Peanut Gallery

from Message 88.I'd like to see the peer reviewed literature that RAZD is using that suggests scientists have to eliminate unfalsifiable 'possibilities' in order for their idea be considered a valid scientific theory.Further, out of historical curiosity, I'd be keen to see Darwin's work detailing the elimination of omphalistic alternative possibilities for the origin of the species.Or if I've misunderstood, maybe RAZD can explain how to falsify his alternative possibilities?

OR these dudes met and really experienced an ordinary mortal man who was cool and they liked him and started telling others who later on added the supernatural things (things like virgin birth, fishes/loaves, walking on water, Lazarus, Easter Resurrection),OR these dudes made up only some of those things about him and others were added later,OR these dudes experienced only some of those things and the others were made up about him later,OR they experienced some and made up others and more were experienced or made up later by others,OR they experienced some and others were actually experienced later.See? There are more than just 2 possibilities, not that it matters, because right now they ALL fall into the category of "We don't know".I suppose the only permutation that wouldn't make any sense would be that the 4 dudes made him up and then later others had real experiences with him.The original source of the supernatural Jesus story was probably not a single First Event in time, like Modulous put it. And before you claim that all additions to the story after these original 4 dudes described him for others - have to be, say, by something as trivial as by definition, made up, it might be that later on real experiences with the supernatural Jesus story occurred, as well as later embellishments of pure imagination. We don't know. The evidence is not available.The closer we get to the present timeline, the easier it is to investigate. The Shroud of Turin has been determined to not be a real Jesus story experience, but it took some scientific investigative work to determine that, preserving bluegenes' theory. Imagine other stuff attributed to the Jesus story dating from 100 A.D. - I am no scholar on the Jesus story, but there may have been many other little "miracle" stories along the way that cannot be scientifically investigated anymore and are thus forever consigned to the Unknown bin. My opinion is that they were all made up, either by crooks who wanted rip off others or by genuine psychotic delusions, but that is only my opinion. I do not know of any scientific evidence either way for the rest of these.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

You should watch this (I think you're gonna like it):

OKAY OKAY already! Let's cut right to the chase now...the big enchilada.I'll do it:=======> Jesus Christ

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

But that is NOT the hypothesis, RAZD.The hypothesis is that when you are able to make the source of a supernatural being KNOWN, that it turns out to always (so far) to be a product of human imagination. And by KNOWN, I think we can all agree that this means a scientific peer-reviewed investigation.bluegenes claims that, so far, all the scientific peer-reviewed investigations of the original source of any supernatural being done to date have resulted in the conclusion that human imagination is the source. Well - of course, but that is not what is going on here.It may be demonstrated later on down this road that, by the very nature of scientific peer-reviewed investigational procedure, the only cases that can even structurally fall into consideration are in fact only those cases where it can be demonstrated to be human imagination, accounting for the purported 100% success rate of the "theory". This would indeed have a built-in defect of forcing the innocent scientists in question to be forced into affirming the consequent, beyond their ability to avoid it. But this may not turn out to be so.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

No, you're the one with no evidence. My evidence is Robert Peary's 1909 expedition and the 2007 "Polar Special" episode of the top-rated UK car program Top Gear.What evidence have you provided for the non-made-up-ness of any supernatural being? What evidence have you provided that you've answered the very simple questions put to you? You asked, at one point, whether it was reasonable to conclude that you would ever take temporary leave of your senses and being posting things that were not reasonable. That strikes me as a fairly dangerous question for someone in your position to ask. Do you really want to know what people have told me about the condition of your mental faculties? I've been trying not to be personal, but your aggressive idiotic nonsense and crowing really is becoming tiresome, and the notion that you would get a POTM really is the last straw. You're doing yourself a tremendous disservice with these constant evasions, and it's only been out of personal respect for the intelligent person you used to be that I've not pursued this any further. But if you're going to insist on being a crowing douche about it, we can tangle.

Hi Rahvin, much most of this has been discussed before as well. Hence claiming a negative is rather silly, imho, no matter how you dress it up. No, for a simple reason, that in order to judge "relative likelihoods" you need to know the possibilities: to judge the "relative likelihood" of a lottery ticket winning you need to know how many were sold and whether tickets will be drawn whether sold or not, whether you have to be there in person during the drawing to claim the prize or if you can win in absentia. If you don't know if it is one in two or one in two million, then you are in no position to "establish relative likelihoods" ... when you throw a di you are in no position to "establish relative likelihoods" of one side being on top without knowing how many sides there are or whether the di is weighted or bias shaped. And there you go assuming the negative, which is not the default position. Does it mean that the pen does not exist, or just that it is not where you expect it and doesn't play by your rules. Nor does the pen not being on the desk prove that the pen does not exist, if the desk is the only place you can search, then it is likely that you will not find the pen even though it exists in a nearby space.In addition, you could be expecting a ball-point pen when there is a feather in an ink-well that you do not recognize as a pen. You could also be expecting something that is a straw man of what you are interested in finding: not finding the strawman you conclude that your search turned up negative evidence. Perhaps what you should be looking for is a writing implement, and there are several pencils, crayons and markers on the desk that you ignore because they do not fit your mental pen definition.Do you think god/s purpose is to show up for you? In other words, just assume that you are right based on your opinion?What you can demonstrate with your pen analogy is that you did not find the answer to your search, because either you were looking in the wrong place, or had the wrong concept of what you were looking for. There could be more reasons for your search to come up empty than that there is a negative result. Unless you know those you have no way to judge relative possibilities.The coelacanth is an excellent example of looking in the wrong place for something that existed. What is the difference between a purely natural phenomenon in a non-god made universe and the same phenomenon universe made by god/s where they define what is "natural"? You are welcome to your opinion. Curiously, what you are in effect saying is that you believe at some future point our understanding of the rules will be perfect .... which seems like high hubris to me. Curiously, that would only be my personal opinion, not any kind of evidence based conclusion. We both know that opinion is not able to alter reality. I am comfortable knowing that it is opinion, and thus don't feel any need to discuss them: you likely have your opinions, and any differences are as likely to be as unresolvable as whether or not god/s exist.I will say that there are many things that I see no need to believe or disbelieve, as I don't see either case being a life threatening or affecting issue.Does the existence of the IPU affect my life? Does the non-existence of the IPU affect my life? If the answer to both is no, then why do I even need to consider a decision?If it does affect my life, then I will make the decision I personally find more appealing based on my incomplete knowledge of reality AND on my personal opinions and biases, my world-view, and then behave according to that decision\opinions\biases, whether right or wrong.Same with god/s.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)

Hi crashfrog,More ad hominems and the logical fallacy of appeal to consequences. Curiously, I am not interested in the opinions of people, especially those that can't recognize a logical fallacy when they see use one.But no you do not have objective empirical evidence. Curiously I have not asserted that supernatural beings do actually exist, only that it is my opinion that it is possible that they may exist. That possibility is based on logical analysis of all the available evidence and the lack of a valid conclusion either way.What I have shown, however, is that it has not been demonstrated that human invention is the only possible source. That too is all that is necessary to maintain an agnostic position.A non-agnostic position is not based on logic, but on assumption and bias --- unless you actually have objective empirical evidence pro or con.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)

Hi xongsmith, Curiously that is how it was originally stated, even if it is not a direct quote:In Message 167 on the An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" thread bluegenes asserted:

quote:

---

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

---

No equivocation about "known to science" in that assertion. Except that's not the way he stated it originally, which you agree was badly overstated at best.Nor does it address the cases when you are NOT able to make the source of a supernatural being KNOWN, what do you do then? assume it is one or the other? Do you (a) just assume that because of the above testable situations, that they are all produced by human imagination? Or do you (b) assume that the reason you cannot make the source known may be because it is supernatural?If (b) is actually true, then the set of instances where you can test and determine the source are filtered to be only those cases where human invention is involved, while the set of instances where you cannot test and determine the source are filtered to include those cases where human invention is not involved [i]because;/i they involve supernatural sources.Logically you cannot make either assumption with any assurance of being right. Exactly. Then they should be available to be cited and quoted: where are they? Along with the list of which supernatural entities were found to be inventions. Amusingly it has happened recently. It happens every time someone makes up a caricature and then claims that it is evidence that supernatural beings are made up inventions of the human mind. Do you have any idea how many times different people have made this claim?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : splng

---

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)

I'm not making an argument against your position based on the consequences; I'm making an argument against your behavior based on the consequences. Additionally I've not made the argumentum ad hominem either; the imprecations I've made against your person have nothing to do with your position.You really need to be more careful before you make accusations of logical fallacies I haven't made. Apparently you don't understand the difference between a personal attack and the argumentum ad hominem. I don't understand "is possible that they may exist." That utterance communicates no information. Is it possible that they exist, or might they exist? I don't see how it can be possible that they might exist, at the same time. Can you elaborate and provide evidence for your view? You've been asked, however, what other source is known. And I'll ask you as well - what other source is known? Show your evidence for these alternate sources. I did, and I told you what it was. Did you take any time to review it, or did you just decide to ignore it and lie to me?

I stand corrected, however.... Ah, but he does immediately after state this: Since then, Modulous has further clarified this to be the Original Source of the supernatural beings, so as to dismiss 2nd hand & third hand stories of imperfect transmission, such as "My late Grandfather claims to have really, beyond all shadow of a doubt, to have seen a ghost in the attic in his old home more than once". None of the above...you just shrug & wait, accepting that you don't know. Seems the only instance listed so far is my listing of the FSM. UNFORTUNATELY!Making something up and then claiming and demonstrating it is made up is the epitomy of stupidity in this issue. It's like invading Iraq after 9/11.bluegenes theory boils down to this: Every supernatural being that we can show has been made up is made up.Whoop-ti-doo. Color me unimpressed.And then he doesn't even provide a single peer-reviewed example.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Oh, don't be so stuffy & pedantic. Aint you never done seen no way he aint never gonna do none of that?
ONCE AGAIN - IT IS NOT UP TO RAZD TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION!!

​

HE DID NOT PROPOSE THE THEORY!!!
GEE WHIZ!

​

IT IS bluegenes WHO MUST ANSWER TO THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS!!!! I'm also hoping you don't, right now, also now invent some kind of imaginary friend and then demonstrate that, hey, he is imaginary!....

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

I love it! It made me want to take up pottery. But I ended up just taking up pot.- Oni

No, it's not. Bluegenes isn't making the assertion that there are other sources of supernatural beings; RAZD is. And it's incumbent on RAZD to present evidence for that view, which he refuses to do.

Yeah, whatever, you can combine it anyway you like, but you are only combining two possible sources.The added part of supernaturalness also, is either made up or really experienced.However you break it down, human's have only two ways to originate a person/story/etc: either we make it up, or we really experience it. However, that doesn't mean that to make up a character you can't pull from real life sources. No, xong, can't you see from your own words that you only present two ways: either experienced or imagined? All you're doing is combining those two and giving it different percentages one way or the other. But it remains two, experienced or imagined.Remember, using your imagination doesn't mean you can't pull from real life events. But it remains an imagined thing. A unicorn is a horse, except for that horn. Obviously, whoever made up the unicorn pulled from a real life source. But it is still made up.- Oni