Peanut Gallery

Not at all.I have never claimed that the IPU definitely "doesn't exist". I have demonstrated that the IPU is necessarily a made-up entity that might by some miracle also actually exist.Have you actually read Message 366? You asked for a demonstration that the IPU was a made-up entity. I gave you that demonstration.It is here Message 366Given that I have demonstrated that the IPU is necessarily a made-up entity who gives a toss who actually made it up?Why does that matter?Who made-up the incorporeal turquoise wallaby or the ethereal daglo jackrabbit?Who gives a fuck? If they are imperceptible they are necessarily made-up.As per Message 366

Straggler, from message Message 366: I grasped it the first time. You are approaching the problem from the other end of the spectrum. This is all true, Straggler. I have no disagreement with it.
But there is another way:# The Bobby Henderson of the IPU comes forward and says he made it all up.# He further stipulates where we can find all the forensic evidence we need to verify that he made it up.# His story is checked out and everything is exactly according to his description.# Hence it is made up.# Whilst said entity might actually exist this is nothing more than the philosophical possibility that by some miraculous co-incidence a certain mundane human hoax has duplicated some entirely imperceptible truth by pure chance. Yes?I get to "made up" in step 4. It took you 6. We are coming from the opposite ends of the spectrum into the same interior conclusion.Here is the crux of the issue:

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Hi Modulous! I am not arguing the merits of the question RAZD asked - only explaining what it was he asked of bluegenes. Whether is has any useful value to the Great Debate they are in is a completely different subject. I am just trying to make a ruling and not criticize or support the tactics of one of the debaters.I am also NOT claiming the RAZD was asking bluegenes to specifically find the person who started the IPU, but only bringing that up as example of the sorts of things that fall under the question he asked. A wet paint equivalent would another example of these sorts of things.Note: I am not assuming the person who started the idea made it up - in my example that person claims to have made it up. He admits it. He tells us how he did it and where to find evidence that he did. Furthermore, when we scientifically investigate whether or not that person is telling the truth, we find that he has told the truth to all extent & purposes.On an off-topic aside to this issue, I might want to get into one of Straggler's Step-By-Step paths:# If the IPU was made up, then it was made up by some intelligent lifeform, using imagination. (Possibly flawed by random computer-generated IPU-ish things out of some program running by itself. Although the author of the program could be said to be the intelligent lifeform. There may be a chance the author never looks at the output and the program posts its output on usenet somewhere and somebody else reads it and starts a discussion in alt.atheism in 1990, so perhaps they should be assigned the guilt?)# If some intelligent lifeform made it up, then all the evidence we have so far would lead us to the inescapable conclusion that a human being made it up.# Therefore there is a human being somewhere that made up the IPU.# Odds are this person is still alive and can come forward."All is forgiven now. Come forward so we can all give you a proper round of applause. And make sure to fly British Airways."

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

RAZD's posts seem more radical than that.Evidence of human's capacity (tendency even) for confabulation and the neural basis for religious experiences for example wouldn't suffice, so even if we brain scan someone and know with absolute conviction that their episode where they felt the IPU's presence was based within the brain and with no other detectable external events that could be creating the imagery it wouldn't be enough - it must also be shown that the being in question did not create the neuronal structure (indirectly) that allows the experience or confabulation to take place!But really - the point of order is that one doesn't necessarily need to find an individual or collection of individuals to demonstrate that a concept must be made up. Sometimes the concept itself is such that it must have been made up - even if it is also real. The evidence that the IPU is made up is not a breadcrumb trail of evidence leading to one or some people. Though there are sufficient breadcrumbs left for any reasonable person to conclude that it was indeed made up.One doesn't need much evidence at all. Evidence isn't the sole path to truth - it is evidence plus reasoning. In the case of the IPU the only pertinent evidence required is the definition of the IPU and the capacity for creating. First is the inherent contradiction of invisible and pink. Second depends on our understanding that unicorns are made up creatures. Third - and entirely damningly she is imperceptible to humans, making there is no way to detect her meaning she was not brought into our awareness by an act of detection, but of imagination.It is only if the IPU selectively 'reveals' herself to followers that this doesn't work so well. And what if the idea was implanted into their head by a secret cabal of IPU cult hypnotists? An IPU believing RAZD would require you to rule all of these things out before you could say with any confidence that the IPU is made up. An IPU disbelieving RAZD would accept the evidence as it stands since the IPU is clearly 'silly' and is designed to mock religious views rather than being a genuine one itself.But then a RAZD trying to argue against the idea that supernatural creatures can be made up may say something like "I cannot find a single name that you have shown by objective empirical valid evidence to be documented as having been made up.", despite the evidence that RAZD had at his fingertips: The lack of a visible yellow elf on his shoulders speaking in Swahili. We were given the evidence that this thing was made up when RAZD failed to post in Swahili - but apparently this was not sufficient.

Modulous writes: I don't think so in this particular instance. Devious, maybe.Continuing: Yes: One may not necessarily need to find individuals/bread crumbs/scientific evidence to demonstrate that a concept is made up - yes, I agree this is true for a lot of these kinds of questions in general - BUT, in this particular instance, RAZD is asking bluegenes to do exactly that in the 1st half of his 1st challenge sentence:from the OP of their Great Debate thread: Note that the sentence has an "is" part and a "not" part.The "not a supernatural being" part may have been adequately addressed by Straggler and others here in the Peanut Gallery and elsewhere in EvC. But the "is unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention" part has only been indirectly addressed by logical induction/deduction/reduction/seduction/liposuction methods which have avoided what RAZD was asking for - the forensic (and I have only been using that word because my brain cannot think of a better adjective these days) evidence.He is smuggling in his familiar argument "Positive Evidence For" as opposed to "Negative Evidence Against".You seem to be concurring that Straggler's argument of "proving" a negative, where "proving" here means only "close enough for us to proceed as if it was proven, as in certain well-established scientific conclusions", coupled with some iron-clad logic, is enough. I have already seen that, yes, that will be a subsequent issue, but first, let's see the Positive evidence of the kind "this is", as in "Hey - this is wet paint!", compared to Negative evidence of the kind "this isn't", as in "Van Gogh couldn't possibly have been clairvoyant enough to paint the Lunar Landing".Let's be clear - I am only trying to explain what I think my brother was saying/asking. Right now he is very busy with many other things of greater concern (as am I), so it isn't a simple matter of me catching him at a free moment and asking him. Perhaps I can do so soon...but he'll probably just snicker and mutter "maybe..." with a twinkle in his eye.Was it fair to ask that of bluegenes? To deviously smuggle that in under the guise "should be easy"? Yes - it most certainly was, because bluegenes did not precisely state his theory properly - he left that crack open and RAZD jumped all over it.bluegenes stated in Message 167: Note that he uses the word "are" in his statement (the plural form of is).He also then, remarkably, says: RAZD takes the challenge and immediately asks for evidence that the IPU is made up. Now RAZD himself doesn't believe in the IPU, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the Positive evidence that bluegenes claims to have that the IPU IS made up.Parenthetically I might add that bluegenes has yet to address the specific IPU question, instead bringing in all manner of other religious entities and bringing up some mutually exclusive algebraic nature of their multitudinous literal explanations.It is as if bluegenes, when claiming that everything is one of the many flowers we already know about and then asked to produce a rose, instead produces a daffodil, a chrysanthemum, a cornflower, and so on - but no rose. WTF?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Then the required demonstration has been provided. Well of course RAZD wants that to be the game.A) Because he cannot counter the argument that you have already agreed leads to the conclusion that ALL imperceptible entities are necessarily made-up (as per Message 366B) Because refuting one entity at a time is a fruitless, pointless and never ending task. Refute the IPU in the manner you are demanding and along comes the intangible spotted kitten. Or whatever. The possibilities are limited only by human imagination. We would be here forever.C) Because after enough such nonsense RAZ will pull out his "Aha - You are saying If some THEN all - A logical fallacy" drivel.So my question to you is why are you encouraging RAZ's silly debate tactics rather than pointing out to him that the form of evidence he is demanding is just irrelevant given that his demand has already been met. Albeit via a method he doesn't like and very probably didn't expect.

I think we need to start a Peanut Gallery thread about the Peanut Gallery thread. - Oni

{side note to Percy - I'm getting a weird Reply "feature", some sort of doubling up of quoted text, actually the part that i highlight plus the entire post, top to bottom...but nevermind, I'll proceed....}Straggler appears to be coming around: EXACTLY. Devious brother of mine. Imagine what might happen when we get to question "Who was the person or committee that made up Jesus Christ?" What evidence do we have that he was made up? (IANO, please be quiet at this time - ). No. that would mean that he has a rap sheet on logic here - he doesn't. Because he is absolutely right in this debate and everyone in EvC was jumping all over him, bringing all the other baggage in, when it was bluegenes who fucked up.And because he's my brother. He may not have the same view on this that I have (I happen to agree with bluegenes conjecture). But I'll be damned if I don't also see the defect in bluegenes "theory". RAZD jumped all over it. Of course I was busy elsewhere, creating other universes at the time, so I didn't notice until the whole shebang bubbled up into everyone's view. Damned if he wasn't like an obsidian knife into the "theory". There is no "theory". bluegenes lied when he said he had "plenty of evidence". Yet the "theory" is one that you & I agree with. See - this isn't about what you & I believe is true - it's all about DEBATE tactics. RAZD was able to see the flaw in the challenge & took him on it & skewered him, rightly so, for stating what he wanted to state so poorly.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Oni smartly observes: YES!!!! Straggler & I should stay out of that!!;-)

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

quote:

---

Your first task is to demonstrate that the Invisible\Imperceptible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being.

---

But a theory is necessarily tentative. The theory "All rabbits come from parent rabbits." is perfectly fine yes? Would it make sense to argue that since we haven't studied the detailed history of every single rabbit that has ever existed and proven this theory unequivocally and absolutely true that this presents any kind of problem?So no - RAZD did not fairly jump all over this.After all - even if we had a person that says "I invented it." a video recording of the invention moment, and a brain scan of the creator's mind demonstrating the creative part was in use rather than the recall part or something...that still would not demonstrate "unequivocally and absolutely" that the IPU is not an existant supernatural being, as I've previously described. And, as has been showna) The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural entities
b) Imperceptible non/interacting supernatural entities are necessarily made up.abe: Imagine a coroner in a courtroom:Court: How did this man die.
Cor: He was shot.
Crt: How do you know
Cor: He had a bullet hole in his head.
Crt: So how does that show he was shot?
Cor: Being shot is the only known way to have a bullet hole in the head.Are you suggesting that having a bullet in the head isn't sufficient evidence for the theory 'he was shot'? Of course you aren't. The evidence that the IPU is made up is that it is an intangible, unusually coloured, immortal animal (especially given we're also highly confident the mundanely coloured mortal animal is made up) which humans are more than capable of inventing for entertainment or rhetoric (and not just capable but apparently strongly inclined towards doing). Like the bullet: the only known way for these things to thought about is if someone makes them up and communicates the invention.Sure - the bullet theory could be falsified by a suitably observed instance of someone getting a bullet hole without getting shot.
Sure - the imagination theory could be falsified by an actual supernatural being presenting themselves in such a way that we can say we know it exists.Their falsifiability isn't a weakness that RAZD should be jumping on. Nor should RAZD see the word 'theory' and say that it's 'a positive claim that absolutely no god/s can exist.' It is a theory. It explains the multitude of gods that are postulated. It's mechanisms are based in neural science and psychology. It's evidence is the history of gods that are known to be made up. It can explain something like this: Showing mutual exclusivity provides further evidence of the claims being made up. For instance, if the being, Yahweh exists then the IPU doesn't. Therefore at least one of them is made up. And if we do that for every single supernatural entity that is ruled out if Yahweh exists then we can find millions of made up entities. That's a big pile of evidence for the 'made up' hypothesis. Sure - name a supernatural being the source of our information about which is known where the source turns out to be 'the supernatural being exists and interacts with us.'Until then - the evidence is that every single supernatural entity where the source is known has turned out to be imagination.Therefore - the evidence IS that human imagination IS the ONLY known source of supernatural beings.This is coherent with the theory 'All supernatural entities are the products of human imagination', it predicts that all future entities whose origins can be traced will be. The theory is falsifiable, has evidence that is consistent with it and there is no evidence which contradicts it.What else could you possibly ask for? Not really. It's as if bluegenes claimed that he believed the the theory that all baby rabbits come from adult rabbits and RAZD saying - prove unequivically and absolutely that in 1267BC a pig did not give birth to a rabbit. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Bluegenes argument is based on positive evidence regarding human behaviour in relation to supernatural concepts Vs the evidence that such concepts actually exist as components of reality external to the human mind.Yours and RAZD's misapprehensions and stupid demands for irrelevant "one deity at a time" refutations are as immaterial as a herd of neon pink incorporeal ethereal buffalos bouncing through the EvC ionosphere. If you think there is a flaw in the argument that the evidential conclusion is that supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination rather than based on aspects of perceived reality then present your case.Because all I have seen you do so far is insist that you don't like the demonstrations presented despite being unable to refute them and indeed actually agreeing with them.Your position is untenable.

Let me ask you, Straggler, do you see the difference between: and ?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Straggler says: Show me a post from me that even talks about "one deity at a time". You have a lot of nerve to put those words in my mouth.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Modulous says: Perhaps today, provisionally. But if they can grow human ears on mice, the day they can insert a rabbit zygote into a pig may not be that far off. So it's not "perfectly fine".Re-word it: Now we have the much harder problem of synthesizing rabbit DNA out of, say, pig DNA, by moving and adding and deleting genes at the nucleotide level with nano-scalpels - a project that hopefully will never, ever get enough funding.Modulous continues with: Don't be silly. Naw - that would just be some other IPU that RAZD wasn't even bringing up for bluegenes. That would not be The Made-Up IPU. In your scenario, bluegenes would have indeed given the first evidence RAZD asked for. We all kneaux which IPU RAZD was talking about.Modulous then brings up an analogy: The bullet hole, IMNSHO, is one of the many different kinds of "wet paint" positive evidence of the crime.The analogy doesn't work here.
I'm not even going to discuss the possibility that the "bullet hole" may have been created by the tip of a cane and just happens to look exactly like a bullet hole to the expert witness coroner. You can just redraw the scene to eliminate that possibility. No - it's not the same kind of dichotomy.If I may, perhaps I can further delineate what I think is going on with an unrelated math problem.An unopened beer can has 12 ounces of beer in it. The empty can weighs 1 ounce. It stands 6 inches tall on the table.At the beginning, the center of gravity, assuming no air-like bubbles inside, is at the center of the beer can, 3.0 inches above the surface of the table, when it is set down on it.As you begin to drink the beer, the center of gravity, when placed back on the table, moves downward. At some point it begins to return upward, until the end, when you empty the can.When it is empty, once again the center of gravity is in the middle, 3.0 inches above the table surface.Given the original parameters, determine the height in inches when the center of gravity reaches a minimum.Oh - and you are not allowed to use calculus!!!So when RAZD says "Show me the evidence that the IPU is made up", he is sort of saying to bluegenes that he can't use the evidential equivalent of calculus. He is not asking bluegenes to first demonstrate that the IPU doesn't exist (the calculus-like approach that Straggler has glommed onto).

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

I fail to understand why a theory that is falsifiable seems in anyway problematic to you. Inserting rabbit zygote into a pig wouldn't necessarily falsify the theory incidentally, if the rabbit zygote came from an adult rabbit. You've lost me. I was talking about whichever IPU RAZD was talking about. Even if we had all the evidence I cited it wouldn't be enough to persuade RAZD that it was both made up AND not real - which is the standards he is insisting upon. I knew you'd feel that way, which is why I used it to argue that bluegenes has provided the wet paint positive evidence you say he hasn't. You didn't describe your objections to that argument so I can't say much further on that until you do. You simply dismiss it: Without explanation. Why not? If we're going to discuss the possibility that the IPU actually exists, why not deviously clever murderers who can fake a bullethole sufficiently to fool at least one coroner some fraction of the time?Why can one be dismissed but the other must be absolutely ruled out? He is asking that bluegens demonstrate that it doesn't exist.

quote:

---

Your first task is to demonstrate that the Invisible\Imperceptible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being.

---

"...and not..." bluegenes is being asked to show not just that the IPU specifically was invented, but that it is also not a supernatural being!