Inductive Atheism

The aspects I find interesting are not the aspects that Straggler seems willing to discuss when it comes to the supernatural. In what way? The cherub?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

What definition? And where are you getting this definition from? Be specific. Phenomenon that are caused by the divine will of omnipotent beings (e.g. the miraculous conception and the resulting existence of a miracle capable 'God the son' Jesus) could quite obviously be observable and verifiable and yet defy all natural laws couldn't they?

Such as?

Hello, Straggler! Been a while! One thing that might be interesting to look at is the source of supposed supernatural concepts:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 366:

​

If the case is just to determine the source of cultural supernatural concepts, I'd say almost all supernatural concepts are derived, to some degree, from the natural world. Like any theory, there's stuff in them that is made up, but most surely derive from experience with the natural world; even my concept of GOD, whom I believe to be an entirely undetectable being, has been 'concocted'so to speakbased on my experience with the natural world around me.

​

Actually, the source of cultural supernatural beliefs would be a much more interesting discussion than the one we've got here.

---

A scientific theory is more than simply a list of evidence and observations; there's a good deal of inventiveness and creativity that goes into connecting the evidence in some sort of coherent, yet falsifiable, way. Looking at the creativity involved in developing scientific theories versus the creativity involved in developing supernaturalbut falsifiabletheories might make for a worthwhile discussion.¹And since this thread is already well over 300 posts, starting a new thread for it might not be a bad idea either.Jon
__________
¹ And, of course, I'm using the definition for 'supernatural' that folk like Modulous have been using, which includes detectable critters like spooks, goblins, and mythological god characters.

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Nobody sane would dispute that certain components of specific supernatural concepts are derived from genuine aspects of reality.For example - The notion of a magical Santa Claus can be traced back to the historical figure of Saint Nicholas. But any supernatural element of this specific concept, the elaborations that make it the magical and supernatural Santa Claus that we all know today, have no known basis of origin other than human imagination. Hence the demonstrable existence of a magical Santa Claus would falsify the theory that is under discussion in this thread. Which in your own roundabout way gets to the very heart of the matter here. For example - Why exactly are the conclusions derived from the theory of evolution superior to the notion that all of the evidence in favour of evolution was planted by an otherwise undetectable Satan to lead us to the conclusion that we are not created beings?Are positively evidenced theories (e.g. the human imagination theory under discussion in this thread or the theory of evolution) superior indicators of reality than baseless but unfalsifiable alternative explanations for the same evidence?Or is it - as you put it - simply a matter of "personal preference" with no evidential reason for choosing any one unfalsified alternative over any other?

I specifically stated that I'd like to discuss falsifiable theories; neither of the examples you gave meet that criterion, so they're of no interest to me. There is plenty within any good scientific theory which can be described in equal fashion. Human imagination is essential to pretty much any theory conceived of by a human being.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

It's your definition. As I have said. Not after the appropriate scientists get to look at it!Before & After.Dig: on a personal view, your description of the 2nd coming would in my mind be MORE LIKELY to be the extremely unlikely random motion of molecules such as to act out this scene exactly matching the text than the chance that it would be a biblical truth, which is also not zero. You may have heard about the statistical odds on all the air molecules suddenly all going to the left wall? This would blow that unlikelihood out of the water - BUT, it would still be more likely than a biblical explanation.HOWEVER, if the specifically trained and educated scientists that get the opportunity to study the less likely option, having been able to able to rule out the more likely extreme molecular thermodynamic oddity, get on to confirm these observations on a world-wide basis, then they will fold it in. They have to. That's how science works. "Magic" is never an acceptable option.Edited by xongsmith, : oopsie

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Would you agree that the notion that the only known source would no longer be the only known source? We`d have the actual (albeit improbable) event occurring as a known source.I think its odd that you think it is more likely that a ludicrous thermodynamic fluctuation is the caause than xong being wrong about the bible. Do you react thiss way about all theories? One wonders how one falsifies anything if "massive thermodynamic coincidence" is allowed aas the ultimate ad hoc getout. You realize it is more thermodynamically likely the universe spontaneously formed a second ago than you were born years ago? Thee universe when you were born had much less entropy then, highly unlikely.Perhaps you should reconsider the argument that renders all theories unfalsifiable. Also remember that it is subjective, and you might be churlish enough to insist the theory isn't falsified - but the supporters of the theory do...

...and the other one being the biblical description that matches.Hmm - interesting point....Presumably the scientific investigation would proceed far enough to discern which event ... but see, the molecules moving improbably is a source that is known to be subject to natural law, and thus is not a supernatural concept in the first place. Yes, it is odd. However I am not going to live my life as if either event would ever occur.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Indeed. So what is it that makes a scientific theory a superior description of reality to the other results of human imagination?The theory under discussion in this thread and the theory of evolution are examples of theories based on positive evidence. Claims that undetectable gods might exist or that the evidence for evolution is a result of omphalism or Satan seeking to deceive us are evidentially baseless propositions. The question here is why you think some such baseless but unfalsifiable notions can be discarded in the face of positive evidence whilst others are a matter of personal choice. If you were being evidentially consistent ALL baseless and unfalsifiable propositions for which there is no evidence would also be a matter of personal choice rather than evidence. This would include choosing between evolution and Satanic deception or omphalism. In fact given that every single scientific theory, no matter how well positively evidenced, can be countered by a baseless and unfalsifiable supernatural alternative your argument would result in all conclusions being equally a matter of personal choice with evidence having little to say about anything. Having spent this entire thread insisting on discussing undetectable and unfalsifiable entities you are now moving the goalposts to evade confronting the inconsistencies in your personal choice position. Is the human ability and proclivity to invent gods any less evidenced than theory of evolution?

Repeatedly saying something doesn’t make it true. No definition I have provided results in merely verifying the existence of something as disqualifying it from being supernatural by definition. This conclusion is the result of your own unstated assumptions and has nothing to do with me or anything I have said. Your Before & After describes only how the transition from humans erroneously believing that something is supernatural to realising that actually it isn’t has historically taken place. It doesn’t, as you have previously asserted, mean that things like gravity were ever genuinely supernatural phenomena. If supernatural merely refers to aspects of nature which are as yet unknown to science at a particular point in time then all here believe in the current existence of the supernatural. Because none of us here think everything that actually exists is currently known to science do we? So we are all, by your definition, supernaturalists.Meanwhile back over here >> Where terminology has meaning based on it’s actual usage there are those who believe in the existence of supernatural beings (e.g. gods) which defy natural explanation and are unbounded by natural laws and there are those of us who point out that all the evidence available indicates that such beings are figments of human imagination. This is music to the creationists ears. Your position is identical to that of creos and Intelligent Designists who persistently claim that those who rely on objective empirical evidence are so innately biased and blinkered that they must deny any positive empirical evidence in favour of supernatural conclusions and interpretations no matter how overwhelming such evidence may be.A case in point being your ridiculous insistence that peer reviewing the second coming of Christ and ensuing biblical Armageddon means that even as the scientists involved are sent off to be eternally tortured by demons they can congratulate themselves on their rational rejection of all things supernatural.

Whether or not they are discarded is the matter of personal choice. Did I ever say otherwise? No, it wouldn't. No, it wouldn't. This thread and its topic are old and lame; it's time to put them down. This is not an attempt at 'moving goalposts', just an attempt at moving on to a more interesting topic. However, you're welcome to stay behind in this little hamster wheel and continue the mental masturbationjust don't expect anyone to get aroused enough to join you. Old. Lame. Let's try to do this in a humane manner, shall we?Jon

---

Love your enemies!

Isn’t it amazing how those determined to play semantic games can imbue any definition with their own preconceptions and assumptions? Even as they contradict each other they declare their perpetual agreement with each other.Straggler: I would say that supernatural means something like the following Neither derived from nor subject to natural law and thus inherently materially inexplicable.
Jon: I agree with this definition. Because this obviously means immaterial and inherently empirically undetectable.
Xong: I agree with this definition. Because this obviously means empirically detectable but not yet verified to exist by science.
Numbers: I agree with this definition. Because I agree with Jon and Xong.Straggler: For example the biblical concept of Jesus Christ is a supernatural being by this definition.
Jon: Whaaaat? Jesus Christ the miracle capable and immaculately conceived ‘God the son’ an empirically detectable supernatural being? What kind of crazy talk is this?
Xong: Christ is only supernatural for as long as he evades his existence being verified and peer reviewed. After his existence is peer reviewed ‘God the son’ becomes natural by definition. Before & After.
Numbers: Yes I agree with Jon and Xong.Straggler: Being immaculately conceived by the divine will of omnipotent Yahweh in such a way as to violate the laws of nature means that the biblical concept of Christ can accurately be described as NOT being derived from the laws of nature.
Jon: Whaaaaat? Omnipotent beings cannot detectably violate the laws of nature.
Xong: Even if the divine will of omnipotent Yahweh is responsible science will just incorporate the divine will of omnipotent beings as natural. The divine will of omnipotent beings will be folded into science.
Numbers: Hmmmmmmm.Straggler: The biblical concept of a miracle capable Christ is able to defy the laws of nature and can thus accurately be described as NOT being subject to natural law in the sense of NOT being bound or restricted by them.
Jon: Whaaaat?. Miracles cannot violate the laws of nature.
Xong: Anything peer reviewed that occurs is natural. By definition. I don’t know what definition but I am sure there is one.
Numbers: I am going to equate not subject to natural law with be empirically undetectable for reasons I can’t explain and carry on agreeing with anyone who disagrees with Straggler.Straggler: So by the definition I have provided the biblical concept of Christ is quite obviously an example of a supernatural being the demonstrable existence of which would falsify the theory under discussion.Jon: Whaaaat?
Xong: I am a 5.7 on the Dawkins scale rather than a pseudoskeptical 6 with regard to the existence of supernatural beings. But if any physical evidence for the existence of such beings should ever present itself I consider extremely unlikely random motion of molecules to be a much more plausible explanation.

There are baseless supernatural alternatives to all positively evidenced and inductively reasoned scientific theories. But these have no bearing on the validity or confidence we have in our scientific conclusions. The human imagination theory under discussion here is absolutely no different to evolution or indeed any other positively evidenced theory in this respect.You seem determined to cling to the notion that there is a difference without being able to say what it is. Putting aside your bluff, bluster and hamster related tales of masturbation for one moment - Why don't you tell us exactly what you think this difference is?

Nothing observable in the natural world can violate the 'laws of nature'.If you wish to challenge this, start a new thread on it.Jon

---

Love your enemies!