Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


(1)
Message 796 of 1725 (603275)
02-03-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 793 by onifre
02-03-2011 2:36 PM


Yeah, experience, imagined, both, whatever. But just those two.
I'm still seeing a false dichotomy.
Yet you can't show me a thrid source?
A bit of both would be a thrid one...
Also, somebody else telling me about it is not me either imagining it nor experiencing it.
So that's 4 now.
#5: I could read about it in a book.
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.
Only to avoid the illogic.
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.
Showing that some are imagined isn't showing that all are imagined.
But yes, imagination is the only thing we can show scientifically.
A probelm with this theory is that we have no way of showing the supernatural scientifically. This makes it unfalsifiable and unscientific.
Sure, but the theory that that is all there is, is unfalsifiable.
The thoeyr that the is all that is known is not, which is the actual theory.
That theory doesn't provide us with anything.
Anything that is not scientific is not going to have scientific support...
We can't scientifically know about anything that isn't scientific...
Agreed. So then the only source for the supernatural would remain the imagination, because if you can experience it (whihc is the only other source) it is not supernatural.
Now if only we had some evidence to work with...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 793 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 2:36 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 799 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 4:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 797 of 1725 (603279)
02-03-2011 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 794 by Modulous
02-03-2011 2:47 PM


I am not defining supernatural to mean 'unverifiable'.
How would you verify it? How would you verify it scientifically?
It's interesting that you are.
I thought I was going with the flow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 794 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 2:47 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 805 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 5:42 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(1)
Message 798 of 1725 (603280)
02-03-2011 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 792 by Modulous
02-03-2011 2:33 PM


Re: My general view thus far
Just to say, I shouldn't have made that general view aimed at you, sorry if it seemed I was attacking you. I really should have used the "general reply", I don't think it is fair to single you out.
I think, reading your post, you misunderstood a few things.
For example, when I say RAZD seems neutral, what I really means is that if I didn't know he was Deist, it would be difficult to know what he believed. I would go for agnostic.
We are all biased. But I don't believe that atheists such as you have the keys to reason.
You say that we can confirm things like an octopus.
My point was, that something natural which is true and real, can be regarded as farcical despite being real and true.
In this way, God is farcical, I assume, to you. But this is the things, He is only ever farcical to a certain group of people, therefore doesn't that group of people explain that attitude, and therefore doesn't that tell us more about them than God?
You say that supernatural activity only comes from a human source therefore it is human. Can you see how your doubt in God as someone real or true, comes from your particular group.
I am honestly trying to get into the atheist's mindset. In this manner I am not attacking you or atheists. I personally don't have anything against you, you have never harmed me or insulted me and even if you had I have to forgive you, I don't get a choice.
Now, I deem it reasonable that you meet my own experiences with skepticism but I don't believe the only worthwhile view is the narrow view of science and empiricism. It's as though you do not regard any potential realities beyond the one we can detect unless empiricism is in play.
I have a question I'd love you to answer, it's an honest question, I only am interested in a genuine answer.
If God exists, and created us, and is the God of the bible, and if you were wrong about all this, would that be that you were misled by him or would you regard that you had not been correct?
It strikes me as very unusual if guys like you would admitt to being wrong. I actually don't think that you think you can be wrong about anything, but maybe that's unfair. I am probably wrong but I don't think I have ever know an atheist to say that he perhaps could have misled himself, having a particular attitude towards God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 792 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 2:33 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 804 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2011 5:19 PM mike the wiz has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3065 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 799 of 1725 (603288)
02-03-2011 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 796 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2011 3:15 PM


A bit of both would be a thrid one...
But still a combination of the two.
Also, somebody else telling me about it is not me either imagining it nor experiencing it.
So then that person imagined it or experienced it. And if they heard it, then the person that told them either imagined it or experienced it. And so on.
It remains just two. Even when combined, it is just two.
Showing that some are imagined isn't showing that all are imagined.
Correct. But it is a starting point, from which, other sources can be introduced. Up till now, the only other has been "experience." Something that cannot be evidenced objectively.
So it then becomes "all" tentitively untill objective evidence of some other source is produced.
But yes, imagination is the only thing we can show scientifically.
So as a scientific theory it holds up. End of argument.
Why is this being dragged out further?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 796 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 3:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 800 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 4:13 PM onifre has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 800 of 1725 (603291)
02-03-2011 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 799 by onifre
02-03-2011 4:08 PM


So as a scientific theory it holds up. End of argument.
Except that its unfalsifiable.
Plus, he claimed he had plenty of evidence to support it. I haven't seen it.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 799 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 4:08 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 801 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 4:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3065 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 801 of 1725 (603295)
02-03-2011 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 800 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2011 4:13 PM


Except that its unfalsifiable.
Sure it is, you just need to show how the human imagination can't come up with supernatural beings. It is already accepted that it can, even by RAZD. So show that it can't and it is falsified.
Plus, he claimed he had plenty of evidence to support it. I haven't seen it.
You haven't seen evidence that the human imagination can come up with supernatural beings? C'mon, dude.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 800 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 4:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 802 by xongsmith, posted 02-03-2011 4:34 PM onifre has replied
 Message 803 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 4:38 PM onifre has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


(1)
Message 802 of 1725 (603297)
02-03-2011 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 801 by onifre
02-03-2011 4:28 PM


Oni -
Did you see RAZD's Yucatan Meteor Extinction example? No human being experienced it. No human being imagined it.
So a third way is by scientific analysis of the evidence.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 801 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 4:28 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 807 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 7:01 PM xongsmith has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 803 of 1725 (603298)
02-03-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 801 by onifre
02-03-2011 4:28 PM


Sure it is, you just need to show how the human imagination can't come up with supernatural beings. It is already accepted that it can, even by RAZD. So show that it can't and it is falsified.
How would I show that?
You haven't seen evidence that the human imagination can come up with supernatural beings? C'mon, dude.
Is that what he's referring to as "plenty of evidence"?
What a worthless theory...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 801 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 4:28 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 808 by onifre, posted 02-03-2011 7:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
(1)
Message 804 of 1725 (603304)
02-03-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 798 by mike the wiz
02-03-2011 3:26 PM


The God farce
Just to say, I shouldn't have made that general view aimed at you, sorry if it seemed I was attacking you.
It didn't seem that way, rest assured.
For example, when I say RAZD seems neutral, what I really means is that if I didn't know he was Deist, it would be difficult to know what he believed. I would go for agnostic.
His sympathies for the supernatural position shine through for me. Clearly he is trying to appear to be neutral, but I don't think he has succeeded. His insistence that unevidenced, unfalsifiable 'possibilities' need to be ruled out before any confidence can be given to the falsifable and unfalsified theory that has supporting evidence coupled with inductive reasoning is a bit of a give-away.
We are all biased. But I don't believe that atheists such as you have the keys to reason.
I wouldn't suggest otherwise.
You say that we can confirm things like an octopus.
My point was, that something natural which is true and real, can be regarded as farcical despite being real and true.
Of course, the platypus is a real world example of this.
In this way, God is farcical, I assume, to you.
Not at all. Certain claims about God can be farcical, certain arguments that propose to demonstrate any God's existence are absurd - but the concept of God is not farcical to me.
He is only ever farcical to a certain group of people, therefore doesn't that group of people explain that attitude, and therefore doesn't that tell us more about them than God?
Yes. But then - the book of Genesis tells us more about the authors than it does about God too...
It works both ways, if those that think god is a farcical concept this tells us more about them than god
then
those that think god is a serious revered concept tell us more about themselves than god.
You say that supernatural activity only comes from a human source therefore it is human.
No I don't. This confusion has been corrected numerous times on this thread. Suffice it to say I am very much not saying this.
Can you see how your doubt in God as someone real or true, comes from your particular group.
I don't doubt God because I'm an atheist.
I am atheist because I doubt God.
I'm not foolish and I appreciate that by identifying with a group I am susceptible to biases etc. And that works the other way too. Including RAZD who is not neutral but identifies himself as a True Skeptic Deist. I fail to see why this is relevant though.
I am honestly trying to get into the atheist's mindset. In this manner I am not attacking you or atheists. I personally don't have anything against you, you have never harmed me or insulted me and even if you had I have to forgive you, I don't get a choice.
Then free your mind and follow me...
I am going to sell you a pill that will grow your penis, enliven your sex life. I'm going to sell you a shirt that will attract women, a shower gel that will improve athletic performance and a bridge in brooklyn for just $5.
It is possible I'm telling the truth, but I suspect your inclination is to doubt me. I may have an ulterior motive such as...money.
That doubt? That attitude of 'Nullius in verba' seems natural when a transparent shyster comes along. But some people still manage to short circuit skepticism and get intelligent reasonable and careful people to fall for what appear to be obvious cons.
Remember the Emperor's New Clothes? How the 'tailors' created clothes that were so subtle and sheer that they would appear invisible to those who are sufficiently wise and sophisticated?
The little boy who said 'But the Emperor is naked!'? That's the atheist mindset.
Now, I deem it reasonable that you meet my own experiences with skepticism but I don't believe the only worthwhile view is the narrow view of science and empiricism. It's as though you do not regard any potential realities beyond the one we can detect unless empiricism is in play.
I always regard potential realities beyond the ones we can detect. I have a vivid imagination and enjoy thinking up new realities, and have written several (unpublished) books that utilise them.
However, I don't give any of them preferential credence as being true unless there is some reason to do so. I can think of no better way that to experience those alternative realities myself and have sufficient confirmation of others clearly experiencing the same alternative realities. The more rigorous tests regarding those experiences - the better.
If God exists, and created us, and is the God of the bible, and if you were wrong about all this, would that be that you were misled by him or would you regard that you had not been correct?
Assuming I was given no further information with which to make that decision I would think neither exactly.
Obviously I would concede that I was wrong, since I would be.
'The God of the Bible' is an ambiguous term. If it was the YHWH that demands belief for salvation I would maintain the inherent unfairness and stupidity of the system in which there was no way for us to verify the correct entity to believe in resulting in billions believing the wrong deity or lack thereof.
If it was the YHWH that doesn't demand belief and says 'not everyone is inclined to believe those stories, don't worry about it - join the party'...then of course I wouldn't feel misled. I wasn't led at all but it doesn't matter since I got to the destination nevertheless!
It strikes me as very unusual if guys like you would admitt to being wrong. I actually don't think that you think you can be wrong about anything, but maybe that's unfair.
And yet 'guys like us' demand theories be falsifiable, and 'guys like you' create unfalsifiable theories that can never be proven wrong. 'Guys like us' conceded that the universe was expanding, that it had a 'beginning', that Darwin's ideas don't actually work out.
Sure - everybody finds it difficult to admit to being wrong. Because of this, 'guys like us' have attempted to overcome this tendency by defining what it would take for us to be shown to be wrong. We define falsifications for our own ideas. Again, people - even 'guys like us' - may stick to falsified theories, trying to rescue them with caveats and patches but die hards tend to die out.
But look at the evidence mike. Relativity and Quantum Physics and other Cosmological theories are far more 'absurd' than 90% of religious ideas. They litereally defy belief, as if our brains are simply not wired up to accept them.
And yet despite their inherent absurdity - 'guys like us' accept them eventually - although almost everybody that accepts quantum physics for example, denies it at first. "It cannot be true, we must have missed something!" - but the evidence becomes overwhelming. Despite the fact that it seems absurd and impossible - the evidence shows it is true so there we have it. Eventually we have to admit that our pet ideas about how to get out of the apparent paradoxes are wrong. There are no hidden variables, there is no knowing position and momentum at the same time, it is impossible to predict which photons will reflect only how many of them will do so....
Guys like us love being wrong. We've been wrong so often, we've stripped out all those things we're been most obviously wrong about. Plenty remains, and a skeptics job at self-reflection never ends. I'd love to find out I was wrong about supernatural things - it'd be one of the most exciting things to be wrong about, ever!
Besides - the rationalisation is easy. Since atheists rarely say "God does not exist.", they don't have to admit to being wrong. Since they are clear that all their ideas are tentative it gives them a psychological trapdoor making it easier to admit being wrong. Remember 'all supernatural concepts come from the human imagination' is framed as a theory - not as a statement of fact.
I am probably wrong but I don't think I have ever know an atheist to say that he perhaps could have misled himself, having a particular attitude towards God.
I could be wrong. I could have been misled or have misled myself. I've done it thousands of times before and have chronicled some of those times on this very board.
There is one way to show that I was wrong: Show me reason and evidence combined that leads to the conclusion that a god exists. As Tim Minchin comments on a slightly different topic that atheists are often arguing about:
quote:
Science adjusts its views based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
If you show me
That, say, homeopathy works,
Then I will change my mind
I will spin on a fucking dime
I'll be embarrassed as hell,
But I will run through the streets yelling
It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
Water has memory!
And whilst its memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is infinite
It somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!
You show me that it works and how it works
And when I've recovered from the shock
I will take a compass and carve "Fancy That" on the side of my cock."
...
"Life is full of mystery, yeah,
But there are answers out there
And they won't be found
By people sitting around
Looking serious
And saying isn't life mysterious?
Let's sit here and hope
Let's call up the fucking Pope
Let's go watch Oprah
Interview Deepak Chopra
If you must watch telly, you should watch Scooby Doo.
That show was so cool
because every time there was a church with a ghoul
Or a ghost in a school
They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The fucking janitor or the dude who ran the water-slide.
Because throughout history
Every mystery
EVER solved has turned out to be
NOT magic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 798 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2011 3:26 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 805 of 1725 (603307)
02-03-2011 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 797 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2011 3:24 PM


How would you verify it? How would you verify it scientifically?
Put someone in a locked room and cut their leg off.
Watch god descend from the heavens with trumpets.
Record event in full spectrum glory.
Scientist and god confer with one another.
Scientist says that god will cure the amputee.
God snaps his fingers and all amputations are reversed that very second (twenty five thousand confirmed cases that occurred within that minute - 60,000 that can confirm it happened within 10 minutes etc etc).
All diseases are cured at the same time.
God says he will repeat the feat in 25 years.
God repeats the feat in 25 years and gives all humans a tour of heaven where they can take video cameras which will 'magically' work and record.
I would regard this as pretty good evidence for the thing that people are presently calling 'the supernatural'. Other evidences would include ghosts turning up and confirming various details that had been set up in advance, psychics predicting the future in specific and testable ways (lottery numbers, names of murderers/political leaders of the future etc).
I'm sure you can think of other examples.
I thought I was going with the flow.
Supernatural is most often described as unfalsifiable, but that's partially an artefact of it being ill-defined and partially a result of people trying every tactic in the book to avoid their precious beliefs from being examined. Mental patients, when confronted with evidence that contradicts their delusions will naturally confabulate their way out of the paradox and feel perfectly satisfied with their rationalisations. I don't think mental patients are special in their capacity to do this, its just usually their beliefs are so clearly disordered, nonsensical and absurd so it is clearer to see it when they do it. Even sane people, with minor brain damages (such as those created by strokes) can come up with fantastic confabulations. The cases where they have no sense of the left side of their body for instance, and when shown their left arm will swear it is their brother's arm or somesuch!
Unverifiable? Very few people claim that as far as I can tell. Theists for instance often believe that if you open your mind/heart to God, he will come them and that they will feel the love of God which they cite as their personal verification and they invite others to do likewise.
Some supernatural claims are impossible for us to verify without some cooperation from the supernatural side - but verification still remains a possibility.
Those people peforming psychic tests? Robert Sheldrake for instance? Or the prayer experiments or remove viewing tests...etc etc. All of them must believe the supernatural is verifiable, and I agree that if they perform their tests correctly and notice statistically significant effects - they'd be onto something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 797 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 3:24 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 806 of 1725 (603313)
02-03-2011 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 784 by xongsmith
02-03-2011 11:17 AM


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".
The entire point of a theory is take what is known as a way to explain what is not known. We do not know, and have no way of identifying directly that Henry VIII was related to Umchuka the Chimp but the theory of evolution says they were anyway. Do you think that is a problem?
This will diminish the relative importance of the proposed theory in my eyes, of course.
It shouldn't. The theory as stated is overly simple, and does not give mechanisms. But the real scientific theories of religion do give mechanisms (neurology/cognition) and are a little more complex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 784 by xongsmith, posted 02-03-2011 11:17 AM xongsmith has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3065 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 807 of 1725 (603321)
02-03-2011 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 802 by xongsmith
02-03-2011 4:34 PM


Wud up xong,
Did you see RAZD's Yucatan Meteor Extinction example? No human being experienced it. No human being imagined it.
I did see the example, but it was a terrible example. Humans can see the hole, can't they?
So a third way is by scientific analysis of the evidence.
Yup, and the evidence after analysis is that there are only two possible ways: either human's imagined it, or, human's can experience it subjectively.
The first is known to be a fact, the second is the unknown. Can humans experience it? Is there actually something to experience?
We don't know.
So...the only known source, tentitively, is the imagination.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 802 by xongsmith, posted 02-03-2011 4:34 PM xongsmith has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3065 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 808 of 1725 (603322)
02-03-2011 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 803 by New Cat's Eye
02-03-2011 4:38 PM


How would I show that?
Don't care, the point is that if you do it would be falsified. So it is falsifiable.
Is that what he's referring to as "plenty of evidence"?
As we have already agreed, it is the only evidence.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 803 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-03-2011 4:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 809 of 1725 (603323)
02-03-2011 7:11 PM


This topic is for side comments to a "Great Debate" topic
That doesn't seem to be the case, for what's currently happening.
Going to give it a short term closure in ~10 minutes.
Adminnemooseus

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1520 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 810 of 1725 (603335)
02-03-2011 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 777 by Dr Jack
02-03-2011 3:36 AM


Re: Great Debate thread - who's making up stuff?
Hi Mr Jack
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
No, I'm trying to set a ground work for further exploration of this suggestion. I want to know your opinion rather than have to assume it.
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 777 by Dr Jack, posted 02-03-2011 3:36 AM Dr Jack has 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