From my simplistic view of the Bluegenes and RAZD debate, I feel RAZD is clouding the issue.
In
Message 3 of the thread, Bluegenes claimed:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory.
So as RAZD stated in the whine list, bluegenes is supposed to show that he has a
theory. Bluegenes says there's a difference between scientific theory and scientific proofs.
IMO, this is the crux of the issue:
bluegenes writes:
It is falsified by the establishment of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.
RAZD writes:
Nor, interestingly, is it in any way validated by the absence of evidence. The absence of evidence is only evidence of an absence of evidence that is perceived as such. There could be evidence right in front of you, but because you do not perceive it as evidence you do not see it.
Bluegenes seems to be saying that his theory stands unless someone can produce a supernatural being.
RAZD says absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
RAZD writes:
Curiously I do not need to claim, assert or believe that "supernatural being (X) can exist" -- all I need to do is present you with a concept of a supernatural being, like supernatural being (X), and then it is your task to demonstrate, with objective empirical valid evidence, that these concepts are unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being.
So RAZD wants to throw out concepts and expects bluegenes to prove they are fiction and not supernatural beings. As science guys you tell me if that is the way it works?
Oddly enough, RAZD stated in message 4 of that topic that:
RAZD writes:
The existence of a single concept that is not a product of human imagination means that your claim is absolutely meaningless. You have not established that this is not the case.
Bluegenes said in his first message:
It is falsified by the establishment of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.
I think RAZD forgets that concepts come from the human mind. So the source of his concepts are still the human imagination.
bluegenes writes:
Wrong. Try to learn the difference between scientific theories and logical proofs of the kind that only apply internally in systems of formal logic and maths. Evolutionary theory does not conclusively"prove" that all species come into existence via its mechanisms. That's impossible. It offers the best explanation of the data, and demonstrates that it's very unlikely that the species we observe came into existence by non-evolutionary means.
My theory is an explanatory theory of supernatural beings or supernatural beings concepts, and points out their only known origin. It cannot conclusively disprove your unfalsifiable and baseless assertion that a real one can exist, just as evolutionary theory cannot conclusively disprove the unfalsifiable and baseless assertion that one or more species might have come into existence by magic.
You supernaturalists should present positive evidence for such assertions in order for them to be considered anything other than very improbable.
So they have gone in circles since then as far as I'm concerned.
From message 5:
bluegenes writes:
The falsification of Pasteur's law, a working assumption of all modern biology, would require the demonstration of an exception. Just one confirmed case of the spontaneous generation of a modern organism.
To RAZD's way of thinking, Pasteur's law is invalid unless biologists establish that every single organism alive was not the result of spontaneous generation.
From message 7:
bluegenes writes:
(1)The theory that all rabbits come from other rabbits is built on the observation that baby rabbits are born from adults. Do you know of any other source of baby rabbits than adult rabbits?
(2)The theory that all books are authored by human beings is based on the observation that human writers are the only known source of books. Do you know of any other source of books than human authors?
(3)The theory that all supernatural beings come from the human imagination is built on the observation that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. Do you know of any source of supernatural beings other than the human imagination?
These are theories. They are open to falsification.
If you disagree with the observations, then you must be able to tell the world about alternative known sources for these phenomena.
Can bluegenes call his statement a theory? Supposedly that is all this thread is about. It isn't about proving the statement is true, although that seems to be what RAZD wants.
I feel that bluegenes has made his case that his statement is a theory.
What's the verdict, science guys?
Edited by purpledawn, : Revised Post
™ Version 4.2
(1)
