the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)

From Message 14

RAZD hiding on another Great debate thread on which bluegenes can't participate writes: Message 14 For instance, bluegenes, in the Great Debate the bluegenes Challenge , argues that he can make up evidence for his hypothesis, or that he can interpret hearsay circumstantial evidence so that it supports his assertions, but that it can only be falsified by objective empirical evidence of the actual existence of an actual supernatural being.

Wrong. Inventing falsifiable supernatural beings to support a theory which is about human invention of SBs is not inventing evidence, it is experimental proof that humans can and do make up SBs, something no sane person would doubt anyway. And false accounts of the formation of this planet and modern life forms are clearly invented (the creation mythologies), and products of the human imagination. The scientific literature in cosmology, geology and biology provides loads of objective empirical evidence for this.

RAZD writes: When I point this out to bluegenes and say that he needs to be able to invalidate these as evidence of god/s and communications with god/s in order to claim a sole source explanation, he ignores it because it is not scientifically validated.

Wrong. I don't ignore your unsupported claims, I just can't find any known examples of real SBs communicating with anyone. I claim that there is only one known source of SBs, and theorize that all SBs come from their only known source.

Now you're expressing your belief that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported claims that contradict them on another thread. Support your claim that gods communicate with humans here on this thread. Do you have a single example of an instance when this is known to have happened?

Answer the question in the post above, and if you want to discuss my theory, have the courage to do it here or on other threads on which I can participate.

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them?

RAZD writes: You have lost this debate unless you have objective empirical evidence to support your conjecture.

You don't actually understand what objective empirical evidence is, so you'll have to leave judgement on who has won this debate to those of us who do.

RAZD writes: Curiously, your inability to produce evidence has nothing to do with you asking me questions, it has to do with you producing evidence.

Meaning that you cannot answer my question, because all of your arguments against my theory depend on unsupported claims.

Once again: Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "SBs communicate with people"?

RAZD writes: All you have invented are caricatures.

I can't invent caricatures of real SBs, because I don't know of any real SBs. Caricatures have to be of something demonstrably real. So far, all of the SBs we've discussed on this thread are concepts in our minds, like my inventions. We haven't established that there's such a thing as SBs that have an existence external to our minds. "Real SBs" remains an abstract concept that we have to imagine.

RAZD writes: 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.

Whenever we know the source of an SB concept, it is fictional. Whenever we don't know the source of an SB concept, we can never demonstrate that they are non-fictional. There are no known exceptions that contradict my theory, which is why it is high confidence level.

RAZD writes: 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.

All claims to anything are real claims. The fact that there are many unsupported claims of the existence of SBs does nothing to weaken my theory.

Give me a list of texts that you know to be about real extant SBs. Give me a list of people who are known to have experienced real extant SBs.

Again: Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported claims?

RAZD writes: bluegenes writes: 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 want me to falsify Joe schizophrenic's angels whose voices he hears in his head?

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims? Because if so, you're wrong.

RAZD writes: You need to have objective empirical evidence, not just your opinion, biases and wishful thinking.

Are you talking to yourself here?

Your arguments against my theory being high confidence are all based on unsupported claims (including your own implicit claims of objectivity).

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them?

You need to answer yes to this question, or admit that I have a strong theory. And if you answer yes, you'll be wrong about science, and you will have declared all scientific theories to be weak.

You can't actually win this debate without falsifying my theory.

So, do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "SBs communicate with people"?

RAZD writes: You don't have a scientific theory.

Support this claim without resorting to other unsupported claims.

RAZD writes: You don't have objective empirical evidence…..

Support this claim. Support your claim that there's no objective empirical evidence in the scientific literature which supports the view that Adam and Eve are human inventions (they are SB concepts). Support your claim that there's no OE evidence that the creator SB concept described on answersingenesis is an invented human concept. Support your claim that there's no OE evidence in the literature (cosmology/geology/biology) that supports my claim that the creation mythologies are invented accounts of the beginnings of this solar system and modern life forms.

Support your claim that there's no OE evidence in the medical and biological literature that diseases have natural causes rather than being caused by evil spirits (a well documented supernatural belief, incidentally).

Support your claim that there's no OE evidence from geology that the Giant's Causeway is a volcanic formation, and wasn't built by a magical giant.

RAZD writes: bluegenes writes: You don't actually understand what objective empirical evidence is, so you'll have to leave judgement on who has won this debate to those of us who do. Typical pseudoskeptic response: don't deal with the issue, attack the messenger.

Anyone can read your posts on this thread, RAZD, and repeat my observations. The evidence on this thread strongly supports the view that you don't understand what objective empirical evidence means. Name-calling doesn't change that.

RAZD writes: bluegenes writes: Again: Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported claims? Do you believe scientific theories are based on made up evidence and unsupported claims?

No, certainly not. That's why your Hindu "hypothesis", for example, can't be turned into a theory. Now, you answer my question. You seem to attach more importance to things if they're brightly coloured, so:

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?

I have no problems answering direct questions. Why do you?

The rest of your post is waffle. What real extant beings are my "silly fabricated caricatures" caricatures of and why isn't genuine fabrication genuine evidence of fabrication? The theory's about fabrication.

I've shown on this thread, very clearly to any intelligent reader, that:

(a) Humans can and do invent supernatural beings, and that invention and demonstrably false belief is widespread.

(b) No source of SBs other than human invention has ever been demonstrated to exist. No single SB concept is known to have a real existence outside our minds.

For those who understand inductive scientific reasoning, a theory can be derived from those facts, and the theory I've derived from those facts is unfalsified. A claim that an unfalsified theory is weak requires support. If you can't support that claim, stop making it.

RAZD writes: This is WHY you are losing (have lost) the debate: you cannot substantiate your claim/s.

As I suggested before, you'll have to leave it to those who are intelligent enough to understand the subject matter to decide that. Your posts demonstrate that you're clearly out of your depth. Answer my question, yes or no, and we'll see if you're qualified to comment on scientific theories.

Once again:

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?

RAZD writes: There you go again. YOU need to support your claim that you HAVE a theory. I have SHOWN you why not previously. Obviously you haven't been reading my posts, or are just ignoring the "inconvenient truth" shown in them.

I assure you that I read your posts, and that you have not supported your claim that I do not have a theory. You have merely demonstrated repeatedly that you don't understand the difference between scientific facts and scientific theories.

In the post I'm replying to, you fail to support any of the unsupported claims I asked you to support, and you continue to try to make the case that I do not have a theory, or that it is weak, based on those unsupported claims.

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened (or made non-existent) by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?

If you can't answer this question correctly, you are certainly not competent to judge a scientific theory. Answer it.

RAZD writes: Repeat: Do you believe scientific theories are based on made up evidence and unsupported claims?

I answered that in the last post. Learn to read.

RAZD writes: You need to have objective empirical evidence, not just your opinion, biases and wishful thinking.

Is that some kind of mantra based on your religious views? Try to learn what OE evidence means, and stop making a fool of yourself.

If you aren't aware of the scientific literature in cosmology, geology and biology that demonstrates that the creation myths are human inventions, then you are claiming that I don't have a theory based on your own astonishing ignorance.

Once again:

bluegenes writes: RAZD writes: You don't have objective empirical evidence….. Support this claim. Support your claim that there's no objective empirical evidence in the scientific literature which supports the view that Adam and Eve are human inventions (they are SB concepts). Support your claim that there's no OE evidence that the creator SB concept described on answersingenesis is an invented human concept. Support your claim that there's no OE evidence in the literature (cosmology/geology/biology) that supports my claim that the creation mythologies are invented accounts of the beginnings of this solar system and modern life forms. Support your claim that there's no OE evidence in the medical and biological literature that diseases have natural causes rather than being caused by evil spirits (a well documented supernatural belief, incidentally). Support your claim that there's no OE evidence from geology that the Giant's Causeway is a volcanic formation, and wasn't built by a magical giant.

The rest of your post is just further illustration that you don't understand what empirical evidence is, or how inductive reasoning is used in science.

quote:

---

The words 'strong' and 'weak' are sometimes used to praise or demean the goodness of an inductive argument. The idea is that you say "this is an example of strong induction" when you would decide to believe the conclusion if presented with the premises. Alternatively, you say "that is weak induction" when your particular world view does not allow you to see that the conclusions are likely given the premises.

Strong induction.

The equation, "the gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared," has allowed us to describe the rate of fall of all objects we have observed.
Therefore:
The gravitational force between two objects equals the gravitational constant times the product of the masses divided by the distance between them squared.
The conclusion of this argument is not absolutely certain, even given the premise. At speeds we normally experience, Newtonian mechanics holds quite well. But at speeds approaching that of light, the Newtonian system is not accurate and the conclusion in that case would be false. However, since, in most cases that we experience, the premise as stated would usually lead to the conclusion given, we are logical in calling this argument an instance of strong induction.

Weak induction.

Consider this example:

I always hang pictures on nails.
Therefore:
All pictures hang from nails.

Here, the link between the premise and the conclusion is very weak. Not only is it possible for the conclusion to be false given the premise, it is even fairly likely that the conclusion is false. Not all pictures are hung from nails; moreover, not all pictures are hung. Thus we say that this argument is an instance of weak induction.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Note that, even though Newton's law described has exceptions, it is still considered strong where it applies.

Note that the example of weak induction is easily falsified by observations, like pictures can hang on screws or hooks, be painted onto walls etc.

Note that, unlike Newton's, my theory has no known exceptions.

Note that my theory has not been falsified.

You answered "no" further up the thread when I asked you whether you agreed that human invention is the only known source of SB concepts. So, why are you waiting to reveal to the world what the other known source is? Which SBs are known to exist? By answering "no", you've claimed to know of a falsification of my theory. Falsify it. Don't just make unsupported claims.

Here's another question that needs to be answered in relation to your unsupported claim that I have no empirical evidence.

Do you agree that there is plenty of empirical evidence in the scientific literature to support the view that Adam and Eve are human inventions? Yes or no?

Why are you frightened of this question:

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened (or made non-existent) by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?

RAZD writes: bluegenes writes: People who can't support their arguments avoid direct questions And your question is immaterial to this debate, an attempt to avoid the topic, which is about YOU defending your claim to have a strong scientific theory.

Wrong, and you're proving my point above. The question is directly relevant to your attempts to pretend that my theory is weak. You base these attempts on presenting unsupported and unfalsifiable claims as evidence. Having been caught out, you're frightened to answer my question.

So, once again:

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people".

RAZD writes: It is not about the existence of supernatural beings, or about falsifying (yet) a theory, but about whether you have a hypothetical conjecture that QUALIFIES as a scientific theory. So far you have failed to so demonstrate.

The theory is about where the concepts of SBs we have in our minds come from. It attributes them to their only known source, and is therefore a strong theory, as Pasteur's "All life comes from life" was in the nineteenth century, and like the theories "all books are authored by human beings" and "all raindrops come from clouds". It's straightforward.

It is certainly about falsifying, as falsification should be attempted immediately with all theories. That's why we need to establish the existence of the other known source that you claimed when you disagreed that human invention was the only known source.

What is the other known source that you know of? I don't know of any. Why not support your claim and falsify my theory? Or were you just bullshitting when you said that you disagreed that human invention was the only known source of our SB concepts?

RAZD writes: You are the defender, it's your thesis to support, YOU are the one to answer questions, not ask them.

I've supported it. I haven't claimed knowledge that would falsify my theory, because I don't have any. You have claimed this. What's the other known source? Which SBs are known to exist outside of our minds?

RAZD writes: Like: where's the objective empirical evidence?

Of human invention of SBs? In the scientific literature, in the creation mythologies and other fantasy fiction, in psychiatric wards, and many other places. Aren't you aware of the scientific literature that shows the creation mythologies to be invented stories in fantasy worlds? Didn't you know that psychiatrists are well aquainted with human invention of SBs? Didn't you know that people can experience and believe in demonstrably fictional beings, both supernatural and natural in their descriptions?

RAZD writes: Like: do you think scientific theories are based on opinions and biases?

No. Do you think scientific theories are weakened by opinionated and biased supernaturalists presenting unsupported claims as evidence? Claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people"?

RAZD writes: Like: IF you have a strong theory, then why can't you produce reams of published documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

If you knew anything about the history of science, you'd know that that isn't actually required, but I have done it. I linked to the invented creation mythologies which are published and documented, and pointed out that there are thousands of scientific papers in cosmology, geology and biology that show them to be inventions. There's also plenty of interesting stuff about human invention and delusional belief in SBs in the psychiatric literature, and in neurology. Most is behind pay walls, but I'm always happy to discuss things like command hallucinations in relation to some of the more violent "prophets and seers" with someone who has a religious faith in communicating SBs, as you do. Commands to be violent

Then there are all those tens of thousands of documents called fantasy novels, aren't there?

RAZD writes: Like: IF you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY documented objective empirical evidence to support it?

See above. I can and have.

RAZD writes: Like: do you even have a system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept and that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

I don't have a way of demonstrating that a given rabbit in a field wasn't produced out of a conjurers hat, and neither did Pasteur, but it didn't weaken his theory. When SB concepts are invented in falsifiable areas, we can falsify them, and demonstrate invention. The concept that the YECs believe in has been effectively falsified, for example, and the Obama-anti-christ is one my theory predicts will be falsified. The evil spirits that cause disease could be said to be reasonably falsified (plenty of documentation of that belief, and plenty of scientific documentation of the real sources of disease).

RAZD writes: Curiously, we still have no objective empirical evidence that you have produced to support your claims.

That's actually a lie, or you don't know what empirical evidence is. One or the other.

Let me make this clear. I've established that humans can and do invent SBs, and that human invention is their only known source. You disagree with that, presumably based on your religious desires, because you cannot present another known source; one that exists beyond all reasonable doubt. Scientific theories aren't weakened by the unsupported disagreement of fantasists.

RAZD writes: 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.

A known source of a phenomenon is an almost infinitely better explanation of its origins than an unknown source. Stop deluding yourself.

RAZD writes: bluegenes writes: ... 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.

You really don't have a very good grasp on the English language, do you?

Now, answer my question, as all of your arguments against my theory depend on unsupported claims. Don't be frightened.

Do you believe that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people"?

RAZD writes: But do you actually answer them or just post more ad hoc opinion and bias based wishful thinking?

I answer them easily because I have a strong, unfalsified theory.

RAZD writes: You don't HAVE a theory, so the question of this kind of evidence weakening an actual scientific theory is irrelevant at this time.

You don't actually understand what scientific theories are and how they work. You've demonstrated that all through the thread. For example, you picked out a specific SB, the IPU, and asked me to show that it was a human invention. That shows that you don't understand inductive scientific theories.

Can you explain to me now what was wrong in asking this? Or will this be another question you'll evade, while continuing to lie that I don't have any evidence?

RAZD writes: Curiously, we still have as yet unrefuted the example of children and the furniture factory as a rational explanation for the differences in the creation narratives. By your logic all furniture makers are figments of the children's imagination.

No. Firstly, in your (terrible) analogy, we are told that the children have been to the factory to observe furniture makers, a category of beings who are known to be real. It may be news to you, but our ancestors did not witness the creation of the world. We came along after the event. And the existence of creator SBs has never been established. Human invention is not the only known source of furniture makers, so no-one would construct an inductive theory from your analogy, let alone a deductive logical proof.

The false creation stories show human invention (if they're not true, they have to be invented), but they are not presented as logical proof that all SBs are invented. They relate to this claim:

Humans can and do invent supernatural beings.

This claim is also required.

Human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings.

Then an inductive theory can be made.

Secondly, look at this:

RAZD writes: By your logic all furniture makers are figments of the children's imagination........ Because we know this is a false conclusion we know that your logic has a fatally false construction. The fact that you continue to spout this false logic is evidence of a lack of understanding of basic logic on your part.

Again, you've demonstrated that you do not understand the inductive reasoning that's behind all scientific theories. And you're using arguments like this to claim that I haven't got a scientific theory.

You're way out of your depth, and you're waffling on in lengthy posts about things which you don't even seem to have a basic understanding of. Sort it out, and also, answer this question:

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people"?

RAZD writes: Do you think scientific theories are based on false logic?

No. They are based on inductive reasoning. Learn to understand it, and answer my question.

RAZD writes: bluegenes writes: Which SBs are known to exist outside of our minds? Well, you could ask all kinds of religious people, and they could tell you what they think. The fact that they have not been validated by science does not mean that they are not true.

That's an answer? You claimed to know of a source of SB's other than human invention. Which SBs are known to exist outside of our minds?

RAZD writes: Do you think scientific theories are based on opinions, biases, wishful thinking and unsupported claims as evidence?

Certainly not. You can't build scientific theories on things like your Hindu "hypothesis" and the communicating SBs that you've been imagining up as "evidence".

Edited by bluegenes, : typos

RAZD writes: I gave you a chance to demonstrate your methodology on what should have been easy pickings. The fact that you cannot show this simple case to be human invention is due to the fact that you do not have a usable methodology to determine whether or not a supernatural being is an invention, an observation or derived from evidence.

Do you have a methodology for distinguishing which rabbits in a field were born from other rabbits, which were produced from a conjurers hat and put in the field, and which were created ex nihilo by a god and put in the field? Do you have a methodology for distinguishing natural fossils from those placed in the rocks by Satan? Do you have a methodology for distinguishing an omphalist world from a non-omphalist world?

RAZD writes: This means you do not have a scientific theory, just an hypothetical conjecture, because you cannot properly test your concept without one. Without testing you have no theory.

Bluegenes and Louis Pasteur understand that if SBs and rabbits have only one known source, then we can use inductive reasoning to infer that all SBs and all rabbits come from their respective known sources. But some woo hippie tells us that scientific theories don't work like that. Wow.

All scientific theories rely on inductive reasoning, RAZD. You've just declared them all not to be scientific theories.

RAZD writes: Amusingly this makes the analogy even better. Now we have the furniture makers visiting a school, with people from different specialties in the factory, each one in a different class, showing the kids what they do to make furniture.

Analagous to SBs showing our ancestors how they make planets? I think you mean telling. And furniture is known to be intelligently designed, while planets are known to form naturally.

RAZD writes: Now you take the reports from all the kids in all the classes in the school and compare them: there will be variation between kids in each class, between kids in different classes. You will have your purported valuable "mutually exclusive" views for how furniture is made and when different parts were done in what order.

Analogous to the creation stories would be different pieces of furniture made in different ways by makers of different descriptions and origins in different numbers, with some of the furniture makers being formed from already existing furniture before reshaping it, and others making the furniture from scratch without materials. But I get your point.

RAZD writes: The logic of your position is still that the furniture makers must be imaginary because of the contradictions.

No. If the stories are all mutually exclusive, the logic of my position is that only one story at most can be true. Therefore there is evidence for widespread invention. Then, of course, the kid's would have to be describing non-existent furniture, because the worlds in the creation mythologies don't exist. From this, we do not conclude that there's no furniture makers. We would only theorize that if the kid's stories were the only known source of furniture makers. So, like the example I quoted a couple of posts earlier, weak induction:

Kids can and do invent false furniture makers.

Theory: Therefore, all furniture makers are the invention of kids.

Easily falsified by observation.

Strong inductive theory:

Humans can and do invent SBs

Human invention is the only known source of SBs.

Theory: All supernatural beings are human inventions.

Unfalsified. Certainly unfalsified by your unsupported claim to know of another known source (which SBs are known to exist?)

Strong inductive theory (Pasteur).

Life forms can be observed to come from other life forms.

Life is the only known source of life.

Theory: All life comes from life.

Here's an invented story that came from the human imagination.

quote:

---

In the beginning there was only one water and the water animals that lived in it.

Then a woman fell from a torn place in the sky. She was a divine woman, full of power. Two loons flying over the water saw her falling. They flew under her, close together, making a pillow for her to sit on.

The loons held her up and cried for help. They could be heard for a long way as they called for other animals to come.

The snapping turtle called all the other animals to aid in saving the divine woman's life.

The animals decided the woman needed earth to live on.

Turtle said, "Dive down in the water and bring up some earth."

So they did that, those animals. A beaver went down. A muskrat went down. Others stayed down too long, and they died.

Each time, Turtle looked inside their mouths when they came up, but there was no earth to be found.

Toad went under the water. He stayed too long, and he nearly died. But when Turtle looked inside Toad's mouth, he found a little earth. The woman took it and put it all around on Turtle's shell. That was the start of the earth.

Dry land grew until it formed a country, then another country, and all the earth.. To this day, Turtle holds up the earth.

Time passed, and the divine woman had twin boys. They were opposites, her sons. One was good, and one was bad. One was born as children are usually born, in a normal way. But the other one broke out of his mother's side, and she died.

When the divine woman was buried, all of the plants needed for life on earth sprang from the ground above her. From her head came the pumpkin vine. Maize came from her chest. Pole beans grew from her legs.

The divine woman's sons grew up. The evil one was Tawis-karong. The good one was Tijus-kaha. They were to prepare the earth so that humans could live on it. But they found they could not live together. And so they separated, with each one taking his own portion of the earth to prepare.

The bad brother, Tawis-karong, made monstrous animals, fierce and terrifying. He made wolves and bears, and snakes of giant size. He made mosquitoes huge, the size of wild turkeys. And he made an enormous toad. It drank up the fresh water that was on the earth. All of it.

The good brother, Tijus-kaha, made proper animals that were of use to human beings. He made the dove, and the mockingbird, and the partridge. And one day, the partridge flew toward the land of Tawis-karong.

"Why do you go there?" Tijus-kaha asked the partridge.

"I go because there is no water. And I hear there is some in your brother's land," said the partridge.

Tijus-kaha didn't believe the bird. So he followed, and finally he came to his evil brother's land. He saw all of the outlandish, giant animals his brother had made. Tijus-kaha didn't beat them down.

And then he saw the giant toad. He cut it open. Out came the earth's fresh water. Tijus-kaha didn't kill any [more] of his brother's creations. But he made them smaller, of normal size so that human beings could be leaders over them.

His mother's spirit came to Tijus-kaha in a dream. She warned him about his evil brother. And sure enough, one day, the two brothers had to come face to face. They decided they could not share the earth. They would have a duel to see who would be master of the world.

Each had to overcome the other with a single weapon. Tijus-kaha, the good, could only be killing if beaten to death with a bag full of corn or beans. The evil brother could be killed only by using the horn of a deer or other wild animal. then the brothers fixed the fighting ground where the battle would begin.

The first turn went to the evil brother, Tawis-karong. He pounded his brother with a bag of beans. He beat him until Tijus-kaha was nearly dead. But not quite. He got his strength back, and he chased Tawis-karong. Now it was his turn.

He beat his evil brother with a deer horn. Finally, Tijus-kaha took his brother's life away. But still the evil brother wasn't completely destroyed. "I have gone to the far west," he said. "All the races of men will follow me to the west when they die."

It is the belief of the Hurons to this day. When they die, their spirits go to the far west, where they will dwell forever.

---

I thought you'd like that, because it shows the most striking example of consilience I could find in the creation myths. It's from North America, and it has a turtle holding up the earth. Far away on the Indian subcontinent, we can find a well known Hindu "hypothesis" that a turtle, of all things, holds up the earth.

So, RAZD, if you're right about consilience, maybe you should look under the earth to see if there's a turtle there to support your claim.

BTW. Once again.

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people"?

As your posts on this thread certainly indicate that you do, I'll take it that your answer is "yes" if you continue to show your fear of answering.

As a celebration of more than 6 months and more than 100 posts without falsification, just a brief summary of a few of my opponent's attempts to attack the theory.

RAZD shows here that he thinks that scientific theories are things that can be and should be proven.

RAZD writes: Curiously I do not need to claim, assert or believe that "supernatural being (X) can exist" -- all I need to do is present you with a concept of a supernatural being, like supernatural being (X), and then it is your task to demonstrate, with objective empirical valid evidence, that these concepts are unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being.

RAZD writes: What you are missing, amusingly, is that for you to claim that human imagination is the only source for supernatural concepts (as you have asserted), YOU need to demonstrate that no other possible source could exist.

No scientific theory, of course, has eliminated all other possibilities, otherwise they would be facts. But RAZD doesn't understand this basic point.

RAZD writes: The existence of a single concept that is not a product of human imagination means that your claim is absolutely meaningless. You have not established that this is not the case.

You have not proven your theory, bluegenes.

Below, he thinks that unsupported religious beliefs and claims need to be falsified before a scientific theory can be established if those religious beliefs contradict the theory.

RAZD writes: In several religiions there are beliefs involving god/s appearing as humans or animals to assist people reach enlightenment or assist them in finding truth. Many eastern religions believe in enlightenment, which involves a level of understanding universal truths. Other religions claim that religious experiences are means to communicate with god/s. And of course there are religions (like the australian one you listed above) that believe in dreamtime experiences. That's four different ways that various religions have claimed to have a source of knowledge about supernatural beings\entities\etc. -- and ones that you should have been already aware of. Your task, if you claim that "human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings," is to falsify these as means of having an outside source for concepts of supernatural beings\entities\etc. It doesn't appear that you have done this.

RAZD writes: You have not falsified the Hindu Hypothesis, which among other things includes the view that all creation stories are allegorical, metaphor or analogy for how god/s created, and that the many stories all offer different aspects of the creation/s via allegory and symbolic metaphors. What the "Hindu Hypothesis" says is that when we take all these symbolic stories and put them together, that the total picture that emerges is one of the universal truth/s - and among others, that god/s exist(ed) and that they created.

RAZD seems to think that unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict scientific theories need to be falsified in order for there to be any scientific theories. So, those theorizing that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old do not have a theory until they've falsified omphalism, and evolutionary biologists do not have a naturalistic theory until they've falsified omphalism and the nineteenth century claim that Satan laid down the fossils to confuse us, etc.

So, any scientific theories or laws can be attacked by people making unsupported claims that contradict them in RAZD's little world.

Weird. For people like RAZD, there is no science, and he's not even capable of understanding this.

RAZD writes: You do not have a scientific theory.

As shown in my last post, you don't have the basic understanding to judge that. I do have a scientific theory.

RAZD writes: If you have a scientific theory instead of an hypothetical concept, then how do you test whether a supernatural being is a fiction of human imagination rather than from some other source?

It isn't necessary for Pasteur's law to have a test for whether or not a given adult organism came from another organism or was individually created by magic. The law states that organisms come from their only known origin via inductive reasoning, and is not provable, but is falsifiable. My theory is the same.

RAZD writes: What is your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

RAZD writes: ...applying your concept...

Which concept? It is observation that can falsify some of the SBs, not a "concept". SBs fit into two categories. Those whose existence is unsupported and which have been falsified , and those whose existence is unsupported and haven't been falsified. There aren't any in the third category that's necessary to falsify my theory, which would be those whose existence outside the human mind has been established to all of us beyond all reasonable doubt.

RAZD writes: Is that how science is done? By making stuff up?

No. So kindly stop doing so.

RAZD writes: Sadly, for you, personal opinion, bias and willful thinking are still not able to alter reality in any way, nor are they the foundations of scientific theories.

Sadly for you, personal religious desires are not able to weaken or falsify scientific theories.

RAZD writes: By extension now -- applying your most recent cognitive dissonance revisionist attempt to explain the children reports -- we see that you actually acknowledge that your "mutually exclusinve" criteria in no way shows that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.

Idiot. The mutually exclusive point was made to establish that people can and do invent SBs. As I explained, it is just one line of evidence that supports this:

Human beings can and do invent SBs. That alone does not make the theory that all SB's are invented. This is the strawman you've tried earlier in the thread, and I've explained patiently why it's wrong. Yet you've typed thousands of words arguing against this weak induction:

Human beings can and do invent SBs.

Therefore Theory: All SBs are human inventions.

It is the other fact, the fact that human invention is the only source currently known to exist that is required to make the theory.

Humans can and do invent SBs.

Human invention is the only known source of SBs.

Therefore theory: All SBs are human inventions.

You claim to know of another known source, and that would falsify my theory, yet you refuse to tell us what this mysterious source is that you can establish to exist beyond all reasonable doubt. Which SBs do you know of that actually exist outside our minds? You shouldn't make a claim and then avoid this question.

If you change your mind, and decide you don't know of any, then you will have to agree that I have a strong inductive theory (if and when you learn to understand inductive theories).

BTW, you can lie about me not having empirical evidence without making silly charts. And an alternative hypothesis (one or more of the creation myths is true) has been tested. You disagree, but when I ask you to tell me which one is true, you run away, and lie in silly charts. Scientific theories aren't falsified by lying in silly charts.

Questions that you will try to avoid because you have no argument.

Is the SB concept of a giant Earth supporting turtle a figment of the human imagination or is there a real one?

Are scientific theories weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?

bluegenes from the last post writes: BTW, you can lie about me not having empirical evidence without making silly charts. And an alternative hypothesis (one or more of the creation myths is true) has been tested. You disagree, but when I ask you to tell me which one is true, you run away, and lie in silly charts. Scientific theories aren't falsified by lying in silly charts. Questions that you will try to avoid because you have no argument. Is the SB concept of a giant Earth supporting turtle a figment of the human imagination or is there a real one? Are scientific theories weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?

Is the SB concept of a giant earth supporting turtle a figment of the human imagination or is there a real one?

Are scientific theories weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?

Is the SB concept of a giant earth supporting turtle a figment of the human imagination or is there a real one?

Are scientific theories weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some humans"?

Why are you frightened of my questions?

Do you think that the SB concept of an Earth supporting giant turtle is a figment of the human imagination, or do you think there's a real one?

Do you think that the evidence for human evolution effectively falsifies the SB concept of the three brothers who created the first two humans from logs, and shows them to be a figment of the human imagination?

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and supernatural beings communicate with some human beings?

Do you think scientific theories become non-existence if people tell lies in silly charts?

Do you know of a confirmed source of the supernatural concepts we have in our minds other than human invention?

Why are you frightened of my questions?

Do you think that the SB concept of an Earth supporting giant turtle is a figment of the human imagination, or do you think there's a real one?

Do you think that the evidence for human evolution effectively falsifies the SB concept of the three brothers who created the first two humans from logs, and shows them to be a figment of the human imagination?

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some human beings"?

Do you think scientific theories become non-existence if people tell lies in silly charts?

Do you know of a confirmed source of the supernatural concepts we have in our minds other than human invention?

Why are you frightened of my questions?

Do you think that the SB concept of an Earth supporting giant turtle is a figment of the human imagination, or do you think there's a real one?

Do you think that the well documented evidence for human evolution effectively falsifies the SB concept of the three brothers who created the first two humans from logs, and shows them to be a figment of the human imagination?

Do you think that the theory that the earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old is not a scientific theory because the unsupported "anti-thesis" of omphalism has not been falsified?

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some human beings"?

Do you think that scientific theories are "illogical" and not scientific theories if they are based on inductive reasoning?

Your arguments in this thread are all based on your apparent belief in those last two. If you can't answer "yes", your arguments are all destroyed. If you answer "yes", you will be wrong in both cases, and you will have demonstrated that you don't understand the basics of science. You're stuck.

Do you think scientific theories become non-existence if people tell lies in silly charts?

Do you know of a confirmed source of the supernatural concepts we humans have in our minds other than human invention?

RAZD writes: The counter argument: all descriptions of supernatural beings are discussing different aspects of a universal truth with symbolic language

You mean that vampires and fairies are really aspects of the evil spirits that cause disease? Or of werewolves? Or of the giant turtle who supports the earth?

At least we now know that you do believe that theories aren't scientific if unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them haven't been falsified.

This means that there are no such thing as scientific theories, in your opinion, as unsupported claims can be made that contradict all of them.

What about my other questions?