Inductive Atheism

Surely the divine will of an omnipotent being can violate whatever it likes? By definition. I might do so at some point.

But what is the source of the biblical description? Did John really get given a tour of the heavens while looking to earth from the perspective of a future spiritual cataclysm or did he perhaps have an epileptic fit, consume hallucinogens, or voluntarily employ his creative imagination?I suggest that if the events predicted actually then happened, we would have some evidence in favour of what has sometimes been called 'the supernatural theory'. We would have another known source of angels other than imagination (voluntarily applied or otherwise): their actual existence as experienced by at least one other human.This would crush bluegenes theory into oblivion, even if science could fold it in - bluegenes theory could not without ridiculous ad hoc editions that would strain the credulity of all but the most churlish skeptics. But the 'molecules moving improbably' could be cited as the reason behind anything: it is not an arrow that is aimed only at the supernatural theory. If we created a machine that made cold fusion occur, anybody could dismiss our engineering with a wave of 'improbable molecular movement'.When you end up with a position that looks like this: There is a 1 in 1x10⁵⁰⁰ chance this was a result of the molecular jiggling being true. Your position isn't going to be preferred to 'Jesus exists and can turn water into wine using some kind of active 'force' or 'energy' that is beyond our present ken...which is presently labelled, for convenience, "The supernatural".'.

Putting on my best sheepish Maxwell Smart voice:"...uh...would you believe a sufficiently advanced civilization of invading aliens? ...having a bloody good larf on all of us?"

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

As with the matrix, or Descartes wicked demon/scientist. There comes a point where you really do have to give in and believe the lie. After all - this could be said of any scientific result. What if all the evidence for evolution was put here by pranking aliens/demons?Furthermore, prankster aliens represent another source for supernatural being concepts above and beyond our own imagination. So even if it were true, bluegenes theory/inductive atheism is still kinda shot to pieces. The only difference is that it is more saveable with an ad hoc change of 'within the minds of intelligent beings' rather than just 'human imagination'.But only if it became known that aliens were responsible.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Also, we had earlier established the difference between the original source and later transmogrifications. These aliens would only be reenacting a scene originally sourced by human imagination....

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Unless YHWH, Lot, Jesus and friends were actually part of the elaborate alien prank...Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Do you believe that there currently exist aspects of nature which have as yet not been investigated by science?Do you believe in the current existence of supernatural phenomena? Not by any definition based on inherent inability to materially explain supernatural phenomena as opposed to one based upon people erroneously believing things to be supernatural at a given point in time.

That would go back to the previous analysis (not the molecular improbability, the one before). But anyway, how would we be able to detect the difference?This is venturing into guessing what way science would fold it in.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

With high confidence, yes. Much of the ocean floor, huge tracts of solar system moons, the Oort cloud, beyond that and so forth. The inner workings of the mind...Charlie Sheen...Lady Gaga. With high confidence, no. If scientific investigation is unable to explain the phenomenon now, then that only means as of now. Furthermore the phenomenon in question will be left out and considered not observed enough to be a qualified scientific observation. Remember, the very tools that are allowed in any scientific investigation are, themselves, derived from and/or subject to the Laws of Nature. They cannot verify something that is not. It would be ruled equipment failure.For example, Hanny's Voorwerp discovered in 2007 and not confirmed and verified until January 2011 from observations made in 2010, was never considered a "supernatural" object. The 2007 position was that not enough had been observed about this object.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

You can't really differentiate between hypothesese where the differences are inherently (perhaps even 'by design') undetectable which I think we can safely say with remarkable coincidence and incredibly powerful aliens or supergods.But we can prefer a theory that doesn't require those, but could be falsified if any of the entities described should ever become detected. It doesn't matter if its aliens or supergods, it doesn't matter if we can't rule one out over another or whether there is a distinction without a difference. The theory relies on an absence of evidence of such entities that could be the source of our ideas about religious characters above and beyond our own minds, environment and our common cognitive deficits.

Bearing in mind your answers above can you explain why you consider the Earth going round the Sun as something that was ever supernatural rather than just something natural that science had not yet investigated sufficiently? Let's continue with your planetary motion example. Long after Copernicus had observed and recorded planetary motions and Newton had calculated the effects of gravity it was still the case that divine supernatural intervention was being postulated as the underlying explanation for planetary motion. The point being that scientifically verifying the existence of something is not the same as materially and physically explaining it.This is something you need to take note of. Wrong. See above. You are conflating scientific verification with scientific explanation. They are not the same thing Not if the phenomenon in question is genuinely supernatural as per any common definition including the one I provided and you stated agreement with. Then it would be inherently materially inexplicable (e.g caused by the divine will of an omnipotent being) and science will never be able to explain it.But that doesn't mean the entity in question cannot be scientifically verified to exist. Stop conflating scientific verification with scientific explanation. They are not the same thing

This is a reply to Message 100, I think it fits better here. I think it is, but then too would someone's experience of a ghost-like thing, or them witnessing some prophesy being fulfilled. I think that if you are going to discount those other two things, then you have to discount this Jesus entity as well. If, as you say, there is no material explanation, then according to science, these will be left as unknown and unexplained. There is no positive evidence that suggests these things are supernatural. At what point do your observations of Chris's abilities go from probably being imagined to being indisputably objectively verified?

Then you also presumably agree that it would falsify Bluegenes theory? If the 'ghost like thing' were able to be objectively and verifiably shown to actually exist and to defy material explanation.Do you know of any such evidence? If you do it could falsify Bluegenes theory. A genuine ability to verifiably predict the future in a way that defies material explanation and which isn't made up of the woolly catch all proclamations of astrology or Nostradamus could indeed be legitimately cited as positive evidence in favour of the supernatural.Do you know of any such evidence? If you do it could falsify Bluegenes theory. That which is inherently materially inexplicable would indeed remain scientifically unexplained. That is kinda the point...... In the Chris example there is indisputably positive empirical evidence in favour of the Christian concept of a supernatural Christ actually existing. As you seemed to earlier agree. You could ask that question about anything up to and including the entirety of perceived reality. But certainly in the scenario as I detailed it Chris, his abilities, his mother etc. etc. have all been witnessed by masses and subjected to considerable investigation by teams of scientists to such an extent that the evidence is indisputable barring Xongsmith style alien plots.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I don't mean that in an episomological sense, but in regards to inducing atheism and the God-is-imagined theory. That doesn't exactly answer the question, but it seems that being witnessed by masses and subjected to considerable scientific intesvigation is a part of the criteria.Can you provide an example of an actual thing, as opposed to a hypothetical, that has been subjected to considerable scientific investigation but doesn't have a scientific explanation for it? I doubt any would fit your "objectively and verifiably shown to actually exist and defy material explanation" criteria. Sort of... I think that if it would, then other things should be included and the theory has already been falsified. Too, I think that the way that other similiar things would be discounted as falsifying the theory would also discount this one, and that it wouldn't actually falsify the theory. Thereby making the theory unfalsifiable.If you could bring up some examples of some actual things, as opposed to ridiculous hypotheticals, to clarify this distinction between 'scientifically verified' and 'scientifically explained', then maybe I can better understand where I'm supposedly going wrong with this.

If you want real examples of scientifically verified non-hypothetical beings doing amazing and inexplicable things then I don't have any. If I did Bluegenes theory would have been falsified and I wouldn't be telling you that all such beings are almost certainly imagined.If you just want an example of something that is scientifically verified to exist but which has no scientific explanation in order to clarify the distinction between verified existence and material explanation then I would put forward - Life on Earth.We know life exists on Earth. We don't yet know how life exists on Earth. We do not have a scientifically verified explanation for this.No reason to think that this is supernatural in the sense of being inherently materially inexplicable . But it does qualify as unexplained.Is that clearer.