Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 9:24 AM
31 online now:
AlexCaledin, AZPaul3, JonF, Larni, Percy (Admin), Tangle (6 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,810 Year: 8,846/19,786 Month: 1,268/2,119 Week: 28/576 Day: 28/50 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 61 of 222 (601326)
01-19-2011 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
01-19-2011 8:19 PM


Don't waste my time.
RAZD writes:

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.

Once again. Don't be childish. There's a flat earth creator god concept, based on certain verses in the bible. I'm not wasting time typing in evidence that the earth isn't flat. For evidence against the equally ridiculous young earth creator, read the link.

http://razd.evcforum.net/Age_Dating.htm#The_Bottom_Line

Enjoy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2011 8:19 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2011 9:31 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


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

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 63 of 222 (601344)
01-19-2011 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
01-19-2011 9:31 PM


Re: STILL NO EVIDENCE
RAZD writes:

Don't continue to waste mine.

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

RAZD writes:

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

You've been accusing me of making up specific supernatural concepts for the last few posts. Presumably you must have objective empirical evidence that I was doing so.

Here's just a tiny bit of the mountains of empirical evidence that effectively falsifies all the supernatural beings - concepts who are described as doing a hands on creation of our species. Well over 1 billion people believe in Adam and Eve and their creator, a demonstrably false SB concept. And there are many other imagined SB concepts in the creation mythologies who create the first humans.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2011 9:31 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2011 8:13 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


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

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 65 of 222 (601543)
01-21-2011 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by RAZD
01-20-2011 8:13 AM


RAZD writes:

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

Now I have to point out that you don't seem to understand the phrase ad hominem. My comment that you don't know what empirical evidence is was taken from what you say on this thread. When I present empirical evidence, and you say that I haven't, I come to a reasonable conclusion that you don't really understand the phrase empirical evidence, based entirely on what you have typed.

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.

RAZD writes:

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.

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. It's part of the special privilege of religion in our cultures that theists are never expected to present any real positive evidence for their SB-concepts. Hundreds of millions of children around the world are being taught that this, that or the other god is real and true and very very important without one scrap of real positive evidence to support the actual existence of any of them.

In debates with supernaturalists, I know well that they need to avoid actually having to present positive evidence for their SB-concepts. Look at your O.P. It shows that you are aware that it will be impossible to demonstrate that there is an SB-concept that couldn't be or is unlikely to actually be a figment of the human imagination. That is not the behavior of someone who really thinks that my theory is weak, although I'm sure you're capable of convincing yourself that you do think so.

Think about it. If someone falsifies my theory, that person would become internationally famous, and as a celebrity with a great story to tell, would become rich, and would never have to work again. If my theory is weak, it should be relatively easy to falsify, and with all that incentive, why has no-one ever actually established the existence of a single supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt? The ancient Greek atheists would have considered the Greek pantheon to be the invention of their fellow countrymen. This debate is not new. Yet supernaturalists have failed to confirm the existence of even one little fairy in more than 2000 years since then.

So why are you claiming that my theory is weak (easily falsifiable) without falsifying it? I'd love to falsify it myself, and take the fame and fortune, but I can currently see no way of doing so, so I think it is a strong, high confidence theory.

RAZD writes:

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

Do you know what a circumstantial ad hominem is? Just wondering, because there have been a lot of these on this thread.

I've made repeatable observations that lead to the conclusion that human invention is the only source of SB-concepts known to science. I've pointed out that large swathes of the modern population believe in clearly invented SB-concepts. We cannot identify a single person who believes in an SB-concept that is demonstrably true. The statistical weight of the evidence at this stage in the discussion indicates that the theory is very strong.

RAZD writes:

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

You asked for the empirical evidence against a specific SB-concept. I gave the concept of a god who created the earth flat, and then demonstrated that the only specification in the description was false. The described entity was defined by that one action (flat earth creation). If you ignore the specific descriptions of SB-concepts, then you just end up with non-specified supernatural beings, which would all be unfalsifiable, or you can invent the specifications (a god who created the universe as it appears to modern science - a relatively new god) so as to avoid the possibilities of falsification.

RAZD writes:

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.

Why obviously? The interpretation could be correct, and the text wrong, or both interpretation and text could be wrong. But more to the point here is that we can see that people can invent a number of different SB-concepts from one single text. We see evidence of invention, but no evidence that any of the SB-concepts are actually true (as always).

Adam and Eve are in the text you're talking about, and as the empirical evidence tells us that humans descend from other animals, it seems that the text being wrong is the obvious conclusion. I expect that Adam and Eve will need to conveniently become allegories for something now. And they may well have been, along with the god and the serpent. It's unquestionable that the Genesis account is fictional, but what we don't know is if the original was intentional fiction, or the product of false "seers/prophets" who thought they actually knew the story of the beginning of the world.

The story is a magical fiction about good and evil, just like Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, interestingly.

RAZD writes:

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,…

Of course.

RAZD writes:

nor that any specific god/s do not exist.

That would depend on the specification. In the creation mythologies, geo-centricity tends to be the norm, unsurprisingly in view of my strong theory and our ancestors' perspective. I can't remember one that sounded heliocentric, and the sun often arrives on the scene after the earth. All the stories are set in fictional worlds, like modern fantasy.

RAZD writes:

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?

Are you saying that people invent interpretations of ancient texts, and end up with imaginary gods? Sure, of course they do.

If you don't understand something (the universe, for example) there's no requirement to invent things about it. The alternative is to try and find out as much as possible about it, which is why we do science. The two different approaches, invention and real discovery, often clash when the inventions prove to be false, hence the ongoing science/religion clash, and the reason for the existence of this forum. It goes much deeper than any particular form of creationism. There are two fundamentally different approaches to reality, and science will always clash with supernaturalist invention until the latter dies out.

Unless my theory is false.

RAZD writes:

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

That, presumably, doesn't apply to the visible yellow elf who's sitting on your lap at the moment, reading this with amusement. I expect you meant an SB-concept that people believe in, excluding, for some reason, the ones that modern writers have invented and which might well be believed in by nutters. You sometimes ask for concepts that weren't intentionally invented. But how can we know the intentions of ancient "prophets" and "seers", and whether they believed in their SB-concepts or not?

When I do describe an SB-concept that can be reasonably falsified, what you'll do is try to remove the specifications that make the SB-concept false, and turn it into a different SB-concept which is unfalsifiable.

Here we go. A creator god who created the planet in six days less than ten-thousand years ago, and created the first man from dust and the first women from a man's rib. He also caused a world-wide flood between four and five thousand years ago, destroying all humanity except for one family, and all animals except for sample pairs or groups which survived on a wooden boat with the humans.

You've been asking for some time that we discuss SB-concepts that people actually believe in, as if you think that makes them less likely to be figments of the human imagination than concepts that people don't believe in. When I point out that every SB-concept that is about a being or beings who directly create the first two (or several in some myths) human beings is effectively falsified by the evidence that humans actually descended from other animals, you, of course will want to remove the "hands on creation" specification, something central to the beliefs of well over 1 billion people.

So, what you'll try and do here is say that this is a misinterpretation, take away the falsifiable specifications, and then invent an unfalsifiable different SB-concept. Which is why the smarter theists have stuck their gods outside the universe long ago, not actually doing anything that could be falsified.

When someone proposes something like a non-interventionist creator god outside the universe, we know that no human has ever been outside space-time to make observations, so the scientific conclusion, the "best explanation" for such an SB-concept, is that it’s a human invention, and the described character is therefore just as fictional as Gandalf.

If we can't go outside space time and make observations, we have to imagine any SB-concepts that we put there. Don't you agree?

Do you have an imaginary friend?

Edited by bluegenes, : grammar/clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2011 8:13 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2011 5:53 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 67 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2011 7:09 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 67 of 222 (601594)
01-21-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by bluegenes
01-21-2011 11:12 AM


For the Peanut Gallery
Hi again bluegenes, this message is for those in the Peanut Gallery that don't understand my position:

Perhaps instead of complaining about my posts, they could help you by suggesting actual objective empirical evidence that shows that a god is a figment of human imagination.

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 65 by bluegenes, posted 01-21-2011 11:12 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 68 of 222 (601795)
01-24-2011 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by RAZD
01-21-2011 5:53 PM


AND ... STILL NO EVIDENCE for real fairies
RAZD writes:

Sorry bluegenes,

Evidence still missing.

True. We still have absolute zero evidence for the existence of any real supernatural beings. Don't apologise, keep looking.

RAZD writes:

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

It's not me interpreting. I see Genesis as a fictional fantasy tale concerned with good and evil. A lot of the creation myths are Aesop's Fables kind of stuff. It's 100,000,000 of your compatriots doing the interpreting. They're believing in a demonstrably false god-concept. That's my point.

If you can't present me with just one counter-example of just one person who believes in a demonstrably true SB-concept, you've certainly no grounds for your claim that my theory is weak.

RAZD writes:

..and the other is the presentation of actual god/s.

Exactly. The establishment of a god or god/s as the source of god concepts, just as horses are the source of horse concepts, including the horses we write about in fiction. We know where the original horse idea comes from. I believe in fish, for example. If someone theorizes that all fish are figments of the imagination, I can easily present evidence that they are real. When concepts that we have in our minds actually do exist externally, it's usually easy to demonstrate their real existence by direct or indirect evidence.

So, why do you supernaturalists special plead? Is it because you can't make figments of your imagination materialize? Why shouldn't theists who claim to believe in a real god demonstrate that it's real? The SB-concept doesn't have to manifest itself. The Intelligent Design movement is trying to establish the real existence of an SB-concept (a "hands on" non-living intelligent designer of life) by the indirect means of attempting to establish that certain biological phenomena cannot come about without intelligent input. We establish the existence of ancient human cultures, like the one(s) that built Stonehenge, by observing the things they made. And claims for the past existence of mythological beings have been made on the same basis (the giant who built the Giant's Causeway, for example).

So far, no-one has established the real existence of any supernatural beings by means of direct or indirect evidence, as my theory predicts.

RAZD writes:

This is why you are a pseudoskeptic.

If I remember rightly, your definition of a pseudoskeptic is someone who thinks that it's very improbable that the universe was created by a transvestite omphalist god with green toenails, or any other such random, unsupported "hypothesis". That would include every sane, intelligent person on this board, so thanks for the compliment.

RAZD writes:

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.

We can observe private eyes and furniture makers. Our ancestors postdate the formation of the solar system, so the creation mythologies cannot be distorted accounts of what they've observed. Of course the fictional creation stories don't disprove the existence of all supernatural beings. That's impossible. I think you're missing the point, and you're always avoiding the main point. Human stories are not the source of the concepts of private eyes and furniture makers, although we certainly write fiction based on the realities, as we do with everything. But with supernatural beings, stories told by us are the only source known to science. One of my points about the creation mythologies is that they contain hundreds of supernatural beings in fantasy settings which are no closer to reality than the fiction genre that's called high fantasy. They are also mutually exclusive accounts of the same supposed thing, as well as completely inaccurate accounts. If you read them straight, those are repeatable observations that anyone can make, and therefore objective.

If you present speculative interpretations of them, like that they might all be distorted versions of something true, then you're moving into the realms of subjectivity. You don't have any evidence of this original true story. As they stand, the stories are products of human invention.

If you look in the stories for signs that our ancestors were getting special information from supernatural beings about the real history of the universe, there are none. Quite the opposite, they get it all wrong, and life, predictably, starts with modern animals and plants.

You, presumably, don't take the characters in modern fantasy seriously. Why should you take the characters in ancient stories any more seriously? Because you know that the former are made up intentionally, why should the older ones not be? Were they made up accidentally?

Are you suggesting that all these older SB-concepts are based on something real (apart from ourselves and other animals), and if so, what evidence do you have to support that idea? Why isn't Merlin just as much a fiction as Gandalf and Harry Potter? Do you think there is any more evidence for the Pharaohs being living gods than there is for Obama being the Anti-christ?

RAZD writes:

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.

By all means use analogy for illustration, but I've pointed out what's wrong with yours. Humans didn't observe the formation of this planet or the universe, for a start.

The "known behavior of people" includes inventing non-existent beings, and also believing in false SB-concepts. That can be easily observed without even visiting a psychiatric ward, and I've presented the evidence for it on this thread. What isn't currently the known behavior of any single person is believing in an SB-concept that is demonstrably real.

It doesn't require confirmation bias not to believe in supernatural beings. I do not have to avert my eyes to avoid seeing the crowds of them passing me on the streets, and pretend they're not there. But, on the evidence we have for their existence, I'd certainly have to start lying to myself big time if I decided to start believing that any SB-concepts were actually true.

If it weren't for confirmation bias, there wouldn't be any religions. It doesn't take confirmation bias to believe that all books are authored by humans, but you can't believe that the Koran is the word of an all seeing all knowing creator of the universe without heavy confirmation bias.

RAZD writes:

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.

What we have objective evidence for on this thread is widespread human invention of SB-concepts, the capacity for delusional people to believe in demonstrably false ones, and for the existence of a delusional apologist for the supernatural called RAZD who believes that that evidence is subjective, and that he is the soul of objectivity.

On your side, you have tried to make arguments based on the religious Faith of Hindus, and the laughable argument that books are a known alternative source to the human imagination of SB-concepts. Are unsupported beliefs your idea of objective evidence?

A direct question which you'll probably avoid answering: What do you think is the best scientific explanation for the concepts of volcano spirits/gods and the evil spirits that cause disease?

Human invention, or real existence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2011 5:53 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2011 6:29 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 69 of 222 (601860)
01-24-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by bluegenes
01-24-2011 10:28 AM


Re: AND ... STILL NO EVIDENCE from bluegenes
Hi bluegenes, still in denial about the absence of evidence.

It's not me interpreting. I see Genesis as ...

Curiously, that's you interpreting.

SO how about some evidence?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

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 68 by bluegenes, posted 01-24-2011 10:28 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by bluegenes, posted 01-24-2011 6:54 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 70 of 222 (601868)
01-24-2011 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
01-24-2011 6:29 PM


Scientific theories aren't weakened by ignorance.
RAZD writes:

Curiously, that's you interpreting.

Exactly. My interpretation is not the YEC interpretation. If you don't know of any evidence that the YEC god-concept is false, then go back to school. Your ignorance doesn't weaken my theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2011 6:29 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2011 7:27 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 71 of 222 (601873)
01-24-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by bluegenes
01-24-2011 6:54 PM


AND still ...
Hi bluegenes

... you have no objective empirical evidence.

Exactly. My interpretation ...

Is your interpretation, not evidence. I'm glad we sorted that out.

Curiously, without a base group of objective empirical evidence you cannot have a scientific theory according to the scientific method. Scientific theories are based on a base group of evidence, as you have agreed.

All you have is wishful thinking based on bias and preconceptions.

If you don't know of any evidence that the YEC god-concept is false, then go back to school. Your ignorance doesn't weaken my theory.

Fascinatingly, this has nothing to do with you substantiating your claims.

Once again you continue to conflate and confuse one interpretation of a narration with a being, in spite of being emphatically and objectively shown that stories can be fiction, while the beings are real.

* The "YEC god-concept," as you call it, is not of the god per se, but the YEC interpretation of parts of the narration that result in a young earth. This same narration is interpreted by other christians in many different way, but that does not mean that each of these different interpretations is about a different supernatural being. Quite the contrary, and the fact that they are talking about the same supernatural being means that it is the interpretation that is at variance, not the supernatural being. *

Interestingly your "refutation" once again amounts to ad hominem mixed in with poor reasoning.

* If your concept is a strong one, then why can't you provide evidence to substantiate it? *

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty and * ... * sections added


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 70 by bluegenes, posted 01-24-2011 6:54 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by bluegenes, posted 01-25-2011 12:43 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 72 of 222 (601923)
01-25-2011 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
01-24-2011 7:27 PM


Known sources
RAZD writes:

* The "YEC god-concept," as you call it, is not of the god per se, but the YEC interpretation of parts of the narration that result in a young earth. This same narration is interpreted by other christians in many different way, but that does not mean that each of these different interpretations is about a different supernatural being. Quite the contrary, and the fact that they are talking about the same supernatural being means that it is the interpretation that is at variance, not the supernatural being. *

How is it that they are talking about the same being if it has different descriptions?

RAZD writes:

Once again you continue to conflate and confuse a story with a being, in spite of being emphatically and objectively shown that stories can be fiction, while the beings are real.

When we have a fictional story, like Black Beauty, the actual horse is fictional, not real, but it's based on creatures that are demonstrably real. When we have fictional stories about supernatural beings, like the creation mythologies or modern fantasy, the characters and their actions, as with Black Beauty, are fictional, and they are not based on creatures that are demonstrably real.

With supernatural beings, we have only the stories to go on. Horses we can observe. When we do not have empirical evidence to establish the real existence of entities, we have to imagine them; we have only the concepts in our minds to discuss.

"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" is therefore a very strong theory. The only thing that can weaken it is good evidence for the real existence of one or more supernatural beings.

The YEC's describe the character they believe in (it's not for you or I to make up their concept), and their descriptions are all we have to go on. The character described is demonstrably fictional. You have asked me in this thread to falsify a specific supernatural being- concept that people actually believe in, as if you think (incorrectly) that belief is some indication of veracity in itself. That's been done. The YEC story is the YEC SB-concept. A different interpretation of Genesis by other Christians, a different story, would give us a different Christian SB-concept. There are many, and you'd be misunderstanding me if you think that I claim that the falsification of one falsifies the others. Some of them are unfalsifiable.

There's little point in asking for the falsification of supernatural beings that are independent of human stories, because we can't find any. All we have is some concepts that are unfalsifiable and unsupported by evidence, and others that happen to be falsifiable as well as unsupported.

There's something very strange in the way you read evidence. We have a phenomenon to examine, which is the supernatural concepts in our minds. That human beings can and do invent fictional supernatural beings is a fact. Supernatural beings actually existing is something for which we have zero positive evidence. We cannot even establish the real existence of even one of the many concepts. A theory that attributes the phenomenon to human invention cannot possibly be described as "weak" under those circumstances. I wasn't exaggerating when I described the score as 1 billion to Zero.

Supernatural explanation for diseases: The evil spirits cause them.

Natural explanation: Germ theory. Germs are a known source of disease.

Supernatural explanation for our SB- concepts: Real supernatural beings exist.

Natural explanation: Human invention. Human invention is a known source of SB - concepts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2011 7:27 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2011 6:22 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 73 of 222 (602044)
01-25-2011 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by bluegenes
01-25-2011 12:43 AM


still no evidence (bluegenes bleats once more around the bush)
Hi bluegenes, sorry, once again I am not impressed with your effort.

Curiously, your argument is still void of any objective empirical evidence.

"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" is therefore a very strong theory concept .

If it is a strong concept, then why are you unable to provide objective empirical evidence to support it?

Evolution is a strong theory, it is supported by mountains of objective empirical evidence, including the evidence that Darwin used in 1850 to present the original theory of descent with modification.

Without the foundational evidence required by the scientific method you do not have a scientific theory, you have a concept based on preconception, wishful thinking and personal bias.

quote:
Message 1:
In Message 167 on the An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" thread bluegenes asserted:
I'd be happy to ... support the theory concept with plenty of evidence.

Evidently this is a false statement, as you are being drawn kicking and screaming to try to evoke some objective empirical evidence while all you offer up is opinion and interpretation based on your personal biases.

Repeating that you think it is strong does not make it so, this is done by presenting objective empirical evidence to support it.

If it is a strong concept, then why are you unable to provide objective empirical evidence to support it?

How is it that they are talking about the same being if it has different descriptions?

Obviously (a) you have not been reading my post or (b) thinking about this clearly,

(a) see Message 14, hindu hypothesis, and Message 49, school children.

(b) what is the name of the god in each of these varying christian interpretations?

(c) are the descriptions different or are you mixing up description with interpretation?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ,

Edited by RAZD, : ?

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : mre


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 72 by bluegenes, posted 01-25-2011 12:43 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by bluegenes, posted 01-25-2011 8:20 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 640 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 74 of 222 (602057)
01-25-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
01-25-2011 6:22 PM


RAZD writes:

Hi bluegenes, sorry, once again I am not impressed with your effort.

Curiously, your argument is still void of any objective empirical evidence.

If you think that there's no objective empirical evidence that human invention is the only source of supernatural beings known to science, then you don't know what objective empirical evidence is.

I'm away for a couple of days, but I skimmed your post, and you seem to be going back to your beliefs in Hindu beliefs.

Unsupported religious beliefs don't weaken scientific theories.

I'm away for a couple of days, but I'll be interested in discussing why real beings should have different interpretations when I come back. Briefly, you ask a couple of questions.

RAZD writes:

(b) what is the name of the god in each of these varying christian interpretations?

Brahman?

RAZD writes:

(c) are the descriptions different or are you mixing up description with interpretation?

The descriptions. How do you interpret a being?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2011 6:22 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2011 8:36 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 75 of 222 (602058)
01-25-2011 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by bluegenes
01-25-2011 8:20 PM


confirming evidence needed before an hypothesis is considered a theory.
Hi bluegenes

I'm away for a couple of days, but I'll be interested in discussing why real beings should have different interpretations when I come back.

Enjoy your holiday. Perhaps you can think about what would be objective empirical evidence that would support your claim, and have some when you return.

If it is a strong concept, then why are you unable to provide objective empirical evidence to support it?

Enjoy.

Note this quote from another thread:

Message 1 of Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution:
This little packet appears all over the place, as the qualities that a valid theory should have.

It should have:
1) testable hypotheses
2) confirming evidence
3) potential falsifications

Once again, for reference, no confirming evidence, no scientific theory.


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 74 by bluegenes, posted 01-25-2011 8:20 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by bluegenes, posted 01-31-2011 1:50 PM RAZD has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
15NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019