Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,652 Year: 4,909/9,624 Month: 257/427 Week: 3/64 Day: 1/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1186 of 1725 (623413)
07-10-2011 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1185 by Straggler
07-10-2011 6:54 AM


Re: More Arrogance
What kind of evidence do you need? Empirical evidence? Like bluegenes is requesting (i.e. real fairys etc etc.)?
I can supply lots of experiences that are subjective but cannot produce the impossible evidence bluegenes is requesting to falsify his theory, which is my point.
Of course you're not asking me for empirical evidence to prove my hypothesis are you? While not asking the same of bluegenes to prove his?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1185 by Straggler, posted 07-10-2011 6:54 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1187 by Straggler, posted 07-10-2011 8:10 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 153 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1187 of 1725 (623415)
07-10-2011 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1186 by Chuck77
07-10-2011 7:08 AM


Re: More Arrogance
Chuck writes:
What kind of evidence do you need? Empirical evidence?
I will happily discuss whatever evidence you put forward.
Chuck writes:
I can supply lots of experiences that are subjective....
If you agree to participate I will start a thread on subjective evidence. My first question to you in that thread will be to ask why you attribute these subjective experiences to supernatural entities rather than to fluctuations in the matrix, undetectable telepathic aliens manipulating our minds or any other conceivable cause of such things.
Chuck writes:
.... but cannot produce the impossible evidence bluegenes is requesting to falsify his theory, which is my point.
Why is the evidence being required by bluegenes impossible?
Chuck writes:
Of course you're not asking me for empirical evidence to prove my hypothesis are you?
I would dispute that evidential investigation is about proof as such and suggest that relative likelihood is a better fit.
Chuck writes:
While not asking the same of bluegenes to prove his?
Bluegenes has provided empirical evidence that humans can and do invent supernatural concepts. Are you actually disputing that this is the case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1186 by Chuck77, posted 07-10-2011 7:08 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 153 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1188 of 1725 (623416)
07-10-2011 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1184 by Chuck77
07-10-2011 6:47 AM


Re: More Arrogance
Chuck writes:
Like I said to Modulous, how is this any different than me saying "I know God is real, prove me wrong, God is real because millions of people have had real experiences and have testified to it being true, even journaled it, wrote books on it etc etc."?
Well it is quite evidently very different in that bluegenes theory is based on the fact that humans can and do invent supernatural beings whilst the 'god is real' hypothesis is based on nothing other than personal belief.
The fact that people have documented these beliefs in demonstrably fallible books does nothing other than demonstrate the fact that humans have very strong conviction in things that are simply untrue (e.g. the Genesis account of creation)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1184 by Chuck77, posted 07-10-2011 6:47 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1192 by xongsmith, posted 07-10-2011 4:48 PM Straggler has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2565 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 1189 of 1725 (623417)
07-10-2011 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1184 by Chuck77
07-10-2011 6:47 AM


Re: More Arrogance
Chuck77 writes:
If you are convinced something does not exist why are you asking for impossible evidence that it does?
How do you know the evidence for one SB is impossible? That could only be the case if no supernatural beings exist.
Chuck77 writes:
I mean you have the proof they don't right?
Wrong. Learn the basics. If I had the "proof" I wouldn't be theorizing. Science explores the unknown. That is why we make theories and laws that cannot be conclusively proven.
When we know something for sure, it is a fact, not a theory. There is no way for anyone to know for sure that there are no supernatural beings. Think. If there are elves, we can't prove that there aren't elves. But if there are no elves, we can't prove that there aren't any either. How? But we can theorize that they are human inventions, based on our knowledge that humans can and do make such things up.
Chuck77 writes:
The point is, how do we know that these god(s) or supernatural beings are not influencing or directing the experiences people have and has nothing to do with imagination only UNTIL after the experience takes place?
We can't know. So we can try and look for one example of a supernatural being actually influencing someone beyond all reasonable doubt. For example, if a Goddess communicated with you, and told you what all the important news stories in the American papers would be on a certain day in 6 months time, it would be very convincing to others, wouldn't it?
Chuck77 writes:
Well, HOW do you know people have not had experiences?
Exactly. That's why we theorize. When we cannot know. Science, I repeat, explores the unknown. We can never conclusively know if Newton's laws apply all the time in other galaxies. We can only infer it.
Chuck writes:
You don't, just like you don't know " the only known source of supernatural beings is the imagination".)
By "known", I mean easily knowable to all of us, and known or knowable to science. Which other source is known in that sense, and why has no-one on this board told me about it yet? You could make a claim to know an SB personally, but you would need to support that claim in order for it to be knowable to the rest of the world.
Now, are you beginning to understand the difference between someone saying "I have a theory that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" and someone saying "It's a fact that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination"?
Me, I theorize about the unknown.
Incidentally, if you're inclined to believe in people's claimed experiences, why aren't you a Muslim? And why don't you believe in the experiences of the ancient Greek seers, who would have experienced many gods, not just one?
Chuck77 writes:
So, all you have to do to falsify my theory is simply prove that every experience anyone ever claimed to be supernatural was a direct result of their imagination, if you can't prove every one then you can't falsify my theory. All it takes is one persons experience to be true for my theory to be right. Better get going...
In order to have a theory, you need to find that one person who can demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that they've experienced a real supernatural being. It's not much to ask. In return, you can ask me to invent just one to support my theory of invention.
Poor Newton having to voyage the whole galaxy, and poor Pasteur having to watch the birth of every single organism on the planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1184 by Chuck77, posted 07-10-2011 6:47 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1193 by xongsmith, posted 07-10-2011 5:05 PM bluegenes has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 1190 of 1725 (623422)
07-10-2011 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1184 by Chuck77
07-10-2011 6:47 AM


Burden Of Proof Redux
So, all you have to do to falsify my theory is simply prove that every experience anyone ever claimed to be supernatural was a direct result of their imagination, if you can't prove every one then you can't falsify my theory. All it takes is one persons experience to be true for my theory to be right.
Which is exactly why the burden of proof is on you to produce one provably genuine experience of the divine, and not on bluegenes to show that millions of experiences were not genuine.
Again, I would point out that you yourself wouldn't adopt the mode of reasoning you suggest if it came to anything else. Do you believe in Santa Claus? I suppose not. Have you investigated every child who claims to have seen Santa Claus and proved that every such case is false? I am certain that you have not. And in that case you're happy to leave the burden of proof where it belongs. But you want supernatural beings in general to be afforded the special treatment that you yourself won't extend to poor old Saint Nick in particular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1184 by Chuck77, posted 07-10-2011 6:47 AM Chuck77 has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 1191 of 1725 (623451)
07-10-2011 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1172 by Straggler
07-08-2011 4:31 PM


Re: CONCEPTS
oh straggs, you're such a tool at times - just like me.....
BTW thank you for the requote of bluegenes' True Scotsman (backing off from "beings" to "concepts"). And yes, at times, (and this is one), that you have to be pedantic! What is a Concept? - something created by the mind, which at the moment is confined to the human mind (chimpanzees & porpoises, etc. tabled for the moment, just to facilitate the conversation)? Let me know, dear friend.
Straggler says, in the 1st post of the Inductive Atheism thread:
The only known source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination.
That's not what bluesgenes stated in his theory. bluegenes stated that the only source of Supernatural Beings was the figment of human imagination.
To say that the only source of human concepts of the supernatural are human concepts of the supernatural IS FUCKING NOTHING. We can do better than this.
That is where he made his mistake, along with many detailed items left out sub-topics, like:
What are the tools used to do the scientific investigation of this theory?
Archeology uses little picks and brushes and shovels and earth-movers and so on - they get right down into it. They use mass-spectrum analyzers for the real nitty gritty... They have repeatable procedures written out in detail.
Biology uses chemistry, mass-spectrum analyzers, electron-microscopes and so on. They use proven methods of chemical agents to expose the actual chemistries going on. They have repeatable procedures written out in detail.
Astronomy uses telescopes, spectrum analysers, rockets to launch more telescopes, and so on. And the results of Basic Physics. They have repeatable procedures written out in detail.
Physics uses calibrated lab equipment to measure to the finest electron microscopic degree and uses Astronomy results as well. They have repeatable procedures written out in detail.
...and so on.
and so on...
WHAT do we use here? What are the pieces of equipment we need to bring along?
I have asked this before.
bluegenes never described the scientific equipment he was using. Instead he showed some logical cigar-smoking arguments...look it up in the literature - a literature that has already been shown to be fraught with opinionated lies throughout history...history that RAZD has also errantly decided to allow to be included in this debate...good as they might have been - but still not the issue. When you propose a scientific theory, you also provide a detailed description of the methods of verifying this theory to the rest of the scientific community. This is why my brother called him out on Step 1. Where are the initial scientific data? Never mind the falsifiability (although i dealt with that little canard later in this thread) - you see - we never even got over the threshold here. We're still waiting on the front porch. bluegenes! answer the doorbell!
and if such a description of the experiments bluegenes has done is not forthcoming.........well, it was cute.
To repeat my brother,
Where's the evidence?
i'll add Where's the article in the unnamed as yet journal?
Edited by xongsmith, : felt like it

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1172 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2011 4:31 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1195 by Straggler, posted 07-10-2011 6:11 PM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1192 of 1725 (623455)
07-10-2011 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1188 by Straggler
07-10-2011 8:23 AM


Re: More Arrogance
Stragglers notes that:
The fact that people have documented these beliefs in demonstrably fallible books does nothing other than demonstrate the fact that humans have very strong conviction in things that are simply untrue (e.g. the Genesis account of creation)
Literature is not evidence.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1188 by Straggler, posted 07-10-2011 8:23 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1194 by Straggler, posted 07-10-2011 5:46 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 1193 of 1725 (623459)
07-10-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1189 by bluegenes
07-10-2011 8:32 AM


Re: More Arrogance
ah - bluegenes.....
keep up the fight, man.
Exactly. That's why we theorize. When we cannot know. Science, I repeat, explores the unknown. We can never conclusively know if Newton's laws apply all the time in other galaxies. We can only infer it.
But - and give me a chance here - the ways we have of studying such things are very well described! You have yet to provide the tools and methodology to bring to bear upon your study. You have yet to give me a procedure to conduct a non-biased neutral experiment to confirm what you wish to advance (as much as I might agree with it, in my own opinionated way). Yeah - guys like Einstein might have just said "go and look." as he sat back in his armchair, smoking no doubt a terrific Cuban Cigar.
So - bluegenes - give us the methodology to test this theory out so we can reproduce your results here.
Edited by xongsmith, : level up to bluegenes

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1189 by bluegenes, posted 07-10-2011 8:32 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1196 by AZPaul3, posted 07-10-2011 11:30 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 153 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1194 of 1725 (623463)
07-10-2011 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1192 by xongsmith
07-10-2011 4:48 PM


Literature as evidence....
X writes:
Literature is not evidence.
Literature certainly provides us with evidence of the fact that humans believe in supernatural entities that don't actually exist. Have you not read Genesis? Greek mythology? Norse mythology? Etc. etc.
X writes:
Literature is not evidence.
If you mean that literature pertaining to supernatural entities does not qualify as evidence in favour of the notion that supernatural entities actually exist - Then I agree. But maybe you should tell RAZ this.......
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
Oh dear......!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1192 by xongsmith, posted 07-10-2011 4:48 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1202 by xongsmith, posted 07-12-2011 12:25 AM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 153 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1195 of 1725 (623464)
07-10-2011 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1191 by xongsmith
07-10-2011 4:27 PM


Re: CONCEPTS
If after months of both my own proclivity for relentless pursuit and Mod's indisputable powers of explanation you still don't get the whole "concept" thing what hope is there now? Try responding in detail to Mod's post Message 1173 and/or bluegene's post (Message 1177). If after that you still think I can aid in any way with your ongoing comprehension problems I will try to do so. But at this point it would be more out of politeness than hope.
X writes:
Where's the evidence? I'll add Where's the article in the unnamed as yet journal?
Did you miss Modulous post Message 1018....?
Or more widely from bluegenes Message 63
Or if you Google a combination of words like "supernatural agency psychology" you will get various entries like this one: Agency Link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1191 by xongsmith, posted 07-10-2011 4:27 PM xongsmith has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1196 of 1725 (623488)
07-10-2011 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1193 by xongsmith
07-10-2011 5:05 PM


Super Experiment
So - bluegenes - give us the methodology to test this theory out so we can reproduce your results here.
I have been watching this thread with great interest and have been wonderfully entertained. But, come on, x, every one already knows the methodology of this one.
As you already state via Einstein, "go look!"
Choose any supernatural concept you want and go through as much of the literature, oral history, all the evidence available from as far back in antiquity as is possible.
That is your repeatable experiment.
Do this with as many such concepts as you may have time, inclination.
What did you find? Inconclusive for some, imagination for most ...
Did you find even one real clearly demonstrable god?
To my view no result from such experiments have yet falsified bluegenes theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1193 by xongsmith, posted 07-10-2011 5:05 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1197 of 1725 (623508)
07-11-2011 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1185 by Straggler
07-10-2011 6:54 AM


Great Debate
Straggler writes:
If I start a thread on this will you agree to take part and to provide this evidence?
Straggler, see my post in the PNT. It's in response to your PNT. Im basically asking/seeing if you want to debate it one on one first, then open it up after.
I commented on your 4 points as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1185 by Straggler, posted 07-10-2011 6:54 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1198 by Straggler, posted 07-11-2011 8:38 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 153 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1198 of 1725 (623531)
07-11-2011 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1197 by Chuck77
07-11-2011 4:14 AM


Re: Great Debate
Sure I'll Great Debate you if you want.
Your response seems to be somewhat wider than subjective experiences of gods and their validity as evidence in favour of the existence of gods that I first posted about. You seem to be bringing in the bible as evidence and the efficacy of prayer into it as well.
But yeah - Whatever you want as wide or as narrow as the admins stipulate. I'm easy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1197 by Chuck77, posted 07-11-2011 4:14 AM Chuck77 has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1199 of 1725 (623607)
07-11-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1175 by Straggler
07-09-2011 7:30 AM


Re: Tricks, are for kids
Straggler continues with a dead fish:
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 didn't feel the need to test every single raindrop in order to ensure that it wasn't derived from some other conceivable source did you? Why do you apply a different standard of evidence to bluegenes theory? Because you don't agree with the conclusion?
I can fly a plane through some temperature inversion layers without any cloud in the sky and get condensation on my wings which the fall off and to the ground, landing as RAIN.
This whole line is a bark up another tree.
Not to even mention what possibly happens when some passenger up there pees and flushes the toilet. Agreed this isn't "rain"....
But - yeah - Chuck77 isn't in my camp yet. Rrhain is.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1175 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2011 7:30 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1204 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 3:12 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 1200 of 1725 (623608)
07-11-2011 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1177 by bluegenes
07-09-2011 6:21 PM


bluegenes writes:
Currently, there's a guy criticizing my theory on this thread (Chuck77). Like RAZD, he seems to have no understanding of how inductive scientific theories and laws work. But he does, at least, seem to understand the phrase "All supernatural beings are figments of the imagination", even though he regularly spells "whether" as "weather", and can't distinguish the word "its" from "it's". And he's a creationist.
So, surely you should be ashamed of yourself if you can't even reach that level.
I'm not with the Chuck77 camp, or even (GASP!) the RAZD camp! To put me in with those guys means you haven't been reading my stuff very closely.
You don't seem to realize that I am on your side.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1177 by bluegenes, posted 07-09-2011 6:21 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1203 by Chuck77, posted 07-12-2011 2:45 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024