Forums | MacLife

StaticAge wrote:

Pithecanthropus wrote:

I would challenge any of you believers in the "supernatural" to describe an example of a supernatural event, and not one out of the Bible.

You exist and are able to think and move about with relative freedom, carrying out your own acts of intention in a way undetermined by the universe you exist in, a universe which operates according to laws which are not contained in its existence, but is itself structured by them.

So...that's a "no", then.

One uses one's bias to assign value and probability to various theories. One's bias may be well founded in education, training and experience, or it may not be well founded.

Chickenhawk wrote:

Any sufficiently powerful and correctly programmed computer should be able to achieve sentience and become self aware.

Not if Sarah Conner gets to it first.

Chickenhawk wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Nice troll!

Wow, you really are going along with this.

Okay, let me ask you this.

You believe it's not okay to accept a theory without proof.

Is it okay to dismiss a theory without proof?

How hard would it be for you to provide proof for the article and your other statement otherwise instead of just attacking me?

I'm not attacking you, I'm asking very straightforward questions about your reaction to my post. I'm not trolling, I'm attempting an honest-to-God discussion (excuse the pun).

The issue isn't the validity of what the neuroscientist I mentioned believes, it's your reaction to those beliefs, said reaction mirroring resedit's on evolution.

To wit:

1. A respected scientist spent years researching a subject, but you, knowing absolutely nothing about said subject, dismiss his findings with contempt.

2. You're not even clear on what the theory is or what the ramifications are, simply that you don't like it so out it goes.

3. Your emotional state, one of anger and contempt, shows your beliefs are about emotion rather than an impartial weighing of data.

All of this is amazing to me because these very same behaviours as demonstrated by others have been the subject of your scorn.

Last edited by ShnickyShnack (2008-01-22 11:17 am)

Bottom line is that almost no events can ever be declared completely supernatural. Natural beings with a high understanding of natural world will be able to perform acts that appear to be supernatural to those with a lower understanding of the natural world.

That doesn't mean true supernatural doesn't exist, but there will never be a way to scientifically prove that supernatural does exist.

Thus - it all boils down to a matter of faith.

Need some time off from that emotion
Time to pick my heart up off the floor
And when that love comes down
Without devotion
Well it takes a strong man baby
But I'm showing you the door

'Cause I gotta have faith...

Chickenhawk wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

1. A respected scientist spent years researching a subject, but you, knowing absolutely nothing about said subject, dismiss his findings with contempt.

Then, tell me, why has he not published any papers on the subject of the soul. I'm sure the neuroscience community would lap it up if he were able to scientifically prove the existence of a soul. I just did a google scholar search on this guy, and nothing I was seeing had anything to do with the science of a 'soul'

Excuse me for saying the first thing which came to mind when I saw this. Further investigation proves my initial reaction to be correct.

Your reaction was not based on a careful examination of his work, or his qualifications of a scientist. You did not perform a rational assessment of facts and data. Please don't embarrass yourself by trying to pretend otherwise.

The classy thing to do would be to admit your initial reaction was flawed, or at least hasty; and that you have a greater understanding of the views of people like resedit, even if you continue to disagree with them.

Chickenhawk wrote:

Its an internet forum. You are taking this place too seriously. You should approach skepticism with facts to dissuade it, rather than attacking the skepticism.

Classic! So it's okay to dismiss theories out of hand, but not okay to dismiss that dismissal! But it's okay to dismiss dismissals if one has dismissive facts t one's dismissive hand.

This from a guy who posts agonized threads in other forums when resedit goes on his creationism riffs.

Dude, thanks. I haven't laughed this hard since XYZ left.

Chickenhawk wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Its an internet forum. You are taking this place too seriously. You should approach skepticism with facts to dissuade it, rather than attacking the skepticism.

Classic! So it's okay to dismiss theories out of hand, but not okay to dismiss that dismissal! But it's okay to dismiss dismissals if one has dismissive facts t one's dismissive hand.

Yes.

As long as we're clear!

StaticAge wrote:

Pithecanthropus wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

You exist and are able to think and move about with relative freedom, carrying out your own acts of intention in a way undetermined by the universe you exist in, a universe which operates according to laws which are not contained in its existence, but is itself structured by them.

Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as a "supernatural" event in my book.

What possibly could- in your book? If a supernatural event can take place in nature, thus making it observable, then nature must allow for its possibility. If nature itself is the result of a supernatural act, then the natural world cannot be taken for granted as showing what connection there exists between the "supernatural" and the natural.

Ta-da!  You've just found the crux of the problem.  I seriously don't believe that anything supernatural has ever happened, and that everything that seems so can be explained.  I do not believe that anything I cannot explain is a "supernatural" event, just that my own knowledge is insufficient.

So the thread is about "defining" supernatural, as if it could be boiled down to one absolute true definition.  I argue that there cannot be a universal definition of "supernatural" and that it comes down to the individual observer's reaction to given stimuli, and their own belief structure.

As res said, it comes down to faith.

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Ta-da!  You've just found the crux of the problem.  I seriously don't believe that anything supernatural has ever happened, and that everything that seems so can be explained.  I do not believe that anything I cannot explain is a "supernatural" event, just that my own knowledge is insufficient.

I said that on the first page of this thread.

user wrote:

Now, define "faith".

Unjustified belief.

That was easy.

What's the deal with this kid? Did a gang of religious converts rape his dog and pimp out his sister or something? The hostility is just so virulent.