|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
What evidence is that - I seem to have missed it. quote: Seems only logical to me. I can't think of any other source, can you? I've never seen one, obviously, it's supernatural. No one else has either, because I've never seen proof. Where else then? Maybe it's the apes in Stragglers hypothesis that gave us the info?
The lack of objective empirical evidence to support the various claims made by bluegenes The evidence is that there is no other know source of supernatural beings. I've only heard of supernatrural things from humans. In fact, humans have been the only species to ever talk to me and inform me of things. To me it's the same with things like leprechauns, unicorns, and dragons come from the human imagination. This was something I figured out at the age of 10. There can only be two sources of supernatural beings, but they would both require a human. Either it's from the human imagination, or, they really exist, humans can experience them using their sensory system, and they have conveyed this information to other humans. If it's not the former, then it is the latter. But for it to be the latter, I'd need to see evidence. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Coyote finally words it:
And if your position is "I have not ,and do not, claim that they do exist" then what is the point of this entire thread?
DUH! To establish the means by which the scientific specialists at hand can determine whether something is made up or not! It is a call for CLARIFICATION from the vault of bluegenes. It will not be forthcoming. He has a no truly scientific theory. He has no peer-reviewed reams of data printouts. He has no descriptions of the equipment he uses and how he calibrated it to remove bias. He has no theory. There was a movie, DOA, which stood for Dead On Arrival. Come on. We can do better than bluegenes did. I know we can. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi onifre,
Seems only logical to me. I can't think of any other source, can you? Curiously, that is your opinion, not evidence.
(3)The theory that all supernatural beings come from the human imagination is built on the observation that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. Is it? Or are you just assuming that this is so in order to conclude that this is so?
There can only be two sources of supernatural beings, but they would both require a human. Either it's from the human imagination, or, they really exist, humans can experience them using their sensory system, and they have conveyed this information to other humans. And if you are not the person that has the experience? There are lots of claims of various ways and experiences, how can you dismiss them as non-existent? Again, an open-minded skeptic, imho, is one who is willing to consider the possibility of a(ny) claim but skeptical of accepting it as anything more than just a possibility on faith alone, without any kind of supporting objective, empirical, testable, evidence, and is willing to be undecided until that evidence is presented. (Message 728). Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
HI Bluejay, thanks.
Do you agree with me that science can only really work directly with ideas or hypotheses, and not with the realities that the ideas or hypotheses are supposed to represent? If so, then let's treat every putative supernatural being as a hypothesis. Science works from objective empirical evidence to form an hypothesis of how things work, but not why they are so. Science can only work with falsifiable concepts to eliminate invalid concepts of how things work.
... bearded giant who throws thunderbolts like a spear, ... ... The Thor hypothesis was thus falsified. We can show that the concept that this is how "Thor" causes lightening and thunder etc does not match physical reality.
So, when I say "Thor," I'm talking about a putative anthropomorphic, ... not about just any entity that may be in some way associated with the cause of lightning. To me this is more like a caricatured strawman of the god/s than an actual description: it would need to be established what the original believers said about the god/s rather than assume that saturday morning cartoons capture them properly.
Ideas like this can only come from two sources: observation or imagination. Here I have some trouble just accepting this on face value. There are several ways that information comes to an individual: they can observe it directly, they can imagine it, they can be told about it by someone else, they can read about it, etc etc etc. There are a myriad number of ways that information is conveyed, to the point where most of the information we have about how things work is conveyed in these ways rather than by personal direct observation or personal imagination. Now it can be argued that in the end it comes down to observation or imagination, but that is assuming that these are in fact the only sources for everyone, not demonstrating it. If you were told a concept by a supernatural being posing as a human (as many people believe happens), then how would you know? If you dreamed some concept that turns out to be accurate, did you imagine it or did some spirit cause you to have that dream (as many people believe happens), then how would you know? If you are gently nudged by positive\negative (hot\cold) feelings by ancestral spirits in how you behave (as many people believe happens), then how would you know? Without some means\method\etc to test an eliminate these possibilities, I cannot arrive at a finite conclusion in this regard by logic alone. In other words, it has not been demonstrated that there are only two ways.
At this point, note that, unlike the Thor hypothesis, the Neo-Thor hypothesis is not, in any way, based on any sort of observation. So, this means we made up "Neo-Thor." Even if it turns out that Neo-Thor is real, we still made him up, and it is only by pure coincidence that we were right, like the broken clock that tells the right time twice a day. Unless your Thor hypothesis is a strawman of the original god/s, so that the strawman is falsified while the original is not. One of the problems I have is that people seem to think that god/s (a) should be describable in simplistic terms and conversely (b) that simplistic terms like this are full and completely accurate descriptions. This rather means that any human description is necessarily a strawman at some level of relationship to any actual god/s - to be treated with skepticism regarding accuracy. If you experience something you do not, can not, understand, how can you accurately describe it without eliminating parts you do not understand enough to describe and simplifying it to your personal level of understanding? Enjoy. ps - love the new Avatar. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
xongsmith writes: How were they made up? Science does not seek to find out Why, but rather How. Wrong. Science asks How, Why, Where, When, What questions, and more. My theory really comes from a "where" question. Where do the supernatural being - concepts in our minds come from? Do any of them have a real external supernatural source, or are they all our inventions? You're the second person on this thread to state that science doesn't ask "why" questions. I could easily find you hundreds of papers with why questions in the actual title, and thousands (probably tens of thousands) with why questions in the text, not to mention all the "because" answers in discussion and conclusion sections. If you want to ask about the processes of mind employed to invent supernatural beings (how question), and the underlying reasons we have the type of brains that invent them (why have we evolved the characteristic?), then you would be looking at the hypotheses being made by people who already take my theory as a given, and have moved on to more interesting areas. Here's a paper called "How the Mind Works". It has a whopping 3,790 citations. The first paragraph ends by asking the following "why" questions (my bold).
quote: Steven Pinker. Edited by bluegenes, : forgot to link to the bloody paper!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, RAZD.
I'm going to politely back out now. I don't actually disagree with anything you're writing: I just don't think that any of it is a legitimate reason to not call Bluegene's theory a theory. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Curiously, that is your opinion, not evidence. Curiously, can you then think of another source? If you can't, then you're wrong. It is evidence of a lack of another source until you can produce another source.
Or are you just assuming that this is so in order to conclude that this is so?
I have never heard about supernatural beings from any other species...so it must be human.
And if you are not the person that has the experience? There are lots of claims of various ways and experiences, how can you dismiss them as non-existent? Because, if someone can see it, hear it, feel it or taste it, then it is not supernatural. We are only left with the human imagination as the source. Unless you know of another species or source? - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Panda writes:
Please quote where I said that the 20 armed man was supernatural? Since I actually believe that there are no humans with 20 arms, then I cannot logically believe that I can make one up?So, since I have (just now) imagined a man with 20 arms, logically he must exist? RADZ writes: No, you cannot logically believe that he must exist because you have made him up and don't believe in supernatural beings, and therefore you cannot claim that it is a supernatural being rather than a caricature of one.Oh look - you can't. You are just making shit up./golfclap Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
Patronising - nice start. My dear Panda: Your post contained little to do with my questions.If you want to support RADZ's arguments then answer the questions that RADZ has refused to answer. RADZ asked for an example of a supernatural being created by human imagination.I suggested Pinhead. RADZ then made the baseless assertion that imaginary supernatural beings have to be believed to be true for them to count as imaginary supernatural beings.Why do imaginary supernatural beings require belief before they can be considered valid imaginary supernatural beings? RADZ then made the baseless assertion that Pinhead was a caricature.Where is it shown that Pinhead is a caricature? RADZ refused to answer these questions and back-up his claims.I expect that you will also refuse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Panda
RADZ then made the baseless assertion that imaginary supernatural beings have to be believed to be true for them to count as imaginary supernatural beings. ROFLOL, too funny, but curiously, not my position. It appears that you keep reading your opinion into my argument and assuming the consequent.
ALL supernatural beings would include ones where you can show people believe in them. You need to start with the right end of the question. If you start with fictional characters then you need to demonstrate that the supernaturalness actually applies. However, if you start with a believed in supernatural being then you just need to demonstrate that it is fictional. Fictional characters can be shown to be fictional characters, but I seriously doubt that anybody would rationally consider them as anything but fictional characters, especially when they are advertised as such, and thus providing a long list of fictional characters, as long as you want to waste bandwidth, does not address supernatural beings where you can show people believe in them being fictional. This is like masturbating instead of participating in actual sex with someone else, and claiming that it is the same.
RADZ then made the baseless assertion that Pinhead was a caricature. Where is it shown that Pinhead is a caricature? Can you show that pinhead is not an exaggeration, a parody, of supernatural beliefs but actually represents a supernatural being? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Let's consider Father Christmas
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hey RAZD,
Would you agree that there are only two possible sources for supernatural beings: Either they have been imagined, or, humans actually experience them? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2507 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
As someone around here seems to think that people believing in a supernatural character is some kind of evidence for its real existence, why not Harry Potter?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi onifre,
Would you agree that there are only two possible sources for supernatural beings: Either they have been imagined, or, humans actually experience them? Would you agree that there are many claims of supernatural communication, either in religious experiences, dreams, or with spirits pretending to be people? Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Would you agree that there are many claims of supernatural communication, either in religious experiences, dreams, or with spirits pretending to be people? You need look no further for that than here at EvC. So yes of course, there are many claims. But that doesn't answer my question. Would you accept the two as the only possible sources: Imagination and actual experience. In other words, there is no other source but a human's imagination or a human's experience and testimony. Can you agree with that? - Oni
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024