Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 122
Like Tree22Likes

Thread: Is it possible/not for something to exist, that's not composed of matter/energy?

  1. #1 Is it possible/not for something to exist, that's not composed of matter/energy? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Religion (specifically Christians) uses this "not composed of matter/energy" idea to describe God, Arch/Angels, Heaven, Hell, Souls, Devils.

    If your answer is "not-possible", can evidence back it up?

    On the other hand, religion says that is not composed of matter/energy exists, making evidence not required??????
    (that no evidence can be extracted, due to: it not being composed of matter/energy?)

    so is it true that the request for evidence cant be used to counter-argue this idea?


    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    If your answer is "not-possible", can evidence back it up?
    I don't know whether it is possible or not, but I can tell you that such a 'thing' would have no relevance to us since 'something' which has no energy of any form associated with it could not interact in any way with our physical world. Therefore it might as well not exist, for all the difference it makes.

    This really belongs to religion or philosophy, not so much to science.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    such a 'thing' would have no relevance to us since 'something' which has no energy of any form associated with it 1)could not interact in any way with our physical world (would be non-casual). 2)Therefore it might as well not exist, for all the difference it makes.
    Perhaps, if the things (God, Arch/Angels, Heaven, Hell, Souls, Devils) exist,
    1) God created the big bang/or creation in the bible(quantum flux), (and quantum fluctuations, and other acausal events)
    2) Souls (yourself) exists (although not composed of matter/energy). (well, that has gotta make a difference)



    well, i also want to make the point they not only say: "it is not composed of energy/matter", they also say "the exist outside our dimension of time."...
    apparently not requiring them to give any evidence.

    mind fux..
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    (that no evidence can be extracted, due to: it not being composed of matter/energy?)
    If no evidence of something is possible, presumably because it has no effect on anything, then in what sense can it be said to exist?

    Does the invisible pink unicorn in my garden (that never leaves any footprints or droppings) exist?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    If no evidence of something is possible, presumably because it has no effect on anything, then in what sense can it be said to exist?
    aha.... the point Christians make could be:
    "the power of god, controlling acasual events made the authors of the bible write about his existence (could be said through effects of acasual neuron firing electrical signals in the brain)"
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Huh?

    If something has a measurable effect then it exists. If it has no measurable effect then it might as well not exist.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    define the "measurable effects" you are talking about.

    isnt the bible a "measurable effect"?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    isnt the bible a "measurable effect"?
    All that demonstrates is that there are people who can write. It doesn't prove that the thing they are writing about exists. Does Hogwarts exist? That appeared in a book.
    bphillips8709 likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    1) God created the big bang/or creation in the bible(quantum flux), (and quantum fluctuations, and other acausal events)
    2) Souls (yourself) exists (although not composed of matter/energy). (well, that has gotta make a difference)
    These are just personal beliefs of yours, neither of which I share. You got to remember that not everyone is Christian, or even religious at all for that matter.
    None of this has anything to do with science, this is just philosophy and religion, with a healthy dose of personal beliefs thrown in.
    tk421 and MrMojo1 like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Prove it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    define the "measurable effects" you are talking about.

    isnt the bible a "measurable effect"?
    Are you serious? Is your thinking that clouded by dogmatic adherence to a belief system? The bible is not an effect, it's an object. And that object's existence is only evidence that there are people who share your beliefs, and that these people can write. That's all. Its existence is in no way evidence that what is written inside is true, any more than the existence of any other book implies that what's written inside them is true (as Strange pointed out with his Harry Potter example).

    You really need to learn some logical and critical thinking skills. Study up on what the scientific method is, with a particular focus on what constitutes evidence, and how it is evaluated.
    PhDemon likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    "Neverfly
    Thank you for posting! Your post will not be visible until a moderator has approved it for posting."
    Not only did I get bumped into the Mod Queue when I replied to bphillips8709's post, but bphillips8709's last post has now vanished.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    What is mod queue? and why is relevant to my post? you make it sound bad, yet, i have no clue what it means
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    So it was bumped probably because of the link to my blog, yes?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    I don't get why that it. Or the reasoning for why it is frowned upon. I am probably annoying you with my ignorance to forums. I care greatly about my talent for writing an am just trying to network and meet like-minded people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    I care greatly about my talent for writing
    What a pity you don't care enough about your "talent" to improve it. Vastly.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Wow, it is beyond me why people continue to be so negative. We all know the value of your life. Would you like to view my "proper" writing skills. I can provide them for you; if in fact, you could handle my skills. Upon request, I can provide one of any 8 page essays I have completed on such things as homeopahty, holistic healing, ayurvedics, apothecary etc etc...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    Wow, it is beyond me why people continue to be so negative.
    It's usually brought on by hubristic self-evidently contradictory comments.

    We all know the value of your life.
    Now that I sincerely doubt.

    Would you like to view my "proper" writing skills. I can provide them for you l
    Yes please. (And don't link me to your blog, I looked at that before commenting).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    I care greatly about my talent for writing
    What a pity you don't care enough about your "talent" to improve it. Vastly.
    Trolling
    The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue. Trolling does not mean just making rude remarks: Shouting swear words at someone doesn't count as trolling; it's just flaming, and isn't funny. Spam isn't trolling either; it pisses people off, but it's lame.

    The most essential part of trolling is convincing your victim that either a) truly believe in what you are saying, no matter how outrageous, or b) give your victim malicious instructions, under the guise of help.
    Trolling requires decieving; any trolling that doesn't involve decieving someone isn't trolling at all; it's just stupid. As such, your victim must not know that you are trolling; if he does, you are an unsuccesful troll.

    Signs that your trolling is succesful:
    *Your victim screaming in all-caps at you.
    *Personal attacks (Calling you a retard, idiot, etc).
    *Being an Internet Tough Guy.
    *Making a crude remark, before quickly logging off before you can retort.

    Signs that your trolling is unsuccesful:
    *Your victim identifying you as a troll.
    *Identifying yourself as a troll.
    *Your efforts being ignored.
    *Being counter-trolled (See below)

    Counter-trolling (Or reverse trolling) is an effective method of redeeming yourself after being trolled. It i...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    my blog, as I state so within the text of it, is a place for release not a place for editing because, as i state, I do enough of that in school. How do I attach an essay to you? Enlighten me, and I will follow through
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    Blah blah blah.
    So what?
    That doesn't help your case (especially if you wrote it, since the English is verging on the execrable).
    If it's not an example of your writing, i.e. you think I'm trolling, then you're sadly mistaken.
    See my previous comment: It's usually brought on by hubristic self-evidently contradictory comments.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    my blog, as I state so within the text of it, is a place for release not a place for editing because, as i state, I do enough of that in school.
    In other words, you don't care enough to ensure your writing is as good as possible at all times.

    How do I attach an essay to you? Enlighten me, and I will follow through
    I'll PM you my email. You can send me a copy.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    No, in other words, I am starting a personal blog; not a professional blog. I care that people know my character a bit before I post anything proper. My blog will be my therapy for I cannot afford the time to deliver "proper" writing skills for school and such things as an extracurricular like blogging.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    my blog, as I state so within the text of it, is a place for release not a place for editing because, as i state, I do enough of that in school.
    In other words, you don't care enough to ensure your writing is as good as possible at all times.

    How do I attach an essay to you? Enlighten me, and I will follow through
    I'll PM you my email. You can send me a copy.
    and i think you should probably join a debate team if this is how you like to converse with others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    one of any 8 page essays I have completed on such things as homeopahty, holistic healing, ayurvedics, apothecary etc etc...
    You spend your time writing about nonsense subjects?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Thanks for your negative view on things. I see it more as an expansion of knowledge so that I can expand in other areas of research. But no really. I think you are just old and cranky, but I respect that. My grandma is old and cranky but it doesn't mean she isn't wise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    There is no "knowledge" to be gained from homoeopathy or the others.
    And, FYI, I was cranky when young too.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    Thanks for your negative view on things. I see it more as an expansion of knowledge so that I can expand in other areas of research. But no really. I think you are just old and cranky, but I respect that. My grandma is old and cranky but it doesn't mean she isn't wise.
    Welcome to the Forum. That said, I fear that your stay here will be fraught with conflict, and might therefore be short-lived. Here's why: Science is particularly demanding of critical thinking. Someone who clearly is so open-minded as to accept homeopathy, as one example, has already shown a lack of the necessary logical skills. What you feel are attacks are, in fact, attacks. That is an inevitable result of the conflict that naturally arises when someone's belief system comes under scientific attack for having no basis in evidence. Not everyone will find that adversarial approach to his or her liking, but that's the way science has painstakingly separated wheat from chaff. Many ideas that sound reasonable are, in fact, just plain wrong. Science has given us the best methods yet devised for determining what is what. The "other ways of knowing" often invoked by those with a predisposition toward magical thinking are in fact demonstrably inferior ways of knowing.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    ha. There is knowledge to be gained from homeopathy. If you are skilled in homeopathy you should, too, be skilled in foraging. Foraging if done wrong is deadly. Tell me there is no knowledge when learning homeopathy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    And, FYI, I was cranky when young too.
    What do you call what you are, now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Foraging is not homoeopathy.
    And homoeopathy is not foraging.

    One is valid, t'other is not.
    seagypsy likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    Thanks for your negative view on things. I see it more as an expansion of knowledge so that I can expand in other areas of research. But no really. I think you are just old and cranky, but I respect that. My grandma is old and cranky but it doesn't mean she isn't wise.
    Welcome to the Forum. That said, I fear that your stay here will be fraught with conflict, and might therefore be short-lived. Here's why: Science is particularly demanding of critical thinking. Someone who clearly is so open-minded as to accept homeopathy, as one example, has already shown a lack of the necessary logical skills. What you feel are attacks are, in fact, attacks. That is an inevitable result of the conflict that naturally arises when someone's belief system comes under scientific attack for having no basis in evidence. Not everyone will find that adversarial approach to his or her liking, but that's the way science has painstakingly separated wheat from chaff. Many ideas that sound reasonable are, in fact, just plain wrong. Science has given us the best methods yet devised for determining what is what. The "other ways of knowing" often invoked by those with a predisposition toward magical thinking are in fact demonstrably inferior ways of knowing.
    I am amateur. My knowledge on homeopathy and such is just to expand my studies on food in the respects of other areas of science. Being narrow-minded has its downfall as well because obviously you couldn't conclude any other reason for my interests. But kudos to you for clarifying the way "scientifically blessed" people ward off newcomers into the world of science. Brilliant, just brilliant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    What do you call what you are, now?
    Less young?
    Or did you mean the "cranky" bit?
    In which case f*ckin' rabid is probably the best descriptor.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Foraging is not homoeopathy.
    And homoeopathy is not foraging.

    One is valid, t'other is not.
    learning homeopathy involves foraging. So, yes, it was a valid point. Or, rather, I gained knowledge of foraging upon learning about homeopathy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    ha. There is knowledge to be gained from homeopathy. If you are skilled in homeopathy you should, too, be skilled in foraging. Foraging if done wrong is deadly. Tell me there is no knowledge when learning homeopathy.
    Homeopathy in a nutshell:
    James Randi explains homeopathy - YouTube
    That Mitchell and Webb Look: Homeopathic A&E - YouTube
    There is no knowledge to be gained from swindling dumb people out of their money.

    Foraging is finding of food, not trying to heal ailments with massive dilutions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    Being narrow-minded has its downfall as well because obviously you couldn't conclude any other reason for my interests. But kudos to you for clarifying the way "scientifically blessed" people ward off newcomers into the world of science. Brilliant, just brilliant.
    Hmm, there's no "narrow-mindedness" with regard to homoeopathy - it has been shown to be utterly invalid.
    As for the "introduction" it's reasonably gentle. Science works like that, ideas must be subject to criticism and impartial review. "The strongest steel is forged in the hottest fire".
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    learning homeopathy involves foraging.
    Involves. Not is.

    Or, rather, I gained knowledge of foraging upon learning about homeopathy.
    Couldn't foraging be learned through a general interest in plants?
    seagypsy likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    ha. There is knowledge to be gained from homeopathy. If you are skilled in homeopathy you should, too, be skilled in foraging. Foraging if done wrong is deadly. Tell me there is no knowledge when learning homeopathy.
    Homeopathy in a nutshell:
    James Randi explains homeopathy - YouTube
    That Mitchell and Webb Look: Homeopathic A&E - YouTube
    There is no knowledge to be gained from swindling dumb people out of their money.

    Foraging is finding of food, not trying to heal ailments with massive dilutions.
    I am not researching people's opinion on homeopathy. I am researching the topic itself with or without bias to better understand it's origins and why so many think there is any efficacy to it at all. So please, please try to be less narrow-minded, people.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    ha. There is knowledge to be gained from homeopathy. If you are skilled in homeopathy you should, too, be skilled in foraging. Foraging if done wrong is deadly. Tell me there is no knowledge when learning homeopathy.
    Ok. There is no knowledge (except negative) when "learning" homeopathy.

    Challenge met. Now here's one for you: Compute, using mathematics, how many molecules of an additive is found in a liter of a 30C homeopathic remedy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    learning homeopathy involves foraging.
    Involves. Not is.

    Or, rather, I gained knowledge of foraging upon learning about homeopathy.
    Couldn't foraging be learned through a general interest in plants?
    I do have a general interest in foodstuff which includes plants.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    ha. There is knowledge to be gained from homeopathy. If you are skilled in homeopathy you should, too, be skilled in foraging. Foraging if done wrong is deadly. Tell me there is no knowledge when learning homeopathy.
    Ok. There is no knowledge (except negative) when "learning" homeopathy.

    Challenge met. Now here's one for you: Compute, using mathematics, how many molecules of an additive is found in a liter of a 30C homeopathic remedy.
    ha. if I wanted to become skilled in the act of homeopathy I would indeed learn how to compute that. For now I know that homeopathy includes the dilution of the product.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    I am not researching people's opinion on homeopathy.
    We haven't given an opinion.

    I am researching the topic itself with or without bias to better understand it's origins and why so many think there is any efficacy to it at all.
    Because nature provides us (or rather, provides the con-men) with an endless number of gullible people.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    We haven't given an opinion.
    Careful with the "We" stuff. I gave an opinion: That homeopathy is bunk used to part a fool and his money.
    But... the poster did make a valid point; that there can be beneficial learning even when learning bunk. Which is very true. One might even learn and develop critical thinking skills when they started out trying to learn something that is bunkum hokus pokus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    I am not researching people's opinion on homeopathy.
    We haven't given an opinion.

    I am researching the topic itself with or without bias to better understand it's origins and why so many think there is any efficacy to it at all.
    Because nature provides us (or rather, provides the con-men) with an endless number of gullible people.
    now that is an opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    We haven't given an opinion.
    Careful with the "We" stuff. I gave an opinion: That homeopathy is bunk used to part a fool and his money.
    But... the poster did make a valid point, that there can be beneficial learning even when learning bunk. Which is very true. One might even learn and develop critical thinking skills when they started out trying to learn something that is bunkum hokus pokus.

    THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING the point I was obviously not making.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    So because Neverfly set the tone I would like to reiterate the purpose of my interests in homeopathy: to further understand it's origins with respects to other branches of science. Thanks. Immediately, many of you assumed I am partial the efficacy of homeopathy. I was bombarded with one fact: homeopathy is negative knowledge. This, however does not mean that there is nothing to be learned from it. Kudos to all of you that understand the importance of critical analysis or thinking in all things that we do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    now that is an opinion.
    Really?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    We haven't given an opinion.
    Homoeopathy being nonsense is not an opinion, it's a fact.

    Because nature provides us (or rather, provides the con-men) with an endless number of gullible people.
    You think that there isn't a "endless number" of gullible people?
    They get born all the time.
    bphillips8709 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING the point I was obviously not making.
    bphillips8709, there is something you need to understand: People join and often pretend to be skeptics while actually promoting their hare-brained ideas very, very often.
    You said you're still learning the forum setting. But those of us who have participated over years... it really gets tiresome (Being deceived) and yes, sometimes a member can come across as very negative or doubtful.
    Years and years of watching certain people betray benefit of the doubt and play a game rather than honestly seek to learn or educate- it weighs on a person.
    As you might ask for patience, give patience, as well.
    None of us are perfect and maybe you'll show the rest of us that you are not just another of those pretenders and you demonstrate a willingness to examine evidence, rather than just bald claims.
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    So because Neverfly set the tone I would like to reiterate the purpose of my interests in homeopathy: to further understand it's origins with respects to other branches of science. Thanks. Immediately, many of you assumed I am partial the efficacy of homeopathy. I was bombarded with one fact: homeopathy is negative knowledge. This, however does not mean that there is nothing to be learned from it. Kudos to all of you that understand the importance of critical analysis or thinking.
    You mentioned a list of pseudo-science and none are branches of science. They are branches of faith or belief.
    Understand that with a list like that which you gave, others will respond to that list, not just baseless conclusions.
    bphillips8709 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    So because Neverfly set the tone I would like to reiterate the purpose of interests in homeopathy: to further understand it's origins with respects to other branches of science. Thanks.
    Homoeopathy is NOT a branch of science.
    It's not, in any way, related to cience.
    The closest it gets is that it was "invented/ discovered" by a physician - Hahnemann, based on false premises and having zero factual support.
    bphillips8709 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    now that is an opinion.
    Really?
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    We haven't given an opinion.
    Homoeopathy being nonsense is not an opinion, it's a fact.

    Because nature provides us (or rather, provides the con-men) with an endless number of gullible people.
    You think that there isn't a "endless number" of gullible people?
    They get born all the time.
    I just simply do not understand it as fact. I heard it from an unknown source. If, in fact, you could prove it. I would say it was fact, not opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    So because Neverfly set the tone I would like to reiterate the purpose of interests in homeopathy: to further understand it's origins with respects to other branches of science. Thanks.
    Homoeopathy is NOT a branch of science.
    It's not, in any way, related to cience.
    The closest it gets is that it was "invented/ discovered" by a physician - Hahnemann, based on false premises and having zero factual support.
    haha. For pete sake, Dywyddyr, I did not say it was a branch of science. I want to learn homeopathy so that I can examine it from other branches of science. I am simply curious;not curious to prove anything. Rather, I want to learn more about the profile of homeopathy which includes people, places, different plants native to different areas and why they chose them, symbolism and how any might relate to fact, the placebo effect etc. It is simply a dabble into a subject, that's all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    I just simply do not understand it as fact. I heard it from an unknown source. If, in fact, you could prove it. I would say it was fact, not opinion.
    There is no evidence whatsoever that homoeopathy works.
    There is no possible way for it to work.
    Those are the facts.
    Ergo: homoeopathy is nonsense.

    Essentially it relies on diluting "whatever" until there is no trace whatsoever of that "whatever" left at all in the water.
    And then claims that water has a "memory" of the "whatever" which somehow "alters the structure of the water" so that it results in an effective "medicine".
    This is not physically possible.
    If it were, in fact, true then ANY water (including tap water) would be an effective homoeopathic remedy for ALL ailments (because tap water has been recycled throughout its life and come into contact with everything).
    bphillips8709 likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    haha. For pete sake, Dywyddyr, I did not say it was a branch of science. I want to learn homeopathy so that I can examine it from other branches of science. I am simply curious;not curious to prove anything. Rather, I want to learn more about the profile of homeopathy which includes people, places, different plants native to different areas and why they chose them, symbolism and how any might relate to fact, the placebo effect etc. It is simply a dabble into a subject, that's all.
    Then, surely, herbalism would be a better starting place?
    And that would, also, include foraging!
    Without the associated crank factor.
    Neverfly and bphillips8709 like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Hey folks, this is off topic, at this point.
    bphillips8709, maybe when you've established a basic position, others will respond to the established position. Wording can be more than grammar and syntax.

    I want to back you up a little bit here because you've been walking a fine line and I don't want you to feel too slammed on your first day posting.
    But the wording was suggestive even if you had not meant it that way.
    You've also shown responses a skeptic would give and a fair understanding that Evidence is required- although you directed them at the skeptic- LOL

    Let's let this thread get back on topic and maybe you can open a Homeopathy, astrology or debate thread in the pseudo-science section if promoting it or in the psychology section if examining why others believe in it in spite of the lack of any evidence or scientific support for it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    I just simply do not understand it as fact. I heard it from an unknown source. If, in fact, you could prove it. I would say it was fact, not opinion.
    There is no evidence whatsoever that homoeopathy works.
    There is no possible way for it to work.
    Those are the facts.
    Ergo: homoeopathy is nonsense.

    Essentially it relies on diluting "whatever" until there is no trace whatsoever of that "whatever" left at all in the water.
    And then claims that water has a "memory" of the "whatever" which somehow "alters the structure of the water" so that it results in an effective "medicine".
    This is not physically possible.
    If it were, in fact, true then ANY water (including tap water) would be an effective homoeopathic remedy for ALL ailments (because tap water has been recycled throughout its life and come into contact with everything).
    Let me clarify. I was referencing your comment on, "Because nature provides us (or rather, provides the con-men) with an endless number of gullible people.
    You think that there isn't a "endless number" of gullible people?
    They get born all the time."

    I was indicating I did not understand it as fact because it is from an unknown source and I cannot simply accept it. I understand the rest of what you were saying completely. I guess upon further prying at the "facts":
    "There is no evidence whatsoever that homoeopathy works.
    There is no possible way for it to work.
    Those are the facts.
    Ergo: homoeopathy is nonsense."

    I came across the notion to ask you who proved these things to be true? Out of sincere curiosity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    agreed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    Let me clarify. I was referencing your comment on, "Because nature provides us (or rather, provides the con-men) with an endless number of gullible people.
    You think that there isn't a "endless number" of gullible people?
    They get born all the time."

    I was indicating I did not understand it as fact because it is from an unknown source and I cannot simply accept it. I understand the rest of what you were saying completely.
    Ah. That one is less rigorous, but demonstrable.
    We still (despite the rise of science) have people who accept homoeopathy, astrology, "god", ghosts, UFOs, CIA satellite mind-control (thread here), "people smarter than Einstein who can show where he went wrong" in numbers too many to count.
    Whatever you can come up with (no matter how bizarre) there'll be someone, somewhere, willing to say "You're right and it happened to me".
    People, being people, are subject to the weirdest fantasies.
    Take a look at some of the threads on this site: even though it's a science site we still get interminable cranks espousing all sorts of outlandish nonsense, as Neverfly commented, and , no matter how many we conclusively debunk and set straight you cabn guarantee that within a month or so someone new will come along and start the same tired old argument once again.
    9/11 conspiracy theorists? We've got 'em.
    I can prove god scientifically? Them too.
    Speed of light is a scientific hoax to fool the public? Yup.
    Etc. Etc.
    Neverfly and bphillips8709 like this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    ohh. well, this science "community" has to deal with narrow-minded people like that. I am open to fact. I want fact. The second quote on my homepage is a quote basically saying if science proves something you must accept it as new knowledge. Here is the quote: My confidence in venturing in science lies in my belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims. (Dalai Lama, 2005)


    Dalia Lama. (2005) “The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality” Broadway .


    see you said you looked at my page but did you read it??

    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    ohh. well, this science "community" has to deal with narrow-minded people like that. I am open to fact. I want fact. The second quote on my homepage is a quote basically saying if science proves something you must accept it as new knowledge. Here is the quote: My confidence in venturing in science lies in my belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims. (Dalai Lama, 2005)


    Dalia Lama. (2005) “The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality” Broadway .


    see you said you looked at my page but did you read it??

    Here's a problem: Science and religion approach things quite differently. Science says, essentially, "show me that your claim is true; until then, the default position is that your claim is not to be believed." Religion's position, as captured in the Dalai Lama quote you offered, is "until Science proves my belief is wrong, I will go on believing as I wish."

    That second position seems reasonable to many people -- particularly those with a bias toward magical thinking -- because it sounds very open-minded. However, that second position is actually empty-headed, not simply open-minded. Here's why: If your position is that any belief is to be accepted as valid until there's "proof" that it's wrong, then essentially any idea is then permitted. No one can prove the non-existence of things, for example. I cannot prove the non-existence of Santa Claus. Are we therefore to assume that he exists? How about invisible pink unicorns that make no sound and otherwise leave no trace of their existence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    ohh. well, this science "community" has to deal with narrow-minded people like that. I am open to fact. I want fact. The second quote on my homepage is a quote basically saying if science proves something you must accept it as new knowledge. Here is the quote: My confidence in venturing in science lies in my belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims. (Dalai Lama, 2005)


    Dalia Lama. (2005) “The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality” Broadway .


    see you said you looked at my page but did you read it??

    Here's a problem: Science and religion approach things quite differently. Science says, essentially, "show me that your claim is true; until then, the default position is that your claim is not to be believed." Religion's position, as captured in the Dalai Lama quote you offered, is "until Science proves my belief is wrong, I will go on believing as I wish."

    That second position seems reasonable to many people -- particularly those with a bias toward magical thinking -- because it sounds very open-minded. However, that second position is actually empty-headed, not simply open-minded. Here's why: If your position is that any belief is to be accepted as valid until there's "proof" that it's wrong, then essentially any idea is then permitted. No one can prove the non-existence of things, for example. I cannot prove the non-existence of Santa Claus. Are we therefore to assume that he exists? How about invisible pink unicorns that make no sound and otherwise leave no trace of their existence?

    Simply enough, providing that quote from my blog was to reassure the "community" that I accept scientific evidence towards anything I might express interest in. It was not to promote "magical thought". Essentially, my reason for posting it wasn't to compare religion and science or any views on it, but to offer gratitude towards science as did the Dalai Lama in the quote.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    Simply enough, providing that quote from my blog was to reassure the "community" that I accept scientific evidence towards anything I might express interest in. It was not to promote "magical thought". Essentially, my reason for posting it wasn't to compare religion and science or any views on it, but to offer gratitude towards science as did the Dalai Lama in the quote.
    But you must understand that the Dalai Lama is only paying lip-service to science. By choosing, of all the people you could've chosen, to quote a magical thinker (reincarnation is magic), you are going to be thought of as naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Hi, and welcome to the forum, bphillips8709

    The underlying point here is that by saying "if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims", the Dalai Lama is side-stepping the scientific method, within which claims can only be conclusively demonstated to be true. You cannot prove a negative, which is what the guys above are saying.

    i.e. There is an invisible elf at the bottom of my garden. Conclusively prove this to be false.

    Science doesn't work like that. It is up to the person making the claim to provide evidence that supports it, rather than the other way around.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Hi, and welcome to the forum, bphillips8709

    The underlying point here is that by saying "if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims", the Dalai Lama is side-stepping the scientific method, within which claims can only be conclusively demonstated to be true. You cannot prove a negative, which is what the guys above are saying.

    i.e. There is an invisible elf at the bottom of my garden. Conclusively prove this to be false.

    Science doesn't work like that. It is up to the person making the claim to provide evidence that supports it, rather than the other way around.
    Oh good grief!
    What are you guys playing at?
    We're back on topic.
    That's NOT ALLOWED!!!!
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Oh good grief!
    What are you guys playing at?
    We're back on topic.
    That's NOT ALLOWED!!!!
    Chill out, Duck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    A bit late, but, greetings bphillips8709, and welcome to the show. You may find me more accommodating than some of the members who replied here, but also significantly less intelligent. What I'm having issues with, is how you could even combine homeopathy with any other, more legitimate, branch of science? Sounds like me trying to merge my guitar playing with physics and call it The Six String Theory, and saying it has great implications on the universe.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Although people often mix them up, herbal medicine and homeopathy are completely different things. Although herbal medicines traditionallly have not undergone controlled, doubleblind scientific testing, their use is based on centuries of empirical observation, and scientific studies have shown that plants can have a medicinal effect. St John's Wort, for example, is a known antidepressant, and willow bark contains the active ingredient in aspirin, salicylic acid.Homeopathy, on the other hand, involves diluting substances till they are no longer recognizable.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Professor of Articulation Zesterer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The fourth dimension, our universe, the milkyway, outer galactic spiral 8, the solar system, earth.
    Posts
    43
    Why dont we make the assumption that the universe is a finite state logic machine? Basically a computer. Then surely, things don't have to "exist". Even the term "existing" is a little broad, and doesnt really make sense in this case. Its like what you see on a computer screen "exists". And yet, the computer is doing millions of things in the background that means that they don't get displayed on they screen. Do these then not exist?

    Ok, lets make another point from another angle of analogy. If something cannot physically interact, then does it exist? Say we have an orb in space. It sits outside my house, lets say. But ALL particles of any kind pass through it without any effect. Does this mean exists? Lets take the quantum view of something only exist if we "see" it. What does this mean? Does "seeing" literally mean we can see it with our eyes? No, it means whether we are directly effected by it. So if we cannot be affected by the orb, and it has no impact on us, surely it doesn't exist?

    Sorry I couldn't directly answer your question, I'm just thinking on a few things here to keep the discussion going

    Zesterer
    Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
    Max Planck
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Zesterer View Post
    Why dont we make the assumption that the universe is a finite state logic machine?
    Why? On what basis?

    Then surely, things don't have to "exist".
    Huh?

    Lets take the quantum view of something only exist if we "see" it.
    Huh?

    So if we cannot be affected by the orb, and it has no impact on us, surely it doesn't exist?
    Untrue. It may as well not exist, but that's not the same as not existing.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    Prove it.
    hahaha
    bphillips8709 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman bphillips8709's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bphillips8709 View Post
    Simply enough, providing that quote from my blog was to reassure the "community" that I accept scientific evidence towards anything I might express interest in. It was not to promote "magical thought". Essentially, my reason for posting it wasn't to compare religion and science or any views on it, but to offer gratitude towards science as did the Dalai Lama in the quote.
    But you must understand that the Dalai Lama is only paying lip-service to science. By choosing, of all the people you could've chosen, to quote a magical thinker (reincarnation is magic), you are going to be thought of as naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.
    nah. it just means I have the best of both worlds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Things that exist but are not composed of matter/energy - beauty, justice, love, compassion. Yes, I know they can be explained in a reductionist way by neurology, endocrinology and evolution, but sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Alec Bing View Post
    Things that exist but are not composed of matter/energy - beauty, justice, love, compassion. Yes, I know they can be explained in a reductionist way by neurology, endocrinology and evolution, but sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
    Beauty is a perception. Based on physical appearance.
    Justice is a concept. A human one.
    Love is a chemical imbalance.
    Compassion is probably similar.
    seagypsy likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    isnt the bible a "measurable effect"?
    All that demonstrates is that there are people who can write. It doesn't prove that the thing they are writing about exists. Does Hogwarts exist? That appeared in a book.

    Then why does every single book in the bible:
    1) They were written thousands of years apart.
    2) From people living in different countries who never ever met?
    3) Perfectly agree with each other?
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Then why does every single book in the bible agree perfectly with every other
    You haven't actually read the bible, have you?
    Only someone who hasn't, or, possibly, someone who is utterly clueless, could say that with a straight face.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Dude i read it few times through.

    The parts that "seem" to be contradictions are actually your own misinterpretations.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    The parts that "seem" to be contradictions are actually your own misinterpretations.
    Yeah right.

    (In other words: wrong).

    Not only do various books of the bible contradict each other in places , individual books contradict themselves in places.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Well, did YOU read it? If you actually did then give some examples, thank you very much.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    3) Perfectly agree with each other?
    When I read it (when I was young and bored, and only the OT) I was struck by things like there being two different versions of Genesis. But if you tell people they say, "no there aren't". Weird.

    A List Of Biblical Contradictions
    The Thinking Atheist - Bible Contradictions

    And this is cool: http://sciencebasedlife.files.wordpr...sonproject.png
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Well, did YOU read it?
    Well no, of course not.
    That's how I know there's contradictions.
    Duh!

    If you actually did then give some examples, thank you very much.
    See Strange's links.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Then why does every single book in the bible:
    1) They were written thousands of years apart.
    2) From people living in different countries who never ever met?
    3) Perfectly agree with each other?
    This entire statement strongly suggests you are taking someone elses word for it and did not read it yourself. The entire statement is very inaccurate and you are hard pressed to support the claim that you read the bible cover to cover.
    Now, yes, Strange posted a couple links... I'll let that carry the details.
    But here's some major key points: Most of the books of the old testament and most of the books of the new testament that relate to eachother within old or new were written within a short time of eachother.
    New testament books were usually already well indoctrinated with old testament ideas and teachings.
    Old books and new books often talked about wildly different things and are not so easy to compare- so making the claim that they agree with eachother is absurd, in any event, and strongly indicative of a desire on your part to want to believe what you said.
    The old testament books are "old" testament vs "new" testament because they do not agree with eachother, at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    The old testament books are "old" testament vs "new" testament because they do not agree with eachother, at all.
    In fact we had some religious character here the other day saying that he believed X, Y and Z because it was in the NT but didn't believe A, B and C (apparently including the Ten Commandments) because they are in the OT.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Huh?

    If something has a measurable effect then it exists. If it has no measurable effect then it might as well not exist.
    What about neutrinos, or metaphysical notions, such as a sense of self, or another persons sense of your "self"?

    Also, emotions in the form of verbal communication, cause reactions that can be measured according to statistical data.

    Ie, you tell someone off, words(sound exist as its effects can be recorded), interact with the receivers brain in the way of perceptions based on life experiences and genetic pre-dispositions. These experiences are nothing more than memories at this point, no physical form, and yet... They have an affect on a decision. The response to What started as an idea and ended as an idea, crossed over several mediums ranging from somatic, psychological, to meta-physical. The reactions to these actions that stem from ideas in the mind of the sender can be recorded in large numbers to produce a variety of data. Interestingly enough the technically non-existent idea is formed via a electro-chemical processes that physically DO exist.

    Dammit, now I'm cofused, but maybe you still see my point. Are we really, even defining what exists or not correctly at this point in human evolution. I honestly don't know, but it's fascinating non the less.

    I know this post is from way earlier, but I saw it and had a thought. sorry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Dude i read it few times through.
    The fact that you made the three assertions above is sufficient for me to be fairly certain that you either did not read it "few times through," or weren't paying attention as you did so. The bible is (in)famous for its contradictions.

    The parts that "seem" to be contradictions are actually your own misinterpretations.
    That's the standard "party line" from the white-beards. "If you think you see a contradiction, it's because you don't understand that the words don't actually mean what they mean, but what they must mean in order for them to mean what we say they must mean." Or something like that. There's no true Scotsman.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    who sees through things
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    UK now, US before
    Posts
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alec Bing View Post
    Things that exist but are not composed of matter/energy - beauty, justice, love, compassion. Yes, I know they can be explained in a reductionist way by neurology, endocrinology and evolution, but sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
    Beauty is a perception. Based on physical appearance.
    Justice is a concept. A human one.
    Love is a chemical imbalance.
    Compassion is probably similar.

    Read what I said about reductionism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    "
    well, you searched for contradictions, but did you find about: "how these(what some people think to be contradictions) are explained to actually be NOT contradictions by christians"?


    if you didnt, ure biased.
    i could also simply... give some websites that how christians say that: the evidence that we use to support evolution, actually does not supports evolution, but contradicts it.

    but if i wanted to do this, shouldn't also give evolutionists a chance to rebuttle back?


    simply taking those 3 websites as facts, and ignoring the opposite view's explainations, is biased.



    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    actually i believe christians would easily and logically explain those contradictions. i'll get back with some answers in a while.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    i could also simply... give some websites that how christians say that: the evidence that we use to support evolution, actually does not supports evolution, but contradicts it.
    You could. But those would be crackpot websites full of ignorance and lies. (Both of which are sins, I believe.)

    simply taking those 3 websites as facts, and ignoring the opposite view's explainations, is biased
    You said there were no contradictions. You are just crying because you were shown to be wrong. Maybe mummy will wipe the tears away.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    actually i believe christians would easily and logically explain those contradictions.
    You appear to believe all sorts of ridiculous things.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    but if i wanted to do this, shouldn't also give evolutionists a chance to rebuttle back?
    WTF is an "evolutionist"?
    And how does it apply here?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    i went to the link and randomly chose one. i chose 251.

    so i did some research, this is what i found. dont immediately say its crackpot before reading it.Judas Iscariot Death -- Matthew vs. Acts

    The Greek word translated "hanged himself" is the word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. In English we have a similar expression when we say that someone is "all choked up." We do not mean that they have died. We mean that they are overcome with emotion. Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and left doubling himself over with grief.



    so you see? they could put anything that "seems" to be contradictions, but could actually not be at all.
    the website that you gave me, was interpreting 'hanged' as a literal hang, not checking about original translation.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    i went to the link and randomly chose one. i chose 251.

    so i did some research, this is what i found. dont immediately say its crackpot before reading it.Judas Iscariot Death -- Matthew vs. Acts

    The Greek word translated "hanged himself" is the word apanchomai which is used in Greek literature to mean choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief. In English we have a similar expression when we say that someone is "all choked up." We do not mean that they have died. We mean that they are overcome with emotion. Judas cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and left doubling himself over with grief.



    so you see? they could put anything that "seems" to be contradictions, but could actually not be at all.
    the website that you gave me, was interpreting 'hanged' as a literal hang, not checking about original translation.
    Oh fail again.
    From your own link:
    A check of the lexicons shows that such a meaning is indeed possible, but I found only one actual example listed -- the vast majority of the meanings given were for a physical hanging ...So I would say that this is a possible solution, but not likely.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    its a not likely a possible solution = its likely a contradiction.
    its likely a contradiction ≠ its a contradiction.
    since its not a contradiction, that point (251) in the link "strange" given is not confirmed to be a contradiction.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    its a not likely a possible solution = its likely a contradiction.
    its likely a contradiction ≠ its a contradiction.
    Hold tight to that straw, it may not take your weight.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,690
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    its a not likely a possible solution = its likely a contradiction.
    its likely a contradiction ≠ its a contradiction.
    since its not a contradiction, that point (251) in the link "strange" given is not confirmed to be a contradiction.
    Oh logic fail.
    Try this:
    It's a contradiction.
    I have a not likely answer.
    If the answer is not likely then it's not an answer.
    Ergo: the contradiction stands.

    Please go back to school.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    since its not a contradiction, that point (251) in the link "strange" given is not confirmed to be a contradiction.[/FONT][/COLOR]
    I assume you are going to be looking for equally improbably excuses for all the others as well. Take your time. This is a science forum so you won't be missed.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    its a not likely a possible solution = its likely a contradiction.
    its likely a contradiction ≠ its a contradiction.
    since its not a contradiction, that point (251) in the link "strange" given is not confirmed to be a contradiction.
    Ah, the attitude of the True Believer(tm): "I'm right until you prove me wrong, and you can't prove me wrong." Look, you're welcome to believe as you wish. Just don't pretend that your approach is at all scientific. In this case, you are starting with the firm conviction that the bible is self-consistent, and you reject any evidence to the contrary as not being evidence.

    The scientist looks at the bible and sees contradictions that can only be "resolved" by invoking ad hoc semantic and mental contortions of an absurd nature. Considering that humans wrote it (often after a lengthy period of time when the stories had been an oral tradition, for which embellishment is useful to ensure memorability), the most likely hypothesis is that the bible is at best a blend of fact and fiction, of history and fairy tales. Assertions of inerrancy cannot be used to prove inerrancy.
    seagypsy and Neverfly like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    I Cut Myself
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    908
    So lets say this is thing really happened:
    The apanchomai Matthew was using was with the meaning "choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief."

    And how could you guys frankly dismiss that it is not possible?
    (even though it may not be a contradiction as that meaning is in the lexicons)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Try this:
    It's a contradiction.
    I have a not likely answer.
    If the answer is not likely then it's not an answer.
    Ergo: the contradiction stands.
    Quote Originally Posted by jocular View Post
    If thy right nipple offend thee, pluck it off! Goes for the other, too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by ryanawe123 View Post
    So lets say this is thing really happened:
    The apanchomai Matthew was using was with the meaning "choking or squeezing one's self as with great emotion or grief."

    And how could you guys frankly dismiss that it is not possible?
    (even though it may not be a contradiction as that meaning is in the lexicons)
    You seem to have trouble understanding what you read (*). No one said it as impossible. Just very implausible when you grab on a definition that has only one occurrence and say, "that proves The Truth".

    (*) Which might account for your idiotic beliefs.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Exotic matter and the Tachyon, do they exist?
    By Michael W. Bush in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 16th, 2011, 04:16 PM
  2. Hypothesis , Matter from energy from matter.
    By Max Time Taken in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: July 19th, 2011, 11:36 AM
  3. Do natural energy vortexes exist?
    By Donald_Patterson in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 6th, 2011, 02:39 PM
  4. Dark energy may not exist in space, scientists claim
    By Cyberia in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 15th, 2010, 01:18 PM
  5. Scientists Say Dark Matter Doesn't Exist
    By Obviously in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 30th, 2007, 10:10 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •