|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Panda
An imaginary ghost would be an imaginary supernatural being, which Casper is. Yes, Casper is a caricature of a ghost.
Your assertion that Pinhead is a caricature and that caricatures are not supernatural beings is currently baseless. The difference between Pinhead and Casper is ... ? It's your assertion that Pinhead is really a supernatural being rather than a caricature like Casper --- so the onus is on you to demonstrate this. A caricature is not intended to be taken as real. Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Coyote et al
Amusingly you are the one dodging again. So why can't you provide objective empirical evidence to support bluegenes' claim? If it is a "strong theory" as he claims, this should be easy. If you can't then it is not a theory, but wishful thinking, wishful thinking of the confirmation bias kind. So why are you not skeptical of his claims? Confirmation bias?
I still want you to provide evidence for the supernatural. Curiously, I have not made any claim in this regard, and thus I have absolutely no need to provide substantiation for a claim that I have not made. Is that clear to you? Can you substantiate that the IPU is real? Can you substantiate that the IPU is made up? Is it fair for me to ask you these questions if you have not made either claim? Bluegenes on the other hand HAS made a claim, a rather extraordinary one, imho, and has failed to support it. You have failed to either assist him ... or question his claims. Do you accept his claims without question, because you like them, they fit your world view, and you can ignore the logical inconsistencies, sit back and feel comfortable attacking someone who does question them. Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Bluejay, thanks for your post.
Supernatural stuff is inherently unfalsifiable, so it seems to silly to me to make scientific theories about it. Which is why these "theories" are unusable and unsupportable, inevitably being supported by subjective interpretation of anecdotal circumstantial evidence fit only for confirmation bias.
I say just let them have it: it's a theory. No, sorry, I disagree. It's wishful thinking based on confirmation bias. At best it is an untested, and essentially untestable, hypothesis. The position even that it is a theory is not supported enough to be acceptable: scientific theories are based on objective empirical evidence at the start, then they make falsification tests, and only after several falsification tests have been passed does it qualify as a theory.
But, there are some testable elements of it. As Modulous explained, the search for Thor has already been done. We have already looked and seen no being or intelligent entity at the other end of thunderbolts. One could also just as easily and with just as much logical reason, regard this as a test of the hypothesis that Thor is actually described properly as an "intelligent entity at the other end of thunderbolts" -- rather than being a god\supernatural entity responsible for thunder\lightening\rain\etc. In this case we can see the hypothesis that god\Thor is personified in this way is false, not that god\Thor is falsified. In other words each such test refines our understanding of what god/s are like or not like, and this is the scientific process, even though it can never result in a clear decision.
Anyway, that's the last I'm going to say on the subject of supernature (though you all know how well I stick to my "avoid this topic" resolutions). I've enjoyed your posts on this thread, and thanks for your participation. Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Mr Jack
You seem confused. We're the ones that hold that are no beings that are really supernatural, hence them all being figments of the imagination. Let me help you out of your confusion; if you actually believe that there are no supernatural entities, then you cannot logically believe that you can make one up: thus to claim that something you have made up is actually a supernatural entity is rather amusing self contradicting delusion. Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Panda,
Cariacature is not a synonym for fictional (nor imaginary). A caricature has intentional exaggerations. Caricature Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote: Other words could be used, however I feel that the connotations of caricature are more appropriate here. Thesaurus.com
quote: Portrayals of private eyes in detective fiction are caricatures. Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Still confused Panda?
Since I actually believe that there are no humans with 20 arms, then I cannot logically believe that I can make one up? So, since I have (just now) imagined a man with 20 arms, logically he must exist? No, you cannot logically believe that he must exist because you have made him up and don't believe in supernatural beings, and therefore you cannot claim that it is a supernatural being rather than a caricature of one. Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coyote,
Nonsense. Total nonsense. and yet ...... you cannot seem to bring yourself to present any evidence to support bluegenes. Neither you nor any of our shamans going back probably hundreds of thousands of years has ever produced a shred of verifiable evidence that such critters do exist. Amusingly, you seem particularly obtuse to the fact that I have not ,and do not, claim that they do exist.
While lacking such evidence you keep harping on posters here to prove that these critters don't exist! Curiously, all I ask for is the objective empirical evidence that would support the claims made by bluegenes, evidence you seem unable to produce as well.... ... so you keep harping on me to substantiate a claim that I have not made. Why is that? Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi onifre, just a clarification please
. I also use the same evidence that bluegenes' uses and that Panda presented here. What evidence is that - I seem to have missed it.
What evidence are you using to come to a different conclusion? The lack of objective empirical evidence to support the various claims made by bluegenes means that his assertions are not demonstrated to be anything other than his wishful thinking based on confirmation bias, as such, he has not "made the case" that these assertions are anything more than fantasy. Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi onifre,
Seems only logical to me. I can't think of any other source, can you? Curiously, that is your opinion, not evidence.
(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. Is it? Or are you just assuming that this is so in order to conclude that this is so?
There can only be two sources of supernatural beings, but they would both require a human. Either it's from the human imagination, or, they really exist, humans can experience them using their sensory system, and they have conveyed this information to other humans. And if you are not the person that has the experience? There are lots of claims of various ways and experiences, how can you dismiss them as non-existent? Again, an open-minded skeptic, imho, is one who is willing to consider the possibility of a(ny) claim but skeptical of accepting it as anything more than just a possibility on faith alone, without any kind of supporting objective, empirical, testable, evidence, and is willing to be undecided until that evidence is presented. (Message 728). Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
HI Bluejay, thanks.
Do you agree with me that science can only really work directly with ideas or hypotheses, and not with the realities that the ideas or hypotheses are supposed to represent? If so, then let's treat every putative supernatural being as a hypothesis. Science works from objective empirical evidence to form an hypothesis of how things work, but not why they are so. Science can only work with falsifiable concepts to eliminate invalid concepts of how things work.
... bearded giant who throws thunderbolts like a spear, ... ... The Thor hypothesis was thus falsified. We can show that the concept that this is how "Thor" causes lightening and thunder etc does not match physical reality.
So, when I say "Thor," I'm talking about a putative anthropomorphic, ... not about just any entity that may be in some way associated with the cause of lightning. To me this is more like a caricatured strawman of the god/s than an actual description: it would need to be established what the original believers said about the god/s rather than assume that saturday morning cartoons capture them properly.
Ideas like this can only come from two sources: observation or imagination. Here I have some trouble just accepting this on face value. There are several ways that information comes to an individual: they can observe it directly, they can imagine it, they can be told about it by someone else, they can read about it, etc etc etc. There are a myriad number of ways that information is conveyed, to the point where most of the information we have about how things work is conveyed in these ways rather than by personal direct observation or personal imagination. Now it can be argued that in the end it comes down to observation or imagination, but that is assuming that these are in fact the only sources for everyone, not demonstrating it. If you were told a concept by a supernatural being posing as a human (as many people believe happens), then how would you know? If you dreamed some concept that turns out to be accurate, did you imagine it or did some spirit cause you to have that dream (as many people believe happens), then how would you know? If you are gently nudged by positive\negative (hot\cold) feelings by ancestral spirits in how you behave (as many people believe happens), then how would you know? Without some means\method\etc to test an eliminate these possibilities, I cannot arrive at a finite conclusion in this regard by logic alone. In other words, it has not been demonstrated that there are only two ways.
At this point, note that, unlike the Thor hypothesis, the Neo-Thor hypothesis is not, in any way, based on any sort of observation. So, this means we made up "Neo-Thor." Even if it turns out that Neo-Thor is real, we still made him up, and it is only by pure coincidence that we were right, like the broken clock that tells the right time twice a day. Unless your Thor hypothesis is a strawman of the original god/s, so that the strawman is falsified while the original is not. One of the problems I have is that people seem to think that god/s (a) should be describable in simplistic terms and conversely (b) that simplistic terms like this are full and completely accurate descriptions. This rather means that any human description is necessarily a strawman at some level of relationship to any actual god/s - to be treated with skepticism regarding accuracy. If you experience something you do not, can not, understand, how can you accurately describe it without eliminating parts you do not understand enough to describe and simplifying it to your personal level of understanding? Enjoy. ps - love the new Avatar. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Panda
RADZ then made the baseless assertion that imaginary supernatural beings have to be believed to be true for them to count as imaginary supernatural beings. ROFLOL, too funny, but curiously, not my position. It appears that you keep reading your opinion into my argument and assuming the consequent.
ALL supernatural beings would include ones where you can show people believe in them. You need to start with the right end of the question. If you start with fictional characters then you need to demonstrate that the supernaturalness actually applies. However, if you start with a believed in supernatural being then you just need to demonstrate that it is fictional. Fictional characters can be shown to be fictional characters, but I seriously doubt that anybody would rationally consider them as anything but fictional characters, especially when they are advertised as such, and thus providing a long list of fictional characters, as long as you want to waste bandwidth, does not address supernatural beings where you can show people believe in them being fictional. This is like masturbating instead of participating in actual sex with someone else, and claiming that it is the same.
RADZ then made the baseless assertion that Pinhead was a caricature. Where is it shown that Pinhead is a caricature? Can you show that pinhead is not an exaggeration, a parody, of supernatural beliefs but actually represents a supernatural being? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi onifre,
Would you agree that there are only two possible sources for supernatural beings: Either they have been imagined, or, humans actually experience them? Would you agree that there are many claims of supernatural communication, either in religious experiences, dreams, or with spirits pretending to be people? Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi onifre,
Would you agree that there are many claims of supernatural communication, either in religious experiences, dreams, or with spirits pretending to be people? You need look no further for that than here at EvC. So yes of course, there are many claims. Indeed. Thanks.
But that doesn't answer my question. Would you accept the two as the only possible sources: Imagination and actual experience. In other words, there is no other source but a human's imagination or a human's experience and testimony. Why should I accept one claim rather than another? Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi onifre, semantics, semantics, semantics,
Why should I accept one claim rather than another? I didn't ask you to.
Would you accept the two as the only possible sources: Imagination and actual experience. Amusingly, you just asked me again if I would accept the claim that there are only two sources. You can equivocate on the wording if you want, but it is the same question, with the same answer. Curiously, I have seen absolutely no evidence or reason not to consider the possibility of other means, so I personally will remain open-minded in that regard, while also still being skeptical of claims not supported by objective empirical evidence. If someone is going to claim that there are only two possible sources, then I would need to see objective empirical evidence supporting that claim. Now, rather obviously, if someone that claims these other sources of communication provided objective empirical evidence of such communication that would
Conversely, just assuming that there are only those two means\sources is assuming the conclusion (that human imagination is the source of supernatural concepts) is true in the premise (Begging the Question):
quote: Thus it would seem rather imperative that anyone making the claims that bluegenes made would at least attempt to show that the claim is true, not ask that it be accepted at face value on their word. Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi onifre, ah.
They would have to be able to convey the information to you, yes? That would be what the claims by others of supernatural communication would imply.
Are you saying that there is another species that has this ability on earth? To communicate? there are several species capable of communication, some even displaying imagination and objective cause-and-effect observations, but this is not your real question here.
..., there are only two possible ways a human can know of supernatural beings: they have either made it up using their imagination, or, they actually experience it. Another alternative is that they can receive communication about an event without direct imagination of the event nor direct observation of the event. What they cannot tell is whether or not any of these communications come indirectly from supernatural sources. Thus they can experience communication of supernatural beings without knowing the source, without imagination and without direct experience of the supernatural. Most information we get is indirect, not directly invented nor directly observed. This is, after all, how you and I have seen claims of supernatural communication on this forum, yes? It is also how most scientific knowledge is acquired, yes? Now you may say that it comes down to some person somewhere imagining or experiencing the supernatural, then I would say that this would a reasonable conclusion, but that I cannot tell whether communication from such a source is one or the other, nor can I provide evidence to differentiate them. Another possibility is that we can deduce what occurred from evidence even though the event was not imagined nor directly experienced. The yucatan meteor at the end of the cretaceous period would be an example of communication of an event that does not come from imagination nor human experience. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added 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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024