|
Author
|
Topic: Peanut Gallery
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Ignostic Deism
Ultimately Subbie was being challeneged to refute a concept that doesn't conceptually exist. He wasn't challenged, he volunteered.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1112 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 10:35 AM | | New Cat's Eye has not replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Ignostic Deism
He also said that unless a definition of god could be agreed upon rational discussion was impossible. Or did you miss that part?
|
xongsmith
Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: 01-01-2009 Member Rating: 7.0
|
Re: Click here
Straggler writes: What a hilarious little side topic has developed here. Rats speaking obscure human languages. EvC never ceases to amaze me. ...{}... Dude - Are you really suggesting that the theory that rodents do not communicate in human languages is evidentially weak? Really? Don't be silly. Really? What do you think?
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Click here
I think your objections to PurpleDawn make about as much sense as RAZ's objections to Bluegenes theory. And it turns out even you don't think your own stance has any merit. So go figure.
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
quote:
We can actually investigate wether or not rats can talk, say by finding that they lack the necessary vocal chords, but we don't have anything to investigate for supernatural beings.
We don't have anything to investigate for talking rodents either because the only source for talking rodents is the human imagination. Yes we can check the vocal chords of various rodents and determine that living breathing rodents don't talk. But can it tell us that talking rodents don't live? Since they talk, they obviously evolved differently. Only the IPU was mentioned as far as I know, so just as we can check rodents which are the inspiration for the talking rodents we can check the living animals that inspired the unicorn. The goat and the antelope are two. They don't come in pink and they are very visible. The same goes for stags, bulls, rhinos, mules, and horses. The mythical unicorn has changed from a delicate, goat-like creature to one of simple equine beauty. Even the products of human imagination evolve. How do we investigate the talking rodents?
|
xongsmith
Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: 01-01-2009 Member Rating: 7.0
|
Re: Click here
Straggler writes: I think your objections to PurpleDawn make about as much sense as RAZ's objections to Bluegenes theory. Very good - you caught on. 
And it turns out even you don't think your own stance has any merit. So go figure. Somewhere in the world in the central region of some thick piece of Kaya wood:
| | | | | | |
--+-(_)-+--+--+--+--+--
| | | | | | |
--+--+-(_)(_)-+--+--+--
| | | | | | |
--+--+--+-[@][@]-+--+--
| | | | | | |
--+--+--+--+--+--+-[@]-
| | | | | | |
--+-(_)-+--+--+-[@]-+--
| | | | | | |  My stance is I am ignorant. From this all knowledge flows.
- xongsmith, 5.7d
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1117 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 5:49 PM | | xongsmith has seen this message but not replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Click here
There is one sentence in your post with which I agree wholeheartedly. I will let you work out which one. (**Straggler raises a glass of red**)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1116 by xongsmith, posted 03-07-2011 5:45 PM | | xongsmith has seen this message but not replied |
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
We don't have anything to investigate for talking rodents either because the only source for talking rodents is the human imagination. We have actual rodents that we can investigate to see if any of them can talk. We can't even go that far for supernatural beings.
Yes we can check the vocal chords of various rodents and determine that living breathing rodents don't talk. But can it tell us that talking rodents don't live? Yes.
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
quote:
We have actual rodents that we can investigate to see if any of them can talk. We can't even go that far for supernatural beings.
Since there are no actual supernatural beings to investigate, then no supernatural being has been named and described by objective empirical evidence.
RAZD writes: Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate. Empirical: that which is observed or experienced; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. The IPU was named, but not described with empirical evidence that I read anyway. I'm still not convinced that bluegenes doesn't have a theory.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
Since there are no actual supernatural beings to investigate, then no supernatural being has been named and described by objective empirical evidence. Then he doesn't have any data to base a scientific theory about those beings on. In fact, his theory is about the concepts of those beings, which like all concepts, must come from the human imagination. It simply a tautological definition, not a scientific theory. From Message 1085:
quote:
What did Bluegenes measure and where is his data? What, exactly, would he publish?
According to message 11 the foundation for his initial hypothesis was based on fantasy fiction and mutually exclusive myths. Do you really see someone publishing sci-fi and old myths as data for a scientific theory on supernatural beings?
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
CS writes: Do you really see someone publishing sci-fi and old myths as data for a scientific theory on supernatural beings? It is a theory about the source of origin of supernatural concepts rather than explicitly about supernatural beings.
CS writes: It simply a tautological definition, not a scientific theory. Only to someone as confused as you are about the difference between concepts sourced from imagination and concepts sourced from reality.
CS writes: In fact, his theory is about the concepts of those beings, which like all concepts, must come from the human imagination. Not everything is imagined CS. No matter how many times you say it. Some concepts are derived from demonstrable experience. Some are imagined. Which part of this are you still struggling with? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
quote:
Then he doesn't have any data to base a scientific theory about those beings on.
Which "he" are you talking about? RAZD said: Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate. I don't see that RAZD named and described a supernatural being with empirical evidence.
quote:
Do you really see someone publishing sci-fi and old myths as data for a scientific theory on supernatural beings?
That's all I have for talking rodents. Bluegenes has observed that supernatural beings can only be found in the human imagination or products of human imagination. That's the same observation for the talking rodents. I'm not seeing the difference.
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
Which "he" are you talking about? Bluegenes.
quote:
Do you really see someone publishing sci-fi and old myths as data for a scientific theory on supernatural beings?
That's all I have for talking rodents. I wouldn't expect to see a scientific theory on talking rodents either 
Bluegenes has observed that supernatural beings can only be found in the human imagination or products of human imagination. That's the same observation for the talking rodents. I'm not seeing the difference. We can actually study a rat and determine if it can talk.
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
quote:
We can actually study a rat and determine if it can talk.
That tells us that living rodents are not the source of talking rodents. The human imagination is the only known source of talking rodents. So how do we test Remy (Ratatouille) to know whether he is a product of human imagination or not?
|
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member
|
Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
quote:
We can actually study a rat and determine if it can talk.
That tells us that living rodents are not the source of talking rodents. The human imagination is the only known source of talking rodents. So how do we test Remy (Ratatouille) to know whether he is a product of human imagination or not? Presumably, the story/movie Ratatouille was claimed to be written by somebody and that would tell us that it is the product of human imagination. Still though, I wouldn't call the no-talking-rats "theory" a scientific theory any more than I would Bluegenes. Are you sayin' otherwise?
|
™ Version 4.2
