Peanut Gallery

Straggler says: You cant. bluegenes went a step too far in stating the theory. I guess RAZD would be looking for some documentation that the human who first coined the term admits that s/he made it up. It's supposed to be a softball lob to bluegenes - not enough to establish the theory, but an example of what would fall under the theory. Who ever did came up with that? Or Last Thursdayism?Bluegenes: All supernatural beings are figments of human imagination.RAZD: Such as?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Was it EvC that changed "Invisible Pink Unicorn" into "Immaterial Pink Unicorn"? Or was it descent with modification?Invisible Pink Unicorn from wikipedia: purpledawn says: Well, yeah. So what is the Evidence? wikipedia seems to conclude that the concept was created and caught fire online. What is objection scientific evidence that something is "made up"? A copyright symbol? Testimony on a witness stand is ultimately subjective evidence, as was determined in another thread. Maybe a complete lack of any mention until the moment the author of the fiction creates it?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Do you think bluegenes went too far in stating this theory as well?Bluegenes writes: "ALL rabbits come from other rabbits"It seems you are as incapable as RAZD of distinguishing between falsifiable theories and statements of fact. No. It is RAZ's way of demanding the disprrof of things which he knows cannot be disproved. As if disproving anything had any relevance to anything anyway. If it cannot be perceived what difference does it make? Where else can it have been sourced from? Why does somebody putting their hand up and saying "It was me" make any difference to that? Bluegenes: Human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings. If you disagree, tell the world about the other known source or sources.And so it goes on.......Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You tell us.What is it that RAZ is demanding?

quote:

---

Well, yeah. So what is the Evidence? wikipedia seems to conclude that the concept was created and caught fire online. What is objection scientific evidence that something is "made up"? A copyright symbol? Testimony on a witness stand is ultimately subjective evidence, as was determined in another thread. Maybe a complete lack of any mention until the moment the author of the fiction creates it?

---

Invisible pink or immaterial pink. That is what tells us it is fiction and a unicorn is a mythical creature, not a supernatural being.Since the creature is invisible or immaterial there is nothing to reflect the light. No color. The creature is fiction.If one wants to discuss supernatural beings, it is better to actual discuss the ones that people considered to be supernatural beings, not newly created analogies. New creations just muddy the water and get us no where. Man can put words together and say anything, but that doesn't make it functional.Supernatural beings are considered to be incorporeal beings believed to have powers to affect the course of human events. (gods, demons, spirits)Of course the question would be how do they affect the course of human events?In the Bible we can see that supposedly God affects nature or peoples minds. He doesn't seem to interact with that which is manmade. Why?IMO, the fact that people can and do put limitations on supernatural beings is a big clue that they are figments of our imagination. We can't let them actually have power over us.

Oh sure, if superman realy existed he would be able to turn time backwards by flying at super high speeds.What I meant by what you quoted was, if we saw something take place that looked miraculous, since it was taking place in reality, there would be a natural explanation for it. That was the jist of what I meant. Like this: If that's what people are calling 'supernatural' having absolutely zero evidence for such a realm, just pure imagination, then my point stands that it basically describes nothing.Distinctions for debate purposes may allow for nonsensical concepts just to have a starting point o debate from, but "ethereal heavenly afterlife outside of time outside of material reality realm" really describes nothing, and only confirmes the already imaginative concept of a god. It doesn't describe it better, it makes it further ambiguous.- Oni

Straggler says: No no no. You have already moved past the front door of this debate and read into RAZDs intentions, perhaps accurately. No - this is all about bluegenes stating he had "plenty of evidence".Grok this: What is the scientific objective evidence that I am making this up? Is it the first appearance of this statement above, which is obviously false, but is none the less a post on the internet which has never happened before, where all kinds of strange things happen? Is it the results of measuring the video under spectral analysis? Remember, this is not an invisible, immaterial, inaudible, intangible pink unicorn, oh no - this is a very measurable green elephant outside your window. Furthermore, I can even add the ridiculous (but for the purpose of this tack, COMPLETELY TRUE) claim that we already know all about him and he is in all of the books we have up to date. What is the objective evidence? Help me out, here. Weigh him, you say? Fine - do that.I'm not looking for the obvious "You're wrong" or "nuts".No - we would go to the books and find he's not there. We examine scientifically the video evidence and photographic evidence and so on. While the scientific method never proves anything, we can get a high level of confidence that this green elephant is a figment of my imagination. Of course, right at this moment, we have no video or photographic evidence, so these are not horse chestnuts in my mouth - they're in my hands.Given the tiny bit of research I made on the origin of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, I'm coming around to the notion that RAZD indeed may have cloaked an ulterior motive inside his "softball".How about Turtles? The ancient myth of being on a turtle, and that turtle being on a bigger turtle, and it being turtles all the way down. We can show simple space program pictures of the earth, etc.Straggler continues: Just that it would be some kind of evidence that it was made up. I dont care what "it" is, just whether there was evidence that it was made up. That is all. Should be easy.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

purpledawn says: Please excuse my major not-even-a-typo brain glitch when I meant to type "objective" rather than "objection".But, back to the matter at hand: So wikipedia is acceptable objective scientific evidence?Or, are you saying that just the writing of the word pair "invisible pink", or the pair "immaterial pink", is, by fiat, objective scientific evidence of its fictional origin?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

"Invisible pink" is self-contradictory, so is linguistic evidence of a fictional concept.

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)

My two peanuts worth: This reminds me of jaywill discussing theology with himself, or a parakeet fighting with his reflection in the mirror.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

OK. If you are saying that there are no supernatural phenomenon only natural phenomenon to which supernatural explanations have been attributed then you know that I agree wholeheartedly that this is almost certainly true.But those supernatural explanations are not "nothing". They are concepts in which people genuinely believe. Some reasonably well defined. Some as ambiguous as hell. It describes what they believe. Whether it is real or wrong or even rather evidentially stupid isn't the point. I don't think it is fair to say that it "describes nothing".The supernatural beliefs of Slev and Buz etc. may be un-evidenced by any standard of evidence deserving of the term. They may be the product of the human mind. They may be wrong. But they are not "nothing". Any more than the beliefs of Hindus are "nothing". I think my son honestly believes that spider-man exists. He wants me to take him to NY to see him because I told him that is where he lives. Now you and I know that this is a false belief. But he doesn't believe in "nothing". He believes that spider-man exists."Unreal" and "nothing" are not synonomous. Not all supernatural beliefs are ambiguous. Creationists may be wrong but they seem to have fairly well defined what it is they believe in. And if by some miracle it did turn out to be true it would be neither "nothing" or "natural". It would be real and supernatural.In my view the ambiguity comes as the retreat in the face of evidence is adopted. Culminating in the deistic notion of the supernatural that much more reasonably can be described as "nothing".Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Why do you think these are the obvious responses? Seriously just stop and think about that. Is "You're wrong" an unreasonable response to your magical green elephant assertion? If it is reasonable why is it reasonable? Is there really no relevant evidence to this question at all in your view?Is there an "absence of evidence "? Really? The deeply evidenced fact that the human mind is capable of making such things up combined with the overwhelming psychological and cultural evidence demonstrating that given a contextual reason to do so, or even half an opportunity to do so, we will.This capacity for imagination is what makes us human and "special" but it is also what makes us exceptionally poor natural judges of reality. Hence our need for systematic methods of discerning the real from the imagined and also our need for a degree of skepticism to be the default position when confronted with the claims of other humans. So we know that this thing is imperceptible. We know it cannot have originated as a human concept by means of experiencing external reality. We also know for an absolute hugely evidenced fact that the human mind is capable of internally imagining things that do not exist.Yet you think someone saying "I did it" is the deciding factor here?

The extraordinary tale of RAZD's spectacular inability to bring his ability to think clearly to threads about nonsense really has outdone itself this time

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)