Inductive Atheism

Conceptually supernatural? LOL. You're really grasping at straws now, Straggy. How 'bouts we throw out the stupid theoretical falsifiability and conceptual supernatural and start dealing with reality.Jon

---

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

Yes Jon. Simply being able to demonstrate that something actually exists doesn’t miraculously transform a concept away from being supernatural in the way that Xongsmith and his peer reviewed Armegaddon nonsense is suggesting.If the Norse God Thor actually exists and he comes down and starts smiting people with his magic hammer the fact that a team of men in white coats record these events and publish their findings doesn’t change the fact that the concept of the Norse God Thor relates to a supernatural being does it? Show us a real supernatural being and we will. Until then all the supernaturalist has to offer are concepts. And the highly evidenced naturalistic explanation for the existence of these concepts is human imagination.Why you continue to deny this very simple fact only you will ever truly know.

Any source of supernatural concepts other than human imagination will falsify the theory under discussion. This source can be either natural or supernatural. The fact that you still don’t understand this does nothing but highlight the ongoing paucity of your comprehension here.

As others have already pointed out, no such source would ever be empirically perceptible; your theory is not falsifiable by any realistic means, and the evidences required for falsifying the theory could never be shown to exist. Oh knock it off, already. Adding a personal jab at the end of every post does nothing for your position; you lose the debate before it even begins.Jon

---

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

You've been told numerous times why this is not possible, and not just by me. You've even plainly laid out the reason why yourself:

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 248:

​

Unless it really is supernatural in the sense of being neither derived from nor subject to natural laws and thus inherently materially inexplicable.

---

You seem to understand perfectly why it is not possible to show such a being, and so it should be clear to you why your theory is unfalsifiable with regards to anything that 'really is supernatural' (emphasis added).One can only be left to believe you wish for nothing more than a bickering contest, since this debate has already been settled several hundred posts and a dozen threads ago.But, I don't bicker.Bye.

---

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

Can you read?Even if you use some sort of self-serving definition of "supernatural" the theory in question is falsifiable by means of demonstrating an alternative naturalistic source of such concepts.

Is the Christian concept of Christ as described in the bible a supernatural being? Is the Christian concept of Christ as described in the bible empirically detectable? Would the demonstrable physical existence of this being falsify the theory under discussion? Are there a vast array of other such concepts (Thor, Zeus, etc. etc. etc. etc.) which would similarly falsify the theory under discussion? The answer to all these questions as far as all the atheist participants in this thread are concerned is a very definite - 'Yes'. I literally have no idea what definition of supernatural is being used that results in the answer to any of the questions above being 'No'. It certainly isn't any definition thus far stated in this thread. I have seen lots of assumptions and assertions but no explanations that don't involve implicit definitions of "supernatural" that result in all sorts of laughable consequences. Laughable consequences such as the second coming of Christ and the ensuing biblical Armegeddon being disqualified from being described as supernatural if peer reviewed. What definition of really "supernatural" are you using such that the empirically detectable concept of Christ as described in the bible doesn't qualify as supernatural?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Would you not agree that prior to 1543, just as Copernicus was reaching his final moments alive and they finally published his revolutionary book, perhaps initially thought of in 1496* in his imagination from the objective evidence he had observed, that, aside from a few certain greeks in the past, the huge overwhelming majority of knowledgeable humans on the planet were still so certain the sun went around the earth that the mere notion of the idea that the earth went around the sun would be considered to be a "supernatural concept", neither derivable nor subject to the current body of Natural Law at the time?* Nicolaus Copernicus - Wikipedia

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Why would the Earth going round the Sun, as derived from physical observation, be considered a supernatural concept? What are you talking about?What definition of supernatural are you using here and where on Earth are you getting it from?

Only Nicky had done the calculations from observations made by only a handful of observers unknown to most of the world. To everyone else such a concept was against the current body of Natural Law. The Earth was "the firmament". It did not move, other than in the known and observed localized earthquakes and volcanoes, which afterall were just "shaking" the earth, not moving it. This was a repeatable experiment of that day with the available equipment accepted and in use at the time. Anyone then could stand outside where they could observe much of the earth, like from the top of a hill or mountain, and with their eyes conclude that the earth was not moving. Any other notion would be at odds with Natural Law and thus supernatural - only God Himself could move the whole Earth. There was no way to derive that earth was moving, nor was there way to argue that it could move on its own within their understanding of reality. Any such concept would require God's hand. This was the meager state of affairs in regards to the scientific process at the time. We most likely have Copernicus to thank for what may have been the birth of the more modern scientific principles still in use today. Put yourself in the shoes of - say - the average dude on the street in Rome in 1543, asked if the idea of the Earth going around the Sun was "magical", after he finishes laughing at you.Let me also ask you this: Wouldn't you think now that The Steady State Cosmology's concept was somewhat supernatural in creating galaxies out of nothing in the spaces vacated by the expanding universe? What about before the data gave rise to the concept of Inflation just after the Big Bang? Without seeing any of the data, if you met Alan Guth in some bar over some fine afternoon ales and he started going on about his idea that there was this - ooo, i want to say it - "magical" inflationary period, wouldn't you write that off as nuts? Wouldn't you, after you stop laughing, regard such an idea as a supernatural concept at a minimum? Yours.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Whatever, Straggler. Bicker on...Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

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

You have somehow placed yourself in the ridiculous position of claiming that the second coming of Christ and ensuing Armegaddon is not an example of a supernatural phenomenon (if peer reviewed!!) whilst the Earth going round the Sun as a result of gravity is. I suggest you take a moment to reconsider. Those who would descibe the Earth going round the Sun as 'supernatural' were simply wrong weren't they? Human beings wrongly attributing supernatural causes to natural phenomenon is evidence in favour of the human imagination theory. Not against it. The average dude in 1543 would no doubt wrongly attribute all manner of natural phenomenon to 'magical' supernatural causes. Illness to evil spirits. Good fortune to God. Etc. All of this is evidence in favour of man's proclivity to invent the supernatural. All of this is evidence in favour of the theory under discussion. Not against it. The inflationary Big Bang model is both derived from and subject to natural laws. If you cannot see the difference between this and a concept such as Christ or Thor you are truly beyond reason here. Let's see. Supernatural: That which is neither derived from nor subject to natural law and whch is thus inherently materially inexplcable. Message 114. As I said in that post this is my preferred wording but any commonly accepted meaning of the term will suffice in this thread.A miracle capable born from a virgin son of God who is himself an aspect of that same omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent creator of all that is seen and unseen - This is a being who is neither derived from nor subject to natural law and which is thus inherently materially inexplicable by very definition of the concept itself. If this being actually exists it is a supernatural being regardless of what anyone does or does not believe. If this being demonstrably exists as described in the bible then the existence of this being would falsify the theory under discussion. Likewise the demonstrable existence of a whole host of other supernatural concepts (Thor, Zeus, Apollo, Raa, Baal......etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. The list is immense.)Conversely the Earth orbitting the Sun as a result of the natural phenomenon we call 'gravity' is quite evidently NOT supernatural. It is not 'inherently materially inexplicable' at all. The fact that some humans might wrongly believe it to be supernatural has no bearing on this fact. Evidently not. You are quite clearly implicitly defining supernatural as that which is believed to be supernatural at any given point in time. But think about it Xongsmith. People believing that something is supernatural and materially inexplicable doesn't mean it actually is supernatural and inherently materially inexplicable does it?Can you really not see the difference?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Ah yes your standard response when you are unable to answer questions without completely contradicting yourself.Is the Christian concept of Christ as described in the bible a supernatural being? Is the Christian concept of Christ as described in the bible empirically detectable? Would the demonstrable physical existence of this being falsify the theory under discussion? Are there a vast array of other such concepts (Thor, Zeus, etc. etc. etc. etc.) which would similarly falsify the theory under discussion?The answer to all these questions is clearly 'Yes' hence your claims of unfalsifiability are false.Or can you tell me which of the above questions you are answering 'No'......?

How is a physical being who interacts with the physical world to cause physical alterations in it not part of the natural world?Jon

---

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

If you want to define 'supernatural' such that it precludes anything that can interact with the physical world you can. This of course means that the miracle capable born of a virgin biblically described 'God the son' concept we call Jesus Christ would not qualify as supernatural. Along with a whole host of other such empirically detectable god concepts. This seems somewhat out of step with the conventional use of the term doesn't it? But anyway be my guest....... If the supernatural being under consideration is inherently unable to interact with the physical world then it is necessarily undetectable by humans and thus cannot have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind.Your definition of 'supernatural' doesn't just support the human imagination theory under discussion here. It makes it the only evidentially valid conclusion even possible.