the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)

They aren't constrained by the physical world in the way that biological beings are, and they are described as having magical powers. That's in their description. Inventing supernatural beings in order to demonstrate that people can and do invent supernatural beings is not falsifying data. It's hardly my fault that you're incapable of grasping that simple point.The theory is: All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination. If you declare that Gandalf and Tinkerbell aren't supernatural beings because they're demonstrably a product of human invention, you would be claiming to have falsified my theory. You would be defining supernatural beings as non-imaginary things. Dismissing or ignoring unsupported claims is routine in science. You won't find any intelligent scientists who share your view that the omphalist claim is a reason to be uncommitted on the age of the earth. It is not a scientific view, and requires a very heavy bias on your part in favour of unsupported supernatural claims.(For readers not familiar with the RAZD world, RAZD thinks that everyone who is highly confident that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old is a "pseudoskeptic" because they have automatically dismissed omphalism as very improbable or impossible. In shorthand: Scientists are pseudoskeptics to him. In this way of thinking, scientific theories have to falsify all unsupported claims which contradict them in order to be considered strong or well supported. It is on this kind of thinking that he bases his criticism of my theory). I've never claimed that there are any actual supernatural phenomena. I think you'll find that plenty of scientific theories have been stated in the past without the scientists having described any specific methodology that would lead to their falsification.The specific methodology would depend on the specific SB claimed. We can make observations about an apparent werewolf if we find one. Repeatable monthly observations of a man/wolf wolf/man transition. But what werewolves have in common with all other SBs is that we never seem to be able to actually find them. So we're stuck with their description, which, like the descriptions of Tinkerbell and Gandalf, is supernatural. All we have on this thread is descriptions or concepts. I've theorized that there's nothing external to explain; that the idea of supernatural phenomena originates in our heads, not from any external source. The "test" would certainly apply if I had "theorized" that "Supernatural beings have a real existence outside our minds and interact with the material world." That would be a general claim that's unfalsifiable, and I'd have to find positive support for it, perhaps in the way that the I.D. folk are trying (and failing) to do. But my explanation is natural; that supernatural beings are phenomena of the mind.However, if you're talking about falsification tests, I've been interested in the subject for decades, and I've been looking for things of substance which might at least weaken my theory, if not falsify it. A recent example, described on this thread, was examining the creation myths for any content that our ancestors in a pre-scientific age couldn't have known. A few years ago, I examined the Koran for the same thing, as it's a claim made by some Muslims that it contains things Mohammed couldn't have known. In both cases, my theory passed the test with flying colours.I've found nothing of real substance at all to support the existence of non-imaginary SB's. And it's obvious from this thread that you haven't either. You make lots of long posts, but nowhere is there any content that even starts to make the case for any particular supernatural being of any description existing outside our minds. When you're reduced to presenting people's beliefs as evidence, it just illustrates how poor the case for non-imagined SBs is, and how strong my theory is.Thanks for your inadvertent support.As for the rest of the Gish gallop that you are commanding me to reply to, there's nothing in the posts to support your contradictory claims that (a) my theory is weak and (b) I don't have a theory at all. Please prioritize points one by one, and bring them up one by one, preferably without charts and diagrams, the content of which you could easily put in words, enabling me to quote and reply, and saving readers from having to constantly refer back to your posts, or memorize the diagrams. If you can't explain the results by natural law, then you might have identified the supernatural and be on the way to be falsifying my theory. I wouldn't suggest that the transitions of a werewolf could ever be explained by natural theory or law. So, if we can merely make repeated observations of these transitions, I'd regard my theory as reasonably falsified. It could only be revived if someone actually did explain the werewolf in natural terms, and you can ask physicists whether they think that atoms could possibly rearrange themselves constantly in that kind of way.The possible mass disappearance of fundy Christians last month in a rapture was a test of my theory, but, as ever, the theory's prediction that this wouldn't happen held up. Sadly, in some ways.My theory is constantly being tested. Prayer studies could damage or falsify it, for example, and these are being done. I was unwisely assuming at least a Junior High School level knowledge of modern science on your part. I won't make the same mistake again.BTW, is there a giant turtle holding up the earth, in your opinion? Or is she verified as an imaginary SB?

The post above covers some of the ground being discussed on the Peanut Gallery, so this'll bump it up.I think it's worth pointing out here (particularly to creationist critics of my theory on the peanut gallery) that I'm theorizing that supernatural beings do not have an external existence outside human minds. If my theory is 100% correct, then we should not have found a method of positively detecting their presence, because detecting the presence of non-existent entities would be impossible. And so far, this is the case.I'll also point out (for the umpteenth time) that scientific theories are not weakened by unsupported propositions that contradict them. If some people on the peanut thread believe that some neurological phenomena or spectacular meteorological phenomena (like hurricanes and tornadoes) are caused by supernatural beings, their Faith alone does not support a claim that my theory is weak. Those extraordinary claims require considerable support in order to weaken the theory, and extraordinary support in order to falsify it.

This just seems to be a result of your not being able to understand the point I was making on that thread. It is not that the hypothesis that the world is intelligently designed is "no good" but that it does not innately predict a world with physical principles. That's a statement of fact. It would not be falsified if the apparent physical laws of this world were broken by miracles. How would that show that the world was not intelligently designed?But RAZD has put forward another more specific I.D. hypothesis, which he has yet to support. Perhaps it is this one that he's comparing to the theory I describe on this thread. This is the hypothesis that an intelligently designed world would be designed on "principles".It'll be interesting, if he thinks it's comparable, to see how he will phrase it and attempt to support it. Probably by accusing anyone who disagrees with him of suffering from cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.The rest of the post above is either irrelevant or unsupported. As always, it does not actually attempt to establish the existence of any non-imaginary supernatural beings and this: just seems to indicate that RAZD has never heard of Gandalf, the YEC god, and prayer studies.He also ignores the fact that my theory predicts that we won't be able to find a method of actually detecting supernatural beings that exist outside our heads, and so far, like all the other predictions of the theory, that's spot on.

I'll expect you to support that claim on your cognitive dissonance thread.

I'll rephrase that. I know you can't support that claim on your cognitive dissonance thread.

I certainly do not expect myths and legends to have scientific precise information about reality. Well, you made it up. And you made that up as well. Most certainly. The tales concern us, our minds, and our relationship to the world. What they don't do, and what's relevant to this thread, is show any signs of conveying any positive information that would support the literal existence of any supernatural beings outside the (very important) world of our minds. Their actual usefulness in other respects isn't being discussed. I've always been interested in myths, myth making, and the roles they play in human societies. For example, your current need to make up a mythological bluegenes is interesting, and certainly says a lot more about you than it does about me.

I like your new posting style. Given the choice between massive great posts with bright coloured boxes, buttons and bells which contain absolutely no content to support your claim that my theory is weak, and four word plain coloured posts which achieve exactly the same result, I think the latter show far more common sense and economy.You could improve, of course, by leaving out everything except the "Enjoy" bit, or just swallowing your pride, and admitting that I'm right.

An alternative view might be that you've failed to actually make any precise point.I suspect that you might believe that you're making some profound or interesting point about human spirituality, but I could be wrong, and you certainly haven't done so.As for your question, it would be difficult to answer even in a 10,000 word essay. We artists tend to have thought quite a lot about such things in our lives. But as you've been making up beliefs for a character called bluegenes, and making up things about his psychological state, why don't you just continue to do so?

Point of what? You haven't made a coherent argument.If anyone on the board thinks that RAZD has made a coherent argument about anything in his last few posts, do go ahead and explain it to the rest of the world on the peanut gallery.

Thanks for making one of my points: inability to express what your talking about.Find someone else who understands what you're talking about, then that person can explain it to me.

Why?Connect Guernica to the topic of the thread, and try to do so lucidly.

Google is your friend.If you want to bring something into the topic, then it's up to you to explain its relevance. Be lucid.

And curiously, you haven't connected what I think about Guernica to the topic. Really? If you think it's a symptom of something bad, Doc, then stop avoiding the issue and present some positive evidence that supernatural beings exist outside our heads.

One may have to wonder. But not this one. One of us is in a position to know.Curiously (and amusingly) it isn't actually very strange to try to shift the conversation from paintings to supernatural beings ("anything"?) on a thread which is about supernatural beings, not paintings.What you seem to be suggesting is that my views on a painting will have some impact on the question of whether or not SBs exist outside human minds. I know very well that, whatever I answer, the existential status of SBs will remain the same .While that demonstrates the irrelevance of the question, it's not the only reason I'm not answering.

Hi RAZDAnother interesting way to rationalize to yourself........while still avoiding the question of why we can't establish the existence of a single non-imaginary supernatural being. Let me know when you wish to participate in an on topic discussion -- rather than obfuscate.You could start by explaining how my giving my views on a painting could change the existential state of supernatural beings.How would that happen? We agree that there's obfuscation going on, we just disagree as to its source.BTW, thanks to the two people who have attempted to shed light on whatever there might be of substance to shed light on. I understand your confusion.Would anyone else like to speculate on the peanut gallery on how my views on a painting could possibly provide evidence for the existence of non-imaginary SBs?Edited by bluegenes, : peanut reference