Inductive Atheism

I suggest you get out of the fog you are in. What I am arguing is the "before" and "after" scientific study. Before scientific study, the notion of the earth going around the sun is supernatural. After the study, it is not. Before scientific study, the 2nd Coming is supernatural. After the study, it is not. This was to illustrate how the very process of scientific investigation removes the supernaturalness of what they are investigating, by definition. And those who describe the 2nd Coming as "supernatural", if it actually occurred and was supported by scientific investigation, would be wrong, wouldn't they? Skeptics who believed it was impossible would be wrong. My example was talking about some guy named Guth in a bar suggesting it offhandedly, well before it was derived and presented to the scientific community. Again, a more contemporary example of how the scientific investigation removes supernaturalness. What exactly do you mean by "demonstrably"? I would think standing up to scientific scrutiny and confirmation would be a minimum standard. Of course, but you are failing to see the before & after effect. It's similar to Arthur C. Clarke's great quote about how "any sufficiently advanced alien technology is indistinguishable from magic." When the technology is explained, it is no longer magic. Before & after.Right now you are sincerely putting the 2nd Coming up as a supernatural concept about a supernatural phenomenon. And I agree it is. Today. But after it actually occurs, and the scientists have had their say about it, they would fold it in to body of Natural Law, just as they have every previous time for anything that has altered the current picture. To get beside the point that there wouldn't be enough time to properly study it - suppose, in a gedanken sort of way, there was a Purgatory Hill that somehow spared a group of scientists & equipment who then were able to collect the objective evidence and adjust the Natural Laws. Then the 2nd Coming would no longer be a "supernatural" phenomenon by your definition. It would still be, for historical purposes, a supernatural concept, I suppose.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

How else should it be defined? Any other definition makes it impossible to agree on what clearly is and what clearly is not supernatural. If such an event actually happened, and if there were evidence to show that Jesus was born of a woman who was truly a virgin, then this evidence, being entirely and wholly materially perceptible and subject to testing by empirical means, would have to be accounted for within science and within the natural laws. How could it be any other way? Anything empirically detectable must be accounted for within the natural laws, such is the very definition of a 'natural law'. You cannot write up your account of nature, leave out a whole host of known empirically detectable evidences, and still proclaim your account representative of some sort of 'law'. No honest empiricist or scientist would ever operate in such a fashion. Evidence has nothing to do with it, Straggler; neither does induction. Anything which is true (or false) by definition requires no evidence. I've covered the deductive logic behind this already:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 21:

​

The issue is not the origin of the God concept; I think it can be safely agreed upon by most that if there is a supernatural God whose interaction with this world cannot be sensed, then the origin of any concept related to that God can indeed come from nowhere other than the human imagination.

​

However, just because this concept is imaginedand all the evidence tells us it isthe object of this concept, God, is not automatically discounted from actually existing.

---

The point of disagreementand you know this very wellis your insistence that such a theory is scientific and falsifiable. It is neither of these things; it is merely logical: deductive. And being logical does not imply being scientific. Nor does it imply being true. And it certainly doesn't make it inductive (v. thread title).Jon

---

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

By whose definition? Where is this agreed a priori exclusion of the supernatural from science? It certainly wasn't there for Copernicus, Newton or Darwin.Establishing something as real doesn't mean it's natural. Natural and real aren't synonyms.You're keen on peer reviewed papers. Here's one for you. You can't automatically exclude any claims when studying reality and searching for the truth.Science can investigate anything. The prayer studies mentioned here could potentially damage or falsify my theory. The people are praying to a being who created this universe, and is therefore, by definition, above nature. "Above nature" is the commonest and simplest definition of supernatural.In order to declare my theory unfalsifiable, you would need to know that beings who are above nature cannot exist, or that, if existing, they're incapable of demonstrating their existence and supernatural state to us. How can you know this?

I cannot think of anyone who's used these terms as though they are.Can you?

---

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

I can't think of anyone who said that anyone had actually used those terms as though they were.Can you?Perhaps someone implied that someone else was implying that they were.Then, all is explained.

And if it didn't stand up, then it would remain "unknown" and it still wouldn't falsify the theory.

NO. It is BELIEVED to be supernatural. That is not the same as actually being supernatural is it? This is not a rhetorical question. You keep citing examples of human erroneously attributing supernatural causes to natural phenomenon. Do you understand that humans wrongly attributing supernatural causes to natural phenomenon is evidence in favour of the human imagination theory? Evidence in favour of the human proclivity to invent such beings in order to explain the world around them. Or do you actually dispute this? Do you understand the difference between being "inherently materially inexplicable" and being physically undetectable?If a supernatural Christ as described in the bible actually exists you can laboratory test him and his abilities until the cows come home. You can peer review his existence and abilities until there is no more paper to print on or ink to print with. But such a being will never ever be explicable in material terms no matter how comprehensive your study or how advanced your technology. Because a genuinely supernatural being is "inherently materially inexplicable". It cannot be explained in terms of natural laws because it is not bounded by them. That is what "supernatural" means. Literally "above nature". No. No. No. Which part of "inherently materially inexplicable" do you not understand here? Does that sound like the same thing as "not materially explicable at the moment but will be after a bit more time in the lab" to you? Something demonstrably existing to such a standard is NOT the same as that thing being explicable in terms of natural laws is it? The peer reviewed but inherently magical ability to raise people from the dead doesn't mean that there exists a scientific explanation for this ability does it? Which part of the difference between "inexplicable" and "undetectable" is confusing you here? And this is exactly where you are going wrong. When people describe their gods as "supernatural" they are not saying that the object of their belief is just a bit of scientific understanding away from being naturally comprehended. They are describing the object of their belief as inherently "unknowable" in the sense of being immune from material explanation.The fact that people have been persistently wrong in their claims of "unknowable" causes being responsible for natural phenomenon is not an excuse for you to go round re-defining the meaning of the word "supernatural" to be dependent on whatever the current state of human knowledge is at any given point in time.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Firstly you can falsify the theory by finding any non-human source of similarly undetectable concepts. Aliens demonstrating such beliefs. Intelligent animals. Etc. So the theory under discussion is just as falsifiable by natural means as any other scientific theory. Thus your accusation of innate unfalsifiability is itself trivially falsified. But on the question of what is supernatural and what isn't..... 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 by any common definition of "supernatural" is quite blatantly - 'Yes'.The fact that you and Xong and Jon want to turn this into a semantic battle as to whether the theory in question is falsifiable by some other unstated definition of the term "supernatural" (where the second coming of Christ and ensuing biblical Armegaddon somehow fails to qualify as a supernatural event) is frankly rather desperate.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In exactly the same way that other known fictions are not disproven from existing. The Matrix. The magically undetectable Easter Bunny. Fire spirits. Hell. Thor. Santa Claus. Etc. etc. etc. etc. How many such imagined concepts would you describe yourself as "agnostic" towards? Any non-human intelligent being that had invented such concepts would falsify the theory. Aliens. Intelligent animals. Etc. Repeating your mantra that the theory is innately unfalsifiable doesn't make it true. It is as naturalistically falsifiable as any other scientific theory. Then you have failed to understand the inductive element of the theory. Do you know what the word "tentative" means? The ONLY known source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination. From this we inductively, and thus tentatively, conclude that ALL such concepts are sourced from human imagination. This is a high confidence but tentative theory which can be falsified. Which part of this is unscientific or not inductive Jon?

I wouldn't call a theory that's falsified by space aliens, intelligent animals, and supernatural beings very scientific Besides, wouldn't it just become:All supernatural being concepts are sourced from the human imagination.ABE:Or: The ONLY known source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination. Its your theory, you define the terms... I've already agreed to use the definition that you provided anywaysIf your "supernatural event" occured and scientists were capable of studying it and determining a naturalistic explanation, then it wouldn't be supernatural. If it was so supernatural that they couldn't come up with a naturalistic explanation, then the source would not be known.It doesn't matter what your event is, all known sources are going to be naturalistic explantations.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

You've been told multiple times, by myself and other members. You clearly don't want to address the glaring problems with the theory, and would rather repeat the same worn out assertions over and over again without any interest in addressing the counter arguments.As I said before: bicker on... wake me when something worthwhile happens.Jon

---

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

The "glaring problem" here is your assertion that the theory under consideration is unfalsifiable despite being repeatedly told how it could be falsified. In exactly the same way that other known fictions are not disproven from existing. The Matrix. The magically undetectable Easter Bunny. Fire spirits. Hell. Thor. Santa Claus. Etc. etc. etc. etc. How many such imagined concepts would you describe yourself as "agnostic" towards?It seems that you agree with he atheistic position being taken in this thread. Namely that the existence of gods cannot be considered impossible but that all of the evidence indicates that such things are simply as much the product of human imagination as any other known fiction.

I've already indicated, Straggler, my thoughts on the matter of gods and other fictional critters:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 21:

​

The issue is not the origin of the God concept; I think it can be safely agreed upon by most that if there is a supernatural God whose interaction with this world cannot be sensed, then the origin of any concept related to that God can indeed come from nowhere other than the human imagination.
...
Scientifically and inductively there is no evidence for any God;
Scientifically and inductively there is plenty evidence to conclude that all God concepts are made up;

---

All of the methods you've proposed are neither realistic nor relevant.Jon

---

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

My emphasis.Indeed. But this requrement is very much contrary to Xongsmith's nonsensical idea that simply observing, documenting and peer reviewing the existence of something (e.g. Christ as he magically induces biblical Armegeddon) somehow qualifies it as a natural phenomenon. Of course the supernatural source of a concept can be known. You are conflating the demonstrable existence of such a being and the ability to materially explain it's existence. If the supernatural being in question was sitting in front of Xongsmiths team of white coated experts the source of the supernatural concept in question would be very fucking evidentially obvious wouldn't it?For example - The demonstrable existence of an entity that exactly matches the Christian concept of a supernatural Jesus Christ is quite obviously positive evidence in favour of the actual existence of the Christian concept of a supernatural Jesus. The fact that his existence and abilities are beyond material understanding doesn't mean he cannot be detected. The existence of such a being quite blatantly would falsify the theory under discussion. Would you consider the theory that ALL T-Rex's are extinct unscientifically unfalsifiable simply because we can't find any living T-Rex's? At what point does a theory so strong that it has always been correct become "unfalsifiable" to the point that people like you (who don't like it) can yell "It's unscientific. It's unfalsifiable"....? If another source is found the theory would at the very least indeed require that modification. But as things stand the evidence based and inductively derived conclusion is that ALL such concepts are sourced from human imagination.Which part of this are you still disagreeing with?

Then on what basis are you advocating agnosticism rather than tentative atheism? Do you apply such thinking to ALL the undetectable entities the human mind is capable of inventing? They are the same methods by which ANY evidence based scientific conclusion is drawn. Inductively derived evidence based conclusions that tentatively discard unevidenced alternatives are how all scientific conclsusions are structured Jon.