Peanut Gallery

What kind of evidence do you need? Empirical evidence? Like bluegenes is requesting (i.e. real fairys etc etc.)?I can supply lots of experiences that are subjective but cannot produce the impossible evidence bluegenes is requesting to falsify his theory, which is my point.Of course you're not asking me for empirical evidence to prove my hypothesis are you? While not asking the same of bluegenes to prove his?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

I will happily discuss whatever evidence you put forward. If you agree to participate I will start a thread on subjective evidence. My first question to you in that thread will be to ask why you attribute these subjective experiences to supernatural entities rather than to fluctuations in the matrix, undetectable telepathic aliens manipulating our minds or any other conceivable cause of such things. Why is the evidence being required by bluegenes impossible? I would dispute that evidential investigation is about proof as such and suggest that relative likelihood is a better fit. Bluegenes has provided empirical evidence that humans can and do invent supernatural concepts. Are you actually disputing that this is the case?

Well it is quite evidently very different in that bluegenes theory is based on the fact that humans can and do invent supernatural beings whilst the 'god is real' hypothesis is based on nothing other than personal belief.The fact that people have documented these beliefs in demonstrably fallible books does nothing other than demonstrate the fact that humans have very strong conviction in things that are simply untrue (e.g. the Genesis account of creation)

How do you know the evidence for one SB is impossible? That could only be the case if no supernatural beings exist. Wrong. Learn the basics. If I had the "proof" I wouldn't be theorizing. Science explores the unknown. That is why we make theories and laws that cannot be conclusively proven.When we know something for sure, it is a fact, not a theory. There is no way for anyone to know for sure that there are no supernatural beings. Think. If there are elves, we can't prove that there aren't elves. But if there are no elves, we can't prove that there aren't any either. How? But we can theorize that they are human inventions, based on our knowledge that humans can and do make such things up. We can't know. So we can try and look for one example of a supernatural being actually influencing someone beyond all reasonable doubt. For example, if a Goddess communicated with you, and told you what all the important news stories in the American papers would be on a certain day in 6 months time, it would be very convincing to others, wouldn't it? Exactly. That's why we theorize. When we cannot know. Science, I repeat, explores the unknown. We can never conclusively know if Newton's laws apply all the time in other galaxies. We can only infer it. By "known", I mean easily knowable to all of us, and known or knowable to science. Which other source is known in that sense, and why has no-one on this board told me about it yet? You could make a claim to know an SB personally, but you would need to support that claim in order for it to be knowable to the rest of the world.Now, are you beginning to understand the difference between someone saying "I have a theory that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" and someone saying "It's a fact that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination"?Me, I theorize about the unknown.Incidentally, if you're inclined to believe in people's claimed experiences, why aren't you a Muslim? And why don't you believe in the experiences of the ancient Greek seers, who would have experienced many gods, not just one? In order to have a theory, you need to find that one person who can demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that they've experienced a real supernatural being. It's not much to ask. In return, you can ask me to invent just one to support my theory of invention. Poor Newton having to voyage the whole galaxy, and poor Pasteur having to watch the birth of every single organism on the planet.

Which is exactly why the burden of proof is on you to produce one provably genuine experience of the divine, and not on bluegenes to show that millions of experiences were not genuine.Again, I would point out that you yourself wouldn't adopt the mode of reasoning you suggest if it came to anything else. Do you believe in Santa Claus? I suppose not. Have you investigated every child who claims to have seen Santa Claus and proved that every such case is false? I am certain that you have not. And in that case you're happy to leave the burden of proof where it belongs. But you want supernatural beings in general to be afforded the special treatment that you yourself won't extend to poor old Saint Nick in particular.

oh straggs, you're such a tool at times - just like me.....BTW thank you for the requote of bluegenes' True Scotsman (backing off from "beings" to "concepts"). And yes, at times, (and this is one), that you have to be pedantic! What is a Concept? - something created by the mind, which at the moment is confined to the human mind (chimpanzees & porpoises, etc. tabled for the moment, just to facilitate the conversation)? Let me know, dear friend.Straggler says, in the 1st post of the Inductive Atheism thread: That's not what bluesgenes stated in his theory. bluegenes stated that the only source of Supernatural Beings was the figment of human imagination.To say that the only source of human concepts of the supernatural are human concepts of the supernatural IS FUCKING NOTHING. We can do better than this.That is where he made his mistake, along with many detailed items left out sub-topics, like:What are the tools used to do the scientific investigation of this theory?Archeology uses little picks and brushes and shovels and earth-movers and so on - they get right down into it. They use mass-spectrum analyzers for the real nitty gritty... They have repeatable procedures written out in detail.Biology uses chemistry, mass-spectrum analyzers, electron-microscopes and so on. They use proven methods of chemical agents to expose the actual chemistries going on. They have repeatable procedures written out in detail.Astronomy uses telescopes, spectrum analysers, rockets to launch more telescopes, and so on. And the results of Basic Physics. They have repeatable procedures written out in detail.Physics uses calibrated lab equipment to measure to the finest electron microscopic degree and uses Astronomy results as well. They have repeatable procedures written out in detail....and so on.and so on...WHAT do we use here? What are the pieces of equipment we need to bring along?I have asked this before.bluegenes never described the scientific equipment he was using. Instead he showed some logical cigar-smoking arguments...look it up in the literature - a literature that has already been shown to be fraught with opinionated lies throughout history...history that RAZD has also errantly decided to allow to be included in this debate...good as they might have been - but still not the issue. When you propose a scientific theory, you also provide a detailed description of the methods of verifying this theory to the rest of the scientific community. This is why my brother called him out on Step 1. Where are the initial scientific data? Never mind the falsifiability (although i dealt with that little canard later in this thread) - you see - we never even got over the threshold here. We're still waiting on the front porch. bluegenes! answer the doorbell!and if such a description of the experiments bluegenes has done is not forthcoming.........well, it was cute.To repeat my brother,Where's the evidence?i'll add Where's the article in the unnamed as yet journal?Edited by xongsmith, : felt like it

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Stragglers notes that: Literature is not evidence.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

ah - bluegenes.....keep up the fight, man. But - and give me a chance here - the ways we have of studying such things are very well described! You have yet to provide the tools and methodology to bring to bear upon your study. You have yet to give me a procedure to conduct a non-biased neutral experiment to confirm what you wish to advance (as much as I might agree with it, in my own opinionated way). Yeah - guys like Einstein might have just said "go and look." as he sat back in his armchair, smoking no doubt a terrific Cuban Cigar.So - bluegenes - give us the methodology to test this theory out so we can reproduce your results here.Edited by xongsmith, : level up to bluegenes

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Literature certainly provides us with evidence of the fact that humans believe in supernatural entities that don't actually exist. Have you not read Genesis? Greek mythology? Norse mythology? Etc. etc. If you mean that literature pertaining to supernatural entities does not qualify as evidence in favour of the notion that supernatural entities actually exist - Then I agree. But maybe you should tell RAZ this....... Oh dear......!

If after months of both my own proclivity for relentless pursuit and Mod's indisputable powers of explanation you still don't get the whole "concept" thing what hope is there now? Try responding in detail to Mod's post Message 1173 and/or bluegene's post (Message 1177). If after that you still think I can aid in any way with your ongoing comprehension problems I will try to do so. But at this point it would be more out of politeness than hope. Did you miss Modulous post Message 1018....?Or more widely from bluegenes Message 63Or if you Google a combination of words like "supernatural agency psychology" you will get various entries like this one: Agency Link

I have been watching this thread with great interest and have been wonderfully entertained. But, come on, x, every one already knows the methodology of this one.As you already state via Einstein, "go look!"Choose any supernatural concept you want and go through as much of the literature, oral history, all the evidence available from as far back in antiquity as is possible.That is your repeatable experiment.Do this with as many such concepts as you may have time, inclination.What did you find? Inconclusive for some, imagination for most ...Did you find even one real clearly demonstrable god?To my view no result from such experiments have yet falsified bluegenes theory.

Straggler, see my post in the PNT. It's in response to your PNT. Im basically asking/seeing if you want to debate it one on one first, then open it up after.I commented on your 4 points as well.

Sure I'll Great Debate you if you want.Your response seems to be somewhat wider than subjective experiences of gods and their validity as evidence in favour of the existence of gods that I first posted about. You seem to be bringing in the bible as evidence and the efficacy of prayer into it as well.But yeah - Whatever you want as wide or as narrow as the admins stipulate. I'm easy.

Straggler continues with a dead fish: I can fly a plane through some temperature inversion layers without any cloud in the sky and get condensation on my wings which the fall off and to the ground, landing as RAIN.This whole line is a bark up another tree.Not to even mention what possibly happens when some passenger up there pees and flushes the toilet. Agreed this isn't "rain"....But - yeah - Chuck77 isn't in my camp yet. Rrhain is.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

I'm not with the Chuck77 camp, or even (GASP!) the RAZD camp! To put me in with those guys means you haven't been reading my stuff very closely.You don't seem to realize that I am on your side.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d