Peanut Gallery

No. Really. Thank you jar.Thank you for supporting bluegene's theory by presenting us with your own imagined entity.Thank you in particular for defining your imagined entity as being completely unevidenced.It always makes discerning the origin of the concept as human imagination so much easier when people do this.Thanks again and cheerio.

Good question. Must there be an answer, or shall we continue asking questions? Why must it be as you say it is? why can't it be otherwise? Consider the theoretical implications if it were otherwise. Has anything changed in life? Why must people be unable to have a God outside their imaginations? Forget evidence.

I just enjoy laughing at people that jump into an on-going debate on a discussion forum - using their beliefs as their reasoning - but then refuse to debate their beliefs, claiming that their beliefs are unreasoned.
It amuses me.

well im glad that i am making you laugh...its good for the soul they say....and by the way I only now am reading back several hundred posts into this debate. Therefore I am asserting nothing except that my contention that my belief does not have to be part of my imagination entirely. (good luck me trying to prove it though! )

It was a reply to jar and not you.From what I see, you are debating your beliefs (origins of your beliefs / beliefs in general).You are not simply posting patronising one-liners in an effort to avoid discussion. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If I have a motto in life it is this - The truth can always be questioned. Hence my approach If the source of supernatiralism as a concept is not derived from that which is external to the human mind then the concept must be sourced from the internal workings of the human mind. How can it possibly be otherwise? Such as? Who said they can't?People are welcome to worship, believe in, sacrifice ants to, pray to, devote books to, write internet posts about etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. whatever they damn well please. And I have no intention of stopping them. (Well - I think the ants thing is unnecessary but I won't get too upset about it)If jar wants to believe in the existence of Santa and his magic elves because it makes him happy - He can. But if he posts a response on a debate board saying that Santa shouldn't be included in a list of made-up entities he should expect a robust response and be prepared to backup his assertions. If you are talking about what is or is not actually likely to be correct how can you "forget evidence". That is absurd isn't it? Look Phat, jar does this all the time. He berates some creationist/overt theist about their supernturalistic proclamations or objects to some atheist conclusion about the unlikelihood of god as if he were some sort of patronising wise old infallible know-it-all who only takes part in such discussions to pass on his wisdom to others. Then - after questioning - It turns out that his own position is different only to other supernaturalists in terms of the vaguety or unfalsifiablity of the position he himself has taken. Then he suddenly gets all coy about the nature of his objections and reverts to the 'It's my belief' line of defence. For example: But did jar agree that his objections to that particular example were based solely on his beliefs? No he did not. Yet after pointing out to him that GOD as defined by him (as essentially un-evidencable) was identical to the other things in my list jar suddenly starts posting trite drivel such as: If jar wants to object to my arguments because he subjectively doesn't like them he is welcome to. But if he makes it clear he is only objecting because he subjectively doesn't like my conclusions I will ignore him with all the disdain he shows others who make similar arguments against evidenced conclusions.If however he thinks he can provide a counter-argument to the reasoning which results in a concept which is defined as being completely unevidenced as being necessarily nothing other than a product of human imagination (as per Message 1407) then I am all ears.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In keeping with the gist of this thread, if this was all the data you had available, you could call this a strong theory. To falsify this theory, one would have to produce a supporter who's not from the UK.Here I would like to enter into evidence exhibit H: Huntard. He supports Bluegenes' theory, yet is not from the UK.Now, if only the non-supporters of Bluegenes' theory could produce something to falsify it, say a god not sprung from human imagination.

But we have considered you an honourary UKite for some time now.Oh no!! I have unfalsified the falsification example!!! If we make you an honourary supernatural being does that count?I guess not...

Well, I guess the theory could be amended to "from Europe" instead of "from the UK" We could at least try. Perhaps I'll gain some fancy honourary powers.In any case, I hope my little example made something clear to the detractors of the theory, but I'm not holding my breath.

A noble sentiment to be sure. However, those of us who are supporters as winthin your 1.0 scale from outside the UK have an even more noble reason to support BG theory. This because it is correct.

Hi again AZPaul3, sorry my time is so fragmented with other aspects of life. Not really. What I said was: Remember that this started with my comment: Think of it like this: suppose Ben Franklin had no way to determine if electricity was in effect when he did his kite experiment -- bolt after bolt after bolt of lightening hits his kite, and he can say that there is a pattern of light and sound involved, but because he cannot determine whether electricity is involved he can't say that it is present or that it is not present. Did you? How would you determine whether or not supernatural effects were in existence: what is your means to measure that?According to the reports of religious experiences, seeing god/s is a rather common element, so all you need to do is have such a religious experience (and you do agree that seeing a god would be a religious experience yes? -- Do you deny that such a show would falsify the proposition?).Just make sure you have your means to test\measure the existence of supernatural elements, or you will be like Ben Franklin without a Leyden Jar, standing in the rain unable to test for the presence of electricity.Without a means\methodology to test for actual supernatural elements you are left making assumptions based on opinion/s, and we both know that opinions have a terrible record of representing reality.If you are the one making the claim, and you want to have it considered scientific, then you need to do basic testing of your conjecture\hypothesis to show that it is valid before you can claim it is a theory, and that means that you MUST test reports that would seem to invalidate your hypothesis (and you do agree that a real religious experience involving supernatural elements would invalidate the hypothesis, yes?).This is where bluegenes has absolutely failed to comply with the basic scientific process to turn his conjectural hypothesis into a {scientific theory == a tested hypothesis}. Amusingly, when your tv is on you make observations about some aspects of reality that you do not make when the tv is off. How accurately they represent reality depends on what you see and how you it is interpreted.What is observed when the tv is on is going on whether the tv is on or off, the tv gives you the opportunity to experience it.Now you have also claimed that the brain scan pattern for deep meditation and prayer are the same: Now let me suggest to you that this pattern is NOT what is seen during periods of active imagination, and that this would seem to be evidence that imagination is NOT involved in religious experiments.Enjoy.

RAZ for the benefit of those of us still not getting it - Could you explain in detail why bluegenes has to falsify baseless claims of people communicating with supernatural entities but evolutionary biologists (for example) don't have to falsify baseless claims that evolutionary evidence has been supernaturally planted in order to lead us to ungodly conclusions about creation? (and you do agree that the planting of evolutionary evidence by malevolent supernatural elements would invalidate the evidence for evolutionary theory, yes?). What supernatural phenomena has bluegenes claimed to be able to explain? Be very specific. So now bluegenes has to disprove that there are invisible supernatural agents manipulating blood flow in the brain? Good grief!!But why stop at religious experiences? Why not other brain activity? Happiness. Depression. Sexual arousal. Any of these could be caused by invisible supernatural entities manipulating brain physiology could they not?Aside from human belief that religious experiences are caused by supernatural entities what makes this brain activity any more likely to be the result of supernatural intervention than any other?You are special pleading on the basis of human belief. As you have unwittingly been doing throughout.

I really missed out on some of great debates that took place here. I just skimmed thru this thread " Topic: Pseudoskepticism and logic "EvC Forum: Pseudoskepticism and logicAnother great thread. There are a bunch of those closley related threads here and always fun to read.Im late to the party as they've been hashed out re-hashed out and re-re hashed out again and again. No matter, I think it's some of the greatest debating and some of the best reading on the forum.I wish I was around at it's height.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Forgive me, but I have had a lot of ale and the sun is about to come up AGAIN...birds soon to be heard.Straggler: I agree that this is a valid complaint. BUT this is not the issue. For RAZD to continue one step further along this line would truly be a FOLLY. How about we try to help out bluegenes instead of trashing RAZD?Most proposed scientific theories that I have seen, right away at the outset, just after the synopsis paragraph in the publication (and EvC could be very well construed as a publication), describe at detailed length what they did to set up their equipment and calibrate it, measure stuff appropriate to their investigation and find out what was not appropriate to their investigation, observe & record data and then draw conclusions from as an objective analysis as possible (what calibration is really all about!), enough to draw yawns from the Peanut Gallery, so to speak. Then they provide examples to support the methodology & conclusion. RAZD is still searching for this detailed initial description. He aint gonna get it. bluegenes halted at the synopsis.Ah - so bluegenes then DOES bring up stories of past supernaturals and demonstrates (or rather lets us see for our own selves) the contradictions of these stories.It is my contention (unlike my brother) that ALL of these stories are inadmissible evidence. They are fictions carried down through the ages subject to descent & modification just like any ordinary evolution of the species. Of course they are going to be contradictory! They are Stupid Human Tricks. They are hearsay. They are not objective scientific data on the issue. bluegenes also has overwhelmingly demonstrated that human CAN make up supernatural things. No argument there. Again, not the issue.This evidence cannot be used to form an Inductive Reasoning argument because, in the cases of those Inductive Reasoning arguments that have been accepted by the scientific community, the evidence has already been determined to be admissable.Basically bluegenes is asking us to accept the LEAST SCIENTIFIC DATA KNOWN TO MANKIND to support his theory. I call bullshit.Then we have the psychological experts with a well-documented proclivity of the human mind to make up supernatural beings. This is much better scientific evidence, but still misses the mark only in that the field itself is a sort of cloudy, incomplete field in comparison to things like Newton's Laws, while it also is not claiming to cover ALL psychological instantiations known so far. It leaves room for the supernatural, albeit a small room. Just because many people might hallucinate on LSD doesn't mean all will. And you will never see an accepted scientific publication claiming such is the case. Or, more appropriately, flip it around - just because all of the subjects in the study were hallucinating doesn't mean they were all taking LSD. LOL - this would be silly beyond (gulp) belief. Make no mistake - I am not in agreement with RAZD.bluegenes has received a LOT of EvC help in supporting his theory so far here - when he should have consulted with them BEFORE PUBLISHING with these supporters - then included and credited them as co-authors (many co-authors is a GOOD thing, no?) in the document.Instead he said he had plenty of evidence. He has stories, shrinks and the silence of falsifying evidence so far.The falsification part is actually not the first part! The problem is in the first part - the statement of the theory. Never mind that my Xongsmith Analemma demonstrates that the falsification part will NEVER ever happen...no - let's only look at the first part - the synopsis statement with the missing details of the project's scientific analysis. It is really most insulting to demand of a naysayer to produce falsifying evidence!

What he has is an abundance of positive evidence for a naturalistic explanation to an observed phenomenon and no falsification of that explanation despite continual and persistent claims that the theory must be false because lots of people believe it to be so.If it weren't for the deep and widespread human conviction that the particular phenomenon in question must be the result of something other than the internal workings of the human mind it would have been case closed with barely an eyebrow raised.Did you ever see the crop circle thread? Message 81Your anal Emma nonsense simply fails to recognise that if supernatural entities really do exist and can be demonstrated to exist then the theory will be falsified. The rest is simply you twisting yourself in knots with unstated but seemingly circular thinking about what "supernatural" actually means.As per Message 416 and elsewhere.