Inductive Atheism

The only known source of supernatural concepts is human imagination. The same cannot be said of tree concepts. Because there is another known source of tree concepts. Namely the demonstrable existence of real trees. Do you now understand the difference? Do you now understand why the inductively derived tentative theory that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from the only known source is a strong and thus far unfalsified theory? Is there any inductively reasoned scientific theory for which this isn't true? Does Last Thursdayism weaken the scientific conclusion that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? Do unevidenced unfalsifiable claims weaken inductively derived evidence based theories?Do you now understand why the inductively derived tentative theory that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from the only known source is a strong and thus far unfalsified theory? Why do you think we should not apply the same inductively derived conclusion to your concept of god? What supernatural phenomenon are you suggesting that these apparently common experiences are evidence of exactly? Be specific.

But since you're using science as the criteria for "known" and we're dealing with supernatural beings, which we don't expect to be scientifically demonstrable to exist, then your reasoning is circular. Obviously, I've said as much myself. I don't think its strong, nor should it be considered a theory, because its a circularly reasoned hypothesis lacking any real data towards it. That, and its not something worth of publishing in a scientific journal. All of the real ones that deal with naturalistic phenomenon as opposed to supernatural beings like this one tries to. Irrelevant. The simple matter is that the source cannot be imagination even though we're unable to identify what that source is.It exposes that claiming that all known sources are imagination excludes the very things that suggest the "theory" is wrong, thus the circularness.

Firstly - The theory under discussion is absolutely dealing with naturalistic phenomena. Namely the natural phenomenon that is the existence of, and human belief in, supernatural concepts. See Perdition's post in this thread Message 142 if you are still confused as to what we are actually talking about here.Secondly - There is a supernatural unfalsifiable and evidentially unsupported alternative to every single scientific naturalistic explanation you can name. If you think these weaken scientific theories you are effectively denouncing the whole of science. So why do you think we should not apply the same inductively derived conclusion to your concept of god? If you are claiming these experiences as evidence of something how can it be "irrelevant" as to what they are supposedly evidence for? What supernatural phenomenon are you suggesting that these apparently common experiences are evidence of exactly? Be specific. As you have described these experiences they could just as legitimately be cited as evidence of fluctuations in the matrix (for example) as any other entirely speculative alternative. Why do you think they are evidence of the supernatural? This "circularness" exists only in the same place as your concept of god. Namely inside your head.

On the contrary! That is the exact definition I was referring to:in Message 114, Straggler writes Objective scientific investigation IS subject to natural law. Many of its methods are derived from natural law. Objective scientific investigation is constrained to be not supernatural. Furthermore, the process of objective scientific investigation provides an explanation of the phenomenon or phenomena. If something is inherently materially inexplicable, how can it be explained?So, in fact, any SB that would falsify bluegenes theory could not be objectively scientifically investigated, explained and documented in a repeatable way, withstanding peer review by definition. The very things that this investigation seeks to explain do not behave according to the constraints the investigation must comply with. These things are inherently materially inexplicable.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

...so let's see where this takes us:bluegenes is claiming that the only source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination, by inductive reasoning from his observation that the only known source of supernatural concepts so far observed in the history of the world is from the human imagination.By being a known source we are taking this to mean known in the sense that stands up to scientific scrutiny. We quickly discount, as a source, say, a patient in a mental hospital who hallucinates that he is The One who has imagined the Jesus Christ we are all familiar with and claims it's all from his amazing imagination and nobody else's.What we mean by a known source is something that has been the result of an objective scientific investigation that will stand up to peer review and repeatability.Since an objective scientific investigation can only explain something that is not supernatural, it must follow that the only way we can have determined a known source is by investigating something that was really not supernatural.bluegenes has stated that the theory can be falsified by the existence of just 1 supernatural concept whose known source is not from human imagination. But, as shown, the only SB concepts whose source can be known are those that are really not supernatural beings/events/things. He can only apply the scientific process to those things that cannot falsify his theory.THEREFORE:
This means that bluegenes theory cannot be falsified.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Xongsmith you are talking yourself into riddles. We were discussing vampire examples previously so I'll use that here. If you have an example of an undead being who can transform into a bat, only be killed by means of a wooden stake through the heart and who has no reflection bring him to a lab and let's take a look at this being. If under scientific examination this well documented supernatural being turns out to be as inexplicable as it should be then hey presto!! Bluegenes theory has been falsified beyond all reasonable doubt hasn't it? It could be investigated if any examples actually existed. Why couldn't they be invetigated? It cannot be scientifically explained. That is the point. It could be objectively scientifically investigated and documented in a repeatable way subject to peer review. But would defy scientific explanation.That is the point you wally.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You are confusing yourself by relentlessly conflating the ability to witness or investigate something with the ability to ultimately explain it materially.If Jesus pops up and starts the whole armeggadon thing, raising people from the dead and whatnot, even the most ardent athest would eventually have to be considered somewhat churlish to sit there saying "I am sure that there is a perfectly good scientific material explanation for this". At that point bluegenes theory could be considered falsified and atheists should have the decency to admit they were wrong.But so far no reliable evidence of even a minor example of any such events or beings exist. Entirely consistent with the human imagination theory.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Please think Straggler! Think! I know you can do it!You have no case. You have accused me of reading comprehension difficulty, but WOW please take another look.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

But that would never happen. Because the investigative process cannot see them. You make my point!!! Thank you. You are not connecting the dots.If it could be objectively scientifically investigated and documented in a repeatable way subject to peer review, it would have a scientific explanation...By definition.On a Much More Alarming Issue, I seem to have reached my last beer & will have to replenish tomorrow!!!!

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Why ever not? And if you are going to suggest that all supernatural entities are empirically undetectable it means that all those human claims of having empirically detected them are necessarily false doesn't it? By what definition?If you think a scientific explanation consists of nothing more than investigating, documenting and reviewing then you are using a very different definition of explanation to anyone else. I thought an explanation actually involved explaining something.

Please think Xongsmith. If you define "supernatural" as that which cannot be empirically detected then ALL supernatural concepts are necessarily sourced from the human imagination.How could it possibly be otherwise?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So do you get it yet?We have a highly evidenced naturalistic explanation for an observed phenomenon. This explanation inductively applies to ALL supernatural concepts. It applies in exactly the same way that any scientific explanation is tentatively applied generally. Jumping up and down whilst yelling but you haven’t falsified my specific unevidenced and unfalsifiable belief is of no consequence to the evidential validity of this explanation. No more so than (for example) baseless omphalistic claims are cause to dent our confidence in the scientifically evidenced age of the Earth. The evidentially derived conclusion is that ALL supernatural concepts are sourced from human imagination. This is a high confidence theory. And it applies equally to god concepts, such as yours, which have been designed to be directly unfalsifiable.Which part of this are you still struggling with?

quote:

---

Irrelevant. The simple matter is that the source cannot be imagination even though we're unable to identify what that source is.

​

It exposes that claiming that all known sources are imagination excludes the very things that suggest the "theory" is wrong, thus the circularness.

---

Can you lay out the circle for me?I've read circular reasoning several times in this thread, but I'm not seeing the "circle".When we go looking for supernatural beings we only find evidence in the human mind or products of the human mind.

Its basically because of trying to use science (only naturalistic explanations) on supernatural, or non-natural, sources.The only scientifically known source of supernatural beings is the human imagination. If the source becomes scientifically known, then there is a natural explanation and it is not supernatural. If the source is non-natural, then it will not become scientifically known. So, the only sources that can become scientifically known cannot be supernatural beings. Therefore, we're left with the only other possible source which is the human imagination. If there was another source, and it became scientifically known, then it wouldn't be supernatural. If it was supernatural, then it wouldn't become scientifically known. So, the only source that can become scientifically known cannot be supernatural and we're left with the only other source which is imagination. But, if another source did become known... etc. etc. When multiple people independently, and ignorantly, report the same thing, then they all couldn't have imagined it. So we can know that the source is not human imagination while not having enough information to scientifically know the source.

Arguments against belief are easy, I have no problem with yours.The origin of the bluegenes challenge was a request for an argument against agnosticism, Message 166.Got one of those?