ARCHIVE: Burden of Proof
- Thread starter Spenser 2
- Start date
What scientific law states that?Spenser 2 said:
You are not the sharpest tack in the box are you?
Matter and energy are natural things and are subject to natural laws.
The SUPERnatural by definition is NOT subject to the natural laws hence the term SUPERnatural. :duh:
I ask again... is the Flying Spaghetti Monster your belief? If it isn't, why bring it up?Spenser 2 said:
Caledvwlch
New member
Not irrational, just a summation derived from available data. Do you claim to KNOW yourself? I realize that people have faith in ideas, but faith is not knowledge, no matter what your favorite systematic theology may say.Knight said:
You missed the point.Caledvwlch said:
You stated.... I DO NOT KNOW.
Fair enough!
But you also assert that you DO (in fact) KNOW that other don't know.
That my friend is irrational. :kookoo:
Knight said:
You were telling me I don't know squat about science? A singularity is a point where space-time curvature reaches infinity; IOW all scientific equations break down, it is a failure of the manifold structure. The laws of science do not apply and therefore scientific laws cannot be used to say anything about what happens at or prior to (if such a state exists) a singularity.
Knight said:
After of course the singularity
Knight said:
Which is all assertion based and purely speculative...
Caledvwlch
New member
It may be irrational if we were talking about what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, but we're talking about the origins of the universe, a universe which nobody has ever beheld or comprehended in its entirity and lived to tell about it. Sure, if there's an afterlife, maybe some folks there have seen it, but not in this universe. When it comes to the possibilities of the nature of the universe, we can't even know what rational is.Knight said:
Which of course is speculation and not science which was my point.Spenser 2 said:
No!!! :rotfl:
Look.... you may reject the supernatural (although earlier you stated it was a possibility) but you shouldn't reject the definition. The SUPERnatural is not "of the natural" that's why we call it SUPER (or outside of natural).
Whether it exists or not is debatable but why debate the definition?
Don't you think it's silly of you to resort to arguing the definition of the word SUPERnatural? The fact that you resort to this bizarre unnecessary tactic exposes you as being afraid to discuss the topic on its face value.
Which one do you adhere to?fool said:
Earlier you stated... "I don't know".
When you state "I don't know" can you rationally rule out any possible explanation?
Then why state that you DO (in fact) KNOW that I am wrong?Caledvwlch said:
Knight said:
Hey, you brought up the concept that science states energy and matter cannot be created. I simply demonstrated that this cocept is true up until a point.
Kinght said:
Knight, what are you talking about? I do not reject the definition of SUPERnatural, only state that all claims about it are speculative. Clear?
Spenser 2 said:
How? I don't, know...
but you have ran down the only logical conclusion for the argument. A "supernatural" creator.The universe could not have always existed because stars are still burning. The universe could not have created itself, because it wasn't there to do so. (self refuting). We are left needing an uncaused, supernatural, infinite cause. If you want to call that the FSM, you still are appealing to a supernatural being, and lose your atheist label.
Unless, as I asked above, there is a fourth option?
Vaquero45 said:How? I don't, know...
The universe could not have always existed because stars are still burning. The universe could not have created itself, because it wasn't there to do so. (self refuting). We are left needing an uncaused, supernatural, infinite cause. If you want to call that the FSM, you still are appealing to a supernatural being, and lose your atheist label.
Unless, as I asked above, there is a fourth option?
Jeeze people, my point was if you attempt to apply science to a point that is beyond natural explanation then why don't you apply it to God as well, not simply why don't you apply it to God. And once again the FSM was a friggin parody. I didn't realize I was being so coy...
No, you have only stated that there is SPECULATION that the known natural laws are not true at some point.Spenser 2 said:
SPECULATION, nothing more.
I would rather stick with known science and know that the unbreakable laws of science are just that... unbreakable.
You are free to speculate all you like.
If by "mock" you mean critically analyze, then yes, you need not present an alternative to question a theory. As a wise man once said to me"I don't got the answers, just the questions"Knight said:
I don't believe Cal meant to mock Yaweh with his dishwasher theory, he was useing that to demonstrate that positing an unfalsefiable theory dosen't put you in the drivers seat insofar as having a compelling argument that others must then disprove.
Knight said:No, you have only stated that there is SPECULATION that the known natural laws are not true at some point.
SPECULATION, nothing more.
I would rather stick with known science and know that the unbreakable laws of science are just that... unbreakable.
You are free to speculate all you like.
Um, what? Natural laws follow equations right? E=mc^2 Well, these equations approach infinity the closer they get to a singularity. It is fact that the laws break down, speculation is what happens during this point. However, if you can prove otherwise a Nobel is waiting for you...
Caledvwlch
New member
I never said you were wrong, I said you don't know.Knight said:
And you're right, I don't have sufficient data to assume that nobody knows. I do have sufficient data to assume that no human being confined to this physical, temporal reality knows.
Earlier you stated... "I don't know".fool said:
When you state "I don't know" can you rationally rule out any possible explanation?