Inductive Atheism

How else can something become known in science? Then, the people who though Jim Jones was a supernatural being had a source for their concept that was not their imagination.

The existence of an entity can become known to science simply by virtue of being empirically detectable. But do you understand the difference between "materially undetectable" and "inherently materially inexplicable".......? As per the Jesus example given previously. What, aside from their need to believe combined with their imagination, led people to believe that Jim Jones was a supernatural being rather than a man claiming to be one? What tests of this "supernaturality" were undertaken?Humans wrongly believing things to be supernatural is evidence in favour of the human imagination theory. Not evidence against it. Obviously.

What does either agnosticism or atheism have to do with the parts you quoted from my Message 21? Where in this thread have I ever advocated one position over the other? Indeed; and when it comes to many god concepts, such methodology is perfectly applicable.But how is any of this related to your theory on supernatural concepts?Jon

---

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

Why don't you explain it to us...Jon

---

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 more to it than that... I dunno... If its materially undetectable then it is inherently materially inexplicable, but the opposite isn't necessarily true. Exactly. What tests are going to be performed that are going to lead the scientists to know that the Jesus is supernatural?

Here is that passage again: Hence the conclusion that the actual existence of such necessary fictions should be taken no more seriously than any other unfalsifiable notion the human imagination is capable of conjuring up. Hence tentative atheism towards the actual existence of such beings. As per the methodology we are inductively applying it to ALL such concepts. Which concepts do you think this methodology cannot or should not be inductively applied to? The inductively derived high confidence theory that ALL such concepts are products of the human mind and no more likely to actually exist than any other unfalsifiable fiction. Given that you too think all supernatural god concepts are human fictions on what basis do you think that such things are any more or less likely to actually exist than (for example) ethereal toilet goblins?In evidential terms is there any difference between the two and if not is there any basis for making a distinction in terms of taking an agnostic or tentatively atheistic position?

What do you think the example of an empirically detectable supernatural Christ 'God the son' was about? And if really interested you could look up the meaning of "undetectable" and compare it to the meaning of "inexplicable" using a dictionary...... But for the fun of it I will go through it again using our old Armageddon example to highlight the difference in thinking: The second coming of Christ 'God the son' and ensuing Armageddon is in full swing. Christians are being exhalted into raptuous heavenly paradise, the dead coming bodily back to life, giant scorpions drag people into a great fiery abyss, Angels start decreeing various plagues on the unfaithful and the fornicators. Meanwhile 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 before being cast into the abyss to be tormented for all eternity by demons.Now by your reckoning these events and beings fail to be evidence of anything supernatural simply by virtue of being empirically detectable. Even as our white coated experts are flung into the fiery abyss to be tortured by demons for all eternity than can congratulate themselves on their rational rejection of the supernatural because there remains absolutely no evidence of supernatural beings actually existing. All is natural in the world right up to and including the end of times occurring as biblically foretold. Hurrah for the supernatural skeptics say you and Xongsmith in unison even as you too are handed judgement of your eternal fate from Christ himself.Now I say this is fucking silly. I say that these events do quite clearly constitute positive evidence of the supernatural beings and events described in the bible. The fact that Jesus and Angels etc. are empirically detectable doesn't somehow make these magical concepts unbounded by any laws of nature, material restrictions or physical nature of the world "natural". The demonstrable abilities, indeed very existence, of these beings would seem to be as materially inexplicable in terms of natural laws (as "unknowable") as all those Christians whom I had thought so silly kept saying.As such I, along with Mod and bluegenes, would consider it reasonable to admit that positive evidence for the supernatural does exist and thus consider bluegenes theory falsified by any reasonable measure. Furthermore I think we would also consider it reasonable to admit that in the face of the second coming of Christ 'God the son' our tentative atheism should also be considered falsified.I guess that is just the kind of reasonable and willing to accept when we are wrong kinda guys that we are.........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Like? If gods are materially detectable to humans why can we not photograph them, film them etc. Are they shy? If it's materially undetectable then no human can have detected it and the concept in question is necessarily a product of human imagination. How can it be otherwise? My point exactly. A supernatural being such as Christ or Thor or Zeus or whatever would be materially detectable but their abilities and even existence would not be able to be explained in material terms. As the son of God born from a virgin the DNA of Christ would be really rather interesting wouldn't it? Would he in scientific DNA analysis terms be a clone of his mother? Would he have sort of "perfect" DNA? Would he have any DNA at all? Evidence based inquiry can never lead one to "know" in the sense of prove can it? But the giveaway that such a being might be supernatural would be derived from things like the above and from their abilities. The being that exactly matches the biblical description of Christ turns vats of water into fine merlot, does a little jig on top of a puddle without getting his toes wet, feeds the entire city on a few bread crumbs and a pilchard before announcing - "Whilst this has been fun I really do need to get on with bringing about the end of times". At which point the whole biblical Armageddon thing kicks off.Are you really saying that this wouldn't falsify bluegenes theory? At the very least can you see why Mod, bluegenes and I think it does?

Like actually studying it. I don't know. Do you really want me to speculate here? Right, so they couldn't become known to science. Its your analogy... Once again, I'll tell you that I will not use the word "know" in any since that means proven or that would require the scare-quotes around it. I still don't see how science would know that its supernatural. I think the causes of those things would remain as unknown, unless they did have a naturalistic explantion, but then they would actually be supernatural. Yes, because the source of those supernatural concepts would either be shown to have a naturalistic explanation or would remain as scientifically unknown. I can see why it would convince you guys that you were wrong about the supernatural, but I don't see it actually falsifying the theory.

Maybe because they don't actually exist? In the bewildering absence of any empirical evidence for empirically detectable beings that billions of people have claimed to have expereinced empirically..... All we have available to study are the supernatural concepts as described by humans. And the more we study those the more evidence there is in favour of the human imagination theory under discussion. Given that the entire notion that supernatural beings actually exist is derived from such baseless speculation combined with human conviction I am not sure what is stopping you from doing so. Feel free. I am intrigued to hear what you have to say on the matter. Since when did "known" and "explained" mean the same thing? There are all sorts of things "known" to science that as yet lack scientific explanation. Dark matter, abiogenesis, consciousness, gravitational singularities etc. etc. etc. etc. Given your conflation of "known" with "explained" I have little confidence in your ability to make the more subtle differentiation between evidence based forms of tentative "knowledge" from a more definitive form of "know". You now seem to be suggesting that the demonstrable existence of an entity that exactly matches the Christian concept of a supernatural Jesus isn't evidence in favour of the actual existence of the supernatural Christian concept of Jesus. Even the most rabid cynic would have to admit that this is a somewhat overly skeptical approach. If you are not demanding proof for falsification then what distinction are you making here?

Huh? Like I already said, I'm not advocating either position over the other. But, of course, you don't have a clue what the likelihood of existence is for 'unfalsifiable fictions'. Have I ever argued that the existence of supernatural entities of any type should be taken seriously? You don't seem to understand the difference between god concepts (many of which are natural and falsifiable) and supernatural concepts (none of which are natural and none of which are falsifiableor verifiable, for that matter).Jon

---

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

How can you materially detect something without also being able to materially explain it?A materially detectable Jesus raising materially detectable dead people and giving them a materially detectable life (animation, etc.), and materially detectable demons casting materially detectable scientists into a materially detectable pit of materially detectable flames, and materially detectable plagues wiping out a materially detectable amount of life on the materially detectable planet known as Earth, etc. are materially inexplicable?Surely you are insane; look, there is Jesus: he got a beard, wears a robe, walks around with an angry pain on his face; and look at those people coming from the graves: they are covered in dirt, with rotting suits and dresses on: behold the demons!: they're covered in scales, their heads and necks are many, and they've strength like nothing before seen; and don't forget those plagues: spots on that man's face tell me he's got the disease, and this withered field of crop says that locusts have been here...If I can materially detect something, I can materially explain it.JonEdited by Jon, : genitive's clitic

---

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

As others have pointed out before, your use of terms such as 'laws of nature' reveal a gross misunderstanding of what science is and what natural laws are really about.Until this is cleared up, I don't think you will ever understand the points that are being made in this thread (or the other dozens you've started/derailed for discussing the 'supernatural').Peace.Jon

---

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

For one, if it was an isolated incidence.Also. Sometimes, here at work, we'll get complaints about product performance where we'll receive the result of problem, i.e. materially detect it, but if we cannot replicate the phenomenon in the lab and investigate it, then we can't explain what's happening. Sometimes we're left with: "It happened, but we don't know how the hell that happened."

To be clear: How/what studying? If you find an explanation, then it was a naturalistic one, and the theory is supported.If you don't find an explanation, then the source remains unknown, and theory is not weakened.All knowable sources are going to be naturalistic explanations. Here? For a while now. What, two threads back? That's the thing, the explanation for those things aren't known to science. The way your using it now, yeah, all supernatural being concepts are known to science. Sniffle. Does that mean you're gonna stop typing to me? Does it ever cross your mind that if you think someone is saying something completely ridiculous, that maybe that's not what they're really saying? That you, yourself, could experience something that was capable of convincing you that a supernatural being exists but that didn't falsify the theory.