Peanut Gallery 2012

I don't think so. Thou is better articulated.What your noticing, I think, is the fact that they're both old dudes.

From Message 208: Then it isn't capable of being proven wrong.From Message 210: We know what planets are and we know what it is to be flat. We don't have anything regarding what it is to be supernatural. We can't be nearly as confident about supernatural beings as we can about flat planets.If we're just going to use what people have imagined about supernatural beings, then we're only ever going to be dealing with imagination. There's no progress to make. The conjecture that they're all imagined becomes tautological. Supernatural beings become defined as coming from the imagination.

Not just that. The whole focus on the "before the big bang" falacy. The T=O issue he keeps confusing. The condescending "just a thought" and signature on the way out with "Thou" all kind of mimicing ICANT. ALso, is seem to focusing on inflation which was ICANT's insane focus too.But if you guys don't see it I guess I'm wrong.- Oni

Thou seems smarter. You can't really fake being smart. And I don't think ICANT was playing dumb...

This is true. As I read further, I may have jumped the gun. I guess lately I'm not trusting the whole "I'm new here" angle.- Oni

ICANT had a pretty distinctive writing style and I don't see it in Trou's posts. And that alone is enough for me to say that they are almost certainly different people. Trou (and THAT is how he signs his messages - not "thou") also seems to have quite different interests - fringe physics rather than ICANT's obsession with his own idiosyncratic interpretations of the Bible,

I agree with you regarding bluegenes' statement, but I think bluegenes' statement is wrong.I think the theory predicts that we 'will not' detect SBs, but it doesn't predict that we 'can not' detect SB's.

I think TheRestOfUs has been here before but I can't place who he was in his last incarnation. His style does seem very familiar.

The theory predicts that there won't be any way of detecting such things because it predicts that such things don't exist. And you cannot detect that which doesn't exist can you? Lots of people (including you I believe) have claimed to have detected supernatural beings. People are constantly and relentlessly claiming to have detected supernatural beings. Are you suggesting these people have no idea what they are talking about.....? No such definition is in place. If any of these people who claim to have interactions with supernatural beings can provide the rest of us with positive evidence of their claims then we will have cause to think they are doing something other than getting carried away with their imagination.So far no such evidence has been forthcoming. As bluegenes theory predicts.

If you can show that they are there the prediction is wrong and the theory is falsified. It is that simple.

If SB's don't exist then there's no way to detect them. But its worse than that: we don't even know what we're looking for. What makes it a being and what makes it supernatural? Of course they don't know what they're talking about. If they did, then it'd just be a common fact as opposed to something they're taking on faith.That they're making up specifics about the SB's does show that their concepts of them stem from their imagination. But without a way to even test for any of the properties we'd expect if they did exist, we can't get to a conclusion that none of them exist. The definition emerges when you only consider the imagined instances of SB's for your determination of whether or not they exist outside the imagination. Its tautological. I wouldn't say that I've detected them. I've just had experiences that convinced me they exist.

Well Mr "I'm convinced they exist" what is it you are convinced of the existence of? People believed in the existence of Scarab the godly dung beetle that rolled the Sun across the sky. They knew what they were talking about. It's just that the thing they were talking about was factually wrong.Likewise - People like Buzsaw know what sort of supernatural entity they believe in. It just happens to be nonsense.The only real difference between these and the sort of thing I suspect you are talking about is vaguety. And simply defining things to be unfalsifiable isn't really a valid argument for considering them anything other than imagined.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

From Message 54Where the fuck do you come up with these words from?

From the fucking English language? It's a good one; you should learn to speak it.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I've been speaking English for over 30 years and have never seen or heard those words before.