Inductive Atheism

You may as well have cited Jesus, David Koresh or Mohammed.

Wrong. None of them had teams of scientists investigating them, nor the very strong verifiable track record for the unexplainable abilities this man exhibited.

This is your 'supernatural' you equate to imagination. Only: this wasn't imagined. Its strongly verified 'psychic' phenomena.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Wrong. None of them had teams of scientists investigating them, nor the very strong verifiable track record for the unexplainable abilities this man exhibited.

Then present one single verified example from this apparently exemplary track record of demonstrated abilities which are sufficient to be construed as 'supernatural' in some capacity. That's what I asked for in my last post, and what you didn't present in yours.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Then present one single verified example from this apparently exemplary track record of demonstrated abilities which are sufficient to be construed as 'supernatural' in some capacity. That's what I asked for in my last post, and what you didn't present in yours.

The mans verified track record is all that is in question.

Maybe this will be more suitable?

http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

The mans verified track record is all that is in question.

Are we including getting the age of the pyramids wrong by many thousands of years in this track record? I can only see unimpressive and mundane abilities being exhibited. Could you specify one scientifically verified ability he had which would be relevant to this topic?

Maybe this will be more suitable? http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

Are you proposing some kind of supernatural explanation for the things in there? Why don't you explain what your supernatural explanation is and we'll see if it is supported by the evidence. My theory is that any such notion would exist only within the minds of humans and there is no manifestation of it in reality.

Are we including getting the age of the pyramids wrong by many thousands of years in this track record? I can only see unimpressive and mundane abilities being exhibited. Could you specify one scientifically verified ability he had which would be relevant to this topic?

He wasn't always right. It isn’t where he has been wrong that has made him a poster board for psychic anomalies. He was right ALOT.

Are you proposing some kind of supernatural explanation for the things in there? Why don't you explain what your supernatural explanation is and we'll see if it is supported by the evidence. My theory is that any such notion would exist only within the minds of humans and there is no manifestation of it in reality.

You’re just ignoring information. If you do not understand the document just say so.

The point of the document is to show that many people exhibit 'supernatural' abilities of perception.

Also from the passage:
"It is worth speculating on what this might mean for determining how psychic functioning works. Physicists are currently grappling with the concept of time, and cannot rule out precognition as being consistent with current understanding. Perhaps it is the case that we do have a psychic sense, much like our other senses, and that it works by scanning the future for possibilities of major change much as our eyes scan the environment for visual change and our ears are responsive to auditory change. That idea is consistent with anecdotal reports of precognition, which are generally concerned with events involving major life change. Laboratory remote viewing may in part work by someone directing the viewer to focus on a particular point in the future, that in which he or she receives the feedback from the experiment. It may also be the case that this same sense can scan the environment in actual time and detect change as well.”

Even if someone can see your future, it doesn’t mean that it’s not natural to true function of our universe.

But do 'supernatural' abilities exist? Yes. Now ask: why call it supernatural if its natural and we just don't know how it works?

At least some scientists understand that. If they didn't, how could they do research and come up with theories?

It isn't the imagination when its researched science showing these super-cognitive abilities are greater than chance, and have yet to discover the reason these abilities exist.

From the document:
“It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures. The various experiments in which it has been observed have been different enough that if some subtle methodological problems can explain the results, then there would have to be a different explanation for each type of experiment, yet the impact would have to be similar across experiments and laboratories. If fraud were responsible, similarly, it would require an equivalent amount of fraud on the part of a large number of experimenters or an even larger number of subjects.”

Now the data clearly shows supernatural phenomenon is not just the imagination. So are you now going to attack the reputation of the California University?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

He wasn't always right. It isn’t where he has been wrong that has made him a poster board for psychic anomalies. He was right ALOT.

OK, so we have identified that his track record wasn't perfect, but you have still failed to provide a single scientifically verified ability that is not natural.

You’re just ignoring information. If you do not understand the document just say so. The point of the document is to show that many people exhibit 'supernatural' abilities of perception.

I am not ignoring the information, I am asking if you believe there is a supernatural explanation for the information in the document and what your supernatural explanation is.

Even if someone can see your future, it doesn’t mean that it’s not natural to true function of our universe. But do 'supernatural' abilities exist? Yes. Now ask: why call it supernatural if its natural and we just don't know how it works?

We shouldn't. So if these abilities are 'natural' they don't serve as falsification that supernatural concepts originate solely in the minds of humans. At best we could say we have evidence of a paranormal phenomena.

Now the data clearly shows supernatural phenomenon is not just the imagination.

I think it can be explained as a natural phenomena. Do you propose that a supernatural entity is required to explain what we see here?

Now the data clearly shows supernatural phenomenon is not just the imagination. So are you now going to attack the reputation of the California University?

I don't need to, I could attack the reputation of the singular statistician that works there. Then again, she didn't actually perform the experiments, someone else did. And others have given alternate natural explanations for the results.

We shouldn't. So if these abilities are 'natural' they don't serve as falsification that supernatural concepts originate solely in the minds of humans. At best we could say we have evidence of a paranormal phenomena.

Potato patata. Your arguing semantics.

1. su•per•nat•u•ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ərəl/
Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

1. par•a•nor•mal/ˌparəˈnôrməl/
Adjective: Denoting events or phenomena such as telekinesis or clairvoyance that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding

OK, so we have identified that his track record wasn't perfect, but you have still failed to provide a single scientifically verified ability that is not natural.

The Cayce validation isn’t necessary since the other document already renders your theory invalid.
If your curios research Cayce for real:

Read this link:
http://www.michaelmandeville.com/.../bookone/rp1chapter4.htm

A quote from the link:
"Many doctors studied scores of Cayce’s readings, beginning with Dr. Blackburn and Dr. Ketchum. They attested to his inexplicable ability to consistently deliver accurate results. These findings eventually persuaded doctors to work full time with him to organize his psychic hospital."

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Potato patata. Your arguing semantics.

I'm just saying that if they are natural they aren't supernatural. Do you propose there is a supernatural explanation or a natural one?

abe:
For example:

1: Natural explanation, Poor experimental controls.
2: Supernatural explanation - spritual energies put allow us to sense the future (or whatever) with our souls.
3: Paranormal explanation: Our brains can predict future events using entities that are material/natural but presently prohibited or nearly ruled out under the normal scientific model of reality.

The Cayce validation isn’t necessary since the other document already renders your theory invalid.

Only if supernatural entities are required to explain it. I propose natural ones, the theory predicts than only natural ones will be forthcoming. Do you have any evidence of supernatural ones?

abe: As for Cayce - I'm still yet to see a scientifically verified example of something supernatural. Some people were apparently baffled by what he did, is that what you call scientific verification? I can find people with phds that are baffled by illusionists and mentalists. I believe most of Cayce's claims are based on hearsay.

So let's find out what baffled Dr Blackburn...do you know?

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm just saying that if they are natural they aren't supernatural. Do you propose there is a supernatural explanation or a natural one? abe: For example: 1: Natural explanation, Poor experimental controls. 2: Supernatural explanation - spritual energies put allow us to sense the future (or whatever) with our souls. 3: Paranormal explanation: Our brains can predict future events using entities that are material/natural but presently prohibited or nearly ruled out under the normal scientific model of reality.

You are playing the sophist debate game to attempt to win an argument you clearly have lost.

Please wrap your brain around this:

Nothing true in this universe is supernatural. The soul, if it exists well beyond the physical body, is no more supernatural to be able to do so; simply because it would be natural to the dynamics of the universe. [It is] just misunderstood.

The question is not: do things exist beyond the realm of true physics such as supernatural events that appear to? Answer: no.

The question is: do supernatural things exist beyond imagination? And the answer is YES. The psychic abilities exhibited are beyond current understanding of physics. So what do people consider it? Supernatural. However, nothing true; is truly supernatural.

I have nothing left to debate with you. having kept to the topic of this thread and shown; that there is more to supernatural phenomenon than peoples imagination. Many acts beyond understanding have fed imaginations.

I hope scientists eventually discover the reason behind these occurrences to further the knowledge of mankind. Ignoring the fact they exist will not do that.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I think there is a linguistic barrier preventing you from successfully making your point.
(This is not meant as an insult - I am sure that your English is better than my own 2nd language.)
But your posts appear contradictory and confused.

Take your last post for example:

tesla writes: Nothing true in this universe is supernatural.

This is counter to your later comment:

tesla writes: do supernatural things exist beyond imagination? And the answer is YES.

So, first you claim that there are no supernatural phenomena and then you claim that supernatural phenomena exists.

Do you see the contradiction?

Are you actually just saying that some people incorrectly identify natural events as supernatural?
If so, then human minds are the only source of supernatural phenomena - i.e. They only 'think' something is supernatural when it is not.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

So, first you claim that there are no supernatural phenomena and then you claim that supernatural phenomena exists. Do you see the contradiction? Are you actually just saying that some people incorrectly identify natural events as supernatural? If so, then human minds are the only source of supernatural phenomena - i.e. They only 'think' something is supernatural when it is not. I think there is a linguistic barrier preventing you from successfully making your point. (This is not meant as an insult - I am sure that your English is better than my own 2nd language.) But your posts appear contradictory and confused.Take your last post for example: tesla writes: Nothing true in this universe is supernatural. This is counter to your later comment: tesla writes: do supernatural things exist beyond imagination? And the answer is YES. So, first you claim that there are no supernatural phenomena and then you claim that supernatural phenomena exists. Do you see the contradiction? Are you actually just saying that some people incorrectly identify natural events as supernatural? If so, then human minds are the only source of supernatural phenomena - i.e. They only 'think' something is supernatural when it is not.

You took quotes using the word supernatural in a different context.

The topic of debate is: Is there another source other than human imagination to explain supernatural phenomenon.

My reply was: yes there are. Human imagination did not invent the psychic phenomenon’s that have been scientifically studied and found to be real events with no explanation to suffice.

People did not imagine the supernatural phenomenon, it was real. What is imagined is the source (or reason) behind the behaviors.

If all of the physics of the universe were understood, it would be called natural. And because it is real, it truly is natural, just not understood and labeled supernatural.

So: supernatural events are real. But in truth, are natural to true dynamics of this universe.

See how difficult it can be to explain when the same word is used in different context?

But the end result is the same: some supernatural events are real even though it is a natural behavior within the true laws of the universe. And one day I hope mankind can find the answers.

As far as ‘human minds’ being a source: every idea, every sense, and every action: is an interpretation of the mind.
Imagination is a tool of that mind. if it was only imagination: then the event would not be happening. People would only believe they are. But the events are real with no explanation. Have I clarified my position to you? Sorry about English: the language can suck. And it’s my first language.

Edited by tesla, : spacing

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

tesla writes: Sorry about English: the language can suck. And it’s my first language.

Oh.
I think your English skills are going to lead to an endless struggle where you use inappropriate words to explain your points and I will then have to spend half of my time guessing what you actually mean.

Thank you for your response, but I bow out of this conversation.

Tesla writes: Many acts beyond understanding have fed imaginations.

Exactly. Humans see the Sun traversing the sky each day and they invent the supernatural concept of Apollo and his flaming chariot to explain it. Humans experience thunder and lightening and the result is the invention of supernatural Thor and his magic hammer. Etc. etc. etc. These supernatural concepts are products of human imagination. Nobody is disputing that these imagined entities are inspired by real things such as the Sun. But this doesn’t mean that the Sun or lightening were ever actually supernatural does it?

Tesla writes: People did not imagine the supernatural phenomenon, it was real. What is imagined is the source (or reason) behind the behaviors.

If the phenomenon under consideration (e.g. the Sun) has a wholly natural explanation then it isn’t and never was supernatural was it? The fact that people wrongly described it as ‘supernatural’ doesn’t mean that it was because they wrongly labelled it as such.

Tesla writes: If all of the physics of the universe were understood, it would be called natural. And because it is real, it truly is natural, just not understood and labelled supernatural.

The supernatural concepts we are talking about in this thread are those that people claim are NOT subject to natural laws and which are inherently unable to ever be explained by science because they are beyond or above nature and natural explanation.

Tesla writes: But the end result is the same: some supernatural events are real even though it is a natural behavior within the true laws of the universe. And one day I hope mankind can find the answers.

I have yet to meet a supernaturalist who defines the object of their cherished belief as something that is simply awaiting mankind’s technological advancement in order to provide a material explanation for that GOD (or whatever it is they believe in).

Tesla writes: You took quotes using the word supernatural in a different context

You arguments are all over the place because of your ridiculous insistence on using the term ‘supernatural’ to describe whatever phenomenon are unexplained at any given point in time. By this usage the physical phenomenon we call ‘the Sun’ was a genuinely supernatural thing at one point simply because people believed it to be so out of ignorance. Obviously the Sun isn’t a supernatural entity. Those people were just wrong and using their imaginations to fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Which part of this are you disagreeing with exactly?

Tesla writes: The question is: do supernatural things exist beyond imagination? And the answer is YES.

Only by your silly self serving definition. Nobody here is disputing that there are phenomena unexplained by science which people will wrongly label as “supernatural” out of ignorance and imagination. That much is absolutely indisputable.

But are there really any genuinely supernatural entities out there? Or do such things exist only in the minds of men? All the evidence when combined with scientific inductive reasoning confidently (but tentatively) suggests the latter.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You are playing the sophist debate game to attempt to win an argument you clearly have lost.

No, I'm trying to clarify how I am using the words to highlight that we don't disagree on the core of this topic. On the other hand, you are trying to 'win' by dismissing my clarification as a sophist debate game, which is a shame. I was hoping we might find agreement. One more try, I guess.

Nothing true in this universe is supernatural.

Agreed. When I say 'Supernatural entities are products of the human imagination', I mean it in much the same way you mean this in this context.

do supernatural things exist beyond imagination? And the answer is YES. The psychic abilities exhibited are beyond current understanding of physics. So what do people consider it? Supernatural. However, nothing true; is truly supernatural.

Right - so it isn't really supernatural. The qualities of 'supernatural' exist only in our minds. That's why I brought in the term 'paranormal' to differentiate. We both agree the superanatural is not a real thing.

Where we disagree is that you think psychics are a genuine phenomena of extracognitive ability beyond the understanding of science. This would be what I called 'paranormal' and that category of thing is not really the topic here.

For what it is worth I think all claims of the 'paranormal' are likely to transpire to be mundane natural things such as experimenter error, confirmation bias and other known issues.

that there is more to supernatural phenomenon than peoples imagination. Many acts beyond understanding have fed imaginations.

And we agree that imaginations don't exist in a vacuum and that external events feed them. Normal mundane things such as illusions, hallucinations, delusions, or simple cognitive errors such as change blindness, erroneous agency detection or confirmation bias feed the human imagination turning the natural into the supernatural within the human mind.

But just because the witnesses cannot or do not understand these things, does mean the supernatural is not the product of the human imagination. The human imagination takes input and adds bells and whistles. It is the bells and whistles we are talking about in this thread - not the input.

We are not suggesting that people just make this stuff up consciously while sitting with eyes closed. The human imagination is an active and often unconscious process. We are not saying that they are basing their imaginative extrapolation on nothing. Indeed - they are basing them on experiences that they don't understand. But the supernatural bells and whistles they add to try and understand what they experienced? That's just imagination. The experience itself remains real and perfectly natural.

This can be falsified by producing evidence of bells and whistles. You don't think such evidence exists, I don't. So the theory remains unfalsified.

Imagined things are not actual events.
Physic phenomenon and other supernatural phenomenon have been recognized as actual events by many in the scientific community.

Therefore: Supernatural events are not just products of imagination.

The confusion is: a deeper understanding of the word supernatural.

Supernatural is a word ascribed to events unexplainable by science. However, just because something cannot be explained by science doesn’t mean that one day it will. Therefore: once science progresses: the actual events will no longer be considered supernatural.

That’s as clear as i can explain my position that the data I have supplied supports.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides