Inductive Atheism

Hehe, valid reply. (Does hehe make me sound like a hick?)In terms of the deist God, I have no data, and I only place my personal low level rating on his/its probability based on the simple premise that, if everything we do observe can be attributed to naturalistic explanations, why should we then leap to non-naturalistic explanations for the things we can't observe (i.e. what happened/existed just prior to the big bang). So, as you point out, I have no data in this respect, and thus I do not seek to dissaude the deist for this very reason.With respect to the very specific descriptions given of God in the major religions, and more importantly the very specific descriptions of the powers and motives attributed him, I believe many examples of disproof (such as the one you gave about the lack of oxygen on Pluto in reference to the sloth) can be given. But... please don't ask me to give those examples here hehe... this board is rife with them.Thank you as well for sharing matey.

More like a school-girl The hicks 'round here sound like "Huh Huh" In the sense of seeing no reason to believe in it and thus not, I don't have a problem with that type of atheism.Although, if you took the position that it did not exist, then I'd expect something that leads to that position. I'm not for the God of the Gaps argument, either. On the other hand, I do realize there are observations that have not been able to be attributed to naturalistic explanations. Too, simply limiting true observations to those that do have naturalistic explanations limits what can be investigated, not what can exist.

Are you keeping your god concept secret? Do you actually have a concept in mind that you are just not telling me? Or do you not actually know what you believe in yourself? It has to be one of these options doesn't it? If your concept of god is a supernatural being imbued with consciousness, intelligence and the ability to control aspects of nature (e.g. create universes) then I have a wealth of evidence to strongly but tentatively conclude that this concept is derived from human imagination rather than being derived from reality.Is this a reasonably accurate description of your god concept? Do you even have a concept of god or do you literally have no idea what it is you believe exists? No. Some are sourced from experience of reality. Casper the ghost and trees are both concepts but they are not both imagined are they? Unless you go down the "I might be a brain in a jar" route.

Like what? That'll work for now for the purpose of this discussion. No, all concepts, by definition, are things you imagine.Some of them stem from empirical observations and some do not.

---

I have an idea, it changes and is a little fuzzy sometimes, the generally accepted core qualities of a god tend to stay, but my personal beliefs are irrelevant.

Like all of the other supernatural beings imbued with consciousness, intelligence and the ability to control aspects of nature that have been effectively refuted by scientific knowledge. Solar deitiesWind godsFertility deitiesLunar deitiesThunder godsCreator godsFire godsDo you want peer reviewed literature that suggests that the Sun isn't being dragged across the sky by Scarab the godly dung beetle? Or by Apollo's flaming chariot? Or perhaps a peer reviewed paper on IVF that contradicts the idea that sacrificing lambs to a fertility goddess isn't the answer to a low sperm count?Where is this much lauded lack of evidence? All of the evidence suggests that supernatural beings imbued with consciousness, intelligence and the ability to control aspects of nature are invoked by humans for reasons that have nothing to do with empirical observation and everything to do with very humans needs.More "Casper the Ghost" than "tree" in terms of conceptual foundation in reality.

Non-sequitor.A refutation of another, especially more primitive, concept of a god is not evidence that the being that my concept of god is presumably based on has no basis in reality. I don't think so. The problem is that anything that isn't easily acceptable to empirical investigation is ruled out as non-evidence, and the only evidence that is accepted is that of a scientific nature. But that limitation, itself, reduces the evidence to only that which supports your premise in the first place. And I'm not getting into "subjective evidence" here. I gotta go now, but if you want, I can dig up some references to events that I think eliminate the possibility of human invention, yet still suggest a supernatural being with those qualities you describe. Granted, the concept of the being must still be something that a person has to imagine. Although, I predict that it will be "inconclusive" on whether or not the being actually exists and you'll still doubt it and act like there's no evidence at all against you.

How incredibly typical. You insist that I be the one to define what is meant by "god". I do. You loosely agree. Then when I effectively refute that concept of god you tell me this is not what you actually meant by "god". Scientific inductive reasoning and the fact that the only known source of such concepts is the human imagination strongly and evidentially suggests otherwise. Why don't you tell me about this mysterious god concept of yours so that we can assess the evidence as it pertains to that?What are you scared of?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes please. If the specific god under consideration is empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No, I'm still using your definition. Read what I wrote again. The only known source of any concept is the human imagination, by definition. That's not evidence that the thing that the concept stems from doesn't exist.The only way that the only "known" source can be assumed to be human imagination, is if you limit the knowledge to the scientifically acceptable and ignore the rest. I haven't bothered to dig up any specifics yet, but there's an old hotel where people have ignorantly and independently witnessed a semi-transparent human male figure with old coat and civil war hat. The curator replies each time: "oh yeah, that's so-and-so. He died here when this hotel was used as a civil war hospital. He's been here ever sense. We have trouble keeping employees after they run into him."If the people aren't aware of the story beforehand, and they're reporting seeing the same thing, then it can't just be from their imagination. It must have some empirical detectability in order to be witnessed. But that doesn't mean we're capable of obtaining enough information for a scientific investigation.So the source of this supernatural being isn't "known", but we know they both didn't coincidentally imagine the same thing on their own.

Before we go any further we need to sort this out. Not every concept is imagined is it? The source of the concept of a tree is not human imagination. It is the existence of real trees.Conversely the only known source of supernatural concepts is human imagination. Humans can and do invent supernatural concepts. This is an indisputable fact. But there is no other known source of such concepts is there? If you think here is — What is it?

I believe you and CS are using two different definitions of the word source. What CS is saying, is that all concepts come from the mind, that's what makes them concepts, and thus the mind is the source. The concept of a tree, however, is inspired by the actual existence of trees.

Yes, by definition. Concepts do not exist outside the imagination. Right, some concepts stem from empirically verifiable objective things and some do not. Humans can and do invent tree concepts as well. Here's a child-like concept of a tree: Me pointing out all the errors this has is not evidence that there was no tree that this concept stemmed from, nor does it hurt other concepts of trees.Just like you pointing some problems in some god concepts is not evidence that there is no god that it stemmed from, nor does it hurt other concepts of gods.What you have going for you is the lack of empirically verifiable objective evidence of the supernatural being, itself. The concepts of those beings, though, can stem from things outside the conceptualizer's imagination, such as a book or another person, but those too haven't been shown to stem from something other than another's imagination. Not in the sense of being empirically verified as objective, no. But like in my hotel example above, we can know that the concept could not have stemmed from the imagination without knowing what the source of the concept is. Limiting the sources to those that have been empirically verified as objective is not looking at the whole picture.

From the OP:

quote:

---

This theory can be falsified by presenting another source of such concepts. Either the existence of such an entity or a supernatural concept derived from a non-human source. This theory predicts that where the source of any specific supernatural concept becomes known that source will turn out to be human imagination.

---

You have been following, commenting on and effectively taking part in (with people like me) the Bluegenes RAZD debate for 7 months now. And still you are as bewildered by the terminology being used as ever. Concepts themselves do not exist outside of the human mind. This does not mean everything is imagined. What is the source of origin of those particular concepts which are not derived from empirical experience? So what is the only known source of supernatural concepts? Inductive scientific reasoning strongly and evidentially suggests otherwise.Why do you think that this evidence and this inductive reasoning doesn't apply to your concept of god?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

CS has been following, commenting on and effectively taking part in (with people like me) the Bluegenes RAZD debate for 7 months now. If he still doesn't know what is being talked about in terms of the terminology that has been used throughout it doesn't say much for his comprehension skillsPersonally I think he is trying to turn the argument into a bloody minded semantic showdown because he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on any other way.

I don't think it does.

quote:

---

The problem is that anything that isn't easily acceptable to empirical investigation is ruled out as non-evidence, and the only evidence that is accepted is that of a scientific nature. But that limitation, itself, reduces the evidence to only that which supports your premise in the first place.

---

quote:

---

If the people aren't aware of the story beforehand, and they're reporting seeing the same thing, then it can't just be from their imagination.

​

...

​

So the source of this supernatural being isn't "known", but we know they both didn't coincidentally imagine the same thing on their own.

---