Inductive Atheism

I concur! A big SO WHAT?It only has the predictive characteristic that any suspected supernatural occurrence will, under the full lens of objective scientific investigation, be determined to be nothing more than human imagination.Problem is - the full lens of objective scientific investigation by definition cannot be used on anything that would falsify the theory.Anything that did get to be determined as human imagination is immediately not something that is being talked about. I know Straggs wont like this, but it gets hauled out of Box 2a and put somewhere in Box 1. We are only interested it what remains in Box 2a no matter what we do.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Because the rest of us don't need to appease your overbearing brother in order to enjoy Christmas. But more importantly it is the difference between an evidence based consclusion and some sort of opinion on a whim. It is in effect necessarily tentative - Yes. Does RAZ understand this? And if so why does he keep conflating such theories with logical statement of certitude? Well exactly. No falsification of Bluegeens theory of any kind in fact.

So all supernatural concepts, including the deistic ones, are derived from human imagination. So we can conclude tentatively on the wealth of evidence available. A prediction which has been 100% accurate with every supernatural concept cited and able to be tested to date. By what definition? Be very specific. This certainly is NOT the case as it relates to the definition of 'supernatural' you agreed to earlier in this thread. Of course it is. Don't be an imbecile. It is yet more evidence supporting the human imagination theory. Xongsmith step away from the boxes. Raise your hands and step back from the boxes. For your own good leave the boxes alone. We are interested in the source of supernatural concepts. And the only known source of such concepts is the human imagination. So apply scientific inductive reasoning and what do you get? Bluegenes high confidence theory.

I'm in trouble. More evidence for communicating SBs and subjective experiences right here on the board. Message 1

Now that this belief has been documented for all to see the God concept Dennis Markuze is referring to presumably qualifies as "a supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence"......?

But the question here is whether or not anyone else should rationally and evidentially conclude that something is worthy of their agnosticism rather than atheism purely because some people happen to hold deep personal convictions about it.You and RAZD seem to think that if something cannot be falsified and people believe it to be true then atheism is somehow "pseudoskeptical".Why?

You don't conclude that something is worthy of agnosticism, you start at agnosticism as the default untill evidence shows one way or the other. I've maintained that specific gods, whether falsifiable or not and regardless of people believing in them, can be shown to not exist and thus lead to disbelief in them.

Can you describe a god concept that you think dwells in this vacuum of all objective evidence? One to which Bluegenes inductively derived tentative conclusion does not apply? Yet you obviously feel that there are some god concepts to which this does not apply. What are they?

What vacuum of all objective evidence? What does that even mean? Is that even possible? The conclusion is about concepts, not any beings themselves. I can't provide a concept that isn't a concept. The ones that we have insufficient evidence against, either by way of limited ability, or insufficient description to go against, or that I haven't heard enough about yet.

No. So it seems we both agree that the whole "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" thing is a silly distraction. Good. We can avoid that little rabbit hole. Do you then accept the tentative conclusion that ALL human concepts of god are made-up? And by made-up I mean that they lack a basis in reality in a way that the concept of a tree (for example) does not lack. Then what is it that these experiences you mentioned lead you to believe in the existence of if it is not a concept? Do you have no conceptual idea of what it is you believe exists? Such as? What are these non-concepts that we should supposedly be rationally agnostic rather than atheistic about?The very idea sounds absurd.

Not exactly. You can have an absence of evidence towards or against some particular, which would not necessarily be evidence of absence of it, without being in a vacuum of all objevtive evidence. Its taughtological... They lack any empirical evidence for them, unlike the tree does, but I'm not so sure that leads to a conclusion of a lack of basis in reality. Well there's my concept of god and then there's, presumably, some actual being that exists that I'm conceptualizing. Are there any beings that exist that we cannot empirically investigate? How would we know?Simply assuming they must be made-up because we don't have empirical evidence for them isn't rational, in my opinion. I'd bet that some of them could be rationally discarded, but then there's also some that couldn't.

Big presumption. Can you explain why I should be rationally agnostic towards this god concept of yours rather than atheistic?Because the only known source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination and scientific inductive reasoning thus leads to the tentative theory that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination.Why is your god concept different?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Because we haven't gone through any details or evidence against it to lead you from the starting position of agnosticism to the atheism. All concepts come from human imagination. This says nothing about the existance of some being that the concept is about. Without getting into the details, its impossible for you to know if the being could exist or not. You are, quite literally, without knowledge of whether it exists or not.

I understand your point to an extent CS, and I suspect others do as well.... but I can't help but point out that, according to this logic, I should be agnostic about a 7-toed sloth that lives in hollowed out human skull on Pluto, directing his army of nano-machines to slowly take over the Earth and enslave the human race. WHY should I be agnostic about this? It is indeed impossible for me to know if this being exists or not, but on a scale of probabilities, I can rationally conclude the chance that it doesn't exist far outweighs the chance that it does exist in all its specifics. Therefore I declare myself an atheist with regard to above mentioned evil-doer. And... in that same vein... I declare myself an atheist towards God(s).I would add, in the sense of the deist God, the non-intervening one, that I would put a notably larger weight on that possibility, as it is far less open to criticism than the very specific supernatural entities presented in the major religions, and thus far harder to dismiss using the knowledge available to us. Nonetheless, I (personally) still place a low probability rating on this possibility as well... that's just me, and just my opinion, I freely admit it. BUT - can you see the idea I'm trying to express?

Well, to be fair, the atmosphere on Pluto lacks the oxygen requirements necessary to suscitate any mammal But yes, I'm sure you can make up some ridiculous unfalsifyable supernatural beings. You shouldn't, you just made it up to make a point. I understand the position. I disbelieve in many gods as well, but I don't find the position against some kind of god in general to be evidenced.The arguments I see against a god are post hoc rationalizations of a position that already existed, not some evidenced based conclusion. Yes, I do. Thank you for sharing and being honest.Now, where's the data?