Inductive Atheism

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.

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. 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.

Would you agree that the notion that the only known source would no longer be the only known source? We`d have the actual (albeit improbable) event occurring as a known source.I think its odd that you think it is more likely that a ludicrous thermodynamic fluctuation is the caause than xong being wrong about the bible. Do you react thiss way about all theories? One wonders how one falsifies anything if "massive thermodynamic coincidence" is allowed aas the ultimate ad hoc getout. You realize it is more thermodynamically likely the universe spontaneously formed a second ago than you were born years ago? Thee universe when you were born had much less entropy then, highly unlikely.Perhaps you should reconsider the argument that renders all theories unfalsifiable. Also remember that it is subjective, and you might be churlish enough to insist the theory isn't falsified - but the supporters of the theory do...

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".'.

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.

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

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.

Self awareness is no tougher than heat awareness, or light awareness. It is the awareness of a perceived entity. The real toughy is explaining what it means to be or have a 'self'. I appreciate you are still discussing the distinction between the unexplained and the unexplainable, but allow me to once again introduce a bit of spin.How do you know an experience you had was natural? You can't just define all experiences as 'natural' since that is just making the epistemological assumption that the supernatural cannot be experienced which cannot be demonstrated.If the supernatural can be experienced, I'm sure you would agree it is feasible that the experience defies explanations in terms of natural phenomena. But there may well be a corresponding set of coherent theories that explain the experiences in terms of super-natural phenomena.If the supernatural actually exists, we find ourselves in a difficult position of differentiating the natural and the supernatural. There are some indicators of course - the radically different interactive properties of supernatural material proposed by the supernaturalists would lend weight to their notions should they be experienced (no mass, no radioactive interactions (though still visible etc)). Would you agree that even if a naturally existing angel, or ghost was detected that would cause serious issues with the inductive reasoning that relies on the fact that the only known source for such things is the human imagination? That is to say, if someone provided evidence that demonstrated that the human mind was not the only place where angels/ghosts could be found - the theory 'All supernatural entity concepts are products of the human imagination' would be false since we now have a supernatural entity concept that is not.Supernatural entities are simply those beings that supernaturalists have claimed as entities that are supernatural. I will list some example properties:1. Has no mass (is not composed of natural matter or energy).
2. Has motivation aka 'a will'
3. Interacts with things that have mass at willYou can't even 100% falsify any theory. So sure, you can whitter on about doubting whether the entity we have just discovered is a True Supernatural Entity and NOT ever being able to KNOW FOR SURE, and not being able to rule out that it is a naturally occurring entity we are just not able to explain...but all of that doesn't matter.There comes a point with any theory, that it is strained to breaking point. This is a subjective point.But if there was a world of dead ancestors made up of ectoplasm that was periodically detectable visually or tactiley...and such entities decided to help us with testing...it is in principle possible to ascertain the truth of such a thing. Bluegenes, Straggler, and me are perfectly happy I expect to suggest that these 'ghosts' are precisely the thing the theory says were only in the human imagination and their actual existence ruins the theory. The quality 'unknown' is definitely nothing to do with the supernatural as it is believed in. Just ask around. You'll see them acquiring information that they call knowledge all over the place (talking to the dead, gods, djinn, spirits, angels etc). In a dualist epistemology, the supernatural is not unknown, unknowable, inexplicable etc. If you have any doubt about this visit a book store and pick up a book on the subject.It just isn't generally known using traditional epistemic means. It could in principle be known using those means. If that were to ever happen, any theory that postulates the above people were just making shit up would be shown to be false. If the supernatural was real and natural science was an insufficient tool to describe it - any good scientist would adopt a new methodology and throw natural science out as being a reasonable approximation with some unfortunate problems. 'professional allowance' be damned - we are seeking the truth, not the approval of some professional body.As seekers of the truth of reality, any curious scientist would, as you say 'fold it in' even if it means abandoning what said scientist had thought was an absolute dogma of science. Science is not our master, it is our tool. If it isn't up to the job - we have to either modify the tool or craft a new one.Some scientists may abandon their search. Indeed, many such scientists may do so. It may require a rare genius to break out of the traditional Victorian Dogmas of science, to smash through the perceived Magestria and come up with a unified theory of dual reality or some such.In short - if I doubt nature exists I can kick a stone and 'prove it thus'.
If ghosts regularly manifest and share information that only their living counterparts knew, could volunteer to interact with material things at leisure (walk through walls, be invisible, acquire secret information about another nation etc), then that would be sufficient for the notion that

quote:

---

'ghosts are products of the human imagination'

---

to be shown in error as far as bluegenes, Straggler and myself are concerned. Even if die-hard monist naturalists insist such things are natural entities.Furthermore'{Things which are traditionally called supernatural entities including ghosts} are products of the human imagination' is likewise falsified as ghosts are a particular of this general.Regardless of the impossibility of definitively and empirically determining metaphysics - this would be sufficient to ruin the induction. It wouldn't destroy inductive atheism unless some ghosts masqueraded as gods, then there'd be a little problem (not with the conclusion necessarily, but with the induction).Why don't you try wording bluegenes' theory yourself so that using your own definitions it says something non-trivial and is falsifiable? Think of a general word that covers 'ghosts', 'spirits', 'gods' etc. If 'supernatural' is a label that fills you with paroxysms of metaphysical angst or terminological nightmares, change it to 'spooky' or 'fantastic' whatever you like.The idea can be show to be in error. Just like 'horses are products of the imagination' can be.

I can assure you that Straggler agrees that supernatural things are real things that are imagined to be supernatural. His point is that this is just a re-wording theory of the inductive atheism under discussion here.Unless you are proposing that these 'real events' are actually supernatural, rather than just being imagined to be supernatural - I fail to see how your position is a rebuttal to 'supernatural things are products of the human imagination'.

What we classify them as (natural or supernatural) is not really salient. The point is that there is evidence that humans make this kind of stuff up - inadvertantly and predictably and no evidence that they have existence independent of the imagination of humans. They aren't being dismissed because some people call them 'supernatural' they are dismissed because there is no evidence they are real and there is evidence that humans are inclined towards inventing this kind of stuff. No one is claiming proof. Only that there is a theory which can be falsified, has not been falsified and which has supporting evidence.If you want to claim that god is a natural entity that's fine, but the argument still applies: Show evidence it is a real natural entity and not an entity which is a product of the human mind interacting with its natural non-godish environment.

You can say that you're the Queen of Sheba too. We all agree that there are events that are considered supernatural. We all agree there are real events that some people sometimes think are supernatural (faith healers, stage mentalists, illusionists, hallucinations, memory errors etc). No. It means that it is a real phenomena that people claim that supernatural things exist. That was never in dispute. And nobody is claiming that as a fact. It's just a working theory. If you have any evidence which falsifies it you are welcome to present it. Precisely! And Straggler would agree:

quote:

---

The only known source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination. Scientific inductive reasoning thus leads to the tentative theory that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination. This theory can be falsified by presenting another source of such concepts.

---

So far, no other source has been presented as a falsifying case. This is a fact.But we are talking about a theory. Theories are generalisations derived from specific instances, they rely on a certain inductive logic. This is a claim for which no evidence has been presented. We are not claiming that we have proof that God isn't. But if you wish to present a natural god as falsification for the theory of inductive atheism you are welcome to do so. You don't have to prove such a god exists, but then the theory will remain unfalsified. You have the nerve to question my integrity while challenging me to do that which I have already done? Here is a quote from my last post:

quote:

---

No one is claiming proof.

---

If you want an honest discussion, try fully reading what I write, OK? No, it does not serve as verification of a claim that many people believe it. This should be transparently obvious by a quick examination of the history of human beliefs. I don't hope to gain anything. I am simply positing a theory for which there is supporting evidence and no falsifying evidence - not discussing proof or disproof. Maybe I can gain your acquiesence that it is indeed a theory with supporting evidence and no falsifying evidence - that'd be a gain of sorts, advancement into further interesting discussion.

You may as well have cited Jesus, David Koresh or Mohammed.Do you have a specific example of something you feel falsifies the specific theory regarding gods or the more general theory regarding the supernatural? Some guy saying stuff is by itself neither supernatural nor divine.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Then present one single verified example from this apparently exemplary track record of demonstrated abilities which are sufficient to be construed as 'supernatural' in some capacity. That's what I asked for in my last post, and what you didn't present in yours.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Are we including getting the age of the pyramids wrong by many thousands of years in this track record? I can only see unimpressive and mundane abilities being exhibited. Could you specify one scientifically verified ability he had which would be relevant to this topic? Are you proposing some kind of supernatural explanation for the things in there? Why don't you explain what your supernatural explanation is and we'll see if it is supported by the evidence. My theory is that any such notion would exist only within the minds of humans and there is no manifestation of it in reality.

OK, so we have identified that his track record wasn't perfect, but you have still failed to provide a single scientifically verified ability that is not natural. I am not ignoring the information, I am asking if you believe there is a supernatural explanation for the information in the document and what your supernatural explanation is. We shouldn't. So if these abilities are 'natural' they don't serve as falsification that supernatural concepts originate solely in the minds of humans. At best we could say we have evidence of a paranormal phenomena. I think it can be explained as a natural phenomena. Do you propose that a supernatural entity is required to explain what we see here? I don't need to, I could attack the reputation of the singular statistician that works there. Then again, she didn't actually perform the experiments, someone else did. And others have given alternate natural explanations for the results.