|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 4/26/2004 6:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 62246
I agree and since I can't come up with as good an explanation as you, I won't even try. I enjoy your choice of words (the way you explained that).  |
Date: 4/26/2004 6:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 55386
Well, I just skimmed through the post, 'cause I'm on a time thing, buuuut. Your explanation sounds pretty good, and well thought out. I believe things that are natural...aren't just what we see, and aren't just what we feel. It can be things unexplained. Science reads way to into things. There isn't always an explanation as to why things happen, what people feel, so why try to understand about spirits? Nobody knows for sure, and I don't believe anyone ever will....Sorry if I'm a bit off topic lol.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 6:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
When doing a paranormal investigation-I can take a camera, nightscope, EMT, and a variety of equiptment into a cemetary. I can film things, keep the area clear of possible contaminants, make sure there is no smoking, no sprinklers, no anything that can cause a "false positive". And, I can tell you my own feeling(s) of Spiritual activity. Now scientifically, all I can prove is the black and white evidence. But in my heart, I know that there was spiritual activity. Now-I jhave not read this post completely through. If this debate is an attempt to either 1) prove there are more "believers" than non-believers, and therefore humiliate Thinker in some way OR 2) Attack Thinker's way of thinking, trust me, I will wipe the dust from my feet here, and allow the Admins to do their job.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 6:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
o.k. *ENDER* my bad. I read the entire post, and frankly I agree with you  I am sure you can forgive my defensive posture, since my friend has been subject to several attacks in the past few days. Actually, this is a very good post *thumbs-up* |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 6:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
There are many genuine unsolved mysteries in the universe and it is OKAY to say, "We do not as of YET know but someday perhaps we will." The problem is that most of us find it much more comforting to have certainty, even if it IS premature, than to live with unsolved or unexplained mysteries. Your statements like: QUOTE: ""How to decide? If there exists anything that the laws of nature cannot explain, the supernatural by definition must be the cause."" and ""If it can be shown that natural explanations are insufficient ones, then supernatural ones are valid."" <<<<THOSE ARE good examples of the fallacy of or the argument " : AD IGNORANTIUM == This is an appeal to ignorance of lack of knowledge and is related to the burden of proof and ...unexplained is not inexplicable... FALLACIES, where someone argues that if you cannot disprove a claim....that it must be true. For example, if you CANNOT prove that there isn't any psychic power, then there must be. The absurdity of this argument comes into focus if one argues that if you cannot PROVE that Santa Claus does NOT exist, then he must exist. You can argue the opposite in a similar manner. If you cannot prove Santa Claus exists, then he must not exist. In science, belief SHOULD come from positive evidence in support of a claim, not LACK of evidence for or against a claim.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 6:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 38849
I'd agree with you Thinker on that, yet I do think the flip side to that because something hasn't been proven shouldn't mean it is wrong, unless it has been absolutly disproven. (such as the world being flat vs. being round). Just a thought, fact is only fact based on the information available at the time the "fact" was "formed." But I'd say I agree with you there. --  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 7:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
IF, I (using the SAME argument you have) CLAIM that I have this little green space alien living under my bed.....and you say you don't believe me.....and I say: YOU can't prove I don't, so therefore it is true. Now what? Remember: the burden of proof rests upon the one making the claim, not the other way around. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 7:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Zayden, it is critical; absolutely necessary when entering in debate/discussion (both sides) that people agree on the definitions of terms used, and know what or where the other party STANDS or understands about the terms used. It is very difficult; and most unproductive, if one is talking about the Scientific Method versus "I heard somewhere; I read somewhere; I have a 'sense" its right/wrong" type of debate. This is so often the case in the creationist/evolutionist debates. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 7:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 38849
I agree, the burden of proof should lie upon those making the claim. However, I also think that fact is fact based on information available only at the time the the it was stated. Really all I am saying is that, is it is possible to say all there is exists is the natural world. Though I have my reasons to believe otherwise, they would probably never stand up scientifically. That is where my faith comes in. I don't take my faith lightly, but I think naturally speaking the supernatual can be shown. Part of my thoughts on this might stem from my study of physics: Objects will stay at rest unless acted upon by some outside force. Which means(at least in my opinion) the Big Bang maybe should not have happened, if it were an object at rest, which seems logical, so maybe there is an "unmoved" mover. Not a perfect explaination for supernatural by any means, but I think a logical explaination for my belief. Certainly, I do agree with you the burden of proof does lie on the person(s) making the the claim(s). -- |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 7:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
Spirit-Child says: ""I can tell you MY own FEELINGS(s) of Spiritual activity"" and ""in my heart, I know... "" . ANECDOTES....lots and lots of people with stories to tell about their personal experiences, haunches, mysterious thumps & bumps in the night, any and all unexplained phenomena, is assumed to be ghosts, aliens, poltergeists, whatever. Anecdotes -- stories recounted in support of a claim -- do not make a SCIENCE. Without corroborative evidence from other sources, or physical proof of some sort, ten anecdotes are no better than one, and a hundred anecdotes are no better than ten. Anecdotes are told by fallible human storytellers. Farmer Bob out in Podunk, Kansas, may be an honest, church-going, family man not obviously subject to delusions, but we need physical evidence of an alien spacecraft or alien bodies, NOT just a story about landings and abductions at 3:00 A.M. on a deserted country road. NOT just what he MIGHT have thought he saw, or heard, or even believed he saw. |
Date: 4/26/2004 7:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 51173
Scientific naturalism logically cannot go beyond the natural world, and should, in those few places where physics and metaphysics cross paths, remain neutral. But it doesn't; it makes pronouncements that a creator is not needed when the evidence is either inconclusive on the subject or even points toward a creator force. That's why there is such animosity between evolutionists and creationists - its not the creationists who are intruding on the realm of science, but the evolutionists who intrude on the realm of religion. Remember Richard Dawkins, who said the universe looks like it was designed and quacks like it was designed, but it wasn't, so there is no God. Why is a biologist telling me that? Its outside his field of study, but he spends more time lecturing against religion than on biology.  |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 7:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
"SCIENCE makes pronouncements that a creator is NOT needed and NOT INDICATED when the evidence IS inconclusive" <<<<<THIS IS TRUE. But THIS.....>>>> """or even points toward a creator force."" IS NOT true of what Scientists say. You misrepresent what real science say, Papa, and take partial truths, and add your own, in order to make it APPEAR "scientific" or make it appear that creationists are in the same league. Unsuspecting, and unskilled in critical thinking people, and the presupposed, will easily go for that. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 7:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
There is NO "animosity" between creationists and evolutionists. Contrary to creationists claims: "Evolutionists are afraid" and the like; it is the other way around. The creationists are scared to death for evolution and REAL SCIENCES, PHYSICS, BIOLOGY to be taught in schools exclusively.....and with very good reason: Science and the Supernatural do not mix. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 7:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 24924
"evolutionists intrude on the realm of religion". If that weren't so sad, and such a fabrication, it would be laughable. HOW do you see it as evolutionists "intrude" on religion.? SCIENTISTS don't care WHAT people wish to believe or have faith in. They are ONLY concerned with that which deals with SCIENCE. |
|
Date: 4/26/2004 7:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 38849
I think Science and creation do mix, but perhaps it is because I think creation happened, and I think evolution occurs. Can creation be proven, probably not beyond a reasonable doubt, unless we do find a rock that says, "Made by God." I do think both can coexist, not in the way the Bible says. I do not fear science by any means, however, science does make mistakes. I disagree with those that do not take the time to look at both sides of the arguement, so I do respect what you have to say Thinker and hope you keep debating. Perhaps we'll learn a little through debates like this. -- |
Date: 4/26/2004 9:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 62085
I can agree somewhat with that. What is considered supernatural is sometimes just higher technology, that we may or may not understand. Science cannot always be believed. Just before Newton's death he recanted his theory of gravity. He said it was a push, rather than a pull. Which defintely explains why NASA must redo all of its propulsion formulas at 600 miles and farther from earth. It is a push that is factored in, rather than a pull. We know that the speed of light can now be altered, so theories made in the 1700's, 1800's-- how much trust can you put into them.? Many theories that are made by people are probably true in today's science. Its the technology to prove it visually, is what we are lacking.  |
Date: 4/26/2004 9:20:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 62243
Here is my reasoning behind the statement “if there exists anything that the laws of nature cannot explain, the supernatural by definition must be the cause.” When I said this I did not mean to be understood as saying “if we don’t know if natural laws are capable of explaining certain natural phenomena then supernatural explanations are more valid than natural ones” or as saying that “if there exists anything that the KNOWN laws of nature can’t explain, the supernatural by definition must be the cause.” Those arguments would not be valid because they rest upon the logic fallacy of appealing to ignorance. They say “we don’t know how this happened, thus, we must appeal to the supernatural.” My first statement, however, said that if the laws of nature cannot explain a given natural phenomena (regardless of the incompleteness of our knowledge of the natural world) then that which is not nature (supernature) must be the explanation. Had I said that “because of the incompleteness of our knowledge of the natural world, the areas where we can’t discern there to be a good natural explanation must be explained by the supernatural….” THAT would be an appeal to ignorance (“we don’t know whether or not nature could explain this, so the supernatural did it” . So really… the whole thing that I’m saying is “if the laws of nature CANNOT explain a certain part of nature, the supernatural MUST be the cause.” It’s more along the lines of “if not A, then B” (if A and B are the only two possibilities) and “if not B, then A.” If there are only two possibilities (as there are when seeking Nature or Supernature as explanations), then if one is false, the other is true – if A is not true, then B must be… we can’t appeal to C as an explanation if C doesn’t exist. In other words, we can’t appeal to something that is neither the natural nor the supernatural because (if the supernatural is defined as being that which is not nature) then nothing else can exist. *Ender* |
| Date: 4/26/2004 9:29:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 Thinker says: “it is critical; absolutely necessary when entering in debate/discussion (both sides) that people agree on the definitions of terms used, and [to] know what or where the other party STANDS or understands about the terms used.” I agree. So I’ll say that in this post I am defining “Nature” to be that which is capable of being studied by the scientific method – all of the starry skies, the star-studded heavens, the moons of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn, the oceans of Europa, the expansion of space, the cosmological constant and dark energy, the ozone of our atmosphere, the nitrogen and oxygen ratios on our planet, rocks, trees, grass, weeds, ants, bears, elephants, zebras, Escherichia coli, DNA, RNA, cells, nuclei, proteins, enzymes, etcetera. I am defining the Supernatural to be everything that cannot be measured, tested, quantified, or messed with in any way by science or the scientific method. Thus, the supernatural is everything that nature is not. *Ender* |
| Date: 4/26/2004 9:31:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 62243 So, to get back to the debate, I'll get back to my last point: "So my reasoning is that it is not foolish to believe that the non-scientific nature of an explanation automatically disqualifies it from being a valid explanation (though it may not be scientific). If it can be shown that natural explanations are insufficient ones, then supernatural ones are valid. The debate: Do you agree? Yes? No? Why?" |
Date: 4/27/2004 11:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
Scientific evidence proves that the mass of what we can perceive as existing does not constitute the entire mass of the universe, or even our own solar system, whereupon 'dark matter' (I think this is the correct name, feel free to make corrections) has been discovered. This, and the very nature of black holes **yes, there is a process called 'spagettification'** for me gives the idea that science cannot explain everything in the universe.  |
| Date: 4/27/2004 12:09:00 PM From Authorid: 58681 Science deals with what can be seen, heard, felt, measured, repeated, and that is the case with most physical (natural) phenomena. For there to be any validity from the scientific field, all phenomena must follow their criteria. What is outside what we call the physical environment does not easily fit that criteria. In some ways that is a good thing because it keeps us disciplined in our studies. Even in this physical environment there is still much to be discovered ... and even more in what we call the non-physical. Psychic phenomena has been put to scientific scrutiny for many years, but the results and information have been supressed in the past. This isn't a conspiracy theory. A recent study was conducted by a group of skeptical but open-minded scientists. They devised laboratory methods to measure the claims made by mediums as to their ability to receive messages from those people who had passed into what some call the spirit world. A book of their findings was published. If anyone wants the details I will give them when I find the book. The results did show that there is some validity for their claims. GA |
| Date: 4/29/2004 4:19:00 PM From Authorid: 60940 Hi, an interesting post. The post sounded a lot more complicated than what it actually means. Of course, science is always progressing, the fact that we havent proved it doesn't disprove it. Many scientists simply ignore the area of the supoernatural. |
Date: 5/2/2004 8:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
I agree, Ender. I would also like to thank you for the re-edification in your first comment as to what was stated in your post. I knew I had read that, but then started reading some of the comments and began to wonder if I that was just an unwritten thought that had come across to me in some supernatural way! Oh, well, there it is in black and white in the post, verifiable, seen, part of the record God Bless.  |
Date: 5/5/2004 8:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 54987
There are aspects to our world that defy the scrutinization of physical science. But science is getting nearer to finding that something exists that cannot be measured by conventional means. Even Einstein recognized this fact. Some of us have experienced supernatural or paranormal phenomena and I for one are not overly concerned with trying to prove anything to anyone. I have proved it to myself and that is all the proof I need.  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
