Peanut Gallery

Not had ... has. Lots of them. And the more science advances the more errors and contradictions we find. Well, I don't want to give Straggler a big head since being more right then your bible is so easy to do but ...yes, Straggler is more right than your bible. As I recall Straggler was going on about how supernatural entities were imagined due to human psychology. You objected and listed some entities that warranted consideration. When asked on what basis, you gave the three listed in my response.I am pointing out that all three of the items you listed as the basis for considering the viability of your supernatural entities are in fact based upon the psychology of the humans involved and provide nothing more than human psychology as evidence. Which means Straggler was right.What you did, Chuck, was hand Straggler more and stronger evidence for his position. Edited by AZPaul3, : clarity

If my hat size gets any bigger I will have to stop wearing the traffic cones that I "borrow" on the way back from the pub.(**Straggler struggles to prise the cone off of his head**)

Problem here is that this line of discussion was started with the understanding that only scientific evidence would count - not anything subjective (RAZD aside). Chuck77, relatively new to this particular scene, hasn't grokked yet that he's in the wrong room. What he is saying makes 100% perfect sense to him, but he should be in the room down the hall a little bit more. He's a good guy, and there's no need for me & you & Straggler & others to dogpile on him. He should, perhaps, view this thread in this Peanut Gallery with utter bemusement over how the scientific world has to contort and grapple with the English language over in the way it has to deal with the supernatural!But when it comes to belief issues, then there's another room down the hall. Sort of like that Monty Python skit....And there's no way I'm Prez of this room!! That would be Percy.
This room seems more for scientifically objective evidence abuse.I'm only one of it's inmates.Edited by xongsmith, : misspellings

Jeez - I already reluctantly said...NO....What about you? Give me an example.

OK, if anyone relays any of this to Chuck I will deny every word.Yeah, Chuck is good people. Notice he speaks English instead of gibberish, expresses himself well and does have a sense of humor. He is serious and honest about his beliefs, does not back down easily but best of all he keeps his cool. He has a thick skin so I have no doubt he can handle pretty much anything we pile on him. EvC is no farm league forum and he seems to be holding his own. He gives as good as he gets.I wouldn't be worried about him.Frankly, I think he would make a good atheist if we could turn him to the dark side.But I hear ya and maybe ... well, maybe ... awh ... can't promise anything, but ... maybe ... OK I suppose we shouldn't twist his tail quite so often.

But you also said "Yes". Which is it? Go on then. Give me an example of something supernatural. What is your problem here? I can give you countless examples of commonly conceived things which if they exist, no mater how unlikely I may think this to be, would be supernatural and which would therefore falsify bluegenes theory. Werwolves, vampires fairies, leprechauns, gods, Thor, Zeus, Voldermort, Christ, Vishnu, Apollo, ghosts, demons, Djinns, genies, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.........Can you just give one example?

Straggler struggles more: I did not say Yes to that question, I said Yes to this implied question: Straggler - your fault here was that you didn't reproduce the exact same question. You were trying to TRICK me. Bad Straggler, Bad Straggler, Bad Straggler. You haven't had enough to drink yet. TRICKSTER. Have another on me.See how you extrapolated from a mistake? and then you continue to plow on with: To which I had already addressed as follows: Thank you for being more specific than I was. You have the laundry list right there.Now I notice that you claim, if I may repeat: Shirley! you are not claiming that any of these exist. So, lets cut to the chase - "if they exist" is what we have to wrangle down to the ground. "If they exist" to me would mean that a current consensus by the scientific community, via peer-reviewed publications in respected journals, has accepted the existence of this phenomenon. Why? BECAUSE WHAT I BELIEVE or you BELIEVE has NOTHING to do with this! I hope Chuck77 sees this.What would be your tentative definition of "if they exist"?Jeez, I give you a wide open target to hit me elsewhere, probably even drawing blood with any kind of Reasonable Bullet, and you go off on another of your misdirected side-track extrapolations, dashing against one of the shiny, hand-polished molybdenum surfaces, harmlessly, if also heroically, sliding off...you obviously need to start drinking heavily, like me. We are only but humble inmates in this asylum. We can be heroes.Edited by xongsmith, : phrasing

Wrong thread .Edited by nlerd, : I'm bad at the internet.

If the Norse God Thor exists then the atheist conclusion is wrong. It doesn't matter what I, or you or a group of white coated experts have to say on the matter. It doesn't matter what you or I or our experts believe. If Thor exists he exists and atheists are wrong.Do you agree? Do you exist Xongsmith? What is your own current peer reviewed status? Can you point me to the published journals in which your own existence is confirmed?Or should I conclude that you don't exist?

Straggler asks: If 1 equals zero, does this mean all mathematics is down the toilet?
Sure. But how would 1 equal zero??? How would Thor equals exist? Get real. Look instead at the big boys.Straggs continues: No - I am your worst nightmare - I dont exist at all. Well....I have this certified birth certificate, along with many copies that have been sent *out there* on demand from various employers & governmental agencies. I have an arrest record. I have a warm & fuzzy relationship with the IRS. I wish you would do so!But not until I have safely departed from Heathrow after we have spent a week-long arm-in-arm bashing of sampling your countrymen's beautiful ales.

If you are unable to acknowledge that even the actual existence of an actual god would make your atheistic stance wrong then I am lost as to where to go next. You are an atheistic fundamentalist. The first I have ever met. By existing. By being real. By being something that isn't just a figment of human imagination. Forget how one might conclude this for one second and just answer the question.IF the Norse God Thor exists are atheistic conclusions wrong?I cannot believe that you are unable to answer this without tying yourself into philosophical knots about 1 and 0. I don't drink with imaginary friends because they never pay for their rounds. In Britain this is a bare requirement for existence.

Straggler continues to bark up the wrong tree: IF the Norse God Thor exists - YES - atheistic conclusions would be wrong, but this is on the same level as saying IF 1 equals 0, then mathematical conclusions are wrong. What would make you think your money would be any good? You don't spend a shilling in this scenario.#299 next? Yes?

But in science we look for ways which could potentially falsify a hypothesis or theory science if you don't know how a theory could be wrong how would you know that it is right? However, this does not mean the source of falsification actually exists. Your argument here comes across a bit like creationists arguing that the ToE is unfalsifiable because it hasn't yet been falsified, yet science is still able to think of a plethora of possible scenarios which could falsify the ToE it's just none have been found to actually exist so far.So by way of the same process we can define Thor or any other deity based on how it could influence our reality and see if any of these scenarios can be empirically evidenced. So if they exist as shown by their effects on reality bluegenes theory would be falsified, but as they are currently not shown to exist does not mean his theory is unfalsifiable.I realise that others have tried to explain this to you before, and a lot more eloquently than I'm able to, and your response has always been this 'Analemma'. But consider what 'supernatural' phenomena have previously been explained by science. I'm feeling a bit dense at the moment, so the only examples I can think of are lightning and infectious disease, you can probably think of more since it was you who posited your analemma.
Now with lightning science has described it as a natural phenomena because we've described the mechanism by which it has been generated. But does that go towards disproving Zeus? Can we know that all lightning strikes are natural, or if it was shown that some were caused by Zeus does that go anywhere towards science giving a natural explanation of Zeus himself? And yes I do realise that Zeus is no longer considered one of the 'big boys' as you put it. For a more simple example, consider the above picture, supposedly of a ghost. Now if this apparition could be documented and verified that there was no photographic trickery or any other way it was falsified, would you say that this photo represents empirical evidence of the existence of ghosts? Now just because we have empirical evidence does that mean we can describe ghosts as natural when science can not explain what they are? Similarly if Armageddon occurred, to go with Stragglers example, and Scientists documented whatever it says in Revelations does that go any way towards giving a natural explanation?

Hi Malcolm Thor causes lightening and thunder. We have lightening and thunder.The question is more on how you can test for supernatural effects, rather than just assuming that what you see has only natural causes (the analema problem).Consider Ben Franklin without a means to test for electricity -- could he show that electricity was present in lightening? Could he show if electricity was not present in lightening? Would it be proper to conclude that because he could not test for electricity in lightening that it was not present?Enjoy

And the same applies to the actual existence of Christ, Allah etc.....?You have concluded that the actual existence of ANY supernatural entity is equiavlanet to a mathematical impossibility.You are the supreme atheist Xongsmith. And your atheistic certainty is as much a matter of faith as any theistic equivalent. Such certainty cannot be derived from evidence.