Inductive Atheism

CS - Do you accept that Jim Jones was very definitely not a supernatural being actually capable of miraculous feats? That he was instead a dangerous con man no more or less supernatural than you or I?So where are you suggesting that the concept of 'Jim Jones the supernatural being' originates from if not human imagination? By tentatively concluding that ALL supernatural beings are the products of human imagination that is effectively what we are doing. But if faced with verifiable conflicting evidence this obviously becomes falsified. You cannot prove something genuinely is supernatural. But nor can you prove that something is definitively natural. Is evolution a natural process? Was the invisible hand of God undetectably guiding evolution? Evidence based investigation isn't about proof or absolute knowledge.It is about relative likelihood and degress of uncertainty. There must come a point where no matter how atheistic you are if faced with overwhelming verifiable evidence of something supernatural (e.g. the second coming of Christ or whatever) you have to admit that you are evidentially wrong.Otherwise you are exhibiting faith based rather than evidence based reasoning. Yes - Any source or origin of the concept that is not ultimately the human imagination will falsify the theory. A real live example that actually matches the supernatural concept as opposeed to just something that when investigated can be demonstrated to be pretending. A man wearing a white sheet doesn't falsify bluegenes theory because a few people believe they have seen a ghost. Obviously. Jim Jones was no ultimately no different to the white sheet pretend ghost example above. Did Jim Jones really match the supernatural concept of Christ? Or did he just play on people's imaginations to convince them that he did? Did his supposed supernaturality hold up to scrutiny?CS - Do you accept that Jim Jones was very definitely not a supernatural being actually capable of miraculous feats? That he was instead a dangerous con man no more or less supernatural than you or I? So where are you suggesting that the concept of 'Jim Jones the supernatural being' originates from if not human imagination?The quite obvious difference being that Jim Jones proclaimed supernaturality did not stand up to scientific investigation but in my hypothetical example Chris's did.Me wearing a white sheet and pretending to be a ghost does not falsify the theory that ALL supernatural beings are sourced from human imagination. Obviously.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It is arrogant to suppose that 'supernatural' exists from Imagination.Defining 'supernatural' would be the first task before you define its source.In the context used: 'supernatural' is simply the word to describe things the human brain cannot understand.So...you can 'imagine' an explanation...But no one understands what they are trying to explain.For an experiment: Imagine telekinesis. Has it ever happened? Maybe. Proof? Nope? Well then...I guess it boils down to belief.For me, Givin the track record of the human race: there is a lot to yet be discovered about everything. especially consciousness.So do I believe supernatural events are real? Yes. But can I explain their source? No. I can't even explain the event, much less a source for it.So this is a subjective discussion, in which everyone is right, and probably, everyone is wrong.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I am sure many humans throughout the ages could come to a similar conclusion. Yet in every case where the source of origin of a supernatural concept is known the source is human imagination. And yet ALL of the positive evidence indicates a deep human proclivity to invent such concepts for reasons that have everything to do with internal human needs and nothing to do with the actual existence of supernatural beings.

You remember an essay titled Nacirema? Supernatural or 'magic' is decided by what you do know, vs. what you do not know.Every case? I doubt a lifetime of research would be enough to allow such a bold statement to accrue any validity. ALL? Well now, that is a subjective opinion I doubt would be reflected by a majority of intelligent human beings.In this case, you are correct for yourself. But it is a subjective argument with little 'proof' besides educated opinions. But it is still an opinion. The Universe is still full of mystery. Choose your beliefs carefully.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Defining 'supernatural' as anything which is not yet understood has already been tried by others in this thread. And it doesn't really wash. Well if you can supply some positive evidence of another source of supernatural concepts other than human imagination this is the place to present it. And some beliefs/opinions are better evidenced than others.

Well it might not wash with you, but others seem to understand it that way. If you know how something works, it is natural. If you don't, it can appear 'supernatural'. But consider: if it exists, and is real, it is natural to the universe. Even if it isn’t natural to the human mind. The Sun was widely believed to be a god. The moon was thought of as green cheese. Of course, as technology increased with our knowledge, we now know the sun isn’t pulled across the sky by a mystical chariot. But also, Einstein did ‘thought experiments’ with the speed of light leading to the now famous theories of relativity. People all over the world have had visions of impending disasters in our history in which the disaster occurred, and there was no way they could know. Dogs and animals tend to run away from home before an earthquake, the greatest earthquake predictor of the west coast said he predicted earthquakes by watching the classifieds numbers of missing pets.
So: the supernatural concept is the concept that things work outside known physics, and I say: That’s most likely correct.
Imagination supplies explanations for what we do not understand. Yet once understood; the imagination builds on that understanding.Imagination is the tool mankind uses to understand things: be it how a person feels ( by imagining yourself in their shoes) or how to build a shed ( which you imagine the parts coming together as a feasible project, you then research and begin the project with what you imagined in mind.) Evidence only proves that people have an imagination. And that there are a lot of things we still do not know about life, existing, and our universe. If you subjectively have decided you understand those things, then contently live in your comfortable little place of Ignorance.Since it is subjective, you commit no greater crime than anyone else.Edited by tesla, : typos

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Really?So when I claim to own a dog and people ask me for evidence to back up my claim: if I present them a dog they will just say "That only proves that you have an imagination!" and I am forced to accept that I don't own a dog.Or when a woman is accused of robbery and the prosecution presents evidence of her guilt (e.g. fingerprints, closed-circuit TV footage, etc.) she can say "That only proves that you have an imagination!" and they acquit her.So, evidence only proves that people have an imagination?
Really?

And all of this is positive evidence of the proclivity and ability of humans to invent supernatural beings where no supernatural being actually exists. This is evidence in favour of the human imagination theory. Hardly an argument against it. Yet not everything I can imagine is evidenced. Why is that do you think?

This is a very handy (and facile) piece of equivocation. For sure, the sensation of empathy is inescapably subjective, and the ability to envision the properties and assembly of objects that do not currently exist is difficult to explain, despite being a pervasive (and probably unique) attribute of the human species. But should we refer to these things as being "supernatural"?Empathy is simply natural. It's grounded in the (mostly justified) belief that there is a lot of commonality to human experience, and that the other people we see really are a lot like ourselves. If you choose to view this as resulting from purposeful supernatural causation, you might as well do the same for rainfall and lightening. But doing so won't really help you to understand any of these things better. As for problem solving...My father was a residential building contractor, who sometimes took on jobs with unusual designs. Someone else (an architect) had already worked out the dimensions, appearance and components of a structure, but he had to figure out how to actually put it together. He often expressed his belief that there was some supernatural force -- indeed an entity he referred to as God -- that solved these problems for him by putting ideas in his head, because they tended to just pop in suddenly. He seemed to have an underlying sense that he wasn't able by himself to come up with these ideas, so this was the best explanation he could imagine for it.Another way to look at his perspective is that he was given some pretty strong religious indoctrination as a child, and as an adult, while he really didn't care for organized religion or religious doctrine, he never broke free of the notion of being subservient to an all-powerful creator. So his notions of divine intervention in problem solving were just his own peculiar way of reconciling some of what he had been taught with what he actually experienced.But he still didn't understand what was really going on in his own brain, and this is true for pretty much every human being. Those who seek to understand can only make progress to the extent that they put aside notions of supernatural causation.Imagination is a remarkable trait -- it may be the only thing in this universe that can travel forward and backward in time, and move faster than the speed of light (e.g. we can imagine what things might be like right now in parts of our galaxy that are light years away). But it doesn't work as an example of, or evidence for, something supernatural.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

I like your post, and find nothing to disagree with or debate. However, I could elaborate concerning supernatural ideas and causation.It is my firm belief that when a person realizes that for anything to ‘exist’ at all is a miracle: that person is born into philosophy and religion. At least, in the sense that their mind will ‘seek an answer’ to the musings and come to some form of conclusion.Theories abound about causation of the universe, existence, or intelligence and consciousness. Whatever a person decides to accept as possible; is only limited to what they are willing to believe is possible. and so: individual human beings come to their belief and ideology (Subjectively). Be it atheism, theism, religions or what have you.The problem with discovering the truth is no one knows what the truth is.Is God possible? Yes. Bottom line: no 'proof' against him has surfaced, and no proof for him is acceptable to scientific standards of 'proof'.So a human is left to choose a belief. This is where I believe the definition of supernatural becomes important. Because: A magician flying across a room was once held as supernatural. Now we know the methods of a magician are quite natural. Could you believe there was an iceberg in the sky? It was really seen-- captured on film-- with many witnesses. However, the phenomenon was simply light living up to its behavior of following the quickest path when traveling.So I define supernatural as: things not yet understood. Not necessarily untrue; and what IS True is perfectly natural to the true dynamics of the behaviors of the universe.As an example of how wrong or right mankind could be: let me suggest the notion that large bodies in space, like the earth, and stars, have a consciousness. That the levels of consciousness these bodies have are much greater than that of man. Let’s even say that this consciousness lives within ELF waves. I could then further elaborate this tale by saying: without a biological cell to interpret the waves; the information and consciousness living in the waves cannot be understood. Now after having said all that: could you 'prove' it isn't true? No. sounds like supernatural bullshit to me. But it is just as potential the truth of the beginning of consciousness as any other.I choose my beliefs because there is nothing out there worth accepting for myself as what I have chosen to accept. I will honestly admit that nothing is 'proven'. It does anger me when scientists are so quick to jump on an atheistic conclusion without any proof there isn't a God, yet: willing to recognize the tentative nature of the science they research with lots of proof.At the end of the day: I continue to search for the truth. Unless someone has discovered a way to communicate with 'God', I consider looking for God a healthy thing for mankind to do. You never know, perhaps some of the mystery of 'supernatural’ events might become ‘naturally’ understood dynamics of a beautiful universe.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

You only assume it was invented. Most of the ancient stories of Gods were based on a truth. The sun God was based on the sun, an existing object.To be fair, no one knows. Assuming your conclusion is true without any proof other than that is what you choose to believe is the same argument of most religious individuals.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Thanks, tesla. I'm enjoying this dialog as well. Here are some "knee jerk" reactions for you (and some honest effort too)... Frankly, this does not necessarily count as a Good Thing. In your view, what distinguishes a "miracle" from a "normal event"? If you simply mean to say that it's crass or insensitive to take existence for granted, I'm fine with that. But it makes no sense -- it's fundamentally incoherent -- to speak of the alternative case: what would it be like for nothing to exist? Okay, that would certainly not be a miracle. Indeed for any attribute you can think of, it would not be that either. So what? This is just the simplest example of the trouble human language can get you into.To point to a nonsensical proposition like "existence is a miracle" and say this leads us to philosophy and religion... well, it speaks poorly of philosophy and religion. (Perhaps in that regard, it's actually quite apt when applied to religion.) Are Zeus and Thor possible? Pink unicorns? Yes. (I suppose that even invisible pink unicorns are possible, given a suitably contorted fable about the properties that make them invisible, despite the fact that they are indeed pink. Or vice versa.) Such notions are forever impervious to any attempt to find or state "'proof' against" them -- and this points out yet another remarkable property of human imagination.In my particular grasp of English, saying that "no proof for [God] is acceptable to scientific standards..." tends to imply that we could actually point to one or more "proofs for God", but none of them work in a scientific context. And that strikes me as a fallacious presupposition.I think it's more accurate to say that notions of God are simply incompatible with any concept of 'proof'. Such notions are intrinsically imaginary, and cannot intersect in any meaningful way with a concept of 'proof' (i.e. verification), particularly in any attempt to describe interactions between God and reality. And that is precisely the kind of equivocation -- verging on "Humpty-Dumpty-ism" -- that others here have already objected to. Please, in order to progress in dialog, you must be willing to learn and accept the conventional definitions of such important (and transparently constructed) terms as "supernatural". This is a case where the whole is indeed exactly the sum of its parts: "super" (beyond) "natural" (what is observable in nature).Things that are not yet understood are -- focus now -- "not yet understood." That's it. Consider this great quote from Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you really don't understand quantum mechanics." He was certainly not attributing anything supernatural to quantum mechanics. He just found it to be profoundly puzzling. That's plenty. No need to elaborate it with terms like supernatural, God, etc.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is based on the actual existence of pasta. But the concept of the FSM is a product of human imagination. As is the idea that the Sun is a divine human-like being riding a mysterious flaming chariot. That human imagination takes inspiration from reality is not in doubt. But it remains a fact that the only verified source of supernatural concepts is human imagination. If you know of another source of such concepts please do present it. But I feel compelled to warn you that citing things which people once believed to have supernatural causes but which we now know do not is hardly going to help your cause here. If it doesn't actually exist where else are you suggesting that the concept can have arisen from? I haven't claimed 'proof'. I have claimed evidence. Evidence that humans can and do invent supernatural beings for reasons that have everything to do with being human and nothing to do with the actual existence of supernatural entities. On the basis of this evidence I have inductively derived a tentative conclusion. No 'proof' is involved anywhere at any point. I suggest you reread the opening post of this thread. You seem to be under the bewildering misapprehension that in the absence of proof all unfalsified claims hold equal evidential validity. This is of course nonsense.But if you want to pursue that line of reasoning I suggest you take part in the current crop circle thread where the case is being made that the alien construction of crop circles remains unfalsified and is thus worthy of being taken seriously. It almost exactly mirrors your own arguments regarding the supernatural in this thread.See Message 81

The Term miracle may not be the best word. The idea is what I’d like to point out:Imagination is simply ideas belonging to the realm of consciousness. So in the end, are we dealing with the idea that things have actual reality, or the actual reality of what has being?Suppose: you say it would not be a miracle for things to not exist. Indeed, I would agree. Religion and philosophy deal with understanding of why anything exists at all. Think about it: Energy and matter show no evidence of creation or destruction; only changing from form to form. The evidence supports there was an existing energy that all came from. This energy had to be, because if literally nothing, nothing could be. The inability to work out this problem is like the mind games of a snake swallowing its tail. Or perhaps: the door to December. It’s a truth about reality of 'all that is' we cannot solve. How could anything exist at the start? My answer: dubbed; miracle.That is why I consider the birth of ascendant consciousness (as religions and philosophers attempt to endorse) as coming from recognition of our limitations of understanding. While at the same time: accepting that for everything that does exist (to exist as it does) requires a consciousness greater than our own to exist. This is where I believe you are limiting yourself by defining 'God'. God is not currently definable. If the term was, we would understand enough of what God is/was to have a better definition.Every human definition of a god or Gods simply implies 'supremacy of being'I consider human evolution a key to accepting: our current limitations in the realm of consciousness; may not always remain so limited. Perhaps the key to understanding the reality of this universe and potentials beyond what we can sense and comprehend 'now' will be the evolution of the biology of man.I do not accept that God is not because no evidence supports that. I do not accept that we can never know, because one day we might. and I don't accept that we could not communicate with God, because we may discover a language we currently cannot comprehend.As an example: observe dolphins. They communicate. Killer whales hunt in packs, and train their young without words, yet they communicate. No human fully understands a dolphin’s language. And a dolphin cannot speak to humans very effectively. This being the case: what are the chances we have the cognitive ability to discern a language greater than our own?I choose not to limit my capacity to discover by believing that what we do not know; now can never be known. This is the definition many people use this word for. But allow me to explain how this is an inaccuracy:1. Nothing that does truly exist is beyond what is natural
2. Humans do not have the ability to observe all natural things.
3. Humans tend to call natural events 'supernatural' because of their inability to observe natural events.With these truths: supernatural is applied to natural phenomenon, and called supernatural until understood. (Like turning water to wine)As a thought experiment:Suppose that when a person dies, their electrical energy holds a specific pattern which is recognizable as data. That data when the body dies, is kept in its unique form, but transferred into the ELF spectrum.Now let’s say some human minds are more tuned to that spectrum than others, and leaves a person with the ability to 'read' some of the ELF waves and 'see' past lives.Is this supernatural, or natural? It’s supernatural without the explanation of how a person could see a dead person’s life. But with the understanding of how it was possible, and that its perfectly natural to how the universe works, it would be natural.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

It only remains a fact to those who choose to believe that.It is a fact that turning water to wine is natural. Not supernatural. Yet it was believed supernatural.It is a fact a magician can fly, with apparently no help at all, and even carry others with them. It has been considered supernatural in the past. And it’s simply a natural thing.The imagination did not make the water wine. The imagination did not make the magician fly. The imagination called it supernatural. When the events were natural.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides