Posted by: james ®
04/27/2003, 18:54:45
Author Profile Mail author
|
such an axiom? Not to my knowledge...otherwise a LOT of technologies would not exist. Many of the finer technologies in the world deals with what is beyond human senses. BUT most CAN be detected with instrumentation, and indirectly observed.How can one prove something without any evidence?
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/27/2003, 19:02:53
Author Profile Mail author
|
OK, but I don't know what you mean by: "How can one prove something without any evidence?" No matter, let me ask you this then: Scientifically speaking (not by personal opinion), if there is no proof for the existence of the supernatural, does is mean that it does not exist?
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/27/2003, 19:29:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
You: if there is no proof for the existence of the supernatural, does is mean that it does not exist? Me: Duh, Bahman...it means that the supernatural has not been proven, is not proveable or doesn't exist.
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/27/2003, 19:42:33
Author Profile Mail author
|
You: It may be proven tomorrow. Then what?
Me: Duh, Bahman, if it is proven tomorrow it is true and proveable. (Hey, you got it! Good for you!:)
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/27/2003, 19:46:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
Should some super duper special supernatural detector device be invented then yes...unproveable to day...proveable tomorrow. I think they call it research.
List of acceptable forms: No duh, well duh, duh :)
Modified by Victoria! at Sun, Apr 27, 2003, 19:47:19
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/27/2003, 19:54:18
Author Profile Mail author
|
In a case like this where there is no proof against existence, a SCIENTIST (not a personal opinion) should say WE DON'T KNOW.PS: By the way you are not qualified to comment on this thread; just read the title!!
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/27/2003, 20:04:31
Author Profile Mail author
|
Yes, a scientist, in this case, should say "we don't know". Now, I must remind you this is an open forum where I can (and do) post to whatever I wish. I am qualified by virtue of my registration.Victoria
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/27/2003, 22:12:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
Neither did JAK. It is unrealistic for you to reply to me four times before blowing the "qualifications whistle" on me on this which is an open forum to begin with.Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Sun, Apr 27, 2003, 22:15:34
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/27/2003, 22:34:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
Don't worry Bahman, I'll be out of your hair after tonight and THEN you can thank God!Victoria
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/27/2003, 23:56:00
Author Profile Mail author
|
Is that a rhetorical question or are you hoping for a long break from me?Victoria
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/28/2003, 00:02:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
In what regard? Do I cause you pain, Bahman?Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, Apr 28, 2003, 00:03:20
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/28/2003, 00:17:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
. . . less and less confident of my English, talking to you! Let's see if this conveys my message to you: How many days of sufferings starting from tomorrow?
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/28/2003, 00:22:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
However, your question is making ME less confident of MY English! LOL! (laugh out loud). Do you mean you do not like that I will be gone or that you WILL like that I will be gone?Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, Apr 28, 2003, 00:25:05
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/28/2003, 00:45:53
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman, I don't know how long. I have alot of work to do right now and other reasons I want to get off here for awhile. If you don't understand what is in people's posts just tell them you don't understand because you are working on your English. They will help you out. Ask them not to use American "slang" Bahman, that is really the only place you need help. Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, Apr 28, 2003, 00:48:29
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/28/2003, 01:51:58
Author Profile Mail author
|
That is a phrase taken from the closing song of an old American television western (cowboy)show starring Dale Evans and Roy Rogers, as follows:"Happy trails to you until we meet again.
Happy trails to you, keep smilin' until then.
Who cares about the clouds when we're together?
Just sing a song and bring the sunny weather.
Happy trails to you 'till we meet again." That means goodbye for now, my friend. Victoria
:-)
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/28/2003, 02:13:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria,You are just pretending to be old enough to remember Dale Evans. You got it all from re-runs :-) JAK
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/28/2003, 09:05:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
And now, the "Victoria and Bahman Show" concludes another episode as Victoria rides off into the sunset, saying "my work is done here". Tune in next week,same time, same station for another exciting episode all you little buckaroos. I'm out of popcorn, anyway. Terry
Modified by TLC at Tue, Apr 29, 2003, 09:11:04
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/28/2003, 10:00:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
Now I am suffering.
My wife read your post and said it was very sweet.
Take care and may your trails be happy too.
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/28/2003, 10:53:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
Not to despair Bahman. Someday when we find ourselves in a real need of her uncanny sense of wisdom and fair play to get us back on track, we will shine her logo into the clouds and before you know it, she will come to our aid.Terry
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/27/2003, 22:22:01
Author Profile Mail author
|
It is good that you stated that as a question, Bahman. The answer is sometimes. That is some assertions made or claims made will forever remain without evidence. But, to be sure, discoveries will continue and what is only suspected today may be genuinely discovered tomorrow. Evidence for the gods is unlikely. Sufficient search without discovery has lead the intellectuals to reach conclusions about that which are likely to remain unchallenged. JAK
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/27/2003, 22:30:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
"Evidence for the gods is unlikely."Why do you say that? How do you know?
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/27/2003, 23:04:43
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman,No credible evidence for the gods has been developed/discovered/presented. Credible evidence is that evidence which many objective observers can examine, test, and evaluate. If and when someone or more importantly a number of individuals present credible evidence for the gods, there will be interest in taking a look at such evidence. Until such presentation is made, affirmative conclusions (for the gods) are but speculation and assertion without support. JAK
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/28/2003, 00:36:36
Author Profile Mail author
|
Try it this way:The non-physical has NOT been disproved. SOME of the reasons it has not been disproved might be: 1. It is not provable 2. No one has tried to prove it 3. It doesn't exist. Better? Victoria p.s. Bahman, while science has not proven the non-physical, it most certainly DOES accept the non-physical but not in relation to God.
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/28/2003, 01:49:34
Author Profile Mail author
|
"p.s. Bahman, while science has not proven the non-physical, it most certainly DOES accept the non-physical but not in relation to God."What non-physical does science accept?
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/28/2003, 01:55:46
Author Profile Mail author
|
The unseen fifth dimension in the cyclical universe theory. If you are not familiar with this, ask Craig. Going now,
Victoria
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/28/2003, 01:32:07
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman,Generally, one proves a positive not a negative. Your subject title here is confusing. One proves (it is still the wrong word in a scientific sense) a positive. If one makes a positive assertion, it is HIS responsibility to offer evidence that his claim is correct. That evidence is responsibly tested by others who hear it or see the evidence which the person offered for its validity. If one makes a claim for which there is NO evidence, his claim is lost for want of support. Recall my “little green men on the moon.” If I assert that, it is I who am obligated to offer evidence for what was asserted. Failure to provide that, allows you or any other observer to conclude with reason, there are no little green men on the moon. The evidence required is affirmative evidence. Regardless of your definition for “non-physical,” disproving is inappropriate. Use my moon men as illustration. I could say, “Have you disproven that there are little green men on the moon?” Your answer is “NO.” You have not disproven. Why? Because you are not obliged to prove a negative. In this illustration you cannot prove a negative. But it would be irrational and unreasonable of ME to say that because you have NOT DISPROVEN, that my assertion about the little green men is TRUE. It is not true. YOU are not obligated to disprove anything. Rather it is I who am obligated to prove to you the existence of the little green men on the moon. “Disproven” as a word lacks authenticity. JAK
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/28/2003, 00:29:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
Do you really think that the scientific community has any interest in researching "the gods"?Victoria
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/28/2003, 01:46:26
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria asks:Do you really think that the scientific community has any interest in researching "the gods"? The question is off topic, Victoria and irrelevant. The issue is evidence for something Bahman is using the word (or a derivation of the word) “proof” outside its usual mathematical context. What he addresses is that of evidence. The topic or particular issue, matter of fact, or assertion is not particularly important. What is important is that any assertion requires evidence of support if it is to be taken seriously. It could be virtually anything. But to be taken seriously, intellectually speaking, evidence which all interested parties can observe, test, challenge, confirm, etc. is essential. The topic could be water underground (if well drilling is contemplated). JAK
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/27/2003, 21:39:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman states:“It may be proven tomorrow. Then what?” While you are using “proven” in an informal way, the fact is that we have evidence today which we did not have yesterday. Discovery is the process. Humans will, without doubt, find evidence which they do not now possess. If we look back a short time (a hundred years), we recognize that we have evidence today for that which we did not have evidence then. Some cancers today can be treated successfully which could not be so treated only a few years ago. Today, however, medical science is much more highly focused on prevention and genetic disposition to many diseases which we humans contract. In the future, it is most likely that intervention in the DNA will be a means to prevent rather than cure a disease. People will not get the disease. This addresses your question, “Then what?” That is what. But it will be much more than what I have suggested in a few lines. Were you trying to make a point in that question? I’m not quite sure what you intended, Bahman. JAK
Modified by JAK at Sun, Apr 27, 2003, 21:41:24
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/27/2003, 22:25:46
Author Profile Mail author
|
. . . in expanded form is this. If one says because it hasn't been proven, it is unprovable (that was Vicki's assertion), then my answer is, suppose it will be proven tomorrow. If you agree to this possibility, then how can we say it is unprovable?
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/27/2003, 23:23:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman stated:“What I meant .. . in expanded form is this. If one says because it hasn't been proven, it is unprovable (that was Vicki's assertion), then my answer is, suppose it will be proven tomorrow. If you agree to this possibility, then how can we say it is unprovable?” JAK:
You are correct to conclude that merely because something has not been discovered one should not conclude that it will never be discovered. A very short review of history recorded will demonstrate that new things are discovered continuously.As I stated, when something is established that was not previously established or known, the educated and informed recognize the new discovery. “Unprovable” may not be the most accurate terminology. It was 50 years ago that the DNA was discovered. But it has been only recently that scientists (and the rest of us) have come to a new fuller understanding of the blueprint for life -- not just human life, but all life. Weak or non-existent evidence for any conclusion makes that conclusion dubious. Bahman, there are levels of greater or lesser certainty about conclusions. The word “proof” is not just the right word here. That is, evidence which points with great accuracy or certainty to a conclusion is superior for drawing a conclusion. We know or can know that the earth is spherical. No educated, informed person today argues otherwise. The more evidence for a particular conclusion the greater confidence we can have in that conclusion. That general principle governs research and discovery. JAK
Modified by JAK at Sun, Apr 27, 2003, 23:24:47
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/27/2003, 23:44:15
Author Profile Mail author
|
. . . a scientist (maybe you are and I don't know) and you were asked whether scientifically speaking the supernatural existed or not, what would your answer be, in A LINE?
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/28/2003, 01:02:28
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman stated:“If you were a scientist (maybe you are and I don't know) and you were asked whether scientifically speaking the supernatural existed or not, what would your answer be, in A LINE?” JAK:
“Scientifically speaking” there is no evidence for the supernatural.That response somewhat begs the definition which you imply by asking the question. You may know what you mean by that. I know what I mean by that. Definitions are required. You are using a term supernatural. Can you define precisely what you mean by the use of that term? Can you give examples of form or function for it? JAK
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/27/2003, 23:58:16
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman, It was not my assertion that because a thing hasn't been proven it is unprovable. You took one portion of my comment out of context. Here is what I actually stated: "it means that the supernatural has not been proven, is not proveable or doesn't exist." If I want to look like an idiot here I am quite capable of doing it on my own. Sheesh.
Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, Apr 28, 2003, 00:01:02
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/28/2003, 00:13:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
. . . just want to improve my English. Here is your whole post:"You: if there is no proof for the existence of the supernatural, does is mean that it does not exist?
Me: Duh, Bahman...it means that the supernatural has not been proven, is not proveable or doesn't exist." How is one supposed to read that? PS: OK I guess it is all hidden in the "or". Reminds me of Clinton and his nitpicking in connection with you know what and who!
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/28/2003, 00:18:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman, Those were optional conclusions one might draw in response to your question. As follows... 1. That the supernatural has not been proven is a given.
That is to say...we know it has not been proven. 2. That the supernatural is not provable.
That is to say...one of the reasons it may not have been
proven is because it is not provable. 3. That the supernatural does not exist.
That is to say that one of the reasons it may not have
been proven is because it doesn't exist to begin with. See? Victoria
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, Apr 28, 2003, 00:18:54
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/28/2003, 01:12:35
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman,Actually your reading is correct here. Vicki’s quote (assuming you have it right) is an example of the exclusive “or.” I don’t think she said quite what she intended. Perhaps, but an exclusive or is different from an inclusive or. JAK
Modified by JAK at Mon, Apr 28, 2003, 01:15:42
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/28/2003, 01:08:14
Author Profile Mail author
|
Yes you are what you said. But a little help is always good.JAK
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/28/2003, 01:11:33
Author Profile Mail author
|
the no insult rule has been suspended. V
Modified by Victoria! at Mon, Apr 28, 2003, 01:18:12
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/28/2003, 01:58:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria,Say what? I guess I don’t understand your title or post. I was just agreeing with you. I take it that you intended an insult in this, or are you just joking? In any event, I won’t jump to a conclusion which may be wrong. JAK
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/27/2003, 21:21:53
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman states:
OK, but I don't know what you mean by: "How can one prove something without any evidence?" No matter, let me ask you this then: Scientifically speaking (not by personal opinion), if there is no proof for the existence of the supernatural, does is mean that it does not exist?Evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove facts in question. What don’t you understand about that? The more information which supports a given conclusion, the greater likelihood the conclusion is valid -- true. Conversely, the less information which tends to support a conclusion the less likely that the conclusion is valid. Additionally, the more observers who reach the same conclusion about the information, the greater likelihood it is valid. The presumption is that those observers are objective -- that is they do not have preconceived notions about the conclusion before the facts which are collected and presented on the matter in question. For example, the more a new drug produces a same desirable effect on people who take the drug, the greater likelihood the drug is effective on a wide range of people for whom the drug is intended to produce a particular result. Insulin controls sugar in people whose own body is unable to control sugar. That fact is a result of thousands of tests. Before those tests were conducted on humans, they were conducted on animals. The same process has been applied for many of the drugs today which are accepted by the Food & Drug Administration as effective. When you say, “I don’t know what you mean by: ‘How can one prove something without any evidence?’, the above is a partial answer to that question. Evidence for something may not constitute proof in the formal sense, but evidence is the starting point. If a person make some assertion, another says, “prove it.” In short, the one who says, “prove it” is asking for evidence. Absent evidence for any “supernatural” we cannot conclude there is such an entity. Absent evidence in much earlier times for assertion of “gods” it would have been invalid to conclude that there were gods. You use the term “supernatural.” What is that? By using the term, you imply such an entity exists. There is no evidence for such an entity. If you, you intend to assert such an entity, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence for all to see and evaluate for your assertion. The same would be true if I were to assert there are little green men on the moon. If I were to make such a claim or assertion, you and all others who heard my claim should ask for evidence for little green men on the moon.. If I can provide no evidence for my claim, you and others may reasonably conclude (for the time and in the absence of evidence) that there are no little green men on the moon. Just why you ask the question in the above context is unclear. JAK
Modified by JAK at Sun, Apr 27, 2003, 21:26:56
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/30/2003, 23:00:56
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman, If at first you don’t understand, try reading a second time. JAK
Modified by JAK at Wed, Apr 30, 2003, 23:35:57
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
05/01/2003, 09:16:25
Author Profile Mail author
|
To me, nature necessarily includes everything that exists or can possibly exist (including God, if there is such a being). If something exists, it certainly has some kind of attributes or "nature" of its own that would distinguish it from anything else that exists (whether we can discern or define those attributes or comprehend its "nature" or not). By this definition, to declare that some entity is supernatural or somehow outside of nature is equivalent to an inadvertant denial that it actually exists! This is not to say that we can safely conclude that anything for which we have no proof does not exist, but if it exists at all, whether we have any proof for it or not, it would be self-contradictory to say that it is also supernatural.Gunnar
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
05/01/2003, 10:01:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
I am not sure if your post answers my question or not. So, to simplify matters let me ask this. Your explanation seems to be based on the terms, nature, natural and supernatural. Now, would your post be still valid, or can you modify it, if we were to discrad 'supernatural' and use only non-physical?
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
05/05/2003, 01:20:38
Author Profile Mail author
|
You raise an interesting question. How do we establish that something is non-physical? If it exists at all, and we can somehow detect and positively verify that it exists, how could we unequivocally establish that using "non-physical" means? If non-physical means are sufficient to establish its existence, can it really be said to be "non-physical?" How would you define "non-physical?" I suppose one could regard our thoughts and abstract ideas as examples of non-physical entities, yet there is a physical component even to them. When we are thinking, our brains generate electrochemical impulses that are measurable, and possibly decodeable to an extent as we learn more about the workings of our brains and how to interpret these impulses. Are not these electrochemical impulses physical processes? Can we have or experience thoughts that are not associated or produced by such impulses? Can non-physical entities influence or be influenced by physical reality? If so, can one really justify regarding them as non-physical to begin with? If not, what difference does it make to us whether they even exist?Gunnaar
|
Posted by: james ®
05/04/2003, 17:45:49
Author Profile Mail author
|
Science, as far as I know is based upon observation, evidence and CRITICAL peer review. I capitalize critical, as it often takes A LOT of evidence to prove certain things. Especially when it overturns current knowledge or understanding.Results of experiments must be able to be reproduced by other people. There are a lot of observations out there that haven't become fact because it hasn't been observed by others, or repeated. Does not mean you didn't see what you saw, but that nobody else did. Maybe other people saw what you did. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately depending upon how you see things....there are critics who will be VERY difficult to change their mind. These people are looking for very solid evidence, especially when it comes to the supernatural. Critics may have good reason for not believing in the supernatural. Perhaps they don't want to follow the rules that go along with the supernatural belief. Maybe they can see the world without needing the supernatural for an explanation. Maybe they just like being a critic...who knows...
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
04/28/2003, 00:36:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
it's not an axiom, and there certainly could be something out there we can't observe. The problem is, if we can't observe it, if we have no access to it, what makes you think we can even begin to talk intelligibly about it?
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/28/2003, 00:48:26
Author Profile Mail author
|
Most discoveries start with hunches. And I am sure there is enough hunch in this case.
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
04/29/2003, 01:07:36
Author Profile Mail author
|
how do you have hunches about a world that you have absolutely no access to?
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/29/2003, 11:10:46
Author Profile Mail author
|
. . . in my dictionary is defined as:
"a feeling about something not based not based on known facts"
I'm sure we have been having a lot of hunches thru the centuries about the case on hand.
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/29/2003, 20:41:36
Author Profile Mail author
|
hunch Roget s II:
The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995. “...Intuitive cognition: feeling, idea, impression, intuition, suspicion” While as your dictionary states, a hunch is “a feeling about something not based not based on known facts," that definition combined with the above citation suggests that facts and information do play a role. That is, the hunch is not completely devoid of general information and access to facts. I have a hunch it will rain. That hunch may be based on very limited information. But it is based on something other than a wild guess. You stated:
“Most discoveries start with hunches.” Although that may be the case, those hunches were not wild totally uninformed guesses. The fact that successful treatments for one disease were known and were favorable gave medical scientists the hunch that other diseases might be successfully treated. The hunch was not a mindless one even though there may have been an absence of direct facts to support it. JAK
Modified by JAK at Tue, Apr 29, 2003, 20:42:43
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/30/2003, 07:26:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
JAK; Good thinking. I have a "hunch" that you are reasonably well read. I also have a "hunch" that there are those who confuse having a "hunch", with "wishful thinking".Am I close? TLC
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/30/2003, 20:56:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
TLC,I have a hunch you are correct about “hunch” and “wishful thinking.” :-) JAK
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
04/30/2003, 14:14:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
you're confusing "facts" with the unknowable. Before you offered a dimension or something that is completely invisible to the senses (and I'm extrapolating and taking this to mean invisible to instrumental observation as well). Even at my job I often make decisions based on hunches because sometimes my time is limited for making these decisions. But these guesses are still based in the real, material world that I experience everyday, they can't always be said to be based on "facts" though. Again, how can you have a hunch about a world that isn't knowable in any way to us?
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/30/2003, 14:36:00
Author Profile Mail author
|
Fer; I suspect very strongly that there are those that confuse hunches with wishful thinking. Or at least, wishful dreaming. The emotions involved, without rationalizing, are quite similar, I think.TLC
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/30/2003, 21:07:43
Author Profile Mail author
|
Fer-de-lance,Well stated! Particularly your sentence: “But these guesses are still based in the real, material world that I experience everyday, they can't always be said to be based on ‘facts’ though.” A hunch is based on something. Even if people don’t know precisely what that something is, there is either a conscious or an unconscious mental process which leads them to conclude what they conclude. “Wishful thinking” is based on something even though it may be entirely erroneous. JAK
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/28/2003, 00:51:49
Author Profile Mail author
|
The scientific community already DOES talk intelligbly about the unseen and unobservable and incorporates it into theory. Victoria
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
04/28/2003, 01:13:57
Author Profile Mail author
|
to the scientific community/organization if God WAS proven let's say as the creator of the Universe?Victoria
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/28/2003, 02:05:06
Author Profile Mail author
|
Victoria,A premature hypothetical question. Let’s see if such a development occurs. This hypothetical is a dead end. It is best to stay with what has and has not happened. Science handles genuine discovery very well. JAK
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/28/2003, 09:28:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
Vicki; When the scientific community/organization proves God as creator of the universe, they will place this in the ranks of another solving of mysteries, albeit a major one, if not the ultimate one. Contrary to popular belief, there are many in the scientific community that would relish such a discovery.But what if the exposing of that man behind the curtain, just opens up another can of worms that starts the whole process all over again? This has been an historical track record of discovery, hasn't it? What if God then says "now that you have found me out, there are still mysteries out there that even I need help in solving? OOOOOOOOOh!! Scary huh? See how my mind works, I can use as many "ifs" as anyone else. Terry
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
04/29/2003, 01:14:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
Then I guess I'd believe there was a creator the universe, and the scientific community probably would too.
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
04/29/2003, 01:10:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
not in the way you are thinking they do. Maybe you can give me an example you have in mind from science, and we can discuss how it is similar or different from speculating about god.
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/28/2003, 08:42:51
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman; I have a feeling that my smug sounding awnser in another post prompted this thread. In fact, I am almost sure of it.If and when the field of science finds definate and undeniable proof that your supernatural entities or whatever, exist beyond a doubt of any kind, then at that moment, they will cease to be supernatural and will join the ranks of the natural. How could they continue to be supernatural, if we know about them? In your view, does the very fact that humans can conjure up almost limitless adaptations to reality, automatically qualify them as worthy of pursuit? What is your definition of "supernatural" without referring to Webster. No cheating here! TLC
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/28/2003, 09:51:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
......going round and round on this wheel of eternal seeking of the ultimate truth, with no end in sight.
But I have to wonder, isn't it the running that is the fun and if that poor little hamster, somehow came to the end of his wheel, what then?I honestly feel that it is the quest of the "unknowns" that is the meaningful purpose in all this, and not the getting to the end. On the discovery of God. Everyone would rejoice, including Athiests, I'm sure. But the thrill of the hunt would be gone. If it is proven that there is no God, would people be jumping out of buildings in despair, or on the other hand, would people put more of a premium on this short little lifespan that we have that might produce an unprecedented coming together of all the world's people in a "real" common bond? All of the prior rediculous, religious differences and bigotry that have destroyed so many lives, would be gone. TLC
Modified by TLC at Mon, Apr 28, 2003, 10:17:36
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/28/2003, 10:19:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
Don't overjoy. Even if there was no god and no religion, the fallible imperfect human beings that we are will always find something to quarrel about.
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/28/2003, 11:06:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
Yes Bahman, we will always find somethimg to quarrel about, no matter what. That is an inherent design in nature. It is a natural part of the survival instinct. But we would have to search long and hard to come up with an equal, when considering the hate that religious bigotry has produced. Over population and depletion of natural resources would be a good candidate, don't you agree? It's coming. Terry
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/28/2003, 12:39:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
. . . overpopulation and depletion of natural resources are certainly getting worse. Also don't forget nationalism and ethnicity and the like. Not that "religious bigotry" is going anywhere, mind you.
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/28/2003, 21:49:56
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman,Before concepts of “God” there were concepts of gods -- plurality and goddesses. The evolution of religion in culture is slow. Evidence and discovery do not quickly alter believing the unbelievable. You are correct in that people will disagree. But that disagreement is good. We challenge one another to offer better evidence. We challenge one another to give better explanations. That is good. The best explanations supported with the best evidence produce better solutions to problems confronting people. JAK
Modified by JAK at Mon, Apr 28, 2003, 21:51:14
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/28/2003, 21:39:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
TLC stated:
“ If it is proven that there is no God, would people be jumping out of buildings in despair, or on the other hand, would people put more of a premium on this short little lifespan that we have that might produce an unprecedented coming together of all the world's people in a "real" common bond? All of the prior rediculous, religious differences and bigotry that have destroyed so many lives, would be gone.”“People” would in varying degrees both accept and reject the “proof” what ever it was. There wouldn’t be any universal acceptance. Even now, science has proven that evolution of life and species is fact. Science has the evidence. And as evidence is added, it confirms evolution and continuation of genes and DNA. Yet many reject science in favor of old doctrines. While there might be elements of the “common bond” for some, it would not be universal and people would fight about conclusions. JAK
Modified by JAK at Mon, Apr 28, 2003, 21:40:07
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/28/2003, 10:14:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
"What is your definition of "supernatural" without referring to Webster. No cheating here!"I'm surprised you are asking. I've been especially alert to always convey the message that in my discussions supernatural = non-physical. And no, if they ever prove the existence of a non-physical world, it will still be non-physical.
|
Posted by: TLC ®
04/28/2003, 10:42:58
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman; Awnser me this then. Is a magnetic field physical? We really can't explain what it is, only it's effects. How about gravity? You might just as well call it supernatural as science still hasn't figured this one out either. We witness many effects without understanding the source, which is often nothing solid or measurable. Perhaps this your understanding of God. You witness the effects without understanding the source. Question: If your suspicions are correct, that the supernatural and the physical are in different dimensions of reality, then what do you offer as the medium of transferrance of cause and effect between the two? If your God exists, it is he who created the laws of physics and only he is capable of implementing them at levels beyond mere humans ability to comprehend. Then again, we might be talking semantics here also. With all respect, Terry
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/28/2003, 12:48:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
When they (I) talk about non-physical world, it is more than something like magnetic field. There must be some kind of concsiousness and intelligence above and beyond what we see here in the physical. Remember all the spirits, and God, are there! Of course you don't accept that. But that is what I am saying."Question: If your suspicions are correct, that the supernatural and the physical are in different dimensions of reality, then what do you offer as the medium of transferrance of cause and effect between the two?" I don't know!
|
Posted by: JAK ®
04/28/2003, 22:06:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman states:
“When they (I) talk about non-physical world, it is more than something like magnetic field. There must be some kind of concsiousness and intelligence above and beyond what we see here in the physical. Remember all the spirits, and God, are there! Of course you don't accept that. But that is what I am saying. JAK:
What is your evidence or your reason to conclude that there are “spirits” or “God”? Not speaking for TLC, but I don’t accept anything rooted in ancient mythology. That is where your conjecture comes from. You don’t know those things “are there!” Your exclamation mark suggests you are not open to information. TLC previously:
"Question: If your suspicions are correct, that the supernatural and the physical are in different dimensions of reality, then what do you offer as the medium of transferrance of cause and effect between the two?" Bahman states:
I don't know! JAK:
That is an honest response. I commend you for it. You also do not know there are “spirits” or “God.” No evidence objectively gathered, subjected to peer review exists to support speculation about “spirits,” gods, or “God.” JAK
|
Posted by: Artem ®
04/28/2003, 15:51:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
I assume by 5 senses you also mean anything that we can observe indirectly (like looking through a microscope).Well you really have 3 choices when you can't observe something. You can assume that if you can't observe something, then it doesn't exist. Or you can assume that even though you can't observe it, it does exist. I don't know about you, but the first assumption seems a smaller leap of faith than the second. The third choice is basically admitting that making any assumption about something that you can't show evidence for is not safe. I personally like to live by this one, but I can also understand and relate to the first choice. I have the most trouble with the second.
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
04/28/2003, 16:40:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
Note that, in my book, the first and second assumptions can only be asserted as a belief and not scientifically. In other words, I can say that I BELIEVE that the non-physical world exists. Note that we humans hold a lot of beliefs regardless of what science may say.
Now, scientifically speaking, your third choice is the winner. I wished all atheist would see it that way!!
|
Posted by: Artem ®
04/28/2003, 17:21:10
Author Profile Mail author
|
yes, this is why I don't count myself an atheist. But between the two, "not believing" is a safer assumption. I hope you can see why. To me it is similar to presumption of innocense. Until proven existing, supernatural can be assumed not to exist.
|
|
|
