Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inductive Atheism
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 458 of 536 (617696)
05-30-2011 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 457 by tesla
05-30-2011 2:32 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
Potato patata. Your arguing semantics.
I'm just saying that if they are natural they aren't supernatural. Do you propose there is a supernatural explanation or a natural one?
abe:
For example:
1: Natural explanation, Poor experimental controls.
2: Supernatural explanation - spritual energies put allow us to sense the future (or whatever) with our souls.
3: Paranormal explanation: Our brains can predict future events using entities that are material/natural but presently prohibited or nearly ruled out under the normal scientific model of reality.
The Cayce validation isn’t necessary since the other document already renders your theory invalid.
Only if supernatural entities are required to explain it. I propose natural ones, the theory predicts than only natural ones will be forthcoming. Do you have any evidence of supernatural ones?
abe: As for Cayce - I'm still yet to see a scientifically verified example of something supernatural. Some people were apparently baffled by what he did, is that what you call scientific verification? I can find people with phds that are baffled by illusionists and mentalists. I believe most of Cayce's claims are based on hearsay.
So let's find out what baffled Dr Blackburn...do you know?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by tesla, posted 05-30-2011 2:32 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by tesla, posted 05-30-2011 9:46 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 464 of 536 (617758)
05-31-2011 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 459 by tesla
05-30-2011 9:46 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
You are playing the sophist debate game to attempt to win an argument you clearly have lost.
No, I'm trying to clarify how I am using the words to highlight that we don't disagree on the core of this topic. On the other hand, you are trying to 'win' by dismissing my clarification as a sophist debate game, which is a shame. I was hoping we might find agreement. One more try, I guess.
Nothing true in this universe is supernatural.
Agreed. When I say 'Supernatural entities are products of the human imagination', I mean it in much the same way you mean this in this context.
do supernatural things exist beyond imagination? And the answer is YES. The psychic abilities exhibited are beyond current understanding of physics. So what do people consider it? Supernatural. However, nothing true; is truly supernatural.
Right - so it isn't really supernatural. The qualities of 'supernatural' exist only in our minds. That's why I brought in the term 'paranormal' to differentiate. We both agree the superanatural is not a real thing.
Where we disagree is that you think psychics are a genuine phenomena of extracognitive ability beyond the understanding of science. This would be what I called 'paranormal' and that category of thing is not really the topic here.
For what it is worth I think all claims of the 'paranormal' are likely to transpire to be mundane natural things such as experimenter error, confirmation bias and other known issues.
that there is more to supernatural phenomenon than peoples imagination. Many acts beyond understanding have fed imaginations.
And we agree that imaginations don't exist in a vacuum and that external events feed them. Normal mundane things such as illusions, hallucinations, delusions, or simple cognitive errors such as change blindness, erroneous agency detection or confirmation bias feed the human imagination turning the natural into the supernatural within the human mind.
But just because the witnesses cannot or do not understand these things, does mean the supernatural is not the product of the human imagination. The human imagination takes input and adds bells and whistles. It is the bells and whistles we are talking about in this thread - not the input.
We are not suggesting that people just make this stuff up consciously while sitting with eyes closed. The human imagination is an active and often unconscious process. We are not saying that they are basing their imaginative extrapolation on nothing. Indeed - they are basing them on experiences that they don't understand. But the supernatural bells and whistles they add to try and understand what they experienced? That's just imagination. The experience itself remains real and perfectly natural.
This can be falsified by producing evidence of bells and whistles. You don't think such evidence exists, I don't. So the theory remains unfalsified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by tesla, posted 05-30-2011 9:46 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 11:43 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 475 of 536 (617953)
05-31-2011 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by tesla
05-31-2011 11:43 AM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
Supernatural falls under the same category as paranormal activity; in the definition being: beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
And I've told you that we're using the word differently. You can find other definitions. Such as:
quote:
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena
You are arguing that the supernatural is really just natural things that are misunderstood. That's fine - but the theory is about the claim that supernatural things are really not just natural things that are misunderstood but SUPERnatural.
We both agree that so-called supernatural claims are actually just natural events that have been misunderstood. The theory predicts that the notion of spirit guides was invented in the minds of men and has no verified basis in reality.
Talking to the dead is a source of psychics information [according to many physics]. They claim 'spirit guides' inform them.
That seems like a supernatural claim. There is no evidence for spirit guides actually existing.
We can’t prove it’s not true.
I'm fairly sure I've stated twice already that I'm not claiming we can. Just that there is a theory that spirit guides are products of the imagination of the psychics that claim them as explanation for their perceived abilities.
Is it your belief that all notions of 'God' and 'Spirit' and 'Soul' are simply the imaginations of a needy mankind? I believe you do.
Not really a 'needy' mankind. A mankind with a brain that makes predictable mistakes in attribution of causality, agency etc.
But evidence of faith healing exists. Why does faith healing work?
Suggestion, misdirection and other tricks. Check out Derren Brown, he taught a complete newb how to do faith healing within a few weeks. He managed to convince members of the public that he was a genuine faith healer and he performed several miraculous healings that witnesses were amazed by.
. And so you say more evidence supports that God and spirits and other supernatural phenomenon have no true acts to base the beliefs on.
No. My position is that perfectly natural cognitive effects can explain religious experiences. You may check out my posts in Religious Experiences - Evidence of God(s)? for further clarification of my position on this subject.
However: science understands water is lighter than air
You realize this isn't true, right? I assume you are just getting carried away with your analogy.
I stand by my position because it is greater evidenced there is more than imagination involved when it comes to supernatural events.
And I agree. But only the imagination is verified as being involved in the formation of supernatural hypothesis as a means to explain those real events.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 11:43 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 5:59 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 477 of 536 (617970)
05-31-2011 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 476 by tesla
05-31-2011 5:59 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
Which also must be pointed out, all hypothesis are imaginations based on data we haven’t proven
Right. But some hypothesese rely on entities for which there is independent and converging lines of evidence to support their existence. The theory notes that there are a certain class of entities for which zero evidence has been found, but which are regularly imagined to be real. The theory posits that all these notions exist within the minds of people alone and are not reflected in reality and it can be falsified with such evidence as we have for horses or friction.
A final point: the events are of course real, just beyond current abilities to understand.
They may well be beyond your current abilities to understand. I believe they are somewhat understood, but we are continuously learning about the common mistakes/errors humans make and have to create ever more controlled environments to account for them. Under the most rigorously controlled environment psychic powers seem to vanish to the edges of statistical significance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 5:59 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 6:49 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 479 of 536 (617984)
05-31-2011 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by tesla
05-31-2011 6:49 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
And you think paranormal and supernatural phenomenon has zero evidence?
I think that there zero evidence for the existence supernatural entities.
There is tons of evidence,
The only evidence I have seen consists of minor effects at the edge of statistical detection, poor or unverified experimental controls, possible memory errors and so on.
thousands of books and the fact a vast majority of the population of this planet believe in it.
And there are thousands of books debunking it, and a thousand books on Islam. I fail to see what relevance the beliefs of the majority has here.
Scientifically nothing is proven.
I believe I have stated three times now that this thread is about a theory not about proof and disproof.
Even in science many theories are well beyond understanding and have theories based on data no one truly understands yet.
Even if true, this provides no evidential support for the existence of supernatural entities.
I am not closed minded, I am not ruling them out absolutely. So you don't need to lecture me that we are forever learning new things about the world. I'm just saying that at this moment there is no evidence to support the existence of supernatural entities.
UFO's real? Yes.
Agreed.
Are they understood? No.
Some of them are later identified as Chinese Lanterns, helicopters, planets, clouds, street lamps, weather balloons, other terristrial aircraft...
None of them have been identified as being piloted by aliens. Nor have any verified accounts of them being the steeds of angels.
and how can we go about researching an unidentified flying object? Are they there? Yes. But unidentified means we cannot explain it.
No, it means it was not initially identified by the observer. But later investigations can identify what was seen. So far, no angels.
Which also has something to say about how controlled the experiments are may also be affecting the experiment.
Well that's exactly the point. It is an observable effect that researchers unconsciously bias the results if they are able.
But at least they are running experiments trying to explain the phenomenon and not just ignoring the fact they exist.
I agree the phenomenon exists, but I disagree that supernatural entities are responsible. I think human frailty is more likely the culprit. I have evidence for human frailty. If you propose a better explanation I expect to see the evidence to support it.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 6:49 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 8:22 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 488 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-01-2011 12:00 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 481 of 536 (617999)
05-31-2011 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by tesla
05-31-2011 8:22 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
Then by your opinion there is nothing outside the realms of known physics.
No, that is not my opinion. I have noticed a tendency in people to jump to this conclusion when discussing these kinds of topics, it happened in the thread I linked to earlier. It is a curious phenomenon. It's like you believe I'm a raving lunatic so you conclude I must have crazy opinions about the world and that I must therefore think like the above. I support scientific research, I accept we do not know everything, I accept we will discover new things, and new entities. If I did not accept this as being true, I could not even entertain the notion that theory can be falsified by the presentation of previously undiscovered evidence.
My opinion is that there are many possible hypotheses to explain any given phenomena and so far, entities that transcend nature in some sense have not been evidenced and so any such hypothesis was borne in a humans mind and is not based on external verified evidence.
I hold that there is a theory that all such entities are products of the human imagination. This can be falsified with evidence for such an entity. I have previously described the evidence that would persuade me that ghosts exist, and I would take the existence of a ghost as falsification of the theory.
Believe what you will. I reject your theory.
That's fine, but you are rejecting a theory different than the one proposed. You are rejecting the theory that all phenomena with an unknown explanation are products of the human imagination. I too reject that theory.
I am proposing that whenever someone develops a hypothesis that includes entities which are somehow 'above nature', and not thus are not themselves 'natural', that those entities are products of the imagination. It predicts that whatever real entities are responsible for the given phenomena, they will turn out to be as natural as horses and friction. It can be falsified by presentation of evidence for a proposed supernatural being. More specifically, and germane to the topic - evidence of a god would be required.
Evidence that people might have psychic powers? Not relevant unless you propose they perform their psychic feats using supernatural entities such as spirit guides. In which case, show the evidence of the spirit guide and falsify the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 8:22 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by Panda, posted 05-31-2011 9:04 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 483 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 9:40 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 484 of 536 (618014)
05-31-2011 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by tesla
05-31-2011 9:40 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
I must also reject this hypothesis.
OK, since you have no evidence, I assume you have a reason?
It is possible that the universe could evolve creatures not carbon based. This is especially probable in the 'anti-matter' universes, as theorized. There is too much out there we cannot begin to guess at yet.
I would not construe such beings as being 'above nature', or transcending nature, or being made of some fundamentally different stuff, such as 'spirit' that does not obey deterministic rules. However, if you wish to propose such a being as an explanation for a phenomena I would require evidence. The lack thereof could lead only to the conclusion that the idea popped into your head based on nothing but the workings and biases innate within the human mind.
I am not claiming that therefore the beings you might claim do not exist. I am not making a factual claim about their existence at all. Just stating what a evidentially supported theory predicts.
Science will evolve, but until then I will not close my mind to potentials that are potential. If I were to do that, I would limit my potentials for discovery.
I agree. Which is why theories are tentative, and we keep an open mind about possible falsification. I'm not suggesting the theory is an irrevocable truth, just a theory that has supporting evidence and no falsifying evidence. Do you dispute that it has evidence to support it? Do you propose a falsifying transcedental entity or god? Do you dispute that if true, it would explain the evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 9:40 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 11:07 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 486 of 536 (618050)
06-01-2011 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by tesla
05-31-2011 11:07 PM


no evidence and impossible to explain
If there was evidence this wouldn't be a discussion
And since there isn't evidence, belief in these entities did not come about from a consideration of any evidence. If people didn't weigh up the evidence, where did the notion come from?
The theory predicts the human mind is the only source we'll identify. The theory might be wrong.
anything considered 'supernatural' cannot be proven.
Is it four times now that I've said this thread isn't about proof? Just independent lines of converging evidence will suffice.
it is BEYOND scientists ability to explain.
And anyone that thinks they can explain it must be making their explanation up - since they lack the ability to actually explain it, right?
If you are looking for apples in apple trees, those you find. you will not find them growing oranges. but the evidence of apples on apple trees only prove apple trees produce apples.
I hypothesise that there are no snozberries, and they are nothing but a product of the human imagination. You could falsify this theory by producing evidence of a snozberry.
I don't need to look in trees for snozberries - if you claim that snozberries exist, it's your job to provide the evidence. I can provide support that snozberries are inventions of the mind of a human being (ie., Roald Dahl)
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 11:07 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 489 of 536 (618113)
06-01-2011 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by New Cat's Eye
06-01-2011 12:00 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
But if you're not "proving" that they're not true, then how do you go about inducing atheism? i.e., that they're not true.
By noting that the only place we know where these kinds of ideas come from is the mind. That everytime we can be said to be 'sure' about these things is when we are sure they are imaginary. The induction takes the specific known cases and infers to the more general case.
Heh, the UFO things kinda reminds me of one of the problems I have with the threory and its seemingly circular reasoning...
As if the theory said that once a UFO becomes identified, then it will no longer be a UFO...
No shit
I realize its not exactly the same, but that's how I see "scientific" investigation of the "supernatural".
Well the U becomes false when the object is identified, its just the meaning of the words.
There are two possibilities:
either the supernatural can be evidenced or the supernatural cannot be evidenced.
If the former - then no evidence exists except the evidence of mental creation.
If the latter - they must be in our heads.
Have you looked into this whole FBI released document thing?
I haven't. Is he particularly credible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-01-2011 12:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 533 of 536 (633108)
09-12-2011 1:44 PM


in a nutshell
From Message 7
If a patient sees a doctor and complains that the CIA has set up an invisible base on the moon and is using undetectable lasers to alter the minds of his closest friends to...
The subject of undetectable lasers and government conspiracies is 'non scientific' at heart - but the doctor would be being perfectly within the realms of science to diagnose the patient as suffering paranoid delusions despite the fact the doctor has not at any point ruled out that the delusions are actually real experiences.
I'm perfectly happy to scrap the term {supernatural}. Since this is about atheism we'll stick with gods and assume they are as natural as pies. The same reasoning applies then as government conspiracies (with the notable point that we happen to at least know government conspiracies in general exist).
If a dualist wishes to argue that there is some other realm in which deities live as an explanatory hypothesis for the lack of evidence then it is upon them to define the characteristics of this realm.

From Message 72
We can suggest that Dracula is a fictional character based on a real, claimed to exist, supernatural category of beings called 'vampires' or 'strigoi' or what have you. That Dracula is a known example of a supernatural creature that was 'made up'. We can look at other vampire stories and show how 'mass hysteria' and 'superstitious magical thinking' can be put forward as explanations for the many claimed subjective experiences of vampires so that we can hypothesise that all supposed 'real vampire' stories are actually inadvertant products of a flawed human brain even extending that notion to cases where historical records are too sketchy to be sure either way.


From Message 365
Why call them supernatural? Because the supernaturalists say they are not constrained by the same laws that constrain us when it comes to interacting with the natural world. They may have their own laws above and beyond ours 'super' natural laws and different entities may have differing levels of mastery or freedom of constraints. They say they are from a place 'above' or beyond the realm we are familliar with that we call 'nature'. That's what they say. The counter theory is that all such concepts are figments of the imagination, citing the fact that the only place we know for sure these concepts can arise is in the human imagination. Nobody has empirically demonstrated the place beyond exists, or that anyone has had a real experience with any of its denizens.
If we all started having experiences with the denizens from one sect of supernaturalist - this reasoning would collapse.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024