Peanut Gallery

See Message 164

Surely one of us linking replies to the new (i.e. old but re-invigorated) thread is enough?If anyone foolish enough to be reading this follows my link they will see your reply to that post.You don't need to highlight every wisdomic pearl of yours twice Nwr.Please no replies to this message....

The only known source of a specific fingerprint is a unique individual.ALL fingerprints are sourced from unique individuals.This is a strong theory.This would be falsified if we invented a configurable fingerprint generating machine or found more than one person with the exact same fingerprints as another.AbE - And the strength of the fingerprint identity theory is not weakened because somebody happens to hold the baseless but unfalsifiable belief that fingerprints can sometimes magically appear.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In the Great Debate with bluegenes you say: So (to be clear here) your argument rests on the idea that written documents are a form of objective empirical evidence supporting the actual existence of supernatural entities? As opposed to being objective empirical evidence supporting the known fact of human belief in the existence of supernatural entities?I am sure bluegenes will pick up on this in the debate so I am just seeking clarification that this is what you meant.

Can anyone explain why RAZD thinks that documents written by human beings constitute an alternative source of such concepts?Or why evidenced human belief in some supernatural beings makes those particular concepts evidentially superior or more worthy of consideration to ones which nobody believes in the existence of?Does RAZD consider belief itself to be a form of evidence?

So if lots of people believe something it is more likely to be true than if nobody believes in it?

It seems that part of the problem in the debate with Bluegenes (and all those that have preceded it) is that RAZ doesn't understand the difference between inductive and deductive logic. Although given this stance RAZD's entire position against Bluegenes inductive argument that the only known source of supernatural concepts is human imagination therefore tentatively we can say that all supernatural concepts are imagined, comes down to demonstrating another source of such concepts.Apparently RAZ thinks he has located another source of such concepts in the form of documents written by humans..... Do I really need to point out the problem with this?Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

No. A "Bluegenes-type referee" would seek confirmation that each of the blind men had actually experienced something real rather than imagined. Even if putting the tangible pieces together and coming up with "elephant" has not yet been achieved it should be possible to confirm that the actual pieces exist shouldn't it?What is the equivalent to the pieces of elephant in the case of supernatural entities? We don't have any pieces. All we have is human belief. Whether documented or otherwise.Once again belief is being cited as a form of evidence albeit in a convuluted manner.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Other than the belief that something supernatural has been experienced what is it that distinguishes one supernatural concept from any other? However you phrase this your argument and your anology amounts to nothing more than saying that if people believe something it is more likely to be true than if nobody believes in it.Belief as evidence. Your entire anology relies on presupposing the existence of said elephant. It is only analogous if we presuppose that those who claim supernatural experiences have actually experienced something supernatural. But ALL of the evidence indicates that commonality of human psychology is the reason for any commonality of experience and none of the evidence suggests anything else. Question: Why should experiences attributed by humans to supernatural causes be considered as evidence of the actual existence of supernatural entities rather than evidence of fluctuations in the matrix (for example)?This is not a rhetorical question. Subjective evidence? In a thread about the existence of deities? No Xongsmith. This has been ruled out by RAZD in no uncertain terms. Message 450Nobody denies the possibility in a philosophic sense. What we question is why anyone thinks that gods even possibly exist on any evidential basis.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think the key difference between the two sides in this whole thing is that one sides sees a claim for "plenty of evidence" in favour of a theory pertaining to human imagination and the other sees this same statement as a claim of "plenty of evidence" that supernatural entities do not exist. These are quite different, even if obviously related, claims.One's criteria for falsification will depend on which of those two intepretations of the theory one takes. Although Bluegene's himself undoubtably is talking about human imagination as the source of such concept rather than any explicit denial of existence.Bluegenes argument would be falsified by the discovery of any non-human source of supernatural concepts. If we discovered an alien civilisation that demonstrated belief in empirically unknowable entities it would be falsified. Or (to continue the science fiction type example) if a race of genetically modified intelligent chimps started displaying signs of worship it would also be arguably falsified.But we have been through this before: Message 187. Up and down thread.

The point is that like any naturalistic explanation bluegenes wholly naturalistic explanation can be falsified by either naturalistic or supernaturalistic alternatives.But nobody starts yelling that evolutionary biology has failed to take into account un-evidenced omphalistic possibilities. So what exactly is the difference here? Without the word "human" in there what evidence are we talking about?I think the word "human" is absolutely key to all of this. All of the evidence in question pertains to human history, psychology, anthropology, neurology etc. etc. The fact that you think it a "semantic loophole" just highlights the completely different worlds from which you and I are coming at this question. I think if we found theistic aliens it would pose some serious questions. We know that humans are predisposed to anthropomorphasising mindless physical processes and seeking meaning and reason in terms of conscious intent when there isn't any.Maybe this is a necessary feature of intelligent creative lifeforms? Or maybe it provides a more objective basis on which to consider the god question. Either way it is not irrelevant at all. Current technological limitations are not grounds for declaring a theory "unfalsifiable". And in the meantime you could just present an entity which is widely considered to be supernatural and which actually exists couldn't you? Just to mix tings up a bit. No.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling typos

The difference is one of emphasis alone. Not principle. As we have been through before: Message 184What exactly do you think the fundamental difference is between concluding evolution over omphalism on the basis of positive evidence and concluding, again on the basis of positive evidence, that supernatural concepts are sourced from human imagination rather than being caused by the actual existence of supernatural entities? In both cases we have a highly positively evidenced naturalistic explanation for an observable phenomenon Vs a baseless proposition.So rather than keep expressing bewilderment at me not seeing any difference why don’t you spell out what the difference is? I think that if you try actually to spell out this difference you will find it a lot more difficult to identify than you are assuming to be the case. Because the difference is one of emphasis and not principle. The fact that you are talking about hypothetical falsifications is simply testament to the fact that nothing has yet been presented to falsify bluegenes theory. A single supernatural concept the source of which can be traced back to somewhere other than human imagination will suffice.

Whatever IT is that is believed in.If lots of people believe something is it more likely to be true than if nobody believes in it?RAZD's arguments certainly seem to imply that he thinks so.Belief as evidence. A common fallacy.

If you agree that subjective experiences which are believed to be caused by something supernatural are no more indicative of something supernatural actually existing than they are indicative of fluctuations in the matrix then what relevance do they have to bluegenes and RAZD’s debate?There are a near infinite number of unfalsified possible causes of such experiences. Why are such subjective experience not evidence of magic moonbeams interacting with our brains? Or of a devious and sinister CIA plot to utilise the opium of the masses? So why are you citing such experiences as evidence of something supernatural rather than any of the other possibilities? Only because people believe they are caused by gods do they get cited as any form of evidence for gods.Belief as evidence. Yet again. However you phrase it.

Is it? I thought it was about supernatural concepts? Human belief in the supernatural is an observable phenomenon. What is the cause of this phenomenon? That is the question being asked. That is the question bluegenes theory seeks to answer. Evolution is not explicitly asking if the world was created last Thursday in the same way that bluegenes theory is not explicitly asking whether or not supernatural entities exist. These things are implicit in the respective theories. I don't think bluegenes theory is explicitly about supernature in the way that you are asserting. It is about explaining an observed phenomenon (i.e. human belief in the supernatural) naturalistically based on positive empirical evidence.The fact that this causes it to come into conflict with those who like to consider the actual existence of supernatural entities as a possible cause of human belief in such things is a matter of emphasis of opposition rather than difference of principle in terms of the theory itself.If the world were full of confirmed omphalists and their agnostic adherents the theory of evolution would be accused of explicitly denying omphalism in the same way that you are accusing bluegenes theory of explicitly commenting on the actual existence of supernatural entities.In each case it is a difference of emphasis. Not principle. As long as the possibility remains open you are probably right that many scientifically minded individuals will continue to pursue naturalistic explanations. But so what?I say bring forth one of these borderline supernatural cases. I say let's discuss one of these entities such that we can cast some serious doubt on bluegenes theory even if not actually outright disprove it. But wait - Do we have any such examples? All you have to do is find a concept that is universally classed as a supernatural entity and for which there is no known natural explanation and demonstrate that it either actually exists or is sourced from somewhere other than the human imagination.Try to see the theory for what it says rather than what you think it says. And do try to get past this obsession you have with proving and disproving things.