Peanut Gallery

That's right. Correct. They are admissible as examples of supernatural entities, which is all they are being used as.They are inadmissible evidence that said supernatural entities actually exist, but that's not how they are being used here.If you want to suggest that these sources are all products of the human imagination then you are just restating the theory. If you want to propose another source of supernatural beings which is admissable, then you just have to say so.abe: I should point out that saying that Allah might be real, but has been embellished by humans, so his attributes and characteristics are unknown is essentially using RAZD's unfalsifiable Hindu Hypothesis objection - which I already mentioned in my post and which you neglected to address.

quote:

---

The only way to save both is to add ad hoc rationalisations that render them both unfalsifiable (see: RAZD's Hindu Hypothesis for an example)

---

That's what bluegenes theory predicts, yes. See - you are actually on board after all.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : changed subtitle

I didn't. I said that your point is to render any specified supernatural entity unfalsifiable by means of the Hindu Hypothesis route. Are you suggesting that this wasn't your point? Because it looks exactly like that, and I could draw upon RAZD's Hindu Hypothesis as evidence of this if you want me to baby-step you through it. They are not known to be inaccurate. They are presumed to be inaccurate, and the Hindu Hypothesis predicts they will be inaccurate. But if they were known to be inaccurate, then Islam and Christianity would not exist. Therefore, I demand the evidence that demonstrates sufficiently to be called 'knowledge' that the Koran inaccurately describes God.They are inadmissible as evidence of the existence of supernatural beings for all the reasons you hint at. But that is not what they are being used as. They are being admitted as examples of supernatural entities that have been proposed to exist. And that is all. To this end, they are perfectly admissible. As admissible as any claimed supernatural being.On the one hand, you want bluegenes theory to fish in deeper pools, you want bluegenes' theory to discuss the 'big guns' and as soon as it does, you want to retreat to the Hindu Hypothesis to try and defend the big guns from bluegenes' theory. A somewhat inconsistent approach, it must be said. As far as I am concerned when the defining characteristics can be determined to be human imagination - that is as good as the whole. I agree with RAZD that all the different religions are based on actually existing entities, that these things do not come from 'pure imagination' anymore than Columbo was derived purely from imagination (Richard Levinson and William Link drew upon real experiences with real detectives, crimes, scenes, buildings, governments, police procedures etc etc). Even though the stories of Columbo are not in entirety sourced from the human imagination, and only the major elements are - I am comfortable saying that Columbo is a product of human imagination.It is in that sense that I am saying that either Jesus the God or Allah from the Koran are products of the human imagination.They might be based on real gods, prophets etc, but I am not saying that 'the inspiration for Allah from the Koran is imaginary'. I am saying that the specific entity, Allah from the Koran, is predicted to be a product of human imagination. Likewise Mr Levinson might point to a detective he once met that inspired Columbo but that doesn't mean that Columbo is any less a product of human imagination.So again, the only thing that is INADMISSIBLE are unfalsifiable Hindu Hypothesis type escape clauses. Which is all you are really doing.

No summary is up to the task of briefly bringing together all that has transpired since it was brought to this thread in Message 236, in August 2010.Religion is a natural phenomenon.Belief in the supernatural beings is a natural phenomenon.Supernatural being concepts are natural phenomenon.So what theories are there that might explain these things?One theory is that some of them are real. This theory is unverified. It has no supporting evidence.One theory is that some or all of them point to a supernatural truth (the so-called Hindu Hypothesis) This theory is unverified and unfalsifiable.Another theory is that the human brain is predisposed to invent these kinds of things in response to certain stimuli. As if the brain/mind had certain biases, blindspots, errant pattern detections etc. All of these things are evidenced to exist, and they also explain a wide variety of superstitious, supernatural and bizarre but natural (think conspiracy theories) beliefsThe debate with bluegenes has been a bit of a bust really. RAZD has decided to attempt the tactic of asserting the latter theory is not really a theory, that unfalsified and unverified alternatives need to be ruled out and a host of other strange erroneous methods of undermining theories that we at EvC are familiar with.This has meant getting stuck on the fundamentals rather than exploring otherwise interesting avenues that have had more of an airing here in the Peanut Gallery.Significant effort went into reminding some participants that 'all supernatural beings are products of the imagination' is a theory, not a factual claim. As a theory it has a duty to explain (which it does), to be falsifiable (which it is) and to have supporting evidence (which it has (for those screaming, right now, I remind you that this is a psychological theory and the evidence is the psychological evidence of confirmation bias, hyperactive agency detection, confabulation, over eager pattern detection, superstitious behaviour and so on and so forth, as well as the human mind being the only established source of these kinds of things, and the mutually exclusive nature of many of the claims being made))Bluegenes worded the theory in a provocative manner, and it has indeed provoked some interesting results. The fierceness and erratic manner in what should be an innocuous theory has been denounced is evidence that the various cognitive shortcomings that RAZD so often throws at his opponents might be in play here.RAZD could accept that it is a theory, even if it is one that he doesn't accept as being sufficient or accurate - but since he probably thinks the theory is counter to his own very well established, strongly defended and now highly invested in worldview, it is unlikely RAZD will. A change of mind is unlikely, but I like to think the journey has been entertaining and informative.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.