Peanut Gallery

Why? Semantic pedantic bollocks. Science can and does answer "why questions" all the time.But if you are referring to a specific sort of nonsensical "why question" here is Dawkins on that subject:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZ_fsG5uMg

Yes.And very often in scientifc parlance too. Indeed. But what does? Philosophy maybe....? Theology? I don't think so.

Oh we have been there with RAZD before. Message 453Those of us who have been round the houses with RAZD are also very familiar with the idea of the god that has no description. Otherwise known as the ultimate god of the ultimate gap. Where the gap in question is the human notion of god itself.It is (apparently) "unknowable". Although how anyone could know this remains a mystery.

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?

I remember the discussions with Straggler very well. I remember your multi-thread "liar liar" tirade equally well.Once again it seems you feel the need to raise the issue of subjective "evidence" in the context of a discussion about deities. I find it remarkable that you keep feeling the need to raise such "evidence" in the context of discussions about supernatural beings given your rather forthright stance on the absence of any link between the two. Not to mention the rampant accusations of "lying" that were made by you when it was suggested you might be making just such a connection to support your pro-supernaturalist arguments. In the context of the great debate at hand the question of course is whether or not supernatural beings can legitimately be concluded to be the cause of such experiences.To conclude supernatural causes for such human experiences is in itself an evidentially baseless conclusion. And one that flies in the face of all of the historical and psychological evidence regarding mankinds tendencies in this area.In fact the whole "subjective evidence" argument amounts to nothing more than citing belief itself as a form of evidence.

Its not that we simply have an absense of evidence for supernatural beings, its that we have positive evidence of the human ability and inclination to invent such things.Do you understand the difference between the theory that all supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination and the assertion that no supernatural beings exist?Can you see how Bluegenes is talking about positive evidence for the former rather than playing the silly 'disprove' one god at a time that RAZ and Xongsmith seem determined to impose as necessary?Can you see why the former approach is based on inductive scientific reasoning whilst the latter is just a debate tactic that amounts to nothing more than demanding that unfalsifiable beliefs be disproved?

Would you like to give us an example of a being that is not hypothetical or imagined and therefore is 'on-topic'?

Firstly do you understand that bluegenes theory is first and foremost a theory about human behaviour? And that demonstrations of human capabilities and proclivities are therefore very much on topic - Do you "get" this?Secondly - Is there a shred of evidence to suggest that any supernatural element of the Jesus concept is anything other than derived from human imagination? Do you consider belief itself to be a form of evidence for that which is believed?

Can you tell us what RAZD's current discussion with Bluegenes is about if not deities?I know you love your definitions Jon: Link

As charged. I think this peanut gallery needs a peanut gallery. And so we crack shells in a orgy of infinite regress with no peanut to sate us at the end of our quest.

How does Iano's subjective "evidence" for the existence of Jesus (or whetever) differ from Iano's belief that Jesus caused this expereince?

10 out of 10 for art appreciation......

The fact that in his current discussion (which this peanut gallery is following) RAZD is quite indisputably citing subjective evidence of deities. Duh!!

Actually I think you will find it is the continual references to subjective evidence in threads debating the existence of deities that is the clue here.

Then he is to all intents and purposes citing his belief as evidence upon which to justify his belief. As is the case with all this "subjective evidence" nonsense. Then the evidence that any supernatural aspects to the Jesus concept are more likely to originate in the minds of men than be real would seem to be an obvious conclusion.Or are you and RAZ going to demand a peer reviewed paper on the ability to walk on water or raise people from the dead?