Hi Stile, nice start.
Experiment: I create an SB using my imagination. His name is Felix. Whenever I say his name, gravity always reverses and things fall up instead of down. I said his name. Reality was unaffected, no gravity reversal occured.
Conclusion: The SB I created is a figment of my human imagination.
But did you really create "an SB" or did you just paste together a parody, a cartoon, a caricature, a
straw man, instead? Why would you think it even possible for such a concoction to posses any real supernatural characteristics?
This kind of experiment can be done over and over again by many different people all over the world to provide a lot of evidence that supernatural beings can be figments of the human imagination.
No, all you have is evidence that
intentionally fictional concoctions are indeed
fictional, something that would be surprising if it were
NOT true. Unfortunately the hypothesis is not that
all human inventions are human inventions, but that all supernatural entities are human inventions.
If you
start with known human inventions -
the conclusion - then you are begging the question and affirming the consequent, both logical fallacies.
This should be blindingly obvious to everyone.
Well, if we look at the history of mankind, people have been looking for the real, actual source of SBs for as long as we have existed. We have looked at fire, lightning, the sun, the solar system, the beginning of the universe. We have asked laymen, engineers, scientists, religious leaders, business men, hippies, philosophers and all other manner of people. No one has any evidence to show any other source for SB concepts than the human imagination. All these searchers all over the world have recently been connected to each other via technology like the internet. Still no progress towards any real sources other than the human imagination.
That makes a lot of evidence as well.
Ah the old "
absence of evidence is evidence of absence" ploy - another logical fallacy.
We have asked laymen, engineers, scientists, religious leaders, business men, hippies, philosophers and all other manner of people. No one has any evidence to show any other source for SB concepts than the human imagination.
That has been repeatable. There have been many individual instances of people claiming to have communication or experience of supernatural. You are just assuming that because none have been repeated under controlled conditions that the original experience is imaginary.
All these searchers all over the world have recently been connected to each other via technology like the internet. Still no progress towards any real sources other than the human imagination.
In your opinion. Just because something has not been verified scientifically does not mean that it is falsified.
Therefore:
Strong Theory: "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination"
Can you point to a single piece of objective empirical evidence that shows that a specific concept know from any one of the world religions is actually entirely a product of human imagination?
How can a
theory hypothesis be considered "strong" when it fails to produce unambiguous results regarding any of the supernatural entities known from world religions?
Is a theory
strong when it only produces correct answers in artificial fabricated conditions, set up so that it is true, before the testing is done?
Is a theory
strong that only produces correct answers half the time?
What about less than half the time?
Or are we dealing with
strong confirmation bias instead of theory?
And this evidence is similar, is it not?
Not at all. Logical argument (no matter whether good, bad or indifferent) and opinion are not objective empirical evidence. Instead these arguments try to make the case that opinion is fact, and this is not science, not how science is done. This is how pseudoscience is done.
I do not think you can state that such a thing must be known for any particular SBs (like the IPU in particular) because it is an acknowledged fact that many SB concepts have an unknown origin.
Curiously, that is not my problem, rather it is the problem for anyone claiming that they are made up human inventions. All I am doing is suggesting that you
start with some known concepts so that you can try to show some actual results rather than relying entirely on made up fairy tales. Science is not done by making up the evidence, it is done by
finding the evidence.
For falsification:
Amusingly, falsification becomes an issue once you have a theory substantiated by objective empirical evidence and not by the assumption of truth.
Intriguingly, this falsification "test" is easily capable of producing false positives, and as such does not really amount to much of a
scientific falsification test: if there are 10 ways that a theory can be false and your test only considers one of them, then the negative results are inconclusive at best.
Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
™ Version 4.2
