Religion doesn't need to proceed on writings or any book, much less one book, it also doesn't need to be a book from an obscure age, see Scientology. I see your bias showing.
Proof of the supernatural
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
- Status
There's only so many questions you can ask your doctor before he makes an appeal to authority and asks you to either trust him (which, to you, is unscientific, or "not rational") or get the hell out of his office. Which do you choose?
Except as I told you, no specific event that some may claim as supernatural, can ever be reproduced on demand.
If you have evidence to the contrary, then the balls in your court.
Why? I agree with all of them.
I don't accept any supernatural event...I don't believe there is any convincing extraordinary evidence to support any supernatural event.
I believe what some claim as supernatural are just unexplained at this time..
Well, as I said, the ball's in your court.
"Let me change that "generally" to "logically" or "sensibly" or as "dictated by evidence"
That's what I just said...So I'm going to take that as a yes. It was more relating to Dywyddyr's argument anyway, but thanks for backing me up.[/QUOTE]
I see your bias is showing. I don't see any evidence though...just unsupported mythical claims.
You proceed under a misapprehension.
There is nothing wrong with any appeal to authority, as long as that authority is expert in the relevant discipline.
If what he tells me about any medical condition is serious, he will refer me to a specialist in that particular field.
And again on trust, and faith, you are wrong.
Scientists do have faith and trust in certain things, but not the religious type of unwavering unconditional trust and faith.
That's why a scientific theory remains as a scientific theory, even in very near certain aspects of scientific theory like the BB, SR/GR and Evolution.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
That's the problem. Most the grand theories of physics for example are so general and abstract that they have no relevance to people's lives. Nobody studies relativity theory or quantum mechanics or supersymmetry to keep from being traumatized by something. And few accept these as true because they understand them. They accept them only because smarter people say they're true. And tomorrow someone else smarter may suddenly say they're not true. That's the magic of science.
Sure I do...Probably far more than you do.
I just question your reference and poll.
You must have a different sort of doctor than I do. He has never told me either one although I ask a lot of questions. He often answers based on his medical knowledge. He sometimes says "I don't know." He sometimes refers me to another specialist. He sometimes suggests I look something up on the net. (He has occasionally given me links to studies.) He sometimes says "not sure yet, I think I'll have to run X test to be sure."
He has never said "you just have to trust me" or "get the hell out of my office." Perhaps in your case the latter was due to something other than asking questions?
They don't need to get into all the relevant details.
They no without question, that science has benefited, is benefiting, and will always benefit mankind in the greater scheme of things.
That is an undeniable fact.
The magic of science is not magic if you could clear away the cobwebs. The "magic"as you put it, is simply the continued gaining of knowledge as time progresses. Somethings though will not change. The theory Evolution for instance. Details, times, etc maybe, but the overall picture of Evolution of life will remain.
We are all star dust.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
You have a really shitty doctor.
I see your bias is showing. I don't see any evidence though...just unsupported mythical claims.
Much like how you say the supernatural needs to proceed one way, you claim religion needs to do x and x in order to be called a religion, when that's just wrong. No evidence needed.
Definition of religion:
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power
I can understand the myth part, but it doesn't say anything about needing writings or books or that it needs to be x amount of years until it is accepted (that's only for legality).
Last edited:
He's pretty good, actually. You might prefer someone who tells you he knows everything. To each their own.
The ball is absolutely not in my court. I made no claims. You did.
Yeah. They disagree with you here.
Well, as I said, the ball's in your court.
No, it's in yours to prove what you are claiming.
Still no source.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I was just looking at a technical article on quantum mechanics. Much of it was mathematical heiroglyphs that are unlikely to be comprehensible even to individuals with graduate level university educations in fields other than physics or math.
The portion of the paper seemingly written in English was burdened by so much jargon that it would probably be totally incomprehensible to non-specialists as well:
Hilbert space, indicator function, Cauchy sequence, ket, orthogonal complement, Stern-Gerlach experiment, Kolmogorov probabilities, Hermitian operator, event algebra, density operator...
When physicists form conclusions based on that kind of stuff, I expect that 90+ % of the general population would have little alternative to accepting what's said on faith.
If members of the public are unable to follow the justifications given for the things that are being said, and unable to judge for themselves whether it contains logical errors or unjustified hidden assumptions, then all they can seemingly do is trust the scientific community. All the righteous talk about "reason" and "method" is beside the point, when people aren't in a position to understand.
It isn't unlike medievals trusting the claims of the Church and its theologians.
The portion of the paper seemingly written in English was burdened by so much jargon that it would probably be totally incomprehensible to non-specialists as well:
Hilbert space, indicator function, Cauchy sequence, ket, orthogonal complement, Stern-Gerlach experiment, Kolmogorov probabilities, Hermitian operator, event algebra, density operator...
When physicists form conclusions based on that kind of stuff, I expect that 90+ % of the general population would have little alternative to accepting what's said on faith.
If members of the public are unable to follow the justifications given for the things that are being said, and unable to judge for themselves whether it contains logical errors or unjustified hidden assumptions, then all they can seemingly do is trust the scientific community. All the righteous talk about "reason" and "method" is beside the point, when people aren't in a position to understand.
It isn't unlike medievals trusting the claims of the Church and its theologians.
Last edited:
But the books exist, as does also claims [unsupported and unevidenced] as to their divinely inspired origin...Like I say, books of an obscure nature, by obscure men, in an age of obscurity.
All I'm asking you to do is invalidate my claim that any perceived supernatural event, can be reproduced on demand.
And all I'm doing is asking for extraordinary evidence to support an extraordinary claim. :shrug:
No, it's in yours to prove what you are claiming.
Still no source.[/QUOTE]
It's not a military term.
It happens to be the term used by science AND "UFO" watchers.
No.
Really? You'd rather have a General Practitioner who pretends to know everything, rather than one who knows when the knowledge of a specialist should be consulted?
Actually... yeah, given what we've seen here, that doesn't surprise me much.
But scientists don't claim absolute knowledge and don't require absolute faith. Their methods are at least theoretically transparent and verified by third parties that have every interest in showing them to be wrong. Their authority doesn't come from who they are, but rather the extent to which they understand and can explain the topic.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
No..it isn't dust. The figures on the stairs appear there (they don't float from somewhere else) and remain stationary for around 5 seconds. The middle girl turns her head at one point. Then they disappear (they don't float somewhere else). All the dust particles are floating OVER these figures. So no. It's definitely not "dust."
Last edited:
- Status