|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 11/19/2005 : 09:28:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
By the way, it's good to see you posting again, Dude. It seems like you've been making yourself scarce lately.
Been preoccupied. First with some classes. Then with a stupid on-the-job injury. Hurt my lower back and left ilio-sacral joint (a small, and previously unknown to me, joint between your pelvis and lower spine). Had a reaction to one of the meds (ibuprophen, apparently) and was bleeding from, well, anywhere you think it is possible to be bleeding from, I was. Add in physical therapy for the back injury and its been a hectic couple of months. Had to request a withdrawl from my classes... a dissapointment to be sure. But now have a few minutes of free time in which to participate.
I've dislocated the same joint, so I do understand. Yes the SI joint is a bitch when it's injured. I was in physical therapy for about 3 months when I dislocated that joint. Hope you feel better soon. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2005 : 12:09:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Anywhere you think it is possible to be bleeding from, I was.
Good lord, man. That had to be scary. Well, glad to hear you're on the mend. Good luck getting your class stuff straightened out. Schools tend to be pretty understanding when it comes to medical emergencies.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2005 : 17:55:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Good lord, man. That had to be scary. Well, glad to hear you're on the mend. Good luck getting your class stuff straightened out. Schools tend to be pretty understanding when it comes to medical emergencies.
Wasn't like I was gushing blood or anything, just a slow leak or two. Eyes, nose, mouth, ears, etc... apparently ibuprophen can have an effect similar to aspirin (a thinning effect) on your blood. I've been a registered nurse for over a decade and never even heard of anyone having this type of reaction to ibuprophen. I wasn't even taking the full prescribed dose, only about 1/2 to 2/3 of it. Go figure.
As for the classes, the university issued me a refund for tuition for the semester, so it's all good there. Just sets me back a couple of semesters, because they don't offer some of the classes I need every semester.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 05:25:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
This may just be arguing semantics, but...
WHen I say the words "supernatural" and "paranormal" are meaning free, I only mean in the context of valid explanations for observed events.
If you observe something, unless you are claiming the ability to percieve things outside the bounds of the natural world, it is (by definition) a part of the natural world.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. If you observe something, anything, how do you determine whether it's in the natural world or in the supernatural world?
quote:
Even granting the possibility of something existing apart from our universe, if it has the ability to interact with this universe, it then is (again, by definition) a part of this universe while it is doing so.
Wouldn't a superverse be part of everything? Why would we define only our universe as the natural world and everything else as supernatural? If there are other universa, what would make them supernatural, except our need to define them as supernatural?
quote:
So yes, "supernatural" and "paranormal" have meaning within specific contexts, just not in the context of valid explanations for observable events.
I find the distinction meaningless and useless. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Storm
SFN Regular
USA
708 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 08:36:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave
quote:
and the story of Noah were simply and demonstrably incorrect.
One must look at the story of Noah not as literally correct but in a more symbolic way....Many religions and cultures have numerous flood stories....So while it is not literal to what is described in Genesis..One can conclude that a major flood had happened...
When one describes Supernatural it is seen as some force of God or the Devil..Most often the latter...Supernatural are just certain anomolies that occur outside our preconceived view of what is natural..They are things we have yet to understand... yet to connect with... quote:
the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that is it comprehensable
does anyone know who said that? but by all means I do believe they are natural...just on a different frequency...people have been experiencing these phenomenon for millions of years...it is foolish to believe that they do not exist..
quote:
Every truth passes through three stages,
before it is recognized. In the first it is ridiculed. In the second it is opposed. In the third it is regarded as self-evident.
Anyone know who?
quote:
Science without Religion is lame. Religion without Science is blind
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 09:09:15 [Permalink]
|
| Einstein. One of the reasons why he missed some quite interesting spots of his own work - due to his beliefs that "God doesn't play dice with the universe." |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 10:42:23 [Permalink]
|
| This brings up another thing that bugs me. There is nothing unnatural. Thats my stance. A Artificial Heart is natural, processed food is natural, drugs, computers, cars and everything else is natural. If human beings are natural, then why isn't everything we do or create also natural? Yes, I looked up the defintions of natural and unnatural, I just think the definition of unnatural is full of crap. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 11:03:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by astropin
This brings up another thing that bugs me. There is nothing unnatural. Thats my stance. A Artificial Heart is natural, processed food is natural, drugs, computers, cars and everything else is natural. If human beings are natural, then why isn't everything we do or create also natural? Yes, I looked up the defintions of natural and unnatural, I just think the definition of unnatural is full of crap.
That's what I say every time my mom brings up the natural vrs processed food crap. It is also the subject of a whole page of rant in the first chapter of my novel-to-be. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 11:24:45 [Permalink]
|
'Natural' and 'unnatural' i.e. artificial, are concepts that have meaning in a day-to-day context as well as an aesthetic one. However, people make the mistake of trying to apply them in a scientific context where they don't belong. The concept of 'natural' has no meaning scientifically, it isn't even listed in the Oxford Dictionary of Science.
If you use it in a scientific context conceptual confusion is unavoidable.
Hippy suggested the following definition of 'supernatural'quote:
That which is impossible according to the laws of physics
The problem with this definition is that the laws of physics are empirically determined, meaning that should anything 'supernatural' occur, then the currently understood formulation of the laws of physics simply need to be revised, and will be if the event is properly documented.
As for the 'one foot in reality' idea which H. put forward, this implies that only the foot in reality actually exists since the other foot is not in the real world.
We define objective (scientific) reality as that which is percieved, and the causal relations between the various objects that are percieved. The mapping of these causal relations is the project of science and is manifest in both 'scientific laws' and 'scientific models' of reality. Therefore, '"fairies breathing frost on windows" attracted by the warm house in the cold weather' can be excluded as a potential theory for the formation of frost on windows if the fairies have no other causal relation to reality than the frost; instead we conclude that the frost has something to do with the cold weather. |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
|
|
|
Subjectmatter
Skeptic Friend
173 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 11:46:57 [Permalink]
|
On the subject of god, one can consider it like this from a scientific perspective.
The hypothesis is that a bearded man-like entity in the sky created the universe.
The evidence for this is firstly the bible, which apparently he wrote and where it says that he did create the world. So there.
Empirically, however, we know that generally people who write books do not live in the sky. Although a fair number have beards:
  
The second piece of evidence for the existence of god is the universe itself. Again, however, we lack the empirical evidence neccessary in order to induce the causal relation. I perceive the universe a great deal, but I rarely see bearded men from the sky.
There is overwhelming empirical evidence for another creator however. Me. Or, rather, people in general.
Consider: every single account of someone percieving the universe has included someone who percieves the universe. I am talking hundreds of millions of reported perceptions, many of which are confirmed, of the universe that all involved a spectator of some sort. NO OTHER SCIENTIFIC THEORY HAS THIS MUCH SUPPORT how can we possibly escape the conclusion that people cause the universe?
...that's right...
[EDIT]: Hey! 100 posts! |
Sibling Atom Bomb of Couteous Debate |
| Edited by - Subjectmatter on 11/22/2005 11:48:01 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 12:43:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Subjectmatter
[EDIT]: Hey! 100 posts!
Congratulations! |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 14:17:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Storm
One must look at the story of Noah not as literally correct but in a more symbolic way...
You go ahead and say that to all the fundamentalist Christians who insist the Bible contains the literal Truth, so therefore there was a single global flood which covered every mountain on this planet.quote:
Many religions and cultures have numerous flood stories....So while it is not literal to what is described in Genesis..One can conclude that a major flood had happened...
Baloney. One can conclude that many local floods have occured, and one supports this by pointing out the "major" floods which continue to this day. There are, indeed, numerous flood stories from all over the world, and the one key point is that they are almost all different.quote:
but by all means I do believe they are natural...just on a different frequency...
Define 'frequency'.quote:
people have been experiencing these phenomenon for millions of years...it is foolish to believe that they do not exist..
People have been fooling themselves and others for hundreds of thousands of years. "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." Who said that, Storm?quote:
quote:
Every truth passes through three stages,
before it is recognized. In the first it is ridiculed. In the second it is opposed. In the third it is regarded as self-evident.
Anyone know who?
It's often attributed to Schopenhaur, but he didn't say it. More importantly, it isn't predictive. The vast majority of "truths" which are ridiculed and/or opposed do not go on to become self-evident.
After all, people are still ridiculing the Three Stooges.quote:
Science without Religion is lame. Religion without Science is blind
Yeah, yeah, yeah. As if everyone here will bow down just because Einstein said something. Classic argument from authority. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 16:57:03 [Permalink]
|
Hello Board,
I do not know of anything in the Bible which would prevent Yahweh from actually being a super-powerful space alien whose technology is so far advanced that we can't even begin to understand it. In that sense, anything which we now might call supernatural may actually have a physical explanation. Hence, "supernatural" may be considered that which we are not even close to comprehending.
I think that Humbert made a good point in quoting Lenny Flank; I agree with his definition of the scienctific method. So then, how does one apply this scientific method to the "supernatural"? First, it should be important to note that inquiring as to the "how" of the supernatural is pointless. If the "how" is discovered, then it wasn't supernatural to begin with.
The only way to determine for sure if some occurence was supernatural is for a supernatural being to tell you so. Otherwise, you might find a natural explanation eventually. Aside from divine revelation, the best one can come up with is a hypothesis which is not contradicted by observable evidence, and does have some evidence in favor of it. Is one supernatural hypothesis better than another? I think so. The first step is to rule out the obvious. If a man says that an angel told him that anyone who ever drank even one drop of alcohol instantly burst into flames, that's obviously innaccurate. If he says that an angel told him that people shouldn't drink alcohol, that's not obviously inaccurate. Next, since new discoveries are being made all the time, an event which simply doesn't have an explanation is not as likely to be supernatural as one which goes against known science, like the hailstones which I mentioned earlier. After it has been determined that an event is indeed unexplainable, then we look at the evidence. Most evidence of the supernatural is anecdotal, so we examine the credibility of those who purport this information.
So then, as regards the megacryometeors, why is "Yahweh did it" a better explanation than "the tooth fairy did it"? Because the tooth fairy never claimed to be able to do any such thing, and Yahweh did.
Humbert:
quote:
P.S. Where in the bible does it "predict" large hailstones?
Rev 16:21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 17:08:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
So then, as regards the megacryometeors, why is "Yahweh did it" a better explanation than "the tooth fairy did it"? Because the tooth fairy never claimed to be able to do any such thing, and Yahweh did.
But you said: "the best one can come up with is a hypothesis which is not contradicted by observable evidence, and does have some evidence in favor of it. So what positive evidence do you have that god is responsible for the hailstones? Surely you don't mean just that bible quote?
quote:
Rev 16:21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.
Hippy
I don't think a "plague of hail" describes these news stories at all. So wouldn't that be evidence against god's involvement?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
