of cartoons. The fact that he is made up does not mean that all ghosts are necessarily figments of imagination.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casper_the_Friendly_Ghost

    Casper the Friendly Ghost is a fictional caricature of a ghost, drawing on information found in other accounts of ghosts and adding fictional elements to create an intentional fictional character. We do not know whether or not actual ghosts exist, but this is not evidence that they are imaginary.

As you admit making them up, your creations are fictional caricatures of supernatural beings, based on a jumbled pile of supernatural aspects taken from other accounts of supernatural beings, and they demonstrate nothing about the existence or not of any supernatural beings in those other accounts.

If my theory is weak, why is it that you cannot demonstrate the actual external existence of one single supernatural being of any genre, when we both know very well that humans can and do imagine them?

Notice that you did not invalidate 1.5 as a number between 1 and 2. Your next number to invalidate is 1.57.

Failure to do so will demonstrate that my theory that all numbers are between 1 and 2 is just as "strong" (or not) as your concept. This is the purpose of this analogy: to demonstrate that your claim of strength is faulty.

Surely I'm not going to have to try to teach you what a good "analogy" is, along with trying to teach you what "mutually exclusive" means?

And once again, we see that you just assert your position as true without any demonstration of its validity. Amusingly your failure to address this issue is just one more in a long line. The analogy works by showing that your approach is faulty by not addressing issues outside of your limited set of intentionally fictional caricatures and your myopic insistence on only your interpretation of creation stories. It appears that another example is in order to clarify this for you:

Take a class of children to a furniture manufacturing plant, divide them up into small groups, each of which visit a different part of the plant. They observe what is going on and ask questions of the workers about what they do. Then each student writes a report on making furniture.

Do you really think that each report will be exactly the same? Do you really think that there will not be "mutually exclusive" details in the reports?

There are plenty of examples in the creation mythologies I pointed out to you, but I'll give you some easy ones.
The god who created the earth flat is a straightforward one for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/...ristian_Catholic_Apostolic_Church
Then there's one that we're all familiar with here on EvC, which is the god who created the earth about 6,000 years ago, and caused a world-wide flood about 4,300 years ago.

All I notice is that these are variations, based on the same basic story (or set of stories).

Of course these all fit with the Hindu Hypothesis Message 14:

quote:
(1) god/s are more complex than they are portrayed in any religion.

(2) god/s are not completely or fully understood in any religion, nor in piecing all religions together, they appear to be beyond understanding.


And the reasons for variations in various stories already cited, Message 25:

quote:
There are many good reasons why the creation stories can be taken as allegorical:
  1. Many people in many religions
    1. state that they believe them to be allegorical and
    2. believe that god/s created the earth, universe, life, etc.

  2. The language used in the stories is language common to metaphor and analogy (see (2) below), rather than to scientific explanations,
  3. Dreams and visions are
    1. commonly taken to be symbolic rather than factual experiences, AND
    2. commonly considered to carry some valid meaning (when interpreted), AND
    3. there are recorded instances of dreamed concepts being found to be true.

  4. Metaphor and analogy are a common way to teach children, especially when concepts are beyond their (current) ability to understand (or you do not want to go into greater detail at the time). The "birds and the bees" for example.
  5. Any god/s involved in the vision\dream\explanation\etc may not have been directly involved in the creation, and thus not fully able themselves to explain it.
  6. It is unlikely that humans, especially humans several thousand years ago
    1. would be able to understand a scientific explanation of the actual creation process/es used by god/s, so
    2. god/s likely treated them the way we treat children, and
    3. tailored the specific story for the specific person, or
    4. did not give a complete explanation, and
    5. even then were likely to be misunderstood, because

  7. human understanding of the actual creation process/es would require competence in that field, a competence that is currently lacking in the world today (or we could create universes).

And the differences are essentially predicted in Message 32:

quote:
If you've ever played telephone you know how stories change in the telling, and thus how second or third hand accounts can vary rather extraordinarily from the original ... and yet you ignore this and expect scientifically documented accurate results from this kind of process?

As more time passes accounts have been observed to change, however the contradictions found in some later accounts does not invalidate the original account.

What I have claimed is that there exists objective empirical valid evidence that people think these methods of communication with supernatural entities exist, this evidence is abundent, and thus you need to have some explanation for it. That is what science does when confronted with anomolous information.
I agree entirely that there's plenty of evidence that people believe that supernatural beings exist, and that they believe they can communicate with them. What's strange is that you seem to think this is some kind of problem for my theory.

Indeed, if your "explanation" is to assume that your claim is true, thus concluding that all those examples of other means of communication are products of the human imagination, then all you have done is assume your theory is true to assume that your "evidence" is true, and then, that because your "evidence" is true that your theory is true.

It's called circular reasoning, another logical fallacy.

Your claim is that all supernatural entities are figments of the human imagination.

You need to actually demonstrate this.

So far you have demonstrated nothing but your own imagination.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added school trip example


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by bluegenes, posted 10-25-2010 4:47 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by bluegenes, posted 11-06-2010 1:04 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 51 of 222 (593238)
11-25-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by bluegenes
11-06-2010 1:04 PM


... and still no evidence ...
Hi bluegenes, sorry for the delay, but I've been busy in the non-virtual world, buying a house, starting a company, working on a contract for my first client, and taking a (well earned if brief) vacation.

Then there was the issue of rebuilding two computers to serve my (new) needs.

Fun in the fast lane.

I've demonstrated that humans can and do make up supernatural beings, which is all that the experiments were designed to demonstrate.

No, all you demonstrated was the ability to make up intentionally fictional caricatures of supernatural beings.

This has no bearing on the issue of supernatural entities being made up.

You seem to absolutely fail to see the distinction.

We can easily establish that private detectives exist outside the human imagination.

Yes, and thus this little example easily demonstrates that your assumption -- that (a) because you can make up fictional caricatures of supernatural beings means (b) that all supernatural beings are made up -- is a logically invalid construction.

You can make up as many "Phillip Marlowe" supernatural beings as you - or anyone else - wish and it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not private detectives actually exist.

Here we see how ghosts differ from private detectives.

Nope. What we see is that your logic is just as bad for one as it is for the other - fatally flawed in the construction of the argument.

... but do not know, in scientific terms, of any source for them other than the human imagination.

But we do know of other sources being documented in many forms around the world. The fact that you keep ignoring this objective empirical evidence of other possible sources does not mean that they do not exist.

Here you are just assuming that you are correct so that you can use that as evidence that you are correct and just ignore the contrary evidence.

This brings me to a point that I've been trying to make throughout the thread. When you present something like your "Hindu hypothesis", you seem to think that an unsupported belief or suggestion in some way weakens a scientific theory, or makes it invalid.

And what you fail to realize and address, it seems, is that you do not have a theory, you only have a concept based on your opinions. You have absolutely failed to show any objective empirical evidence that this is anything but your opinion.

The point is that there is an alternative explanation, and that you have absolutely failed to provide a means to distinguish one from the other.

YOU have an unsupported belief that you are trying to pass off as a scientific theory -- while ignoring that it does not fit withing the definition for the scientific method of developing scientific theories that you agreed to.

Message 40: On your definitions. Your 4 point description of the modern scientific method seems fine for our purposes here ...

You have absolutely failed to provide the evidentiary basis for the proper formation of a proper scientific theory, in spite of the claim to have "plenty of evidence" to do so -- this is getting old.

We could speculate, for example, that there were fairies in Africa about 100,000 years ago, sharing the territory with our common ancestral group, and known to them. These could be the origin of all supernatural concepts in the mind, all of which have been distorted out of all recognition from the originals by subsequent human imaginings.

We could, but that would be as pointless as your making up intentionally fictional caricatures of supernatural beings -- it still does not address the issue of whether supernatural beings found in documents and believed by many people to exist are products of human imagination or not.

What "original account" of how many supernatural beings of which description doing what, and when? Would you care to demonstrate that you're not imagining the idea of this "original account"?

Well, that is your problem to demonstrate not mine. YOU were the one making the claim (a) that you have an explanatory concept and (b) that you have "plenty of evidence" to support it.

All I need demonstrate is that there are valid reasons to be highly skeptical that you have anything but personal opinion. I have done that. In spades.

You can't just assume that you are correct , which is all you have done to date.

You keep ignoring the arguments that show your assumptions to be just that - assumptions and not valid logical conclusions. Again:

Message 49:

And once again, we see that you just assert your position as true without any demonstration of its validity. Amusingly your failure to address this issue is just one more in a long line. The analogy works by showing that your approach is faulty by not addressing issues outside of your limited set of intentionally fictional caricatures and your myopic insistence on only your interpretation of creation stories. It appears that another example is in order to clarify this for you:

Take a class of children to a furniture manufacturing plant, divide them up into small groups, each of which visit a different part of the plant. They observe what is going on and ask questions of the workers about what they do. Then each student writes a report on making furniture.

Do you really think that each report will be exactly the same? Do you really think that there will not be "mutually exclusive" details in the reports?

According to your "logic" the existence of any mutually exclusive details in these reports would be evidence that the furniture makers were products of human imagination.

Obviously, this would be a false conclusion.

Obviously, your conclusions about god/s, based on what you claim are mutually exclusive details in creation stories, is also a false conclusion.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by bluegenes, posted 11-06-2010 1:04 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by xongsmith, posted 11-25-2010 2:08 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 53 by bluegenes, posted 11-26-2010 12:27 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 54 of 222 (593534)
11-27-2010 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by bluegenes
11-26-2010 12:27 PM


Re: and still no evidence that bluegenes will actually address the issues ...
Hi bluegenes, still struggling with the basic concepts I see.

Making up supernatural entities has no bearing on supernatural entities being made up? You may not have noticed, but my theory is about human beings making things up; about figments of our imagination.

Making up intentionally fictional caricatures is not making up supernatural entities, that would take the additional step of verifying that they are in fact supernatural entities, which you have not done.

Seeing as this is rather unlikely, for an intentionally fictional caricature of your own concoction, you would likely have little hope of establishing that you are therefore talking about a supernatural entity, rather that just making some mental masturbations.

Now you may find such self-delusion to be personally satisfying, but I believe you will find that, like masturbation, you are not able to satisfy anyone else with it.

You seem to fail to see that it is the fact that humans can and do make supernatural beings up combined with the fact that human invention is the only source of supernatural-being-concepts known to science that leads to the theory that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.

When you only consider populations of pure white swans and note that there are no black swans, and then conclude that black swans are a product of human imagination, you are begging the question, because you have excluded any non-white swans from consideration.

When you start with excluding evidence that there are black swans you reach invalid conclusions.

This is your argument - logical fallacy after logical fallacy. Mental wanking.

Feel free to present this evidence. I haven't seen any evidence for the actual existence of supernatural beings on this thread. ...

I only need to present the evidence that there are supernatural beings that people believe in, which has been done, and that there are documents that describe these supernatural entities, which has been done. It is your job to show they are products of human imagination.

... Evidence that people believe in them is not evidence that they exist, as I've explained. It's an undisputed fact that loads of people believe in them.

So why aren't you able to demonstrate that these supernatural beings are products of human imagination?

So why aren't you able to demonstrate that the IPU is a product of human imagination?

That is your claim - not that you can make up stuff.

See above. If you really think there's no difference between our knowledge of the existential state of private detectives as compared to that of supernatural beings, then I suggest that you're constructing a reality of your own in which to argue from.

And still you miss the point, simple as it is, that your logical construction should lead to the same conclusion for ghosts and private eyes --- IF it was a valid logical construction.

You don't get to special plead one conclusion for private eyes and then a different one for ghosts.

Wrong. If two kids in the same group watching the same furniture being made by the same makers came up with the different "details" that:
(a) they were watching three men make a chair;
(b) they were watching two women make a cabinet;
then logic would tell you that one or other account (or both) must be an invention; and the beings involved in at least one, figments of the imagination.

Once again you mess things up by starting with a premise that is not justified by the evidence, the pre-assumption that your view is correct.

There is no need to assume that the kids needed to be in "same group watching the same furniture being made by the same makers" in order for them to experience furniture making and develop what you call "mutually exclusive" explanations -- that is only necessary in your narrow view world to justify your opinion.

Are you suggesting that some humans observed the creation of the universe, including, in many accounts, the creation of the first humans?

Of course not, that would be illogical. The point is that even with first hand experiences that humans are likely to take away explanations that differ in details, so the existence of such differences is not a critical test of the validity of the actual universal truth behind the experience.

If we instead say that the furniture makers go to the schools and tell the kids in different groups how furniture is made, the chances of "mutually exclusive" explanations increases, because now the information is second hand and filtered by what the individual furniture makers say to each group of kids.

2) The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural-being-concepts known to science.

But not the only known source of "supernatural-being-concepts," as this excludes known existing documents involving supernatural entities.

When you only consider populations of pure white swans and note that there are no black swans, and then conclude that black swans are a product of human imagination, you are begging the question.

The fact that black swans do not fit your definition of white swans does not mean that they are not swans.

When you start with excluding evidence that there are black swans you reach invalid conclusions.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : ipu, clrty


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by bluegenes, posted 11-26-2010 12:27 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by bluegenes, posted 11-28-2010 8:59 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 56 of 222 (593692)
11-28-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by bluegenes
11-28-2010 8:59 AM


fraud is fraud, whether you delude yourself or not
Hi bluegenes

I was intentionally demonstrating that humans can and do make up supernatural beings.

Except that they are NOT supernatural beings: they are not actually capable of any supernatural behavior.

You can deceive yourself as much as you want, but you have provided no evidence for anything other than your imagination.

Of course they're not externally real supernatural entities, they are figments of my imagination. And of course they're "intentionally" fictitious.

And of course there is not one branch of legitimate science that relies in any way on fabricated evidence.

The fabrication of evidence in science is considered fraud. You are committing fraud when you use evidence that you have fabricated.

I should think that most (if not all) people reading the thread are already aware that human beings can and do make up supernatural beings. I thought you had agreed to this as well, and the need for the experiment was over. Now you seem to be saying that yes, we can make up fictional ones, but we can't make up real ones. Of course we can't invent real ones.

So why do you spend any time at all on such intentional fictional caricatures? What purpose is served by masturbating over tautological irrelevant nonsense? What holds you back from investigating other sources of supernatural entities?

Why don't you spend time instead looking into existing documents, to pick out descriptions of supernatural entities that are claimed by some people to exist, and show that they are products of human invention?

Why can't you demonstrate that the IPU is a product of human invention?

As for caricatures, my dear little question avoider, I asked you in the last post:
bluegenes writes:

Which real supernatural beings (ones that have been confirmed to exist beyond all reasonable doubt) are my imaginary beings caricatures of? How would you know how to distinguish a "caricature" of a supernatural being from the real thing?


I think there were some other direct questions in the last post that went unanswered.

Ah yes the old pseudoskeptic gambit, that others need to substantiate their claims and falsify yours while you just sit on your bum and make more unsubstantiated claims. You are the one that made a claim, so you need to substantiate it. Your claim, lest you forget is that:

quote:
The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...
(Message 167 on the An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" as quoted in Message 1, the OP)

Not only have you not even attempted to substantiate it, you have ignored the several other possibilities I have brought up and substantiated by reference to existing documents.

All you have done is draw your line a little tighter so that you can pretend that such documents do not exist, ignore this evidence, and then loudly proclaim

quote:
Human invention is the only source of supernatural beings known to science.
(Message 26 on this thread)

Don't look at the information on black swans, only white swans exist in populations of pure white swans, so only look at the white swan populations ... there are no black swans documented in all white swan populations, so they must be a product of imagination?

Repeating your claim does not make it any more valid than it was the first time. Lest you forget (or attempt to ignore again) there are other possibilities noted in the world literature

quote:
On communication possibilites

Human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings. If you disagree, tell the world about the other known source or sources.

In several religions there are beliefs involving god/s appearing as humans or animals to assist people reach enlightenment or assist them in finding truth.

Many eastern religions believe in enlightenment, which involves a level of understanding universal truths.

Other religions claim that religious experiences are means to communicate with god/s.

And of course there are religions (like the australian one you listed above) that believe in dreamtime experiences.

That's four different ways that various religions have claimed to have a source of knowledge about supernatural beings\entities\etc. -- and ones that you should have been already aware of.

Your task, if you claim that "human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings," is to falsify these as means of having an outside source for concepts of supernatural beings\entities\etc.

It doesn't appear that you have done this.
(Message 14 of this thread)


And you still have not done it.

Of course if anyone cares to review Message 14 they will see that you have done nothing to substantiate your claims or defend your position other than dodging and making stuff up. Certainly there remains an absolute dearth of any evidence that supports your various contentions, just bluster and obfuscation.

That is not how science is done. Science is done by getting down in the trenches and doing the research to support the hypothesis, not make it up.

Indeed. There are black swans known to science, which is why it would be very strange for someone to theorize that they're products of the human imagination. Even if there weren't, and only white swans had been observed, one would never eliminate the possibility of other coloured swans without having observed all swans directly. So, it would only be correct to theorise that all swans are white, and it wouldn't be considered a fact.

Indeed. There are means of communication with supernatural entities listed and documented in many world religions, which is why it would be very strange for someone to theorize that they're products of human imagination. Even if there weren't, and only imaginary means of communication were known, one would never eliminate the possibility of other communication methods with supernatural entities without having observed all possible means of communication with supernatural entities directly.

So what are you waiting for?

Stop just assuming that you are correct and do the ground-work necessary to demonstrate evidence that you have something more than wishful thinking based on personal opinion.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by bluegenes, posted 11-28-2010 8:59 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by bluegenes, posted 11-29-2010 6:29 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 58 of 222 (601133)
01-18-2011 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by bluegenes
11-29-2010 6:29 PM


where's the objective empirical evidence?
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes, I've given you some time to reflect on your replies here.

Don't be silly. 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".

Curiously, I still cannot point to a single bit of empirical objective evidence that shows that any one specific concept of a supernatural being that can be found in religious literature or other documents of people that believe in the specific supernatural being is undeniably a product of human imagination.

Your made up concoctions are just that - fabrications, not evidence that is of the objective scientific variety regarding the issue you are claiming to discuss, that:

quote:
Message 167 on the 'An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" thread:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

You're imaginary fabrications and popular fiction are not documents about supernatural concepts that are believed to exist. The fact that they are intentionally imagined does not mean that any other concept in necessarily imagined. Just because you want them to be imaginary does not mean that they are, and assuming that they are would just be confirmation bias on your part.

You apparently can't seem to understand this simple point. I provided you with an extensive explanation of why the logic you employed was invalid, along with several examples that absolutely showed that your logical structure provided false conclusions, and your failure or inability to accept this simple fact is strong evidence of cognitive dissonance.

In Message 167 on the An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" thread you asserted you had:

quote:
... plenty of evidence.

The fact that you needed to make up evidence shows, imho, that you have no other evidence to present, or we would not still be discussing your total lack of objective empirical evidence and you would not still be trying to make stuff up. Without such empirical objective evidence this statement of yours appears to be a fabrication, a falsehood, a lie.

Amazingly, science does not depend on made up evidence in any way.

In science, as you agreed in previous replies, theory is founded on a set of objective empirical evidence, not on opinion, belief or fantasy. With no substantiation of your claim to have "plenty of evidence" your claim that

quote:
... this is a strong theory ...

is nothing more than opinion and wishful thinking. As I stated at the beginning of this thread.

You can delude yourself all you want to, but I see nothing from you other than opinion, poor logic, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias in accordance with your personal beliefs, and not a scientific approach to the development of a genuine scientific theory.

Why is it irrelevant to establish a known source for the supernatural concepts we all have in our heads?

Because, once again (cue Arlo Guthrie, with feeling), (a) it is given that people can make things up, (b) it is given that intentional fiction is actually fiction as intended, and (b) that you claimed that "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" - not just intentional fiction. So, logically, you need to look outside the bounds of intentional fiction before you begin to address this issue.

Just because people can make up concepts does not mean that any concept you wish to discuss is necessarily made up. Is that hard to understand? Do you understand that you cannot assume your conclusion in the premises?

Because you seemed to be questioning that humans can and do make such things up.

Please. Certainly this kind of statement should be beneath you, or you are admitting that you cannot read and understand what I have said. I have clearly stated that humans can and do make things up, the problem YOU have is that this does not mean that any one single concept is made up -- you need to actually demonstrate that it is made up.

You do this by starting with a basic concept and then provide the objective empirical evidence that demonstrates that it is made up.

That's what I'm waiting for. A source for our concepts other than human invention would be supernatural beings that are actually known to exist, and I can't find any. All I can find is our concepts, and that's all we have on the thread so far.

Are you really that inept? In science you get out and look, not wait for evidence to turn up on your doorstep and ring the doorbell.

When I did that with the creation mythologies, comparing them to what we know from cosmology, biology and geology, you went into denial, and replied with some meaningless emotion driven waffle about confirmation bias. You've since imagined up some underlying meaning to all these stories, without telling us what it is. Wow!

Curiously I cannot find mention of a single named entity in a single specific mythology where you actually demonstrated that it was made up, all I see is you making assumptions based on your opinions of the mythologies.

You claimed to find mutually exclusive elements in mythologies, and I have shown you a valid explanation for them. I have also shown you how children at a furniture factory can generate stories of furniture manufacture that will have "mutually exclusive" elements, and yet you cannot show that the employees of the furniture store are imaginary.

Once again, you are making assumptions that you base your conclusions on, and not presenting objective empirical evidence that a single named entity in a single specific mythology where you actually demonstrated that it was made up.

When I did that with the creation mythologies, comparing them to what we know from cosmology, biology and geology, ...

You still make the completely unfounded assumption that early humans recording their experiences would have a complete knowledge of all science, not just cosmology, biology and geology, and that they would completely understand and then accurately describe what they see.

Can you explain something you do not understand? I can't. I can come to some approximation based on my level of knowledge and my opinions and biases, but it is more likely to be wrong than right. Does that mean that the actual instance of what I tried to describe did not exist?

If a child cannot explain how a furniture factory works in great detail due to his lack of knowledge, does that mean that the factory does not exist? If a child explains something wrong, does that mean that the factory does not exist?

Can you explain why eye-witness accounts are generally not unquestioningly trusted in the courts of law, yet you expect a second-hand account to be absolutely accurate?

Really? It's my task, is it? Is it part of your religious belief that scientific theories only become strong when they've falsified lots of unfalsifiable beliefs?

No, it is part of the scientific process, as you agreed, that you start with a set of objective empirical evidence that you can show conforms to your hypothesis. You have yet to present a single piece of this kind of evidence to justify your claim.

The word "pseudoskeptic" seems to crop up as a sort of catch-all, when you're desperate and losing an argument. I expect we'll see a lot more of it in this thread. I must say, congratulations on cutting out the ironic constant repetition of the phrases "confirmation bias" and "cognitive dissonance." Did you finally find out what they mean?

Curiously, the pseudoskeptic keeps making up reasons to avoid presenting evidence to support his position.

I was particularly hoping, as you keep harping on about her, that you were going to demonstrate her existence for us, beyond reasonable doubt.

Typical. I have not made the claim that the IPU exists, while you have made the claim that it is a figment of human imagination, and thus you need to provide the evidence that demonstrates this.

This type of behavior is evident in your continued bluster and attempts to obfuscate your complete and absolute failure to demonstrate that a single bit of empirical objective evidence shows that any one specific concept of a supernatural being that can be found in religious literature (or other documents of people that believe in the specific supernatural being) is undeniably a product of human imagination. You made the claim, you need to substantiate it.

So where's the objective empirical evidence? Or is that just another figment of your imagination?

Without evidence this

quote:
,,, plenty of evidence.

is a lie.

And if that is a lie, then this

quote:
... this is a strong theory ...

is a delusion.

AND if that is a delusion, then this

quote:
All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination

is based on wishful thinking, personal beliefs, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

Without any evidence I write Q.E.D. to my conclusion in Message 1:

quote:
What you have is wishful thinking and confirmation bias coupled to the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

Note that I will ignore any further posts of yours that do not present objective empirical evidence that establishes that a single entity must be a product of human imagination: pony up, or stop the charade.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Edited by RAZD, : space


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by bluegenes, posted 11-29-2010 6:29 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2011 7:38 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 60 of 222 (601319)
01-19-2011 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by bluegenes
01-19-2011 7:38 PM


STILL NO EVIDENCE
Hi bluegenes, you still miss the point

There's overwhelming "objective empirical evidence" that such a creation never took place, and therefore that the "specific concept of a supernatural being" described cannot exist.

Saying that there is "overwhelming "objective empirical evidence" that such a creation never took place" is

A - NOT providing the evidence.
B - NOT evidence that a specific supernatural entity does not exist.

Start with some ACTUAL "objective empirical evidence" and I will read more of your post next time, until then I see no point in participating in your obvjious, plentiful and obdurate attempts to avoid the issue of actual evidence.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2011 7:38 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2011 9:26 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 62 of 222 (601328)
01-19-2011 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by bluegenes
01-19-2011 9:26 PM


STILL NO EVIDENCE
Hi again bluegenes,

Don't waste my time.

Don't continue to waste mine.

Present the objective empirical evidence that shows that a single specific supernatural concept is made up.

You said you had plenty, but you have not shared it.

What you have is your subjective opinion.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2011 9:26 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2011 10:31 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 64 of 222 (601387)
01-20-2011 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by bluegenes
01-19-2011 10:31 PM


Re: STILL NO EVIDENCE
Hi bluegenes, sorry but no go.

It's hardly my fault that you don't know what empirical evidence is. Why don't you find out?

Again with the ad hominem when your pet belief is not accepted just on the basis of your word. boo hoo.

If a theist were trying to show you evidence for their belief and provided evidence like yours, you would be all over them for it.

What you have provided so far, at best, is circumstantial anecdotal evidence interpreted by you based on your subjective opinion and biases.

And below is a tiny fraction of the mountain of empirical evidence that falsifies the flat earth creator god.

No, bluegenes, it falsifies the interpretation that the created earth was flat. It doesn't falsify any entity.

You provided "evidence" that flat-earthers and YEC's contradicted each other, yet both positions are based on different interpretations of the same text, interpretations at odds with other interpretations of the same text that do not conflict with an old, oblate spheroid earth in orbit around the sun.

Obviously what is in error is the interpretation.

Evidence that the earth is an oblate spheroid earth in orbit around the sun is not evidence that it was not created by god/s, nor that any specific god/s do not exist.

I've shown you WHY such interpretations are almost inevitably different when people are confronted with something they do not fully understand.

You cannot explain something you don't understand, or you would be able to understand it.

Capice?

Now see if you can provide objective empirical evidence that some supernatural entity concept is necessarily a complete fabrication of human invention.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2011 10:31 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by bluegenes, posted 01-21-2011 11:12 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20261
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 66 of 222 (601589)
01-21-2011 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by bluegenes
01-21-2011 11:12 AM


AND ... STILL NO EVIDENCE
Sorry bluegenes,

Evidence still missing.

Try again.

Enjoy.

ps

It's the same with the phrase "mutually exclusive". If I describe three propositions that are clearly mutually exclusive, and you disagree that they are, then I reasonably conclude that you don't properly understand the phrase.

If a theist presented the same level of empirical evidence for the existence of his or her god, I'd be a convert. He/she would have established an actual real god as the source of a god concept in a way that would make it the "best explanation" scientifically, and would have falsified my theory.

In debates with supernaturalists, I know well that they need to avoid actually having to present positive evidence for their SB-concepts.

For the record, these are NOT the "same level of empirical evidence" - one is circumstantial, based on opinion and bias in interpretation of a story about god/s and the other is the presentation of actual god/s.

This is why you are a pseudoskeptic.

As was shown with the stories about private eyes and the children, the stories can be made up but private eyes and furniture makers still exist. Whether you accept it or not, these simple facts completely invalidate your logic and prove that your "evidence" is just opinion based on your world view biases and wishful thinking.

The fact that you do not accept these valid and reasonable criticisms, based on the known behavior of people, of your purported evidence makes you just as hide-bound as the fundamental theist, blinded by confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

The fact that you claim that subjective evidence - your interpretation of circumstantial anecdotal evidence - is on a par with actual objective empirical evidence is a measure of how much you seem to have deluded yourself into thinking you have evidence of anything but your opinion/s.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ps added

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by bluegenes, posted 01-21-2011 11:12 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by bluegenes, posted 01-24-2011 10:28 AM RAZD has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019