Peanut Gallery

Do you understand that supernatural entities could actually exist and bluegene's theory could still be true? Do you understand that even if no supernatural entities actually exist bluegenes theory could still be false?Because until you understand that this is about the evidenced source of such concepts rather than explicitly about the existence of supernatural entities you are doomed to prattle on about anal Emma forever. I don't deny that at all. But since when was defining which concepts are "supernatural" and which are not a scientific conclusion? Which experts in which scientific field defined any of these as supernatural? Christ, Yahweh, Allah, Voldermort, Satan, Solar deities, Wind gods, Fertility deities, Lunar deities, Thunder gods, Creator gods, Fire gods etc. etc. etc. The supernaturality of these concepts isn't defined by scientists is it? Then it is no wonder you are so confused. You are looking in the wrong place. Because the supernaturality of a particular concept isn't going to be defined by what is or isn't in a scientific journal. Given that you have explicitly equated the actual existence of certain unfalsifiable supernatural entities to be mathematically impossible, given that you have been unable to provide a single example of a specific supernatural concept whose existence you consider anything other than mathematically impossible, given that you have stated that a freak thermodynamic event would be the best explanation for supernatural events like biblical Armageddon, given that you have repeatedly stated that you will only accept as "supernatural" that which the scientific community rubber stamps as "supernatural" and given that you have repeatedly stated that the scientific community will never meet your criteria - I am at a genuine loss as to how you can ever accept anything as supernatural.You have effectively invented a form of "atheism by definition".

For every objectively evidenced naturalistic explanation or conclusion an evidentially baseless but untestable supernatural alternative can be posited.According to science the Earth is billions of years old. But we cannot actually disprove Last Thursdayism. According to science gravitational effects are caused by space-time curvature. But we cannot prove that masses are not instead being directly manipulated by the pure conscious will of some ethereal and undetectable being. Science tells us that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. But we cannot prove that a malevolent, powerful and undetectable supernatural being didn’t plant all of the scientific evidence for evolution specifically to lead us to this false conclusion. Science tells us that when I release my soon-to-be dropped pen it will fall in a manner consistent with the laws of physics. But until I actually drop the pen and see what happens I cannot test whether or not the laws of physics are going to be miraculously violated by some entity unbounded by physical laws and with a penchant for pen motion interference.Yet despite all of these things I honestly and genuinely believe that the Earth is billions of years old, that gravitational effects are due to properties of space-time that can be described geometrically, that life on Earth did evolve from a common ancestor and that my pen when dropped will behave in a manner entirely consistent with the laws of physics as we know them to be.Now you could say that these beliefs are irrational. You could say that unless I have tested all of the unfalsifiable alternatives I have no justifiable basis to hold these beliefs as anything other than subjective opinions. You could say that I am simply exhibiting my world view and that the scientific conclusions I am advocating have no more validity as descriptions of reality than the evidentially baseless but unfalsified alternatives mentioned. You could call me a pseudoskeptic. But if you do you are essentially defining the whole of science as pseudoskeptical. Because the entire validity of science as a route to knowledge depends on rejecting evidentially baseless but unfalsified alternatives as very improbable. So how does this apply to bluegenes theory explicitly..?Why do humans believe in the existence of god(s)? Are these widespread human beliefs and ideas held as a result of the actual existence of such entities? Or is there a more evidenced explanation for this observable human behaviour?The objective evidence (agency detection, the selection advantage of false positives etc.) tells us that humans have a deep psychological proclivity to invent a variety of intelligent agents including (but far from restricted to) gods in order to explain the things that they find baffling and significant. Meanwhile the claim that such entities actually exist remains completely objectively unevidenced and utterly subjective.On the simple yet essentially inarguable basis that objectively evidenced explanations and conclusions are more scientific and more likely to be correct than unevidenced subjective claims it therefore follows that any given concept of god cited by humanity is more likely to be a human invention than something that actually exists.At least this is what a science compatible approach to knowledge tells us.....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.