Peanut Gallery

It amuses me what some people complain about. Simple: the topic is defined to have bluegenes show that he can show how he determines whether entities are fiction or supernatural.He doesn't need any validation from anyone to demonstrate that a concept is fiction or supernatural, he just needs to show how he does that.That is simple logic.(So far, absolute failure by bluegenes on that issue.)And yes, the author of the thread defines what the thread is about, and what it is not about.If you don't like it you can start your own.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi purpldawn, thanks for the opportunity to clarify this issue.Again.I am the author of the OP, I wrote it, I defined what it covers and what it does not cover in the OP. This defines the roles in this thread. If you don't like that, then write your own thread. He did not write the OP. He had that opportunity.The actual challenge was: It is not a theory.It certainly is not "strong" ... so that leaves assumption, opinion and wishful thinking.Therefore there is nothing for me to falsify, ... unless, and until, he can show that he actually has a theory. This is the pseudoskeptic double standard:

• They make a claim, and then say you need to falsify it.
• You make a claim, and they say you need to substantiate it.

No, all claims need to be substantiated, by objective empirical valid evidence: there is no special pleading, no assumption of "default" status, no passing the buck.This is simple objective impartial unbiased logic.The claim that needs to be substantiated is that there is a theory, rather than assumption based on wishful thinking, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and personal opinion/s etc etc etc. No, it is his job to demonstrate that his hypothesis works and is able to discern fiction from fact. The actual entity/s\being/s involved in such demonstration is irrelevant.The IPU is just one example of the kinds of entities that his hypothesis should be able to readily demonstrate how his hypothesis separates fiction from fact.This should be extraordinarily easy to accomplish if you believe 100% that you have an actual known fiction, don't you think?His apparent inability to demonstrate that his hypothesis is able to show that the IPU is actually absolute fiction, proves that his concept is absolutely useless in determining fiction from fact.This means that it is not a scientific theory, in any way shape or form, no falsification necessary.It's that simple.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

You are still missing the point. No, I am the one arguing that he does not have a valid scientific theory, as he claimed.He made the claim that he had a theory, and he needs to substantiate that claim. Exactly, bluegenes needs to show how his hypothesis can differentiate fiction from fact before it can be considered a theory that has any use.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

So has, apparently, your inability to read the simple words:IF you change the topic THEN I am no longer interested.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi nwr, thanks. Bingo.That is my argument.Enojy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi Bluejay,It is amusing to me to watch the wlllful blindness of Straggler and the other pseudoskeptics that fail to see how flimsy their arguments are. Welcome to Straggler-Land. Don't you know that it's the default position so it must be true?Your comments on the problems with bluegenes' hypothesis are also bang on.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi all,Anyone here want to tell Straggler what is obviously wrong with his comment? This is so typical, Straggler, that you gave me a good chuckle when I read it.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi Straggler, you amuse me still. Given that I have always said that human imagination is A known source of fictions, this should be no real surprise.What you continually fail to comprehend, it appears, is that having A source is an entirely different proposition than having an ONLY source - which is your pet claim. There are many sources in the literature. I've also pointed out several to bluegenes, while indicating that he had not done his job to show how his hypothesis dealt with that information. But I am not the one making the claim here -- you are, when you claim that human imagination is the only source of new ideas, a claim that is not substantiated by anything other than assertion so far. It is enough to point out that there are other sources listed in the general literature, and that it is your task to show that they do not apply.Amusingly there are TWO fatal flaws in your basic argument, and I've yet to see you or anyone else address either of them.The first flaw, is that just asserting your position does not make it true, repeating it does not improve the validity of it either. Without substantiation it is only your opinion. You need to actually demonstrate that no other source is possible before you can claim that it is the only source.The second flaw is even more amusing than watching you strut around waving your banner of unsubstantiated assertion, as it means that your argument is pointless.If human imagination is the only possible source of new information, then de facto ALL knowledge is the product of human imagination.Whether the new concept is true or not.Thus "being made up" does not equal "is not true" ... and your argument is pointless, like saying the sky is (normally) blue or that mushrooms grow in the forest during a storm at night: it may be a true statement, but it doesn't demonstrate that one idea is any better or worse than any other.This has been posted several times, so it should not come as a surprise to you - you just have failed to deal with it. And I note that you have still failed utterly to provide objective empirical evidence to support your assertions, including those where you claim to have evidence.Cognitive dissonance is like that. Until you break that barrier, it will keep you from seeing how silly your position is, and why it fails to be logically worth pursuing.TaEnjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Thanks, Bluejay,Correct, blind is as blind does, and nobody is as blind as someone convinced that they are right, regardless of evidence to the contraryEnjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi Rrhain, Or a group, that perhaps came up with it.That would certainly be some objective evidence that could be checked and - presumably - verified. I agree, and that is why I think it should have been a slam dunk to find.And it could be possible to show that there are no references (with name variations?) to any predecessors, thus making the more likely to be a sole invention of a single person (or possible a group effort).This would be like my brother xongsmiths ID of the FSM originator.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi Rrhain, I am not aware of any documentation for an author and an acknowledgement that it was made up - do you know of any? It is fairly recent - as you said - so it should not fall into your "Ham's infamous" category of events. As we are talking here about the IPU, it would be the author (or authors, if a group project) acknowledging that they made it up.Of course you realize, I hope, that actively making up something does not mean that anything else is made up.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi Michael, Hit and Run ad hominem? Please read my reply again:

quote:

---

I could give you my opinion, but it is only opinion, and not a conclusion based on facts.

---

Do you have any facts to base a conclusion on? Without facts to base your conclusion on it is a belief and not a logical conclusion. Or perhaps even more likely, just being honest about what the evidence shows, and that opinion is just that.But this thread is not to debate these issues, or to make up things about me (as Straggler loves to do), but to discuss the great debate. Yep. To demonstrate that leprechauns are imaginary you need to start with the original concepts, not with later fictional caricatures derived from the original/s.This should be blindingly obvious.Same with the Easter Bunny.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi Rrhain, thanks. Curiously, it is not my process that is in question here, it is the one supposedly used by bluegenes et al who are the ones making the claim that {X} is a product of human imagination. After all he claimed to have lots of evidence to support his concept, yet has provided none so far to show that a single entity is made up. Exactly, and this is why bluegenes et al need to produce the process and show valid results of it, then use that basis to form an hypothesis and test the hypothesis.The IPU was proposed for an example of an instance of using the process to reach a valid\logical conclusion. Others could be used instead.Amusingly, all I see so far is the assumption that a concept is true\valid being used as a basis for making an hypothesis that the concept is true\valid, and this is not the way science is done.Certainly using a plethora of intentionally made up fictional caricatures does not address the necessary methodology\process in any way shape or form.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi Catholic Scientist, happy T-day. Yes, it amuses me the silly mountains people build out of my arguments, when they are really quite simple points. ROFLOL.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

Hi xongsmith, I appreciate your help in trying to get others to understand the (really quite simple) argument/s, but ... My reasons for asking for the evidence that the IPU is a product of human imagination is that it should be easy to do. It would be a baby step in the process of demonstrating how one determines that a concept is a product of human imagination.The next step is to apply this in a broader scope to include supernatural entities that are recognized in some way by people, rather than the absurd caricature concepts that bluegenes, Straggler et al will make up at the drop of a hat and think are significant in any way.If you read the exchanges with Rrhain you will see that this is one way to accomplish the goal of showing that a specific entity is a product of human imagination. It isn't necessarily the only way, but it is A way. Note that the burden of providing a method\process lies with bluegenes: he made the claim.It is absolutely absurd to claim that one has "plenty of evidence" to support the concept that ""All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" and then not have any procedure or method for determining whether or not any particular supernatural entities are products of imagination. Given that he has absolutely failed to show that a single entity is a product of human imagination, I don't foresee that, nor would it be necessarily necessary. What we have is a claim that is completely unsubstantiated, based on opinion and wishful thinking, and as such it is not a theory in any scientific sense of the term.Seeing as the only "evidence" provided so far has been a series of made up fictional caricatures, it is absurd to claim that this is scientific in any way.I don't know of any single branch of legitimate science that is based on made up data -- that is what constitutes frauds, hoaxes, deceptions, fakes and pseudoscience.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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)