Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inductive Atheism
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 481 of 536 (617999)
05-31-2011 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by tesla
05-31-2011 8:22 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
Then by your opinion there is nothing outside the realms of known physics.
No, that is not my opinion. I have noticed a tendency in people to jump to this conclusion when discussing these kinds of topics, it happened in the thread I linked to earlier. It is a curious phenomenon. It's like you believe I'm a raving lunatic so you conclude I must have crazy opinions about the world and that I must therefore think like the above. I support scientific research, I accept we do not know everything, I accept we will discover new things, and new entities. If I did not accept this as being true, I could not even entertain the notion that theory can be falsified by the presentation of previously undiscovered evidence.
My opinion is that there are many possible hypotheses to explain any given phenomena and so far, entities that transcend nature in some sense have not been evidenced and so any such hypothesis was borne in a humans mind and is not based on external verified evidence.
I hold that there is a theory that all such entities are products of the human imagination. This can be falsified with evidence for such an entity. I have previously described the evidence that would persuade me that ghosts exist, and I would take the existence of a ghost as falsification of the theory.
Believe what you will. I reject your theory.
That's fine, but you are rejecting a theory different than the one proposed. You are rejecting the theory that all phenomena with an unknown explanation are products of the human imagination. I too reject that theory.
I am proposing that whenever someone develops a hypothesis that includes entities which are somehow 'above nature', and not thus are not themselves 'natural', that those entities are products of the imagination. It predicts that whatever real entities are responsible for the given phenomena, they will turn out to be as natural as horses and friction. It can be falsified by presentation of evidence for a proposed supernatural being. More specifically, and germane to the topic - evidence of a god would be required.
Evidence that people might have psychic powers? Not relevant unless you propose they perform their psychic feats using supernatural entities such as spirit guides. In which case, show the evidence of the spirit guide and falsify the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 8:22 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by Panda, posted 05-31-2011 9:04 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 483 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 9:40 PM Modulous has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 482 of 536 (618000)
05-31-2011 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by Modulous
05-31-2011 8:59 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
Although I hold your explanatory abilities in high esteem, I feel that you are not getting far with this conversation.
As a suggested experiment, try replying to tesla without using the words 'supernatural' or 'imagination', as I feel that tesla's definitions of those words are causing an endless cycle of confusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 8:59 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 483 of 536 (618009)
05-31-2011 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by Modulous
05-31-2011 8:59 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
I am proposing that whenever someone develops a hypothesis that includes entities which are somehow 'above nature', and not thus are not themselves 'natural', that those entities are products of the imagination.
I must also reject this hypothesis.
It is possible that the universe could evolve creatures not carbon based. This is especially probable in the 'anti-matter' universes, as theorized. There is too much out there we cannot begin to guess at yet.
Science will evolve, but until then I will not close my mind to potentials that are potential. If I were to do that, I would limit my potentials for discovery.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 8:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 10:02 PM tesla has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 484 of 536 (618014)
05-31-2011 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by tesla
05-31-2011 9:40 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
I must also reject this hypothesis.
OK, since you have no evidence, I assume you have a reason?
It is possible that the universe could evolve creatures not carbon based. This is especially probable in the 'anti-matter' universes, as theorized. There is too much out there we cannot begin to guess at yet.
I would not construe such beings as being 'above nature', or transcending nature, or being made of some fundamentally different stuff, such as 'spirit' that does not obey deterministic rules. However, if you wish to propose such a being as an explanation for a phenomena I would require evidence. The lack thereof could lead only to the conclusion that the idea popped into your head based on nothing but the workings and biases innate within the human mind.
I am not claiming that therefore the beings you might claim do not exist. I am not making a factual claim about their existence at all. Just stating what a evidentially supported theory predicts.
Science will evolve, but until then I will not close my mind to potentials that are potential. If I were to do that, I would limit my potentials for discovery.
I agree. Which is why theories are tentative, and we keep an open mind about possible falsification. I'm not suggesting the theory is an irrevocable truth, just a theory that has supporting evidence and no falsifying evidence. Do you dispute that it has evidence to support it? Do you propose a falsifying transcedental entity or god? Do you dispute that if true, it would explain the evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 9:40 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 11:07 PM Modulous has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 485 of 536 (618026)
05-31-2011 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by Modulous
05-31-2011 10:02 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
if you wish to propose such a being as an explanation for a phenomena I would require evidence.
If there was evidence this wouldn't be a discussion. anything considered 'supernatural' cannot be proven. it is BEYOND scientists ability to explain.
I am not claiming that therefore the beings you might claim do not exist. I am not making a factual claim about their existence at all. Just stating what a evidentially supported theory predicts.
If you are looking for apples in apple trees, those you find. you will not find them growing oranges. but the evidence of apples on apple trees only prove apple trees produce apples.
I hope you can understand the analogy. good luck with your theory. >
Edited by tesla, : word correction

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 10:02 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2011 6:39 AM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 486 of 536 (618050)
06-01-2011 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by tesla
05-31-2011 11:07 PM


no evidence and impossible to explain
If there was evidence this wouldn't be a discussion
And since there isn't evidence, belief in these entities did not come about from a consideration of any evidence. If people didn't weigh up the evidence, where did the notion come from?
The theory predicts the human mind is the only source we'll identify. The theory might be wrong.
anything considered 'supernatural' cannot be proven.
Is it four times now that I've said this thread isn't about proof? Just independent lines of converging evidence will suffice.
it is BEYOND scientists ability to explain.
And anyone that thinks they can explain it must be making their explanation up - since they lack the ability to actually explain it, right?
If you are looking for apples in apple trees, those you find. you will not find them growing oranges. but the evidence of apples on apple trees only prove apple trees produce apples.
I hypothesise that there are no snozberries, and they are nothing but a product of the human imagination. You could falsify this theory by producing evidence of a snozberry.
I don't need to look in trees for snozberries - if you claim that snozberries exist, it's your job to provide the evidence. I can provide support that snozberries are inventions of the mind of a human being (ie., Roald Dahl)
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 11:07 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 487 of 536 (618076)
06-01-2011 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 474 by tesla
05-31-2011 2:32 PM


Re: We Are All "Supernaturalists"
Your entire argument in this thread is based on a definition of "supernatural" that is just nonsensical.
By the terms of your argument anything currently unexplained by science is genuinely supernatural and anyone who believes that there are things which are as yet unexplained by science is by definition a "supernaturalist". By the terms of your argument Richard Dawkins and James Randi are avid believers in the existence of the supernatural.
Nobody sane is, or could, believe that science has explained everything. I am certainly suggesting no such thing. So maybe you should consider the possibility that the problems you see with the tentative theory in question here have more to do with your own bizzarre and muddled use of terminology than anything else.
Tesla writes:
By your definitions it would appear all things not proven are figments of the imagination.
Then you have completely misunderstood everything that has been said to you. If you read what people actually write rather than imbue their positions with your own preconceptions maybe you might actually understand what people are saying to you.
Tesla writes:
....if were discussing actual proof.
I don't know how many times it needs to be pointed out to you - WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PROOF
Is that clearer now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 2:32 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 488 of 536 (618103)
06-01-2011 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by Modulous
05-31-2011 7:10 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
From Message 475:
We can’t prove it’s not true.
I'm fairly sure I've stated twice already that I'm not claiming we can. Just that there is a theory that spirit guides are products of the imagination of the psychics that claim them as explanation for their perceived abilities.
But if you're not "proving" that they're not true, then how do you go about inducing atheism? i.e., that they're not true.
and by "proving" I don't mean ProofTM

From Message 479:
UFO's real? Yes.
Agreed.
Heh, the UFO things kinda reminds me of one of the problems I have with the threory and its seemingly circular reasoning...
As if the theory said that once a UFO becomes identified, then it will no longer be a UFO...
No shit
I realize its not exactly the same, but that's how I see "scientific" investigation of the "supernatural".
None of them have been identified as being piloted by aliens.
Have you looked into this whole FBI released document thing?
I haven't really gotten into it yet, and it should be a new thread if we want to discuss it, but if you've got anything on it I'd like to see it.
Apperntly an FBI guy was reporting that they did find flying saucers with little guys in them... or is it just a fake?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 7:10 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2011 12:53 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 490 by Straggler, posted 06-01-2011 4:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 489 of 536 (618113)
06-01-2011 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by New Cat's Eye
06-01-2011 12:00 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
But if you're not "proving" that they're not true, then how do you go about inducing atheism? i.e., that they're not true.
By noting that the only place we know where these kinds of ideas come from is the mind. That everytime we can be said to be 'sure' about these things is when we are sure they are imaginary. The induction takes the specific known cases and infers to the more general case.
Heh, the UFO things kinda reminds me of one of the problems I have with the threory and its seemingly circular reasoning...
As if the theory said that once a UFO becomes identified, then it will no longer be a UFO...
No shit
I realize its not exactly the same, but that's how I see "scientific" investigation of the "supernatural".
Well the U becomes false when the object is identified, its just the meaning of the words.
There are two possibilities:
either the supernatural can be evidenced or the supernatural cannot be evidenced.
If the former - then no evidence exists except the evidence of mental creation.
If the latter - they must be in our heads.
Have you looked into this whole FBI released document thing?
I haven't. Is he particularly credible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-01-2011 12:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 490 of 536 (618154)
06-01-2011 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by New Cat's Eye
06-01-2011 12:00 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
CS writes:
Heh, the UFO things kinda reminds me of one of the problems I have with the threory and its seemingly circular reasoning...
As if the theory said that once a UFO becomes identified, then it will no longer be a UFO...
No shit
I realize its not exactly the same, but that's how I see "scientific" investigation of the "supernatural".
Because you, like so many others, are determined to engage in semantic wiffle waffle rather than actually confront the evidence. It is a fact that ALL of the positive objective evidence indicates that supernatural beings are the products of human invention.
If there is any evidence at all of supernatural entities which exist external to the minds of men then we have yet to see it presented here.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-01-2011 12:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 491 of 536 (622487)
07-04-2011 4:18 AM


Chuck77 Reply
In reply to Message 1151
You are still conflating the positively evidenced, inductively derived tentative conclusion that ALL supernatural concepts are sourced from human imagination with a claim (that nobody has made) that the existence of supernatural beings has been disproved.
Do you agree that the statement "ALL raindrops are sourced from clouds" is a strong theory if clouds are the only source of raindrops known to science? Or do you think every other conceivable source of raindrops (ethereal pissing angels for example) must be disproven first?
Chuck writes:
Straggler, Modulous and PaulK. All three of you are arguining in favor of what you pounce on Creationists for. Basically using the Bible to prove the Bible is true. It's the same logic here. Bluegenes is doing the SAME exact thing that you argue against when it comes to Creationist tactics.
Can you explain exactly where you think this comparison is valid?
Because if you read the thread in question you will see that actually it is RAZD who cites documented beliefs and holy books as evidence in favour of the existence of gods.
RAZD previously writes:
Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings.
RAZ now writes:
These documents are objective empirical evidence of people that believe god/s exist. These documents do not need interpretation to see that many people believe they have sufficient evidence to believe that god/s exist. Message 14
So apparently if people believe that they have evidence that gods exist this constitutes some sort of evidence that gods do indeed exist.
Ridiculous. Obviously.

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 492 of 536 (625297)
07-22-2011 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-11-2011 8:57 AM


Concepts and Atheism
Straggler writes:
The only known source of supernatural concepts is the human imagination. Scientific inductive reasoning thus leads to the tentative theory that ALL supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination. This theory can be falsified by presenting another source of such concepts.
Hi Straggler.
Ok, well, that's a little different than bluegenes falsification test, which says to provide a (fairy) or any SB to falsify it.
You're looking for another (source) of such concepts?
Well, can a concept be derived from nature? Or animals? Can we pick up on real events that might lead us to believe (despite our imagination) that SB exist?
Or is that just our imagination making things up to suite or biased view? What do you mean by this Straggs?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, I also have a high confidence theory Straggs.
It says that all known Atheists are a product of the human imagination since the human imagination is the only known source of SB's.
Can you think of another known source besides the human imagination being the reason Atheists exist if the human imagination is the only known sourse of SB's?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2011 8:57 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by Straggler, posted 07-22-2011 8:36 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 494 by Panda, posted 07-22-2011 8:40 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 493 of 536 (625314)
07-22-2011 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by Chuck77
07-22-2011 5:14 AM


It's all about me.
Chuck writes:
Ok, well, that's a little different than bluegenes falsification test, which says to provide a (fairy) or any SB to falsify it.
Your misapprehensions of bluegenes theory evidently continue.
Chuck writes:
You're looking for another (source) of such concepts?
Any demonstrable source of supernatural concepts that is not human imagination will falsify the theory as stated.
Chuck writes:
Well, can a concept be derived from nature? Or animals? Can we pick up on real events that might lead us to believe (despite our imagination) that SB exist?
That Apollo (for example) is a supernatural concept inspired by the Sun is not in dispute. But to get from observing the Sun to concluding that this observation is caused by a god riding a flaming chariot across the sky takes a large dose of human imagination doesn't it?
Do you have any examples of supernatural concepts where the the supernatural aspect of the concept is not a figment of human imagination?
Chuck writes:
BTW, I also have a high confidence theory Straggs.
It says that all known Atheists are a product of the human imagination since the human imagination is the only known source of SB's.
Firstly this doesn't make sense.
Secondly the theory that the only known source of atheists is the human imagination is falsified by the demonstrable existence of actual atheists beyond all reasonable doubt.
Exhibit A: Me!!!!
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Chuck77, posted 07-22-2011 5:14 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by Chuck77, posted 07-23-2011 12:59 AM Straggler has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 494 of 536 (625315)
07-22-2011 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by Chuck77
07-22-2011 5:14 AM


Re: Concepts and Atheism
Chuck77 writes:
It says that all known Atheists are a product of the human imagination
I am not sure what your parents taught you about human reproduction, but imagination is not required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Chuck77, posted 07-22-2011 5:14 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2011 12:19 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 495 of 536 (625395)
07-23-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 494 by Panda
07-22-2011 8:40 AM


Re: Concepts and Atheism
Panda writes:
I am not sure what your parents taught you about human reproduction, but imagination is not required.
But in some cases it sure helps.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Panda, posted 07-22-2011 8:40 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024