Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1138 of 1725 (622300)
07-02-2011 7:24 AM


the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
Im on page three of this debate so far, and I have to say It's absolutly fascinating. The most fascinating thing is the patience that RAZD is having with bluegenes. bluegenes is obviously in over his head and is doing everything he can to divert, dismiss and dodge.
AdminPD tried to come in and rescue bluegene from humiliating himself in message 23 (but seemed unaware of the point of the debate), by siding with him, curiously(one of RAZD's favorite words) and also, joining in on the diversion tactic. Why bluegene will not(so far) produce the strong "hypothesis" he claims to have is a mystery. If it's so strong why not point it out in the very first post? He may in the future finally do that, but like I said, im only on page three. Im curious to see how this ends. If I were bluegenes I would have bailed a long time ago. I give him a lot of credit for sticking it out.
This is my first comment on any of the "great debates". If it's outta line I apologize. Im just calling it as it is. No disrespect towards bluegene or AdminPD, my opinion is only based on the comments and nothing personal.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1139 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2011 7:32 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1140 by Straggler, posted 07-02-2011 8:36 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1142 of 1725 (622415)
07-03-2011 1:57 AM


RAZD and bluegenes
Well, I get to use RAZD's comments to defend myself. This outta be easy. I'll start with bluegenes first:
bluegenes writes:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.
It is not falsified by unsupported assertions like "a supernatural being can exist".
If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence.
Ok, the goal is set.
RAZD writes:
So my task involves getting you to demonstrate that this is the case for a number of supernatural entities, and this necessarily involves entities that some people have claimed could exist (although not necessarily by me), however, I don't need to assert that they exist, just bring them up to see you demonstrate how you can determine that they are made up fictional entities.
Your first task is to demonstrate that the Invisible\Imperceptible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being.
This should be easy. Failure to do so means you lose the debate.
Ok, now for the theory (which curiously, turned into an hypothesis)
bluegenes writes:
My claim is that it is very unlikely that gods exist. As explained, scientific theories and laws aren't logical proofs.
That's from message three. It's a pretty far cry from His original "high" confidence "theory". He goes on:
bluegenes writes:
My theory is an explanatory theory of supernatural beings or supernatural beings concepts, and points out their only known origin. It cannot conclusively disprove your unfalsifiable and baseless assertion that a real one can exist, just as evolutionary theory cannot conclusively disprove the unfalsifiable and baseless assertion that one or more species might have come into existence by magic.
Evolution? Now he's comparing his "theory" to the TOE? Goodness gracious. Yes, proving bluegenes' theory(which we don't even know yet) wrong is like debunking the TOE. Such arrogance, it's comical. I may be reading the wrong thread I submit, but wasn't it bluegenes that said he had a "strong" High" confidence "theory" that supernatural being do not exist? ALL RAZD is trying to do(patiently) is get that "theory" out of bluegrass, and all we get is:
bluegenes writes:
You supernaturalists should present positive evidence for such assertions in order for them to be considered anything other than very improbable.
Wow, in the very next sentance after claiming to have a theory(which he still hasn't provided) he now WANTS RAZD to show positive proof of supernatural beings??? WHY, so he can say "SEE RAZD you can't do it" Which WAS NOT the original topic. The point here in the debate is FOR bluegenes to show HOW his theory disproves ANY supernatural beings. If he has a theory, then he already has positive proof they exist(right?) or what good is a "strong high confidence theory" trying to disprove?
bluegrass is switching the goalposts 2 minutes into the debate and asking RAZD for positive proof of the supernatural to which bluegenes will try to debunk AFTER RAZD complies(sort of a "strong high confidence theory on the go"). RAZD hasn't complied( but in his graciousness has logically provided that they could, or in the very least that you can't disprove that they don't, which is the point, which bluegenes can't comprehend) because well, quite frankly, he doesnt have TO! He wasn't the one claiming they existed, bluegenes was the one claiming he had a THEORY that they didnt.
Im not going to debate the whole thing over for people. Go read it. RAZD is pummeling this poor lad and the refs aren't stepping in. (so far)
ps: Messages 42(by bluegenes) and 43(by RAZD) is a good start if you don't want to start at the beggining( for anyone who wasn't already following along) In message 42 it's clearly shown bluegenes doesn't have a theory and his hypothesis isn't supported by any evidence. In Message 43 RAZD simply points it out.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1143 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2011 3:16 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1144 by Straggler, posted 07-03-2011 4:03 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1146 by Modulous, posted 07-03-2011 5:13 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1145 of 1725 (622440)
07-03-2011 4:51 AM


Huh?
Man, you guys really just don't get it. When someone (i.e. bluegenes) makes a claim that he does in fact have a "strong" theory that disproves supernatural beings DO NOT exist and someone (RAZD) takes the CHALLENGE to try and DISPROVE what the other person is asserting in his "theory" it is bluegenes job to support the theory with evidence for which HE has stated NOT RAZD's responsibilty to refute straw man arguments.
It is NOT RAZD's responsibility to do anything OTHER than try to disprove bluegenes's (supposed theory/hypothesis). Thats it. bluegenes is passing the responsibilty to RAZD asking him to disprove his wild assertions while constantly building straw man arguments. FINE, simply say "I have no theory or hypothesis that supports my assertion and lets start a new debate about weather or not you can prove supernatural beings exist.". Which RAZD has already proved COULD be a possibility logically speaking but doesn't know, nor claim to have a theory to support it,( which is what bluegenes claimed, only the opposite) EVEN tho he didn't HAVE TO. RAZD has been dragged all over the place and forced to comply with bluegenes absurd notions while He consistantly goes wildly off topic, changing the goal posts every quarter and diverting away from his original argument. It was RADZ'z FIRST comment that bluegenes couldn't handle, and he never rebounded.
I don't think people fully appreciate what RAZD's has had to put up with here. He is proving that all of bluegenes arguments are logical fallacies while at the SAME time proving that whatever theory/hypothesis bluegenes COULD have come up with would not pass as a scientific theory OR can be supported by any evidence for which he has a hypothesis for ANYWAY.( it was later changed to coming up with a hypothesis and not a theory, curiously). Even tho bluegenes didn't deserve that type of respect, RAZD gave it to him anyway.
In essence, RAZD is simply giving bluegenes the benefit of the doubt over and over and over that eventually he will come up with something to support what he ORIGINALLY said and at the same time proving whatever it was ( no one knows) would be disproved anyway. This debate was over on page one. RAZD simply offered bluegenes the benefit of the doubt that eventually he would get around to presenting his argument in the way he claimed he would, which hasn't happened.
What is so hard to understand?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1147 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2011 5:22 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1148 by crashfrog, posted 07-03-2011 11:49 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1149 by Straggler, posted 07-03-2011 11:50 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1150 of 1725 (622481)
07-04-2011 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1146 by Modulous
07-03-2011 5:13 AM


Re: RAZD and bluegenes
Modulous writes:
Are you able to put bluegenes' argument in your own words?
I don't need to put bluegenes argument into my own words, simply because it isn't an argument he's presenting. It's wishful thinking. I think RAZD did just fine here:
RAZD writes:
Hi again bluegenes, still avoiding the issue that you do not have a scientific theory.
Why are you afraid to admit that you haven't done the science that would be necessary to develop a scientific theory?
For those unclear on the differences between how science develops theories and how pseudoscientists claim to have developed theories, I repeat this table:
scientific process
pseudoscientific process
observe objective empirical evidence
missing
form a priori hypothetical conjecture
present
(A) form hypothesis to explain the known evidence
known evidence
missing
claim you have a theory
present
develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)
missing
look for evidence to support the hypothesis
present
(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis
missing
use invalid logic to make conclusions
present
run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified
missing
claim it is a strong theory
present
if hypothesis is invalidated go back to (A)
not tested
say you have plenty of evidence
present
if antithesis not invalidated go back to (B)
not tested
claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory
present
publish methodology, results and propose the theory
missing
say it is up to others to invalidate the theory
present
after testing & replication of results by others theory is accepted
missing
ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions
present
Conclusion: what you have is a hypothetical conjecture based on your opinion, biases and wishful thinking, it is not a scientific theory based on the scientific method and properly tested, it is pseudoscience at best, delusion at worst.
the pseudoscientist creationist says:
if the bible is true then god is true
if god is true then the bible is true
therefore the bible and god are true
the pseudoscientist atheist says
all supernatural beings are the product of human imagination
human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings
therefore supernatural beings are imaginary
You assume your conclusion in your premises, and ignore other possibilities: that is not how valid logic is done.
Assumption of your conclusion is not a scientific methodology, it is the basis for pseudoscience.
You do not have a system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it. This means you do not - cannot - have a scientific theory, just an hypothetical conjecture, because you cannot properly test your concept one way or the other without one. Without testing you have no theory because you have no objective empirical data developed from the hypothesis that is only valid if the hypothesis is correct.
It seems pretty clear that RAZD's is not the one who bears the burden of proof. He didn't make the claim NOR did he say supernatural beings existed. He simply took the challenge that bluegenes offered and quickly found out the bluegenes in FACT did not have a funtional working hypothesis that was supported by any evidence let alone a "strong" theory, for which he said he did.
bluejenes writes:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
RAZD points out what he needs to do:
RAZD writes:
As already pointed out, this is an extraordinary claim, and thus you bear a burden of proof to demonstrate the validity of your claim. You must demonstrate that this can be true.
This is an extraordinary claim because it is stating in no uncertain terms that no supernatural entities exist.
You have not established any reason to accept this claim that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination.
That's only of the claims bluegenes made, the rest are briefly:" The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings", " this is a strong theory", " A high level of confidence theory".
Im still not sure how it's RAZD's responsibility do anything other than refute this claim made by bluegenes and not try to get into a debate using circular logic, which bluegenes has done so well. The TOE is a falisifiable theory. Why bluegenes would use that as an example to his own (whatever it is) is unknown.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1146 by Modulous, posted 07-03-2011 5:13 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1154 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2011 7:27 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1151 of 1725 (622482)
07-04-2011 2:52 AM


bluegenes circular reasoning with RAZD
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.
Curioulsy, here tho for some reason, it doesn't bother you.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1152 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2011 4:19 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 1155 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2011 8:10 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1153 of 1725 (622494)
07-04-2011 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1152 by Straggler
07-04-2011 4:19 AM


Re: bluegenes circular reasoning with RAZD
Straggler writes:
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?
Sure. You have the a)clouds, b) can visibly see water falling from them,c) make predictions based on observing said clouds. It's very strong. No one would argue against it. It's good Science.
Your response would be "great, well now were on the same page. In order for it to be a theory you don't have to disprove angels piss"
Now, back to the real matter at hand.
bluegenes "theory/hypothesis" (philosophy). He is claiming that :
A) "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
B)" The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ..."
To predict this assumption, what test would you use?
When a Creationist states " The God of the Bible is real, I know he is, He's not a figment of my imagination" you would simply ask " what empirical evidence do you have to support such a claim?" Right? If he were to say "the Bible" you would point out the Bible cannot prove the Bible. Im even going much further using the Bible as evidence compared to what bluegenes has done. (Im giving him more credit than he deserves by even using this illistration, atleast the Bible is a piece of evidence, regardless of the outcome, or weather it's reliable to even use as evidence, it's more than bluegenes has produced in comparison with his theory). You would claim circular reasoning. Yet, bluegenes states "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination". He backs that claim up with "
bluegens writes:
My theory is an explanatory theory of supernatural beings or supernatural beings concepts, and points out their only known origin. It cannot conclusively disprove your unfalsifiable and baseless assertion that a real one can exist, just as evolutionary theory cannot conclusively disprove the unfalsifiable and baseless assertion that one or more species might have come into existence by magic.
You supernaturalists should present positive evidence for such assertions in order for them to be considered anything other than very improbable.
He claimed a "strong theory" and immediatly turns the tables on RAZD. bluegens needs to produce a theory that can prove what he said with evidence to back it up. When I make a claim the Bible proves the existance of God and then were to say to you, show some positive proof it doesn't, you would surley say the burden of proof is on me. Yet, All bluegenes has done is (again) compare his "theory" to the TOE as it is at all comparable. He cannot make such a claim just as I cannot make such a claim according to the Bible. Just because I say it's true doesnt make it true. Just as bluegens says " The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, ..." doesnt make it true, where's the evidence supporting his claim? How does he know there aren't other ways to discover supernatural beings? What's his test to predict this?
If he's so "confident" his assumption is true why hasn't he provided anything other than logical fallacys and wishful thinking?
He has to demonstrate that there is NO other way for supernatual beings to exist other than the imagination. Im not sure how in the world he can. How would he test such a thing? How could a human being know such a thing? It's the same as me saying I "know" God exists. Again, you would call out on it to prove my claim, and rightly so. In essence, he WOULD have to be a god, to claim such a thing. Maybe he is, after all.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1152 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2011 4:19 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1156 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2011 8:56 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1157 of 1725 (622551)
07-05-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1154 by Modulous
07-04-2011 7:27 AM


Re: like a creationist, rebutted for the very first time
Modulous writes:
The theory is a general principle derived from specific examples. If you wish to assert that there are other known sources of supernatural beings, you need to show evidence that this is true. The only source that I know of is the human mind.
Fine, im just thrown off by the way bluegenes uses to TOE as comparison to his statement. It completely different. I think they are both using different standards of evidence for some reason when it's not a scientific issue.
Modulous writes:
In order to show the induction to be false, a single counter-example is all that is required.
I agree, it would have been for a better debate if RAZD just played along but bluegenes arrogance seemed to fuel RAZD's quest. RAZD im sure is aware of all of this. He was simply giving him a hard time.
Modulous writes:
So pony up, lose the vague criticisms and get specific.
How was that?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1154 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2011 7:27 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1161 by Modulous, posted 07-05-2011 8:30 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1158 of 1725 (622553)
07-05-2011 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1156 by Straggler
07-04-2011 8:56 AM


Re: bluegenes circular reasoning with RAZD
Straggler writes:
We have a highly evidenced naturalistic explanation for an observed phenomenon. Namely the existence of supernatural concepts. This explanation inductively applies to ALL supernatural concepts. It applies in exactly the same way that any scientific explanation is tentatively applied generally.
Which part of this are you struggling with?
What I think is happening is there are two different stndards of evidence being worked into one topic. I'll try and take an unbiased approach (not that im bias). RADZ may be a little to "staunch" on the evidence he is demanding from bluegenes. I think RAZD likes to push the limits and get people to realize what they are actually saying. bluegenes stated he has a "strong" theory. Maybe this wouldn't have gotten to the point it has if he simply said a "strong" opinion. RAZD is asking for the Scientific method to be followed here with a simple, albiet, strong statement. If RAZD were to "play along" im sure it would be for a better debate, but like I said, RAZD seems like he enjoys pushing the limits and getting people to actually think before they speak and have a little fun with it at the same time.
Of course what RAZD was asking for is impossible, being there is no way to test the supernatural. RAZD got caught up on bluegenes over confident stance and called him on it and simply kept that mindset throughout the entire debate without letting up. I think RAZD was just pushing him around for the fun of it because of bluegenes arrogance, IMO.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1156 by Straggler, posted 07-04-2011 8:56 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1159 by PaulK, posted 07-05-2011 2:21 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1160 by Straggler, posted 07-05-2011 6:47 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1162 of 1725 (622692)
07-06-2011 2:16 AM


Same logic
I'm not sure what else to add on top of what i've already said. I guess i'll use one more illistration, since you all are experts on the supernatural.
bluegenes writes:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings"
I suppose the standards for theorys are different in your opinions, im learning. You can make simple yet profound statements and if you are totally 100% in agreement with those statements you need not to back it up. Only the folks who claim the opposite need evidence. So, using that logic I would like to propose the same line of reasoning with the same standard of evidence.
1: A supernatural being exists outside of my imagination because im finite whereas the supernatural is not.
2: A Supernatural being is beyond human understanding or imagination therefore doesn't depend on our imagination for it to be true or untrue.
3: Humans have no knowledge of supernatural beings existence, nor it's nature within it's finite mind or imagination excluding the imagination as any sort of verifiable evidence either for or against.
Just as you cannot clearly say they exist, certainly you cannot say the don't. So, if that is true, then bluegenes and his "imagination" have nothing to do with weather or not they exist. It's only an opinion on his part, clearly not strong in any sense, only according to his arrogance (and yours) does it hold any weight.
bluegenes is, in essence ACTING as if he is a supernatural being (hence his "knowing" the imagination is the only known source) by claiming such a thing without considering his finite nature. It's an absurd statement to make in the first place on TOP of claiming a "strong confidence" in it. He should have been taken to task on it, which RAZD did, rightly so.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1163 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2011 2:36 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 1166 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2011 4:32 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1167 by Straggler, posted 07-06-2011 5:14 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1170 by Modulous, posted 07-08-2011 1:47 PM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1164 of 1725 (622698)
07-06-2011 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1163 by PaulK
07-06-2011 2:36 AM


Re: Same logic
Would you be interested in addressing the content of my comment? You know, my "theory"? Or are you going to just skip over it altogether? PaulK? It's right in the middle of comment 1162. You are addressing the beggining and the end of my comment without addressing the actual substance in it.
So, i'll use this as my chance to address bluegenes circular logic as you asked. Please refer to your comment as my example.
*NOTE* My edits were done ten minutes prior to PaulK's post. He has me misquoted in His comment, albiet probably unknowingly. I changed "standards for theorys are different on this site" to "standards for theorys are different in your opinions". It was a bad generalization and I corrected it.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1163 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2011 2:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1165 by PaulK, posted 07-06-2011 4:11 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1169 of 1725 (623098)
07-08-2011 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1168 by Percy
07-07-2011 9:28 PM


Re: This is a Good Vantage Point
Percy writes:
Regardless of participants' willingness to kill Mazzy with patience and understanding, the board still has standards to maintain, and the Forum Guidelines are our guide in this respect. My hope is that at some point she will begin progressing toward better harmony with them, but she doesn't have forever.
Percy, you're an optimist. That's good. I just read the threads most recent comments (Mazzy's last two posts). As an observer of the thread, having not commented on it, it seems the forum guidelines are going to be tested later on today, im sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1168 by Percy, posted 07-07-2011 9:28 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1174 of 1725 (623276)
07-09-2011 2:33 AM


Tricks, are for kids
Modulous writes:
For the sake of argument, I will happily consider those theories falsified. You seem to think it is a perfectly sensible response when presented with a theory, to try and find exceptions that might serve to falsify it.
And that is what bluegenes is expecting, and what has not been presented in the case of the supernatural. Indeed, the notion that such examples should be presented is almost seen as unreasonable.
bluegenes writes:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings"
bluegenes writes:
And of course you will try to pretend that the burden of proof is on me to falsify your unsupported assertion that gods can exist. The point about "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" is that it's phrased so that it's falsifiable, and therefore cannot be a "proof", but is support of my position that:
"I cannot know whether there are gods or not, but I think it's very unlikely."
So, bluegenes makes a blanket statement and simply wants it falsified on purpose? If you do then it proves it's unlikley supernatural beings exist? Minus any evidence that His statement is indeed true?
How does he know what are the evidences of the thousands of religions around the world claiming to know a supernatural being exists? Has he tested these claims to see? How could he? If he can't, then how is his staement any different? Once he investigates EVERY single claim by ALL religions and TESTS their claims only then can he make the claim he did. What if he can't? What if it can't be tested? Then his claim is like RAZD said, wishful thinking. To say then, "well, if you can't test it then IT must be the product of the imagination" is simply a copout. An empty claim with no substance, but you feel substance is what is needed to refute it. THAT is circular reasoning at it's finest.
So, to want his "theory" falsified by someone, necessarily it has to have some substance FOR it to be. It seems he is taking the lazy approach and not putting any work into his "theory".
It's clear that the burden of proof is on him to prove his statments true and NOT dependant on someone falsifying his absurd claim just to prove a point.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1175 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2011 7:30 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1176 by Modulous, posted 07-09-2011 11:00 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1178 of 1725 (623396)
07-10-2011 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1176 by Modulous
07-09-2011 11:00 AM


Re: some supporting evidence, no falsifying evidence
Modulous writes:
Bluegenes has provided evidence that in all the known cases, imagination is a coherent explanation. RAZD has provided no evidence that would falsify the theory. The balance of probabilities seems to favour bluegenes.
The contradictory nature of superanatural claims means that some supernatural beings are necessarily made up.
Further, the prevalence of supernatural beings in known fiction is evidence that humans are skilled at inventing supernatural beings.
Is there any evidence that the theory is false?
We have supporting evidence, there exists no falsifying evidence...what more can you ask for in a theory?
So, you're saying the only way to falsify bluegenes "theory" is to have a real supernatural experience with a supernatural being and be able to prove it? OR it's all just your imagination?
Isn't that putting bluegenes ARROGANT statements on a pedistal with the likes of " I know there's a God, prove me wrong that there isn't? If you can't then God is real?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1176 by Modulous, posted 07-09-2011 11:00 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1179 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2011 1:51 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1181 by Modulous, posted 07-10-2011 4:24 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1183 by Straggler, posted 07-10-2011 6:15 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1180 of 1725 (623400)
07-10-2011 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1177 by bluegenes
07-09-2011 6:21 PM


More Arrogance
bluegenes writes:
Currently, there's a guy criticizing my theory on this thread (Chuck77). Like RAZD, he seems to have no understanding of how inductive scientific theories and laws work. But he does, at least, seem to understand the phrase "All supernatural beings are figments of the imagination", even though he regularly spells "whether" as "weather", and can't distinguish the word "its" from "it's". And he's a creationist.
So, surely you should be ashamed of yourself if you can't even reach that level.
Wheather I spell weather/wheather the right way or not or wheather I use its or it's incorrectly at times has no bearing.
How's it going with the Invisible\Imperceptible Pink Unicorn (IPU)? As RAZD pointed out
RAZD writes:
" Your first task is to demonstrate that the Invisible\Imperceptible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being. This should be easy. Failure to do so means you lose the debate.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1177 by bluegenes, posted 07-09-2011 6:21 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1182 by bluegenes, posted 07-10-2011 5:56 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 1201 by xongsmith, posted 07-11-2011 10:15 PM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1184 of 1725 (623410)
07-10-2011 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1182 by bluegenes
07-10-2011 5:56 AM


Re: More Arrogance
bluegenes writes:
And consider that I'm trying to make falsification as easy as possible. Just one little fairy, or any supernatural being of any type will do.
So, one little fairy will do? Basically, you are asking for empirical evidence for an actual supernatural being, etc. to falsify a hypothesis based on your "belief" that they don't exist? If you are convinced something does not exist why are you asking for impossible evidence that it does? You shouldn't need it. I mean you have the proof they don't right? Like I said to Modulous, how is this any different than me saying "I know God is real, prove me wrong, God is real because millions of people have had real experiences and have testified to it being true, even journaled it, wrote books on it etc etc."? It appears they have falsified your theory based on these experiences, which is no different than your non-experience.
Now, do you agree, at least, that human invention is the norm, or do you think that thousands of different supernatural beings actually exist?
I dont agree. It doesn't matter if 5 trillion supernatural beings exist or wheather or not they are hanging out in my bathroom. That's not the point.
The point is, how do we know that these god(s) or supernatural beings are not influencing or directing the experiences people have and has nothing to do with imagination only UNTIL after the experience takes place? All they are doing is writing, talking about what they experienced? (The imagination is a result of experience, just like you would imagine your next house to be based on one you already owned. Would it be reasonable to say "houses are a direct result of human imagination"? No, because people haved owned houses. Well, HOW do you know people have not had experiences? You don't, just like you don't know " the only known source of supernatural beings is the imagination".)
I'd say it's as good a hypothesis as yours, and there's more evidence for this than your theory.
So, all you have to do to falsify my theory is simply prove that every experience anyone ever claimed to be supernatural was a direct result of their imagination, if you can't prove every one then you can't falsify my theory. All it takes is one persons experience to be true for my theory to be right. Better get going...
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : changed "hypothesis than yours" to " hypothesis as yours"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1182 by bluegenes, posted 07-10-2011 5:56 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1185 by Straggler, posted 07-10-2011 6:54 AM Chuck77 has replied
 Message 1188 by Straggler, posted 07-10-2011 8:23 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1189 by bluegenes, posted 07-10-2011 8:32 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1190 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-10-2011 9:11 AM Chuck77 has 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