Peanut Gallery

Double post.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi Stile, nice start. 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? 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. Ah the old "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" ploy - another logical fallacy. 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. In your opinion. Just because something has not been verified scientifically does not mean that it is falsified. 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? 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. 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. 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)

Hi onifre, Agnosticism, indecision, waiting for more evidence to accumulate before making a decision.If something is unknown, then how can you logically make a decision?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)

Although many of the points raised deserve rebuttal... this thread (and the Great Debate thread) have gone over and over them to no avail. It is not my intention to add redundant text to this issue. However, here is the crux of the issue: Of course, your implication is correct. No, a theory is not strong if it can only produce correct answers half the time, or less than half the time.However, this is the real basis for the Strong Theory. In every possible case where the origin can be tested and known... it has always been shown to be a figment of human imagination. That is not 50% or less... that's 100% and not a penny short.Isn't it a strong theory if it is right 100% of the times it is tested, over and over again, constantly by millions worldwide, throughout recorded human history?Are you claiming that the Strong Theory is wrong half the time? Any of the time? Can you show us a single time where the Strong Theory is wrong?I suppose you could claim that the Strong Theory *must* produce correct answers, even with the origins are not known, and cannot be known.
But... how could that make any sense?
The fact that SB concepts exist where their origins are not known, and possibly cannot be known, is a fact of this reality. It was a fact I mentioned at the beginning of my last post, and it's a fact incorporated by the Strong Theory.I don't see how a fact that is incorporated into the theory can possibly be construed to show that the theory is useless. Indeed... if that fact was not true, if there were no SBs concepts where the origins were unknown... if the origin of SB concepts was always known... why would we need the theory at all? Wouldn't we just know?Obviously the fact that the origin of some SB concepts is unknown, and possibly can never be known, is not only included in the Strong Theory, it is necessary for the Strong Theory's existance! Otherwise we would just know and there would be no use for such a theory.Therefore, the only way to make a decent measurement is to see if the Strong Theory is correct when the SB concept's origin can be known... and, so far, the Strong Theory is still chugging along at 100% accuracy.And the only question remaining would be... do you actually think the Strong Theory is right only half the time or less?
Can you show a single time where the Strong Theory is wrong?

I'm not making any decision based on anything. All I'm stating is, like you have stated, that it is an unknown. And if one is unknown and the other is known, then logically (and I'm shocked that you can't just admit it) the only KNOWN source is the one that is a KNOWN source. Duh...What you do with that information is up to you.- Oni

Hi stile, really? Curiously I am not aware of a single one. This is a rather extraordinary claim that should make headlines around the world.Perhaps you are assuming something that is not true.Please list all the supernatural entities that have been found by objective empirical evidence to be human invention, with the supporting documents. Names and documentation.From what I see it appears to be 0% objectively determined -- so if you claim to have positive evidence you need to provide it. And yet nobody has been able to raise a valid rebuttal. Perhaps because a valid rebuttal would require objective empirical evidence, and not assumption based on bad logic.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : format

---

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)

Hi onifre, So if I have a coin and you can see and know the top of it but not the bottom, then you have to call the top side when I flip it?Fascinating. File it under confirmation bias.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)

or Here's my problem with this reasoning:Many claims of the supernatural end up being unable to be determined either way, so since they cannot be proven scientifically, then they are assumed to not be supernatural. Or, if a natural explanation is capable of explaining it, then it is favored over the supernatural one by default.But if what we are investigating is supernatural, then we shouldn't be expecting it to conform to our naturalistic explanations. And simply assuming them in the absense of evidence is not showing that the supernatural doesn't exist.So I disagree with this 100% success rate of science vs. the supernatural. Too often its just assumed or left by default.Say you had an experience that convinced you that you saw a ghost (insert whatever details necessary). Without reproduction, it would be assumed to be your imagination. Or if you caught it on video, then whatever could be come up with as a natural explanation would be assumed to be the answer. So yay! 100% success of science. But is it really?You can't use those assumptions and defaults as successes, and if you do, then you can't use those successes to say it hasn't failed. Its circular. THere's the above, but also it is unfalsifiable because its dealing with the supernatural in the first place. Plus, anything we were able to show was supernatural would be natural by way of that showing.

Can you just deal with the facts you are being presented and for which you have already conceded to?Two choices: Experienced or Imagined - (Which you agree with)One is unknown to be an actual source, it is untestable and so we are left with no info on it. The other is known to be an actual source.How can "Imagined is the only KNOWN source" not be a correct statement?- Oni

This is why you can't be taken seriously on this subject.I wish it was possible to nominate you for worst post of the month.

Out of curiosity, RAZD, rather than trying to debate against you -What, specifically and in detail, would you consider to be strong evidence that a given hypothetical entity does not exist? Or even just enough evidence to convince you that the actual existence of such an entity is unlikely?Please be specific; generalities like "objective evidence and documentation" won't really satisfy my curiosity. I'm sure there are conceivable entities that you find to be unlikely to exist in reality, and I want to know specifically and in detail what causes you to disbelieve in those entities but believe in others ("entity" not necessarily being an anthropomorphic anything; a rock or a planet or a microbe are all entities).I'm leaving the specific entity to use as an example up to you - I'm trying to be completely non-confrontational, I'm not setting up an analogous absurdity like the IPU.If you feel you've already gone over this somewhere, please feel free to link to it - this debate has spanned so many threads over so much time it's entirely possible I may have missed or forgotten your answer to a similar question.

Can you explain how a person could know for sure that they experienced a ghost for real, rather than experienced something their mind manifested?- Oni

Hi crashfrog So you don't have any evidence either, and resort to insult instead of attempting refutation.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)

Hi Rahvin, This would be more up to those trying to establish this, they would need to have a method or process to test information and determine the results. Then that method or process would have to be tested, and develop positive results.Essentially you are asking me how they would prove a negative: I don't think this is possible, rather that this is one of the essential problems with these debates -- they are not resolved by fact and science, because fact and science cannot touch supernatural things by definition.This is why I object when some people claim to know more than is possible, imho, to know.My personal opinion is that god/s are possible, but am skeptical of specific claims being correct. Opinion is not evidence, nor fact though, so when it comes to logic and available evidence, I'm agnostic. See The persistent question of evidence ... for clarification. It has been beaten to death that is for sure. Perhaps you should ask the other participants why they try to take an essentially unwinnable position? See xongsmith on this thread regarding the
Flying Spaghetti Monster - WikipediaBut that was demonstrating that it was made up intentionally with the author admitting it.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)

Proving a negative is impossible. But it does seem to be possible to establish relative likelihoods given predictions stemming from a hypothesis of existence, wouldn't you agree? After all, I can determine whether there is a pen on my desk by looking at my desk - an absence of the expected evidence (observing the pen) would not be proof of the nonexistence of the pen, but in the absence of any other factors it would still be sufficient to sway the relative probabilities in favor of the null hypothesis that there is no pen on my desk.I'm aware this isn't directly analogous to deities. My desk is a finite space that is easily searchable, and a pen is a discrete object with well-defined characteristics such that any person can identify it and can do so with the natural five senses; all of existence is rather larger.But would you agree that, even when proof of a negative is impossible, it can in some cases be possible to show that a given entity is less likely to exist than it is to exist, that the chances are not an even 50/50? I disagree. In the past, those things that we have identified as "supernatural" have simply been phenomenon that were not well understood at the time. The term "supernatural" seems to historically have been used to label not phenomenon that actually superseded the laws of existence, but our own human ignorance. If there is an entity capable of violating what we call the laws of physics, what we're actually observing is that our understanding of the actual laws of physics was faulty, and we should study this entity to find out what the real rules are. If Superman suddenly turned out to be real, for example, we shouldn't claim that his ability to fly or shoot laser beams from his eyes are "supernatural" and are exceptions to the laws of physics; rather, given his actual existence and abilities, we would then need to admit that our understanding of the laws of physics are flawed, and set about finding the real rules.I think it's a rather supreme act of hubris to observe a phenomenon that contradicts our understanding of the universe and say that the universe is somehow making an exception, that our understanding of the rules is perfect.I don't think there is any phenomenon in reality that is somehow "out of bounds" for science. Any phenomenon that interacts with reality enough for us to be aware of it must be interacting with reality; if a phenomenon interacts with reality, then we should be able to test it given the right prior knowledge, circumstances, and equipment. Those last caveats, of course, being why we aren't omniscient.Do you disagree? I can understand that. Certainly there must be an incredibly large degree of uncertainty pertaining to the general question of whether "gods" exist, particularly given the many, often vague definitions for what exactly a "god" is. If you ask me whether I believe that a "thing" exists, I would of course be unable to respond with anything other than the question, "what kind of 'thing,' specifically?" I honestly don't want to try to hash out our differing opinions regarding gods. We've been there, done that. I'd much rather focus on the general rules you use to determine which entities (be they gods, rocks, pens, planets, people, ghosts, whatever) you think are likely to exist and which are not.Can you give an example of an entity you think most likely does not exist, other than the standards of the IPU and the FSM? Preferably, I'd like an example of an entity that we can't be sure was made up.