Peanut Gallery

I have been watching this thread with great interest and have been wonderfully entertained. But, come on, x, every one already knows the methodology of this one.As you already state via Einstein, "go look!"Choose any supernatural concept you want and go through as much of the literature, oral history, all the evidence available from as far back in antiquity as is possible.That is your repeatable experiment.Do this with as many such concepts as you may have time, inclination.What did you find? Inconclusive for some, imagination for most ...Did you find even one real clearly demonstrable god?To my view no result from such experiments have yet falsified bluegenes theory.

Oh, Straggler can drag this out with continuing to poke and prod around "evidence" and the minutia of other definitions, but, I agree, this Great Debate has quickly hit the ultimate wall.As Sam Harris noted, faith ends all useful discussion. If this debate continues it will just be circular and boring.

We have the greatest confidence, My Liege, that you will enthrall us all with your wit, intellect and charm. The name of Stragglerus will live forever in the archives of EvC. Please don't hurt me.

Sorry, Chuck77, but Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria is wrong. The popularly assumed restriction on science to investigate "supernatural" phenomena is bogus. The existence of "gods" is as open to scientific scrutiny as any other proposed phenomenon.As you, yourself, have listed there is a scientific method apropos to the study and Straggler has answered well within the guidelines. The old view that such supernatural phenomena are "unevidenced" and "untestable", thus not subject to scientific scrutiny, is a self-serving shield against this type of intellectual treatment out of an emotional fear of the result. It is rejected.The theory that supernatural phenomena are the result of human imagination and invention has been evidenced to a great extent by both indirect (the lack of obvious supernatural causation) and direct (in psychology, neuroscience, etc.) evidence. As with all other theories in science bluegenes theory is open to falsification by future evidence. Show us a god and bluegenes is out the door. The argument that this can never happen due to the "supernatural" nature of gods is circular, vainglorious and fallacious and is discarded. Edited by AZPaul3, : direct/indirect got turned around.

Why should anyone assume there are supernatural effects on the mind? One piece of evidence that impacts this discussion is this:The Orientation/Association area in the brain appears to be a controlling site for deep religious experiences, out-of-body experiences and "voices" from "beyond". Decrease the blood flow to the OAA and religious euphoria, out-of-body views and "voices" are reported by the patients as observed results. Increase the blood flow to this area and those feelings cease. Overview article in Psychology TodayDeep meditation or prayer can cause such a change in blood flow to this area. This shows a direct relationship between at least some "supernatural" experiences and blood flow to areas of the brain. All naturally occurring, like an on/off switch, under personal and medical intervention control.One test, as Newberg, et al. show, is to medically intervene in a religious experience by increasing the blood flow to the OAA thus shutting down the experience.If you are going to posit some woo-woo entity that sticks its finger in the blood vessels to affect this phenomenon then I await your data. Absent this then we have one piece of evidence available that such supernatural phenomena are the result of human imagination and invention used to explain such feelings that occur naturally when the OAA is affected.

That's easy. The falsification test would be: Show us a god.Show us some evidence that some phemonemon is obviously and exclusivley of supernatural origin. Oh but it most certainly does. I can flip a switch and turn off the feelings that people claim are supernatural. You can't do this unless the supernatural feelings were imagined as part of the natural functioning of the brain.I can flip a switch and give a life-long atheist the most powerful religious epiphany. You can't do this unless the supernatural feelings were imagined as part of the natural functioning of the brain. It shows more to imagination than it does to some woo-woo finger in the pipes. Maybe your problem is how you define "imagination." Just because a experience feels so excruciatingly real does not mean it may not be imagined.The demonstration is quite pointed and real. Flip a switch and get religious ecstacy. Flip it again and those imagined feelings go away.Now, unless you want to say some god has his finger on the switch and show reasonable evidence in this regard then the phnomenon stands as triggering an imagined supernatural experience.

You asked for a falsification test. I gave you one. Do you deny that such a show would falsify the proposition? And the evidence for this would be ...? And when I turn on my TV the little people dance and sing. When I turn it off they go away. So what?

And in bluegenes theory the only known source of supernatural phenomena are the result of human imagination. Right. It is not incumbent upon us to go find a pre-cambrian rabbit. But if one were found it would invalidate the Theory of Evolution.By the same token, it is not incumbent upon us to go find a god. But if one were found it would invalidate bluegenes theory. The "pre-cambrian" analog to bluegenes theory is all other vectors of supernatural entities that may or may not exist.The "rabbit" analog is any kind of "god".A falsification of TOE would be the empirical evidence of a pre-cambrian rabbit. For all our looking, no one has yet found one.The falsification of bluegenes theory would be the empirical evidence of some god. For all our looking, no one has yet found one.Edited by AZPaul3, : clarify ... I think.Edited by AZPaul3, : more muddied clarity

I believe Straggler did this in his Message 1254

Sorry, Chuck77. I made a significant change to my post prior to your reply.I really need to learn to proof read prior to hitting the "submit".

The TOE says nothing about geologic strata nor the age of these things. Other scientific disciplines provide that information. So the route to falsification is open via the information from these other areas.In bluegenes theory nothing is said about the efficacy of supernatural realms or other possible vectors of supernatural thoughts. Other philosophies do that. So the route to falsification is open via the information from these other areas. Why? If a supernatural concept were to be shown to stem from any other source than human imagination then bluegenes theory would be falsified. Where is the problem with this?Unlike what RAZD would want, it is not incumbent upon the theory to provide its own falsification, just that it be open to falsification by some means. Bluegenes theory is open to falsification.

Bluegenes: Imagination is the only vector.
Falsification: Here is a different vector.Where is the circularity? Bluegenes evidence is not one piece not one test. It is, as with all theories, a preponderance of evidence, this one from history, psychology and neurology. Re-read the thread. The evidence is there. Incredulity is not evidence.If there are 9000 sources out there then certainly you can point to one empirical source, no?Look, Chuck77, bluegenes theory, whatever you may think of it, has been stated, backed by evidence and is falsifiable. It is not tautological since its statement "the only known source of supernatural concepts is human imagination" is not self-referential nor is its truth closed to falsification.It is now incumbent upon its detractors to dispute the theory by negating its evidence or by falsification. No one has yet done this. And personal incredulity or appeals to 9000 unevidenced claims will not accomplish this.

A noble sentiment to be sure. However, those of us who are supporters as winthin your 1.0 scale from outside the UK have an even more noble reason to support BG theory. This because it is correct.

I hadn't seen this before. I appreciate the link again. Thanx, bluegenes.

Let's see, here.Bible, written by various men (and badly at that) based on and showing differences within their individual human psychologies.Testimony, firmly ensconced in human psychology.Witness, indistinguishable from testimony thus human psychology.If that is the evidence then Straggler is correct.