Inductive Atheism

"Where is the evidence?" - That is the relentless cry. A better question would be where isn't the evidence. Every single field of evidence based investigation in existence today has put paid to numerous supernatural concepts. Peer reviewed literature in practically any scientific field could be cited as contributing to the demise of one god or another. Pick practically any major peer reviewed paper in geology or evolutionary biology or cosmology and you will find evidence-based conclusions that contradict numerous claims of supernatural involvement. Your "box 1" is literally filled to bursting point.So what is left in "box 2"? The unfalsifiables. The supernatural concepts that have evolved in such a way as to avoid falsification or any form of direct refutation. The ones that humanity, with it's need for such things, has shaped to to fill the very human hole that is the belief that "there must be something more". Unconsciously shaped over the centuries to meet the need for explanation and meaning and companionship and comfort in the face of the evidential onslaught which suggests that no such thing actually exists. But these are exactly the concepts Bluegenes theory gives short shrift to. Given that you "box 1" contains all of the supernatural concepts whose source of origin is known we inductively (but tentatively) conclude that all of those in your "box 2" originate from the same source. Thus we have a falsifiable naturalistic explanation for the phenomenon of human belief in supernatural concepts. Bluegenes theory predicts that where the source of any specific supernatural concept becomes known that source will turn out to be human imagination. This includes the IPU. Any supernatural concept which can be conclusivley demonstrated to be derived from another source (e.g. the actual existence of said entity) will falsify his theory. Thus far no falsifications have been presented. Hence the claim that it is a strong theory. Aside from RAZ's self delusional scales and ever changing criteria why does it matter whether the source of this specific concept is absolutely known? Then why the hell are you still arguing with me about the origins of the IPU concept or indeed anything else here?

It's an infinite box, Strags. And yes there a lot of shit in it. Everything we know about the universe is in there. More than that. The Higgs Boson stuff, the string theory. Anything that we still don't have enough of a grasp to declare that we can explain it. Lots more. And even then some. Good show! Yes. Well said, if a tad wordy. Ugh - need i mention that gory notion of Absence of Evidence? (sounds of footsteps going down some back stairs and a door opening, followed by some silence, then the door slamming shut again and the sound of footsteps running back up and suddenly the avatar of Rrhain appears)*BLINK* did you really say that? All known sources are human imagination...*BLINK*...bluegenes theory....text transcription of his theory in this forum.....*BLINK*.... Because it's FUN.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

You really need to buy a dictionary. As per Bluegenes theory - Human imagination is the only "KNOWN" source of supernatural concepts. Aside from your piss poor impressions which part of the word "KNOWN" are you having a problem with? Do you have details of another "KNOWN" source of such concepts? Did you buy that dictionary I advised you to get? Are you still confused by what "supernatural" means? Do you really think the evidential basis for hypothesising the Higgs Boson is remotely comparable to the reason humans invent supernatural beings? Seriously?

Naw. Can't afford it now. I'm just going to continue on with weird. Fail. You missed the point again. The jokette.Why does it matter whether the source is absolutely known? Doesn't bluegenes theory hinge on the only known sources? Why does it matter? Was that a rhetorical question? I don't know how you got that idea.It's the as yet Unexplained stuff about the Higgs Boson & strings. Not the hypothesis. Another example could be how the Universe selected its exact value of Einstein's Cosmological Constant different from the easy 0.0. Leaving physics, we might encounter such things as "How does a living thing become self-aware?" or "How does the Economy work?" or "Why did all those birds die out of the sky?" or "Why is Straggler struggling so hard to misinterpret me?" These are not supernatural things. We expect them all to be understood by science at some point.You need to read what I wrote more carefully. Box 2 is for everything that is so far Unexplained. It is not only for supernatural beings. It is not empty, but there is a subset in there that has the label "supernatural beings", an inner Box 2a, if you wish to call it that, and it is very likely empty. And other inner boxes, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, and so on . . . some of which are not empty at all.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

We are talking about a theory based on the only known source of supernatural concepts. So far you have failed to realise that we are talking about "concepts", demonstrated that you have no idea what "supernatural" means in the English language and are now clearly having trouble with the term "known". This is not a good start. If you cannot buy a dictionary there are plenty of free ones on the web. Lookup these words. Only. Known. Source. Supernatural. Concepts. Then you might be able to sensibly take part here. Why? Your box 1 is all of the supernatural concepts whose source IS known. Why not just have your box 2 contain all the supernatural concepts whose source of origin is not known? There is nothing supernatural about the Higgs Boson. It is a hypothesised entity derived from science. It doesn't belong in either of your boxes if your boxes have anything to do with the theory under discussion.You need to think outside of the box here.

Cite. C'mon, don't be an ignoramous - talking about reading comprehension. Sheesh. Box 1 contains so much more than explained supernatural concepts. It contains everything that science has explained so far! It ENORMOUS. It contains all the known things. Get it? . . . known? Box 2 is also still ENORMOUS. It contains everything that is not in Box 1. And, if you will, it also contains a smaller box, call it Box 2a, of purportedly supernatural things/beings/events that not only have not been explained by science (because they are in Box 2), but might have persons today who believe these things can NEVER EVER be explained by science. Isn't it true that one of the characteristics of what would be a real Supernatural Thing/Being/Event is that it would be completely unexplainable by science?As the winch of bluegenes' machinery gets around to each one of these things purportedly belonging in Box 2a and hauls it up out onto the laboratory table where it can be examined under the cold exact eye of scientific analysis, you & I & bluegenes expect that they will be understood as only mere figments of imagination and thus get consigned to Box 1, just as everything else that has been hauled out & examined so far. Furthermore, by induction, bluegenes predicts that they will all turn out that way. Thus not only do they not belong in Box 2a, they don't even belong in Box 2 - which moves them into Box 1. Falsification is simple: get something out of Box 2a that cannot be explained by science. It must be put back in Box 2a. The other parts of Box 2 (2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f and so on) are unaffected. Box 1 is unaffected. And, to date, we have never seen such a thing when we get it out on the table. We have never had to put anything back in Box 2a.Let's contrast that with Einstein's Cosmological Constant: For the purposes of this post, assume it came out of Box 2z. The value of it is still not known very well. No one has produced a derivation of the value to check against the better observations that are yet to come. All they have is that it is sort of like when you integrate a function, you include a constant, C, which vanishes when you take back the derivative (a simplistic analogy, I know). Science is working on it. But for now we shrug and put it back into Box 2z. Do we believe it will eventually get moved to Box 1? Certainly, some day. Your notion of simplifying down to 2 boxes, Box 1 with Explained Supernatural Concepts and Box 2 with Unexplained Supernatural Concepts, might get by in this particular debate arena (although I'm not so sure about that - I want to be safer), but not so much in a more general arena, so I want to preserve the full hierarchy for future flexibility. I also want to be able to address some more sneak attacks from RAZD, coming from an in as yet unknown direction. There you go again. Cite where I said it was supernatural! The unexplained stuff regarding it is in maybe Box 2e or Box 2p or somewhere like that. It will either turn out to match all the predictions or it wont. Science will adjust around it. Everything is either in Box 1 or Box 2. It's either been explained by science or it hasn't been explained by science. Cute, but in this case that would be as off-topic as Last Thursdayism. Or discussing what was going on before the Big Bang.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

The theory under discussion is a theory about the source and origin of supernatural concepts.Why do you think it is necessary (or even remotely relevant) to take into account every single aspect of nature that ever has been, or may be in the future, explained by science regardless of any supernatural concept ever being involved?And how do you justify condemning genuinely supernatural concepts such as Last Thursdayism, vampires, ghosts and Thor as "irrelevant" to this issue when they quite clearly are "supernatural" by any commonly available definition of the term?I still have no idea what definition of "supernatural" you are using but is seems to boil down to "Whatever Xongsmith decides". Needless to say that isn't really a goer here.

Because we're up against RAZD. Because they are already in Box 1. Well - wait!! you have mischaracterized me again - I have only so far ruled out your Casper the Ghost and Bram Stoker's Dracula. Those guys are already in Box 1. The general myriad of instances of purported actualizations of the concept of ghosts and vampires (thanks Mod) haven't all been hauled out of Box 2a onto the examination table yet. I suspect when each & every one of them are, they, too, will be in Box 1. Well, to step out and define something that has been very hard to define, dictionaries included, is sort of like asking me to show my poker hand first. I have shown a card or 2. Here's some more:Supernatural: a characteristic assigned to those things/events/beings that are held by a respectable number of people today who believe that they can never, ever be explained by science. That is, they are unexplainable forever. And then some.== something in Box 2a that has to be put back in Box 2a.Supernatural Concept: a conceptualization, requiring the presence of someone or someones to actually do the conceptualization, of a supernatural thing/being/event or fictional version thereof, intentionally fictional or unintentionally fictional.So....
Let me see some of your cards. How do you define "supernatural" and "supernatural concept"?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Since when have you done anything but support his nonsense and why does 'who' a debate is against have any bearing on what the term "supernatural" means? I thought "we" were on the same side here I personally would define supernatural in the following terms: That which is neither derived from nor subject to natural law and whch is thus inherently materially inexplcable.You will note that by the terms of this definition the Christian concept of Jesus as the miracle capable, born of a virgin son of God is a supernatural concept regardless of whether any such thing ever existed. Likewise the concept of the Norse deity Thor. Likewise the concept of undead, reflectionless, bat transforming vampires. Likewise the concept that is the ghostly spirit of a dead little boy, even if he is friendly and called Casper. If you don't like my wording then I suggest the following more-o-less picked at random from the internet dictionary. Whatever the case it has nothing to do with your silly boxes. And being fictional is certainly not something that precludes a concept from being supernatural. In fact unless Bluegenes theory is falsified all supernatural concepts whose origins are discovered beyond reasonable doubt will qualify as fictional. Edited by Straggler, : Formatting

Perhaps we shall see soon. Right at the outset I said what side I was on, but wanted to help bluegenes, because I could see what he was in for. We are. I just want to make sure we're on the same page, so to speak. Scout's motto: Be Prepared. Now see? I like this. It's got my Unexplainable (= your Inexplicable). I also like the "not derived" part. It's far superior to any of these sorts of things: Seems a lot of those are just circular rephrasings.... Yes, I have admitted to my sloppiness there, but I still maintain that Casper The Ghost, himself, is not a Supernatural Being. He might indeed be representing a Supernatural Concept or three - agree there!, but he is drawn on some kind of industrial paper or cellulose to be used in developing a cartoon video or a cartoon comic book by a team of illustrators working for the author of the episode in question. He has been explained in a scientific evidential nature. The only actual known instances of him are images that are very much still subject to natural law. Quite so.And I would also be saying the same thing by saying that there are no Supernatural Beings at all in Box 2a, only concepts of them in Box 1, with (or maybe even without - e.g., a forgotten hallucination?) accompanying corresponding fictional representation.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Such stamina...Several pages in and still the mental masturbation continues.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

It's rare for you to make comments that relate to your one area of expertise. Well done.

Hi bluegenes!This thread has been derailed by me and the willing Straggler (a little bit on his part).We should instead be talking about Inductive Atheism.Unfortunately all I can offer here is the Statistical concept of probability calculations on Mean Time Between Failure (MBTF), a little sub-field that I'm sure that Insurance Companies are paying a pretty penny for.We have a long list of No Supernatural Being, nope, only human Imagination so far. Millions, billions of things - not one of them supernatural.We could put it into the Statistics and get a very close to zero probability that there would be anything we'd have to put back in Box 2a (ibid.). We could even compute a "confidence level" from the MTBF analysis.But here's the problem. There are those out there who are still not ready to rule out seeing "The Card That Does NOT Belong In The Deck". We aren't talking the Ace of Spades here, we aren't even talking any Joker. This is a card that we have never seen. Could it still be in the deck? That is what they will argue is True. So we might concede that, yes, the theory can be falsified by such a card. Inductive reasoning is smitten by such things.However, be that as it may, we can proceed and tentatively concur that observations have supported the idea.But when do you get to claim it is a strong theory? On the strength of your arguments? No, it's always by peer-review. Perhaps this forum can stand in for the said process?Count Straggler & Modulous in so far. Count me close to agreeing.
Count RAZD out so far. And all the Believers.Don't know if this would make a good peer-review. Democracy has NO role in science. What 90% of the world believes in has no bearing on whether or not I don't believe.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Good. We have a definition we can both agree upon. None of the supernatural concepts whose source of origin is known have turned out to be actual supernatural beings. If they had Bluegenes theory would have been falsified. My emphasis. Which supernatural concept do you think has "actual known instances" for which this is not true? Your Russian doll collection of infinite boxes is just obfuscating the issue.

Hopefully the eventual form it takes will be even better. It is good enough for now. Agreed, but the supernatural concepts whose source of origin is known can be divided into 2 groups, those whose source was never not known (like Casper The Ghost) and those whose source was unknown at some point in time (perhaps like Zeus?). The ones whose source has never not been known we needn't spend any time on. The ones whose source became known can help us build strategies for working on those that are still in the unknown, such as Jesus Christ. Currently: None, and if a suspect comes along, I would be betting that, no matter how convincing this exception may have appeared at the outset, in the end, it will be in Box 1, and be subject to Natural Law, to use your term.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d