jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (197 posts)

Science is deaf and dumb

  1. 68
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    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.

    1. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        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"

        1. emrldphx profile image60
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. emrldphx profile image60
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. Cagsil profile image82
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Sure it does. It learns what doesn't work/jive with what it has already learned. wink

                1. emrldphx profile image60
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Cagsil profile image82
                    Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It's not science learning, but the individuals who are into science. Science is nothing more than a process. People learn.

                  2. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

              2. earnestshub profile image87
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                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. smile
                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.

                1. emrldphx profile image60
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. earnestshub profile image87
                    earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't have a reputation for putting words in other peoples mouths. Never have been accused of that much even on here. lol
                    I will leave you to your devices as we don't seem able to understand each other at all well.

                  2. 68
                    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Belief in the Creator God is sensible and real; it need not be scientific which is very limited at a point of time.

              3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. emrldphx profile image60
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    lol

                    Can you see a spirit? How does it generate the light required for you to see it?

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. 68
            paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Why science needs a hypothesis while that it will ultimate come with exists already in the nature?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. 68
                paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. 68
                  paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I pray and wish you a success;bravo.

                2. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. 68
                    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

        3. 68
          paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Please don't take scientific method as an alternative of religion; why you believe in it blindly? You don't have to.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. earnestshub profile image87
              earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              and the only reason we are able to communicate with each other online is that no gods were involved in building the Internet servers.

            2. emrldphx profile image60
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                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. smile

                1. emrldphx profile image60
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  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?

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    lol

                  2. 68
                    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

          2. earnestshub profile image87
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So you don't understand what scientific method is?

            1. 68
              paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I don't mind if you explain it  your own way; you know I am a good listener.

              1. earnestshub profile image87
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. 68
                  paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. earnestshub profile image87
                    earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    OK I tried. You still don't understand.

          3. nightwork4 profile image60
            nightwork4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            science is cased on observation, trial and error and then fact. religion is based on faith. it's that simple.

      2. 0
        Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. emrldphx profile image60
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. 68
            paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. emrldphx profile image60
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And, that is where? Imaginationland?

                1. emrldphx profile image60
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Funny.

                  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.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    And, what do they say about spirits and gods?



                    I can see why, they don't teach about spirits and gods. lol

          2. 0
            Emile Rposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. 68
              paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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.

            2. emrldphx profile image60
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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.

          3. nightwork4 profile image60
            nightwork4posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. emrldphx profile image60
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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.

          4. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. emrldphx profile image60
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. emrldphx profile image60
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  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?

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course not, it would be a part of reality. But, we already know that spirits are just myths spawned from religious delusions.



                    You are confusing technology with science.



                    That's all you're offering is magical notions.

                2. emrldphx profile image60
                  emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    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. lol

      3. 68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You are right.

        I appreciate your love for truth

        1. emrldphx profile image60
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thank you paar, I'm not sure exactly how to peg you, but I enjoy the discussion I'm finding on these forums.

      4. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. emrldphx profile image60
          emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That makes no sense. Most likely, there is another issue here that you aren't revealing.



            What problems, exactly? Explain.

            1. emrldphx profile image60
              emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                What scientific law has ever been overturned?

    2. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Another joke thread. *palm to face*

  2. academysigma profile image60
    academysigmaposted 5 years ago

    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. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hear hear!

  3. emrldphx profile image60
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    Although, I must admit, I love debate....

  4. emrldphx profile image60
    emrldphxposted 5 years ago

    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?

    1. melpor profile image88
      melporposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. emrldphx profile image60
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. melpor profile image88
          melporposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. emrldphx profile image60
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            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?

            1. Cagsil profile image82
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Spirit is a mystic's word and it's based on mysticism. Mysticism is dishonest(filled with lies).

              1. emrldphx profile image60
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Really? Where's the proof?

                1. Cagsil profile image82
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You're kidding right? roll

                  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.

                  1. melpor profile image88
                    melporposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Cagsil, I agree with your reply. These are just concepts and are not something physical in nature.

                  2. emrldphx profile image60
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

            2. melpor profile image88
              melporposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. emrldphx profile image60
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. melpor profile image88
                  melporposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  emrldphx, scientists knew atoms exist back in the 1800s because they were able to measure their electrical properties; they just couldn't see them.

                  1. emrldphx profile image60
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    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?

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          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?

          1. emrldphx profile image60
            emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            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?

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. emrldphx profile image60
                emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  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?



                  roll Well done, you've managed to evade the issue by dealing with semantics.

                  1. emrldphx profile image60
                    emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    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.

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, but if spirits exist and people see them, how do they generate the visible light in order to see them?



      Irrelevant.

  5. melpor profile image88
    melporposted 5 years ago

    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.

    1. emrldphx profile image60
      emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      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.

  6. 68
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    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.”

 
working