Peanut Gallery

RADZ seems to be moving towards the point where he will claim that 'human descriptions of gods' are not the same as 'gods'.
But without human definitions of gods, there are no gods - which is kinda what Bluegenes is claiming.

RAZD left this message for you and Mr. Jack on the great debate thread. I think he wants you to find a real god, then present evidence that it's a figment of the human imagination.While you're at it, could you please find me a flying pig, and demonstrate empirically that it's flightless?BTW, I'd be happy to send $100,000 U.S. dollars to anyone who falsifies my theory.

TBH: I am still waiting for a explanation of the difference between e.g. christian god (written by man in the bible) and Sauron (written by man in LoTR).RADZ seemed to think that they weren't the same type of concept.
But I see them both as supernatural creatures created by man's imagination.
Unfortunately (for me), you both moved away from that point.

Prescient much? I think the discussion will head towards ignosticism next...

Hi bluegenes, you're getting to be like Straggler, making up stuff and claiming it is my position. Nope, I want objective empirical evidence that supports your claims.You can't seem to provide it, so I though maybe someone else could help you.I also have the impression that Great Debate participants are not supposed to participate in the Peanut Gallery discussion.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)

Oh we have been there with RAZD before. Message 453Those of us who have been round the houses with RAZD are also very familiar with the idea of the god that has no description. Otherwise known as the ultimate god of the ultimate gap. Where the gap in question is the human notion of god itself.It is (apparently) "unknowable". Although how anyone could know this remains a mystery.

This is where the logical path often ends.How can you know about a god that has no existence in our universe?
You can't know about something that is unknowable.I find it as silly as "God moves in mysterious ways." which should end up making you unable to know what any of god's actions mean.

In the Great Debate thread, RAZD is grasping at straws and sinking fast: Message 77He has no evidence for the supernatural, so he demands that others prove that it doesn't exist.But he's sensible in other ways, and in other topics he can put together a very good argument. Blind spot, I guess.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

actually, all I am doing is asking bluegenes for his evidence. Curiously, I don't need such evidence: it is bluegenes that made the assertion that needs to be supported. He seems totally incapable of providing the evidence he claimed he had.Amusingly, nobody here seems to be able to help him by suggesting some ... Yours? Do you know what the actual thread is about?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)

Just provide convincing evidence for the supernatural and the debate is over.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

again, NOT what the thread is about.read the OP

Don't much care about the OP.What I am pointing out is that you have provided no empirical evidence for the supernatural.I have admired your rationality in other posts, but in this thread you are jumping the shark.You keep demanding that others prove their opposition to the supernatural, while failing to provide any evidence that it even exists. And it would be so easy to end the debate by providing that evidence. Instead you keep relying on word and logic tricks to shift the burden of proof.You can end the debate: just provide evidence for the supernatural.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Coyote, thanks but Then you have absolutely no basis for complaining about my posts in the thread. Why? because, curiously, the OP defines the topic of the thread, not what you want it to be.Bluegenes made an assertion (actually several, including that he had "plenty of evidence" - see Message 4) and needs to provide objective empirical evidence to support it.He hasn't. Can you help him?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : mid

---

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)

He did provide evidence, but you then starting claiming that fictional characters didn't count, even though fictional means 'invented by human imagination'.
Or have you changed your mind about Sauron not being a supernatural being created by human imagination?{abe}RADZ to Bluegenes: "and no your personal caricature inventions do not count" - there you go again. Your unfounded assertion that imagined supernatural beings only count on your say so. ok...my suggestion of a supernatural being created by human imagination: Pinhead.But what would you need to do to completely trash Bluegenes' theory?
You would simply have to identify one SB not created by mankind's imagination.
As Bluegenes' hypothesis is supposedly so weak, you must be able to name numerous supernatural beings not created by human imagination.But you refuse to name even one - because you can't - because there are none.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

The issue is simple: Is there evidence for the supernatural or not?If you have evidence, we'd like to see it.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.