|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
 Posted - 01/09/2006 : 17:36:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
I defined the supernatural at the beginning of this thread, and I've only made one change to that definition since. My definition is: that which is impossible according to the known laws of physics. Why is this unacceptable to you?
Whether it is acceptable to me is not the issue. I said, "You need to define magic, and in a way that is acceptable to science." You haven't. Why is this unacceptable to you?quote:
This presumes that it will be found to be the result of some natural process. So if we find an event that we can agree is against the known laws of physics, how much time would you want to investigate and see if there is indeed some natural process that we're unaware of?
I already asked you this question and you said forever, and I agreed with you.quote:
Please reply to these unanswered posts: [...]
Right after you describe a single incident, event, or phenomenon that has ever occurred that is known to be the result of supernatural causes. Real not hypothetical events only, please. Provide evidence and references. (Again I remind you, because you show a propensity for misunderstanding the simplest things, your book of myths, incredulity on the part of you or others, or your belief in imaginary beings do not constitute evidence.) Or admit that no verifiable miracle has ever happened.
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2006 : 21:41:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
For instance, if a robbery happened at a certain time and the suspect has no alibis for that time period, wouldn't that be evidence, though it isn't conclusive?
Not having an alibi is not, by itself, evidence that a person comitted a crime. You've already narrowed it down to "the suspect," but you did that using some other data than this guy's lack on an alibi. If you've got his fingerprints on a weapon used at the crime scene (because he dropped it), for example, then whether he's got an alibi or not doesn't much matter (unless his alibi consists of, say, an ATM photograph taken two towns away at the same time). So you say "the suspect," but to get to the point of having a suspect, you must have done something more than check peoples' alibis.
The problem is, Hippy, that for any given crime, there will be thousands, if not millions, of possible suspects with no alibi for that particular crime. If I decide to stay at home and take a nap while my wife and kid go shopping for a couple hours, I suddenly have no alibi for any crime committed within 5-10 miles of my home. That, of course, is not evidence that I committed any of those crimes, which is why the police don't question me every time someone in my neighborhood calls 911. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2006 : 00:02:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
For instance, if a robbery happened at a certain time and the suspect has no alibis for that time period, wouldn't that be evidence, though it isn't conclusive?
Dave W said it well, but I'd just like to add this. Lack of alibi is not evidence - it is lack of evidence. While an absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, it neither an evidence of presence. I can see why you would like your example, though. If there is a lack of evidence in a robbery - blame Joe Blogg. If there is a lack of evidence for what caused a hail-storm - blame god. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2006 : 15:22:43 [Permalink]
|
| Imagine how many people lack an alibi at any one time. Sheeesh. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2006 : 16:42:01 [Permalink]
|
New hypothesis regarding the explanation of unexplained phenomena.
Many phenomena in out universe are still, despite a logarithmic increase in scientific knowledge, unexplained. For some of these, it is also difficult to see how a natural explanation could possibly be proposed. They are, for a lack of a better word, unexplainable. After due consideration and much contemplation, I would like to propose a new hypothesis to explain these unexplainable phenomena. Revealed to me directly from source, Little Invisible pink Elephants (LIEs) are responsible for most, if not all of these phenomena. LIEs are not supernatural in any sense. They interact with matter like all other entities. They expend energy to perform work like all other entities. They can not traverse time either. In effect, they are normal natural entities - with the big difference that they are extremely good at hiding and thus avoiding detection.
The existence of LIEs explains many phenomena that were previously unexplained or thought to be due to supernatural causes. Feeling cold in haunted houses is in actual fact LIEs stealing your body heat to power their metabolism. WiLIEs (Winged LIEs) while similarly stealing heat from the lower troposphere have in the process inadvertently caused massive condensation to form, creating large hail-stones to fall from an apparently clear sky. LIEs even caused, by changing vote cards, George W Bush to become elected the president of the USA a second time. Also, some already explained phenomena, were in fact caused by LIEs. It seems as if the cornerstone of modern biology - macro-evolution - was in fact performed by LIEs sporting DNA-sized scissors. Intelligent Design was, in other words, performed by LIEs.
The lack of evidence for the existence of LIEs has promoted some people to claim that they do not exist at all. All I can say to these people is that LIEs explains so many of these unexplained phenomena that it would be unreasonable to dismiss their existence without any evidence supporting the notion that they don't exist. Unfortunately, at present, the only way to obtain conclusive evidence for their existence seems to be for them to personally reveal themselves to you. It has, however, been prophecised that a miner named Willy will find the scientific means to detect them in the year 2049.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 13:55:30 [Permalink]
|
Mack:
quote:
Whether it is acceptable to me is not the issue. I said, "You need to define magic, and in a way that is acceptable to science." You haven't. Why is this unacceptable to you?
Okay, to rephrase, I do not see why my definition is unacceptable to science. If I were trying to define "supernatural" as "a specific force which does thus-and-so" then I would have to find a way to quantify it, but that's not how I'm defining it. I am defining it as a category of events. Natural events are those which follow the known laws of physics, supernatural events are those that defy them.
quote:
I already asked you this question and you said forever, and I agreed with you.
No, my question is slightly different, although I should have made my question clearer. You said:
quote:
How long would you propose an event be subject to the scientific investigation process before science is abandoned in favor of accepting the event as supernatural?
I said: (edited to complete my thought)
quote:
So if we find an event that we can agree is against the known laws of physics, how much time would you want to investigate and see if there is indeed some natural process that we're unaware of before admitting that there is a likely possibility that the event had a supernatural cause?
I do not think that science should ever be abandoned unless, as I said before, one receives divine revelation.
quote:
Right after you describe a single incident, event, or phenomenon that has ever occurred that is known to be the result of supernatural causes.
By "known" do you mean in the sense that a square contains four right angles or in the sense that light is a form of electromagnetic waves? The first is a verifiable, undeniable fact; the second is a confirmed theory.
Dave:
quote:
Not having an alibi is not, by itself, evidence that a person comitted a crime. You've already narrowed it down to "the suspect," but you did that using some other data than this guy's lack on an alibi.
Okay then, a lack of an alibi is not evidence in and of itself, though it does permit the possibility of the suspect's guilt. How about a set of footprints that matched a suspect's shoes, would that be considered evidence which isn't neccessarily conclusive?
Hawks:
quote:
Revealed to me directly from source, Little Invisible pink Elephants (LIEs) are responsible for most, if not all of these phenomena.
Fascinating. What is your source? Under what circumstances was this revealed to you?
quote:
It has, however, been prophecised that a miner named Willy will find the scientific means to detect them in the year 2049.
I'll keep that in mind.
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 |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 16:02:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
Okay, to rephrase, I do not see why my definition is unacceptable to science. If I were trying to define "supernatural" as "a specific force which does thus-and-so" then I would have to find a way to quantify it, but that's not how I'm defining it. I am defining it as a category of events. Natural events are those which follow the known laws of physics, supernatural events are those that defy them.
Science already has a perfectly good way to describe those things which are not yet fully understood to be the result of known natural causes. They are referred to as "things which are not yet fully understood to be the result of known natural causes." You can call them supernatural events if you want. For you to attribute their causes to the magical powers of your imaginary buddy is simply your way of rationalizing your own incredulity. Whatever floats your superstitious boat.
And by the way, why don't you describe those events that defy the known laws of physics? And if there are no such events, why won't you just come clean and admit that you don't know of any?quote:
So if we find an event that we can agree is against the known laws of physics, how much time would you want to investigate and see if there is indeed some natural process that we're unaware of before admitting that there is a likely possibility that the event had a supernatural cause?
Forever, of course. How about you? You want to propose some time frame, a statute of limitations on intellectual pursuits before those pursuits are set aside in favor of buying into some silly superstition?
And why aren't you willing to describe those events that defy the known laws of physics? Or is it that you just aren't aware of any?quote:
I do not think that science should ever be abandoned unless, as I said before, one receives divine revelation.
And since there is no evidence that anyone has ever received any divine revelation, do you really think it prudent, from the standpoint of science and human progress, to factor that in as a realistic possibility before even a single example of it ever becomes available?quote:
Originally posted by me...
Right after you describe a single incident, event, or phenomenon that has ever occurred that is known to be the result of supernatural causes.
By "known" do you mean in the sense that a square contains four right angles or in the sense that light is a form of electromagnetic waves? The first is a verifiable, undeniable fact; the second is a confirmed theory.
It would be nice if you'd stop playing your childish semantics games, but by now we know better than to expect that from you. If you had an example of a single supernatural event that has ever occurred that can be supported by evidence, you'd describe it. You don't have it and you're not willing to admit you don't. But that does bring us back to the subject of this entire thread. One of the primary reasons the magical powers of your imaginary pal aren't considered a legitimate possibility when trying to determine the cause of events with evasive explanations is because there are no examples of magic having been the cause of any other events before, ever, period.quote:
Okay then, a lack of an alibi is not evidence in and of itself, though it does permit the possibility of the suspect's guilt. How about a set of footprints that matched a suspect's shoes, would that be considered evidence which isn't neccessarily conclusive?
You just don't get it. You keep trying to tweak and modify and reword your hypotheticals hoping someone will eventually say, "Wow I guess you're right, there is a god!" It's a stupid juvenile game you're playing, and we all see through it. If there really is a god, is there really a god? If there really is evidence of magic, is there evidence of magic? If Martians kidnapped Jimmy Hoffa, did Martians kidnap Jimmy Hoffa? Yes... if... but there isn't any evidence to support any of the above. And since you can't bring on the evidence, then the possibility that your delusion is real can be summarily dismissed by science. Obviously this troubles you. Too bad you can't just learn to get over your lack of faith.
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2006 : 21:22:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Natural events are those which follow the known laws of physics, supernatural events are those that defy them.
If we were to discover an event that did defy the known laws of physics it would simply show that our understanding of the laws of physics is incomplete. For example, small relativity and CPT violations might point the way to a unified theory of everything. Your criteria would merely classify these events as supernatural rather than using them to improve and expand our understanding.quote:
quote:
Revealed to me directly from source, Little Invisible pink Elephants (LIEs) are responsible for most, if not all of these phenomena.
Fascinating. What is your source? Under what circumstances was this revealed to you?
Divine revelation I'd guess. Or maybe it was written in a holy book.  Your skepticism here is healthy. The point is that you need to apply this same skepticism to your own beliefs. |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 01/13/2006 21:23:22 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 00:27:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Fascinating. What is your source? Under what circumstances was this revealed to you?
Divine revelation I'd guess. Or maybe it was written in a holy book. Your skepticism here is healthy. The point is that you need to apply this same skepticism to your own beliefs.
My source was actually meant to be LIEs. The point was that you should apply the same skepticism to your own beliefs, but even more to the point was that your own criteria for determinig that if something is supernatural are moot, since what you will really have revealed might as well be nothing divine but rather LIEs. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2006 : 01:24:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
My source was actually meant to be LIEs. The point was that you should apply the same skepticism to your own beliefs, but even more to the point was that your own criteria for determinig that if something is supernatural are moot, since what you will really have revealed might as well be nothing divine but rather LIEs.
Little Invisible Elephants are not divine? Well this is the first I've heard of it. 
Does your point here relate to the acronym LIE = lie? What if the being in question were a Tiny Rhinoceros Usually Thoroughly Hidden. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 13:23:19 [Permalink]
|
Mack:
quote:
Science already has a perfectly good way to describe those things which are not yet fully understood to be the result of known natural causes. They are referred to as "things which are not yet fully understood to be the result of known natural causes."
This assumes that you will always find a natural cause, this is bias in favor of naturalism, this is excluding the supernatural a priori; this assumption, bias, and exclusion is unscientific.
quote:
You can call them supernatural events if you want.
You also misrepresented my definition, again. You said "things which are not yet fully understood to be the result of known natural causes", I said "that which is impossible according to the known laws of physics."
quote:
For you to attribute their causes to the magical powers of your imaginary buddy is simply your way of rationalizing your own incredulity.
At the beginning of this thread I said that I was "inclined to believe" that Yahweh was responsible for the megacryometeors. This is my own personal hypothesis, it is not a definite conclusion, and I have not asked any of you to believe it.
quote:
And by the way, why don't you describe those events that defy the known laws of physics?
Because we haven't yet agreed upon the definition of our terms. It would be useless for me to give an example (and I do have one in mind) until we agree on those terms.
quote:
Forever, of course.
This is ridiculous. What scientific principle are you appealing to? No judge on the face of the planet would allow a defense attorney unlimited time to find evidence that his client is innocent. If an event is to be assumed to be of natural causes until proven otherwise, and if scientists are to be given all eternity to find evidence that the event is natural, then it is impossible to ever declare an event to be supernatural.
quote:
How about you? You want to propose some time frame, a statute of limitations on intellectual pursuits before those pursuits are set aside in favor of buying into some silly superstition?
As soon as it is agreed that something is happening which known science says should not be happening the supernatural should be added to the list of considerations. And again, you falsely accuse me of telling people to stop doing scientific research.
quote:
And since there is no evidence that anyone has ever received any divine revelation,...
We haven't yet agreed on what constitutes evidence.
quote:
quote:
I said:
By "known" do you mean in the sense that a square contains four right angles or in the sense that light is a form of electromagnetic waves? The first is a verifiable, undeniable fact; the second is a confirmed theory.
It would be nice if you'd stop playing your childish semantics games, but by now we know better than to expect that from you.
I could get into a long debate about whether or not these are "childish semantics games", but instead I think I'll just ask you to please answer the question.
quote:
You just don't get it. You keep trying to tweak and modify and reword your hypotheticals hoping someone will eventually say, "Wow I guess you're right, there is a god!"
(exasperated sigh of patience)No, I'm trying to figure out the proper methods of finding truth. So please answer the question.
Matt:
quote:
If we were to discover an event that did defy the known laws of physics it would simply show that our understanding of the laws of physics is incomplete.
And if Yahweh is somehow healing lepers and granting eternal life according to the True Laws of Physics that wouldn't bother me in the slightest degree. If you went back in time and said to King Arthur "I can give you the technology to sit in Camelot and talk with Lancelot on the other side of England"(phones) he'd probably say "What magic is this?"
quote:
For example, small relativity and CPT violations might point the way to a unified theory of everything. Your criteria would merely classify these events as supernatural rather than using them to improve and expand our understanding.
Or the theories are simply false to begin with. Even if I would classify something as supernatural I still wouldn't tell people to not study it further. If you can agree that things happen which are against the known laws of physics, why would you exclude the possibility that there might be an intelligence controlling it?
Hawks:
quote:
The point was that you should apply the same skepticism to your own beliefs, but even more to the point was that your own criteria for determinig that if something is supernatural are moot, since what you will really have revealed might as well be nothing divine but rather LIEs.
I do apply the same skepticism to my own beliefs, and I would like to continue this vein of discussion to show you my process of doing it. A revelation may be a lie, but charging someone with lying is a serious thing, not to be done lightly.
quote:
My source was actually meant to be LIEs.
Okay, so a Little Invisible Elephant told this to you. Describe the event. What was actually said?
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 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 15:17:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Okay, so a Little Invisible Elephant told this to you. Describe the event. What was actually said?
I thought it was quite obvious that I was not being sincere. I was trying to make the point that your criteria for determining if something was supernatural could also be explained by something that is wholy natural. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2006 : 16:11:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
This assumes that you will always find a natural cause, this is bias in favor of naturalism, this is excluding the supernatural a priori; this assumption, bias, and exclusion is unscientific.
Describe a single event, occurrence, or phenomenon that is known by science to be the result of supernatural causes. Can't? That's okay, we didn't think you could.
Describe how one might go about proper scientific testing for those supernatural causes. No answer again, eh?quote:
You also misrepresented my definition, again. You said "things which are not yet fully understood to be the result of known natural causes", I said "that which is impossible according to the known laws of physics."
Okay then, describe a single event, occurrence, or phenomenon that has ever happened that is currently accepted by science as being "impossible according to the known laws of physics". Can't?
Describe how one might go about proper scientific testing for supernatural causes. Still no answer to that one?quote:
At the beginning of this thread I said that I was "inclined to believe" that Yahweh was responsible for the megacryometeors. This is my own personal hypothesis, it is not a definite conclusion, and I have not asked any of you to believe it.
There is documentation available that ventures to provide scientific explanations for the giant hail stones. The fact that you still believe your imaginary terrorist might have done it says much about your lack of regard for science in general.quote:
Because we haven't yet agreed upon the definition of our terms. It would be useless for me to give an example (and I do have one in mind) until we agree on those terms.
Without scientifically acceptable evidence that there have been supernatural causes for any events so far, we may dismiss out of hand the possibility that your imaginary terrorist god buddy caused any. Without a scientifically acceptable method of testing for supernatural causes, we won't be able to put that in the mix when trying to determine the cause of current or future unexplained events. There's your terms.
Now if you do know of an event that has occurred that is accepted by science as being impossible according to the known laws of physics, by all means, lay it on us. But again, we don't think you have one.quote:
This is ridiculous. What scientific principle are you appealing to? No judge on the face of the planet would allow a defense attorney unlimited time to find evidence that his client is innocent. If an event is to be assumed to be of natural causes until proven otherwise, and if scientists are to be given all eternity to find evidence that the event is natural, then it is impossible to ever declare an event to be supernatural.
Maybe you're onto something here. It just may be impossible to ever declare an event to be supernatural. So be it. Feeling duly persecuted yet?
Get this through your head: If supernatural causes are accepted as the explanation for an event, there is no reason to continue looking for any other explanation. If there is reason to continue looking, then the supernatural has not been accepted as the explanation.
Oh, and in most situations a defense attorney may present a case for his client's innocence pretty much all the way up until the client dies, at which point it usually becomes moot. But there are indeed cases where someone has been exonerated of a crime post mortem. So your judge analogy fails miserably, much like your continued efforts to use silly hypotheticals.quote:
As soon as it is agreed that something is happening which known science says should not be happening the supernatural should be added to the list of considerations. And again, you falsely accuse me of telling people to stop doing scientific research.
Describe how one might go about proper scientific testing for those supernatural causes. We're still waiting.quote:
We haven't yet agreed on what constitutes evidence.
Well only because you want to include anecdotes from your book of myths and your incredulity as evidence. When you discard those then we'll be a lot closer to agreeing on what constitutes evidence. But we don't think you will.quote:
No, I'm trying to figure out the proper methods of finding truth. So please answer the question.
It's still your turn. It's been put back in your court many times now, and you still refuse to answer those questions that have been asked of you. You've been bobbing and weaving since the beginning of this thread like a lying child trying to avoid answering a question. And of course by now it seems like you won't answer because you can't answer.quote:
And if Yahweh is somehow healing lepers and granting eternal life according to the True Laws of Physics that wouldn't bother me in the slightest degree. If you went back in time and said to King Arthur "I can give you the technology to sit in Camelot and talk with Lancelot on the other side of England"(phones) he'd probably say "What magic is this?"
And if a leprechaun really is handing out pots of gold... and if the Tooth Fairy really really is putting money under pillows... and if Atlantis really is inhabited by humans who can breath under water...
More of your childish hypotheticals. And you're getting more and more ridiculous all the time. How cute, King Arthur and Lancelot. If these things are true, then are these things true? Yes... if. Somehow you can't get past that. If you claim that magic might be real, the burden of proof rests upon you. What's that? You can't prove it? Well in case you didn't realize, we didn't think you could.quote:
Or the theories are simply false to begin with. Even if I would classify something as supernatural I still wouldn't tell people to not study it further. If you can agree that things happen which are against the known laws of physics, why would you exclude the possibility that there might be an intelligence controlling it?
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 11:13:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
quote:
If we were to discover an event that did defy the known laws of physics it would simply show that our understanding of the laws of physics is incomplete.
And if Yahweh is somehow healing lepers and granting eternal life according to the True Laws of Physics that wouldn't bother me in the slightest degree.
I think we agree in principle here. I'll just point out that you don't have any evidence for this 'Yahweh' fellow and must accept him soley on faith.quote:
If you went back in time and said to King Arthur "I can give you the technology to sit in Camelot and talk with Lancelot on the other side of England"(phones) he'd probably say "What magic is this?"
Granted, he might think it was magic.
quote:
Or the theories are simply false to begin with.
Maybe, but how will clasifying the aspects of nature that they describe as supernatural aid us in discovering the truth.
quote:
Even if I would classify something as supernatural I still wouldn't tell people to not study it further.
If something is supernatural then it is outside of the realm of science so what would be the point of studying it further?
quote:
If you can agree that things happen which are against the known laws of physics, why would you exclude the possibility that there might be an intelligence controlling it?
I don't exclude the possibility that there might be an intelligence (supernatural or not) controlling what we perceive as reality. However as there is no evidence for such a being I don't give it much consideration either.
Hippy science can't justify a belief in the supernatural. It can't justify a belief in anything for which there is no evidence. Your belief in Yahweh must be based on faith. Even the Bible speaks of the importance of faith. It admonishes Christians to become as little children. It states that without faith it is impossible to please God. According to the Bible your faith is a good thing. If you could prove that Yahweh exists you wouldn't need faith, and you do need faith. It's part of what being a Christian is all about. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2006 : 11:24:06 [Permalink]
|
Mack:
Gravity is impossible according to the known laws of physics. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". If you apply upward force to a ball, the ball begins to move up. But then, amazingly enough, the ball slows down and comes back. What material object applied enough downward force to the ball to cancel and reverse the upward force which you provided?
quote:
If supernatural causes are accepted as the explanation for an event, there is no reason to continue looking for any other explanation.
If a divine being's will is accepted as the explanation for an event, then there is no reason to continue looking for any other explanation. I do not equate the supernatural with a divine being's will. Classifying something as supernatural is not an admission of the existence of a divine being, it is the admission of how little we actually know about the universe.
quote:
Oh, and in most situations a defense attorney may present a case for his client's innocence pretty much all the way up until the client dies, at which point it usually becomes moot.
I didn't say "present a case", I said "find evidence". If the evidence points to the defendant being guilty, the defense attorney is not given unlimited time to find evidence before the defendant is convicted. If he was, nobody would ever be convicted of anything unless they plead guilty.
quote:
So you'd classify something as having supernatural causes, but would continue to seek the real explanation? That sounds a lot like you're defining as supernatural "things which are not yet fully understood to be the result of known natural causes."
The supernatural in and of itself is not an explanation, it is a category of explanations. "Things which are not yet fully understood to be the result of known natural causes" is a faith statement.
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 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
