Peanut Gallery

"Oh the humanity" - Newman. No, I most certainly am not. I'm not 6.0, I'm 5.7 (his favorite number divided by 10). I DO NOT have to provide objective evidence - the onus is not on me. Of course I agree with the general overview, but bluegenes fucked up in stating his postion. A slip of the tongue, as Panda called it. NO WAY, MAN, DO I AGREE WITH HOW YOU PHRASED THAT.
(BTW some of us baboons here think that the left testicle is pretty goddamned important!). Ahah - then this is the perfect time to challenge you to a game of Mornington Crescent.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

they are.RAZD advocates genuine agnosticism towards all unfalsifiable claims on the basis that they are unfalsifiable.Bluegenes examines claims on the basis of their evidential foundation and deems how cleverly unfalsifiable they have been designed to be as very much a secondary consideration.

Does the objective evidence indicate human invention over actual existence of supernatural concepts or not? I think you need to evidentially justify whatever position you take and am bemused as to why RAZD thinks he can go round defining such things to suit his own argument.It is nothing but an act of circular argumentation to define the criteria to meet the argument and then base the argument on the basis of the criteria.

I, being from the States, arrive in Heathrow well enough (thank you) and after many hours of quandary wandery, finally decide - in my travels afoot, weary of Flying Spaghetti Monsters - to take Hatton Cross to Green Park. Here I note that things seem to be going swimmingly. I see a big portrait of an eye on the tube wall, but dismiss this as an obvious figment of my human imagination.Your move, sir.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Was it an immaterial empirically imperceptible pink portrait?

I think it is Mornington Crescent.

Panda is CORRECT!: Panda, you are welcome to join in! And Modulous too!The Theme for this game is the Great Debate between bluegenes & RAZD.Perhaps another thread? But how to do that??

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Personally I've always enjoyed Boardo more.TTFN,WK

Wounded King notes: But, WK, it's okay if you join us in this EvC game (which should move to a new thread, methinks)!

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Although I was a fan of ISIHAC I never really 'got' Mornington Crescent. And listening to Jeremy Hardy sing was enough to drive a person to drink (and back again)!

OK...I've got a question for RAZD which, of course, I can't ask in thread:Would the inventor of the IPU (BBHH) being a human count as incontrovertible evidence that the IPU (BBHH) "is unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being"? That is, would the person who actually invented it coming forward be sufficient?How about those who were there when it was put forward by the person who invented the IPU (BBHH)?I realize that this may be considered out of bounds due to the nature of the IPU (BBHH): She is a recent invention and it is conceivable to actually find the person who did it as opposed to other beings that are so old that any of the people who may have been there when invented are long since gone.That is, I think RAZD is going for logical arguments to show that a proposed being isn't real. But, a point of order could be made: Wouldn't evidence of the person who invented the idea be sufficient to claim that it was a figment of the imagination?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

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)

Can you explain how an imperceptible being could possibly be anything other than imagined?(even if by some miracle it does actually exist)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

I agree, and that is why I think it should have been a slam dunk to find.

---

The phrasing of this makes it seem like an attempt was made and failed. Am I mistaken in that interpretation?To take it another step: What textual analysis can be considered sufficient to come to the conclusion that an event described in a piece of text is "unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention"?That is, the most common supernatural beings put forward find their "origins" in texts that are sufficiently old enough that the people who wrote them are no longer available for questioning. This runs into Ham's infamous, "Were you there?" question that he whines when confronted with evolution. Well, no, we weren't there, but we don't have to have been. There is enough evidence (including some bits that actually were there) for us to be able to come to a conclusion, even though we did not directly see the transition take place in front of our eyes.I should think that a similar process could be brought about for textual analysis, especially one that claims to describe historical objects. We've even done this sort of thing with other texts that invoke supernatural beings such as the Illiad and the Odyssey.So again, what analysis would be considered sufficient to claim that the being, object, or event described is "unequivocably and absolutely a fictional invention"?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

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)