Straggler writes:
Can you explain what you mean by this - Xong writes:
quote:
Aside from the mistake of concluding that it is supernatural, you seem to have missed his point: the source is not human imagination.
That alone would be sufficient to falsify bluegenes' theory.
Can you explain how the "mistake" of attributing the cause of something to the supernatural falsifies the theory that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination?
Sure. CS wrote this in
Message 194:
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.
See? He claims that the source is not human imagination. Did he say it was supernatural there? No, he did not.
The original message from CS of the hotel story appeared here
Message 174:
I haven't bothered to dig up any specifics yet, but there's an old hotel where people have ignorantly and independently witnessed a semi-transparent human male figure with old coat and civil war hat. The curator replies each time: "oh yeah, that's so-and-so. He died here when this hotel was used as a civil war hospital. He's been here ever sense. We have trouble keeping employees after they run into him."
If the people aren't aware of the story beforehand, and they're reporting seeing the same thing, then it can't just be from their imagination.
If the specific god under consideration is empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?
It must have some empirical detectability in order to be witnessed. But that doesn't mean we're capable of obtaining enough information for a scientific investigation.
So the source of this supernatural being isn't "known", but we know they both didn't coincidentally imagine the same thing on their own.
We should have pounced all over this with gnashing teeth, but instead we let it slide. CS was saying he had an example of a supernatural concept that was not sourced from imagination, when he had no business concluding such a thing.
X writes:
REMEMBER: I agree basically with bluegenes.
Oh please. Read your posts in this thread. It's a series of misapprehensions followed by bewilderingly misplaced 'Aha gotchas' that have done nothing but reveal the ever increasing depths of your ignorance about what is actually being said here.
I'm just trying to catch up with your own misapprehensions, premature conclusions, assumptions thereof leading to further statements about such mistaken comprehensions and the tendency thereof to use some derogatory adjectives. I have a long ways to go. I am still a young grasshopper in this sort of thing.
X writes:
REMEMBER: I think his was an imperfect presentation, subject to attack. I am trying to rally support in rephrasing it so it will stand up better than it has.
Go on then. Rephrase it in what you think is a superior manner. At least this would demonstrate that you do now know what is being said.
Ah - the first time I did, it wasn't received very well at all. In
Message 357 I said:
"The number of supernatural events that cannot be determined to be a figment of imagination is zero."
I tried it again in
Message 417.
Later I asked if you could see the difference. You could not see it, but instead used your prejudice to characterize the 2 statements - the first in glowing terms of your hero, the second in disparaging tones of Ptolemaic Circuity, in
Message 441:
X writes:
Let me ask you, Straggler, do you see the difference between:....
The first is a well evidenced, high confidence yet tentative theory about human behaviour based on positive evidence in favour of the human ability and proclivity to create such concepts regardless of reality.
The second is a confused sentence that conflates the idea of positive evidence regarding human behaviour with the stupid notion that this involves some form of evidential disproof regarding individual entities.
You are the one who is confused with stupid notions. Please try again, if you wish. But I do not think I rephrased it properly yet. Until you also perceive the defect I will refrain from asking you - because you can rephrase things well - and I'll just wait while I go off and do other things.
X writes:
It will be studied and the existing body of scientific thought would be extended to include these results, no?
Except that those (such as your brother) who believe in these gods define them as being scientifically "unknowable". Are you saying that RAZ's god is actually just some advanced technology away from being discovered, investigated and explained in terms of mindless natural laws?
Because that doesn't seem compatible with the concept of "god" any theist or deist I have ever heard advocate.
Where in the world is RAZD's Deist God in this? I was referring to
your god story about the 2nd coming of Christ! Look at you - speculating about about what I was talking about and thinking about!! Wow. Get a grip. Am I saying...??? What is the problem? "some advanced technology away" LOL. "mindless natural laws" - where are you getting this from?
Straggler! Get a grip! Chase those prejudiced demons from your head! Clear you mind. Start over on this.
- xongsmith, 5.7d
™ Version 4.2
