Science of itself does not present claims and reasons on issues; others interpret it wrongly; it is a useful tool of the humanity ; and if interpreted correctly it is not in contradiction of the truthful religion.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I find it interesting when people claim that science has proven a negative, or proven a limit. I find it even more interesting when these people claim to be scientists.
I dropped out of my physics program when I was told that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe. I've known for a long time that there is no scientific way to say that something is the limit, or something is impossible. Yet, we still have these claims made all the time.
True science is the pursuit of truth. Just like true religion.
True science is subject to scientific method, religion is subject to goddunnit scripture.
Not quite the same thing is it?
Science doesn't have 300 different versions of each "truth"
Earnest, it's all about interpretation. 'Science' has consistently made claims that were later proven to be false. The same with 'Religion'.
I'm talking about true science, and true religion. They are both the *pursuit* of truth. Once you think you've found it is when you find yourself wrong and not learning anymore.
There is a reason why science is objective and religion is subjective. Your comments are the same as trying to completely debunk science because of scientists that made erroneous claims.
Science moves forward only when it has something that is refutable. It is the nature of science to apply rigorous conditions on all of it's understandings, most of which are able to be used by all of us daily, so they are more than theories.
The OBT will allow us to answer questions that haven't even been asked yet, so the Hubble telescope was a mistake?
Science moves forward in the light of better information, whereas religion is stuck in bronze aged dogma.
I'm sorry, you have that backward. Science only moves forward when it can hypothesize about the results of an experiment, make predictions based off those results, and checks the predictions against future experiments. Science doesn't learn anything from failures. To say otherwise means you don't understand science.
I'm sorry, I don't know what the OBT is, nor do I understand your question about the hubble telescope. When did I say it was a mistake?
Science moves forward with input of information. Saying that 'spiritual' information, whether you consider it truth, energy, light, or divine knowledge, is ignorant, and unscientific.
Let me say that again. Saying that there is no such thing as God, or spirit, or anything like that, is unscientific.
Sure it does. It learns what doesn't work/jive with what it has already learned.
That's a common misconception, but scientifically nothing can be learned from failure. Science can't prove that you can't use wood for filament in a lightbulb. It can only show that previous attempts have been unsuccessful. All a scientific failure is, is something that needs to be tried again.
When people use things that didn't work as facts, and inject those ideas into future experiments, you result in flawed science.
It's not science learning, but the individuals who are into science. Science is nothing more than a process. People learn.
People learn, but sometimes they learn erroneously, and attribute it to science. The speed limit of the universe, for example. Science only moves forward when a hypothesis shows promise through prediction and repeat-ability.
The learning you talk about is subjective, as it falls outside of the scientific method.
Untrue. Individuals can be objective. Not everything is subjective. The Speed Limit of the Universe? It's commonly known as the speed of light. Which is the fastest recorded measurement.
And, since Einstein's not been disproved as of yet, it remains the fastest speed possible.
That is exactly the problem! It's not the fastest speed possible, and should not be considered the fastest speed possible. Nothing in science... NOTHING! states such. It can't.
When these 'assumptions' creep into science, it becomes tainted.
It's the fastest speed recorded(not really anymore, but you get the point).
What mass has moved faster, and under what conditions? What was it's velocity, relative to a nearby photon?
To make the statement that C is not a limiting velocity for a particle with mass you must have information that I've not seen. What is it?
There is the ongoing research on the FTL neutrinos. Other than that, I don't know of any masses, but there are phenomenon and waves that can do so.
The speed limit C is defined by the theory of special relativity.
There is no scientific law that has set a speed limit for the universe. To say that we've gotten to the point where we've found the end answers is a bit arrogant and has nothing to do with science. Who's to say we won't discover 'dark energy' tomorrow, or discover methods of bending space time, or who knows what else?
Science can't define limits. I'm sorry, but it just cant. People try, but eventually they get overturned.
Are you sure you are understanding the concept, or are you just using the popular view and/or terminology?
Special relativity sets conditions on mass and time such that it is impossible for any mass to reach the speed of light. There is a limit to the velocity a mass can travel at.
The common terminology is that the speed of light is the fastest anything can go.
The two are not the same thing. Special relativity sets a "speed limit" for any mass in our normal space-time continuum. It says nothing, for instance, about worm holes or black holes. It says nothing about propagation speeds for "gravity waves" whatever that might be. It does not address string theory where "information" can be passed at speeds greater than C. It has nothing to do with an electron that "jumps" from one location to another in it's "orbit" around the nucleus or changes energy states and "jumps" orbits.
I'm not an expert on special relativity, but I do have a basic understanding of it. I don't mean for this to turn into a debate about any specific scientific theory. It's still a theory that sets a limit. To believe the limit means the theory must be true and must account for every possibility. I'll amend my statement. No one can say that tomorrow we won't discover a type of propulsion that allows something to travel faster than the speed of light in our normal space-time continuum. All we have are theories and hypothesis based off our current understanding. Unfortunately, there have been people for hundreds/thousands of years that thought everything worth discovering has been discovered, or that someone has discovered the best possible something.
The simple point is, nothing proven with the scientific method can say what isn't possible, by nature. This is because you can only prove things that happen. These limits come from formulas created to try and explain results.
Yes, it's called the Permittivity and Permeability of space. Check it out.
Do you not understand the difference between theories, formulas, even laws, and experimental results?
Results are truth. Everything else is us trying to explain results. Even scientific laws are overturned when we learn better. You're the type that believes we have, will, or even can, arrive at a point where we know everything.
Far better than you, obviously.
Aww, just can't keep to the subject matter, you have to keep telling me about MY TYPE. Hilarious.
You keep dodging the point. According to you, something we can't detect yet is impossible and ridiculous. According to you, gamma rays would have been impossible and ridiculous in the 1800's, Quarks would have been a silly thought in 1950...
There have been people like you as far back as you go into history, who have the ego to decide what is possible and what isn't. We accredit our advances and breakthroughs to those who didn't, and those who don't.
Yes, you can continue to make up nonsense and stories about me all the day long. It doesn't change the fact you have no idea what you're talking about.
LOL! Please do continue showing us that delusions and reality are one and the same, at least, in your world.
It's not nonsense by any means. You claim something doesn't exist because you can't see it. I tried to illustrate that to you with examples of things we know about now, but didn't know about before. Just as with spirit, those things were considered by many to be ridiculous until they were discovered. But you're different, because you know. And in 100 years, when we have a new discovery, someone else will know that that's as far as we'll get.
It's called being close-minded.
Notice that those are two completely different premises?
Spirits have been discovered? Where?
One is something that we can't see, and haven't figured out a way to see yet.
Another is something that we couldn't see until recently.
The only difference is technology.
They haven't. But, if you say that, because they haven't been discovered, they are 'magical', then everything that hasn't been discovered is 'magical'. You can't apply different definitions of what is real to different things to suit your opinions.
And laughing at an argument you can't refute is called being immature.
So, spirits haven't been discovered but you know they exist?
LOL! Still can't distinguish reality from fantasy?
You would have to formulate an argument first, I'm laughing at the hysterical claims you're making.
Objectively, I don't know they exist. I believe they do subjectively. Actually, my subjective feelings are stronger than that but that's not what the argument is about
You can't even define what makes something real. You say you have to be able to see something with light for it to be real, but you ignore everything I use as an example that can't be seen with light.
You either have to pick:
A - Nothing that isn't discovered yet is real.
B - Everything that hasn't been discovered is a possibility.
otherwise, you are using two forms of logic to define reality.
I have formulated plenty of arguments. They are just the parts you skip over and don't respond to. I'll ask again(3rd or 4th time?).
Have you ever seen an x-ray?
Oh but, it is about what your subjective feelings and what you believe exists compared with the objectivity of reality, completely and entirely.
Sorry, but using the fallacy that B is real because A is real does not fly. Your examples were laughable.
No, you are using several forms of fallacies in a one dimensional conclusion to support silly claims for the existence of spirits.
No, but I've seen the spirit of an x-ray.
You said, that if I can't see spirit, it can't be real.
You said, you can't see x-rays... but they are real.
Want to really discuss logical fallacies?
That is a fallacy and that is not what I said. Please stop lying.
If it's a fallacy, then why don't you explain it rather than just stating I am using fallacies? You have done that before, stating that I have used a fallacy without arguing why.
You just said, if I can't show how spirit generates the light to see it, I can't go on with my claims, yet I never said spirit can be seen with visible light. You are the one that started down that path.
You're just like Mikel, presenting one fallacy after another without understanding what they are.
Many have claimed to see spirits, how do you see them? How do they generate the visible light to see them. Explain.
If you can't explain, how can you even claim the possibility of them exists?
You are going round and round in circles.
For you to claim something is a fallacy, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders. You can't just call something a fallacy and it makes it so. If you want to have a discussion, why don't you say why?
Haha! You still are requiring me to prove other people's experiences and other people's definitions! I never said I see them, and you want me to prove how they can be seen?
I claim the possibility of them existing, along with anything else that exists, yet can't be seen with the human eye. X-rays can't be seen with the human eye. Atoms can't, electrons can't, protons can't, photons can't, neutrons can't, neutrinos can't, quarks can't, etc etc etc.
Actually, the burden of understanding and not using fallacies in your response is on you, not me. If you're unable to read your own posts and not see them before posting them here, then you don't know what they are.
Here's a list, read and understand them, but don't use them.
Oh, I see now, the fact is you really, really, really want to believe something other than what science has found.
You keep bringing up the subject of light speed, what is your problem with it?
Baloney. WD40 came out a failure. So did silly putty as did teflon coatings for pans. Many of the handy gadgets we use every day are the failures from trying to find something else. Even failures very often provide useful information.
Why won't people read what I write? I said, 'scientifically, nothing can come from failure'. No scientific proof can come from a failed experiment. Real scientific truth comes only from the scientific method.
I never said that failures are completely useless in every way.
I'll explain it this way.
You try to invent a light-bulb. You place a piece of coal in the light-bulb and turn on the power. No light. Scientifically, you haven't proven anything. You have shown that in this instance, coal didn't produce light. But, you haven't proven that coal *can't* produce light. When you put a filament in the light-bulb and get light, you have scientifically proven that it is possible to create light with that setup.
And yet, still, I imagine someone will reply with something that doesn't actually apply to my point... *sigh*
Sorry - I took your words "scientifically nothing can be learned from failure" to mean that nothing can be learned from failure. Obviously we learned how to make one of the most useful products ever invented (WD40) from a science investigation trying to find something else. We proved that mixing this chemical and that resulted in what we now call WD40. By accident, but we proved it.
Guess I just don't understand...*sigh*
You're still not listening. With the scientific process, a failed experiment doesn't prove anything. Perhaps I could have used better wording, originally that phrase was used in reference to science's inability to prove a negative. Due to the rabid nature of some on these forums, the original point has been lost, and I continue to try and bring it back.
Nowhere did I say that no knowledge can be gained from a failure. What I did say is that according to the scientific model, nothing is proven through failure. In other words, you can't prove that something is impossible. You can only show that you haven't been able to do it yet.
If you want to get nitpicky, I'll use another example. Let's say you put rubber in a light-bulb, turn it on, and it makes music. For the purposes of trying to produce light this would be a failed experiment, and would do nothing towards proving how to produce light. The same experiment could be used in studies of sound, so essentially you stumbled upon a different successful experiment.
This is so ridiculous, people argue so fervently when they don't even know what the argument is about. You can watch these arguments shift and evolve... it's the difference between a good discussion/debate and an argument. In a debate, people know what the topic points are.
I may not be listening, but you're not thinking. Consider the experiment to make a light bulb.
Hypothesis: coal, but in a light bulb will produce light.
Test: Put a chunk of coal in a light bulb and turn it on. Nothing happens.
Conclusion: The experiment has proven that, under the conditions of the test coal will not produce light.
This is valuable information and is proof of a negative. It can be the starting point for a new hypothesis and test. It is also a failed test and hypothesis because the hypothesis was false and the test failed to produce the desired result.
However, you're absolutely right that this has become an argument about nothing. It's not a debate, it is little more than a failed discussion of semantics.
I'm sorry, I was tired and worded some things poorly. My argument about the negative was directed at the possibility of science proving an impossibility. You are correct that you can show that under certain test conditions something didn't happen, or that it is unlikely to happen, but not that it is impossible.
Just as I showed you the Michelson-Morley experiment. Yeah, you really know your stuff.
And what did the Michelson-Morley experiment prove to be impossible? Like I said before, you don't understand the difference between what experimental results mean, and theories that thy to explain them.
That an aether existed. Are you actually saying you didn't know that?
You don't understand the experiment then. It didn't prove anything is impossible. It proved that light travels at the same speed in all directions. That's all. The only experimental result was that light travels the same speed in any direction.
Anything else derived from those results is subjective.
"Michelson calculated that an aether windspeed of only one or two miles a second would have observable effects in this experiment, so if the aether windspeed was comparable to the earth’s speed in orbit around the sun, it would be easy to see. In fact, nothing was observed. The light intensity did not vary at all. Some time later, the experiment was redesigned so that an aether wind caused by the earth’s daily rotation could be detected. Again, nothing was seen. Finally, Michelson wondered if the aether was somehow getting stuck to the earth, like the air in a below-decks cabin on a ship, so he redid the experiment on top of a high mountain in California. Again, no aether wind was observed. It was difficult to believe that the aether in the immediate vicinity of the earth was stuck to it and moving with it, because light rays from stars would deflect as they went from the moving faraway aether to the local stuck aether.
The only possible conclusion from this series of very difficult experiments was that the whole concept of an all-pervading aether was wrong from the start."
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classe … elson.html
You quote someone's interpretations of fact as fact. Like I said, you don't understand the difference between the truth that is represented in experiments and our attempts to explain them.
Another possible explanation: aether doesn't have the expected effect on light.
It is their, I mean atheists', general expression to say that they are finished with any reasonable arguments.
That's the problem with you Paar, you seem to think you're reasonable, even when you cannot see reason for what it is. Enough said on that subject.
So you would have me believe that a belief in an invisible personal entity who runs the world is scientific? I don't think so.
Did I write OBT? That would be a typo.
The LBT is the new Large Binocular Telescope, which will replace the Hubble as the strongest telescope we have, thus the reference.
Maybe you should go back and read the thread I started that you made fun of as 'aimed at primary school children'.
I never said belief in God is scientific. I said trying to prove that he doesn't exist is unscientific. You have a tendency to put words into peoples' mouths.
Ok, you originally said OBT, not LBT. I still don't understand why you referenced it... trying to put words in my mouth again I guess.
I don't have a reputation for putting words in other peoples mouths. Never have been accused of that much even on here.
I will leave you to your devices as we don't seem able to understand each other at all well.
Belief in the Creator God is sensible and real; it need not be scientific which is very limited at a point of time.
Like the Michelson-Morley experiment?
No, it is not unscientific to say that, especially when science already understands things like spirits couldn't possibly exist without magic.
Show me how science proves that spirit is impossible.
Show me. Not an argument. Not by saying so, but show me how science proves that.
Can you see a spirit? How does it generate the light required for you to see it?
1 - That's an argument, not a scientific proof.
2 - Have you ever heard of dark matter?
3 - Why does something have to generate light to exist? What's your definition of light? How do you know there aren't other frequencies or types of frequencies that we haven't discovered yet? What kind of wave is possible with higher energy than gamma rays? What is smaller than the particles we have discovered up to this point?
You constantly assume that things that haven't been discovered are impossible, but history has proven that a silly idea.
No, it's evidence. Again, can you see spirits, if so, how do they generate the light required to see them. Please explain.
So, that we can see it, that's how our eyes work. Didn't you take biology in high school?
All wonderful questions, although entirely irrelevant and little more than a fallacious ploy to detract away from the subject matter.
Aww, still focusing on me and not the subject matter. Just can't formulate an argument, yet?
I asked for scientific evidence. Asking for proof of something is not the same as scientifically proving it doesn't exist.
Anything smaller than 380 nm in size can't be seen with visible light. Does that mean everything smaller than 380 nm can't exist?
Ok, what is it?
Again, what about things smaller than 380nm? Don't they exist?
Just trying to get you to realize that being visible in light isn't a requirement for something to exist.
I've formed plenty of arguments, which you just laugh at. Answer the question, is something that hasn't been discovered yet automatically impossible?
I had a man once explain to me that when the theologian searches for truth he will consult old books, maybe current ones or maybe not. He will think deeply about the "problem", maybe consult other theologians, maybe not and come to a conclusion as to what is "truth".
Not quite the scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation and testing, peer review, etc.; all the trappings of the scientific method, but it works for religious "truth". I guess.
It also does a neat job of explaining why there are 300 versions of religious "truth" as it would be difficult to conceive of a more subjective methodology.
Why science needs a hypothesis while that it will ultimate come with exists already in the nature?
A hypothesis is little more than a guess as to what is happening. It is a starting point, nothing more.
Without somewhere to start your search, you will likely find nothing.
When you start with guessing; you will end at guessing; the peer review of the human beings because they can err; will always have the possibilty of errors; one cannot eliminate it; while nature has no possibility of error.
That's really the big difference, Parr. Science guesses, then spends much time and effort to determine if the guess is right or not. If it is found to be false to fact, why then make another guess and test IT. Religion guesses and promptly declares it Truth. By its very nature there can be no testing, no experimentation and usually no repeatability. We never know if religion has found "truth" or just one more opinion.
That's why we use peer review; to eliminate as much as possible any errors. That and fraud. It helps - as you say people make errors (and lie). The more peers that review and repeat the work, however, the less likely that all will make the same error.
Science has to match its results with nature; if it is in harmony with nature; then it will not find any anomaly and will be accepted, at a given point of time; later one can find an anomaly and the results will be changed.
Experiments could be wrongly interpreted by those who perform them; hence the results.
Yes, of course science must match nature. That's why it tests and experiments; to see if the guess matches nature. Unless errors or fraud are present but not found by peer review nearly all scientific results remain as truth, undergoing only small changes as measurements become more accurate. Of course, we are finding all sorts of scientific results that we thought were true but turn out not to be so when applied to conditions never considered by the inventors.
Relativistic speeds, for instance, or conditions around a black hole. They play havoc with time and mass, which until Einstein was inviolable every where. Science had to grow and find new truths for these previously unknown conditions.
What does religion compare its "truths" to? What the researcher wants to be true? What else can there be?
Time is an important dimension for science; it cannot be ignored.
Science is understanding nature- the Work of the Creator God, in a systematic way; and its usefulness cannot be denied.
Religion is understanding life and its purpose from the Word of the Creator God.
If understood correctly both support one-another as the originator of both is ONE and the same Being; there is no necessarilty any contradiction in them .
While it is true that science supports and helps find religious "truth" it is usually in the form of providing information and facts that contradict the belief system and force it to change. In this manner science can help religion find its truth.
Religion, on the other hand, can only provide questions for science to answer, but very few of them have an answer and those that do very often are unprovable; science can only provide probabilities and likely scenarios, not actual facts. These questions would inevitably come up anyway, so in reality religion does not support science. On the contrary it most often denies the facts presented because they contradict beliefs and thus slows science discovery down unnecessarily.
The answers provided by religion are never satisfactory to science because the don't follow the accepted methodology of getting there. They are not verifiable and cannot be checked for truthfulness and thus science doesn't care to examine them.
As an example, consider the question of God's existence. Religion will guess "yes" and give the resounding answer that God exists. Science cannot answer at all because it doesn't know where to look, it doesn't know what to look for, it doesn't know even know how God's actions are manifested. It might guess "yes" as a hypothesis or it might guess "no" but in neither case can it test the hypothesis; the result is no answer at all. Without the ability to test their hypothesis (guess) science isn't interested in the question. A guess is valuable to science only when it can lead to verifiable truth; it does not lead to an automatic declaration of truth as it does for religion.
The "understanding" that you claim for religion isn't there by scientific standards. An unsupported guess is only that; a guess without a foundation. It cannot be called truth or understanding until a foundation of evidence is built under it.
Religion does not guess anything; religion speaks reasonably and with certainty. He who created the Universe spoke to truthful human beings in every part of the world.
Truthful religion provides claims and reasons; science is deaf and dumb it does not provide any, others become spokespersons of science unauthorized .
Please don't take scientific method as an alternative of religion; why you believe in it blindly? You don't have to.
The scientific method is the best tool mankind has ever found to determine truth about what is around us. Religion, deciding what is truth based on what a person wants to be true, isn't even a pale shadow.
and the only reason we are able to communicate with each other online is that no gods were involved in building the Internet servers.
Not quite. The scientific method is the best tool we have to determine truth about things that are measurable and observable. If you can't measure it science doesn't apply.
The pursuit of spiritual truth is, in my mind, just as valid and important as scientific. It is the pursuit of truth about yourself. Who you are, who you can be, and the best you can be. The scientific method can't do anything about that yet.
And, neither can religion.
Yet, through the scientific method, we can begin to understand the world around us which will give us a better understanding of ourselves.
It looks like the scientific method can do something about that.
Yes, the scientific method does wonders for learning things objectively. But to discount anything that science can't currently test is ridiculous. Your type would have scoffed at the idea of a round earth, solar system, atoms, x-rays, or any other number of things that were discovered at a time they couldn't be seen.
Are you part of the flat earth society?
Before a new discovery at a given point of time; both the religious and the irreligious are on the same footing; they have yet to accept it.
The learned persons of both sides accept it openly while there are persons on both side who won't accept.
So you don't understand what scientific method is?
I don't mind if you explain it your own way; you know I am a good listener.
The Scientific method arrives at hypothesis and tests it in the following way.
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
Where you get the data from? One could interpret data wrongly then the result would be not far from being correct.
All this human excercise is done to benefit from nature; created by the Creator God.
science is cased on observation, trial and error and then fact. religion is based on faith. it's that simple.
You must be joking. You dropped out of a physics program because you didn't like the comment on the speed of light? I find it difficult to understand why anyone would do that.
Because I realized that science is less about the pursuit of truth, and more about getting publications, grants, and recognition. You can argue, but it's an unfortunate truth.
My dad worked on a board that would review applications for research grants. They had a list of criteria they had to work with, which included political topics such as global warming, deforestation, co2 levels, etc...
If a request came in about studying, for example, oceanic volcano activity as related to average mean earth temperature, it would be denied. If a request came in about studying oceanic volcano activity to prove that global warming is man made, it would be approved.
Just a simplified example, and my 'reason' for dropping out of the physics program was that as well, a simplified explanation. However, it represents the problems with the scientific community. Every true scientist knows you can't prove what the limits of possibility are, yet we have these assumptions and base research off them. Without a solid foundation, research is flawed, and I didn't want to spend my life in that kind of environment.
So I'm sorry, my reasons were more complex than that, that's just a simple example of the problems I ran into.
I would like you to resume your study of science but not following blingdly what its eulogizers say; it is a useful tool of knowledge to borrow from nature what is needed at a point of time by humanity.
I appreciate your good motives.
I still study science, just not formally. I would never be able to complete a degree in science, with a possible exception of cognitive science.
I've decided my path of learning lies outside of universities.
No, personal study. I read textbooks on my own. I read research papers. I read the news. I think...
There are many ways to discover truth. I just don't personally like universities.
And, what do they say about spirits and gods?
I can see why, they don't teach about spirits and gods.
You still don't get it do you?
What if I told you I had thought of a new type of energy... call it hadoosh. It would be self-generating, non-consuming, and have no ill effect on health or environment. Would that automatically fall in the area of 'magical notion'?
Tell me anything you like. Can you show me your hadoosh?
No, I can't. But you just proved my point for me. Had we had this conversation about x-rays in the early 1800s you would have said the same thing about them.
No, I would not. That's desperation and dishonesty showing again.
No, I'm using your own words.
You asked me to prove the existence of spirit by explaining how it generates light that enters our eyes.
By your exact same criteria, x-rays don't exist.
Wow! How desperate can you get?!?
This is a mobile x-ray machine. It GENERATES x-rays. Duh.
Does it? Have you ever seen an x-ray?
You said, if you can't see something, it doesn't exist. Have you ever seen an x-ray?
Have you ever seen an atom?
Have you ever seen the strong force?
Have you ever seen gravity?
Have you ever seen a photon?
Yes, it does, that's why they call it an X-ray machine.
Oh, I see now, you want to ask me more silly questions about reality in order to support your claims of spirits?
If I say I can't see gravity (even though I can accurately measure and predict it's effects) you will say gravity doesn't exist based on your extremely weak position of desperation and dishonesty. Very funny stuff.
You've seen an x-ray machine, but never an x-ray, so how do you know x-rays even exist?
How do you know atoms exist?
Make up your mind and define reality for me. You're going to have to do better than 'things that can be seen with the eye with light'.
If I say you can't see gravity, it is only because you say something can't exist unless you can see it.
I'm going to give you a challenge. Try and answer these two questions:
1 - Have you ever seen an atom, with light?
2 - Do atoms exist?
Because it's called an x-ray machine, so x-rays must exist.
LOL! It's a little more complex than that, but I can see how you might tend to generalize it into a one dimensional concept.
For someone who has allegedly take physics classes, you don't appear to understand even the very basic concepts of observation in science.
I knew would be your answer, again.
Try answering this: Did you, or did you not, tell me that to prove spirit I would have to show you how they can produce/reflect light and be seen with the human eye?
Yes, how do you see them? How do they generate the visible light spectrum for people to see them? Explain that?
I don't see them, I never claimed they are visible with the visible light spectrum.
What I said, is that something doesn't have to be visible with the visible light spectrum to exist.
How do you see x-rays? How do you see atoms?
Keep applying two sets of requirement for reality to different things to suit your needs.
Then, how can you say they possibly exist? We can say the same thing about invisible pink rhinoceros'.
A spirit does have to emit visible light if people claim to see them. Are you starting to understand yet?
Scientifically, yes, we can. The whole point has been that, scientifically, you can't prove that something doesn't exist.
I think they exist due to personal experiences, but that is a subjective matter that can't be proved to anybody else. Asking someone to prove a subjective experience simply means you don't understand the difference between subjective and objective.
You are arguing against ME, troubled. Other people saying they have seen spirits has nothing to do with my burden of proof. I don't claim spirit can be seen with visible light, yet you still require me to prove it?
I understand perfectly that for something to be seen it has to (not necessarily emit, it can reflect as most things do) interact with some type of visible light. Of course I know that, I never said any differently.
Really? How so? You like to call things fallacies with no backup, as if saying they are false makes them so. Sadly, that doesn't work, or I could say you were a toad and you would be one.
What personal experiences, exactly? How did those experiences lead you to the conclusion you were dealing with spirits? Where did you get the notion they were spirits? Did they tell you that?
I can't share all my experiences with a stranger on the internet... they are too personal for that.
Do you understand that you can't prove something to someone else through personal experience?
If one person has seen snow, and another person has never heard of it, the first person can't prove its existence to the second just by talking about it. Subjective vs. objective.
Nope, sorry. You still don't understand. I said all my beliefs. I will share less with you because you mock. But you're not the only person in this thread, so I'm not done
I haven't shared any reasons with you because you haven't asked. You have mocked, but you haven't asked.
Do you even know what arguments you are trying to make? Just any old argument will do, regardless of what you have said previously or what the topic is?
How dishonest of you to mention that.
I said this earlier, look back through my posts...
"What personal experiences, exactly? How did those experiences lead you to the conclusion you were dealing with spirits? Where did you get the notion they were spirits? Did they tell you that?"
I think you unfairly judge science. It is all about truth for some. But, it is no different than any human pursuit. It will be used in order to manipulate, when pursued by the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
It doesn't sound as if you were cut out to pursue a career in science. Nothing wrong with that, but neither is it a reason to belittle it. We wouldn't be where we are today without discoveries made through scientific endeavors.
It is not belittling it; it is giving science the full attention and appreciation it needs; but not more than that; it is just a tool of the human beings deaf and dumb like any other tool.
Its an area where, to do the research I wanted to do, I would have to find my own funding, with no contacts, or 'good-ol-boy' groups. I'm not meaning to completely belittle the scientific community, but anyone who makes science out to more than what it is(disproving possibilities, proving limits), doesn't deserve to be considered a scientist, IMO.
so because no one wanted to fund something you liked you think it is flawed. if every idea someone needed funding for was ok'ed, not only would nothing get done but money, time and manpower would be wasted.
No, I didn't want to be involved in such a politically-driven community. There is too much of 'just try and prove what we want you to prove', and less finding new things for the betterment of humanity. And, like I said earlier, there are more reasons than that, that's just the simplest form of my objections I could quickly present.
Pure baloney. The problem with the scientific community is largely the fact that there are so many religious believers in the world who believe anything that is magical. They come up with all kinds of ridiculous magical notions and then demand funding for their nonsense, taking away valuable funding for legitimate scientific endeavors.
Yes, magical notions that are so ridiculous, like the earth being round, the earth not being the center of the universe, like matter being made up of tiny, invisible-to-the-eye particles, the thought that there could be things that can travel through other matter and take pictures of a human's bones...
Anyone who leaves open the possibility for magical notions is obviously delusional. Anyone who knows that anything we don't know yet is impossible is right. (sarcasm)
And, there is nothing 'baloney' about politically-driven scientific studies, or worse, political manipulation of experimental data, which leads us from truth to fiction.
No, those aren't magical notions. Spirits and gods are magical notions.
Seems you're angry about something that you have to reveal about learning things.
And if we discover tomorrow how to measure and see spirit, would it still be a magical notion? What's the difference between something you can't see today, and something you wouldn't have been able to see 100 or 200 years ago? You aren't using logic, you're just trying to prove a point by calling things you don't think are possible 'magical notions'. To do so means you have proven that they are impossible... care to share how you have proven that?
Also, I told you what I don't like.
This is an easy one. Global warming. It is between difficult and possible to get government funding to study the effect of oceanic volcano activity on the earth temperature, or solar cycles, or any other myriad of contributors.
Worse, it has been proven that scientists have been manipulating data to push the agenda of man-made global warming.
Two different ways that science has corrupted by politics in one subject.
So, you gave up learning as a result. All you have done is show just how little you know of the scientific community, much like many other believers here who dismiss or insult them, all the while using every day of their lives what science has brought them. Typical.
You are right.
I appreciate your love for truth
LOL! I find it very hard to believe you dropped out of physics for that reason. Seriously.
Had you actually stayed there, you would have understood why it is the speed limit of the universe. Oh well. Lost education is a terrible thing.
See my previous quote. There is more to it than that, but yes, I didn't want to spend so many years learning from people who were teaching against their own foundation.
I understand the theory for C being the speed limit, but when it is used as law, you have problems.
That makes no sense. Most likely, there is another issue here that you aren't revealing.
What problems, exactly? Explain.
No other issue, I just didn't like the political aspect, nor did I like the idea of experimentation based off assumption.
When scientists perform experiments, they get results. Those results represent fact, but often it is difficult to explain why they happened. Equations and theories are developed to explain why they happen. If a theory seems to work for long enough, it can be thought of as a law. Even laws get overturned though.
Now, if you use a formula that was developed as part of a theory for new experimentation, you are assuming that it is correct. If it turns out to be incorrect in 100 years, that could be 100 years of mostly wasted research.
Also, if you accept something as a limit, you limit the possibility of what you can discover.
There is simply no event in the universe that could possibly take place (or not take place) that can change a believer's mind, short of god declaring he/she/it doesn't exist (but that would be a paradox I guess). It's simply unprovable.
Perhaps one day, we'll know or perhaps not. Now, if we can get over that, we can free of minds of preconceptions and pursue discovery full on.
I appreciate beauty just as many people do; dusk and dawn, birds chirping, flowers blooming, stars twinkling. But I'd like to delve deeper into it - their structures, behaviors, interactions, compounds, elements, atoms.
The universe or perhaps something even more is a complex web of intricate webs interacting over space and time from the level of subatomic particles to that of supernovas and galaxies. That's far more amazing than all the pettiness I perceive in words such as good, evil, beliefs, right, wrong, scriptures.
We have a myriad of cultures and religions all believing their own versions to be true. Blacks, Asians, Gays, Christians, Americans, Muslims, Jewish, Inuit, Polynesians, Football Fans all supporting their own cause or version. Seems like group behavior to me, you trade at least some level of freedom for group power, pride and protection. If you want to support the ManU, then put on the red t-shirt, scream out the greatness and silence the crapness - then you're a part of the group that will be defended at almost any cost.
I appreciate that the vast majority of religions in the world promote peace, tolerance and care for those in need. So why not just focus on those tangible objectives and drop the rest. Find out what it is that you want from your limited time on the stage and make the most of it.
1 - Does something have to be visible in the visible light spectrum to exist?
2 - Do atoms exist?
3 - How can atoms exist if they can't be seen with visible light?
Emrldphx, atoms exist and can be seen with scanning electron microscopes. They are visible. There are many images of atoms taken with electron microscope documented.
Light in the electromagnetic spectrum is both invisible and visible. X-rays, gamma rays, microwave and radio waves are invisible. White light and all the color we see are visible light.
I know that melpor. The point is, troubled said something has to be visible to the eye with the visible spectrum to exist.
He says x-rays are real even though he can't see then, but spirit isn't real because he can't see it. I'm trying to get him to acknowledge the inconsistency.
Emrldphx, we cannot see spirits because they do not exist. Spirit is simply an imaginary concept that life continue to exist without a physical body.
You can say they do not exist, but that doesn't prove that they don't exist.
Could you imagine the confusion in the universe if fact could be made so by stating it?
If you say something doesn't exist because we can't see it, then what about the next discovery we make, the next particle or force or whatever? If we can't see it now, but can see it tomorrow, did it change from a state of non-existence to existence?
Spirit is a mystic's word and it's based on mysticism. Mysticism is dishonest(filled with lies).
You're kidding right?
Spirit is a descriptive word which describes people. Example: Spirit of a Champion.
Soul is another descriptive word which describes people. Example: S/He is a good soul.
Spirits and Souls don't actually exist. The original words are derived from mysticism.
Cagsil, I agree with your reply. These are just concepts and are not something physical in nature.
You're going to have to clarify whether or not you are talking about the etymology of the word 'spirit', or of the concept of a separate part of the human soul... it can be a problem because different religions define spirit differently, so are you arguing about the word or one view of the concept?
Either way, you have no proof that there is no such thing, except the fact that you can't see it.
Read up on subjectivity vs objectivity. You're trying to objectively prove something that, by definition, isn't objective.
Actually, you're the one making the initial claim of spirit, so the burden is on you. To all available knowable knowledge in existence at this present point in time, there's no spirit and no soul.
Ok, fair enough. I define spirit as the other half of the human soul compared to the body. I.E. when the body dies the spirit moves on, until resurrection.
Again, stating that there is no proof of something doesn't prove that it doesn't exist.
You said yourself, at some point there was no knowledge at all. By your reasoning, at that point, there would have been no *anything* either. No knowledge = no proof = no existence.
And, you have nothing to back that up. See the point?
Your point is, because there is no scientific proof, it doesn't exist.
My point is, at some point in history, there existed no proof of the atom. No proof of the elements. No proof of distant stars. Yet they existed, and eventually we found them.
Notice how not having proof doesn't mean it doesn't exist?
No my point is that there's no proof that it does exist. None! To prove something doesn't exist is only to rule it out based on knowable knowledge, which up to this point, humankind has done.
Emrldphx, in order to said something exist it must possess some measurable property for us to detect it otherwise we will come to the conclusion that it isn't there. This is why spirits or whatever you are talking about doesn't exist because we can not detect it to say it exist.
What about atoms? Before about 1800, there was no evidence at all of the atom. Nothing measurable, viewable, or detectable. Did it exist then?
Then some scientists came along, and eventually we end up with electron photographs of atoms. So, did they always exist, or spring into existence once we developed the technology to detect them?
There are only two answers to that question.
1 - The atoms sprung into existence upon discovery.
2 - The atoms were there, we just couldn't see them.
If you choose answer 2, you can't disprove something because we can't detect it yet. To do so is to assume that our technology has advanced as far as it can.
emrldphx, scientists knew atoms exist back in the 1800s because they were able to measure their electrical properties; they just couldn't see them.
Melpor, I'm trying to prove a point without have to be 100% precise about history, this isn't a history lesson. If you want to argue when precisely mankind became aware of the atom that would belong in the scientific forum. Either way, at some point, there was no knowledge of the atom at all.
The point I was trying to illustrate, and you should be able to see clearly, is there have constantly been new discoveries that, at one point or another, could not be detected at all.
Did any of the elements exist before they were discovered or detected?
Did any of the distant stars, moons, planets, etc... exist before we could first see them? For those, sight was the first detection.
Did microorganisms exist before Antonie van Leeuwenhoek first observed them via microscope?
And at some point, there was NO knowledge. Knowledge only came with self awareness(consciousness).
Knowledge only comes from being open to possibilities. If mankind only knew one thing, and was convinced there was nothing else to learn, any new discovery would be an accident. The whole purpose of science is to discover what we haven't discovered yet. To say something is impossible because we haven't discovered it... don't you understand how silly that is?
Don't jump for joy just yet.
Yes, being open to the possibilities, however when the probabilities are reduced to zero, then there's absolutely no reason to pursue it any longer.
Which do happen from time to time, even when we already know that we don't know everything. So, you're not making any ground here.
The purpose of science is to better understand reality.
It's not about that we haven't discovered it yet or that it's impossible. We are stating that in fact according to ALL available knowable knowledge already in existence, no spirit and no soul actually exists. That's the point YOU are not getting.
You have no way to reduce the possibility of anything to zero. To do so would be to prove the in-existence of something. Assuming you want to do so scientifically, that is impossible, because to prove something scientifically, you have to be able to perform an empirical experiment, and you can't experiment on nothing.
You say we know we don't know everything, but you say you know what can't be known. How? There is no way to know what is impossible.
Right... is there some exclusivity between what I said and what you said? We make discoveries about reality through experimentation.
You can say we have no proof of the existence of spirit, but that still doesn't prove it doesn't exist. You admitted at one point we had no proof of the atom, but it still existed? So how can you say having no knowledge of something proves it doesn't exist?
And, if something is NEVER found or it doesn't coincide with all other available knowable knowledge, which reduces the probability to zero? You see, this is where you're not making sense. When science discovers something it does so because of the usage of knowable knowledge already in existence. It rules out other things.
Well, your other thread makes the claim that Science is about TRUTH. And it's not.
I'm not going to have this circular discussion with you. If you have some proof that a spirit exists, then feel free to provide it. Other than that, why make the statement? Unless you're just trying to provoke an argument to begin with?
I didn't admit that. I said there was no knowledge, due to self awareness. Atom is an object, which can be found, measured and seen(with technology).
I'm not saying that, that is what you are saying about what I said, which isn't accurate of what I said. That is called twisting things to suit yourself. As far as ALL available knowable knowledge in existence, there's no spirit and no soul.
Ok, so then you must be saying that, before we had knowledge of the atom, there was still proof of it?
Proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Without knowledge, there is no evidence, and there is no proof. Evidence and proof are what create knowledge. To gain knowledge of the atom, we had to discover evidence of it. When we did, we gained knowledge of it
I'm not making sense? There have been major discoveries in the last few decades that evaded human understanding for THOUSANDS of years... you are inferring that spirit will NEVER be discovered, but unless you have traveled into the future indefinitely, you can't prove that. You have just decided that the possibility of a discovery of spirit doesn't exist, but science doesn't allow for that kind of thinking.
Science isn't about discovering truth? News to me, lol. Maybe you should take a science class, or read a dictionary.
Actually, you came into a discussion I was having and provoked an argument about spirit, not the other way around.
But we didn't know that until we did find, measure, and see it. Before we did any of those things we had no proof of it. Really, it's very basic to understand that.
I didn't twist your words. You said there was no knowledge. Without knowledge there can be no proof. Without proof something doesn't exist. That's what you are saying, that because there is no proof of spirit it doesn't exist.
I'm not twisting your words, I'm quoting them back to you and you say I twist them.
Yes, you're not making sense.
I'm stating that according to all knowable knowledge it doesn't exist NOW! Got it?
Science is just a tool that works off all available knowable knowledge. It doesn't take a guess. And, I didn't decide anything. Stop making this about ME. It's not.
And maybe you should grow up? Science determines what is facts, evidence. There's a likelihood it will change. Truth is Truth. Truth has nothing to do with Science. It never has. Truth is a human understanding(wisdom).
Off you're initial claim? Duh!
Yes it is. I understand what you're saying, but you seem to be refusing knowable knowledge already in existence.
Ego much? It's exactly what you did. Your dishonesty is beginning to show.
Yes, and I stated WHY no knowledge ever existed. Or did you miss that?
Without knowledge human concepts cannot be determined whether or not they exist within reality. As it is already been stated, knowable knowledge says presently that spirits and souls do not exist.
You childish refusal to accept what is said is getting tiresome. You're now being irrational, among a few other choice words I would use, except for the fact I would get banned for saying them. I am say that all the knowable knowledge in existence already says that a spirit and/or a soul doesn't exist. There's NOTHING in all the knowable knowledge that proves it does. For something to exist....maybe YOU should look up the word....it has to be either observable, measurable(in some manner) or tangible(in some manner).
Actually you are. Just so they fit what YOU are attempting to convey. It's dishonest.
I 'got it', but that's just ridiculous to say. If you were to say, according to all current knowledge, we have no evidence of its existence, I would agree with you. You could also say that currently, no evidence of it exists. But lack of evidence does not = proof. You can hate me for being this way, but I'm a scientist at heart.
Again, let's analyze your words. According to all knowable knowledge, it doesn't exist now. In case you don't understand what you are saying, by the rules of the English language, you are stating that it doesn't exist. Period.
It is about you. Science doesn't disprove the existence of anything. By very definition it can't do that. Science approaches everything the same. That includes trying to discover the atom before we had knowledge of the atom, and trying to discover spirit now, when we have no knowledge of spirit.
Science studies the natural laws of the universe. Also, science doesn't determine evidence. Experiments produce evidence, and that evidence is interpreted, but the evidence itself is perfect, because it is just the universe doing what it does.
If you argue that science doesn't discover truth, then tell me, what does?
Go back and read what I replied to. You were asking if I were talking about spirit to provoke argument. I wasn't. I was having a discussion with someone else. You came in and argued the point. I can guarantee my intention was not to provoke you. That was your choice.
That's what discovery is! Discovering truth that already exists! Everything we ever discovered already existed, even when we had no evidence. What makes things we have no evidence of now any different?
How did I twist your words? I quoted your words.
No, I got it. There was no knowledge, but it was available, and only things that are discoverable can be discovered, and the fact that we haven't discovered spirit(or anything else we haven't discovered yet) is proof it doesn't exist. I understand. You don't seem to understand the contradiction inherent in your stance.
Let me make sure I understand you. Knowable knowledge is all knowledge in the universe whether or not we know it?
And you say knowable knowledge says that spirits do not exist.
And you know this because, even though we don't know all of the knowable knowledge, we know that among the knowable knowledge that we don't know, there isn't any knowledge of spirit... how do you know that?
For something to exist, it has to be observable, measurable, or tangible, in some manner. We only know atoms exist because we developed technology to detect it. To say that spirit doesn't exist means you know that we will never develop technology to detect it.
How is quoting what you say twisting your words?
Please, try and follow me. For something to exist it has to be tangible in some manner. Before the development of certain technologies, the atom wasn't tangible, yet it was still real. The only thing required to prove that it is tangible was the technology to detect it.
By saying that there is no spirit is saying you know there will never be a way to detect it, but you can't know that, unless you know everything. You can only know what we will never know, by knowing everything we will ever know. And that's impossible.
You're ridiculous. I'm done. You're yet another individual who apparently doesn't want to deal with reality. Plain and simple.
I thought you said I was perceiving ridicule where it wasn't, yet you call me ridiculous...
I get dizzy reading your contradictions...
Once again, that's not what I said, that's what you think I said.
We were specifically talking about spirits. If they can be seen by the naked eye, how do they generate the light for us to see them? If you can't even answer this question, how can you go on with your claims?
Again, X-rays are generated by machines. What generates the light for spirits?
You argued that spirits can't exist because they can't be seen with the naked eye.
I asked you to provide your best proof, and you reply with naked-eye visibility.
I never said spirit is visible with the naked eye, yet you say I can't go on with my claim without showing how they are seen with the naked eye.
Where did I say you can see spirit with the naked eye?
How do you know x-rays are generated, if you can't see them? By your exact same reasoning what generates the light for x-rays?
Then, YOU tell me how they can be seen? Explain.
Lots of believers say they have seen spirits, how do they see them, how does the spirit generate the visible light to see them? Explain.
Now, you're just getting silly again.
A machine generates the light for x-rays. Duh.
I never said they can. Are you trying to prove me wrong with an argument I never made?
Ok, so you want me to prove other people's claims? Seriously?
I don't think spirit can be seen with human eyes. Got that? Why are you requiring me to prove something I don't believe?
No, an x-ray machine generates x-rays. It doesn't generate light for x-rays to be seen.
Yet, many people claim to see spirits with their eyes, how is that possible? If you say you don't think spirits can be seen with the human eye, then those people are obviously lying or delusional. Do you agree with that?
Well done, you've managed to evade the issue by dealing with semantics.
No, you are trying to create an issue that I don't have. You ask me how I can believe in something that doesn't generate or reflect visible light, and I use all these things as reasons why I am open to the possibility of things that can't be seen with visible light. If atoms exist, yet can't be seen, then that proves it is possible for something to exist without being seen.
No, what you're doing is evading the questions by presenting fallacies, which you believe are "all these things as reasons why I am open to the possibility of things that can't be seen with visible light"
If you claim the possibility of spirits exist, then present your case rather than just making empty claims that run contradictory to the laws of nature.
Troubled, I am willing to discuss some of my reasons for claiming spirits exist, but you continue to approach the matter from the point of objectivity, and that simply doesn't work. I know now that you don't understand the difference between what can and can't be proven, but the problem is you treat what can only be discussion the same as an argument over objective fact.
I told you, I believe in spirit because of personal experiences. You mock my belief, so I conclude you will mock my experiences. If you promise not to do so, I'd probably be more open to discuss them with you.
But you have to realize that subjective experiences can only be used as subjective proof.
Yes, I know you would rather approach the matter from the point of fantasy.
You can't distinguish fact from fantasy. Does that help?
Yes, your experiences are just your own fantasies, like every other believer who makes those claims.
So you show your true colors. I say I'm willing to discuss my personal experiences, you say that is discussion from the point of fantasy.
A Troubled Man believes that personal experience = fantasy. In other words , we are all in the dream of a butterfly, or incapable of processing reality, or some such philosophical argument.
Right, I understand. My personal experiences are fantasy. Your personal experiences are fantasy. That's what you said, go ahead and deny it or ignore it.
Again, thank you. Personal experiences are fantasies. All discussion between anyone is just a fantasy, and all arguments are simply based on fantasy. If you drop a rock and it falls, that's not gravity, it is fantasy.
I understand your point. Thank you.
Since, all you've offered so far are points of fantasy, shouldn't we presume the worst?
That's another fallacy.
I have not offered any of my beliefs as claims of truth. I know it's a hard concept for you to grasp, but try. Discussing beliefs and debating truth are two different subjects.
I say I believe in spirit. That's a belief. You say my beliefs are fantasy. That's a claim of reality. Back it up. Give us some proof.
Yes, exactly! I was applying your logic to other ideas! (but still you not only fail to say what type of fallacy, you fail to explain why).
No, but if spirits exist and people see them, how do they generate the visible light in order to see them?
Emrldphx, all of these things you mentioned were always in existence it just took us awhile to detect them physically by different forms of detection methods. In this case, the elements were detected by their mass and electrical properties, the distant stars, moons, and planets were detected once the telescope was invented and the microorganisms were detected once the microscope was invented. One thing you must consider here is that each one of these things were suspected by men to exist and the thought of their existence is what lead them to the invention of the specific devices used to detect each one of them or confirm their existence.
Exactly. I would be willing to bet my life savings that there are still things we haven't figured out how to detect, or even felt the influences of yet.
Right. Nobody knew about these stars and planets until the telescope came along. Nobody could see them, measure their effect on us... there was NO PROOF at all of them, until we developed means to detect them. So again, pick one:
1 - They came into existence when we developed the technology to detect them.
2 - They were there, we just weren't advanced enough to detect them.
It HAS to be one or the other.
The same could be said about elements. You argue we detected them by mass and electrical properties, but there was a time we had no knowledge of any of that. Same with micro-organisms.
Answer the question above. 1 or 2?
They were not always suspected. When some discoveries are made, things are noticed that lead to other discoveries. That's the nature of science. But, for any concept, at one point or another, we had no knowledge or evidence of it at any time.
Answer 1 or 2.
Emrldphx @ A Troubled Man
“ ' the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim' You claim I have made a fallacy, you have to prove it.”
by emrldphx4 years ago
For those who are interested, I am putting together a primer on the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Much of the disagreement in this forum is due to confusion between the two. We'll start with a...
by PhenomWriter4 years ago
Buddhism does not have a God. It's principles are very similar to the most modern discoveries of psychology. It never killed anyone to prove itself. It is not supernatural to be honest. Is it any near to being...
by aka-dj4 years ago
I found this via a post on facebook. Thought it worthy of reposting here, since so many revere science as being the be-all and end-all for any philosophic/religious argument.I guess the "scientists" are not...
by Alan4 months ago
A basic rule of scientific inquiry is that you start from something you already know, something that can be proven, repeatedly, by other investigators in exactly similar circumstances. From something that is known...
by EphremHagos4 years ago
Does Christianity speak the truth about Christ?
by aka-dj6 months ago
A worldwide flood (like described by Noah's flood) is said to be part of many cultures folklore.Creationist proponents belive geological evidence "supports " such an event. Atheists (and others) do not. What...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.