Peanut Gallery

Nope. Your mom told me that she had a supernatural experience. It was a source that I neither experienced nor imagined.

---

I don't see what all the confusion is over...No, we don't have evidence of supernaturals. Fine, don't believe in them.Or you could remain agnostic.Or you could claim that there is evidence that there are no supernatural beings. Okay, lets see it.That is the point. Show the evidence that they don't exist.

---

I do disagree with RAZD on there being supernatural beings that have been shown to not exist. It seems to be a more "technical" disagreement.

I think the source source isn't the sauce on my saucey sauce.Are you trying to break mike again? I'm starting to smoke. On a serious note. I can understand the Copperfield reasoning but at the end of the day it all has to do with argumentum ad ignorantiam.To be truly neutral, then there will not necessarily be the need to equate the supernatural with absurd things.Now whether that is done with epithets or indirectly, it still is relevant that you only use examples of things that are obviously false.This is understandable, in that you are being rational when you attribute the same logical credence to each and every supernatural phenomenon. In that sense I can't get round your logic.But the other part to this is that this line of reasoning tends to go along the lines of strictly empirical thinking, when we know that people can have internal knowledge that is genuine knowledge, outside of empiricism.I don't agree with Coyote that it is naval-gazing, because that is like saying that we should adhere to empiricism and completely reject any other way of thinking, through epistemology or logic.In this sense the atheist is arguing more about themselves when they allude to obviously false things.If a strict empiricism is your course, then that is your course, but this in itself does not mean that anything beyond the natural, whether supernatural or physical, is obviously false.Treating it false until proof positive comes along is logical positivism. The same reasoning applies when we did not know Jupiter existed. Before it was identified it could have been regarded as absurd until proven true.I don't hold this attitude against you because I understand it, there is merit to it, rationally speaking, but logically I regard RAZD's position as more neutral because it tells us nothing about RAZD.All the best. (Hi, by the way. ) Disclaimer; I am not stating that you are saying that God is an obviously false absurd thing, it is simply my own observation that it seems that only the physical is regarded as reality to you guys. Personally, that states more about our ignorance in my view. Afterall, in a world with no marine life, would it shock you to find an octopus in your bath? What an absurd natural entity. Who would believe you? What rational person would believe you? I.e. there is more to it than just rational empiricism

I've been enjoying your posts in EvC and was only trying to be polite...sorry you took it in a negative way. First off, it was bluegenes that proposed the theory. He is the one who should be addressing questions. What was wrong with the IPU?
And, anyway, does Pinhead have any supernatural powers or characteristics? Now his friend, Toad - a talking human-sized toad? Now that's supernatural.... This is in order to eliminate on-the-spot concoctions by Straggler & bluegenes of supernatural entities with tailored properties. RAZD was sort of hoping that bluegenes' "theory" would address supernatural beings that were believed in by more than 1 human being, because the set of all possible supernatural beings created by human armchair imagination is huge and increasing every time Straggler or bluegenes invents another, and they are not relevent to the importance of the "theory". They do not support the theory. They are a waste of time. We know we can imagine supernatural beings. We can do that all day. That's not what the theory asserted.If bluegenes only wants to talk about supernatural entities that he or Straggler can make up on the spot, then he can go ahead and do that, but I doubt anyone will care about it. None of those entities will address the "strength" of his "theory". He is a cartoon character invented by Bill Griffy with a skull drawn to exaggerate his pinheadedness, a huge jaw line to give us the impression that he isn't intelligent, and a preposterous mumu to further emphasize his outlandishness. This is a caricature. Very few characters in his strip are drawn without caricature, the way they are drawn in, say, the soap-opera comics, like Rex Morgan or Belle Starr, where, among other things, supernatural beings are not in the plot lines. If we cannot ask bluegenes to provide evidence that certain supernatural beings of our choice are made up, but instead can only look at his list he has accumulated so far, then he is not ready to publish.For example, we cannot yet ask: The theory that all supernatural beings are figments of human imagination is a pretty extraordinary claim. Millions of otherwise sane humans believe in Jesus, for example. Millions believe in Mohammad. Millions believe in Buddha. And so on...let's get to the Big Guns of the supernatural world. No one now seriously believes in Thor anymore. bluegenes made an extraordinary claim. What is it - ~90% of the humans in the whole world believe in a God of some kind?If his theory never addresses the Big Guns, what good is it? If it never even addresses certain Small Guns believed by many? The theory is essentially saying that ~90% of world population is Wrong. While I might agree with that personally, I wouldn't propose it as a scientific theory just yet.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Thank you, Modulous. Indeed, my caricature of bluegenes' theory wasn't on target. Evidence of a source being an actual source is the crux of the issue, I think.Of course we can't get into the Big Guns of the supernatural world yet, because the sources we have for them are imperfect and incomplete and thus not really "known".This will diminish the relative importance of the proposed theory in my eyes, of course.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

With us, dude. With humans. That's fine. I just wanted to know if you only saw two possible choices, as I do. I didn't think there were more.So we have narrowed it down to, some can be imagined(you seem to agree that humans can imagine supernatural beings), and some might be experienced, but you can't know which is which.Lets then break that down:1) The "imagined" aspect of this equations is a known fact; humans can imagine supernatural beings. You have agreed to this. I think.2) The "experienced" aspect of this equation is the unknown factor; it is not known if humans can actually experience supernatural beings. Also, this aspect of the equation requires that the supernatural actually exists and can be experienced.In the 1st, no evidence is required, because it is a known factor.The 2nd however, requires two essential pieces of evidence - starting with first, the evidence for supernatural beings, and second, the evidence that humans can actually experience them.Would you agree with my assessment up to this point?- Oni

Yeah, my mom experienced it. So it remains that there are only two possible sources, either humans imagine it, or they experience it.If they convey the information to others, that doesn't change that. The good thing is, no one has claimed that. Show the evidence that they don't exist? Think about that.- Oni

Sure it does. I didn't experience it and I didn't imagine it, yet I have a source for it. Sure the have. Bluegenes claims that he has plenty of evidence that, they don't exist because, the only known source of supernatural beings is imagination. Yeah, I don't why someone would think they could take it that far.

If any actual source other than imagination became known, then it wouldn't be supernatural so the hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

The point is that the person conveying that info to you either imagined it or actually experienced it.If my mom told you about the supernatural, you would conclude she either experienced it for real or imagined it.What I'm asking for is, could she know it any other way other than imagined or experienced it? Show me that quote. I meant, how can I show you evidence for something that doesn't exist?- Oni

So then the only known source is the human imagination?- Oni

Or they heard it from somewhere else...Or maybe they experienced a little and imagined a lot, or visa versa.I'm still seeing a false dichotomy. Have you been reading the Great Debate thread? RAZD outlined his claims very thoroughly. I can't sum it all up in one quote, but this is as close as it gets:From Message 167:

quote:

---

"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".

​

This is a high level of confidence theory.

---

How can you have a theory without evidence? Sure, but the theory that that is all there is, is unfalsifiable. Too, if a supernatural source could be shown, then it wouldn't supernatural.At the end of the day, its a non-theory.

I saw us soars and use saws on your sauce to avod getting sores. Then falsify the claim that some rabbits are created by some magicians if it is 'obviously false'. RAZD seems to be insisting all 'possibilities' need to be discounted, and that 'obviously false' is nothing but subjective bias, cognitive whatever, confirmation thingy and whatever other things affect everyone but RAZD. I agree that de novo creation of life forms by supernatural powers is absurd, but some people genuinely believe it has happened at least once. If you would like to discuss cases you feel are not absurd, let me know. Remember it has to be about the sources of concepts. I picked rabbits because they've been raised before. We've also talked about books and raindrops if you'd prefer. How do we know that? No, it is not. It is rational empiricism. Which is why we are discussing evidence and logic. You may have noticed discussing of mutual exclusivity for instance. In-built contradicitions or paradoxes have been raised. So I have no idea where you have got the impression that we're engaging in 'strict empiricism'.I'm not saying the supernatural is 'obviously false'. I hold the position that the human mind is incredibally fallible and ascribes agency and loves stories and confabulation is in-built into the human mind and that this is the only known source of supernatural beings. We do not know of any other source such as the actual existence of real supernatural beings. Such sources may exist, but they are not known of.I am not suggesting the theory is true. It is supported by what evidence is available. It is not falsified by any available evidence. To deny this would be to deny other theories that are supported and not falsified or to special plead for supernatural things because I might happen to like them (for instance I already believe they are out there). If you mean Jupiter the planet - I don't think it has ever been denied as existing - it's plainly visible with the naked eye. Perhaps Neptune would be a better example. Even then, someone saying 'perhaps there are other planets' like the ones we have already seen' is considerably less absurd than 'maybe something that we've never seen any examples of was behind the phenomena'.Assuming false until confirmed is a kind of skepticism (doubt first, proof required etc). Logical positivists were also often skeptics, of course. It should be noted that Karl Popper - one of the founding fathers of modern scientific structures, was opposed to logical positivism since they stressed verifiability rather than falsifiability.As a point of interest: RAZD is stressing verifiability of bluegenes' theory (badly, unfortunately) rather than the fact that it is falsifiable. If anyone is being a logical positivist here, it is RAZD...but there are other criteria which may exclude RAZD from their ranks really.From wiki:

quote:

---

Popper thought that falsifiability was a better criterion because it did not invite the philosophical problems inherent in verifying an induction, and it allowed statements from the physical sciences which seemed scientific but which did not meet the verification criterion.

---

RAZD has not successfully argued that bluegenes' theory is unfalsifiable and obviously bluegenes is not required by scientific standards to verify an inductive theory. It tells us plenty about RAZD. It tells us he wants to look like a reasonable and neutral person defending against the bastions of the unreasonable and dogmatic. RAZD is a deist, he frequently says he is inclined towards believing there are supernatural monsters out there over the alternative of there being none and he is trying to discredit any theory that says otherwise by listing as many logical fallacies he thinks he can get away with.Not neutral, he has his biases, that you don't see them may be an indication you are likewise biased. hiya The physical is the only thing for which there is evidence to demonstrate its reality, yes? I fail to see what more there is to it. I saw the octopus (empiricism) and other people saw it, it has persistance and I can use other senses to detect. Rationally it exists. Others might not believe me but those sufficiently motivated can come and see the octopus themselves.Obviously, if the octopus vanished from my bath and left no trace - I'd assume I hallucinated or had some kind of memory problem. Because I have no problem believing I am capable of doing those things, having done them before and there would no sane reason for an octopus to be in my bath in the hypothetical world.

Who either experienced it for real or imagined it for fake. Yeah, experience, imagined, both, whatever. But just those two. Yet you can't show me a third source? They're debating on whether it is a theory or not. It's just the start of the theory.That is not the same as making the absolute statement that supernatural things don't exist. But we do, there is evidence that the human imagination can come up with that stuff. That is in fact the only known source. It's a pretty good theory. Certainly not the end of the question though. The theory that that is all that is known is not, which is the actual theory. Agreed. So then the only source for the supernatural would remain the imagination, because if you can experience it (which is the only other source) it is not supernatural.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I am not defining supernatural to mean 'unverifiable'. It's interesting that you are.

The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural concepts known to science.That some other un-evidenced alternative might conceivably exist is irrelevant to this.Evolution from common descent is the only source of different species known to science.That some other un-evidenced alternative (e.g. omphalism) might conceivably exist is irrelevant to this.When are you going to grasp the idea that un-evidenced alternatives have no bearing on the strength or validity of scientific theories whatsoever?