Hi Otto Tellick, thanks.
I suppose you've probably been over this too many times already (I'm sure Straggler thinks you have), but I hope it won't be taken as off-topic if I ask: what would it take to show (to your satisfaction) that a "supernatural entity is a product of human imagination"?
Documentation that shows the specific entity in question was invented.
The problem though is not that
some supernatural beliefs may be due to imagination, but that Straggles
et al claim that
ALL supernatural beliefs are due to imagination, and thus far they have not (and apparently cannot) provide the evidence to demonstrate or support that claim. All they are doing is guessing, based on their beliefs.
I suspect that this would actually be quite simple to demonstrate, and that it has probably been demonstrated countless times -- cargo cults in the South Pacific being a fairly recent and reasonably well documented category. Do you consider the creation of gods from imagination to be something demonstrable, or not?
Do you think that the specific evidence that shows the cargo cults to be imaginary applies to concepts like the IPU as well? Is there cross-over from one concept to the next?
And are you actually trying to make a point that specific supernatural entities, as described in particular cultures and scriptures, must all be considered to have some non-zero probability of not originating from human imagination?
How do you calculate probability when you don't know the possibilities? What I have said is that without specific evidence that {A}
does not exist, that one cannot conclude that it
does not exist, AND that without specific evidence that {A}
does exist, that one cannot conclude that it
does exist. This means that either {A} or not{A} is possible.
If you cannot show that there is
zero probability of supernatural concepts not originating from human imagination, then aren't you
de facto admitting a non-zero probability of not originating from human imagination?
But "probability" is the wrong word here as it is assumed rather than calculated - better to use possibility. Even then you have problems:
If you cannot show that there is
zero possibility of supernatural concepts not originating from human imagination, then aren't you
de facto admitting a non-zero possibility of not originating from human imagination?
If that's the case, and if I understand you correctly, this would entail that you are proposing we should acknowledge the possibility that any of the countless supernatural entities (indeed any combination thereof) have in fact been described on the basis of something other than imagination ...
Can you demonstrate that they don't exist? Can you demonstrate evidence that specifically shows they each are products of human imagination?
... which in turn would entail any variety of suspensions or violations of natural laws.
And? Isn't that part of what supernatural means?
... what would it take to show (to your satisfaction) that a "supernatural entity is a product of human imagination"?
A means of testing for supernatural presence, so you can apply the test and show empirical (rather than assumed) negative results.
Consider Ben Franklin flying his kite in a rain storm without a means to test for the presence of electricity: lightening strikes the kite repeatedly, but in spite of all the bright lights and loud sounds, no electricity is detected. Is it proper to conclude that electricity is not present, or should you conclude that the neither the presence nor absence of electricity in lightening has been adequately supported by evidence, and that (without further evidence) either one is possible?
Is this "moral prime mover" an entity whose existence you would posit, RAZD? (I understand that you were replying to GDR, and I know that he clearly posits a deliberate and conscious entity as the "moral prime mover" -- I'm just wondering whether you share something like his conception.)
As a Deist I "posit" the creation of the universe and thus the "natural" laws that govern its operation, including the evolution of thinking rational beings and their subsequent use of intelligence.
Isn't it sufficient to posit that something akin to natural selection, operating on human social/cultural structures, is functioning as the "prime mover"? Or do you want to attribute some notion of awareness, deliberation, plan, etc, on the part of some entity in order to make things move?
Sufficient does not mean truth or seeking of truth. Is it sufficient to assume that human imagination is responsible for all supernatural concepts? Doesn't that mean that you stop looking at other possibilities?
Atheists complain about the theists "god-did-it" as a
get out of jail free card to explain things, and here we see atheists using "human imagination" as a
get out of jail free card to explain things, while neither of them is necessarily true.
I prefer being an open-minded skeptic -- open-minded in the consideration of the possibility of concepts that are not contradicted by objective empirical evidence, while remaining skeptical of concepts that are not supported by objective empirical evidence.
Indeed, looking at Robert Wright's book "Non-Zero", there seems to be a logical inevitability to the general improvement of the human condition -- despite the never-ending tension between forward and backward impulses, and the frequent lulls and setbacks. No deliberate agency is needed to plan it out, let alone any vague, supernatural entity to serve as such an agent.
And we see similar development via evolution of various traits that are increasingly beneficial. Guess the "supernatural entity" did an
excellent job of planing and implementing, then.
Enjoy.
™ Version 4.2
