So my physics teacher said something interesting today

[Rumblestiltskin]

Cupcakes HD

Believe what you want. Its gonna be that way anyways lol.

Well, considering you bring up the fact that there are other points that you are intentionally not responding to, instead of just ignoring them and moving on without telling me (because honestly, I probably wouldn't have noticed if you didn't say something) leads me to think one of two things (note: I'm not making dichotomy...there could be other answers, but these are the only two I can think of) : You either think the points are so stupid/irrelevant/whatever that you don't dignify them with a response...which, if that's the case, I would now demand a response....or you don't have a counter argument to them, and are trying to play it off as if it is beneath you to respond.

Quote:

The technology will get more reliable. But there are methods that don't need brain scans as well.

Sure, and we'll get flying cars and teleporters some day too!.... rolleyes You have no way of determining what technology will and will not be like in the future. But the issue still remains. AT BEST, all you could do was either demonstrate a successful test where the person correctly identifies someone else's thoughts, or demonstrate a failed test where the person doesn't correctly identify someone else's thoughts. And you could do this test forever, and it both outcomes would still never prove nor disprove whether the person is actually has the ability to read someone else's thoughts.

Quote:

]Arbitrary=irrelevant.

No, arbitrary means that it is at random or personal choice. What is and is not supernatural is not labeled at random or based on personal choice. Ergo, it's not arbitrary.

Quote:

idgaf about the definition,

Then why did you just try to define it.

Quote:

I already know it,

You clearly don't.

Quote:

and you should know I know it based on our conversation.

Contrary to our previous example, I cannot read minds. I can only read what you write, and when you misuse definitions, that may end up making it sound like you mean something that you don't.

Quote:

It is irrelevant because, having a supernatural banan, for instance, does not change anything about said banana, just definition of said banana.

If it's a supernatural banana, then you wouldn't be able to test the banana because it is "beyond nature" and science has no way to test that.

Quote:

Supernatural is just pointless and can be argued from Arrdvarks to zirconium. Its simply a waste of time.

It's not pointless, except to people making claims that necessitate the supernatural. But since we can't test the supernatural, all it means is that the claim will remain in the "justified in not believing it" category, until the person making the claim can provide evidence to support the claim.

Quote:

Don't you know experiments are done multiple times?

Yes. I do. Tests being repeatable are a big part of what can constitute an idea as a scientific theory...as well as its ability to make accurate predictions (for example, based on our understanding of evolution, if we dig at a certain location to a certain depth, we can expect to find specific fossils). However, the repeatability of the test does not prove the claim...go back and reread the rooster example.

Quote:

Sheesh, why am I talking to you. Coincidence every time? How statistically stupid would that be.

From a scientific perspective, it isn't stupid at all. It's why science never labels anything as a fact, regardless of how much evidence we have to support it...because all it would take is one piece of evidence that counters it, and then the theory may be disproven (for example, a cat giving birth to a dog). All the test could ever show is that something unexplained was happening. And yes...it could be a coincidence, every time...depending on the test. I mean, you do understand that, with statistics, there is always the possibility of something happening, right? It may be highly unlikely, but the possibility always exists...

Quote:

Because dneial changes every scenario you posted, SURE, naw, its just because it supports your theory is why you did it that way, I understand

No, you clearly don't. You assumed something that was wrong. I never assumed that there wouldn't be a result...because there would ALWAYS be a result. However, the result would not produce conclusive evidence one way or another.

Quote:

You must not be able to read, Im not trying to prove the supernatural, remember this.

Nothing of what I said implies that you are. You are asserting that we can TEST the supernatural...and you've provided no evidence for your assertion.

Quote:

We could kill the rooster to test that theory or take its tongue out or such. I am about to be done talking with you if this is your best argument.

The best that would show is that the rooster CAN NO LONGER raise the sun...not that it didn't raise the sun while it was alive or had its tongue. Either way, that example was showing that a repeated outcome does not, necessarily, validate a claim. Way to miss the ******** point.

And while we're at it, you can drop the superiority bullshit until you actually provide evidence that indicates that you have a point. Your dismissive attitude wouldn't even be justified even if you had a point, because no one is forcing you to respond. If you really find it that hard to continue to try and bullshit your way through this conversation as you've done so far, then you're free to stop anytime...

Quote:

And? Just because a word exists doesn't mean it is valid in context.

Where did I say that it was.....but if you're going to imply that it isn't in valid context, please demonstrate this to be so...

Quote:

Like pineapple, yeah pineapples exist, doesn't mean they are irrelevant.

It would depend on the conversation...in this conversation, it would be irrelevant. If we were having a conversation about delicious citrusy fruits, then it would be relevant. But what this has to do with anything is beyond me, unless you're once again misusing a term to say something that you don't mean to say.

Quote:

In context, genius. Calling it supernatural doesn't make it supernatural. Its an arbitrary trait, each and every time.

In context, I'd assume we were talking about things that ARE supernatural, and not just labels. I could label my laptop a banana...That would only be a misapplication of the label...that does nothing to demonstrate that the supernatural is testable. And that's because "supernatural" is not an arbitrary label, WHEN APPLIED CORRECTLY...which is the only point that is of concern.

Quote:

So you say something observed in the natural world is not supernatural, ergo, everything in the world is natural, ergo everything is testable that is natural. Ergo, I am correct.

No, you aren't...because you're ignoring the fact where you claim that the supernatural can be tested and haven't demonstrated this to be the case.

Quote:

So, if something supernatural exists, it might as well not exist, all the impact is has.

It's not "if something supernatural exists"...it's WE HAVE NO WAY TO TEST WHETHER OR NOT IT IS SUPERNATURAL. It very well might exist. But we have no way to test a quality of something that is BEYOND NATURE, as we can only test things that are NATURAL.

Quote:

Caps locking, plz,

I shift (not caps lock) as a way to bold important parts of a thought for emphasis...it's fewer keystrokes and less time than using the bold button. Either way, it is not an indication of any emotion that I feel while responding to you, as you have no way to verify how I'm reacting.

Quote:

swearing, plz,

You have a ******** issue with the ******** fact that I ******** love to ******** swear, that's your ******** problem, ********. I'm under no ******** obligation to ******** respond the ******** way you'd ******** want me to.

Quote:

it speaks for itself,

Actually, it doesn't...as I know my emotions when I respond, and you clearly have no way to know that. You can only make assumptions and assert, and you're wrong. Not only that, but this is also a red herring, as it has nothing to do with the conversation. You haven't provided any valid counters to my arguments, you haven't provided any valid evidence to your assertions...and now you're pointlessly shifting the topic to criticize the person you're talking with...aside from being pathetic, it would make no difference whether I was raging or not...the arguments I've provided would still stand and fall on their own, and you've done ******** all to show that they're wrong.

Quote:

so now you are a lier too, lovely.

Your piss poor attempt at an ad hominem fallacy aside, you have no way to verify my emotional state when I respond to ANYTHING on the internet...but if you're going to claim that I'm lying, please, demonstrate how you have more insight than I do on me.

Quote:

Or I at least define raging differently, or used a poor word choice.

Or, you're pointlessly changing the subject...

Quote:

No, the claims on the supernatural need to be demonstrated far before I do. And anything that impacts this world, is testable via its impact. By definition anything existing is testable unless its in a different dimension, and in that case its just shown to not be possible for those outside of the dimension, those in it always could. Ergo everything real is testable.

We aren't talking about something "being real"...we're talking about something being SUPERNATURAL. And there is no way to test something that is beyond nature. If it has an impact on this world, then all you could do is test the impact...but if it isn't something that is beyond nature...if it exists in this world, then it is not supernatural...

Quote:

Lol, dealing with you, thats my excuse. But I am far calmer, as evidenced by our posts.

............So.....your excuse for your mind working less accurately is because you are responding to me.....so you're admitting that your mind is not working accurately....good to know then.

Also, demonstrate how you can determine my emotional state better than I can...

[Rumblestiltskin]

Cupcakes HD

And you are still wrong no matter how many times you say that.

I've demonstrated the things I've said. You haven't. If I'm wrong, demonstrate it.

Quote:

If they are beyond nature, they have no impact, and no impact is as good as not existing,

You cannot determine that. There is no way to examine something that exists beyond nature. For example, let's look at god...THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT A GOD EXISTS...however, until such time that the claim can be demonstrated, then there is no reason to believe as such. However, it is impossible to test whether god exists, as it is a supernatural claim, and we can't observe things that are beyond nature.

Quote:

and in fact, shows how claims are false when theres NO REAL BASIS for them.

Please demonstrate how you determined that the supernatural doesn't exist...

Quote:

And I said everything with impact, is not supernatural, ergo supernatural is worthless again, in context.

One, that doesn't explain why you want me to prove something I wasn't saying. Secondly, "supernatural" does not necessarily mean something is "not real." I never said the supernatural couldn't impact this world...however, all we would be able to test is the impact...NOT the supernatural.

Quote:

Well, if real things are testable, and supernatural are not, supernatural has no impact,

Demonstrate how you determined that the supernatural has no impact.

Quote:

and therefore is not real.

Demonstrate how you determined that it is not real.

Quote:

Its inconsequential if it has no impact, ergo, supernatural is arbitrary.

Even if your previous statements about it not being real and not having an impact were correct (they aren't), the term would still not be arbitrary. It has a specific definition. That definition only applies to things that exist beyond nature. If it exists in nature, it is not supernatural. Ergo, it is not arbitrary.

Quote:

Because everything with impact is testable, UNLESS you show otherwise.

ONLY THE IMPACT IS TESTABLE. For example, the mind reading example. We can only test that a person is correctly guessing someone else's thoughts...we cannot test that they are ACTUALLY reading someone else's mind. And no amount of repeatable tests will change that.

Quote:

Because so far every impact is testable when repeatable.

And, again, with the rooster, repeated outcomes do not determine the validity of a claim.

Quote:

And b4 you claim you would need the supernatural to provide evidence for it you do not, thats a false equivocation.

One, I didn't even need to claim that. Two, I could have made that claim, because describing the qualities of something supernatural has no merit...i.e. the consistency of unicorn s**t. And three, no...that is not what false equivocation is. A false equivocation involves using a word that has multiple definitions to mean the same thing (for example, how creationists say evolution is "only a theory" ). There is nothing about my possible inability to explain the qualities of the supernatural that could be equivocated. But, while we're on the subject of logical fallacies, you might want to look up "straw man"...because you're saying I'm saying something I didn't say, and then trying to argue THAT...

Quote:

Things which cannot be tested is not the same definition as supernatural.

Correct...but that isn't what I'm saying. In fact, you're getting switched around. The supernatural, by definition, cannot be tested.

Quote:

Ergo, if you are correct, theres evidence for your case. I think you are just wholly stuck on appeal to common sense.

You clearly don't understand "my case"....and you're the only one stuck on anything, it would seem. Namely, you're stuck on this inability to grasp that something that is beyond nature cannot be tested.

Quote:

Why else would you not feel the need to concede,

Because you're wrong.

Quote:

or provide evidence?

I think you're confusing me with you, as I've provided evidence...multiple times. YOU are the one who HASN'T provided sufficient evidence for their claim.

Quote:

Or, at least tell me why my above statement is not true.

I believe I've told you why every statement you've made that isn't true isn't true.

Quote:

Give me a claim that cannot be tested actually.

God exists beyond our reality and has no impact on this reality.

Quote:

Any claim can be tested from impact,

Only the impact can be tested...

Quote:

and my argument is anything without impact is not real.

Demonstrate how you determined that things without an impact on our reality are not real.

Quote:

Do not take the word impact out of context plz.

Trust me...I haven't been. But a lack of impact does not mean that something is not real.

Quote:

Such as, when one prays, god will show himself before you. Um, if he does show himself, then he arguably only shows himself and nothing else, and there exists technology which can when perfected measure the impact him revealing himself would have, and if it was used in the imagination sectors of the brain, or not. And by that, you could test it. If its repeatable.

No, the only thing you could test, provided your ridiculous assertion were correct, is that the imagination centers in the brain were responding when the person claims that god revealed itself. You haven't proved that the person was imagining it, as that could just be the center of the brain god activates when it reveals itself. You have no way to conclusively verify whether someone was imagining it or not...

Quote:

Or I'll do you one better, every effect, every impact, can be simulated. Now, give me a real scenario where, when we have adequate technology, this will never work still.

Again, why are you asking me to provide evidence for something I haven't said.

Quote:

And of course, burden would lie on you in that scenario because I would have to literally test everything, where as you would have to just provide one circumstance.

If I were making that ******** claim, then you'd be right...BUT I HAVEN'T MADE THAT ******** CLAIM.

Quote:

The burden is not mine. That is like saying, if god is not real, give me all the answers god/religion would have given me. Um, no lol. Like, what is the meaning of existence in an absolute way? Theres no unbiased way to answer that.

Yes...now you're starting to understand the burden of proof. Now, you've made a claim that supernatural can be tested...PROVIDE ******** EVIDENCE FOR IT.

Quote:

And that is why we have 'supernatural' things. To explain the unexplainable. This does not mean they are real of course.

"Unexplainable" explains the unexplainable. "Supernatural" only explains something that is "beyond nature." And again, you cannot determine if something beyond nature is real or not as you have no way to examine it.

Quote:

As, of course, everything real, is testable. Everything influencing what is real, is testable via the influence. Ergo, nothing supernatural in its entirety, is real.

That is a claim....meet your burden of proof and demonstrate how you determined that something that is supernatural is necessarily not real when you have no ability to observe it.

Quote:

Such as even a ghost appearing, its appearance is not supernatural, the fact it appeared is, but the appearance is still subject to actual reality as it existed in reality. If anything exists, there is a method to repeat scenarios. Such as, one can reproduce the ghost incident, by meeting the standards of the scenario for it to appear. Its as simple as that.

Actually, it's not as "simple as that." Many people have shared experiences of seeing the same "ghosts" under the same circumstances...however, there are those who go through the same circumstances and the "ghost" doesn't appear. Also, looking at only the people who claimed to have seen the ghost, there are other explanations for why they claimed it, such as being mistaken, "seeing" something that wasn't there, being influenced by stories of those who claimed to see it, lying to gain attention....the list goes on. Either way, even if you could verify that something strange were going on, that's ALL you could verify. And even, if you could prove that ghosts actually exist...then all that would mean is that they are part of the natural world, and we would therefore take the supernatural label off....

Quote:

Not to mention just because those claim it is supernatural, does not in fact mean it is. Such as the ghost might be relying on some other undiscovered natural phenomenon or force or effect or something. So Supernatural things that are entirely supernatural, have no basis with any impact in the world.

Again, demonstrate how you know that supernatural things cannot impact this world.

Quote:

Which means all thoroughly supernatural claims are unwarranted, as there existed no impact to attribute to them.

Your assertion towards impact aside, yes, they ARE unwarranted. But unwarranted does not mean false. Belief in something that you have no evidence for is unwarranted, EVEN IF THAT BELIEF IS RIGHT. For example, if I were on trial for a murder that I didn't commit, but all the evidence pointed to me doing it, and I have no evidence to provide that shows my innocence, it would be unwarranted to believe that I didn't kill the person in question, even if I didn't. However, the thing about the supernatural is that it CANNOT BE OBSERVED. You cannot ascertain any quality that a supernatural being might have because there is no way to verify any of it.

[Rumblestiltskin]

Cupcakes HD

And why not rephrase my original statement while I am at it.

I have a feeling it isn't going to do much, but go ahead...give it a shot.

Quote:

All natural claims of gods, are testable.

So by "rephrase," you meant make it incomprehensible? By "natural claims" are you referring to impact? Because as I already pointed out, we can only test the impact. But, even so, if the god is natural, then it cannot also be supernatural.

Quote:

A god is not limited to supernatural, he can be natural too.

Demonstrate how something can be beyond nature and a part of nature at the same time. And, since it would seem you're all for breaking the law of noncontradiction, could you also demonstrate how an x can be not x at the same time....

Quote:

Ergo, whenever theres a natural claim, it could be tested, same with every supernatural thing.

Define natural claim. And if your definition is "impact on reality" then you're done, because as I've said repeatedly, you could ONLY test the impact. And if your claim is that god is natural, aside from also having to demonstrate this, that would mean it isn't supernatural...as it can't be both by the very definitions.

Quote:

Such as ghosts, vampires, mind reading. The impact they leave, being real, would be testable.

The only thing you could test is the impact. And even if you proved that these things actually exist, that would just mean that we would take the supernatural label OFF...

Quote:

And supernatural claims that are to meet certain prerequisites to trigger an effect, such as praying to god, could be tested.

You can test it all you want...the tests would not prove one way or another whether prayer works or not. The best you could do is mark that the thing the person prayed for happened, didn't happen, or hasn't happened yet. And even then, if the prayer is "answered," you have no way to verify that the prayer was actually answered and that the conditions weren't met through some other means. If the prayer "wasn't answered," provided the conditions of the prayer, it may have just not been answered yet....or provided the conditions, if it isn't answered, it could be that they were praying to the wrong god, or that the god did not want to answer the prayer...you could not verify it one way or the other.

Quote:

And, if anything is entirely supernatural, and you say the supernatural cannot be tested, this means it would have no impact,

Demonstrate how you were able to determine this.

Quote:

because everything that has impact is testable.

Only the impact is testable.

Quote:

Which can only mean that claims based entirely on the supernatural are not real

Demonstrate how you determined this.

Quote:

because they have no impact to attribute to such a thing.

Not having an impact doesn't necessarily mean that the thing doesn't exist.

Quote:

Such as the claim, god is purple when he is impacting nothing. God could say such a thing, but it doesn't mean its an honest god. And, theres no possible way to test that.

But it doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't true. The fact that you can't verify whether the statements are true, by necessity, means that you also cannot verify whether the statements are false.

Quote:

But if someone said, god appears before me every night in a purple light. That is testable.

No it isn't. At best, you could tell what centers of their brain activate when they claim this, but that does not mean that the claim is valid or not. Also, there is no way to validate whether what they claimed happened already is valid or not.

Quote:

Because the criteria is every night. Which is entirely testable. Unless someone kills the dude of course lol.

And if god decides to stop showing himself to the person because they are being observed, you would have no way to verify this.

Quote:

So how this relates to your statement, some claims of gods are based on impact, of course, if not all, which means they are testable.

The impact is testable...and even then, the tests could not verify the supernatural.

Quote:

Claims which are not testable could be like, my bro swore at me. Its not testable by exclusivity of event, ergo some claims wont be testable. But that is by no way related to its 'supernatural'ness.

I never said that all natural claims are testable. Quit burning that straw man, sport.

Quote:

Other claims exist, as is my main point, are testable. Such as the claim of a god living in a certain location on earth for all of eternity.

A "god" that exists in nature is natural...not supernatural. There also would be no way to test that they are god...just that they might have uncanny abilities that normal people don't.

Quote:

You could go there, and it wouldnt be there. The place would not exist over time. It is going to be false, and based on nature, not supernature.

No...if you go there, and they aren't there...that does not necessarily mean that the claim is false. If one of my friends claimed they got a new dog, and we go to their house and the dog isn't there, there are plenty of explanations for why the dog isn't there other than "the claim is false"...you are making a false dichotomy.

Quote:

And, my much earlier point about how some gods are not subject to the idea of the supernatural, it is because there are claims of gods that are not supernatural by necessity.

And as I explained when you brought this up the first ******** time, you could never test that they were god...just that they might have abilities that most people don't. And even then, the tests wouldn't necessarily mean that they are god...and a god that exists in nature isn't supernatural.....I thought you were supposed to be "rephrasing" your idea...cause you seem to be saying the same s**t that I've already gave counters for that you haven't disproved.

Quote:

Such as a god of strength, what if some dude existed ages ago, who had like 800 lbs or muscle or a gene for stronger muscle proteins or something. And people call him a god of strength. He would be, by those people, a god.

No....he would be CALLED a god...but that doesn't mean that the label is applicable. By your reasoning, since Michael Phelps has done something most people can't do, he would be a god. Michael Jordan...he's a god. My toaster....GOD! The point is that the label isn't applicable, regardless of ability...all you would be able to show is something unexplained previously that we would now know exists in nature.

Quote:

And not supernatural, they would have no supernatural claims involved actually.

And as I pointed out when you first said this, there would be no need to apply such a word that carries with it so much baggage. In fact, to go back to your previous point, we actually have an example of someone who claimed they were a god that we know existed: Alexander the Great. Are you suggesting that he was a god because he claimed it and did something that others hadn't?

Quote:

The only thing suggesting of supernatural ability would be their definitions which are expanded upon when inquiry is brought to them, such as, why is he so strong, the statements likely would be supernatural.

The explanations aren't validation of the claim. Going back to my friend with the missing dog example, if he claimed that the dog only appeared to not be there because it was invisible or that it was kidnapped by aliens or that it flew away...while they would be explanations, they wouldn't validate the claim that he has a dog.

Quote:

Which brings me to another point, one can prove every claim that was made is false by simulation.

No...you can't. If this hypothetical superman claimed that their super strength came to them because they helped an old beggar woman that turned out to be another god, you have no way to verify that they are telling the truth. There are enough ad hoc responses he could pull out to explain why you can never verify if the claim is true.

Quote:

We could simulate peoples, and they would make new legends just as believable as the ones of today. Eventually, given enough simulations, we could have the exact same scenario as those other claims show up, and see what occurred to generate them.

Besides wanting to know how you could ever do this, the easy explanation for why this fails is "well, you just haven't found the scenario where my claim is true yet"...

Quote:

It is entirely possible to come to a conclusion, Just because you and others lack the imagination does not mean there is not a method to test it.

Except that's a shifting of the burden of proof. It is up to the person making the claim to provide validation...it's not on the other person to prove if what they are saying is correct or not.

Quote:

Which, if you still claim the supernatural is untestable by definition, theres no way to prove there is a test you do not know about which could test somthing previously untestable that was deemed supernatural, making it not supernatural anymore.

Which is a shifting of the burden of proof. I've demonstrated how, by definition, the supernatural is untestable. If you claim the counter, provide evidence of a test that PROVES THAT SOMETHING IS SUPERNATURAL.

Quote:

SIMILARLY any claim that is not deemed supernatural outright, is not to be assumed to be supernatural just because we cannot test it at the time.

It's not that you can't "test" it that it is supernatural. It's that you can't ******** OBSERVE it in the first place, as it is "beyond nature." At best, you would see the impact it has, and you could test that...but that would be part of the natural world...not the supernatural one.

Quote:

Which is why it has been arbitrary of a word in this context as I have been arguing for some time. Sorry, thought this was just you know, common sense. My bad.

It still isn't arbitrary. The term is well defined enough to know what we can label supernatural, and what we can't. That, by definition, is not arbitrary. And if you think that is "common sense," then you have a serious lack of understanding of the concept.

[Arcoon Effox]

Cupcakes HD

Show me original sources claiming vampires are supernatural.

You're joking, right? ...Right? No? Okay, then: show me something that says they're not.

Cupcakes HD

You are using appeal to common sense.

...or maybe it's just that you don't have any, since you're talking about experimenting on a fictional being.

Cupcakes HD

...if you knew anything, you should know real things can be experimented with, including said vampires.

If you knew anything, you'd know that vampires aren't real - or at least not in the sense that Rumblestiltskin meant, which is what I thought we were talking about. If you're referring to people who have porphyria or recreationally suck blood or whatever, you're being disingenuous with what's being discussed, and shifting the goalposts.

Cupcakes HD

...if I couldn't experiment on a currently real vampire, that'd mean it is not accurate to being a vampire, meaning it would no longer be a vampire.

This reeks of Creationist mentality - which means that I get to say "Russel's Teapot" - show me some evidence that supernatural beasties such as vampires exist or else be quiet, because the burden of proof is on you.

Cupcakes HD

Such as, what do effects of other untested herbs do to vampires? If garlic does ward or cause harm, and to what extent. Such as it'd be immune to those things, which means it wouldn't fit the definition of a vampire. Or testing exactly what is needed to become one, when we have one already, etc.

You can't experiment on a "currently real vampire" because (again) they don't exist, and since the idea of a life-draining monster appears in so many forms across so many cultures, defining a "vampire" based solely on its taste in herbs is ludicrously shallow. FYI Garlic is not a universal apotropaic across various vampire myths, and using it to ward off various evils was a thing long before Bram Stoker popularized the idea. Among other such repellants are mustard seeds, hawthorne and even wild roses.

...and just in case my use of the words 'myth' and 'hypothetical' didn't make it clear, I'm talking about folklore, here, because

Cupcakes HD

So honestly, i should be the one facepalming.

Actually, no; what you should be doing is providing evidence for the existence of vampires - because until you do, you're basically coming off like this:

[Rumblestiltskin]

Arcoon Effox

So, I have to point this out: you can never prove that vampires don't exist. There can always be an ad hoc explanation for why you just haven't found one yet. Now, we don't have reason to believe that they do exist, but we can't conclusively state that they don't exist.

[Arcoon Effox]

Rumblestiltskin

Arcoon Effox

So, I have to point this out: you can never prove that vampires don't exist. There can always be an ad hoc explanation for why you just haven't found one yet. Now, we don't have reason to believe that they do exist, but we can't conclusively state that they don't exist.

True; my bad.

[Cupcakes HD on youtube]

Rumblestiltskin

ONLY THE IMPACT IS TESTABLE. For example, the mind reading example. We can only test that a person is correctly guessing someone else's thoughts...we cannot test that they are ACTUALLY reading someone else's mind. And no amount of repeatable tests will change that.

Wrong.
We can give a stimuli or pattern of thought to one person or some such thing, and if it consistently impacts the other person in the same way when they are no where near the person they are mind reading. Both getting brain scans. Eventually we could determine why he can read minds, by altering him, although unethical it could still be done. To figure out exactly what is causing the effect.

The word supernatural was only invented to explain things when people didn't have answers. If anything supernatural would exist, it'd have an impact that is observed. Which would make it not supernatural. The word originated to explain what they could not figure out with their knowledge at the time. They thought thunder was supernatural and such, if we go far back enough. They thought trees growing from seeds is supernatural. They were not knowledgeable. Anything existing- causing an impact- is real from the origin of the impact. Never has there been witnessed in science, an unexplainable phenomenon without an origin method that is natural. Supernatural is superstitious in nature in a way. Its just as presumptuous. It has no place in science. Something supernatural cannot exist. It is like saying natural vs supernatural. If we change the word to fictional, it'd have the same impact. If we changed the claim of a god to the claim of mystical a banana, it'd not change. Irl, everything would change, if we for instance changed a scenario of a person talking to a banana talking. If a banana could talk, surely theres vocal cords. If it projects thoughts into the mind to speak, surely theres some physical aspect causing that. Every effect has a cause.

And the supernatural neglects that, it is not real. Because every cause would be natural to produce an impact. Every claim of 'supernatural' is a mistake.

It is a misperception.

Also I do notice a tendency in the e.d. for people who chop up posts, tend to resort to more personal attacks, personal discrediting and such. Such as when I responded in bold, where as my other posts were not of the like. I am inclined to believe therefore chopping up posts is near-sighted. It is mistaking the forest for the trees, I am positive.

I also notice I am much calmer not chopping posts up. I also notice most people I get into endless debates, chop posts up.

Anyways.

The 'supernatural' is a misperception. It has no basis in reality, beyond misconceptions, misperceptions, lack of understanding something fully, caused from lack of data, etc. It is also a fact other things have been deemed supernatural, and they never turn out to be so. Like numbers, which is a concept, numbers do not exist physically. They exist as a concept. Like you can count things, but it does not make those things numbers. You can only show me a number such as 1234, but it is only a symbol we interpret as a concept.

Similarly, the supernatural is a concept. It does not exist. It doesn't even have practical uses besides for storytelling and arguing or resolving some sort of internal conflict. This is why it has no place in science in this context. We can claim anything is supernatural, when it isn't, and nothing is supernatural.

Anything described to be supernatural 1 is based on a misconception 2 is fictitious 3 is later proven to be natural not supernatural. I don't care what your cherry picked dictionary definition says.

If a ghost exists for instance, we can call it supernatural. But by it existing it is not supernatural. It existing it is measurable, testable, explainable. Infrequent access to the 'supernatural' is no excuse to deem it 'supernatural'. Nothing is supernatural. If there was something supernatural, it'd be observable and we would have evidence for it, which we do not.

There is no reason to take it seriously, just like someone claiming there is a cat stuck up on mount Everest. In fact it being a claim of being supernatural requires supernatural evidence, to support the claiming of it being supernatural, and why I insist you need to provide evidence for your position is because your position suggests the supernatural is potentially real. If a vampire existed, where did it get claimed it was supernatural? There are science fiction books with vampires. The lack of knowledge is what makes it possible to claim 'supernatural' which is again why it is irrelevant. If a vampire existed, by it existing everything different about it would be tied to certain things. Your argument of saying the supernatural is untestable is just stupid, because you would need supernatural evidence to support your idea of it being untestable. You would need a effect without a cause, to prove the supernatural is untestable. Saying it is untestable, is a claim. I do not care how much dictionaries you quote, that is a ******** claim. You would probably again argue that it being supernatural it is untestable, so I cannot provide evidence for the claim, but, you mr forest for the trees, would be neglecting that the impact which is observed in the case of something supernatural existing, would exist and be presentable as evidence. Such as a banana unexplainably teleporting stuff when you press a button on it. That would be evidence of an impact Currently without a cause. It would be subject to disproving just as science would, because it would be science. The supernatural is not exempt from science. It is not immune to science.

And if needs be I can show instances of when things were claimed to be supernatural but were not. But I do not think you would stoop so low as to me needing to prove that. 'Supernatural' is a claim based on ignorance. Appeal to ignorance, and should not be taken seriously whatsoever.

[Rumblestiltskin]

Cupcakes HD

Rumblestiltskin

ONLY THE IMPACT IS TESTABLE. For example, the mind reading example. We can only test that a person is correctly guessing someone else's thoughts...we cannot test that they are ACTUALLY reading someone else's mind. And no amount of repeatable tests will change that.

Wrong.
We can give a stimuli or pattern of thought to one person or some such thing, and if it consistently impacts the other person in the same way when they are no where near the person they are mind reading. Both getting brain scans. Eventually we could determine why he can read minds, by altering him, although unethical it could still be done. To figure out exactly what is causing the effect.

No. The best you could do, in this situation, is show that a person is getting the answer right each time. There is no way to actually verify that he is actually reading someone's mind.

Quote:

The word supernatural was only invented to explain things when people didn't have answers.

No...the term was invented when people were applying qualities to things that made them BEYOND NATURE.

Quote:

If anything supernatural would exist, it'd have an impact that is observed. Which would make it not supernatural.

The impact would be natural. The entity may be supernatural. However, we cannot test for a supernatural entity.

Quote:

The word originated to explain what they could not figure out with their knowledge at the time.

Once again, no. The term originated when people were describing things that were not found in nature.

Quote:

They thought thunder was supernatural and such, if we go far back enough.

No they didn't, and now you clearly demonstrate that you have no ******** clue what you're talking about. They never thought that THUNDER was supernatural. They thought the reason BEHIND the thunder was supernatural. In fact, this is a good example of my point...let's assume for a second that thunder was a product of a god throwing a bolt of light. The god would be supernatural...there would be no way to test for it. The thunder would be the impact that the entity has, and we can test that impact, because it occurs in nature.

Quote:

They thought trees growing from seeds is supernatural.

Again, they thought the CAUSE was supernatural...not the PROCESS.

Quote:

They were not knowledgeable.

Which you and they seem to have in common. That aside, their explanations EVOKED the supernatural...but not all explanations of the unknown do, which is why your assertion that "supernatural was invented to describe the unknown" is complete bullshit.

Quote:

Anything existing- causing an impact- is real from the origin of the impact. Never has there been witnessed in science, an unexplainable phenomenon without an origin method that is natural. Supernatural is superstitious in nature in a way.

Superstitions are a belief in supernatural causality. They evoke the supernatural, but they are not the entirety of the supernatural. In other words, you have it backwards.

Quote:

Its just as presumptuous. It has no place in science.

Which is why you cannot test something that is supernatural. Because science can only observe the natural world.

Quote:

Something supernatural cannot exist.

Again, demonstrate how you determined this to be true.

Quote:

It is like saying natural vs supernatural. If we change the word to fictional, it'd have the same impact.

No it wouldn't, because supernatural does not mean fictional. It is LIKELY that it is fictional, but it may not be NECESSARILY the case, as you cannot test for the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural entity.

Quote:

If we changed the claim of a god to the claim of mystical a banana, it'd not change.

Actually, it would, because before we were talking about god, and now we're talking about a mystical banana...

Quote:

Irl, everything would change, if we for instance changed a scenario of a person talking to a banana talking. If a banana could talk, surely theres vocal cords.

Not necessarily. If we're evoking the supernatural so that a banana could talk, anything could be possible, including speaking without vocal cords...

Quote:

If it projects thoughts into the mind to speak, surely theres some physical aspect causing that.

Again, not necessarily. Evoking the supernatural throws common sense out the window.

Quote:

Every effect has a cause.

I'll take this moment to point out that nothing of what you've previously wrote does anything to demonstrate how you can test the supernatural...and I have a feeling that none of what I'm about to read will do that either.

Quote:

And the supernatural neglects that, it is not real.

Once again, demonstrate how you can determine whether something you cannot observe exists or not.

Quote:

Because every cause would be natural to produce an impact.

Not necessarily. Thunder could still be the product of an angry god...all we've determined is WHAT is going on...we cannot determine WHY it is going on. There is also no way to test for that god, regardless of the fact that the impact is natural.

Quote:

Every claim of 'supernatural' is a mistake.

And you know this how? You can't test the supernatural. The best you can do is evoke Occam's razor, and that doesn't prove the claims false. All it does is show that there is no need to evoke the supernatural.

Quote:

It is a misperception.

Again, you know this how...because you can't examine supernature to determine whether something exists or not.

Quote:

Also I do notice a tendency in the e.d. for people who chop up posts, tend to resort to more personal attacks, personal discrediting and such.

I insulted you once...in this post...as a joke. Considering you spent a good chunk of the last few posts bitching about me, you can stop with this red herring nonsense. It is irrelevant to your claims and does nothing to counter my arguments.

Quote:

Such as when I responded in bold, where as my other posts were not of the like. I am inclined to believe therefore chopping up posts is near-sighted. It is mistaking the forest for the trees, I am positive.

And you're wrong. Judging by the reason I chop up posts, it's so that the other person can easily see, specifically, what I'm responding to. It also helps me to avoid missing something I want to respond to. And trust me, your bullshit would still be bullshit whether I responded to it piece by piece or as a whole.

Quote:

I also notice I am much calmer not chopping posts up.

Again, demonstrate how you can know my mental/emotional state better than I do...

Quote:

I also notice most people I get into endless debates, chop posts up.

Because they probably see other people do it more, think the style is more productive, and learn to do it themselves. That's why I started to do it, and it's pretty useful.

Quote:

Anyways.

Yes, put the red herring away and get back to the ******** point.

Quote:

The 'supernatural' is a misperception.

Repeating your bullshit ad nauseum does not validate the claim.

Quote:

It has no basis in reality, beyond misconceptions, misperceptions, lack of understanding something fully, caused from lack of data, etc.

Not necessarily. Vampires, for example, are not explaining anything we see in nature. Therefore, they are not a misconception. Same with unicorns, minotaurs, werewolves, fairies, mermaids...etc. These are just fantastical creatures that are most likely products of the human imagination...however, we have no way to determine that they don't exist.

Quote:

It is also a fact

Stating that things are facts does not make them facts. You have to demonstrate that they are facts, and you've done ******** all to demonstrate anything so far.

Quote:

other things have been deemed supernatural, and they never turn out to be so.

And there are plenty of ad hoc responses that explain why there hasn't been evidence for the existence of these things.

Quote:

Like numbers, which is a concept, numbers do not exist physically. They exist as a concept. Like you can count things, but it does not make those things numbers. You can only show me a number such as 1234, but it is only a symbol we interpret as a concept.

The relevancy of this being? Numbers as a concept do nothing to demonstrate the supernatural being testable.

Quote:

Similarly, the supernatural is a concept. It does not exist.

Demonstrate how you can determine this to be true, considering you cannot observe the supernatural.

Quote:

It doesn't even have practical uses besides for storytelling and arguing or resolving some sort of internal conflict.

Or explaining why something happens...granted, I don't think it's a convincing argument, but evoking of the supernatural doesn't necessarily mean the claim is false. At best, it just lacks validation to think that the claim is true.

Quote:

This is why it has no place in science in this context. We can claim anything is supernatural, when it isn't, and nothing is supernatural.

The supernatural has no place in science because science can only test the natural world, because it can only observe the natural world. The supernatural is anything beyond nature, and we can't examine or observe beyond nature to determine the existence or nonexistence of anything.

Quote:

Anything described to be supernatural 1 is based on a misconception 2 is fictitious 3 is later proven to be natural not supernatural.

Again, demonstrate that any of what you just said is true, preferably WITHOUT REPEATING YOUR CLAIMS OVER AGAIN AD NAUSEUM AS IF THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO PROVE YOUR POINT.

Quote:

I don't care what your cherry picked dictionary definition says.

I haven't pulled out a dictionary definition. However, this is what the word means. Your attempted definition is faulty....so essentially, you're saying that you don't care that you're wrong, you're just going to assert this bullshit anyway, which I can honestly say that, after having this discussion for this long, that I am not shocked in the least.

Quote:

If a ghost exists for instance, we can call it supernatural.

Unless it exists in nature...then it wouldn't be supernatural, by definition.

Quote:

But by it existing it is not supernatural.

I'd like to think that you're finally understanding, but something tells me that you're not.

Quote:

It existing it is measurable, testable, explainable.

If it exists in nature, then yes. However, people claiming to see ghosts are evoking the supernatural, and there is no way to confirm that ghosts exist. At best, all you could do is demonstrate that there is some kind of strange phenomenon going on.

Quote:

Infrequent access to the 'supernatural' is no excuse to deem it 'supernatural'.

You're right...which is why the sole criteria for something being supernatural is if it is "beyond nature" or not.

Quote:

Nothing is supernatural.

Except for ghosts, goblins, ghouls, vampires, werewolves, fairies, trolls, mermaids, gods, demons, angels, zombies, etc. etc. etc.

Quote:

If there was something supernatural, it'd be observable and we would have evidence for it, which we do not.

That is a false premise. By definition, you cannot observe the supernatural, because you are only able to observe nature, and the supernatural is BEYOND nature. Ergo, you could never have evidence for or against anything existing in supernature.

Quote:

There is no reason to take it seriously, just like someone claiming there is a cat stuck up on mount Everest.

If the person has evidence for the claim, then there is absolutely a reason to take it seriously.

Quote:

In fact it being a claim of being supernatural requires supernatural evidence, to support the claiming of it being supernatural, and why I insist you need to provide evidence for your position is because your position suggests the supernatural is potentially real.

No my position ******** doesn't. I have never once stated that the supernatural was real, nor have I asserted that it was fake. My position, from the very beginning, has been that you cannot determine whether it is one way or another, which I have provided evidence for. You don't get to misconstrue what I've been saying just so you can argue a straw man, you dishonest piece of s**t.

Quote:

If a vampire existed, where did it get claimed it was supernatural?

It evokes the supernatural...it is not something we experience IN NATURE. That's why it's a supernatural claim, and where it gets it is ******** irrelevant.

Quote:

There are science fiction books with vampires.

Science fiction books isn't the determining factor of whether something is supernatural or not. Flying machines are also in science fiction books...are you claiming that planes are supernatural now.....

Quote:

The lack of knowledge is what makes it possible to claim 'supernatural'

I'm not denying this, but it is that same lack of knowledge that prevents us from saying that it doesn't exist

Quote:

which is again why it is irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant, because you haven't demonstrated how you can test the supernatural.

Quote:

If a vampire existed, by it existing everything different about it would be tied to certain things.

Could you be anymore vague...

Quote:

Your argument of saying the supernatural is untestable is just stupid,

Your failure to grasp why the supernatural is untestable doesn't show that the argument is "stupid." All it's showing is that you have severe ignorance on the topic.

Quote:

because you would need supernatural evidence to support your idea of it being untestable.

Yes, you would need something supernatural to determine if you can do tests on it. We don't have anything supernatural, ergo, by definition, WE CANNOT TEST THE SUPERNATURAL. Thank you for proving my "stupid" argument, and demonstrating why you're wrong.

Quote:

You would need a effect without a cause, to prove the supernatural is untestable. Saying it is untestable, is a claim. I do not care how much dictionaries you quote, that is a ******** claim.

Yes...it is a claim...which is why I've explained the claim, numerous ******** times. Your inability to understand it is YOUR problem.

Quote:

You would probably again argue that it being supernatural it is untestable, so I cannot provide evidence for the claim, but, you mr forest for the trees, would be neglecting that the impact which is observed in the case of something supernatural existing, would exist and be presentable as evidence.

Again, IT WOULD ONLY BE EVIDENCE OF THE IMPACT. You cannot, by definition, test the supernatural, because you can only test things that occur in nature. I've already explained this, numerous ******** times, and I find it incredibly dishonest of you to pretend like I haven't already explained it, and everything else I've said, multiple times.

Quote:

Such as a banana unexplainably teleporting stuff when you press a button on it.

I point you again to the rooster analogy. Rooster crows, sun comes up...rooster raises the sun. your teleporting banana example is the same. The best you could show is that something strange was happening...and even then, if it occurred in nature, it could not be supernatural, by definition.

Quote:

That would be evidence of an impact Currently without a cause. It would be subject to disproving just as science would, because it would be science. The supernatural is not exempt from science. It is not immune to science.

I haven't said that it ******** was. But part of science is observation, and we are only able to observe the natural world....we cannot observe the supernatural one...so while the supernatural is not immune to science, THERE STILL REMAINS NO WAY TO TEST THE SUPERNATURAL, WHICH HAS BEEN MY POSITION FROM THE START.

Quote:

And if needs be I can show instances of when things were claimed to be supernatural but were not.

No, the need not be. The only thing that need be is that you demonstrate ANY of the NUMEROUS ASSERTIONS you have ALREADY made.

Quote:

But I do not think you would stoop so low as to me needing to prove that.

....Here's a tip: don't assume anymore what I might do. You are incredibly ignorant, and when you pretentiously act like you know what I'm going to do, and then I don't do it, you look like an even bigger douche than you've already been demonstrated to be.

Quote:

'Supernatural' is a claim based on ignorance.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with that. However, the fact remains that you cannot test the supernatural, which is why people continue to evoke the supernatural.

Quote:

Appeal to ignorance, and should not be taken seriously whatsoever.

Unless they provide evidence for their claim...then, it should be taken seriously. However, as I thought earlier, you still have yet to demonstrate how it is possible to test the supernatural when it cannot be observed.

[Cupcakes HD on youtube]

Rumblestiltskin

you still have yet to demonstrate how it is possible to test the supernatural when it cannot be observed.

I've responded to this before I am sure. Well have a good evening.

[Exoth XIII]

IVovacane

So its the first day of school and after a long day I head over to my new science class, physics. The teacher was pretty cool I guess. he was talking about his heritage and how he became a physics teacher and what not...but here's the interesting part. Before the class period ended he said there are two things to always remember: 1) Science proves God exists and 2) science disproves God's existence. What he meant by this i dont know but I thought it was interesting to share. There's no real arguement on my behalf. Just a topic to talk about I guess.

He's ******** with you.

Science is, and shall be unconcerned with any deity until it deigns to introduce itself.

[NAGATO UZUMAKl]

Exoth XIII

IVovacane

So its the first day of school and after a long day I head over to my new science class, physics. The teacher was pretty cool I guess. he was talking about his heritage and how he became a physics teacher and what not...but here's the interesting part. Before the class period ended he said there are two things to always remember: 1) Science proves God exists and 2) science disproves God's existence. What he meant by this i dont know but I thought it was interesting to share. There's no real arguement on my behalf. Just a topic to talk about I guess.

He's ******** with you.

Science is, and shall be unconcerned with any deity until it deigns to introduce itself.

...And you are...?

[Rumblestiltskin]

Cupcakes HD

Rumblestiltskin

you still have yet to demonstrate how it is possible to test the supernatural when it cannot be observed.

I've responded to this before I am sure. Well have a good evening.

No, you haven't...because while I've repeated my explanations because you keep making the same bullshit assertions, you still have not come anywhere near meeting your burden of proof, which is the one constant I keep repeating. There are also things in there that I haven't said before...so while you'll dishonestly dismiss it because you could never come up with evidence for your assertion anyway, your pathetic twist on "tl;dr" brings you no closer to demonstrating the validity of your claims than you were the first time you made them. So I'll take solace in the fact that I probably won't feel compelled to respond to you with repeated explanations that fall on deaf ears due to your ignorance.

[No Longer Around022584]

...I had a response. I really did. But I lost it half way in page 2. This was entertaining. It was a response towards the teacher. I know it was. But I think I was so baffled by Cupcakes HD that I lost it half way. Either way I am entertained. So thank you guys.

[Rumblestiltskin]

PoaTB

...I had a response. I really did. But I lost it half way in page 2. This was entertaining. It was a response towards the teacher. I know it was. But I think I was so baffled by Cupcakes HD that I lost it half way. Either way I am entertained. So thank you guys.

Thank you for bringing in some much needed levity. rofl

[Exoth XIII]

IVovacane

Exoth XIII

IVovacane

So its the first day of school and after a long day I head over to my new science class, physics. The teacher was pretty cool I guess. he was talking about his heritage and how he became a physics teacher and what not...but here's the interesting part. Before the class period ended he said there are two things to always remember: 1) Science proves God exists and 2) science disproves God's existence. What he meant by this i dont know but I thought it was interesting to share. There's no real arguement on my behalf. Just a topic to talk about I guess.

He's ******** with you.

Science is, and shall be unconcerned with any deity until it deigns to introduce itself.

...And you are...?

I go by the handle Exoth. Feel free to add your own qualifiers. I'm fond of "the magnificent" myself.