Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,596 Year: 4,853/9,624 Month: 201/427 Week: 11/103 Day: 11/0 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 766 of 1725 (603120)
02-02-2011 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 765 by onifre
02-02-2011 7:40 PM


Re: one question
Hi onifre,
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.
Indeed. Thanks.
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.
Why should I accept one claim rather than another?
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 765 by onifre, posted 02-02-2011 7:40 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 767 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2011 8:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 768 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2011 8:54 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 769 by onifre, posted 02-02-2011 8:55 PM RAZD has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 767 of 1725 (603122)
02-02-2011 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 766 by RAZD
02-02-2011 8:23 PM


Re: one question
Why should I accept one claim rather than another?
Why do you keep dodging and weaving, and playing silly word games on this thread?
I considered you logical and rational until the "Great Debate" thread and this follow-up.
How about trying to provide straight answers instead of dodging the questions?
And the primary question you are dodging is: where is your evidence for the supernatural?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 766 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 8:23 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9277
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 768 of 1725 (603125)
02-02-2011 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 766 by RAZD
02-02-2011 8:23 PM


Re: one question
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.
Why should I accept one claim rather than another?
Where is Oni asking you to accept one claim rather than another?
Simple question. The answer is a yes or a no. Very simple.
Would you accept the two as the only possible sources: Imagination and actual experience.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 766 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 8:23 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 769 of 1725 (603126)
02-02-2011 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 766 by RAZD
02-02-2011 8:23 PM


Re: one question
Why should I accept one claim rather than another?
I didn't ask you to.
Would you accept the two as the only possible sources: Imagination and actual experience.
Would you?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 766 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 8:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 770 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 9:19 PM onifre has replied
 Message 781 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 10:19 AM onifre has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 770 of 1725 (603130)
02-02-2011 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 769 by onifre
02-02-2011 8:55 PM


Re: one question
Hi onifre, semantics, semantics, semantics,
Why should I accept one claim rather than another?
I didn't ask you to.
Would you accept the two as the only possible sources: Imagination and actual experience.
Amusingly, you just asked me again if I would accept the claim that there are only two sources. You can equivocate on the wording if you want, but it is the same question, with the same answer.
Curiously, I have seen absolutely no evidence or reason not to consider the possibility of other means, so I personally will remain open-minded in that regard, while also still being skeptical of claims not supported by objective empirical evidence.
If someone is going to claim that there are only two possible sources, then I would need to see objective empirical evidence supporting that claim.
Now, rather obviously, if someone that claims these other sources of communication provided objective empirical evidence of such communication that would
  1. demonstrate that supernatural communication existed, and
  2. demonstrate that supernatural concepts could be the result of such communication
Conversely, just assuming that there are only those two means\sources is assuming the conclusion (that human imagination is the source of supernatural concepts) is true in the premise (Begging the Question):
quote:
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion.
Thus it would seem rather imperative that anyone making the claims that bluegenes made would at least attempt to show that the claim is true, not ask that it be accepted at face value on their word.
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 769 by onifre, posted 02-02-2011 8:55 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 771 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2011 9:28 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 772 by onifre, posted 02-02-2011 9:28 PM RAZD has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 771 of 1725 (603132)
02-02-2011 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 770 by RAZD
02-02-2011 9:19 PM


Re: one question
Thus it would seem rather imperative that anyone making the claims that bluegenes made would at least attempt to show that the claim is true, not ask that it be accepted at face value on their word.
Dodge (again).
Do you have any evidence for the supernatural or not?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 770 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 9:19 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3032 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 772 of 1725 (603133)
02-02-2011 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 770 by RAZD
02-02-2011 9:19 PM


Re: one question
Curiously, I have seen absolutely no evidence or reason not to consider the possibility of other means,
These other sources would have to be able to speak, yes? They would have to be able to convey the information to you, yes?
Are you saying that there is another species that has this ability on earth?
If not, then it is human ONLY.
And since it is human only, there are only two possible ways a human can know of supernatural beings: they have either made it up using their imagination, or, they actually experience it.
If you are saying there is a 3rd way, then please provide it, because now I'm curious.
If you have no 3rd way, then man up and answer my question, as I did yours.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 770 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 9:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 773 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 11:08 PM onifre has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 773 of 1725 (603144)
02-02-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 772 by onifre
02-02-2011 9:28 PM


Re: one question
Hi onifre, ah.
They would have to be able to convey the information to you, yes?
That would be what the claims by others of supernatural communication would imply.
Are you saying that there is another species that has this ability on earth?
To communicate? there are several species capable of communication, some even displaying imagination and objective cause-and-effect observations, but this is not your real question here.
..., there are only two possible ways a human can know of supernatural beings: they have either made it up using their imagination, or, they actually experience it.
Another alternative is that they can receive communication about an event without direct imagination of the event nor direct observation of the event.
What they cannot tell is whether or not any of these communications come indirectly from supernatural sources. Thus they can experience communication of supernatural beings without knowing the source, without imagination and without direct experience of the supernatural.
Most information we get is indirect, not directly invented nor directly observed. This is, after all, how you and I have seen claims of supernatural communication on this forum, yes? It is also how most scientific knowledge is acquired, yes?
Now you may say that it comes down to some person somewhere imagining or experiencing the supernatural, then I would say that this would a reasonable conclusion, but that I cannot tell whether communication from such a source is one or the other, nor can I provide evidence to differentiate them.
Another possibility is that we can deduce what occurred from evidence even though the event was not imagined nor directly experienced. The yucatan meteor at the end of the cretaceous period would be an example of communication of an event that does not come from imagination nor human experience.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : 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 772 by onifre, posted 02-02-2011 9:28 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 774 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2011 11:41 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 780 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 9:53 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 785 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 1:36 PM RAZD has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 774 of 1725 (603146)
02-02-2011 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 773 by RAZD
02-02-2011 11:08 PM


One answer
What they cannot tell is whether or not any of these communications come indirectly from supernatural sources. Thus they can experience communication of supernatural beings without knowing the source, without imagination and without direct experience of the supernatural.
Is there any evidence for the supernatural?
You keep ducking this question, yet your answers all seem to be based on your belief that there is a supernatural.
What's your evidence? Is it anything but belief and wishful thinking?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 773 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 11:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 776 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2011 2:59 AM Coyote has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 775 of 1725 (603154)
02-03-2011 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 761 by Dr Jack
02-02-2011 4:58 PM


Re: Great Debate thread - who's making up stuff?
Hi Mr Jack, yes.
Let's consider Father Christmas
Good suggestion. Someone can address this issue without making up another silly caricature.
First, what makes this a supernatural entity in your 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 761 by Dr Jack, posted 02-02-2011 4:58 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 777 by Dr Jack, posted 02-03-2011 3:36 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 776 of 1725 (603161)
02-03-2011 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 774 by Coyote
02-02-2011 11:41 PM


persistent question ...
Hi Coyote, you seem stuck in this mode.
Is there any evidence for the supernatural?
see Message 1
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 774 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2011 11:41 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 778 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-03-2011 3:51 AM RAZD has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 777 of 1725 (603162)
02-03-2011 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 775 by RAZD
02-03-2011 1:35 AM


Re: Great Debate thread - who's making up stuff?
First, what makes this a supernatural entity in your opinion?
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 775 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2011 1:35 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 810 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2011 9:22 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3977
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 778 of 1725 (603166)
02-03-2011 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 776 by RAZD
02-03-2011 2:59 AM


Is Coyote interested?
Admittedly, I haven't followed it closely, but I wasn't impressed with your performance in the current "Great Debate". Bluejeans seemed to be trying to do a dialog and you seemed to be doing some sort of stonewall, refusing to respond to his content. But it seemed to be some sort of prove/disprove God sort of a thing, doomed to wallow in some sort of abstract fuzziness - A wallow you seem to like. Bottom line - It was outside of my comprehension and I really didn't care.
That said, for better or worse, I don't foresee you offering up anything more than what you already said in the PNT message 1. I don't see any point in again going through the same routine as the current "Great Debate".
So, I'm leaning "No". If Coyote really wants to make a go of it, I'll leave it up to another admin to deal with the promotion.
Or something like that (aka - You have me boggled and apathetic).
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 776 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2011 2:59 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 779 by Coyote, posted 02-03-2011 9:33 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 811 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2011 9:49 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 876 by RAZD, posted 02-05-2011 8:39 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2187 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 779 of 1725 (603185)
02-03-2011 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 778 by Adminnemooseus
02-03-2011 3:51 AM


Re: Is Coyote interested?
No, not interested.
That proposed post is nothing more than has been posted many times before, a meaningless word salad that demonstrates once again that philosophy is nothing more than naval gazing.
I have better things to do than to go around in philosophical circles.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 778 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-03-2011 3:51 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 780 of 1725 (603187)
02-03-2011 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 773 by RAZD
02-02-2011 11:08 PM


What they cannot tell is whether or not any of these communications come indirectly from supernatural sources. Thus they can experience communication of supernatural beings without knowing the source, without imagination and without direct experience of the supernatural.
In that case, as you explicitly point out, the source is not known. Nobody is suggesting that it has been falsified that there are supernatural sources. bluegenes is suggesting that the only known source is the imagination (that is to say, the only source for which there is evidence of its being a source). All other suggested sources have no evidence, they are not known known of. They might still be sources.
Much like David Copperfield might be a source of rabbits. I can't rule out that he has performed a rabbit appearance trick by actually creating a rabbit de novo. It is a possibility. Regardless of this possibility, David Copperfield is not a known source of rabbits.
You've performed a certain switch a few times. From bluegenes' discussion of known sources you claim he is claiming imagination as the sole source and that therefore all you need do is point out a possible source that has not been ruled out. But this is not the case. Bluegenes is talking about the sources for which there is evidence, such as imagination.
You have two strategies here I think:
1. Argue that the 'known source' issue is not supportive of a theory of sole source. This means tackling inductive reasoning in science.
2. Describe an alternative source for which there is evidence.
I think the first would present a more productive line of debate, since I think you have already said you don't think there is evidence of actual supernatural beings as the source of our concepts about them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 773 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 11:08 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 782 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 10:35 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 784 by xongsmith, posted 02-03-2011 11:17 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 788 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 2:00 PM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024