• Proof of Intelligent Design

    From JTEM is my hero@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 29 05:03:47 2023
    If Intelligent Design didn't exist we couldn't talk about
    it. THERE'D BE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT!

    Obviously it exists. Obviously we can talk about it.

    We can discuss the facts.

    So it's real and that's proof.




    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/729752348781641728

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?B?w5bDtiBUaWli?=@21:1/5 to JTEM is my hero on Fri Sep 29 09:58:45 2023
    On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 15:05:53 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
    If Intelligent Design didn't exist we couldn't talk about
    it. THERE'D BE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT!

    Obviously it exists. Obviously we can talk about it.

    We can discuss the facts.

    So it's real and that's proof.

    You are correct that all the things that we discuss exist as topic of discussion.
    But no one argues about that. Argument is if these are also actual reality. That can not be true about all. All can not conform with reality for simple reason
    that these contradict with each other. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob Casanova@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 29 12:37:41 2023
    On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:58:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    appeared in talk.origins, posted by �� Tiib <[email protected]>:

    On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 15:05:53 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
    If Intelligent Design didn't exist we couldn't talk about
    it. THERE'D BE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT!

    Obviously it exists. Obviously we can talk about it.

    We can discuss the facts.

    So it's real and that's proof.

    You are correct that all the things that we discuss exist as topic of discussion.
    But no one argues about that. Argument is if these are also actual reality. >That can not be true about all. All can not conform with reality for simple reason
    that these contradict with each other. ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience>

    You're being trolled; no one with more than two neurons
    would write the above as a serious claim ("If we can talk
    about it that proves it exists"), since the same would also
    apply to *anything we could imagine, from a flat Earth to
    tiny leprechauns living in our sinuses and making us sneeze,
    including literally *every* deity imagined by any group
    anywhere at any time.

    As you say, these things exist as topics of discussion, but
    the phrasing chosen says that is *not* how it was intended,
    but as an assertion that imagination creates physical
    reality. Multi-person solipsism, perhaps?

    --

    Bob C.

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

    - Isaac Asimov

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Burkhard@21:1/5 to Bob Casanova on Fri Sep 29 12:52:22 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:40:53 PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
    On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:58:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <[email protected]>:
    On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 15:05:53 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
    If Intelligent Design didn't exist we couldn't talk about
    it. THERE'D BE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT!

    Obviously it exists. Obviously we can talk about it.

    We can discuss the facts.

    So it's real and that's proof.

    You are correct that all the things that we discuss exist as topic of discussion.
    But no one argues about that. Argument is if these are also actual reality. >That can not be true about all. All can not conform with reality for simple reason
    that these contradict with each other. ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience>

    You're being trolled; no one with more than two neurons
    would write the above as a serious claim ("If we can talk
    about it that proves it exists"),


    Ahem. Me, Meinong, Ed Zalta and the six neurons we have in between us want to have a word...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_object_theory



    since the same would also
    apply to *anything we could imagine, from a flat Earth to
    tiny leprechauns living in our sinuses and making us sneeze,
    including literally *every* deity imagined by any group
    anywhere at any time.

    As you say, these things exist as topics of discussion, but
    the phrasing chosen says that is *not* how it was intended,
    but as an assertion that imagination creates physical
    reality. Multi-person solipsism, perhaps?

    --

    Bob C.

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

    - Isaac Asimov

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bob Casanova@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 29 14:55:59 2023
    On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 12:52:22 -0700 (PDT), the following
    appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
    <[email protected]>:

    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 8:40:53?PM UTC+1, Bob Casanova wrote:
    On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 09:58:45 -0700 (PDT), the following
    appeared in talk.origins, posted by ? Tiib <[email protected]>:
    On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 15:05:53 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
    If Intelligent Design didn't exist we couldn't talk about
    it. THERE'D BE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT!

    Obviously it exists. Obviously we can talk about it.

    We can discuss the facts.

    So it's real and that's proof.

    You are correct that all the things that we discuss exist as topic of discussion.
    But no one argues about that. Argument is if these are also actual reality. >> >That can not be true about all. All can not conform with reality for simple reason
    that these contradict with each other.
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions> >> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience>

    You're being trolled; no one with more than two neurons
    would write the above as a serious claim ("If we can talk
    about it that proves it exists"),


    Ahem. Me, Meinong, Ed Zalta and the six neurons we have in between us want to have a word...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_object_theory

    Interesting; Plato (like Frodo) lives! But since I, and from
    his phrasing JTEM the Tumbling Moron, was referring to
    *physical* existence, not imaginary (or "abstract") objects
    or, as I referred to them, "topics of discussion" as I
    thought would have been clear, I'll stick to what I wrote.
    Yes, they are indeed real, just as the pink elephants flying
    around the room of someone with DTs are "real". But like
    those elephants, they have no physical existence, and the
    fact that he "sees" them doesn't cause them to exist.


    since the same would also
    apply to *anything we could imagine, from a flat Earth to
    tiny leprechauns living in our sinuses and making us sneeze,
    including literally *every* deity imagined by any group
    anywhere at any time.

    As you say, these things exist as topics of discussion, but
    the phrasing chosen says that is *not* how it was intended,
    but as an assertion that imagination creates physical
    reality. Multi-person solipsism, perhaps?

    --

    Bob C.

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

    - Isaac Asimov
    --

    Bob C.

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
    the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
    'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

    - Isaac Asimov

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JTEM is my hero@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 30 13:21:19 2023
    Öö Tiib wrote:

    JTEM is my hero wrote:

    If Intelligent Design didn't exist we couldn't talk about
    it. THERE'D BE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT!

    Obviously it exists. Obviously we can talk about it.

    We can discuss the facts.

    So it's real and that's proof.

    You are correct

    Yes. Yes I am.



    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/729785095255474176

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JTEM is my hero@21:1/5 to Bob Casanova on Sun Oct 8 10:25:11 2023
    Bob Casanova wrote:

    Interesting

    No. Your ability to type words does not in itself qualify
    it as "Interesting." The fact that a pathetic narcissist
    like you could find interest in your own words is hardly
    noteworthy.

    ...of course you think anything you say has to be
    interesting, nimrod. You're a narcissist.





    -- --

    https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/730364921353764864

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)