RAZD in the Debate thread, among other things, says:
......it still does not address the issue of whether supernatural beings found in documents and believed by many people to exist are products of human imagination or not.
So - this effectively trashes out your whole IPU line of attack, as there are most certainly not "many people" who actually do believe in the IPU....
Let's cut to the chase. Are you eventually going to demand that bluegenes provide scientific objective evidence that Jesus Christ is a figment of human imagination...??
... but do not know, in scientific terms, of any source for them other than the human imagination.
But we do know of other sources being documented in many forms around the world. The fact that you keep ignoring this objective empirical evidence of other possible sources does not mean that they do not exist.
So (to be clear here) your argument rests on the idea that written documents are a form of objective empirical evidence supporting the actual existence of supernatural entities? As opposed to being objective empirical evidence supporting the known fact of human belief in the existence of supernatural entities?
I am sure bluegenes will pick up on this in the debate so I am just seeking clarification that this is what you meant.
The point is that there is an alternative explanation, and that you have absolutely failed to provide a means to distinguish one from the other. ... All I need demonstrate is that there are valid reasons to be highly skeptical that you have anything but personal opinion. I have done that. In spades. ...
Much of RAZD's view seems to be that as long as an alternative hypothesis exists that cannot be ruled out, you cannot say you have a high confidence theory. RAZD's problem seems to be that his alternative is unfalsifiable. He requires that it must be ruled out that there is some supernatural truth behind supernatural beliefs completely. Feynman addressed this "but can you say it is impossible that alternative hypothesis x true?" mentality thusly:
Hi xongsmith, I appreciate your help in trying to get others to understand the (really quite simple) argument/s, but ...
......it still does not address the issue of whether supernatural beings found in documents and believed by many people to exist are products of human imagination or not.
So - this effectively trashes out your whole IPU line of attack, as there are most certainly not "many people" who actually do believe in the IPU....
My reasons for asking for the evidence that the IPU is a product of human imagination is that it should be easy to do. It would be a baby step in the process of demonstrating how one determines that a concept is a product of human imagination.
The next step is to apply this in a broader scope to include supernatural entities that are recognized in some way by people, rather than the absurd caricature concepts that bluegenes, Straggler et al will make up at the drop of a hat and think are significant in any way.
If you read the exchanges with Rrhain you will see that this is one way to accomplish the goal of showing that a specific entity is a product of human imagination. It isn't necessarily the only way, but it is A way. Note that the burden of providing a method\process lies with bluegenes: he made the claim.
It is absolutely absurd to claim that one has "plenty of evidence" to support the concept that ""All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" and then not have any procedure or method for determining whether or not any particular supernatural entities are products of imagination.
Let's cut to the chase. Are you eventually going to demand that bluegenes provide scientific objective evidence that Jesus Christ is a figment of human imagination...??
Given that he has absolutely failed to show that a single entity is a product of human imagination, I don't foresee that, nor would it be necessarily necessary. What we have is a claim that is completely unsubstantiated, based on opinion and wishful thinking, and as such it is not a theory in any scientific sense of the term.
Seeing as the only "evidence" provided so far has been a series of made up fictional caricatures, it is absurd to claim that this is scientific in any way.
I don't know of any single branch of legitimate science that is based on made up data -- that is what constitutes frauds, hoaxes, deceptions, fakes and pseudoscience.
I don't know of any single branch of legitimate science that is based on made up data -- that is what constitutes frauds, hoaxes, deceptions, fakes and pseudoscience.
Made up data--frauds, hoaxes, deceptions, fakes and pseudoscience, eh?
Sounds like the basis of theology.
Or as Heinlein noted:
Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there.
Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Much of RAZD's view seems to be that as long as an alternative hypothesis exists that cannot be ruled out, you cannot say you have a high confidence theory. RAZD's problem seems to be that his alternative is unfalsifiable.
If you don't quote what I actually say, then the likelihood is high that you are misrepresenting my position. Badly.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Furthermore, I did quote what you actually say.
Maybe you are trying to tell me that the Hindu hypothesis cannot be considered much of what your view seems to be about. Or maybe you believe it is falsifiable?
RAZD writes:
That you have failed to invalidate\falsify the "Hindu Hypothesis", also means that you have not shown your hypothesis to be the only valid explanation, NOR have you presented any way to discern that your hypothesis is true and the "Hindu Hypothesis" is false.
What the "Hindu Hypothesis" says is that when we take all these symbolic stories and put them together, that the total picture that emerges is one of the universal truth/s - and among others, that god/s exist(ed) and that they created.
or from the OP
RAZD writes:
Of course my participation will only involve showing the errors and poor logic in your argument/s, and I bear absolutely no burden to substantiate my personal position/s in this proposed debate: the sole focus would be on your attempt/s to show objective empirical evidence that shows - once and for all - that no god/s can possibly exist
certainly seems like you require that it must be ruled out that there is some supernatural truth behind supernatural beliefs completely. If that's not what you meant, I suggest you clear it up quickly. Clearly, the outgroup of Straggler et al whose ranks it seems I have joined are so blinded by our various worldview biases that we've completely misconstrued what you have been saying from your bias free position.
RAZD writes:
Nope, I've just pointed out that you have failed to account properly for alternative explanations. In a true scientific hypothesis development you would list alternative explanations and then show how they can be falsified, and proceed to do so.
RAZD writes:
The point is that there is an alternative explanation, and that you have absolutely failed to provide a means to distinguish one from the other.
It does appear, quite strongly, that you are asking bluegenes to demonstrate the impossibility of the Hindu Hypothesis much like Feynman's layman. I may be wrong about your position - but I think it is a little desperate sounding to start asserting I am making stuff up about it.
So I challenge you to prove absolutely that it does not seem, to me, that much of your view is that as long as an alternative hypothesis exists that cannot be ruled out, one cannot say one has a high confidence theory. If you fail, I trust you will withdraw your allegations of fabrication.
Hi Modulus, yes my personal view is different from my position in the debate, and irrelevant to it.
My position in the debate is to act as an open-minded skeptic, and show that bluegenes has not considered the other possibilities, especially those that lead to contrary positions to his personal concept, but rather has just ignored them.
This would be like a scientist ignoring contrary evidence and alternate hypothesis when stating that he had a valid theory.
certainly seems like you require that it must be ruled out that there is some supernatural truth behind supernatural beliefs completely. If that's not what you meant, I suggest you clear it up quickly. Clearly, the outgroup of Straggler et al whose ranks it seems I have joined are so blinded by our various worldview biases that we've completely misconstrued what you have been saying from your bias free position.
Indeed.
But it is precisely bluegenes' claim - not mine - that HE has ruled out supernatural truth in determining that all supernatural entities are the product of human invention, and his claim that the human mind is the only source of information.
All I am doing is demonstrating that he has absolutely failed thus far to show this to be so in any way shape or form.
But it is precisely bluegenes' claim - not mine - that HE has ruled out supernatural truth in determining that all supernatural entities are the product of human invention, and his claim that the human mind is the only source of information.
All I am doing is demonstrating that he has absolutely failed thus far to show this to be so in any way shape or form.
What you are doing is stretching logic beyond all reason to support your particular brand of woo.
It pays to remember Kettering's Law:
Logic is an organized way of going wrong, with confidence.
In all of these debates you have not once provided any evidence for supernatural critters, large, small, or otherwise.
Don't you think that would be a good place to start?
Logic is great, but it is no substitute for evidence. So far you have none, so all the logic dripping from the philosophers' fevered brains isn't going to help your case.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
"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.
Let me crassly recast this structure thusly, as if in a quasi-caricature:
"All English words are composed from an alphabet of 26 letters abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz (upper or lowercase, subscript or superscript) and, of 1473 ("LATE"), the ten numerals 0123456789 (increasingly so in internet jargon)".
This is a high level of confidence theory. The alphabet of the 36 thingies, abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789, is the only known source of English words, just as adult rabbit DNA is the only known source of baby rabbit DNA.
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one English word not composed from the 26 letters and ten numerals.
It is not falsified by unsupported assertions like "another letter or numeral 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.
For instance, we can demonstrate this for the English word "quark":
We methodically check each letter and easily verify that, yes, sacre' bleu!, the q, the u, the a, the r and the k are all letters taken from the 26 letters and ten numerals allowed in the theory. We do not have to show that there is no way "quark" is not an English word, but rather some strange immaterial word containing some strange invisible letter not allowed by definition right at the get go. We could do that with only 1 cigar and 1 bottle of sherry in the smoking salon after dinner I suppose, unlike the IPU (where I would recommend 6 of each, just for starters). In the end, though, it may be at best a philosophical point and not a conclusive slam dunk. Instead we just point to the q, the u, the a, the r and the k.
We can do this for "onomatopoeia". We can do this for "pi", because that is the English way to spell it. Not "". There is plenty of evidence indeed.
We have the easy way right in front of us. I can be with this! (But it can make me at times.)
HOWEVER:
I am now thinking, that for any theory to be a truly strong theory, it must provide something new in its field of endeavor. I am thinking neither of the above boxes adds anything new to the existing body of knowledge.
Indeed, bluegenes may be on to something when he compares his theory with rabbits. No zoologist today would seriously publish a paper claiming that baby rabbit DNA only comes from parent rabbit DNA and claim it is a strong theory.
My position in the debate is to act as an open-minded skeptic, and show that bluegenes has not considered the other possibilities, especially those that lead to contrary positions to his personal concept, but rather has just ignored them.
As an open minded skeptic though, you surely agree that it would be foolish to worry about unfalsifiable 'possibilities' - since they can be raised against any notion whatsoever.
This would be like a scientist ignoring contrary evidence and alternate hypothesis when stating that he had a valid theory.
Like biologists that ignore omphalism, right?
But it is precisely bluegenes' claim - not mine - that HE has ruled out supernatural truth in determining that all supernatural entities are the product of human invention, and his claim that the human mind is the only source of information.
He hasn't ruled out supernatural entities, though. He just hasn't seen any evidence that an actual supernatural entity is the source of a supernatural entity concept. If such evidence were to be presented (and bluegenes requires it meet standards of evidence seen in science), it would falsify his theory.
He asked you for scientific evidence of such a source, and you have not been able to present any. There's no shame in that of course, if such evidence existed, the debate probably wouldn't be happening.
All I am doing is demonstrating that he has absolutely failed thus far to show this to be so in any way shape or form.
Failed to show what? He has shown that the imagination is a source of supernatural entity concepts. You have failed to show any exceptions to a standard that would be considered scientific. So, as much as it is possible to establish such things in a debate he has successfully demonstrated that the only known source of supernatural entity concepts in science is the human imagination.
On the other hand - you have demanded that an alternative unfalsifiable hypothesis be absolutely ruled out by bluegenes.
This is as clearly as ludicrous as Feynman pointed out. When I said this, you accused me of making stuff up about your position. You are now saying that you are 'merely' suggesting bluegenes hasn't considered any unfalsifiable positions - but I quoted you talking about the importance of bluegnes falsifying them.
RAZD writes:
That you have failed to invalidate\falsify the "Hindu Hypothesis", also means that you have not shown your hypothesis to be the only valid explanation,
and so on. Your more moderate position of demanding bluegenes 'consider' alternatives is still ludicrous unless you likewise demand evolutionary biologists 'consider' omphalism. Is bluegenes doing any worse than any evolutionary biologists might when discussing omphalism? Does the existence of the concept of omphalism undermine the scientific theory of evolution?
What exactly, have I 'made up' about your position?
The difference between discussing evolution and supernatural entities is that supernatural entities are a necessary part of the discussion of supernatural entities, but not of biology.
If you are going to argue that supernatural entities do not exist, then you logically must include discussion of whether supernatural entities do in fact exist or not.
To intentionally dismiss and disregard any discussion of supernatural entities is like talking about a population of swans, and saying that in any population of all white swans that black swans do not exist.
While this may be true for a pure population of white swans, it is not true when all the known information about swans is included.
Your analogy of a biologist would be more accurate it involved a biologist that claimed that black swans do not exist, and then ignores the evidence in published literature that black swans do exist.
with this! (But it can make me 
at times.)
™ Version 4.2
