Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,564 Year: 4,821/9,624 Month: 169/427 Week: 82/85 Day: 19/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 781 of 1725 (603193)
02-03-2011 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 769 by onifre
02-02-2011 8:55 PM


Re: one question
Would you accept the two as the only possible sources: Imagination and actual experience.
Would you?
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.

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 786 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 1:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 782 of 1725 (603194)
02-03-2011 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 780 by Modulous
02-03-2011 9:53 AM


My general view thus far
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 9:53 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 792 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 2:33 PM mike the wiz has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2600
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 783 of 1725 (603201)
02-03-2011 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 759 by Panda
02-02-2011 10:33 AM


Re: Great Debate thread - who's grasping straws?
Panda writes:
xongsmith writes:
My dear Panda:
Patronising - nice start.
I've been enjoying your posts in EvC and was only trying to be polite...sorry you took it in a negative way.
Your post contained little to do with my questions.
If you want to support RADZ's arguments then answer the questions that RADZ has refused to answer.
First off, it was bluegenes that proposed the theory. He is the one who should be addressing questions.
RADZ asked for an example of a supernatural being created by human imagination.
I suggested Pinhead.
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....
RADZ then made the baseless assertion that imaginary supernatural beings have to be believed to be true for them to count as imaginary supernatural beings.
Why do imaginary supernatural beings require belief before they can be considered valid imaginary supernatural beings?
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".
RADZ then made the baseless assertion that Pinhead was a caricature.
Where is it shown that Pinhead is a caricature?
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.
RADZ refused to answer these questions and back-up his claims.
I expect that you will also refuse.
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:
When will he present evidence that Jesus Christ was made up?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 759 by Panda, posted 02-02-2011 10:33 AM Panda has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2600
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 784 of 1725 (603203)
02-03-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 780 by Modulous
02-03-2011 9:53 AM


Modulous writes:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 9:53 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 806 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 6:02 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 813 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2011 10:20 PM xongsmith has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3027 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 785 of 1725 (603236)
02-03-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 773 by RAZD
02-02-2011 11:08 PM


Re: one question
To communicate? there are several species capable of communication
With us, dude. With humans.
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.
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

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 941 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2011 7:44 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3027 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 786 of 1725 (603237)
02-03-2011 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 781 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2011 10:19 AM


Re: one question
Nope. Your mom told me that she had a supernatural experience. It was a source that I neither experienced nor imagined.
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.
Or you could claim that there is evidence that there are no supernatural beings. Okay, lets see it.
The good thing is, no one has claimed that.
Show the evidence that they don't exist.
Show the evidence that they don't exist? Think about that.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 781 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 10:19 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 787 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 1:56 PM onifre has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 787 of 1725 (603240)
02-03-2011 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 786 by onifre
02-03-2011 1:44 PM


Re: one question
Nope. Your mom told me that she had a supernatural experience. It was a source that I neither experienced nor imagined.
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.
Sure it does. I didn't experience it and I didn't imagine it, yet I have a source for it.
Or you could claim that there is evidence that there are no supernatural beings. Okay, lets see it.
The good thing is, no one has claimed that.
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.
Show the evidence that they don't exist.
Show the evidence that they don't exist? Think about that.
Yeah, I don't why someone would think they could take it that far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 786 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 1:44 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 789 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 2:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 788 of 1725 (603242)
02-03-2011 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 780 by Modulous
02-03-2011 9:53 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 780 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 9:53 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 790 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 794 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 2:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3027 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 789 of 1725 (603243)
02-03-2011 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 787 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2011 1:56 PM


Re: one question
Sure it does. I didn't experience it and I didn't imagine it, yet I have a source for it.
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?
Bluegenes claims that he has plenty of evidence that, they don't exist because, the only known source of supernatural beings is imagination.
Show me that quote.
Yeah, I don't why someone would think they could take it that far.
I meant, how can I show you evidence for something that doesn't exist?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 787 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 1:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 791 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 2:22 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3027 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 790 of 1725 (603246)
02-03-2011 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 788 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2011 2:00 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 788 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 2:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 791 of 1725 (603252)
02-03-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 789 by onifre
02-03-2011 2:05 PM


The point is that the person conveying that info to you either imagined it or actually experienced it.
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.
Bluegenes claims that he has plenty of evidence that, they don't exist because, the only known source of supernatural beings is imagination.
Show me that quote.
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.
I meant, how can I show you evidence for something that doesn't exist?
How can you have a theory without evidence?
So then the only known source is the human imagination?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 789 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 2:05 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 793 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 2:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 795 by Straggler, posted 02-03-2011 2:49 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 792 of 1725 (603256)
02-03-2011 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 782 by mike the wiz
02-03-2011 10:35 AM


Re: My general view thus far
I think the source source isn't the sauce on my saucey sauce.
I saw us soars and use saws on your sauce to avod getting sores.
Now whether that is done with epithets or indirectly, it still is relevant that you only use examples of things that are obviously false.
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.
To be truly neutral, then there will not necessarily be the need to equate the supernatural with absurd things.
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.
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.
How do we know that?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
All the best. (Hi, by the way. )
hiya
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.
The physical is the only thing for which there is evidence to demonstrate its reality, yes?
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 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 782 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 10:35 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 798 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 3:26 PM Modulous has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3027 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 793 of 1725 (603257)
02-03-2011 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 791 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2011 2:22 PM


Or they heard it from somewhere else...
Who either experienced it for real or imagined it for fake.
Or maybe they experienced a little and imagined a lot, or visa versa.
Yeah, experience, imagined, both, whatever. But just those two.
I'm still seeing a false dichotomy.
Yet you can't show me a third source?
bluegenes writes:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory.
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.
How can you have a theory without evidence?
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.
Sure, but the theory that that is all there is, is unfalsifiable.
The theory that that is all that is known is not, which is the actual theory.
Too, if a supernatural source could be shown, then it wouldn't supernatural.
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.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 791 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 2:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 796 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 3:15 PM onifre has replied
 Message 826 by RAZD, posted 02-04-2011 11:39 AM onifre has replied

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


Message 794 of 1725 (603266)
02-03-2011 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 788 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2011 2:00 PM


If any actual source other than imagination became known, then it wouldn't be supernatural so the hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
If any actual source other than imagination became known, then it wouldn't be supernatural so the hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
I am not defining supernatural to mean 'unverifiable'. It's interesting that you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 788 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 2:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 797 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 3:24 PM Modulous has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 795 of 1725 (603268)
02-03-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 791 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2011 2:22 PM


CS writes:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 791 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 2:22 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024