Peanut Gallery

Xongsmith rather than tying yourself in contradictory knots telling us what you don't mean and what doesn't constitute "supernatural" with regard to your anal Emma why don't you tell us what does?Can you give an example of an entity that, if it exists, is genuinely supernatural? Nothing we do will make something that is genuinely supernatural anything other than supernatural will it?So - To repeat - Can you give an example of an entity that, if it exists, is genuinely supernatural?

Your citation of a mathematical rule and your continued insistence that the theory under discussion is phrased inappropriately just continues to demonstrate your ongoing inability to grasp the inductive nature of the theory being presented.Does each failed attempt to create a perpetual motion machine make the second law of thermodynamics increasingly unfalsifiable and thus less scientific?

Then it is no wonder you are incapable of properly comprehending bluegenes theory. It is no wonder that you erroneously think it is innately unfalsifiable. The entire basis of your nonsensical anal Emma becomes clear. It is based on your own incredulity.This whole time you have been confusing what you personally are capable of believing with what constitutes "supernatural". I, nor Bluegenes nor Mod, believe in the actual existence of (as commonly conceived) werwolves, vampires fairies, leprechauns, gods, Thor, Zeus, Voldermort, Christ, Vishnu, Apollo, ghosts, demons, Djinns, genies, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.........But we, unlike you, understand that if any of these things, as commonly conceived, do genuinely exist then they are supernatural and thus do falsify bluegenes theory. Don't tell RAZ of your pseudoskeptical conversion..........

Not really. The scientific evidence suggests both that the Earth can and will be hit by such things and that life destroying meteors are a distinct possibility given enough time. In fact isn't that what put paid to the dinos? What comparable evidence is there that the "big boys" of the supernatural concept world are a genuine possibility rather than a complete fiction? Your anology is as flawed as all your other arguments. Is it though? If so why? Be specific?I suspect that the only answer posible here is something along the lines of "Because lots of people believe it".Since when did mass human belief in something alone constitute any reliable reason to consider it anything other than a feature of human psychology? Lots of people believed in the actual existenc of Thor. If belief alone were an indicator then Santa would be as real as any other entity. So what is your point?Which supernaural entities do actually deserve our serious consideration? And on what basis? Please be very specific.

Chuck when are you going to learn that lots of people having deep conviction that something is true neither makes it true nor is evidence of it's truth? Belief that the bible is true. Belief that some subjective experience is caused by Jesus. It's all just belief. Claims made on the basis of belief are not evidence of anything but human belief. Believing that Jesus is real doesn't make him anything other than an imaginary friend. The effects of psychology are very very real. The belief that certain events are caused by Vishnu or Allah or Jesus is just belief. I have no doubt that you are utterly convinced of the truth of your beliefs. But your belief isn't evidence. If you were a Hindu it would be Vishnu etc. If you were a Scientologist it would be Thetans or whatever. The things that people find utterly subjectively convincing are varied and many.But it's all just belief.

Xongsmith you are the most atheistic person I have ever met. Apparently you cannot even conceive of a genuinely supernatural entity. Apparently you are unable to even consider the possibility that your atheism towards the supernatural may be wrong. Based on everything you have said here you are a 7 on the Dawkins scale. This is not a reasoned, rational or evidentially legitimate position. When Harold Camping predicted that judgement day would occur on 21st of May this year I gave it only enough credence to find time to laugh. But how unlikely I think any given particular scenario might be has no bearing on it’s ability to falsify a theory does it? I seriously doubt that evolution by natural selection will be falsified by the discovery of mammal fossils in the Precambrian or a discovery that makes genetics incomapatible with evolution. But if these discoveries do genuinely and reliably take place then they do. And if that happens our theories will have been falsified no matter how unlikely I may currently consider this scenario. Likewise if biblical Armageddon had actually occurred as Harold Camping had predicted then I would have been wrong and bluegenes theory would have been falsified. It really is that simple.Don’t confuse a theory remaining unfalsified because it happens to be correct with a theory being unscientifically unfalsifiable. The two things are very different. Where we have a highly evidenced naturalistic explanation (e.g. the human psychological proclivity to invent supernatural entities) we can confidently consider this explanation as superior to evidentially baseless claims (e.g. the claim that supernatural entities actually exist). But your catchall of something-thermodynamic-didit can be applied to absolutely anything you are personally incredulous about can’t it? Any falsification of any theory can be put down to some freak thermodynamic event. Something-thermodynamic-didit is no better as an explanation than the more familiar Goddidit or something-supernatural-didit.

Aside from the current widespread and deep conviction that this particular entity actually exists why should we treat this one as evidentially different to any other supernatural entity one can name?Scientology is (so I am informed) the worlds fastest growing religion. And plenty of other beliefs have dominated various sections of the world in less globalised times. And even if we do concentrate on Christ which of the many variations of Christ should we concentrate our efforts upon? The peace and love hippy? The gay hating, war mongering fundamentalist? Or something else?On what basis are you special pleading Christianity? Like any scientific theory that contradicts people's intuitive beliefs it will take time to be widely accepted. Given human nature it may never be fully accepted by many. But the psychological origins of religious and other supernatural beliefs are increasingly understood and accepted by the scientific community. Your anal Emma is just a restatement of bluegenes theory with your own incredulity layered on top.The fact that you personally would invoke freak thermodynamic anomalies as an explanation for anything that contradicts your beliefs has no bearing on the falsifiability (or otherwise) of any theory at all.

(Emphasis yours) Go on then. Give me an example of an entity that if it exists is genuinely supernatural.Just one example.

No. 6. How many times? I don't claim to have proof of nothingness and you sure as hell don't have proof of a godly somethingness. What I have that you don't is objective evidence. Objective evidence of the human proclivity to believe in things that don't exist. Why do humans believe in the existence of god(s)? Are these widespread human beliefs and ideas held as a result of the actual existence of such entities? Or is there a more evidenced explanation for this observable human behaviour?The objective evidence (agency detection, the selection advantage of false positives etc.) tells us that humans have a deep psychological proclivity to invent a variety of intelligent agents including (but far from restricted to) gods in order to explain the things that they find baffling and significant. Meanwhile the claim that such entities actually exist remains completely unevidenced and utterly subjective.On the simple yet essentially inarguable basis that objectively evidenced explanations and conclusions are more likely to be correct than unevidenced subjective claims it therefore follows that any given concept of god cited by humanity is more likely to be a human invention than something that actually exists.

If my hat size gets any bigger I will have to stop wearing the traffic cones that I "borrow" on the way back from the pub.(**Straggler struggles to prise the cone off of his head**)

But you also said "Yes". Which is it? Go on then. Give me an example of something supernatural. What is your problem here? I can give you countless examples of commonly conceived things which if they exist, no mater how unlikely I may think this to be, would be supernatural and which would therefore falsify bluegenes theory. Werwolves, vampires fairies, leprechauns, gods, Thor, Zeus, Voldermort, Christ, Vishnu, Apollo, ghosts, demons, Djinns, genies, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.........Can you just give one example?

If the Norse God Thor exists then the atheist conclusion is wrong. It doesn't matter what I, or you or a group of white coated experts have to say on the matter. It doesn't matter what you or I or our experts believe. If Thor exists he exists and atheists are wrong.Do you agree? Do you exist Xongsmith? What is your own current peer reviewed status? Can you point me to the published journals in which your own existence is confirmed?Or should I conclude that you don't exist?

If you are unable to acknowledge that even the actual existence of an actual god would make your atheistic stance wrong then I am lost as to where to go next. You are an atheistic fundamentalist. The first I have ever met. By existing. By being real. By being something that isn't just a figment of human imagination. Forget how one might conclude this for one second and just answer the question.IF the Norse God Thor exists are atheistic conclusions wrong?I cannot believe that you are unable to answer this without tying yourself into philosophical knots about 1 and 0. I don't drink with imaginary friends because they never pay for their rounds. In Britain this is a bare requirement for existence.

And the same applies to the actual existence of Christ, Allah etc.....?You have concluded that the actual existence of ANY supernatural entity is equiavlanet to a mathematical impossibility.You are the supreme atheist Xongsmith. And your atheistic certainty is as much a matter of faith as any theistic equivalent. Such certainty cannot be derived from evidence.

Empirically? And if they cannot be detected empirically how can any conception of these supernatural causal agents be anything but a product of the internal workings of the human mind? Yes. But we don't have a big blonde godly viking waving around his magic hammer, causing thunder and lightning and sometimes slumming it down here amongst us mere mortals.Whilst we do have a good basis for concluding that Thor is a human constructed myth.Where are you on the scale of belief with regard to Thor RAZ?