Peanut Gallery

I am not sure why you returned to this thread rather than take this up in the Inductive Atheism thread? But so be it. I am glad you think so. Because we a) have a range of supernatural concepts b) can demonstrate that humans are both capable of, and deeply inclined to, inventing such concepts c) make predictions based on our observations regarding man's ability and proclivity to invent such concepts. So we agree that falsifying unfalsifiable claims has no bearing on the strength of a theory. Excellent. No more so than we have to disprove pissing angels (or ay other conceivable supernatural source of raindrops) in order for "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" to be considered a strong theory. You are quite blatantly applying inconsistent standards of evidence. The evidence is ALL of the supernatural concepts where the source of origin is known. There might be. In the same way that there might be another source of raindrops other than clouds. That is why theories are falsifiable rather than proven. We have a highly evidenced naturalistic explanation for an observed phenomenon. Namely the existence of supernatural concepts. This explanation inductively applies to ALL supernatural concepts. It applies in exactly the same way that any scientific explanation is tentatively applied generally.Which part of this are you struggling with?

Fine, im just thrown off by the way bluegenes uses to TOE as comparison to his statement. It completely different. I think they are both using different standards of evidence for some reason when it's not a scientific issue. I agree, it would have been for a better debate if RAZD just played along but bluegenes arrogance seemed to fuel RAZD's quest. RAZD im sure is aware of all of this. He was simply giving him a hard time. How was that?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

What I think is happening is there are two different stndards of evidence being worked into one topic. I'll try and take an unbiased approach (not that im bias). RADZ may be a little to "staunch" on the evidence he is demanding from bluegenes. I think RAZD likes to push the limits and get people to realize what they are actually saying. bluegenes stated he has a "strong" theory. Maybe this wouldn't have gotten to the point it has if he simply said a "strong" opinion. RAZD is asking for the Scientific method to be followed here with a simple, albiet, strong statement. If RAZD were to "play along" im sure it would be for a better debate, but like I said, RAZD seems like he enjoys pushing the limits and getting people to actually think before they speak and have a little fun with it at the same time.Of course what RAZD was asking for is impossible, being there is no way to test the supernatural. RAZD got caught up on bluegenes over confident stance and called him on it and simply kept that mindset throughout the entire debate without letting up. I think RAZD was just pushing him around for the fun of it because of bluegenes arrogance, IMO.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What I think is happening is there are two different stndards of evidence being worked into one topic. I'll try and take an unbiased approach (not that im bias).

---

It seems odd that you claim to be unbiased when you seem to be taking the position that RAZD must be assumed to be correct, no matter what.

quote:

---

ADZ may be a little to "staunch" on the evidence he is demanding from bluegenes. I think RAZD likes to push the limits and get people to realize what they are actually saying. bluegenes stated he has a "strong" theory. Maybe this wouldn't have gotten to the point it has if he simply said a "strong" opinion. RAZD is asking for the Scientific method to be followed here with a simple, albiet, strong statement.

---

RAZD is demanding a standard of proof BEYOND that which is even possible to science.

quote:

---

If RAZD were to "play along" im sure it would be for a better debate, but like I said, RAZD seems like he enjoys pushing the limits and getting people to actually think before they speak and have a little fun with it at the same time.

---

It looks to me more that RAXD is setting a grossly unreasonable standard because his own position is indefensible.

quote:

---

Of course what RAZD was asking for is impossible, being there is no way to test the supernatural.

---

It is impossible to science full stop. The supernatural element is not relevant (and in fact supernatural beings could act in such a way in that bluegenes explanation would not be a reasonable explanation for some supernatural beliefs).

quote:

---

RAZD got caught up on bluegenes over confident stance and called him on it and simply kept that mindset throughout the entire debate without letting up. I think RAZD was just pushing him around for the fun of it because of bluegenes arrogance, IMO.

---

There's a long history behind this argument, which you are unaware of. However your "explanation" even fails in the context of this specific debate since RAZD is intentionally setting the level of proof he demands way above anything that can be justified by bluegenes statements. In short it seems that RAZD was trying to rig the debate in his favour.

He, like you, seems inherently incapable of understanding that any scientific theory which states that "ALL X are sourced from Y" is of the same inductive format.You have already agreed that "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" is a strong theory if clouds are the only source of raindrops known to science. You have agreed that disproving unevidenced sources of raindrops (e.g. angels pissing) has no bearing on the strength of this theory.That ALL supernatural concepts are sourced from human imagination is a strong theory because human imagination is the only known source of such concepts. If you know of another source - What is it? Is the claim that "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" also merely an opinion? Why not?And if your answer is that "supernatural" equates to empirically undetectable ask yourself this - If something is undetectable how can any claim that it exists be derived from anywhere other than imagination?

Well, you don't falsify a theory by postulating unfalsifiable objections. Thus you don't falsify evolution by recourse to omphalism. You don't fallsify imaginationism with recourse to the Hindu Hypothesis. The theory of evolution states that ALL life changes, that all life is related. Yet it has not tested all life, just a very very very small subset of all life. That it applies to all life is an inductive leap. Just as with the imagination theory.They are only different in their subject matter, but then all theories differ on their subject matter. I see no reason to consider the standards that different. There is physically observable evidence that humans invent supernatural beings. There is evidence that humas confabulate agent based explanations for phenomena that confuse them.Further, contradictory accounts mean that some information about supernatural beings must have arrived not via the senses but have been altered, confabulated or downright imagined by the observers. Bluegenes' arrogance? Have you read RAZD's posts? They are literally dripping with a cocksure attitude. So RAZD is being deliberately obtuse? We're still vague I'm afraid. You think there are different standards of evidence in play, I've got that much. And you think bluegenes was being arrogant.

I'm not sure what else to add on top of what i've already said. I guess i'll use one more illistration, since you all are experts on the supernatural. I suppose the standards for theorys are different in your opinions, im learning. You can make simple yet profound statements and if you are totally 100% in agreement with those statements you need not to back it up. Only the folks who claim the opposite need evidence. So, using that logic I would like to propose the same line of reasoning with the same standard of evidence.1: A supernatural being exists outside of my imagination because im finite whereas the supernatural is not.2: A Supernatural being is beyond human understanding or imagination therefore doesn't depend on our imagination for it to be true or untrue.3: Humans have no knowledge of supernatural beings existence, nor it's nature within it's finite mind or imagination excluding the imagination as any sort of verifiable evidence either for or against.Just as you cannot clearly say they exist, certainly you cannot say the don't. So, if that is true, then bluegenes and his "imagination" have nothing to do with weather or not they exist. It's only an opinion on his part, clearly not strong in any sense, only according to his arrogance (and yours) does it hold any weight.bluegenes is, in essence ACTING as if he is a supernatural being (hence his "knowing" the imagination is the only known source) by claiming such a thing without considering his finite nature. It's an absurd statement to make in the first place on TOP of claiming a "strong confidence" in it. He should have been taken to task on it, which RAZD did, rightly so.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what else to add. I've nothing more to say on the matter.

---

In other words you can't produce any examples of circular reasoning from bluegenes actual posts.

quote:

---

I suppose the standards for theorys are different on this site, im learning. You can make simple yet profound statements and if you are totally 100% against there being supernatural beings well, you need not to back it up. Only the folks who claim the opposite need evidence.

---

Of course, this is completely untrue. Nobody is saying anything of the sort.You will note for example that I have been able to produce significant evidential support for my assessment of the debate, while you have not.If you could produce real evidence that bluegenes was using a circular argument - rather then just repeating RAZD's accusations we would listen. Instead of trying to make excuses as you have done.

Would you be interested in addressing the content of my comment? You know, my "theory"? Or are you going to just skip over it altogether? PaulK? It's right in the middle of comment 1162. You are addressing the beggining and the end of my comment without addressing the actual substance in it.So, i'll use this as my chance to address bluegenes circular logic as you asked. Please refer to your comment as my example.*NOTE* My edits were done ten minutes prior to PaulK's post. He has me misquoted in His comment, albiet probably unknowingly. I changed "standards for theorys are different on this site" to "standards for theorys are different in your opinions". It was a bad generalization and I corrected it.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Would you be interested in addressing the content of my comment? You know, my "theory"? Or are you going to just skip over it altogether? PaulK? It's right in the middle of comment 1162. You are addressing the beggining and the end of my comment without addressing the actual substance in it.

---

In fact it was not the main substance of your post and it's relevance depended on the truth of the points that I did address. But I will go and look at it, if you really want.

Since Chuck insists, I will address the alleged substance.

quote:

---

I suppose the standards for theorys are different in your opinions, im learning. You can make simple yet profound statements and if you are totally 100% in agreement with those statements you need not to back it up. Only the folks who claim the opposite need evidence. So, using that logic I would like to propose the same line of reasoning with the same standard of evidence.

---

Let us note that Chuck admits here that his argument is simply meant to illustrate his false assertions. And that rather than defend those assertions he instead demands that we deal with the argument - which has no relevance unless those assertions are true. So, really this post contributes nothing more than a further demonstration of the failings of Chuck's reasoning.

quote:

---

1: A supernatural being exists outside of my imagination because im finite whereas the
supernatural is not.

---

Begs the question by assuming the existence of the supernatural

quote:

---

2: A Supernatural being is beyond human understanding or imagination therefore doesn't
depend on our imagination for it to be true or untrue.

---

Poorly reasoned. If supernatural beings really exist then - like everything else that exists as a concrete entity they would not depend on our imagination. This then, is irrelevant.

quote:

---

3: Humans have no knowledge of supernatural beings existence, nor it's nature within it's finite mind or imagination excluding the imagination as any sort of verifiable evidence either for or against.

---

This simply proposes that the supernatural is unfalsifiable. It fails to address the possibility that supernatural entities - if they existed - could be able to provide evidence of their existence. And in fact, it seems to suggest that bluegenes is correct about any proposed supernatural entities that humans might believe in. The only difference is the assumption of unknowable entities which might as well not exist.So we don't have anything like a decent argument here. The premises are poorly
constructed, there is no clear reasoning or even an identifiable conclusion. Indeed it seems to support bluegene's position, although that was clearly not the intent.But of course, none of this has any relevance to the actual discussion...Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

If humans cannot detect or have any knowledge of the supernatural then any human conception of supernatural entities must be sourced from human imagination.How could it possibly be otherwise? Well it might do. But only to the same extent that some raindrops might be sourced from pissing invisible angels.

This peanut gallery thread is a good place for commenting on other discussions, so I'll respond to DBlevins Message 305 in the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread here, where a brief discussion about the Why are there no human apes alive today? thread briefly broke out:I'm not moderating that thread, but in my role as moderator I often view new members as starting with house money. They get a considerable benefit of the doubt until they've been here a whileAs I've said several times, I think Mazzy is sincere, but her style of participation is a concern because it causes threads to spiral out of control. Your concern about the behavior of other participants is legitimate on the one hand (and we do have some evolutionists with a short fuse), but obviously provoked on the other. Each person has their own frustration limit, and when being ignored will usually, to put it euphemistically, up the volume. Mazzy seemed to notice this today, but not in any positive way since she's still ignoring what everyone says.Regardless of participants' willingness to kill Mazzy with patience and understanding, the board still has standards to maintain, and the Forum Guidelines are our guide in this respect. My hope is that at some point she will begin progressing toward better harmony with them, but she doesn't have forever.--Percy

Percy, you're an optimist. That's good. I just read the threads most recent comments (Mazzy's last two posts). As an observer of the thread, having not commented on it, it seems the forum guidelines are going to be tested later on today, im sure.

The only evidence that can be provided is evidence that supports the theory, but does not guarantee it. So, supporting evidence:1. Humans do make up supernatural creatures.
2. No supernatural entity has ever been demonstrated to exist.
3. Humans confabulate ideas to fill gaps in their knowledge.
4. As with natural selection, confabulated ideas that have properties which cause them to propagate will increase in frequency (more and more people will accept the confabulation).
5. At least one such property is that they are minimally counter-intuitive. That is they are normal things, with a slight twist. A talking dead ancestor, a wish granting spirit bound to an oil lamp etc.It has supporting evidence, and no falsifying evidence. This is a non sequitur. Just because you claim that the supernatural is infinite does not mean it necessarily exists. If a supernatural being exists, whether it is finite or not, it does so outside of our imagination. Take for example, the horse. Horses exist outside of my imagination. If the supernatural being is beyond human understanding then any properties that humans say they have must be products of human imagination. In which case, anybody that claims any properties for the supernatural is necessarily using their imagination. Agreed. The theory predicts that all the concepts of supernatural things we humans have are products of the human imagination. Nobody is saying that supernatural things do not exist. This is the error I warned you were making previously. Can you name another source of supernatural being concepts which is known?You don't have to be a superantural being to claim knowledge about the only known source of something.The only known source for watches is watchmakers. I don't have to be magic to make that claim. And what's more, if I stress that I could be wrong and explained what would falsify my idea I would be conceding the fallible nature of my own knowledge.