Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 12:07 PM
199 online now:
dwise1, JonF, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 194 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,484 Year: 3,521/19,786 Month: 516/1,087 Week: 106/212 Day: 22/14 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
15Next
Author Topic:   the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 552 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 76 of 222 (602748)
01-31-2011 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by RAZD
01-25-2011 8:36 PM


Learning to understand inductive reasoning.
RAZD writes:

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

If you don't understand the evidence I've already presented, that's not a problem for the theory.

I've established that human invention is the only source of the supernatural beings - concepts that we have in our heads known to science. That makes "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" a very strong theory. No exception has ever been demonstrated.

The way that you've been arguing just seems to show that you don't understand inductive reasoning. The evidence required to support the theory is the evidence that human beings can and do invent fictional supernatural beings. That wouldn't lead to the theory if it couldn't be combined with the fact that the real existence of supernatural beings has never been demonstrated. But the two together make a very strong theory.

Established facts:

1) Humans can and do invent fictional supernatural beings.

2) The existence of a single real supernatural being has never been established.

3) Therefore, human invention is the only source of them known to science.

Theory: All supernatural beings are fictional constructs (or "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination").

The conclusion can only be stated as a theory, rather than a fact, because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the 3 facts. No scientific theories and laws can be stated as facts.

Science explores the unknown, hence the use of unprovable but falsifiable theories and laws, and inductive reasoning. "Confirming evidence" doesn't mean proof.

Your claim that the theory is weak is unsupported. People's beliefs are not evidence of the real existence of supernatural beings, and that's what you keep trying to present as evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2011 8:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2011 8:41 PM bluegenes has responded
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2011 10:10 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 77 of 222 (602800)
01-31-2011 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by bluegenes
01-31-2011 1:50 PM


still no objective empirical evidence. SAD, really.
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes, hope your trip was restful.

If you don't understand the evidence I've already presented, that's not a problem for the theory.

Curiously, objective empirical evidence doesn't need to be interpreted in order to show how it supports your assertions. That you need to provide an interpretation of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial evidence, based on your assuming the consequent, shows that you do not have a single scrap of objective empirical evidence to show *one* supernatural concept (and no your personal caricature inventions do not count: try the abundant religious literature) is the product of human invention.

I've established that human invention is the only source of the supernatural beings - concepts that we have in our heads known to science. That makes "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" a very strong theory. No exception has ever been demonstrated.

Amusingly, you have not. All you have done is assert that this is so. You may try to once again equivocate on what is known and what is not know, but the fact remains that there is abundant objective empirical evidence of other sources claimed to exist, and you have done squat to show that they are not possible.

To actually establish your claim you of a sole source, you need to actually eliminate all other possible sources. Again, once more, you have not done this.

The conclusion can only be stated as a theory, rather than a fact, because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the 3 facts.

It also begs the question, because your structure does not lead to your conclusion. You have a small problem with premise 2: you have not established that supernatural beings do not exist and have not communicated with humans, you are just claiming your conclusion as premise 2: bad bad logic.

Your claim that the theory is weak is unsupported.

Then why can't you present objective empirical evidence rather than piles of bad logic using your confirmation biased opinions?

You keep trying to pretend that you have something to teach me, however YOU were the one that made the as yet unsubstantiated claim that you had (see Message 1):

quote:
plenty of evidence

People's beliefs are not evidence of the real existence of supernatural beings, and that's what you keep trying to present as evidence.

They are:

  1. a source of beings that you can (if your concept has any real value) show are products of human invention (rather than dilly dallying with your personal caricatures),
    AND
  2. evidence of possibilities, of ways for communication, and until you can eliminate those possibilities you cannot absolutely cannot claim to absolutely know a sole source.

Amusingly, you are trying to use your beliefs as evidence for your assertion.

We are now at 77 messages in this thread, and you should have presented objective empirical evidence in your first post (Message 3), and instead you started equivocating.

Are you ever going to ...

  1. present objective empirical evidence that spells out why a supernatural being concept, one found in religious literature, is a human invention,
    OR
  2. admit that you have no objective empirical evidence.

NOTE that the existence of at least one such piece of objective empirical evidence is an extremely pared-down minimal requirement for a scientific theory. Withone *one* piece of objective empirical evidence you do not, can not, have a scientific theory:

All you have is wishful thinking based on your personal opinions, world view and biases.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Enjoy.

ps color & html added for onifre :)

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 76 by bluegenes, posted 01-31-2011 1:50 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by bluegenes, posted 02-01-2011 8:39 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 78 of 222 (602817)
01-31-2011 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by bluegenes
01-31-2011 1:50 PM


recap: why bluegenes needs to provide objective empirical evidence
bluegenes and RAZD only

This is a recap of the thread topic for the readers of this thread who may come late to the debate:

From Message 4:

quote:
Let me start by pointing out that you have made several rather major assertions of dubious quality (Message 167 in An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" (not necessarily in order):
...
We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

...
You have not established any reason to accept this claim that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.

Still no reason to accept this assertion blindly, based on say so: bluegenes needs objective empirical evidence.

quote:
As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...

You claim that this has a high level of confidence, immediately after quoting level III on my Concept Scale, ...
...
You will note that to meet this level, it needs to have validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence.


And bluegenes still needs to present the objective empirical evidence to support this assertion.

quote:
Claim (3):
... theory. ...

IF this is a scientific theory (as you have claimed), THEN it is necessarily based on objective empirical valid evidence, from which an hypothesis has been derived, which is used to make predictions of things you would only see if this theory were true, and falsification tests of things you would see if this theory were false.


And bluegenes still needs to present the objective empirical evidence to support this claim.

quote:
Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...

You do absolutely need to present evidence, not just because you made an extraordinary claim in (1) but because you claim a level III confidence in (2) and that you have a theory based on the scientific process in (3), ALL of which require a foundation in objective empirical valid evidence ...

... or all you have is bald assertion based on wishful thinking.


And bluegenes still needs to present the objective empirical evidence to support this claim.

quote:
Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...

Again this is a positive assertion presented without any supporting evidence (a) that it is true or (b) that it does not apply to any concepts that are later determined to be true.

You have not established any reason to accept this claim that human imagination is the only known source of supernatural entities.


And bluegenes still needs to present the objective empirical evidence to support this assertion.

quote:
And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....

You do not get to assert that your theory is "strong" -- that is only assigned to theories after extensive testing of predictions, and it is assigned by other scientists in the process of peer review and many attempts to falsify it.

The theory of evolution is a strong theory, it has been tested for over 150 years.

As I said before, calling it a "strong theory" doesn't make it so.


If it is a strong theory then why can't bluegenes provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?

The topic of this thread is that bluegenes made six claims that require him to provide support with objective empirical evidence.

Anyone that has objective empirical evidence to support any one of the assertions and claims made by bluegenes is free to assist bluegenes by posting it to the Peanut Gallery

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 76 by bluegenes, posted 01-31-2011 1:50 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 552 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 79 of 222 (602845)
02-01-2011 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by RAZD
01-31-2011 8:41 PM


Learn to understand the basics, RAZD.
RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

If you don't understand the evidence I've already presented, that's not a problem for the theory.

Curiously, objective empirical evidence doesn't need to be interpreted in order to show how it supports your assertions.

Evidence does need to be understood, and it's common on this board to find people, invariably supernaturalists, who don't understand evidence when it contradicts what they want to believe. When evidence is presented, they use arguments like "it's just your world view" and "that's just your subjective interpretation of the evidence". That's what you're doing here.

The two posts you've just made show that you still don't know the difference between something that is stated as a theory and something that is stated as a fact. You show that you do not understand my last post, and the inductive reasoning on which scientific theories and laws are based.

RAZD writes:

That you need to provide an interpretation of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial evidence, based on your assuming the consequent, shows that you do not have a single scrap of objective empirical evidence to show *one* supernatural concept (and no your personal caricature inventions do not count: try the abundant religious literature) is the product of human invention.

People write literature. Isn't it one of your unsupported suggestions on this thread that the characters described in creation mythologies might be "caricatures" of real beings? And my inventions prove that people can and do invent SB-concepts. They are not caricatures of any real supernatural beings, because I don't know of any real ones.

Read the creation mythologies. Tell me which ones do not describe fantasy fiction worlds. Jewish mythology is included, and cultural bias doesn't give it special privilege.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

I've established that human invention is the only source of the supernatural beings - concepts that we have in our heads known to science. That makes "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" a very strong theory. No exception has ever been demonstrated.

Amusingly, you have not. All you have done is assert that this is so. You may try to once again equivocate on what is known and what is not know, but the fact remains that there is abundant objective empirical evidence of other sources claimed to exist, and you have done squat to show that they are not possible.

To actually establish your claim you of a sole source, you need to actually eliminate all other possible sources. Again, once more, you have not done this.

"The sole source known to science" doesn't mean there can't be other "possibilities".

Again, you've shown that you don't understand what scientific theories are. Unsupported and unfalsifiable "possibilities" do not weaken them. By their nature, there must be considered to be other possibilities, or they would not be regarded as potentially falsifiable in terms of our current knowledge. It is only scientific facts that exclude other possibilities. You also don't understand the difference between evidence of people making claims, and evidence for the veracity of those claims. I repeat, Joe Schizophrenic's claim to know that angels are communicating with him because he hears their voices is not evidence that there actually are angels who communicate with some people. No-one has ever established that any individual has actually received messages from any supernatural beings. Mohammed's claims have never been supported, and 1.5 billion people believing them makes no difference to that.

If you're going to discuss a scientific theory and claim that it is weak, you need to learn some basics.

Edited by bluegenes, : typo correction


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2011 8:41 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2011 10:29 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 80 of 222 (602967)
02-01-2011 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by bluegenes
02-01-2011 8:39 AM


still no evidence
Hi bluegenes,

Shuck and jive all you want, but what is a fact is that you still do not have objective empirical evidence that supports your claims, including the claim that you have a theory rather that wishful thinking based on confirmation biased interpretations that are logically flawed.

WHERE'S THE 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 79 by bluegenes, posted 02-01-2011 8:39 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by bluegenes, posted 02-02-2011 8:32 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 552 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 81 of 222 (603008)
02-02-2011 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
02-01-2011 10:29 PM


Re: still no evidence for a source other than our minds.
RAZD writes:

Shuck and jive all you want, but what is a fact is that you still do not have objective empirical evidence that supports your claims, including the claim that you have a theory rather that wishful thinking based on confirmation biased interpretations that are logically flawed.

So you keep saying, Mr. Objective. But as your idea of evidence is "some Hindus believe something", then we certainly have evidence on this thread that you're not qualified to make the judgement. And learn how to understand the inductive reasoning that leads people to believe that all raindrops come from clouds when there's no other known source of them.

A Hindu Hypothesis

Continue your interesting discussions on the peanut thread for a while.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2011 10:29 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 12:48 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 82 of 222 (603042)
02-02-2011 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by bluegenes
02-02-2011 8:32 AM


Re: still no evidence for a source other than our minds.Hi bluegenes
he bluegenes,

Continue your interesting discussions on the peanut thread for a while.

Curiously, they can't seem to help you with objective empirical evidence either, even though they have tried harder than you have.

The obvious conclusion is that there is no supporting evidence, and that all you have is wishful thinking and confirmation bias.

But as your idea of evidence is "some Hindus believe something",

No my dear bluegenes, this is not evidence, it is an alternate possible interpretation of the same hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives that just happens to be contrary to your subjective interpretation involving "mutual exclusivity" in these narratives. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid. This is because if your interpretation is not the only one possible, then your claim of mutual exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use subjective evidence to support your claim evaporates.

Curiously, you seem to be under the impression that I need to provide objective empirical evidence regarding your assertions and that you don't. This is the pseudoskeptic double standard of requiring objective evidence from others while providing none to support their positions.

If all you have is your opinion, your interpretation, and your biased conclusions, then all one needs is other opinions, interpretations and biased conclusions that are contrary to yours. They are of equal merit. These are, in this instance, plentiful, as I have amply demonstrated. Your only recourse, then, is to provide actual objective empirical evidence that supports your claims, not more subjective evidence.

This is the problem with subjective evidence, it cannot provide a factual basis for theory or scientific knowledge: at best it can suggest hypothetical possibilities.

Hypothetical possibilities are certainly not strong theories. Contrary possibilities are also hypothetical possibilities, and thus there is no reason to assert one is more valid than the other, without objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

From Message 4 your assertions are (emphasis added):

We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. Without supporting objective empirical evidence it is an opinion founded on personal biases at worst, or a hypothetical possibility at best,

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...

... where you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts:

quote:
III. High Confidence Concepts

  1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence

  2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1) as required by (a) plus evidence of confirmation and validation by others, and evidence of repeated attempts to falsify your hypothetical possibility -- normally this involves articles in scientific journals.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Claim (3):
This is a ... theory. ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Scientific theory starts with a foundation of objective empirical evidence, a set of objective empirical evidence where the hypothesis is true. Without such foundational objective empirical evidence all you have is a hypothetical possibility based on opinion and biases.

Unsupported hypothetical possibilities are certainly not scientific theories.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Made up caricatures are not objective empirical evidence and subjective interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives are not objective empirical evidence.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...

This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources, including the four possible sources I have already mentioned. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid.

This is because if your exclusive claim is not the only possibilities, then your claim of exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use this argument to support your claim evaporates.

This is not evidence either, rather it is an attempt to avoid providing evidence. This is the pseudoskeptic approach, not the scientific approach.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....

Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

You need to stop hiding in your hat, get off your duff, apply your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept --- IF you have one that is of scientific value, rather than you just asserting your opinion --- and use it to provide some objective empirical evidence.

This is how scientists apply actual theories, and repeated application and demonstration of validity is how actual theories become strong theories.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

If you actually have a strong scientific theory, then why can you not provide any objective empirical evidence to support and substantiate it in any specific instances?

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 81 by bluegenes, posted 02-02-2011 8:32 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by bluegenes, posted 02-02-2011 6:29 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 552 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 83 of 222 (603104)
02-02-2011 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by RAZD
02-02-2011 12:48 PM


still no evidence for a source other than our minds.
RAZD writes:

Curiously, they can't seem to help you with objective empirical evidence either, even though they have tried harder than you have.

Unlike you, the peanut boys probably understand what empirical evidence is, and they know it's been presented here.

They are probably smart enough to know that if there's only one known source of something, like raindrops, rabbits or SB-concepts, then it's automatically a strong theory that all individual examples come from that source.

RAZD writes:

No my dear bluegenes, this is not evidence, it is an alternate possible interpretation of the same hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives that just happens to be contrary to your subjective interpretation involving "mutual exclusivity" in these narratives. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid. This is because if your interpretation is not the only one possible, then your claim of mutual exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use subjective evidence to support your claim evaporates.

The accounts of the origins of the first humans in the three stories I gave you as examples are definitely mutually exclusive. Your argument amounts to "if they were other different stories, then they wouldn't necessarily be mutually exclusive", which is obviously true and entirely irrelevant. You've also argued that they could be distorted accounts of a real event. They'd still be human inventions in that case, and the formation of humans wasn't an event, it was a very long slow process, and our ancestors didn't witness it.

The creation stories are false accounts of history, whether they were originally intended as fiction or not. They certainly read like high fantasy stories, set in fictional worlds. Read them and tell me which ones are true. If you don't think that they're evidence of human invention, you must think they're all true.

Why are you frightened of direct questions?

(1)Are you continuing to argue that human invention is not a known source of SB-concepts?
Yes or no?

(2)Are you still arguing that it's not the only known source of them?

Yes or no?

Remember, we can all think of speculative sources that have no evidence to support them. Things based on people believing things, for example. But these aren't "known" by scientific standards. If you don't agree, what's another known source that can be demonstrated to exist?

(3) Do you believe that some people believing in an omphalist god weakens the very strong theory that the earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old? I ask because you have declared yourself to be uncommitted on the age of the earth due to the fact that omphalism cannot be falsified. At the same time, at least twice on this thread, you have given your opinion that evolutionary theory is a strong theory, which is a strong commitment against omphalism.

Are all the scientists who would be more than 99 % sure that the earth is between 4 and 5 million years old "pseudoskeptics"?

These questions relate to the thread, because the answers might help readers see whether or not you actually understand scientific theories, and are capable of making a rational judgement on mine.

My theory is an all or nothing theory. You can't support your claim that it's weak without actually establishing the real existence of just one supernatural being, which would be falsification.

RAZD writes:

Curiously, you seem to be under the impression that I need to provide objective empirical evidence regarding your assertions and that you don't.

I have. If you want to claim that an unfalsified theory is weak, you certainly need to support your claim.

BTW, you pretending that the YECs are believing in an SB-concept that they don't actually believe in doesn't effect my point that the concept they do actually believe in is effectively falsified.

Would you consider our modern knowledge of disease as effectively falsifying the evil spirits that cause disease? Or would you just wriggle out by claiming that disease causing is a false interpretation of other evil spirit concepts?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 12:48 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 7:18 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 84 of 222 (603111)
02-02-2011 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by bluegenes
02-02-2011 6:29 PM


Re: stsource on our minds.ill no evidenther thace for a
Hi bluegenes,

Still no objective empirical evidence that supports any of your six assertions.

They are probably smart enough to know that if there's only one known source of something, ...

They should also be able to recognize that you have not established a sole source for your claim. You are dealing with supernatural entities, ergo supernatural communication needs to be considered. You have just ignored it. That is not how science works, that is how pseudoskeptics work.

... then it's automatically a strong theory ...

And should know shinola when they see it.

They should also be able to recognize that if you really had a strong theory that you would be able to produce tons of objective empirical evidence with references to scientific journals listing such evidence.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Claiming that your personal opinion is evidence is humorous the first time, but it gets delusional with repetition.

The accounts of the origins of the first humans in the three stories I gave you as examples are definitely mutually exclusive.

I have demonstrated to you why this is not evidence that the god/s are human inventions. The children visiting a furniture factory can produce mutually exclusive reports on how furniture is made to the same degree as you claim for these stories, but nobody would think that this makes the factory workers imaginary.

Your conclusion is based on self delusion and confirmation bias, not logic.

AND even IF the creation stories are human additions, it does not show that the god/s are human inventions.

You assume too much. REAL science is based on objective empirical evidence, not on interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

It seems that this is all you have, one refuted claim of mutual exclusivity that fails to show what you need to show.

Curiously I don't call this "plenty of evidence" --- I call it sad.

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 83 by bluegenes, posted 02-02-2011 6:29 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by bluegenes, posted 02-02-2011 9:03 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 552 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 85 of 222 (603128)
02-02-2011 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
02-02-2011 7:18 PM


Still no known example of a supernatural being communicating with anyone.
RAZD writes:

They should also be able to recognize that you have not established a sole source for your claim. You are dealing with supernatural entities, ergo supernatural communication needs to be considered. You have just ignored it. That is not how science works, that is how pseudoskeptics work.

What is there to ignore? Give me one demonstrably true example of a supernatural being communicating with someone, and I certainly won't ignore it. You know as well as I do that many people "see" and "hear" things that aren't there. 53% of Malaysian mental health patients attribute their conditions to witchcraft or evil spirits, but that does not give us any evidence for the real existence of witches and demons.

When will you learn that beliefs aren't evidence, and scientific theories are not weakened by unsupported suggestions/beliefs like "supernatural communication", or omphalism.

Why are you frightened to answer my questions?

RAZD writes:

I have demonstrated to you why this is not evidence that the god/s are human inventions. The children visiting a furniture factory can produce mutually exclusive reports on how furniture is made to the same degree as you claim for these stories, but nobody would think that this makes the factory workers imaginary.

Because they know that factory workers exist. With supernatural beings, we have only stories and concepts.

Does your analogy mean that you think that some human beings witnessed the creation of the first humans beings by supernatural beings, but got the numbers of beings, their descriptions, and the materials used wrong in their accounts?

RAZD writes:

AND even IF the creation stories are human additions, it does not show that the god/s are human inventions.

Additions to what? They're complete inventions. Read them. My observations are repeatable. Nobody watched the sun moon and stars form, then came up with the account that a god, standing on earth, picked up some material and threw it into the heavens to make them.

Now, why are you frightened of direct questions, and why do you still seem to be arguing that people making up SB-concepts is not a known source of them, when you know very well that we can and do make them up?

You've used the word pseudoskeptic again. Would you describe every scientist who thinks that the earth is very very probably, between 4 and 5 billion years old, a pseudoskeptic, because they would be dismissing omphalism as very, very improbable?

If you're going to use the word, readers need to know what you mean by it, because that was how you used it on earlier threads, and newcomers will be interested to know that its a word that you use to describe virtually all scientists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 7:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 10:21 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 86 of 222 (603140)
02-02-2011 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by bluegenes
02-02-2011 9:03 PM


still no evidence (bluegenes goes once more around the bush)
Hi bluegenes, still having trouble with the concept of supporting your claims?

What is there to ignore? Give me one demonstrably true example of a supernatural being communicating with someone, and I certainly won't ignore it. You know as well as I do that many people "see" and "hear" things that aren't there. 53% of Malaysian mental health patients attribute their conditions to witchcraft or evil spirits, but that does not give us any evidence for the real existence of witches and demons.

You want me to accept your beliefs on your word but provide evidence for claims by others contrary to your claims?

Double standard, typical of pseudoskepticism at work.

Instead I present you with counter claims that are just as unsubstantiated as your claim and then ask you for evidence to support your claim.

Until you can show that such communications cannot occur, then I see no reason not to consider their possibility, and to note that your claim is just as unsubstantiated -- unless and until you can provide some of that promised evidence that you seem so reluctant (or just plain unable) to divulge.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Because they know that factory workers exist.

And therefore logically and rationally we absolutely know that this "test" of yours does not produce reliable results of imaginary beings.

With supernatural beings, we have only stories and concepts.

But your test only seems to work when you assume that it works and there is no counter evidence, when we test it in other situations IT DOES NOT WORK. In science this would be a falsified and discarded test procedure. In pseudoscience you keep trying to claim it works. With cognitive dissonance you ignore and deny proofs that your claims are false and keep asserting that you are right.

You've used the word pseudoskeptic again. Would you describe every scientist who thinks that the earth is very very probably, between 4 and 5 billion years old, a pseudoskeptic, because they would be dismissing omphalism as very, very improbable?

If you're going to use the word, readers need to know what you mean by it, because that was how you used it on earlier threads, and newcomers will be interested to know that its a word that you use to describe virtually all scientists.

I've used it because you are a pseudoskeptic, especially compared to scientists that use objective empirical evidence before forming hypothesis and then testing those before claiming they have a theory and then watching the scientific world test and retest the theory before claiming that it is a strong theory. You haven't done this. You also don't seem to understand what the word means.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism (italics added for emphasis)

quote:
Pseudoskepticism - Definition
Pathological Skepticism is closedmindedness with deception: it is an irrational prejudice against new ideas which masquerades as proper Skepticism. A person under the sway of Pathological Skepticism will claim to support Reason and the scientific worldview while concealing their strongly negative emotional response against any questioning of contemporary accepted knowledge. The primary symptoms of Pathological Skepticism are the presence of scorn, sneering, and ridicule in place of reasoned debate. In their arguments, pseudoskeptics will freely employ logical fallacies, rhetoric, and numerous dishonest strategies of persuasion which are intended more sway an audience rather than to expose truth, i.e. than to pursue science. Because it promotes a falsely scientific facade, Pathological Skepticism is a class of pseudoscience.

Curiously that cannot be applied to those other scientists, but it does apply to you.

Especially as you just employed another logical fallacy (appeal to consequences) and rhetoric to persuade readers rather that just present the objective empirical evidence that you should have if you are using science.

WHERE'S THE 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 85 by bluegenes, posted 02-02-2011 9:03 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by bluegenes, posted 02-04-2011 4:42 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 552 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 87 of 222 (603499)
02-04-2011 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by RAZD
02-02-2011 10:21 PM


The need to learn about inductive reasoning.
RAZD writes:

Instead I present you with counter claims that are just as unsubstantiated as your claim and then ask you for evidence to support your claim.

Until you can show that such communications cannot occur, then I see no reason not to consider their possibility, and to note that your claim is just as unsubstantiated -- unless and until you can provide some of that promised evidence that you seem so reluctant (or just plain unable) to divulge.

My bold.

Are you saying that the fact that human invention is the only source of supernatural beings known to science is unsupported? If so, you're plain wrong. What you don't seem to understand is that that fact does not mean that science will not have another known source next week, next year, or at any time in the future. There's a huge difference between use of the words "known" and "knowable".

The theory does not eliminate alternative possibilities. No theories do. Quite the opposite, it has to allow for alternative possibilities, otherwise a theory cannot be considered falsifiable.

All currently unfalsified SB - concepts would be considered to be possible alternative sources, whether fairies, werewolves, or communicating beings. If we can establish beyond all reasonable doubt that just one person is getting communications from a real supernatural being, then my theory is falsified.

I think your main problems are that you don't understand inductive reasoning very well, and how it's used in theories, including evolutionary theory, and that you seem to think that unsupported and unfalsifiable speculative propositions need to be falsified before a theory is strong, although that contradicts your expressed view that evolutionary theory is a strong theory.

That's one reason I'm asking you about omphalism once again. Do you still think that those of us who think the earth is very probably about 4.5 billion years old are being illogical pseudoskeptics? And why are you avoiding so many direct questions?

You also should be able look at how other things that have only one known source are considered by science. The source as the origin of all examples is essentially treated as a virtual fact. I've given you examples, like all raindrops coming from clouds, all rabbits from other rabbits (plus Pasteur's law) and all books being authored by humans. These aren't actually verifiable facts, but rely on inductive reasoning of exactly the same kind as my theory.

Attributing all examples of a phenomenon to its only known source is certainly not an extraordinary claim. It is your claim, early on in the thread, that my theory is an extraordinary claim that is an actual extraordinary claim.

I quite liked your description of pseudo-skepticism. The I.D. folk on William Dembski's blog keep accusing the scientific establishment and all people they call "Darwinists" of being exactly like that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 10:21 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2011 6:11 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 88 of 222 (603517)
02-04-2011 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by bluegenes
02-04-2011 4:42 PM


Sadly inductive reasoning is not objective empirical evidence ... another dodge.
Hi bluegenes,

Are you saying that the fact that human invention is the only source of supernatural beings known to science is unsupported?

And yet, curiously, you seem totally unable to present evidence of a single one.

Why do you have no objective empirical evidence demonstrating that a single specific supernatural entity from a documented religion is a fabrication of human imagination, then how can you have a theory, let alone a strong theory.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

It's not a fact. It is your opinion, your assumption, your assertion.

I am saying that human invention is not the only source possible, evidenced by many many many claims of spiritual and other documented and known to be documented experiences.

The fact that you have been forced to equivocate from your original stance to a clearly smaller subset of it is not my problem: it shows how weak your position really is.

It just means you can only possibly be correct part of the time, because you are only willing to discuss part of the possibilities that have been documented, and the degree of correctness for all those other cases is not known ... at best (for you). What you are attempting to do is to filter the possibilities by cherry picking cases where you are more likely to be correct.

It's like you flip a coin and only document the times it lands on heads while ignoring all the times it falls on tails (or whatever is on the other side). Suppose you have 100 coins with the same face but different backsides: does that mean that the probability of being correct by calling heads before the throw is more than 1/2??? Or are you ignoring the other 1/2???

What about a set of 100 di where one face has a 1 and the other 5 faces are all different symbols (100 1's vs 500 other symbols): does that mean that the probability of being correct by calling "1" before the throw is more than 1/6th??? Or are you ignoring the other 5/6ths???

How about 100 decks of cards with one ace of spades and all the other cards are different: does that mean that the probability of you drawing the ace of spades is more than 1/52nd??? Or are you ignoring the 51/52nds???

Amusingly, you have all supernatural entities, and then you have concepts like your strawman caricatures that are known to be human invention (because you start with one, begging the question) ... but where their supernaturalness is still in question.

You have concepts known to science that have not been determined to be either due to direct experience nor to human imagination.

You have an hypothetical concept that may be true some of the time, but has not been shown to be true all of the time, it hasnt' even been shown to be true PART of the time: and you don't even know how often it is true and how often it isn't. Without that little detail you cannot claim to know a sole source without first assuming that you are correct.

This means that your hypothesis is reduced to "human invention may be the source of some supernatural appearing concepts when we make them up" which few people would argue with, especially with concepts like the IPU.

Science is not done by assumption.

Science is not done by inventing evidence.

Science is not done by logical fallacies.

Science is not done by rhetoric.

All of these are used in pseudoscience. You have used all of these.

The theory does not eliminate alternative possibilities. No theories do. Quite the opposite, it has to allow for alternative possibilities, otherwise a theory cannot be considered falsifiable.

You're basuc problem, whether you recognize it or not, is that you have not eliminated the alternative possibility in a single instance, by actually demonstrating that your concept is valid in a single instance.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

What you have is an untested hypothesis that has a zero success rate at this point.

Once again, you FAIL to present evidence instead of rhetoric and bluster

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 87 by bluegenes, posted 02-04-2011 4:42 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by bluegenes, posted 02-04-2011 9:53 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 552 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 89 of 222 (603536)
02-04-2011 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by RAZD
02-04-2011 6:11 PM


Tampering with the evidence.
RAZD writes:

And yet, curiously, you seem totally unable to present evidence of a single one.

Why do you have no objective empirical evidence demonstrating that a single specific supernatural entity from a documented religion is a fabrication of human imagination, then how can you have a theory, let alone a strong theory.

When I point out that the documented creation stories are accounts of fantasy worlds that never existed, you pretend that the stories are not saying what they actually are saying, so that you can make a subjective interpretation of them as being about something else that you would have to invent and which would presumably be unfalsifiable. Having changed the evidence presented into something that you want it to be, you then ask: bluegenes, where's the evidence? The answer is: hidden from you by your own delusional behaviour.

There's lots of discussion about the myths by people who study them, and no-one can really know the intentions of the inventors, but many modern commentators think that the supernatural beings in them may be intentional fictions. You might be wrong if you're seeing a distinct difference between them and modern fantasy writing of the type that uses symbolism and seeks to convey serious messages. But whether intentional fiction or not, they are clearly human inventions in fictional worlds.

RAZD writes:

I am saying that human invention is not the only source possible, evidenced by many many many claims of spiritual and other documented and known to be documented experiences.

As I pointed out in the last post (and several others) "possible" alternatives are no problem for scientific theories, and they theoretically require them as potential falsifications. However, unsupported claims don't weaken a theory, whether they're written in documents or not. If you're referring to the experiences that many people interpret as religious/spiritual, they certainly happen. As I said further up the thread, I've had one of the well known ones, and it was quite striking. But even if I hadn't had one, I would certainly still agree that these things happen, and possibly to about half the population at some time or another. Some people are very prone to them, and have numerous such experiences.

What's completely lacking, though, is evidence that there is anything actually magical about them.

RAZD writes:

The fact that you have been forced to equivocate from your original stance to a clearly smaller subset of it is not my problem: it shows how weak your position really is.

If you're referring to my use of the phrase "known to science", that was just for you. I'm perfectly happy with "known", but I thought that the new phrase would save you the trouble of asking me to falsify lots of unsupported claims of knowledge. Many people claim to know of supernatural beings of many different descriptions, and some EvC members may well claim to know that their god exists, but that doesn't mean we can establish that they do know this.

Such people would have existed in the past, also, and they're perfectly capable of documenting their beliefs, and claiming to know them as truths. They are the "ones" on the Dawkins scale, whom you regard as illogical.

RAZD writes:

It just means you can only possibly be correct part of the time, because you are only willing to discuss part of the possibilities that have been documented, and the degree of correctness for all those other cases is not known ... at best (for you). What you are attempting to do is to filter the possibilities by cherry picking cases where you are more likely to be correct.

I shouldn't have to keep repeating this, but all we've found to talk about on this thread and in the peanut gallery, are SB-concepts. We haven't established the existence of any real SBs, so we're all stuck with imagining things, as my theory predicts.

It's nothing to do with cherry picking. Some SB-concepts are falsifiable, but many are unfalsifiable, so we can put them broadly into two categories. Those that are unsupported by evidence and falsifiable, and those that are merely unsupported by evidence. The potential third category, SB-concepts that are known to exist, remains empty, as it always has, and as my theory predicted it would when I first started talking about it a few months ago.

RAZD writes:

Amusingly, you have all supernatural entities, and then you have concepts like your strawman caricatures that are known to be human invention (because you start with one, begging the question) ... but where their supernaturalness is still in question.

I'm not sure if it's a good idea constantly to begin sentences with "amusingly" and "curiously" while complaining about rhetoric. My inventions can't be caricatures of real SB-beings, because we don't know of any such things, do we? The point of them was merely to demonstrate formally that people can and do invent SB-concepts, something that you still seem to be questioning. Why are you asking for evidence when you really know that invention is the only known source of SB-concepts, just as clouds are the only known source of raindrops.

RAZD writes:

You have concepts known to science that have not been determined to be either due to direct experience nor to human imagination.

Of course we have many concepts of unknown source, but the only known source is human imagination. If we had established human experience of real SBs as a known source, my theory would have been falsified.

RAZD writes:

You have an hypothetical concept that may be true some of the time, but has not been shown to be true all of the time…..

I have a theory which is shown to be true "some of the time", by which you mean "in some cases" just as Pasteur could show that a tiny percentage of the worlds organisms came from other organisms. It was the fact that there was no other known source that combined with this to create his law, a product of inductive reasoning. Why do you find this so hard to understand?
Pasteur's law is reasonably assumed in evolutionary theory, in a modern form stated something like: "All life comes from life, and came from life throughout natural history since the first life form(s) came into being." That cannot be conclusively proven, but the theory is not weakened by unsupported suggestions like the nineteenth century one that the devil had laid down the fossils to fool us, or that conjurers can really magic rabbits out of hats, or by omphalism.

RAZD writes:

This means that your hypothesis is reduced to "human invention may be the source of some supernatural appearing concepts when we make them up" which few people would argue with, especially with concepts like the IPU.

That should read "must be", by definition, and would be a fact, not a theory. Once again, you show that you struggle to understand the difference. And no, my unfalsified strong theory is that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.

RAZD writes:

Science is not done by assumption.

Science is not done by inventing evidence.

Science is not done by logical fallacies.

Science is not done by rhetoric.

All of these are used in pseudoscience. You have used all of these.

Actually, you have used all those, whether you realise it or not. (I suspect not).

Do you agree that the YECs SB-concept, the one they actually believe in, is effectively falsified or not? Or are you still pretending that they're believing in something else that they're not actually believing in, or some such crap. It's no good asking me for evidence of false beliefs if you're going to invent other people's beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2011 6:11 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2011 2:48 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 90 of 222 (603589)
02-05-2011 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by bluegenes
02-04-2011 9:53 PM


Re: Tampering with the evidence. How? first there has to BE evidence ...
Hi bluegenes, still no evidence ... so it is hard to "tamper with"

When I point out that the documented creation stories are accounts of fantasy worlds that never existed, you pretend that the stories are not saying what they actually are saying, ...

No bluegenes, I demonstrated how, if human authors were reporting on information that they had been given, that such reports could vary dramatically, while still reporting on an actual experience (communication from god/s about how it all began).

This is because (a) people are limited in their ability to understand by their ability to understand - early people were not astro-physicists but hunter-gatherers - and (b) because different people remember different aspects of their experiences - why "eye-witness" accounts in trials are not taken as absolute truth - and (c) god/s telling different people could easily discuss different aspects of the overall process to taylor it to the individuals - tell different parts of the process to different people - and (d) you can't expect to understand how god/s function without having the knowledge and understanding of god/s - so incompetence in understanding is entirely to be expected no matter what is said or conveyed - and finally (e) these narratives were not recorded, but have been passed down by verbal telling, along with all other cultural knowledge, and thus are subject to variation and substitution - which explains three different sects of Christianity having different "worlds" being created even though they are based on the same original narrative and god/s.

... so that you can make a subjective interpretation of them as being about something else that you would have to invent and which would presumably be unfalsifiable.

Actually it is very strongly based on observation and knowledge of how people behave and observe things that are real events, rather than your tacit assumption that all these stories would be 100% absolutely true renderings of perfect understanding, no matter what. Your position is untenable.

Having changed the evidence presented into something that you want it to be, you then ask: bluegenes, where's the evidence? The answer is: hidden from you by your own delusional behaviour.

What you have claimed as evidence is hearsay anecdotal circumstantial evidence, not objective empirical evidence, that is not changing the evidence, it is stating a fact. This kind of evidence is unsuitable for scientific examination of the validity of an hypothesis.

In addition, having evaluated the claim you have made concerning these narratives, and finding no valid reason to accept your claim that they should all be taken as 100% absolutely true renderings no matter what, I find that your position is untenable and your conclusion biased by your own beliefs.

I have not "changed the evidence" at all: instead, what I have shown is that there is a reasonable explanation, very strongly based on observation and knowledge of how people actually behave and observe things that are real events, that fully and completely explains your purported "mutually exclusive" conflicts, while your claim relies entirely on the untenable position that the narratives should all be taken as 100% absolutely true renderings no matter what.

Meanwhile you ignore the parts of the narratives that are all consilient: god/s created life. If 5 "eye-witness" accounts all agreed that person A hit person B but not on any other matter, that would still be taken as indication that person A hit person B, especially if there is evidence that person B was hit. Life exists.

This in spite of the fact that none of this would show that any one of the god/s in these narratives would have to be human imagination inventions: they are not objective empirical evidence, and they are not evidence that supports your assertion/s.

There's lots of discussion about the myths by people who study them, and no-one can really know the intentions of the inventors, but many modern commentators think ...

The logical fallacy of the appeal to (anonymous) authority. You don't have evidence so you appeal to the purported opinion of unspecified experts,

not showing that these "commentators" are unbiased scientists testing objective empirical evidence to reach scientific conclusions, rather than talk radio host voicing personal opinions.

As I pointed out in the last post (and several others) "possible" alternatives are no problem for scientific theories, ...

IF you had a theory ...
IF it was based on the scientific method ...
IF it was based on some solid objective empirical evidence ...

But you don't.

You have an unsupported hypothesis, and it is in conflict with another hypothesis, the Hindu Hypothesis, that explains the same hearsay anecdotal circumstantial evidence without any reliance on assuming unreasonable degrees of accuracy and understanding by the original recorders of events.

Your problem is to show why your hypothesis has more value than the Hindu Hypothesis, and to do that you need to test one against the other by some process that can differentiate them. Then use that process to develop objective empirical evidence that can falsify one or the other.

If you're referring to my use of the phrase "known to science", that was just for you. I'm perfectly happy with "known", ...

So you are dropping the "known to science" bit now, presumably because you can't substantiate that either. You still need to show that you have evidence of this at all.

... but I thought that the new phrase would save you the trouble of asking me to falsify lots of unsupported claims of knowledge. ...

Or just another attempt to restrict the evidence you needed to supply.

... Many people claim to know of supernatural beings of many different descriptions, and some EvC members may well claim to know that their god exists, but that doesn't mean we can establish that they do know this.

And they are always asked for objective empirical evidence to support their assertions.

Such people would have existed in the past, also, and they're perfectly capable of documenting their beliefs, and claiming to know them as truths. They are the "ones" on the Dawkins scale, whom you regard as illogical.

You mean the (1)'s and (2)'s versus the (6)'s and (7)'s who bear an equal burden for claims outside the (3) to (5) range. And yes, without evidence of support for their claims they are all illogical.

I have a theory which is shown to be true "some of the time", by which you mean "in some cases" just as Pasteur could show that a tiny percentage of the worlds organisms came from other organisms. It was the fact that there was no other known source that combined with this to create his law, a product of inductive reasoning. Why do you find this so hard to understand?

Perhaps because you have not shown it to be true for one of the times that are of any real interest (ie not for made up caricatures and other straw man examples where you know from the start they are made up, but don't establish that they qualify as supernatural).

All for now, as I do have other things to do than repeat the comments already made and ignored. And besides this is already long enough. Maybe more tonight.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ...


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 89 by bluegenes, posted 02-04-2011 9:53 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by bluegenes, posted 02-06-2011 12:58 AM RAZD has responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019