Vampires/ghosts

Originally posted by Starrman
If you see fit to actively abandon logic, I don't believe debate of any worth can be conducted. Instead it will be a lot of...umm...ghost stories.

It was a dark and stormy night, the Captain said to the First Mate, "Tell me a story"
And this is the story he told:
"It was a dark and stormy night, the ..."

Originally posted by Starrman
I believe that believing in anything which cannot be proved scientifically is insane.

i'll assume your 100% non religious then? as religious stuff (beliefs in god, satan etc etc) cannot be PROVEN scientifically beyond a shadow of a doubt or otherwise. Thus you can't believe in it.

That must also mean that you don't believe in things like the theory of evolution etc. as they are just theories, theres no HARD evidence to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that any theories are true. hence they remain theories and not facts.

I'm sure you also believe that JFK was shot from the book depository because theres no scientific evidence to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was shot from anywhere else or by anyone else.

I'm sure you can see where this is going so i'll stop right there.

Originally posted by mc2005
i'll assume your 100% non religious then? as religious stuff (beliefs in god, satan etc etc) cannot be PROVEN scientifically beyond a shadow of a doubt or otherwise. Thus you can't believe in it.

That must also mean that you don't believe in things like the theory of evolution etc. as they are just theories, theres no HARD evidence to PROVE beyond a sh ...[text shortened]... else or by anyone else.

I'm sure you can see where this is going so i'll stop right there.

You misunderstand, the theory of evolution is theoretically proveable, we just haven't tied it all together yet. Nothing, on the otherhand, can be known about the nature of god and as such he should remain unbelieved. It's not about 100% proveable, it's about the potential to obtain proof.

Originally posted by Starrman
You misunderstand, the theory of evolution is theoretically proveable, we just haven't tied it all together yet. Nothing, on the otherhand, can be known about the nature of god and as such he should remain unbelieved. It's not about 100% proveable, it's about the potential to obtain proof.

Well going off that response, it is "theoretically" possible to obtain proof of whether ghosts exist 1 day. Maybe it'll be in a million years, but its still "theoretically" possible to obtain proof.

I also can't see that the theory of evolution is theoretically provable. If it was so easily provable then someone would of done it years ago just to settle the argument.

Originally posted by Starrman
You misunderstand, the theory of evolution is theoretically proveable, we just haven't tied it all together yet. Nothing, on the otherhand, can be known about the nature of god and as such he should remain unbelieved. It's not about 100% proveable, it's about the potential to obtain proof.

So if something is potentially provable, that warrants faith in it. It does not need to be proved to be believed. You just have to believe it is provable by faith because it is only possibly provable. And this is what you believe about the theory of evolution. Sounds like a convoluted way to say you have faith in the truth of evolution. How would you prove it if it is provable? Is there a mathematical measure, an equation you can test, some falsifiable criteria?

Originally posted by Coletti
So if something is potentially provable, that warrants faith in it. It does not need to be proved to be believed. You just have to believe it is provable by faith because it is only possibly provable. And this is what you believe about the theory of evolution. Sounds like a convoluted way to say you have faith in the truth of evolution. How wou ...[text shortened]... provable? Is there a mathematical measure, an equation you can test, some falsifiable criteria?

I did not mention faith at all, faith is something which requires no evidence to encourage belief. If you re-read my post you will see that while the theory of evolution is testable and the potential for evidence remains in an empirical form, by the very nature of what god must be, he is out of any means of testing, he cannot be proved through empirical means. Even the possibility of his existence is outside of testable means, the theory of evolution is not.

Originally posted by Starrman
I did not mention faith at all, faith is something which requires no evidence to encourage belief. If you re-read my post you will see that while the theory of evolution is testable and the potential for evidence remains in an empirical form, by the very nature of what god must be, he is out of any means of testing, he cannot be proved through empirical me ...[text shortened]... the possibility of his existence is outside of testable means, the theory of evolution is not.

God can not be proved by empirical means - I agree. But then, neither can TOE, at least I have never heard of any test that could prove TOE that is feasible. And if you mean by evidence, well there is plenty of evidence for God to justify at least the possibility God exists. The difference is really not so great.

Originally posted by Coletti
God can not be proved by empirical means - I agree. But then, neither can TOE, at least I have never heard of any test that could prove TOE that is feasible. And if you mean by evidence, well there is plenty of evidence for God to justify at least the possibility God exists. The difference is really not so great.

The TOE, whilst arguably unproved, is potentially proveable by empirical means, that has been my point all along. I agree my original single line statement was somewhat flippant, but the essence is that some things though not proved, are proveable. Whilst god remains one of the things that is both not proved, nor proveable. From this standpoint I suggested for my own view that belief is irrational. I used insane merely to reflect the previous statement to which I was replying.

Originally posted by Starrman
I believe that believing in anything which cannot be proved scientifically is insane.

Wow! So are you saying that it is insane to believe that the earth is billions of years old? Are you saying that it is insane to believe that you had an ancestor living 2000 years ago? Are you saying that it is insane to believe in the theory of evolution? Are you saying that it is insane to believe that you will arrive safely at a destination if you get into a car? Do you have no faith whatsoever?

Originally posted by Starrman
The TOE, whilst arguably unproved, is potentially proveable by empirical means, that has been my point all along. I agree my original single line statement was somewhat flippant, but the essence is that some things though not proved, are proveable. Whilst god remains one of the things that is both not proved, nor proveable. From this standpoint I suggeste ...[text shortened]... ational. I used insane merely to reflect the previous statement to which I was replying.

Would you mind pointing out any current scientific laws of nature which have a potential of bringing about a means by which macroevolution is possible?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Would you mind pointing out any current scientific laws of nature which have a potential of bringing about a means by which macroevolution is possible?

Please read my last post.

Originally posted by Starrman
Please read my last post.

Your last post says,"Please read my last post."😉

Your second last post says nothing about any current scientific laws of nature that potentially might help the cause of evolution...

My point is this. There are none. Thus it is also emperically impossible to prove evolution. But to the contrary, most scientific laws of nature point towards the existance of God.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Your second last post says nothing about any current scientific laws of nature that potentially might help the cause of evolution...

You miss the point, it is proveable by the nature of empricism. I have not said that there are current theories to prove it, but that the potential to prove it exists. I don't know how many ways I can say this to make it clearer to you.

My point is this. There are none. Thus it is also emperically impossible to prove evolution. But to the contrary, most scientific laws of nature point towards the existance of God.

They do no such thing. Any evidence you can offer about the laws of nature pointing towards god are devoid of empirical data.

Originally posted by Starrman
Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Your second last post says nothing about any current scientific laws of nature that potentially might help the cause of evolution...

You miss the point, it is proveable by the nature of empr ...[text shortened]... laws of nature pointing towards god are devoid of empirical data.[/b]

You keep repeating that "it's provable by the nature of empricism" but you have never given a single criteria or method that would prove it. All you saying is it is provable because you said so - which sounds like a dogmatic statement of faith. If so, say so. If not, provide the criteria of method that would prove it.

(You may want to reply to one of the TOE threads in the Debate Forum.)

Originally posted by Coletti
You keep repeating that "it's provable by the nature of empricism" but you have never given a single criteria or method that would prove it. All you saying is it is provable because you said so - which sounds like a dogmatic statement o ...[text shortened]... y so. If not, provide the criteria of method that would prove it.

I can't as I do not have the knowledge, I am not an evolutionary scientist. But that does not take away from the fact that in the future such a method may be disovered. It is not faith at all, but an opinion based on the fact that the natural laws of the universe are measureable and the more research done, the closer we get to a full picture of it.

EDIT: I agree this is departing from the title of the thread.