Peanut Gallery

Others have addressed the meat of your posts. But I am interested in your attitude to the whole issue: Why is it arrogant and unreasonable to describe "ALL supernatural concepts are sourced from human imagination" as a high confidence theory but not arrogant or unreasonable to describe "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" also as a high confidence theory?Not every supernatural concept has been tested and not every single raindrop has been tested. So why the willingness to accept one theory as perfectly valid whilst reacting so emotively and defensivley to the other?You really really need to stop and think about why it is that you demand such a different standard of evidence the moment the word "supernatural" is mentioned.

If I start a thread on this will you agree to take part and to provide this evidence?

I will happily discuss whatever evidence you put forward. 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. Why is the evidence being required by bluegenes impossible? I would dispute that evidential investigation is about proof as such and suggest that relative likelihood is a better fit. Bluegenes has provided empirical evidence that humans can and do invent supernatural concepts. Are you actually disputing that this is the case?

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)

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. 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....... Oh dear......!

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. Did you miss Modulous post Message 1018....?Or more widely from bluegenes Message 63Or if you Google a combination of words like "supernatural agency psychology" you will get various entries like this one: Agency Link

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.

Taaaaddddaaaaaaa!!!!!!This Xongsmith is how the theory that "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" would be falsified. You have provided a demonstrable alternative source of raindrops.Now why are you objecting to similar falsification of "ALL supernatural concepts are sourced from human imagination".......?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?My name is Maximus Argumenticus Stragglerus, commander of the EvC beer lovers brigade, General of the late night posters alliance, loyal servant to the cause of truth justice and the EvC way. Father to a neglected son, husband to a EvC widow of a wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.

Huh? I decided to challenge? I just started a general thread on subjective evidence. Chuck wanted to turn it into a Great Debate between him and me. You can ask him why he made that decision.I've offered RAZD a GB before and he declined. At the end of the day I am happy to GB anyone who prefers that format.My only other GB was with a guy called Rob from ages back. I dunno if he qualified as a "long-standing and rational theist" but he certainly seemed so to me back then in my own noobie days. I didn't realise I was a man of "size".... I'm flattered!!!But Jon anytime you want to Great Debate with me (after the current one) just say so.Assuming you consider yourself to be of sufficient "size" of course......

So I am damned if I do and damned if I don't huh? We can only hope. I don't think you are in a position to turn down learning opportunities Jon.

You seem to be saying that whenever we properly investigate an observable phenomenon (e.g. lightning) we will find it to have a naturalistic cause rather than a supernatural one (e.g. static electricity rather than Thor brandishing his magic hammer).I really don't see how this is anything other than a long winded restatement of bluegenes theory but with your own ongoing misapprehensions about the nature of falsifiability layered on top. Well if Thor had been confirmed as the cause of lightning rather than static electricity there would have been a confirmed supernatural explanation for lightning wouldn't there?The fact that this has never occurred for any observable phenomenon is why it is a strong theory.

So the better evidenced a theory becomes the less scientific it becomes because the less likley it is to be falsified?Dude - That's just mental.

Why don't you just participate in the actual Great debate in question? And if you don't want to but Xong thinks he has a case why doesn't he take over?Bluegenes never specified you as the only person he was willing to defend his theory against.

Is the second law of thermodynamics weakened as a falsifiable scientific theory evertime someone fails to make a perpetual motion machine?