Inductive Atheism

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.

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.

Given that I don't believe in the existence of the supernatural the answer should be obvious to you. Very low.The current status of abiogenesis is unknown.But that doesn't preclude the (bewildering unlikely) possibility of positive evidence for a supernatural cause does it?

When there is positive empirically verifiable evidence for a supernatural cause. At the same point that Chris qualifies as a potentially supernatural cause. You have already agreed the empirically verifiable existence of a being that exactly matches the supernatural concept of Christ is evidence in favour of the supernatural concept of Christ actually existing. So the fact that this inexplicable being is verifiably doing these miraculous things is evidence sufficient to falsify bluegenes theory by any reasonable standard. When there is positive empirical evidence that the supernatural entities people believe to exist a) actually do exist and b) are not reasonably able to be explained by the laws of nature as we currently know them to be.Do you know of any such evidence?

Before going any further you need to actually make clear what your 'Before and After' position actually entails. Because at the moment it remains the case that you are simply assigning "boxes" entirely arbitrarily. Can you explain what specific qualities the Earth going round the Sun possessed such that this phenomenon could be legitimately assigned to a supernatural box?Are there no phenomena which currently also meet these same criteria? If so - Why are these also not in your supernatural box? Only if you place yourself in the ridiculous position of denying that empirically verifiable evidence demonstrating the existence of a being that exactly matches a supernatural concept (e.g. Thor) is not positive evidence in favour of that supernatural being actually existing.

To my knowledge every single investigation into the supernatural has yielded results that support the human imagination theory by demonstrating the human willingness to ascribe false "unknowable" supernatural causes to perfectly materially explicable phenomena.Isn't this what you would expect from a strong theory?Is the theory that all T-Rex's are extinct a strong theory because nobody can present a living T-Rex? Or is it an unscientific theory because it is "unfalsifiable"........?

So when you say that the Earth's orbit actually was supernatural you simply mean that the prevailing view of experts at a given time is that the phenomena under consideration should be given the label "supernatural". But what does labelling something as "supernatural" actually mean? When these experts labelled something as "supernatural" what do you think they actually meant by that? This seems a rather glaring ommission from your analysis.Do you understand that:A) This "prevailing expert opinion" approach has little to do with the meaning of supernatural as "inherently materially inexplicable" that I have been using throughout? (and which you said you agreed with).B) That my use of the term "supernatural" means that the Earth's orbit is not, and never was, genuinely supernatural regardless of what anyone happened to believe. If any experts labelled it as such they were simply wrong.C) That your use of the term supernatural means that whatever the prevailing expert opionion classifies as supernatural actually is supernatural. That the prevailing expert opinion can never be wrong by definition. It can change. But never be wrong.D) That by your use of the term history is littered with examples of genuine and actual supernatural phenomena.D) Your use of the term bears no relation to any use of it I have ever seen anywhere else. Hence you effectively inventing your own terminology to justify your own arguments.I am sure that based on your own personal terminology your own arguments are very personally convincing.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If I did I wouldn't be describing bluegenes theory as a strong one would I? The verifiable existence of an entity that exactly matches the Christian concept of a supernatural miraculous and miracle capable Christ is obviously positive evidence in favour of the supernatural concept of Christ actually existing. How could it be otherwise? When isn't it? When it hasn't been sufficiently investigated? You are making the same mistake RAZD did when he started citing documented evidence of supernatural beliefs as some form of evidence. The fact that Jim Jones himself dreamt up the idea that he was supernatural and then convinced others of this doesn't mean that the source of 'Jim Jones the supernatural being' was not human imagination does it? It simply means that the concept under consideration wasn't sourced from the imagination of the particular believer you are talking about.I didn't personally dream up the concept of Apollo. I first came across the concept of Apollo in a book. But that hardly means I can say that Apollo is not sourced from human imagination because I personally didn't imagine him first does it? Except that we know how Jim Jones did his tricks and there was nothing supernatural about him. People falsely believing that things are supernatural when they are in fact not is evidence in favour of the human imagination theory. Not against it. Obviously.How could it possibly be otherwise?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Then please do tell us what this alternative verified source of supernatural concepts is? That humans keep on positing imagined supernatural entities as the cause of phenomena that turn out to be entirely materially explicable and natural is hardly an argument against the human imagination theory under discussion now is it?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Exactly. Humans see the Sun traversing the sky each day and they invent the supernatural concept of Apollo and his flaming chariot to explain it. Humans experience thunder and lightening and the result is the invention of supernatural Thor and his magic hammer. Etc. etc. etc. These supernatural concepts are products of human imagination. Nobody is disputing that these imagined entities are inspired by real things such as the Sun. But this doesn’t mean that the Sun or lightening were ever actually supernatural does it? If the phenomenon under consideration (e.g. the Sun) has a wholly natural explanation then it isn’t and never was supernatural was it? The fact that people wrongly described it as ‘supernatural’ doesn’t mean that it was because they wrongly labelled it as such. The supernatural concepts we are talking about in this thread are those that people claim are NOT subject to natural laws and which are inherently unable to ever be explained by science because they are beyond or above nature and natural explanation. I have yet to meet a supernaturalist who defines the object of their cherished belief as something that is simply awaiting mankind’s technological advancement in order to provide a material explanation for that GOD (or whatever it is they believe in). You arguments are all over the place because of your ridiculous insistence on using the term ‘supernatural’ to describe whatever phenomenon are unexplained at any given point in time. By this usage the physical phenomenon we call ‘the Sun’ was a genuinely supernatural thing at one point simply because people believed it to be so out of ignorance. Obviously the Sun isn’t a supernatural entity. Those people were just wrong and using their imaginations to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Which part of this are you disagreeing with exactly? Only by your silly self serving definition. Nobody here is disputing that there are phenomena unexplained by science which people will wrongly label as supernatural out of ignorance and imagination. That much is absolutely indisputable.But are there really any genuinely supernatural entities out there? Or do such things exist only in the minds of men? All the evidence when combined with scientific inductive reasoning confidently (but tentatively) suggests the latter.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.