Inductive Atheism

Huh?

---

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

I think there's been a misunderstanding. The purpose of my question was to determine whether an atheist's nonbelief in/denial of deities was structured in a way that regards GOD/God/god/gods as something with a certain set of properties or as something which has been called 'GOD'/'God'/'god'/'gods'. Certain things called 'God' will not cause an atheist to abandon their title if those things are proven to exist, while, according to Straggler, atheists must admit they are wrong (abandon their title) given some evidence of a supernatural Jesus. I see nothing in that passage that references an empirically-verifiable God. There is nothing there that God is said to do that God has not been said to do already today by the Christians that follow him. Perhaps if Christians want to claim that an Armageddon means the empirical realness of their God, then we can work with either affirming or not affirming the existence of such a fella, but if we're dealing with the Revelation account (which, as you and I both already know, isn't really meant as an end-times account anyway), then I cannot see much there that would sway an Atheist from his position.Jon

---

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

We identify an entity based on the words used by familiar languages to identify said entity. Sometimes this can be done by pointing at the entity and identifying or it could be by explaining what the entities attributes/properties are so that you can identify it yourself should you see it.There are many people that have identified an entity that they have labelled 'God' and it has certain properties. Therefore, if we see such an entity, we can identify it as the thing those other people called 'God' and should we wish to communicate what we saw to other people we would use that word.It is the common sets of descriptions in use by people in their respective languages that atheists broadly have not accepted the existence of. And we're talking inductive atheism, as per the topic... Not really.According to Straggler atheists would be churlish to sit around saying 'I'm sure there is a perfectly good scientific material explanation for this' while the dead come bodily back to life, giant scorpions drag people into a great fiery abyss and Angels start decreeing various plagues on the unfaithful and the fornicators etc.And further, suggests Straggler, most people would be content that bluegenes' theory is falsified and atheists that consider themselves 'inductively atheistic' using similar reasoning should admit they were wrong. That isn't to say atheists should believe everything about all supernatural things, or accept the Bible as completely true.It certainly wouldn't confirm substance dualism in any easy way, but maybe someone could figure out a way to successfully argue that dualism is the better metaphysics all things considered. Sure sure - you can intrerpret the Bible so as to include no direct experiences of God if you want. Most Christians don't, and it was to the commonly believed version of Armageddon rather than some ambiguous post modern Armageddon I think Straggler was talking about.Obviously, Armageddons where God doesn't directly appear are still something that could falsify bluegenes theory and give most atheists food for thought unless it transpires to be so metaphorical that nothing particularly happens at all. The literal return of Jesus and the literal resurrection of the dead indicates he was going to a direct and literal interpretation of God living with us, wiping our eyes in the Golden Kingdom of Heaven...as if the relationship in Genesis of a walking talking imminent living god was reestablished. Precisely, and that's all Straggler was saying. If Jesus was empirically verifiable (and therefore it is also verifiable that he is God) then atheists would concede that their previous notions were flawed (or they would be 'churlish', as Straggler notes). The Apocalypse of John is an end-times account, at least the end of an era.

For the observed phenomenon being the proclivity of human belief in gods, I have no problem with the commonality of human psycology as being the best scientific explanation. But I don't see an induction for atheism from that.For the concepts of gods being sourced from imagination, the problem I have is that circularly reasoned in that any source becomming known is going to preclude it from being supernatural. No. It can be said of any naturalistic explanation of the supernatural. No, but you can hand me a lightbulb and I can put electricity through it and figure it out.We don't have any supernatural beings to investigate.

Seriously? How can the conclusion that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination NOT lead to a form of atheism? Why? But we are not explaining "the supernatural". Instead We have a highly evidenced naturalistic explanation for the existence of supernatural concepts and human belief in the reality of such things. No different to any other naturalistic explanation except for the degree to which it challenges cherished beliefs. Which will allow you to conclude that particular filament bulb produces heat and light by means of electrical resistance. Given that this applies to ALL known examples of such devices you can inductively conclude that the source of heat and light in ALL filament bulbs is similarly sourced.Likewise we have a highly evidenced naturalistic explanation for the existence of supernatural concepts. This explanation inductively applies to ALL supernatural concepts. It applies in exactly the same way that any scientific explanation is tentatively applied generally. And that is indeed the problem for the supernaturalist. A complete lack of positive evidence. As is the absence of any ethereal salamander powered lightbulbs identically a problem for anyone who might believe in the actual existence of such things.

I may have been looking for moral support. I did in fact show how it was not a definitive proof of a concept that was not still, underneath, at the original source, a product of human imagination. However, I must also note that CS has made very similar objections to bluegenes' theory that I have. In a word, bullfuckingshit. I have no idea how you got so derailed into thinking such a thing. I do. You seem to be panicking that I may not be paying enough attention to a well-establish process in the history of science. I sense a fear. Are you not that sure yourself? Do you believe in the inductive reasoning behind almost all of the work of science??? I sense in the fear some doubt that something so fundamental may be lost on the masses? Exactly - once again taking itself instantly out of bluegenes' theory's domain, to be consigned to things like general relativity and molecular biology.It's not only "can", it's "will". They will fold it in. If the evidence of your 2nd coming is put through the scientific process and confirmed, the scientific model will be enlarged to accommodate this. There is no escape from that. Just as when the Ptolemaic system was overthrown for the Copernican system, so too will the scientifically evidenced 2nd coming become part of science. Those who believe it cannot be known will only be cast into the creationist sorts of niches. This is very interesting, but different, topic. Perhaps this should be its own thread.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

That's not the conclusion arrived at from the scientific expantion of the proclivity of human belief being from commmon psycology. Because only natural explanation can become known and supernaturals aren't natural. Seriously? How can gods NOT be considered supernatural? Annoying, isn't it?All supernatural concepts being sourced from the imagination is not an explanation for the proclivity of belief. Sure, for the concepts. But what about the actual beings? Do those really not exist? And the rational skeptic who wants to be an atheist. But not for the rational skeptic who doesn't care to be an atheist and is content with realizing that agnosticism would be a better choice instead. This isn't about people who believe and disproving them, this is about inducing atheism.We can look at the lightbulbs and figure out that there's no salamanders. We don't have supernatural beings to look at.

So your argument is that bluegenes theory is unfalsifiable because even something such as the second coming of Christ and the ensuing Armegaddon, if empirically detectable, would not constitute evidence of the supernatural. Is that right?Christians are exhalted into raptuous heavenly paradise, the dead come bodily back to life, giant scorpions drag people into a great fiery abyss, Angels start decreeing various plagues on the unfaithful and the fornicators all around you - And you sit there saying "Nothing to challenge any atheistic attitudes to the supernatural to mention here".Really? A scientific explanation involves the ability to explain a phenomenon in terms of physical natural laws doesn't it? How can the divine will of an omnipotent omniscient being be comprehended in that manner? It is the inherent impossibility of this as a property of the concept in question that makes it conceptually supernatural. Unless it really is supernatural in the sense of being neither derived from nor subject to natural laws and thus inherently materially inexplicable. As those who believe in such entities generally believe to be the case.

Yes it is. Scientific theories tentatively conclude generalisations based on the extrapolation of available evidence. Hence the tentative conclusion that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination. Why do you think this is not a valid inductively reasoned conclusion? Yes. That is exactly what this about. Inductively reasoning atheism. In other words atheism based on the positively evidenced tentative conclusion that ALL supernatural concepts are sourced from human imagination. So you keep asserting. But this is just selective self-justifying nonsense on your part isn't it? Is the biblical concept of Jesus Christ a supernatural concept? Is the biblical concept of Jesus Christ undetectable or unable to be evidenced in a manner which would falsify bluegenes theory? Likewsie Thor? Zeus? I could go on and on and on......... It is certainly the starting point with regard to man's well documented natural tendency to seek conscious intent in mindless physical processes. Should you ever get past the first step here we can move onto this more interesting area more fully. The beings are supernatural but the theory under discussion is about the concepts and human belief in them. We have lot's of supernatural concepts to examine and the only known source of such concepts is human imagination. Should we therefore remain rationally agnostic regarding the existence of ethereal salamander powered filament bulbs until all such bulbs have been suitably examined in your view? This is not a rhetorical question. Do etheral salamanders that power filament bulbs exist? The tentative but exceptionally high confidence theory that ALL filament bulbs produce light and heat by means of electrical resistance suggests that this is very unlikely. Does the same thinking not apply to the existence of gods? What is the difference?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It is unfalsifiable.Jon

---

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

Roughly - but not only empirically detectable, empirically detectable in repeated experiments, collaboration with other investigators and subject to peer review. However... The key is establishing the scientific process and confirmation that what is being seen is really being seen. Given your scenario with the scorpions I doubt very much that there would be enough time to generate the necessary peer-reviewed documentation of these things. So bluegenes' scientists would never get a chance to test if was it was human imagination or not.If there were enough time to do all this scientific investigation, then, yes, it would be formulated and presented as a new extension of Natural Law as we know it to be. The very process of collecting the objective evidence would create the descriptors of this extended Natural Law. Beats me. I would doubt very much that it could. And it also makes it impossible to gather any objective evidence on it. And this would mean that the scientific process of investigation and description of the phenomena involved could never be completed enough to make a determination one way or the other, by definition.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Peer review is a good check system, and has become a frequent player in the modern scientific method; however, it is by no means an indispensable aspect of science. What is more is that falsification doesn't require much labor at all. If our scientific theories predict that the Sun will rise tomorrow, and it fails to rise, then our theories just cannot be accurate in their present formthey've been falsified. This we can do with little effort, and while it may be nice to call up the neighbors to make sure they too have noticed the apparent lack of sunrise, given fairly decent vision we can determine whether the Sun is up or down all on our ownthe peer review isn't necessary.Can a man on an island not do science?Jon

---

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

From the OP:

quote:

---

This theory can be falsified by presenting another source of such concepts. Either the existence of such an entity or a supernatural concept derived from a non-human source.

---

The fact that you don't like a theory and that you are unable to falsify it doesn't make it inherently unfalsifiable Jon. It just means it is a strong theory.

A team of highly qualified white coated experts observe and document the events and beings described above. They hastily publish their results in a peer reviewed journal. Even as our white coated experts are cast into the abyss to be tormented for all eternity by demons they (by your absurd line of thiought) can congratulate themselves on their rational rejection of the supernatural.......... Not by the definition of supernatural we agreed upon earlier in this thread because by that definition there is no reason why simply observing something in a repeatable, methodical and scientifically formalised manner miraculously transforms it from being supernatural to natural. Repeatedly observing Thor or Zeus or Yahweh do their godly deeds makes these beings no less conceptually supernatural than otherwise by the definition I provided regarding explaining a given phenomenon in terms of physical laws. You are quite evidently using your own rather unique and as yet unstated definition of "supernatural" here. What definition?I have never seen a definition of supernatural that would disqualify an Armegaddon inducing Christ as described in the bible from being supernatural on the basis of peer review before. What definition of supernatural are you using here?(Please spare me a definition that involves an infinite regress of theoretical boxes and arguments that essentially amount to you arbitrarily deciding what is or isn’t supernatural as per your previous attempts at a definition)

LOL. There's a difference between actual falsifiability and theoretical falsifiability. The former's what a valid theory needs; the latter is the useless kind you've propped up as 'proof' of your silly theory's validity.Jon

---

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