Inductive Atheism

For a laugh Yahweh uses his divine omnipotent will to rejuvenate a rotting corpse back to full health, makes it immortal and then creates a couple of perpetual motion machines for good measure.The centuries pass, the greatest minds in science are applied and the most cutting edge technology is used to investigate, but the results are unable to be replicated and continue to defy all known laws of nature.What material explanation for these supernaturally created phenomenon do you proffer Jon?

Words have meaning based on usage. If you are going to invent your own terminology how can you expect anyone else to know what you are talking about? Then provide precise ones. Is there any scientific theory you think we can rationally have confidence in or is everything simply a matter of personal choice?If asked "How old do you believe the Earth to be?" I would say "Based on the evidence the Earth is almost certainly about 4.7 billion years old". I would not say "I am agnostic regarding the age of the Earth. I have no idea how old it is because it could have been omphalistically created a week ago, a minute ago or indeed at any other point in the past".Likewise if asked "Do gods exist?" I would say "Based on the evidence I consider gods to be nothing more than the products of human imagination, no more likely to actually exist than any other baseless but unfalsifiable fiction". I would not say "I am agnostic regarding the existence of gods because the existence of some wholly undetectable conscious being has not been falsified".So - Is there any scientific theory you think we can rationally have confidence in or is everything simply a matter of personal choice?

Great, so we can agree that it's falsifiable for the domain it was intended to be about.You earlier question that this applied to 'supernatural concepts' but since God is a 'supernatural concept' there seems some tension. We are not talking about concepts that are themselves made of magic or spirit. But concepts about things that are described as of spiritual matters.This is, I believe where we disagree. You seem to think that bluegenes theory with regards to the supernatural is intrinsically unfalsifiable since the observable is natural and therefore the supernatural can never be observed therefore the theory is unfalsifiable. Did I misunderstand your position? I should stop you there. I stipulated the soul was not materially detectable. We can experience cherubs despite light passing through them, despite animals being blind to them, despite no material equipment can detect them. There is no cherub like image in the brain's optic pathways. I was positing a hypothetical world where this was not the case, remember? Where evidence did come in (during some Armageddon like scenario, the original hypothetical). And where, as a consequence, bluegenes general theory is saved only by excuses, dismissals, semantic debate and ad hoc mechanisms.

I'm not sure where you come up with these questions. They certainly have no relationship to anything I've been saying. Obviously something that happens in the natural world cannot defy an actual law of nature; though as you admit, it may certainly defy all known lawsbut that just means what we know of the laws is wrong. I've given several in this thread already. See my discussion with Modulous, for example.Jon

---

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

Then exactly how are they experienced? How can I make physical mouth movements in response to the cherub if there is nowhere in the information chain from the point of the cherub's being to my outward response to its being a connection between what is of the immaterial cherub and what is of my matter? In other words, at some point we must have a communication between whatever is sensing the cherub and whatever is creating the physical response to the cherub. That communication makes the soulthe cherub-sensing devicedetectable. And there's about as much reason for considering the cherub detector immaterial as there is to consider any other detection device that relates information to the physical body immaterial (telephones, light flashes, etc.) unless you're supposing a reality in which logic itself is even unreliable. That's about the gist of it. In as much as BG theory applies to detectable and observable things (which I would not myself call 'supernatural') then it is falsifiable. Yes, but anyone who had already defined supernatural such that an Armageddon would constitute proof of it would have little room for running to hide behind such disingenuous tactics.Jon

---

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

They are experienced by a soul rather than the brain. Of course, and yes, there would be a point in the brain that seemed to generate information from no materially detectable source. So you were, after all, the one playing the word game. Bluegenes specifically referred to beings that could be experienced so he was clearly using a different definition of supernatural than you were. Since it was his wording of his theory, bluegenes' understanding would seem to have primacy in this regard surely?abe: Indeed, seems to me your position finally comes down to:Either bluegenes' theory is tautologous or it is not yet falsified, depending how we interpret the wording.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Given that we are talking about evidence based atheism as per Message 1 this is what you should be talking about. I'll ask again in more explicit terms - Do you apply your "it's just personal preference" line of thinking when comparing all evidence based theories with baseless unfalsified alternatives? Or do you only apply this line of thinking to the theory under discussion? If the "something" that happens in the natural world is the result of the divine will of an omnipotent being then there is no reason for it to be in compliance with any actual natural laws at all. Obviously. I can't find any examples of you providing material explanations for phenomenon that are the result of the divine will of omnipotent beings and which defy "actual natural laws" (to quote you). Can you show me where you have provided such an example?

How is this distinguishable from imagination?Jon

---

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

I don't think I apply that line of thinking to anything that could be regarded as a 'theory'. By the very definition of the term, anything that happens in the natural world is in compliance with actual natural laws. It simply cannot be any other way. I was pretty clear that things acting in the material world could not defy an actual natural law; why you would expect me to now provide evidence of the position that they could is beyond me.Jon

---

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

OK. Can you give me an example of something that you do consider to be a 'theory' and to which you do not apply that line of thinking? In my example an omnipotent Yahweh used his divine omnipotent will to cause something detectable that defies "actual natural laws" to happen in the natural world. Are you saying this is impossible? If so on what basis and what "precise" definition of 'natural' are you applying? Can an omnipotent being of the sort believed to exist by many humans defy "actual natural laws".....? Because that is exactly the sort of thing that common usage of the term "supernatural" entails. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Imagination has a materially detectable source, and is not shared by 1,000 people simultaneously.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

How would we investigate it beyond the conclusion that it was simply random chance?Jon

---

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

Evolution. Logically, yes. I don't even need to define the term; as you describe Yahweh's actions to be observable in 'the natural world' and to violate 'natural laws', whatever definition of the term we choose, such a scenario is its own contradiction. Perhaps, but certainly not in any observable manner that we'd be able to verify.Jon

---

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

Jon you seem to be suggesting that the likelihood of any particular inherently undetectable and unfalsifiable supernatural concept actually existing is functionally equivalent to randomly guessing as to what may or may not exist.Is this what you are saying/How reliable do you think random guessing is as a means of discerning reality?

Jeesh. Did you even read the exchange between Modulous and me? What I said had nothing to do with using random guessing to discern reality.

---

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