Is bluegene performing or is he dodging the issue again and again?
Hi moose.
Admittedly, I haven't followed it closely, but I wasn't impressed with your performance in the current "Great Debate". Bluejeans seemed to be trying to do a dialog ...
May I politely suggest that if you haven't been following it then you are not really in a valid position to judge who is or is not performing.
The primary issue of that thread is to have bluegenes provide objective empirical evidence to support his assertions. In his 40 posts so far on the thread (out of 86) he has, imho, absolutely failed to do so. See Message 4 and Message 82 for clarification of my position at the start and at present.
To judge my performance on that thread, all you need to do is observe my attempts to have bluegenes provide the objective empirical evidence that is necessary for him to substantiate his position in a proper scientific manner.
To judge bluegene's performance on that thread all you need to do is list the objective empirical evidence that he has produced.
He does not need to "do a dialog" he just needs to provide the evidence to substantiate his assertions. All his attempts to "do a dialog" are just attempts to avoid presenting evidence.
He made 6 assertions, and not one has been substantiated by objective empirical evidence, and that, imho, is a total lack of performance.
That said, for better or worse, I don't foresee you offering up anything more than what you already said in the PNT message 1.
Agreed, and I also see that Coyote doesn't want to participate, so hopefully this means that neither he nor anyone else will continue to snipe from the sidelines. If anyone does, they can go read the proposal again as you both feel this settles that issue.
You have been doing your best to snipe any and all attempts to point out to you that the supernatural is not supported by the evidence.
You are using logic and debating tricks instead of providing evidence that the supernatural does exist.
I'm not going to play that game. Either provide evidence for the supernatural or don't, but lay off the silly debating tricks.
And no, the issue is not settled. In not one of these threads have you provided any evidence for the supernatural. Until we have some evidence, the default position for science is that the supernatural doesn't exist. Without evidence all the philosophy and debating tricks you can muster won't make change that.
Add: And I will continue to snipe from the sidelines.
Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
only known source is not the only source if other sources are possible ..but untested
Hi xongsmith
Of course we can't get into the Big Guns of the supernatural world yet, because the sources we have for them are imperfect and incomplete and thus not really "known".
This will diminish the relative importance of the proposed theory in my eyes, of course.
Indeed, it already is weaker -- bluegenes has equivocated from his original position
Human invention is the only source of supernatural beings known to science.
Thus it no longer is an issue of being the only source, so the theory is that maybe the source of supernatural concepts is human imagination, and maybe it isn't.
One of the problems that I have is that I cannot see a way to distinguish imagination from an unverified subjective experience (if you remember the discussions with Straggler) of the supernatural, particularly where one does not fully understand the experience (... not being a god?). Subject5ive experiences are only good for suggesting possibilities, and in this case it means that if there are only two sources that they are both possibilities, not knowns.
One would have to be able to determine that it was one and not the other by some means before claiming to know one from the other. Otherwise all one is doing is assuming the conclusion in the premise.
Add: And I will continue to snipe from the sidelines.
But not have the guts to actually address it face to face.
You are wrong, and you can't accept that.
Just like bluegenes cannot accept that he is wrong, and cannot find the evidence to make it right.
I am wrong for asking for evidence of the supernatural that so many folks around the world believe in? (And apparently do so without any real evidence.)
In these threads you are trying to change the default position from showing the evidence for the supernatural to making skeptics prove that it does not exist. Utter nonsense.
That's why I won't participate in that proposed "great debate" thread. It is flawed from the start and will just go around in philosophical circles (as philosophers have done for 2,500 years or more) without getting anywhere.
Philosophy is no substitute for evidence.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
I am wrong for asking for evidence of the supernatural that so many folks around the world believe in?
Succinctly, in a word, YES!!!
To add a few more words, yes, you are wrong to ask that.
It was bluegenes who stated his proposed theory. RAZD did not propose a theory in this Great Debate. bluegenes did. It is the responsibility of the person(s) proposing the theory to provide supporting scientific peer-reviewed objective evidence for his or her or their conclusion(s).
He has to provide evidence that every single scientifically known source of supernatural beings is from human imagination.
RAZD has to do *NOTHING* you speak of.
Stop asking RAZD to do something he doesn't have to do. Address instead the points he is making about his view that bluegenes has not provided peer-reviewed evidence yet.
I am wrong for asking for evidence of the supernatural that so many folks around the world believe in?
You are correct to ask.
RAZD has admitted there are only two possible conclusions: either it is imagined, or humans can experience it.
The imagined part is common sense; humans can imagine things, supernatural things, any thing.
The experienced part however not only requires that a human can actually experience the supernatural being - BUT - that the supernatural being actually exists. Obviously there needs to be proof that there is something there to experience in the first place.
So it starts with the question you are asking first: Is there evidence for the supernatural?
If the answer is no, then who cares about the rest of this crap.
If there is evidence for it, then it can follow that humans may be able to experience it. But until the supernatural is evidenced, nothing can be concluded about whether or not humans can experience them.
The imagination as the only source is the only one objectively evidenced.
You are totally right to call what he is doing, silly debating tricks.
Your bro has admitted to only two possible sources: the imagination of a human, or the experience of a human.
I'm sorry. I missed that. Where did he concede that? I was under the impression that he was arguing there could be 3, or 4, maybe even more?
To experience, there needs to be something there to experience. Is there proof that there is something there to experience? No.
Look, I may be 5.7 on the Dawkins scale, but I know that there are some people who have "experienced shit that they would never deny". Is it scientific peer-reviewed object evidence? NO.
RE: the Yucatan meteor - I must concede that although this is not imagined or directly experienced, it is not supernatural either, so it is irrelevant to the issue.
So that only leaves our other source alone as the only evidenced one.
- Oni
No...............................but again, it is not the job of RAZD to support some kind of "counter-theory" here. It is bluegenes who must support his "theory". And the worst of it is that I am firmly on bluegenes' side when looking at the gist of his conclusion. But when he goes about it in a clumsy way and my brother nails him for that, then I have to be family tight here.
Again, I will repeat: science is done by measuring things to collect data. It is not done in the comfort of an armchair, perhaps accompanied by a fine glass of cognac, maybe a good cigar if you go that way, or a lovely lady draped around you, if you go that way. No. You have to go out into the field and collect data. You have to calibrate your measuring equipment against all manner of known ways that any kind of bias can creep into your investigation and then measure that data. You have to get your fingers dirty (forget about that woman draped over your knee for a moment). Then you have to demonstrate that the data supports your theory.
Again, I will repeat: science is done by measuring things to collect data. It is not done in the comfort of an armchair, perhaps accompanied by a fine glass of cognac, maybe a good cigar if you go that way, or a lovely lady draped around you, if you go that way. No. You have to go out into the field and collect data. You have to calibrate your measuring equipment against all manner of known ways that any kind of bias can creep into your investigation and then measure that data. You have to get your fingers dirty (forget about that woman draped over your knee for a moment). Then you have to demonstrate that the data supports your theory.
I like it! Well phrased.
Both the science and the literary content.
As an archaeologist I can relate to the "get dirty" part.
As we say (or used to say in our youth): "Think Dirty -- Shower with an Archaeologist!"
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Again, I will repeat: science is done by measuring things to collect data. It is not done in the comfort of an armchair, perhaps accompanied by a fine glass of cognac, maybe a good cigar if you go that way, or a lovely lady draped around you, if you go that way. No. You have to go out into the field and collect data. You have to calibrate your measuring equipment against all manner of known ways that any kind of bias can creep into your investigation and then measure that data. You have to get your fingers dirty (forget about that woman draped over your knee for a moment). Then you have to demonstrate that the data supports your theory.
I like it! Well phrased.
Both the science and the literary content.
As an archaeologist I can relate to the "get dirty" part.
As we say (or used to say in our youth): "Think Dirty -- Shower with an Archaeologist!"
Thanks Coyote. Thank you. BTW I love coyotes. In my area of the country, they have detected a mingling of wolf genes! The guys out back are running up to 50-55 pounds and looking a lot like wolves - wolves are very intelligent. Oh - and, also, there is not a single archaeologist I know of who has done me wrong.
Thanks Coyote. Thank you. BTW I love coyotes. In my area of the country, they have detected a mingling of wolf genes! The guys out back are running up to 50-55 pounds and looking a lot like wolves - wolves are very intelligent. Oh - and, also, there is not a single archaeologist I know of who has done me wrong.
Coyotes are smarter than wolves.
Proof? Coyotes are dining on poodles in Beverly Hills, while wolves are extinct in most of the lower 48 states.
Archaeologists are mostly good folks, you know--down to earth types?
And we want evidence for things. Like the exodus thread--there should be lots of evidence around, and that would help settle the matter. Or the supernatural thread--again, where's the evidence?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Proof? Coyotes are dining on poodles in Beverly Hills, while wolves are extinct in most of the lower 48 states.
BZZZZZZT!!!
That is not the correct evidence. Then E. coli would be smarter than Coyotes. Cockroaches. Ants.
I might agree with you only because I am ill informed about the differences between wolves and coyotes. But I have seen how wolves are very smart and could easily transfer this to the coyote, who had to survive much more in the hard bullets, chemicals, traps and all of the ways humans have been over the years than the wolf - who was driven outright from his home at the beginning. The wily coyote has learned to keep it cool on a certain level.
But I am a romantic when it all comes down. No scientist here.
I am wrong for asking for evidence of the supernatural that so many folks around the world believe in? (And apparently do so without any real evidence.)
You are wrong in insisting that I need to provide it. My position is that logically and rationally there is insufficient evidence pro and con to make a valid decision === agnostic.
You can have an opinion about whether one or the other is true, but opinion is not necessarily based on evidence and is curiously ineffective at altering reality.
You are also wrong that believers should have evidence for their faith, as that is not part of the definition of faith:
Where belief is defined:
If I tell you what I believe but do not ask you to accept it as true there is no burden to supply evidence, as I am only offering my opinion. It is only when I ask you to accept it as true that you would be justified in asking for evidence to support that assertion.
In these threads you are trying to change the default position from showing the evidence for the supernatural to making skeptics prove that it does not exist. Utter nonsense.
Curiously, the default position is agnostic, and I am not trying to change that. If you want to change the default position, then you need to provide evidence for asking me to accept that change. I'll be happy to discuss this further with you if you want to start a thread on it, however I have already covered this topic several times and I provide a summary and links at PNT "Coyote's Persistent Question" message 1.
btw -- just calling a position "nonsense" instead of refuting it is a typical pseudoskeptic ploy.
That's why I won't participate in that proposed "great debate" thread. It is flawed from the start and will just go around in philosophical circles (as philosophers have done for 2,500 years or more) without getting anywhere.
Because you can't support your position as anything more than your opinion -- which is why the default position is agnostic. It's like arguing politics based on opinions - which I agree is a waste of time.
Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)
(4) is the position that logic supports: the default position when there is a lack of validated evidence, is that no valid conclusion can be reached -- we don't know, can't know, which is true.
(3) is the position of someone that recognizes that (4) is the logical position, but is of the opinion that god/s may exist.
(5) is the position of someone that recognizes that (4) is the logical position, but is of the opinion that god/s may NOT exist.
(2) & (6) are people that think their position is based on something more than their opinion, and they need to provide evidence to substantiate that claim.
(1) & (7) are people that think their position is fact, not opinion, and they need to provide evidence to substantiate that claim.
I am a (3) agnostic theist. bluegenes and Straggler are (6)'s. What are you?
That's why I won't participate in that proposed "great debate" thread. It is flawed from the start and will just go around in philosophical circles (as philosophers have done for 2,500 years or more) without getting anywhere.
Or you don't recognize the logical flaws in your position, and apparently refuse to accept that your opinion may be wrong.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
