|
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 |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Do you think they will ever understand this? This obsession with disproof and the unshakeable premise that anything remotely related to unfalsifiable supernatural beliefs is therefore immune from any form of empirical investigation seems so ingrained as to be almost insurmountable. That the theory in question seeks to naturalistically explain an observable phenomeon just like any scientific theory is proving impossible to get across to these people.
Who'd have thought that here at EvC we'd find ourselves arguing about a natural phenomenon being explained in terms of natural causes with people who raise an unverified, unfalsifiable, vague, unscientific and generally supernatural counterarguments?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No. A theory which predicts there are no supernaturals. No disproof claimed. The claim is that the only known source is the imagination. If that claim is true, it does not therefore mean there are no supernaturals. So no, there is no claim that would disprove supernaturals being made. If you think that claim is being made, it explains your position, maybe you've merely misunderstood us. That's possible, right? We might have failed to communicate the notion correctly to you or something. I think part of the misunderstanding has to do with the theory being proposed as leading to the position that there is no god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Actually it leads to the position that gods are more likely to figments of human imagination than real entities.
Relative likelihood and all that.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Actually it leads to the position that gods are more likely to {be} figments of human imagination than real entities. I don't think it does.
Relative likelihood and all that..... You don't have any actual probilities of gods existing with which to be relative to. And inductive probabilites are not physical probabilities. You're gonna have to make an assumption of a probability in there, most likely the one that you're trying to conclude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I think part of the misunderstanding has to do with the theory being proposed as leading to the position that there is no god.
Can you name anyone that has proposed this? Please link to the post, I've completely missed that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Can you name anyone that has proposed this? Please link to the post, I've completely missed that. It might not be that explicit, but Bluegenes proposed the theory to answer the question "Why not agnostic?" in Message 167.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It might not be that explicit, but Bluegenes proposed the theory to answer the question "Why not agnostic?" But he doesn't even imply that his theory leads to the position that there is no god, let alone propose it. That you think that is what he is saying probably explain a lot of your misgivings. It does lead to the position that any conception you have of god is your imagination. But as to whether a god actually exists, the theory is basically neutral. If a real god was to turn up, we would know that at least one god concept was not pure imagination, and the theory would be falsified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
And as you well know (because you took part in all of them) this thread followed a whole raft of previous threads where it was made abundantly clear that none of the atheists involved here (including bluegenes) are talking about absolute certainty. E.g.
bluegenes to RAZD writes: Is there something about the phrase "I cannot know" that you don't understand? Message 168 + up and down thread + numerous places elsewhere. And even when RAZ refers to his technicolour scales which are included in the Great Debate thread he recognises that bluegenes is taking a 6 position which is not one of certainty. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: You don't have any actual probilities of gods existing with which to be relative to. And inductive probabilites are not physical probabilities. You're gonna have to make an assumption of a probability in there, most likely the one that you're trying to conclude. Is this English? The only "assumption" being made is that highly evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than unevidenced ones. I think you will find that this approach is widely adopted, rather fundamental to the validity of scientific conclusions and more than borne out by the achievements this scientific approach has led to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member |
Straggler writes: The only "assumption" being made is that highly evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than unevidenced ones. Straggs, what do you mean by "highly evidenced conclusions"? You mean about the supernatural? What kind of evidence do you have about the SN that is "highly" evidenced to conclude they don't exist? You mean like testing the SN emperically? Is there a test to do so? You seem to be trying to bridge the gap by using natural methods to conclude the supernatural is just our imagination. You can't know ANY better than WE know, right? Isn't subjective evidence for both of us? You see it one way, I see it another? Why is yours any MORE right than mine? You say it's more likley they don't exist, I say it's more likely they do. Why do you think you have the upper hand? Because of natural conclusions about the SN? IF, the SN DOES exist why would it be detected thru natural means? Because it can't doesn't mean it isn't there. It's just the testing we have, is inadequate. Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Chuck77 writes:
Person A: "I have a supernatural thing here! It is Thor's anger!!" What kind of evidence do you have about the SN that is "highly" evidenced to conclude they don't exist?Scientist B: "I'll investigate....Oh, it is just lightning." Person C: "I have a supernatural thing here! It is god's love!!"Scientist D: "I'll investigate....Oh, it is just a rainbow." etc...etc...etc... This doesn't conclude that they don't exist.It concludes that all known supernatural concepts originated in the human imagination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Chuck writes: Straggs, what do you mean by "highly evidenced conclusions"? I mean conclusions like the conclusion that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old rather than being omphamsitically created last Thursday. I mean conclusions like the conclusion that gravitational effects are caused by space-time curvature rather than immaterial and undetectable gravity gnomes linking masses together. I mean the conclusion that evolution actually took place rather than the notion that fossils and genetic evidence were simply planted by Satan to make us believe ungodly things about the creation of species. I mean the conclusion that gods are products of the human mind rather than real entities. Etc. Which part of this is confusing you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The last seems out of place and totally un-evidenced.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: I mean the conclusion that gods are products of the human mind rather than real entities. jar writes: The last seems out of place and totally un-evidenced. So which concept of god are you suggesting as more likely to exist than be a product of human imagination?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm not, I'm simply saying that what you said is simply an un-evidenced assertion, your personal belief.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024