Hi again bluegenes, this message is for those in the Peanut Gallery that don't understand my position:
Perhaps instead of complaining about my posts, they could help you by suggesting actual objective empirical evidence that shows that a god is a figment of human imagination.
Is your interpretation, not evidence. I'm glad we sorted that out.
Curiously, without a base group of objective empirical evidence you cannot have a scientific theory according to the scientific method. Scientific theories are based on a base group of evidence, as you have agreed.
All you have is wishful thinking based on bias and preconceptions.
If you don't know of any evidence that the YEC god-concept is false, then go back to school. Your ignorance doesn't weaken my theory.
Fascinatingly, this has nothing to do with you substantiating your claims.
Once again you continue to conflate and confuse one interpretation of a narration with a being, in spite of being emphatically and objectively shown that stories can be fiction, while the beings are real.
* The "YEC god-concept," as you call it, is not of the god per se, but the YEC interpretation of parts of the narration that result in a young earth. This same narration is interpreted by other christians in many different way, but that does not mean that each of these different interpretations is about a different supernatural being. Quite the contrary, and the fact that they are talking about the same supernatural being means that it is the interpretation that is at variance, not the supernatural being. *
Interestingly your "refutation" once again amounts to ad hominem mixed in with poor reasoning.
* If your concept is a strong one, then why can't you provide evidence to substantiate it? *
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty and * ... * sections added
still no evidence (bluegenes bleats once more around the bush)
Hi bluegenes, sorry, once again I am not impressed with your effort.
Curiously, your argument is still void of any objective empirical evidence.
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" is therefore a very strong theory concept .
If it is a strong concept, then why are you unable to provide objective empirical evidence to support it?
Evolution is a strong theory, it is supported by mountains of objective empirical evidence, including the evidence that Darwin used in 1850 to present the original theory of descent with modification.
Without the foundational evidence required by the scientific method you do not have a scientific theory, you have a concept based on preconception, wishful thinking and personal bias.
I'd be happy to ... support the theory concept with plenty of evidence.
Evidently this is a false statement, as you are being drawn kicking and screaming to try to evoke some objective empirical evidence while all you offer up is opinion and interpretation based on your personal biases.
Repeating that you think it is strong does not make it so, this is done by presenting objective empirical evidence to support it.
If it is a strong concept, then why are you unable to provide objective empirical evidence to support it?
How is it that they are talking about the same being if it has different descriptions?
Obviously (a) you have not been reading my post or (b) thinking about this clearly,
confirming evidence needed before an hypothesis is considered a theory.
Hi bluegenes
I'm away for a couple of days, but I'll be interested in discussing why real beings should have different interpretations when I come back.
Enjoy your holiday. Perhaps you can think about what would be objective empirical evidence that would support your claim, and have some when you return.
If it is a strong concept, then why are you unable to provide objective empirical evidence to support it?
still no objective empirical evidence. SAD, really.
bluegenes and RAZD only
Hi bluegenes, hope your trip was restful.
If you don't understand the evidence I've already presented, that's not a problem for the theory.
Curiously, objective empirical evidence doesn't need to be interpreted in order to show how it supports your assertions. That you need to provide an interpretation of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial evidence, based on your assuming the consequent, shows that you do not have a single scrap of objective empirical evidence to show *one* supernatural concept (and no your personal caricature inventions do not count: try the abundant religious literature) is the product of human invention.
I've established that human invention is the only source of the supernatural beings - concepts that we have in our heads known to science. That makes "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" a very strong theory. No exception has ever been demonstrated.
Amusingly, you have not. All you have done is assert that this is so. You may try to once again equivocate on what is known and what is not know, but the fact remains that there is abundant objective empirical evidence of other sources claimed to exist, and you have done squat to show that they are not possible.
To actually establish your claim you of a sole source, you need to actually eliminate all other possible sources. Again, once more, you have not done this.
The conclusion can only be stated as a theory, rather than a fact, because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the 3 facts.
It also begs the question, because your structure does not lead to your conclusion. You have a small problem with premise 2: you have not established that supernatural beings do not exist and have not communicated with humans, you are just claiming your conclusion as premise 2: bad bad logic.
Your claim that the theory is weak is unsupported.
Then why can't you present objective empirical evidence rather than piles of bad logic using your confirmation biased opinions?
You keep trying to pretend that you have something to teach me, however YOU were the one that made the as yet unsubstantiated claim that you had (see Message 1):
quote:plenty of evidence
People's beliefs are not evidence of the real existence of supernatural beings, and that's what you keep trying to present as evidence.
They are:
a source of beings that you can (if your concept has any real value) show are products of human invention (rather than dilly dallying with your personal caricatures), AND
evidence of possibilities, of ways for communication, and until you can eliminate those possibilities you cannot absolutely cannot claim to absolutely know a sole source.
Amusingly, you are trying to use your beliefs as evidence for your assertion.
We are now at 77 messages in this thread, and you should have presented objective empirical evidence in your first post (Message 3), and instead you started equivocating.
Are you ever going to ...
present objective empirical evidence that spells out why a supernatural being concept, one found in religious literature, is a human invention, OR
admit that you have no objective empirical evidence.
NOTE that the existence of at least one such piece of objective empirical evidence is an extremely pared-down minimal requirement for a scientific theory. Withone *one* piece of objective empirical evidence you do not, can not, have a scientific theory:
All you have is wishful thinking based on your personal opinions, world view and biases.
quote:Let me start by pointing out that you have made several rather major assertions of dubious quality (Message 167 in An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" (not necessarily in order): ... We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
... You have not established any reason to accept this claim that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.
Still no reason to accept this assertion blindly, based on say so: bluegenes needs objective empirical evidence.
quote:As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...
You claim that this has a high level of confidence, immediately after quoting level III on my Concept Scale, ... ... You will note that to meet this level, it needs to have validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence.
And bluegenes still needs to present the objective empirical evidence to support this assertion.
quote:Claim (3):
... theory. ...
IF this is a scientific theory (as you have claimed), THEN it is necessarily based on objective empirical valid evidence, from which an hypothesis has been derived, which is used to make predictions of things you would only see if this theory were true, and falsification tests of things you would see if this theory were false.
And bluegenes still needs to present the objective empirical evidence to support this claim.
quote:Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...
You do absolutely need to present evidence, not just because you made an extraordinary claim in (1) but because you claim a level III confidence in (2) and that you have a theory based on the scientific process in (3), ALL of which require a foundation in objective empirical valid evidence ...
... or all you have is bald assertion based on wishful thinking.
And bluegenes still needs to present the objective empirical evidence to support this claim.
quote:Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...
Again this is a positive assertion presented without any supporting evidence (a) that it is true or (b) that it does not apply to any concepts that are later determined to be true.
You have not established any reason to accept this claim that human imagination is the only known source of supernatural entities.
And bluegenes still needs to present the objective empirical evidence to support this assertion.
quote:And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....
You do not get to assert that your theory is "strong" -- that is only assigned to theories after extensive testing of predictions, and it is assigned by other scientists in the process of peer review and many attempts to falsify it.
The theory of evolution is a strong theory, it has been tested for over 150 years.
As I said before, calling it a "strong theory" doesn't make it so.
If it is a strong theory then why can't bluegenes provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?
The topic of this thread is that bluegenes made six claims that require him to provide support with objective empirical evidence.
Anyone that has objective empirical evidence to support any one of the assertions and claims made by bluegenes is free to assist bluegenes by posting it to the Peanut Gallery
Shuck and jive all you want, but what is a fact is that you still do not have objective empirical evidence that supports your claims, including the claim that you have a theory rather that wishful thinking based on confirmation biased interpretations that are logically flawed.
Re: still no evidence for a source other than our minds.Hi bluegenes
he bluegenes,
Continue your interesting discussions on the peanut thread for a while.
Curiously, they can't seem to help you with objective empirical evidence either, even though they have tried harder than you have.
The obvious conclusion is that there is no supporting evidence, and that all you have is wishful thinking and confirmation bias.
But as your idea of evidence is "some Hindus believe something",
No my dear bluegenes, this is not evidence, it is an alternate possible interpretation of the same hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives that just happens to be contrary to your subjective interpretation involving "mutual exclusivity" in these narratives. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid. This is because if your interpretation is not the only one possible, then your claim of mutual exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use subjective evidence to support your claim evaporates.
Curiously, you seem to be under the impression that I need to provide objective empirical evidence regarding your assertions and that you don't. This is the pseudoskeptic double standard of requiring objective evidence from others while providing none to support their positions.
If all you have is your opinion, your interpretation, and your biased conclusions, then all one needs is other opinions, interpretations and biased conclusions that are contrary to yours. They are of equal merit. These are, in this instance, plentiful, as I have amply demonstrated. Your only recourse, then, is to provide actual objective empirical evidence that supports your claims, not more subjective evidence.
This is the problem with subjective evidence, it cannot provide a factual basis for theory or scientific knowledge: at best it can suggest hypothetical possibilities.
Hypothetical possibilities are certainly not strong theories. Contrary possibilities are also hypothetical possibilities, and thus there is no reason to assert one is more valid than the other, without objective empirical evidence.
From Message 4 your assertions are (emphasis added):
We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. Without supporting objective empirical evidence it is an opinion founded on personal biases at worst, or a hypothetical possibility at best,
As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...
... where you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts:
quote:III. High Confidence Concepts
Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.
This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1) as required by (a) plus evidence of confirmation and validation by others, and evidence of repeated attempts to falsify your hypothetical possibility -- normally this involves articles in scientific journals.
Claim (3):
This is a ... theory. ...
This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Scientific theory starts with a foundation of objective empirical evidence, a set of objective empirical evidence where the hypothesis is true. Without such foundational objective empirical evidence all you have is a hypothetical possibility based on opinion and biases.
Unsupported hypothetical possibilities are certainly not scientific theories.
Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...
This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Made up caricatures are not objective empirical evidence and subjective interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives are not objective empirical evidence.
Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...
This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources, including the four possible sources I have already mentioned. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid.
This is because if your exclusive claim is not the only possibilities, then your claim of exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use this argument to support your claim evaporates.
This is not evidence either, rather it is an attempt to avoid providing evidence. This is the pseudoskeptic approach, not the scientific approach.
And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....
Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this.
You need to stop hiding in your hat, get off your duff, apply your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept --- IF you have one that is of scientific value, rather than you just asserting your opinion --- and use it to provide some objective empirical evidence.
This is how scientists apply actual theories, and repeated application and demonstration of validity is how actual theories become strong theories.
If you actually have a strong scientific theory, then why can you not provide any objective empirical evidence to support and substantiate it in any specific instances?
Re: stsource on our minds.ill no evidenther thace for a
Hi bluegenes,
Still no objective empirical evidence that supports any of your six assertions.
They are probably smart enough to know that if there's only one known source of something, ...
They should also be able to recognize that you have not established a sole source for your claim. You are dealing with supernatural entities, ergo supernatural communication needs to be considered. You have just ignored it. That is not how science works, that is how pseudoskeptics work.
... then it's automatically a strong theory ...
And should know shinola when they see it.
They should also be able to recognize that if you really had a strong theory that you would be able to produce tons of objective empirical evidence with references to scientific journals listing such evidence.
Claiming that your personal opinion is evidence is humorous the first time, but it gets delusional with repetition.
The accounts of the origins of the first humans in the three stories I gave you as examples are definitely mutually exclusive.
I have demonstrated to you why this is not evidence that the god/s are human inventions. The children visiting a furniture factory can produce mutually exclusive reports on how furniture is made to the same degree as you claim for these stories, but nobody would think that this makes the factory workers imaginary.
Your conclusion is based on self delusion and confirmation bias, not logic.
AND even IF the creation stories are human additions, it does not show that the god/s are human inventions.
You assume too much. REAL science is based on objective empirical evidence, not on interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives.
It seems that this is all you have, one refuted claim of mutual exclusivity that fails to show what you need to show.
Curiously I don't call this "plenty of evidence" --- I call it sad.
still no evidence (bluegenes goes once more around the bush)
Hi bluegenes, still having trouble with the concept of supporting your claims?
What is there to ignore? Give me one demonstrably true example of a supernatural being communicating with someone, and I certainly won't ignore it. You know as well as I do that many people "see" and "hear" things that aren't there. 53% of Malaysian mental health patients attribute their conditions to witchcraft or evil spirits, but that does not give us any evidence for the real existence of witches and demons.
You want me to accept your beliefs on your word but provide evidence for claims by others contrary to your claims?
Double standard, typical of pseudoskepticism at work.
Instead I present you with counter claims that are just as unsubstantiated as your claim and then ask you for evidence to support your claim.
Until you can show that such communications cannot occur, then I see no reason not to consider their possibility, and to note that your claim is just as unsubstantiated -- unless and until you can provide some of that promised evidence that you seem so reluctant (or just plain unable) to divulge.
Because they know that factory workers exist.
And therefore logically and rationally we absolutely know that this "test" of yours does not produce reliable results of imaginary beings.
With supernatural beings, we have only stories and concepts.
But your test only seems to work when you assume that it works and there is no counter evidence, when we test it in other situations IT DOES NOT WORK. In science this would be a falsified and discarded test procedure. In pseudoscience you keep trying to claim it works. With cognitive dissonance you ignore and deny proofs that your claims are false and keep asserting that you are right.
You've used the word pseudoskeptic again. Would you describe every scientist who thinks that the earth is very very probably, between 4 and 5 billion years old, a pseudoskeptic, because they would be dismissing omphalism as very, very improbable?
If you're going to use the word, readers need to know what you mean by it, because that was how you used it on earlier threads, and newcomers will be interested to know that its a word that you use to describe virtually all scientists.
I've used it because you are a pseudoskeptic, especially compared to scientists that use objective empirical evidence before forming hypothesis and then testing those before claiming they have a theory and then watching the scientific world test and retest the theory before claiming that it is a strong theory. You haven't done this. You also don't seem to understand what the word means.
quote:Pseudoskepticism - Definition Pathological Skepticism is closedmindedness with deception: it is an irrational prejudice against new ideas which masquerades as proper Skepticism. A person under the sway of Pathological Skepticism will claim to support Reason and the scientific worldview while concealing their strongly negative emotional response against any questioning of contemporary accepted knowledge. The primary symptoms of Pathological Skepticism are the presence of scorn, sneering, and ridicule in place of reasoned debate. In their arguments, pseudoskeptics will freely employ logical fallacies, rhetoric, and numerous dishonest strategies of persuasion which are intended more sway an audience rather than to expose truth, i.e. than to pursue science. Because it promotes a falsely scientific facade, Pathological Skepticism is a class of pseudoscience.
Curiously that cannot be applied to those other scientists, but it does apply to you.
Especially as you just employed another logical fallacy (appeal to consequences) and rhetoric to persuade readers rather that just present the objective empirical evidence that you should have if you are using science.
Sadly inductive reasoning is not objective empirical evidence ... another dodge.
Hi bluegenes,
Are you saying that the fact that human invention is the only source of supernatural beings known to science is unsupported?
And yet, curiously, you seem totally unable to present evidence of a single one.
Why do you have no objective empirical evidence demonstrating that a single specific supernatural entity from a documented religion is a fabrication of human imagination, then how can you have a theory, let alone a strong theory.
It's not a fact. It is your opinion, your assumption, your assertion.
I am saying that human invention is not the only source possible, evidenced by many many many claims of spiritual and other documented and known to be documented experiences.
The fact that you have been forced to equivocate from your original stance to a clearly smaller subset of it is not my problem: it shows how weak your position really is.
It just means you can only possibly be correct part of the time, because you are only willing to discuss part of the possibilities that have been documented, and the degree of correctness for all those other cases is not known ... at best (for you). What you are attempting to do is to filter the possibilities by cherry picking cases where you are more likely to be correct.
It's like you flip a coin and only document the times it lands on heads while ignoring all the times it falls on tails (or whatever is on the other side). Suppose you have 100 coins with the same face but different backsides: does that mean that the probability of being correct by calling heads before the throw is more than 1/2??? Or are you ignoring the other 1/2???
What about a set of 100 di where one face has a 1 and the other 5 faces are all different symbols (100 1's vs 500 other symbols): does that mean that the probability of being correct by calling "1" before the throw is more than 1/6th??? Or are you ignoring the other 5/6ths???
How about 100 decks of cards with one ace of spades and all the other cards are different: does that mean that the probability of you drawing the ace of spades is more than 1/52nd??? Or are you ignoring the 51/52nds???
Amusingly, you have all supernatural entities, and then you have concepts like your strawman caricatures that are known to be human invention (because you start with one, begging the question) ... but where their supernaturalness is still in question.
You have concepts known to science that have not been determined to be either due to direct experience nor to human imagination.
You have an hypothetical concept that may be true some of the time, but has not been shown to be true all of the time, it hasnt' even been shown to be true PART of the time: and you don't even know how often it is true and how often it isn't. Without that little detail you cannot claim to know a sole source without first assuming that you are correct.
This means that your hypothesis is reduced to "human invention may be the source of some supernatural appearing concepts when we make them up" which few people would argue with, especially with concepts like the IPU.
Science is not done by assumption.
Science is not done by inventing evidence.
Science is not done by logical fallacies.
Science is not done by rhetoric.
All of these are used in pseudoscience. You have used all of these.
The theory does not eliminate alternative possibilities. No theories do. Quite the opposite, it has to allow for alternative possibilities, otherwise a theory cannot be considered falsifiable.
You're basuc problem, whether you recognize it or not, is that you have not eliminated the alternative possibility in a single instance, by actually demonstrating that your concept is valid in a single instance.
What you have is an untested hypothesis that has a zero success rate at this point.
Once again, you FAIL to present evidence instead of rhetoric and bluster
Re: Tampering with the evidence. How? first there has to BE evidence ...
Hi bluegenes, still no evidence ... so it is hard to "tamper with"
When I point out that the documented creation stories are accounts of fantasy worlds that never existed, you pretend that the stories are not saying what they actually are saying, ...
No bluegenes, I demonstrated how, if human authors were reporting on information that they had been given, that such reports could vary dramatically, while still reporting on an actual experience (communication from god/s about how it all began).
This is because (a) people are limited in their ability to understand by their ability to understand - early people were not astro-physicists but hunter-gatherers - and (b) because different people remember different aspects of their experiences - why "eye-witness" accounts in trials are not taken as absolute truth - and (c) god/s telling different people could easily discuss different aspects of the overall process to taylor it to the individuals - tell different parts of the process to different people - and (d) you can't expect to understand how god/s function without having the knowledge and understanding of god/s - so incompetence in understanding is entirely to be expected no matter what is said or conveyed - and finally (e) these narratives were not recorded, but have been passed down by verbal telling, along with all other cultural knowledge, and thus are subject to variation and substitution - which explains three different sects of Christianity having different "worlds" being created even though they are based on the same original narrative and god/s.
... so that you can make a subjective interpretation of them as being about something else that you would have to invent and which would presumably be unfalsifiable.
Actually it is very strongly based on observation and knowledge of how people behave and observe things that are real events, rather than your tacit assumption that all these stories would be 100% absolutely true renderings of perfect understanding, no matter what. Your position is untenable.
Having changed the evidence presented into something that you want it to be, you then ask: bluegenes, where's the evidence? The answer is: hidden from you by your own delusional behaviour.
What you have claimed as evidence is hearsay anecdotal circumstantial evidence, not objective empirical evidence, that is not changing the evidence, it is stating a fact. This kind of evidence is unsuitable for scientific examination of the validity of an hypothesis.
In addition, having evaluated the claim you have made concerning these narratives, and finding no valid reason to accept your claim that they should all be taken as 100% absolutely true renderings no matter what, I find that your position is untenable and your conclusion biased by your own beliefs.
I have not "changed the evidence" at all: instead, what I have shown is that there is a reasonable explanation, very strongly based on observation and knowledge of how people actually behave and observe things that are real events, that fully and completely explains your purported "mutually exclusive" conflicts, while your claim relies entirely on the untenable position that the narratives should all be taken as 100% absolutely true renderings no matter what.
Meanwhile you ignore the parts of the narratives that are all consilient: god/s created life. If 5 "eye-witness" accounts all agreed that person A hit person B but not on any other matter, that would still be taken as indication that person A hit person B, especially if there is evidence that person B was hit. Life exists.
This in spite of the fact that none of this would show that any one of the god/s in these narratives would have to be human imagination inventions: they are not objective empirical evidence, and they are not evidence that supports your assertion/s.
There's lots of discussion about the myths by people who study them, and no-one can really know the intentions of the inventors, but many modern commentators think ...
The logical fallacy of the appeal to (anonymous) authority. You don't have evidence so you appeal to the purported opinion of unspecified experts,
not showing that these "commentators" are unbiased scientists testing objective empirical evidence to reach scientific conclusions, rather than talk radio host voicing personal opinions.
As I pointed out in the last post (and several others) "possible" alternatives are no problem for scientific theories, ...
IF you had a theory ... IF it was based on the scientific method ... IF it was based on some solid objective empirical evidence ...
But you don't.
You have an unsupported hypothesis, and it is in conflict with another hypothesis, the Hindu Hypothesis, that explains the same hearsay anecdotal circumstantial evidence without any reliance on assuming unreasonable degrees of accuracy and understanding by the original recorders of events.
Your problem is to show why your hypothesis has more value than the Hindu Hypothesis, and to do that you need to test one against the other by some process that can differentiate them. Then use that process to develop objective empirical evidence that can falsify one or the other.
If you're referring to my use of the phrase "known to science", that was just for you. I'm perfectly happy with "known", ...
So you are dropping the "known to science" bit now, presumably because you can't substantiate that either. You still need to show that you have evidence of this at all.
... but I thought that the new phrase would save you the trouble of asking me to falsify lots of unsupported claims of knowledge. ...
Or just another attempt to restrict the evidence you needed to supply.
... Many people claim to know of supernatural beings of many different descriptions, and some EvC members may well claim to know that their god exists, but that doesn't mean we can establish that they do know this.
And they are always asked for objective empirical evidence to support their assertions.
Such people would have existed in the past, also, and they're perfectly capable of documenting their beliefs, and claiming to know them as truths. They are the "ones" on the Dawkins scale, whom you regard as illogical.
You mean the (1)'s and (2)'s versus the (6)'s and (7)'s who bear an equal burden for claims outside the (3) to (5) range. And yes, without evidence of support for their claims they are all illogical.
I have a theory which is shown to be true "some of the time", by which you mean "in some cases" just as Pasteur could show that a tiny percentage of the worlds organisms came from other organisms. It was the fact that there was no other known source that combined with this to create his law, a product of inductive reasoning. Why do you find this so hard to understand?
Perhaps because you have not shown it to be true for one of the times that are of any real interest (ie not for made up caricatures and other straw man examples where you know from the start they are made up, but don't establish that they qualify as supernatural).
All for now, as I do have other things to do than repeat the comments already made and ignored. And besides this is already long enough. Maybe more tonight.
I already did that earlier in the thread, when I suggested that the stories could have evolved from originals when our ancestors were all one group in Africa, and in contact with some real SBs.
In which case they had real experiences with supernatural beings.
But we still have to invent the concept of the SB communicators in order to make that explanation. ... Whatever the history of the stories, the actual SBs in the final results have to be inventions.
Once again you assume the conclusion. The evidence is that the consilience means they come from a common source.
You're assuming my assumptions. Certainly, I agree that eyewitnesses give different accounts, and that stories would evolve and distort over time.
Therefore the narratives are not viable objective empirical evidence, either for nor against your assertion/s. They can indicate possibilities, but not probabilities: they can indicate areas for further research before drawing any conclusions.
Observation of the creation mythologies is repeatable, and anyone can compare them with one another ...
... and reach conclusions based on opinion/s and bias/es, ... conclusions that are level I hypothetical concepts at best ...
... or you can look at them realistically as hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives that are not viable evidence either for nor against the possible existence of god/s.
Certainly there are many common elements as well as some non-common elements. The consilience of common elements could give you the greatest possibility of determine the validity, parsing away the non-common elements, but even then you would be hard pressed to determine whether the ultimate source was human imagination or actual experience on some level of communication/s with god/s.
If you cannot distinguish possible imagination from possible experience then you need to try a different tack.
If you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences then you do not have a scientific method\process to validate your claim that human imagination is the only possible source, or your claim that you have a scientific theory.
That the mythologies exist is the objective fact, not what you conclude from them.
Just as the existence of claims of religious experiences is a fact, not what you conclude from them.
(1) Do you agree that human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings, (remembering that "known" doesn't mean "possible")?
No.
This should be obvious by now, as you have failed again and again to address several times the known claims for supernatural communication with humans.
Nor have you established that human invention is A (scientifically) "known source" of supernatural beings, in any scientific study, so you have not established your possibility.
(2) If not, what is the other known source?
Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings.
If you were researching an historical event you would not ignore historical documents that talk about the event. You may not be able to show that the historical documents were accurate, but you would not ignore them.
You claim that the (1)'s are illogical, which indicates that you don't believe that any of them can be getting messages from SBs. Oops! How can you know this? If you can't, then you should, by your way of thinking, be an uncommitted (4) on whether or not there are people who know there is a god.
The evidence I have, interestingly, is that there are some people that actually claim to be (1)'s. That's pretty good evidence that they exist, yes?
(3) Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable propositions that contradict them, like omphalism and "SBs communicate with some humans" or "conjurers can magic up real rabbits from nothing"
And yet you still have not established that you have a theory. So far all you have is an unsupported assertion of a hypothesis based on poor logic, confirmation bias and wishful thinking.
An example of poor logic, that you have used frequently yet (apparently) do not understand why it is false:
The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.
The proper parallel construction is that human imagination is the only known source of imaginary human concepts, or that supernatural beings are the only known source of supernatural beings.
When you mix them, as you (and a bunch of other people) have done, then you are making a hidden assumption -- that supernatural beings are imaginary human concepts -- the conclusion you are trying to make is the hidden assumption. This begs the question (a logical fallacy), but using the hidden assumption fallacy to afirm the consequent (logical fallacy) in the construction of a false analogy (logical fallacy) is piling one logical fallacy on top of another.
For instance we can use your construction in the second part make these mixed parallel statements:
Rabbits are the only known source of imaginary human concepts human imagination is the only known source of baby rabbits Supernatural beings are the only known source of imaginary human concepts
These are all just as (in)valid as your statement and thus just as likely to (not) be true.
You have not established that supernatural causes of supernatural concept are not possible by a number of methods, you've just assumed this to be the case.
I have done this demonstration of poor logic to other arguments that you have made, that are also based on false construction of the logic, yet you have continued to pretend that those arguments are logical. This is cognitive dissonance.
If you don't answer the questions, I'll assume "yes" for the first, and "no" for the third, which means, whether you understand why or not, you'll be close to agreeing that I have a strong theory.
Curiously, you still have failed to provide any objective empirical evidence to support your various assertions.
Amusingly, you still only have an hypothesis based on opinion, bias and wishful thinking, not on evidence.
Intriguingly, human imagination is the only known source of imaginary human concepts (as you have adequately demonstrated), but you have absolutely failed to demonstrate that this necessarily includes any supernatural beings.
We're finally getting somewhere.
I am. I've shown:
that your hypothesis is unfounded by empirical objective evidence,
that your conclusions are based on false logic,
that you are assuming your conclusion is true rather than testing it or demonstrating it,
that you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences,
that you do not have a scientific theory,
that you have an hypothesis based on your opinion/s, bias/es and wishful thinking,
(again) that you are a pseudoskeptic, using pseudoscience rather than applying science to the question
that you have not supported a single one of the six (6) assertions listed in Message 1 with any empirical objective evidence.
3 posts in a row ... and yet not one of them provides empirical objective evidence to support your hypothetical conjecture.
You have lost this debate unless you have objective empirical evidence to support your conjecture.
Answer the question in the post above,
Curiously, your inability to produce evidence has nothing to do with you asking me questions, it has to do with you producing evidence.
Inventing falsifiable supernatural beings ...
Except that you have not shown that you have invented any supernatural beings.
All you have invented are caricatures.
AND you are still going about this backwards.
People can invent many fictional concepts, all of them are fictional concepts, but not all of them are pretending to be supernatural beings.
Demonstrating that you have a concept that is a member of the [many fictional concepts] just demonstrates that you have a fictional concept, not a supernatural being.
Therefore your "evidence" is worthless self-confirming delusion.
I don't ignore your unsupported claims, I just can't find any known examples of real SBs communicating with anyone
That is just your cognitive dissonance based excuse for ignoring them.
These religious texts and reports on religious experiences are real, they are known, they are objective empirical facts. You're problem is to show that they are not about actual religious experiences of supernatural beings or documents of supernatural beings.
I claim that there is only one known source of SBs, and theorize that all SBs come from their only known source.
And to support this amusing claim, you need to be able to show that you can eliminate the known reports about religious communications from being supernatural communications.
You need to have objective empirical evidence, not just your opinion, biases and wishful thinking.
quote:If all you have is your opinion, your interpretation, and your biased conclusions, then all one needs is other opinions, interpretations and biased conclusions that are contrary to yours. They are of equal merit. These are, in this instance, plentiful, as I have amply demonstrated. Your only recourse, then, is to provide actual objective empirical evidence that supports your claims, not more subjective evidence.
This is the problem with subjective evidence, it cannot provide a factual basis for theory or scientific knowledge: at best it can suggest hypothetical possibilities.
Hypothetical possibilities are certainly not strong theories. Contrary possibilities are also hypothetical possibilities, and thus there is no reason to assert one is more valid than the other, without objective empirical evidence.
From Message 4 your assertions are (emphasis added):
We'll start with claim (1):
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. Without supporting objective empirical evidence it is an opinion founded on personal biases at worst, or a hypothetical possibility at best,
As to claim (2):
This is a high level of confidence ...
... where you were referring to my levels of confidence scale, level III concepts:
quote:III. High Confidence Concepts
Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.
This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1) as required by (a) plus evidence of confirmation and validation by others, and evidence of repeated attempts to falsify your hypothetical possibility -- normally this involves articles in scientific journals.
Claim (3):
This is a ... theory. ...
This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Scientific theory starts with a foundation of objective empirical evidence, a set of objective empirical evidence where the hypothesis is true. Without such foundational objective empirical evidence all you have is a hypothetical possibility based on opinion and biases.
Unsupported hypothetical possibilities are certainly not scientific theories.
Now claim (4):
... and support the theory with plenty of evidence ...
This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence for claim (1). Made up caricatures are not objective empirical evidence and subjective interpretations of hearsay anecdotal circumstantial narratives are not objective empirical evidence.
Then claim (5):
... The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ...
This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources, including the four possible sources I have already mentioned. You need to eliminate the alternatives before you can claim your concept is singularly valid.
This is because if your exclusive claim is not the only possibilities, then your claim of exclusivity is invalid, and your possibility of trying to use this argument to support your claim evaporates.
This is not evidence either, rather it is an attempt to avoid providing evidence. This is the pseudoskeptic approach, not the scientific approach.
And finally claim (6):
... this is a strong theory, ....
Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this.
You need to stop hiding in your hat, get off your duff, apply your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept --- IF you have one that is of scientific value, rather than you just asserting your opinion --- and use it to provide some objective empirical evidence.
This is how scientists apply actual theories, and repeated application and demonstration of validity is how actual theories become strong theories.
If you actually have a strong scientific theory, then why can you not provide any objective empirical evidence to support and substantiate it in any specific instances?
You have SHOWN that your hypothetical conjecture is NOT based on the scientific process, and thus your pretentious nattering about the scientific method and scientific evidence is quite amusing.
Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases? You concept is a one or a two on the (now revised) concept scale:
You need to have objective empirical evidence to get to a higher level.
that your hypothesis is unfounded by empirical objective evidence,
that your conclusions are based on false logic,
that you are assuming your conclusion is true rather than testing it or demonstrating it,
that you do not have a method\process to distinguish human imagination from supernatural experiences,
that you do not have a scientific theory,
that you have an hypothesis based on your opinion/s, bias/es and wishful thinking,
(again) that you are a pseudoskeptic, using pseudoscience rather than applying science to the question
that you have not supported a single one of the six (6) assertions listed in Message 1 with any empirical objective evidence.
Enjoy.
bluegenes and RAZD only
Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.
™ Version 4.1
