There's nothing worth replying to when you don't address the issue.
Here's the post in which you show that you still have no understanding of what scientific hypotheses are, and that you don't understand what prediction means in science. Message 212
I certainly addressed the "issue" that you brought up.
Are you incapable of admitting that you were completely wrong in that post?
You have zero evidence no matter how much you bluster about it.
We have zero evidence on this thread for the existence of non-imaginary supernatural beings, and plenty of evidence that people can and do invent them. Your claim that my theory is weak remains completely unsupported, and can be dismissed.
That it is true without being factual.
What is "true"? Is this supposed to be your evidence for non-imaginary supernatural beings?
Are you going to admit that you were wrong in post 212? Because if not, I'll keep bringing the subject up, post after post, until you do.
And zero methodology for testing for them,AND zero effort on your part to track down and test reports of same. The lack of evidence is assumed on your part, not tested.
The method is observation. That's how we establish whether or not concepts of beings are imaginary. Try it:
Hypothesis (a): All kangaroos are figments of the human imagination. Obviously weak.
Hypothesis (b): All French speaking kangaroos are figments of the human imagination.
That's a very strong theory that fits all repeatable observations made so far. No non-imaginary kangaroos that fit the description have been identified by repeatable observations, and there's no known way in which such things could come into existence.
Someone arguing that hypothesis (b) is weak would need to present good repeatable observations that contradict it. Without any, the claim is empty, just like your claim about my theory. No non-imaginary supernatural beings have been established to exist by repeatable observations, and there's no known way in which such things could come into existence.
... based on your complete lack of objective evidence in support of your claims.
All the available objective evidence supports my theory. That's why you can't find any objective evidence that contradicts it.
The fact that you do not understand this is because you are unwilling to actually do the work necessary to support it, but bluster and pontificate as if your opinion alone should suffice. Sorry.
The fact is that you don't understand inductive theories, do you? Blustering is what you're doing when you claim that my theory is weak without presenting any repeatable observations that contradict it. And pontificating is what you're doing in your ridiculous Message 212. Right through the thread you've been basing your criticism on your own misunderstanding of inductive theories, your misunderstanding of predictions, and the bizzare belief that unsupported alternative hypotheses have to be falsified in order for a theory to be strong.
Reality is "true" -- and we approach knowing reality by ruling out what is known to be false.
The attack on Guernica actually occurred, people and livestock were bombed and it was a horrific act of war, but the depiction in the painting is not factual, it is symbolic of the fear and suffering and senseless slaughter. The symbolic representation gives it an emotional and evocative element that lasts in memory long than a dry factual report does. This makes it memorable to those who see it, and makes it a symbol of anti-war sentiment.
DEATH, the supernatural being with the scythe, symbolises the reality of death. He is a figment of our imagination invented to represent something real. So, what's your point?
Now can you figure out how this compares to the turtle?
What known actuality do you think the turtle symbolises? And how does your view that the turtle was intended as a symbolic fiction do anything other than support my theory?
No, it is more refutation of your attempt to use mythology\creation stories\records of anecdotal descriptions\narratives\etc as evidence of imagination on the basis that they are not strictly factual....
Of course the stories are imaginative if they are not factual. And of course, as I keep saying, humans certainly invent symbolic beings that represent real things, like Death, Father Time and Uncle Sam.
So, what's your point?
Again, it is not up to me, nor is it my responsibility, to provide evidence for non-imaginary supernatural beings --
Then retract your baseless claim that my theory is weak.
it is my job to point out your failure to identify, test and show that non-imaginary supernatural beings are imagined\invented:....
It would be logically impossible to show that actual non-imaginary supernatural beings are imagined/invented, wouldn't it? It would be like showing that French speaking kangaroos can't speak French.
Where did you get the silly idea that scientific theories have to be pre-falsified?
....that is your hypothetical conjecture, the one you claimed to have lots of objective evidence for, yes?
No. My theory predicts that there aren't any non-imaginary supernatural beings, not that actual non-imaginary supernatural beings would be imaginary.
You do not do this by providing endless lists of KNOWN to be invented supernatural being concepts, you do this by investigating concepts NOT KNOWN to be invented and then showing that they are.
You're not making sense there!
You still don't understand inductive theories and laws, do you? You don't have to show that every single rabbit in the wild was born from another rabbit in order to infer that they all come from the same source, and you don't have to falsify unsupported hypotheses that contradict that, like "some magicians produce rabbits out of thin air when they pull them out of empty hats."
In science, if you make a claim that Ivory Billed Woodpeckers are extinct, and people tell you that there are unconfirmed sightings of Ivory Billed Woodpeckers in Louisiana swamps, you do not claim that they are the product of imagination -- you investigate or you change your opinion to allow the possibility that some sightings may be real.
Is that supposed to be an analogy? I'm not theorizing that something known to have existed is extinct. And inductive theories do allow for the possibility of falsification. You were the one who declared my theory untestable and unfalsifiable, hilariously, on the basis that it predicts that there are no non-imaginary SBs. Here in Message 212, which you haven't apologised for yet.
Many claimed sightings of SBs have been investigated, and none have ever been confirmed as non-imaginary SBs. And many, many people have tried to demonstrate that one or more non-imaginary SBs exist without succeeding.