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
|
|
|
