Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inductive Atheism
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 361 of 536 (610928)
04-03-2011 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Jon
04-03-2011 7:28 PM


Re: a material point
BG's theory seems to change clothes with the weather. But I didn't really come here to talk about bluegenes; afterall, it was Straggler who started the thread.
Indeed, the inductive atheist argument. I tried getting back to it earlier. So let me try again. The inductive atheist argument is that since the only known source of supernatural entities is the humans imagination then we inductively conclude it is the only source of supernatural entities: This includes supernatural entities titled 'god'.
Supernatural as meant in this version includes all the things I've been discussing and more. Therefore, if any information can be given by a creature with the characteristics of the supernatural the induction is shown to be faulty. Further, if god was so kind as to help us out - we might likewise identify something that looks like a deity to really drive the nail into the induction - even if it is not a deity it is definitely a source of deity concepts that is now known.
Since you agree that
the cherub-soul hypothesis is falsifiable.
I'm still wondering what your point of objection is: Is it that Straggler's reasoning is tautologous or falsifiable and not falsified depending on how we choose to interpret Straggler?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Jon, posted 04-03-2011 7:28 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Jon, posted 04-04-2011 1:48 PM Modulous has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 362 of 536 (610988)
04-04-2011 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by xongsmith
04-03-2011 6:47 PM


Re: SB concepts.
xongsmith writes:
If by "establishing the existence of", you mean scientific observation and verification, especially by reproducing the observations else where within the scientific community, then, as has been done with everything else at odds with the body of natural laws prior to this development, the body of natural laws will be modified so as to describe this phenomenon - it will be folded into the natural laws, and thus the werewolf would no longer be supernatural. If there were aspects of it that could not yield to satisfactory analysis, then such aspects would still not be established and would still not be verified. The very process of observation and verification removes it from the supernatural and thus it no longer can falsify your theory.
You don't need to modify any laws to make observations and describe something. "A man who transforms himself into a wolf for the night of the full moon every month". There's your description. Description doesn't mean "explanation". To explain that particular phenomenon, you'd be talking about throwing out laws wholesale, rather than modifying them.
Science has never been faced with a werewolf. A werewolf is an SB-concept. It is not constrained by the physical world. Laws are derived from observed patterns and consistencies. SBs by definition, if they exist, could only be covered by a "law of the inconsistency and unpredictability of reality". This would contradict all other laws.
X writes:
In Message 304, Jon points out emphatically:
Jon writes:
When, in all the history of making observations of the natural world, has 'it's magic' ever been a scientifically permissible explanation for new observations which conflict with our old understandings?
So they would fold it in. This is because science modifies itself.
What science "permits" depends on the epoch and on on your definition and philosophy of science. Did you not read the paper I linked to earlier? Modern science has never used "it's magic" as an explanation because it has never been faced with a being or phenomenon whose obvious best explanation is "it's magical." But it has, historically, considered supernatural hypotheses. Read Origin of Species for just one example of this being done.
So, this is an argument from precedence where there is no proper precedent. Science has never been faced with a repeatedly observable apparent SB that smashes its laws.
Discarding its laws entirely is not best described by the word "modification". In order to survive, it could describe the werewolf as a "singularity". That's an expression used for areas where our current physics and maths breaks down.
Now, consider this. Evolutionary theory would be effectively falsified as an explanation of the history of the biosphere if we found a whole load of mammals in the pre-cambrian and some trees and flowering plants in rocks well-dated at 1 billion years old. This would apply whether or not we could explain the new finds. A werewolf is currently considered supernatural, and is an SB-concept we have in our minds. A "singularity" werewolf, a creature whose appearance and behaviour can be observed to fit our werewolf concept accurately, would certainly be a reasonable falsification of my theory. I could no longer claim that the concept originated from human invention rather than a real external source that definitely matches the concept.
xong writes:
bluegenes writes:
Do you agree that "real" doesn't mean "natural"? They're not synonyms in my O.E.D.
1. real: existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious
2. real: being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary
1.natural: having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.
2. natural: in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional
this one has the problem of then defining what the "ordinary course of nature" is. Not a major roadblock, as the definition Straggler and I agreed to uses the term "natural law", which can also be thought of as the "ordinary course of nature". I have also used the term "body of Natural Law", which is merely the entire, vast lump sum of accepted scientific knowledge to date.
3. natural: of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments
this also uses the word natural in the definition
4. natural: not supernatural or strange: natural phenomena
this one isn't of use because it is circular in this argument. No doubt when you look up supernatural, it will say "not natural"....
[Looking at these, in regard to your theory, I'm leaning towards the 2nd definition of real and the 1st definition of natural.]
Here they are.
2. real: being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary
1.natural: having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.
"Natural" as an adjective has lots of different uses. No. 9 out of 13 in my O.E.D. is "having a physical existence as opposed to what is spiritual, intellectual etc.". Note the redundancy of "real" in your definition. If it has a physical existence, of course it is real. All natural things are real, but not all real things are necessarily natural. Hence the absence of the word natural from definitions of real.
No. 2 for "natural" in the O.E.D. is "in the course of nature; not exceptional or miraculous".
xongsmith writes:
And if the nuance between objective existence and physical existence is too much, I would replace each one with "objective, physical existence" to cover the bases. Or is this the very difference you wish to mean?
So, you've inserted physical into your definition of real. Then you'll want everything physical to be natural. So, only natural things can be real according to you. Therefore, bluegene's theory is a fact, not a falsifiable theory. Is that correct?
All natural things being real is fine. But it doesn't follow that all real things are natural. Or physical. Nor does it follow that the materialized (and therefore physical) form of a supernatural being would be natural. Many SB-concepts are described as having a physical presence.
So, a werewolf being real does not mean that it has to be natural. Your definition of real again: being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary.
Do you understand the reason why scientific theories should make predictions and therefore risk falsification? My theory predicts that we will never be able to make repeatable observations of a werewolf.
If you want a good example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis, check out your brother's "communicating SB's" idea in relation to the creation mythologies. Whatever the content of the mythologies, it fits. That's because it predicts nothing about their content, because the stories could have been distorted out of recognition over time, etc.
However, my theory predicts that there will be no special knowledge in the stories that our ancestors could only have received from SBs. The theory would be damaged if such knowledge was identified. The communicating SB's hypothesis is fine with or without special knowledge in the stories.
So, do you understand why science considers predictive theories to be falsifiable? They say something definite about reality, and do not fit all conceivable eventualities.
Prediction of my theory: Obama will not turn out to be the anti-Christ as believed by some.
Prediction of my theory: The group in America who are loudly predicting the rapture/second coming etc. to start this May will be wrong.
The theory necessarily predicts these things and many others, not me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by xongsmith, posted 04-03-2011 6:47 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by xongsmith, posted 04-05-2011 1:21 AM bluegenes has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 363 of 536 (610991)
04-04-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Modulous
04-03-2011 7:35 PM


A Few Objections
I'm still wondering what your point of objection is: Is it that Straggler's reasoning is tautologous or falsifiable and not falsified depending on how we choose to interpret Straggler?
First, Straggler said this (emphasis added):
quote:
Straggler in Message 187:
If Jesus pops up and starts the whole armeggadon thing, raising people from the dead and whatnot, even the most ardent athest would eventually have to be considered somewhat churlish to sit there saying "I am sure that there is a perfectly good scientific material explanation for this".
No one would be 'churlish' for supposing that a phenomenon observable in the material world should have a material explanation or be within the scope of science.
Second, Straggler appears fond of this definition for 'supernatural' (it's popped up in the last umpteen threads he's started):
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.
This seems to commit him to the definition of 'supernatural' toward which I've myself shown favor: something outside of nature and immaterial (non-empirical). Anything observable in nature which is materially observable (empirical) must, by definition, be subject to natural laws and be materially explicable; since Straggler reckons his 'supernatural' to be not 'subject to natural laws' and 'materially inexplicable', it must be that Straggler is utilizing the definition of 'supernatural' which renders 'supernatural' things entirely outside the realm of observation (even by the most indirect means), thus:
quote:
Straggler in Message 1:
ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination.
... is neither scientific nor falsifiable when using the proposed Straggler definition of 'supernatural'. Now, I've long held that most gods/spooks/goblins/etc. are easily falsifiable; you can find my stance on them in almost every thread Straggler's started on the supernatural. However, Straggler's insistence that his definition of 'supernatural' can include such falsifiable entities as Thor, the man from the clouds who uses hammers to make thunder, is completely ridiculous. Dancing out of this little contradiction, of course, is the purpose behind his current tactic: attempt to differentiate between materially detectable and materially explicable; but that's simply nonsenseall material explanations are little more than logically arranged lists of materially detectable phenomena, some contain more phenomena, some fewer, along with a little inventiveness.
Third, even using a more liberal definition, we've still got the problem of the statement 'ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination' being just ridiculously silly. There are no evidenced concepts currently labeled 'supernatural', and all concepts once so labeled but now evidenced and understood through science have lost this label. Thus, even when 'supernatural' does not refer solely to things for which no evidence can be offered, it certainly seems to preclude anything which currently does rest on evidenced science. Hence my previous summation of the BG theory:
quote:
Jon in Message 346:
Any concept not derived from evidence external to the mind must have originated within the mind.
Fourth, all meaningful theories require human creativity to connect the points, otherwise we've got nothing but lists of evidence. Straggler has not given any indication as to how much creativity is permissible in a theory before it becomes 'supernatural'; Thor, for example, is a concept that is, at its core, derived from natural phenomena. Like all theories, it involves some inventiveness, but nothing that isn't falsifiable. Why do we call Thor 'supernatural' but not the theory of evolution? I personally have no idea why we should call one 'supernatural' but not the other, so I simply don't bother trying to make such a distinction; if we can test for it, then that's good enough for meI don't need to discern its level of 'spookism'.
In the end, any attempt to relate the supernatural to science is just pointless; the trillion threads Straggler has started insisting there's a valid relationship are equally as pointless. It doesn't matter how it's defined, the supernatural is simply irrelevant when it comes to doing sciencethat's my objection.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : clarity/spelling

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Modulous, posted 04-03-2011 7:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Modulous, posted 04-04-2011 7:35 PM Jon has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1494 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 364 of 536 (611006)
04-04-2011 4:24 PM


It seems to me the supernatural is "supra" above, beyond natural laws. Events or accounts or phenomenon or creatures or whatever are described supernatural if they are inofthemselves as Straggler says..."inexplicable". When science catches up' manytimes the once thought supernatural is explained scientifically. We need words that trancend the natural laws in order to decribe that which does not ascribe to those said laws. This is why intitally I took issue with trying to apply scientific principals to the supernatural which by it's very description would prove beyond scientific probing. As science does require some testable reality to bear out its theories. Otherwise it is unevidenced. The effects of light propagating through a unevidenced supernatural medium called ether was deems incorrect by Dr. Einstien's theories, that where eventually confirmed by observation. It is those things that are untestable, unconfirmable and beyond the realms of nature and natural law that I call supernatual, like ether, these are usually things we fill in the gaps of our knowlege with. If it happens in nature it is not supernatural. Can the supernatural exist in a universe that manifest itself according to physics? If the answer is yes, then the next question would be how could it ever be evidenced? How could it ever be confirmed? If by it's very nature it defys the very laws we use to make such distictions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 8:48 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 365 of 536 (611017)
04-04-2011 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Jon
04-04-2011 1:48 PM


Re: A Few Objections
No one would be 'churlish' for supposing that a phenomenon observable in the material world should have a material explanation or be within the scope of science.
I think the spirit of Straggler's words is clear enough. If the supernatural were real, and evidenced itself in a manner that was clear - it would be churlish to deny it just because it doesn't fit our preconceptions.
This seems to commit him to the definition of 'supernatural' toward which I've myself shown favor: something outside of nature and immaterial (non-empirical).
I see no reason it should be non-empirical. It can be experienced, and information can be acquired that can in principle be tested. Seems like it can be empirical. Indeed, the insistence on the users of the word supernatural as something in which they say they believe, it is almost always detectable in some fashion.
Is your main beef that Straggler's definition is a little makeshift? That if you interpret it in a certain way it becomes tautologous? Would you accept that if you interpret it another way it is more reasonable?
ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination.
... is neither scientific nor falsifiable when using the proposed Straggler definition of 'supernatural'.
Only if Straggler is claiming that all supernatural concepts are unexperiencable which he is definitely not doing since he is citing examples of when they might be. So it is only tautologous when you use your erroneous interpretation of Straggler's definition which relies on the notion that all that is experienced is natural which assumes metaphysical naturalism!
If something labelled Jesus had powers that we would classify 'magical/spiritual/supernatural' was experienced by us, this would falsify the notion that the only known source of these things is the human imagination. There is now another known source: direct experience and thus the induction fails just as if a black swan turns up.
Since Straggler cites this example as a possible falsification, you must have misinterpreted his position based upon your own preconceptions about reality and nature, spiritual planes, material explicability etc.
Third, even using a more liberal definition, we've still got the problem of the statement 'ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination' being just ridiculously silly. There are no evidenced concepts currently labeled 'supernatural', and all concepts once so labeled but now evidenced and understood through science have lost this label.
They lost that label because those domains were shown to be explainable with naturally occurring forces. They were falsified - no intervention external to nature needed. Not even once or twice did they show up to counter the natural order of things.
There are other gaps that people seem intent on cramming gods into though, so they remained unfalsified or unfalsifiable.
Fourth, all meaningful theories require human creativity to connect the points, otherwise we've got nothing but lists of evidence. Straggler has not given any indication as to how much creativity is permissible in a theory before it becomes 'supernatural'; Thor, for example, is a concept that is, at its core, derived from natural phenomena. Like all theories, it involves some inventiveness, but nothing that isn't falsifiable. Why do we call Thor 'supernatural' but not the theory of evolution?
The point is, that technically 'we' don't call Thor supernatural. Supernaturalists do. There maybe people that believe Thor is a natural being with advanced technology.
Why call them supernatural? Because the supernaturalists say they are not constrained by the same laws that constrain us when it comes to interacting with the natural world. They may have their own laws above and beyond ours 'super' natural laws and different entities may have differing levels of mastery or freedom of constraints. They say they are from a place 'above' or beyond the realm we are familliar with that we call 'nature'. That's what they say. The counter theory is that all such concepts are figments of the imagination, citing the fact that the only place we know for sure these concepts can arise is in the human imagination. Nobody has empirically demonstrated the place beyond exists, or that anyone has had a real experience with any of its denizens.
If we all started having experiences with the denizens from one sect of supernaturalist - this reasoning would collapse.
In the end, any attempt to relate the supernatural to science is just pointless; the trillion threads Straggler has started insisting there's a valid relationship are equally as pointless. It doesn't matter how it's defined, the supernatural is simply irrelevant when it comes to doing sciencethat's my objection.
True, but cultural ideas and beliefs are very much natural phenomenon that can be investigated. Their origins discussed. One set of theories of the origins of these phenomena is that the human mind confabulates these ideas and confuses imagination with 'another realm of possibilities' and along with a teleological mindset leads us to invent intelligent beings etc etc.
Remembering that falsification is actually a stepwise process of numerous counterexample that strain a theory beyond the intellectual tolerance of its adherants. If a series of godlike beings were show to actually exist, regardless of whether you choose to call them natural or supernatural, this would show the inductive argument to be fallacious. A second source exists, whether it is a real supernatural god or a real natural god.
So your argument is still semantics. If you actually look at the pragmatics - the actual meaning behind Stragglers posts as if they were coherent: rather than looking at them as being wrong and therefore seing incoherance you might realize this.
The theory relies on there being no other source of gods
If some beings existed that had the characteristics described as gods by people, the theory can no longer rely on there being a single source. Direct experience is another source.
Right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Jon, posted 04-04-2011 1:48 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Jon, posted 04-04-2011 10:21 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 368 by xongsmith, posted 04-05-2011 1:28 AM Modulous has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 366 of 536 (611051)
04-04-2011 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Modulous
04-04-2011 7:35 PM


Re: A Few Objections
Would you accept that if you interpret it another way it is more reasonable?
I don't see any other way to interpret it; 'neither derived from nor subject to natural laws and thus inherently materially inexplicable' pretty much rules out anything empirical, as far as I can tell.
Only if Straggler is claiming that all supernatural concepts are unexperiencable which he is definitely not doing since he is citing examples of when they might be.
Indeed; this is one of the problems I mentioned. I cannot see how his stock definition can be considered a description of empirically detectable entities. I've read through it many times in hopes of seeing some allowance for such things, but I simply cannot see it.
Unfortunately, Straggler's been less than helpful in clearing up confusions about his position (in this thread and many others). Perhaps you could help where he's unwilling to? If Thor were real, what about him wouldn't be subject to natural laws? What would be materially inexplicable?
Because the supernaturalists say they are not constrained by the same laws that constrain us when it comes to interacting with the natural world.
We shouldn't let their misunderstanding of science affect how we do science, should we?
If you actually look at the pragmatics - the actual meaning behind Stragglers posts as if they were coherent
For all the examples Straggler's given, I agree that the entities are detectable, and that the hypothesis that they are the product of the human imagination is falsifiable.
True, but cultural ideas and beliefs are very much natural phenomenon that can be investigated. Their origins discussed. One set of theories of the origins of these phenomena is that the human mind confabulates these ideas and confuses imagination with 'another realm of possibilities' and along with a teleological mindset leads us to invent intelligent beings etc etc.
If the case is just to determine the source of cultural supernatural concepts, I'd say almost all supernatural concepts are derived, to some degree, from the natural world. Like any theory, there's stuff in them that is made up, but most surely derive from experience with the natural world; even my concept of GOD, whom I believe to be an entirely undetectable being, has been 'concocted'so to speakbased on my experience with the natural world around me.
Actually, the source of cultural supernatural beliefs would be a much more interesting discussion than the one we've got here.
Jon

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Modulous, posted 04-04-2011 7:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Modulous, posted 04-05-2011 8:39 AM Jon has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 367 of 536 (611066)
04-05-2011 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by bluegenes
04-04-2011 1:32 PM


Re: SB concepts.
bluegenes writes:
You don't need to modify any laws to make observations and describe something. "A man who transforms himself into a wolf for the night of the full moon every month". There's your description.
BULL-f'ing-SHIT. This little description of yours would NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER pass muster in science.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by bluegenes, posted 04-04-2011 1:32 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by bluegenes, posted 04-05-2011 5:20 AM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 368 of 536 (611067)
04-05-2011 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 365 by Modulous
04-04-2011 7:35 PM


Re: A Few Objections
Modulous writes:
I think the spirit of Straggler's words is clear enough.
But they are full of boring sawdust. Spirit? More like an oscilloscope's flat line calibration before we begin.
He is full full of prejudicial a'priori assumptions about philosophy, science and law that assume way too much in this revolutionary expedition we are in. He is holding back the machine. He wants to smoke a cigar and make us wait.
A-1 would have kicked him off the train a long time ago.
But I have hopes for him.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Modulous, posted 04-04-2011 7:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Modulous, posted 04-05-2011 8:47 AM xongsmith has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 369 of 536 (611076)
04-05-2011 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by xongsmith
04-05-2011 1:21 AM


Re: SB concepts.
xongsmith writes:
BULL-f'ing-SHIT. This little description of yours would NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER pass muster in science.
It's kind of the person who was recently informing us that science doesn't ask "why" questions to inform us that brief descriptions never appear in scientific papers. Of course, in reality, they do.
Of course the scientists will go on to observe, record and describe everything they can about the creature, but description isn't explanation, and they won't be able to "fold" it into their scientific view without some explanation, beyond accepting that it is real.
Anyway, your arguments seem to have been based on the misconception that "real" means "natural", so I hope we've sorted that out. When people ask "Are angels real?" they don't mean "Are angels natural?", they mean "Do angels exist?". See your own definition of "real" above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by xongsmith, posted 04-05-2011 1:21 AM xongsmith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 370 of 536 (611081)
04-05-2011 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Jon
04-04-2011 10:21 PM


Turns out: no objections
If the case is just to determine the source of cultural supernatural concepts, I'd say almost all supernatural concepts are derived, to some degree, from the natural world. Like any theory, there's stuff in them that is made up, but most surely derive from experience with the natural world; even my concept of GOD, whom I believe to be an entirely undetectable being, has been 'concocted'so to speakbased on my experience with the natural world around me.
Welcome to bluegenes' theory/Inductive atheism.
The imagination doesn't create things de novo. It modifies other ideas such as alpha male hunters with better than human hunting powers aka Gods.
The scientific literature tends to say that supernatural/religious/supersticious beliefs are 'minimally counter-intuitive':
Religion’s evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion, Atran and Norenzayan, 2004
Negation and Doubt in Religious Representations: Context-Dependence, Emotion and Action., Franks, 2003
Contextualizing Counterintuitiveness: How context affects comprehension and memorability of counterintuitive concepts, Upal, Sloane, 2005
Actually, the source of cultural supernatural beliefs would be a much more interesting discussion than the one we've got here.
Tell me about it. It seems that if someone suggests that ghosts are just the products of the human mind's proclivity to think of minds and bodies as seperate, visual hallucinations, agency detection etc. Or that god might just be a mental process, people seem to lose their shit.
They try and say the theory is useless since you can't test it, it can't be falsified, or it has no evidence. Then after several threads, they voice the same theory in different words and still believe they object to the original theory.
It's bewildering. If it helps you:
For all the examples Straggler's given, I agree that the entities are detectable, and that the hypothesis that they are the product of the human imagination is falsifiable.
Imagine we weren't talking about your preconceived notion of supernatural, but some other notion of the supernatural that you may think is not really supernatural but it doesn't really matter what you call it, as I've been saying all along. If you want to use a different word to describe the things Straggler calls supernatural, rather than be legalistic and try and show how Straggler's definition of supernatural differs from his description of it we might have the opportunity to talk about the interesting stuff rather than getting stuck on the first sentence 'I believe supernatural ideas originate in the human mind, sourced from events and cultural notions.'

I should point out that way back in '09 the case of the unknowable and non-perceived entity as necessarily being the product of the human mind was dealt with (see Message 201, in Pseudoskepticism and logic). We have long since been talking about the much more interesting case of entities that can in principle provide information about themselves to people. You are the one dragging us back 18 months in argument, to make a point already agreed on by this side of the argument.
Now all that is required is for your imagination to imagine a being not made of material and not constrained by the same regulations of interactions that we as humans are and how such a being being perceived would affect a theory that proposes they are also mere products of the imagination.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Jon, posted 04-04-2011 10:21 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Jon, posted 04-05-2011 10:32 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 371 of 536 (611082)
04-05-2011 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 368 by xongsmith
04-05-2011 1:28 AM


Re: A Few Objections
But they are full of boring sawdust. Spirit? More like an oscilloscope's flat line calibration before we begin.
What?
He is full full of prejudicial a'priori assumptions about philosophy, science and law that assume way too much in this revolutionary expedition we are in.
And yet he is the one that would be happy to admit he was wrong about philosophy and science and has described what circumstances would do that. Bloody stubborn bastard. I have seen you and Jon's preconceptions cause you to get into all kinds of strange knots. Good luck with that.
But I have hopes for him.
Did your post serve any purpose other than to insult Straggler in some tangential fashion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by xongsmith, posted 04-05-2011 1:28 AM xongsmith has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 372 of 536 (611085)
04-05-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 370 by Modulous
04-05-2011 8:39 AM


Re: Turns out: no objections
... we might have the opportunity to talk about the interesting stuff ...
There's really nothing interesting to talk about, which is why this thread has been predominantly mental masturbation, as I said back in Message 116, well before I actually began participating.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Modulous, posted 04-05-2011 8:39 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Modulous, posted 04-05-2011 10:49 AM Jon has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 373 of 536 (611086)
04-05-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 372 by Jon
04-05-2011 10:32 AM


Re: Turns out: no objections
Jon writes:
Actually, the source of cultural supernatural beliefs would be a much more interesting discussion than the one we've got here.
Mod writes:
If you want to use a different word to describe the things Straggler calls supernatural...might have the opportunity to talk about the interesting stuff rather than getting stuck on the first sentence...
Jon writes:
There's really nothing interesting to talk about
You are right there is nothing interesting to talk about, the inductive reasoning is banal and mundane. But some people seem to stretch all reason to find a reason to argue against it, even sometimes when they agree with it! It can be interesting to point out problems with these reasons.
As for whether or not Jon can find something of interest to discuss around this subject I cannot guess it seems to vary post by post. If not, you should probably, for the sake of your personal enjoyment, stop participating. You are the second most prolific mental masturbator in this thread. If you think the debate should stop, stop debating. A great deal of argument here is your doing.
If xong and CS follow suit, there's basically no debate occurring. But as long as people try and find some obscure reason to argue against something boring, there'll be someone who is sufficiently interested in pointing out problems with positions who'll happily argue back for the sport (or masturbation) of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Jon, posted 04-05-2011 10:32 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by xongsmith, posted 04-05-2011 5:16 PM Modulous has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2574
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 374 of 536 (611135)
04-05-2011 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Modulous
04-05-2011 10:49 AM


Re: Turns out: no objections
Modulous writes:
As for whether or not Jon can find something of interest to discuss around this subject I cannot guess it seems to vary post by post. If not, you should probably, for the sake of your personal enjoyment, stop participating. You are the second most prolific mental masturbator in this thread. If you think the debate should stop, stop debating. A great deal of argument here is your doing.
If xong and CS follow suit, there's basically no debate occurring. But as long as people try and find some obscure reason to argue against something boring, there'll be someone who is sufficiently interested in pointing out problems with positions who'll happily argue back for the sport (or masturbation) of it.
Aw shucks and I thought we were all having so much fun.
Haven't you ever tried to debate from the side you don't agree with? Come on, Modulous - give it a try here.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Modulous, posted 04-05-2011 10:49 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Modulous, posted 04-05-2011 7:39 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 375 of 536 (611158)
04-05-2011 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by xongsmith
04-05-2011 5:16 PM


Re: Turns out: no objections
Aw shucks and I thought we were all having so much fun.
It seems we were, but Jon was bored by it. I was kind of taking the piss out of the fact that he said some aspect of the discussion might be interesting and then said that no aspect of the argument is interesting, so hopefully he's not really bored.
Haven't you ever tried to debate from the side you don't agree with? Come on, Modulous - give it a try here.
I've done more to advance dualistic supernaturalism than anyone else on this thread, methinks I can go further than that, I can get specific:
Mod arguing a Christian POV.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by xongsmith, posted 04-05-2011 5:16 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Jon, posted 04-05-2011 10:06 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024