Peanut Gallery

And you have been told all these things.Dude - Take it to the Great Debate. And if you don't want to GB bluegenes any further either pass on the baton to someone who can or tell us which of the numerous alternatives (myself, Mod etc.) you think should take over Bluegenes role. Curiously none of those who seem to dispute bluegenes theory can agree on what they actually mean by the term "supernatural". See Inductive AtheismMaybe it would help if you told us what you mean by "supernatural" because I suspect your definition will conflict with that of your supporters.

Given that RAZ has abandoned the thread we are supposedly peanutting why don't you just take over if you think you have a valid rebuttal of Bluegene's argument?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Can you prove that the second law isn't obeyed because some superntural entity invisibly wills it so?How is what you are demanding different?

A) Then why are you here?B) Copout!!!

Bizzarre - Given that he replied to you in March and that you left it until now to reply back to him. I am delighted that you are back on this topic. I would absolutely love to see it brought to a definitive conclusion. So you didn't fancy me or Mod then? If I were taking over that debate my first question would be:Can you give an example of inductive reasoning in science that you consider to be valid?Enjoy.

Taking the same dimwiited approach to falsifiability that you have....: This will NEVER happen according to my analemma which states that an un-investgatable supernatural agent steps in everytime the second law of thermodynamics is in danger of being violated. And everytime someone fails to make a perpetual motion machine it strengthens my analemma and makes the second law of thermodynamics less falsifiable and thus less scientific.[/END DIMWITTED APPROACH TO FALSIFIABILITY]The demosntrable existence of any god or other supernatural entity would falsify the theory. Thus you are simply wrong. Wrong. As you have been told previously many times - Any source of supernatural concepts other than human imagination will falsify the theory.You have been through this in ungodly detail previously. Here Message 400 and upthread being the most recent.Do you just not remember any of the convesrations you have had in the past?

Human conception of, and belief in the existence of, supernatural beings is an entirely natural observable phenomenon with wholly natural causes.That is the entire frikkin point of bluegenes theory.Unbelievable that you still just don't get it.

Observation: Humans conceive of, and believe in the existence of, supernatural beings.Question: What is the source of origin of these concepts? These concepts are sourced from human imagination for psychological reasons rather than sourced from the real existence of supernatural beings. 1) Investigate the origins of various supernatural concepts. The theory predicts that in every case where the source of origin of a particular supernatural concept can be determined it will be human imagination.2) Investigate the psychological reasons that humans invent supernatural beings. Research into things like the human proclivity to assign conscious intent to mindless physical processes is ongoing but agency, need for compaionship etc. are all subjects of current psychological research. Feel free to. 1) Done
2) Ongoing but extensive results so far support bluegenes theory. Data analysed and found to support the theory. It does. If the entities are real why is it unrealistic? Be specific.BTW - Did you see that PaulK says he is happy to Great Debate you on a biblical based topic? Message 1219

Nobody is eliminating that possibility.But aside from human belief there is nothing to link the experiences that are being cited as evidence in favour of the supernatural to the actual existence of anything supernatural. Can you determine whether or not these expereinces are caused by fluctuations in the matrix? Or by undetectable thetans?If someone believed that such an experience was caused by either one of these things they could cite that experience as evidence of their belief in exactly the same way you are doing with the supernatural.So you are basically citing belief itself as a form of evidence. Have a look at Message 1254

From RAZ's latest Great Debate entry: What supernatural phenomena has bluegenes claimed to be able to explain?If RAZ (or any of his supporters) could answer this specifically it would be much appreciated

If you don't understand why the demonstrable existence of a fairy or leprechaun or a vampire or a werewolf or a pixie or a djinn or a genie or any other supernatural concept including any of these.... Solar deitiesWind godsFertility deitiesLunar deitiesThunder godsCreator godsFire gods...would falsify the theory under discussion then I simply cannot help you any further. No you fucking were not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I had the same conversation with Bluejay in this thread. I even started a (slightly bizzarre) thread asking if animals could invent supernatural concepts as a result of that. And in the opening post of the thread you claim to have first raised this issue I wrote:Straggler in Inductive Atheism: 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.It seems that not only are you incapable of comprehension of the theory under discussion but that you are wilfully blinding yourself to the already refuted aspects of your position. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Are you seriously disputing the fact that humans can and do invent supernatural beings?And can you answer Message 1262?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. It is the most evidenced conclusion.If you want to say that these experiences could have been caused by fluctuations in the matrix, magic moonbeams, telepathic aliens, parasitic undectable thetans, gods attempting to interact, spirits of the dead, morphic fields, an undectable drug placed in the water supply by the CIA or anything else of a similar nature....Then nobody will explicitly deny these as philosophical possibilities.But why would anyone give any of them serious rational consideration?

Can you answer Message 1262Some of us have understood bluegenes theory and how to falsify it since it was first stated. 1) Link please.Added by edit - bluegenes didn't state his theory until August 2010. Apparently Xongsmith possesses precognitive abilities.2) Then why the fuck are you still asserting that the theory is unfalsifiable? Can you understand that the presentation of any of the entities listed in my last post will falsify the theory?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Did you actually read Message 1254? No. he is seeking a naturalistic explanation to an observable phenomenon.