Peanut Gallery

Well as I said to Xongsmith in the Inductive Atheism thread - Bluegenes theory is all about supernatural CONCEPTS and their naturalistic source of origin.If you are still unclear about this then it might well be part of your ongoing comprehension problem in these threads.Maybe see you in Inductive Atheism later.

Okay, so the original theory, that the beings themselves have been shown to be imagined has been abandoned.The concepts of those beings, like any concept, must come from the human imagination.So you agree that all scientific concepts are figments of the human imaginations, right?That a tree can be demonstrated and a god cannot, and the problems that arrise from that, doesn't really have anything to do with the concepts of those things necesssarily being imagined, does it?

See Message 133I will answer you in that thread.Edited by Straggler, : Fix link

Concepts generated by a human mind verses concepts generated by a computer. If AI ultimately reaches the level by which humans consider it "the same" then the question HAL asked?
"Will I dream?" will indeed be a intriquing phylosophical question we humans will be faced with.
If Human Intelligence can generate supernatural concepts from our imagination then it seems logical that machines will someday follow suit. What will be the ramifications of such a reality where machines have a machine derived god.

I like Message 30 better. But we need to be carefull. WE CANNOT ASSUME ANYTHING. Not exactly accurate. I agree with ignostic, but I also agree that RAZD's agnostic discussion is appropriate as well. But did he include himself in "most people"? No. Rather, I see he is having major problems trying to come to grips with a god concept. I see agonizations. I see a look for help, as in the "DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT I'M TAKING ABOUT??!!??!!" sorts of things. I see admissions at the get-go that a god concept would necessarily mean we could never understand what a god is. I see RAZD resorting to the leanest, stripped-down formal logic he can find, in order to eliminate as much as possible the bullshit that humans have injected into this whole issue, in order to learn as much as possible about what such a thing would be. He is test-flying the various versions of logic he has come up with so far to cast off wrong roads and find anything of value that moves the answer closer.What have we seen so far? He is a 3, agnostic leaning towards a belief in a Deist God who created the universe and then went off elsewhere to do other things. The subsequent results are both beautiful and humorous (The Silly Design Institute). Now, for me, the humorous instances would be only a natural filling in of histogram bins in any natural gaussian curve's envelope.Seems to me one of his primary objectives is to move people, such as readers of this forum and himself, from the Ignostic to the Agnostic to the hopeful goal (like any scientist's goal) of Gnostic.But then, that is all pure conjecture on my part and not a theory.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

TOUCHE' !!!This is why I opined that bluegenes theory really wasn't of much value.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

You twit. Message 135It is about the naturalistic source of concepts and always has been.

RAZ has produced an astonishing array of colourful charts, scales, flow charts etc. Based on these what position is he saying it is rationally justified to take towards a concept which is unable to be defined? My answer is this: Are those who proclaim themselves to be deists with regard to something which cannot be defined exhibiting "incoherent and thus non-cognitive" beliefs? I would say they are.What do you think?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In Message 31, Subbie writes: I thought that was RAZD's point, to not make a claim about gods, and that Subbie agreed that he would support the position that they don't exist

Support the position that what doesn't exist?

I think it's time we had another drink.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Now I KNOW we need another drink. "You raise up your head
And you ask, "Is this where it is?"
And somebody points to you and says "It's his"
And you say, "What's mine?"
And somebody else says, "Where what is?"
And you say, "Oh my God
Am I here all alone?"

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Guilty as charged!!!In the name of congeniality I will ignore the fact that you have sidestepped the question for now and simply say well done for remembering my Friday afternoon beer-o'clock policy.I am indeed sinking a few along with my colleagues. And replying to you lot in what they think are wholly necessary bouts of "IT emergency maintenance" as defined by - erm me!!!!Such are the joys of autonomy at work.Cheers.

It might be rather easy for Subbie to make the point that a "nothing" doesn't exist, by definition. Mind you, if the universe was self-creating or eternal in some state, as many scientists think, or if it's truly universal (everything) then it would have been created by nothing, and they'd both win the debate.

I THINK you are right.(**Straggler opens another beer**)Ahhhhhhhhhh.