|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Inductive Atheism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Then by your opinion there is nothing outside the realms of known physics. No, that is not my opinion. I have noticed a tendency in people to jump to this conclusion when discussing these kinds of topics, it happened in the thread I linked to earlier. It is a curious phenomenon. It's like you believe I'm a raving lunatic so you conclude I must have crazy opinions about the world and that I must therefore think like the above. I support scientific research, I accept we do not know everything, I accept we will discover new things, and new entities. If I did not accept this as being true, I could not even entertain the notion that theory can be falsified by the presentation of previously undiscovered evidence. My opinion is that there are many possible hypotheses to explain any given phenomena and so far, entities that transcend nature in some sense have not been evidenced and so any such hypothesis was borne in a humans mind and is not based on external verified evidence. I hold that there is a theory that all such entities are products of the human imagination. This can be falsified with evidence for such an entity. I have previously described the evidence that would persuade me that ghosts exist, and I would take the existence of a ghost as falsification of the theory.
Believe what you will. I reject your theory. That's fine, but you are rejecting a theory different than the one proposed. You are rejecting the theory that all phenomena with an unknown explanation are products of the human imagination. I too reject that theory. I am proposing that whenever someone develops a hypothesis that includes entities which are somehow 'above nature', and not thus are not themselves 'natural', that those entities are products of the imagination. It predicts that whatever real entities are responsible for the given phenomena, they will turn out to be as natural as horses and friction. It can be falsified by presentation of evidence for a proposed supernatural being. More specifically, and germane to the topic - evidence of a god would be required. Evidence that people might have psychic powers? Not relevant unless you propose they perform their psychic feats using supernatural entities such as spirit guides. In which case, show the evidence of the spirit guide and falsify the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Although I hold your explanatory abilities in high esteem, I feel that you are not getting far with this conversation.
As a suggested experiment, try replying to tesla without using the words 'supernatural' or 'imagination', as I feel that tesla's definitions of those words are causing an endless cycle of confusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
I am proposing that whenever someone develops a hypothesis that includes entities which are somehow 'above nature', and not thus are not themselves 'natural', that those entities are products of the imagination. I must also reject this hypothesis. It is possible that the universe could evolve creatures not carbon based. This is especially probable in the 'anti-matter' universes, as theorized. There is too much out there we cannot begin to guess at yet. Science will evolve, but until then I will not close my mind to potentials that are potential. If I were to do that, I would limit my potentials for discovery. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I must also reject this hypothesis. OK, since you have no evidence, I assume you have a reason?
It is possible that the universe could evolve creatures not carbon based. This is especially probable in the 'anti-matter' universes, as theorized. There is too much out there we cannot begin to guess at yet. I would not construe such beings as being 'above nature', or transcending nature, or being made of some fundamentally different stuff, such as 'spirit' that does not obey deterministic rules. However, if you wish to propose such a being as an explanation for a phenomena I would require evidence. The lack thereof could lead only to the conclusion that the idea popped into your head based on nothing but the workings and biases innate within the human mind. I am not claiming that therefore the beings you might claim do not exist. I am not making a factual claim about their existence at all. Just stating what a evidentially supported theory predicts.
Science will evolve, but until then I will not close my mind to potentials that are potential. If I were to do that, I would limit my potentials for discovery. I agree. Which is why theories are tentative, and we keep an open mind about possible falsification. I'm not suggesting the theory is an irrevocable truth, just a theory that has supporting evidence and no falsifying evidence. Do you dispute that it has evidence to support it? Do you propose a falsifying transcedental entity or god? Do you dispute that if true, it would explain the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
if you wish to propose such a being as an explanation for a phenomena I would require evidence. If there was evidence this wouldn't be a discussion. anything considered 'supernatural' cannot be proven. it is BEYOND scientists ability to explain.
I am not claiming that therefore the beings you might claim do not exist. I am not making a factual claim about their existence at all. Just stating what a evidentially supported theory predicts.
If you are looking for apples in apple trees, those you find. you will not find them growing oranges. but the evidence of apples on apple trees only prove apple trees produce apples. I hope you can understand the analogy. good luck with your theory. > Edited by tesla, : word correction keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If there was evidence this wouldn't be a discussion And since there isn't evidence, belief in these entities did not come about from a consideration of any evidence. If people didn't weigh up the evidence, where did the notion come from? The theory predicts the human mind is the only source we'll identify. The theory might be wrong.
anything considered 'supernatural' cannot be proven. Is it four times now that I've said this thread isn't about proof? Just independent lines of converging evidence will suffice.
it is BEYOND scientists ability to explain. And anyone that thinks they can explain it must be making their explanation up - since they lack the ability to actually explain it, right?
If you are looking for apples in apple trees, those you find. you will not find them growing oranges. but the evidence of apples on apple trees only prove apple trees produce apples. I hypothesise that there are no snozberries, and they are nothing but a product of the human imagination. You could falsify this theory by producing evidence of a snozberry. I don't need to look in trees for snozberries - if you claim that snozberries exist, it's your job to provide the evidence. I can provide support that snozberries are inventions of the mind of a human being (ie., Roald Dahl) Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your entire argument in this thread is based on a definition of "supernatural" that is just nonsensical.
By the terms of your argument anything currently unexplained by science is genuinely supernatural and anyone who believes that there are things which are as yet unexplained by science is by definition a "supernaturalist". By the terms of your argument Richard Dawkins and James Randi are avid believers in the existence of the supernatural. Nobody sane is, or could, believe that science has explained everything. I am certainly suggesting no such thing. So maybe you should consider the possibility that the problems you see with the tentative theory in question here have more to do with your own bizzarre and muddled use of terminology than anything else.
Tesla writes: By your definitions it would appear all things not proven are figments of the imagination. Then you have completely misunderstood everything that has been said to you. If you read what people actually write rather than imbue their positions with your own preconceptions maybe you might actually understand what people are saying to you.
Tesla writes: ....if were discussing actual proof. I don't know how many times it needs to be pointed out to you - WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PROOF Is that clearer now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 475:
We can’t prove it’s not true. I'm fairly sure I've stated twice already that I'm not claiming we can. Just that there is a theory that spirit guides are products of the imagination of the psychics that claim them as explanation for their perceived abilities. But if you're not "proving" that they're not true, then how do you go about inducing atheism? i.e., that they're not true. and by "proving" I don't mean ProofTM From Message 479:
UFO's real? Yes. Agreed. Heh, the UFO things kinda reminds me of one of the problems I have with the threory and its seemingly circular reasoning... As if the theory said that once a UFO becomes identified, then it will no longer be a UFO... No shit I realize its not exactly the same, but that's how I see "scientific" investigation of the "supernatural".
None of them have been identified as being piloted by aliens. Have you looked into this whole FBI released document thing? I haven't really gotten into it yet, and it should be a new thread if we want to discuss it, but if you've got anything on it I'd like to see it. Apperntly an FBI guy was reporting that they did find flying saucers with little guys in them... or is it just a fake?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But if you're not "proving" that they're not true, then how do you go about inducing atheism? i.e., that they're not true. By noting that the only place we know where these kinds of ideas come from is the mind. That everytime we can be said to be 'sure' about these things is when we are sure they are imaginary. The induction takes the specific known cases and infers to the more general case.
Heh, the UFO things kinda reminds me of one of the problems I have with the threory and its seemingly circular reasoning... As if the theory said that once a UFO becomes identified, then it will no longer be a UFO... No shit I realize its not exactly the same, but that's how I see "scientific" investigation of the "supernatural". Well the U becomes false when the object is identified, its just the meaning of the words. There are two possibilities: either the supernatural can be evidenced or the supernatural cannot be evidenced. If the former - then no evidence exists except the evidence of mental creation.If the latter - they must be in our heads. Have you looked into this whole FBI released document thing? I haven't. Is he particularly credible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Heh, the UFO things kinda reminds me of one of the problems I have with the threory and its seemingly circular reasoning... As if the theory said that once a UFO becomes identified, then it will no longer be a UFO... No shit I realize its not exactly the same, but that's how I see "scientific" investigation of the "supernatural". Because you, like so many others, are determined to engage in semantic wiffle waffle rather than actually confront the evidence. It is a fact that ALL of the positive objective evidence indicates that supernatural beings are the products of human invention. If there is any evidence at all of supernatural entities which exist external to the minds of men then we have yet to see it presented here.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
In reply to Message 1151
You are still conflating the positively evidenced, inductively derived tentative conclusion that ALL supernatural concepts are sourced from human imagination with a claim (that nobody has made) that the existence of supernatural beings has been disproved. Do you agree that the statement "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" is a strong theory if clouds are the only source of raindrops known to science? Or do you think every other conceivable source of raindrops (ethereal pissing angels for example) must be disproven first?
Chuck writes: Straggler, Modulous and PaulK. All three of you are arguining in favor of what you pounce on Creationists for. Basically using the Bible to prove the Bible is true. It's the same logic here. Bluegenes is doing the SAME exact thing that you argue against when it comes to Creationist tactics. Can you explain exactly where you think this comparison is valid? Because if you read the thread in question you will see that actually it is RAZD who cites documented beliefs and holy books as evidence in favour of the existence of gods.
RAZD previously writes: Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings. RAZ now writes: These documents are objective empirical evidence of people that believe god/s exist. These documents do not need interpretation to see that many people believe they have sufficient evidence to believe that god/s exist. Message 14 So apparently if people believe that they have evidence that gods exist this constitutes some sort of evidence that gods do indeed exist. Ridiculous. Obviously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: 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. Hi Straggler. Ok, well, that's a little different than bluegenes falsification test, which says to provide a (fairy) or any SB to falsify it. You're looking for another (source) of such concepts? Well, can a concept be derived from nature? Or animals? Can we pick up on real events that might lead us to believe (despite our imagination) that SB exist? Or is that just our imagination making things up to suite or biased view? What do you mean by this Straggs? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BTW, I also have a high confidence theory Straggs. It says that all known Atheists are a product of the human imagination since the human imagination is the only known source of SB's. Can you think of another known source besides the human imagination being the reason Atheists exist if the human imagination is the only known sourse of SB's? Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Chuck writes: Ok, well, that's a little different than bluegenes falsification test, which says to provide a (fairy) or any SB to falsify it. Your misapprehensions of bluegenes theory evidently continue.
Chuck writes: You're looking for another (source) of such concepts? Any demonstrable source of supernatural concepts that is not human imagination will falsify the theory as stated.
Chuck writes: Well, can a concept be derived from nature? Or animals? Can we pick up on real events that might lead us to believe (despite our imagination) that SB exist? That Apollo (for example) is a supernatural concept inspired by the Sun is not in dispute. But to get from observing the Sun to concluding that this observation is caused by a god riding a flaming chariot across the sky takes a large dose of human imagination doesn't it? Do you have any examples of supernatural concepts where the the supernatural aspect of the concept is not a figment of human imagination?
Chuck writes: BTW, I also have a high confidence theory Straggs. It says that all known Atheists are a product of the human imagination since the human imagination is the only known source of SB's. Firstly this doesn't make sense. Secondly the theory that the only known source of atheists is the human imagination is falsified by the demonstrable existence of actual atheists beyond all reasonable doubt. Exhibit A: Me!!!! Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Chuck77 writes:
I am not sure what your parents taught you about human reproduction, but imagination is not required.
It says that all known Atheists are a product of the human imagination
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Panda writes: I am not sure what your parents taught you about human reproduction, but imagination is not required. But in some cases it sure helps.....
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024