Inductive Atheism

So you consider the empirically evidenced theory of evolution to be more likely to be correct than the unfalsifiable and baseless proposition that all the evidence for evolution was put in place by Satan to make us falsely conclude that we are evolved rather than divinely created beings?If this is not accurate can you detail exactly what you do mean? Logically you seem to be contradicting the very notion of "omnipotent". Why can an omnipotent being not defy natural laws in a manner that is observable and verifiable?

As with any experiment, if chance could reasonably still explain the results, you do more trials. Other people run trials. And so on.After that has been ruled out, then I guess we start at the beginning to learn what we can of the new metaphysical realm given our limitations as partly material beings.

Then what was your "random chance" statement referring to aside from human imagination being as reliable as random chance? Be specific.

Whatever, Straggler. I'm tired of leading your pony through the show. It's time you learned how to ride.Jon

---

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

But the data could just as easily be explained as the result of an unheard-of level of coincidence as they could be explained as the result of some immaterial spirit realm.When both of our conclusions are so extraordinary, what's the precedent for accepting one over the other?Jon

---

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

Any scientific data can just as easily be explained as the result of unheard of chance rather than as confirmation for the researchers theory. The chance of that being the case can be calculated to some degree. When one is much less extraordinary. If we both know somebody has the passkey and is instructed to feed it to the people, it seems strange to regard 'they all got it by sheer luck' as a hypothesis on equal footing.

I put it to you that the proposed existence of any given entirely undetectable and unfalsifiable entity is no more likely to actually exist than is any other human imagined being. I put it to you that the proposed actual existence of any such entity is functionally equivalent to randomly guessing that such an entity actually exists. I put it to you that randomly guessing is not a reliable means of determining what does and does not exist.On this basis I put it to you that the actual existence of any given undetectable and unfalsifiable entity (i.e, supernatural entity by your own definition) is very unlikely to actually exist.On this basis I put it to you that tentative atheism as opposed to "I don't know because there is an absence of evidence" agnosticism is the rational and evidentially valid conclusion regarding such entities.Where do you disagree with this analysis?

Which would involve investigating the other confirmatory evidence for the researcher's theory; as far as spirit realms go, we've done that and have come up empty handed. Given our evidence, it is very unlikely that either conclusion is correct: the spirit realms seem non-existent and such coincidence seems all but impossible. Who is this somebody?Jon

---

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

Because that which is observable and verifiable is by definition that which is derived from or subject to Natural Law.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Kinda says it in a nutshell.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

The somebody is Roger, the cherub.

Where do ethics, morality and justice come into this? Did you mean "physical law"? We construct laws based on observations of the world, but none of these are known to be universal, and verified observations are not obliged to fit them, and are not defined as fitting them."That which is observable" means that which can be observed/noticed. Observations would be "verified", scientifically speaking, by repeatability. Scientific observations and descriptions exist separately from scientific explanations. We can observe and describe the orbit of the moon without having an explanation of how it came to be there, why it orbits, and what makes it follow that particular orbit.If someone observes a man transforming into a wolf, and captures the wolf, he (and others) can make observations relating to the creature. If it transforms back into a man the following day, and the man/wolf, wolf/man transformation takes place regularly once a month, repeatable scientific observations can be made.A werewolf is currently regarded as an SB-concept. Atoms rearranging themselves in such a way blows our physics apart. Whether or not we decide to describe the creature as supernatural or merely unexplained pending future understanding (and radical redefinition) of nature, it is a reasonable falsification of my theory, because what is considered an SB concept has been shown, beyond all reasonable doubt, to have a real existence external to our minds.I think some people on this thread need to bear in mind the actual descriptions of popular SB-concepts. SBs frequently materialize. They are certainly not defined as "empirically in-detectable". It also might be worth searching Google for "supernatural beings definition".Beings that influence the world are, by definition, potentially detectable by science.

We know the cherub has the passkey? I thought the whole purpose was to attempt a verification of the cherub; if we have to assume the cherub's reality in order to discount the 'sheer luck' hypothesis, then I'd suppose the cherub hypothesis is in more trouble than I previously stated.Jon

---

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

Well we experienced giving Roger the passkey, and we experienced telling him to relay it to our test subjects.So what do you think is more likely1. We're deluded beyond hope
2. Roger is real.
3. A 1 in 10^300 outcome occurred coincidentally after we called it as a result of hallucinating.

That's all good and well, but never in the history of science has anything with the properties you ascribe to the cherub been considered 'immaterial'.Jon

---

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