Lincoln wrote:Evolution says nothing about the beginning of life. It describes the change of life after it began.
An example of something supernatural that wasn't ultimately natural.
Suppose there were a thing not natural. How would I know either the thing or the thingness of it,
Lincoln wrote:I have.
But it was a Porsche, no?
You will have to supply Rebecca deMornay (who I had a thing for when the movie came out...)
kudayta wrote:So, enjoying fiction means that you have to believe in it too? And coming up with ways to technologically simulate the gadgets seen in fictional movies means you have to believe in the supernatural? I don't see how that follows.
Lincoln wrote:In Risky Business, Joel drives his father's Porsche 928. Perhaps you are thinking of Ferris Buehler's Day Off? That was a Ferrari. Don't you remember "Porsche...there is no substitute."?
If you can't even keep your movies straight, you're outta luck with De Mornay.
Kudayta...I just looked her up too. I also conclude that I'm getting old. But she's aged rather well and is still beautiful. I am therefore forced to conclude that I am still young and studly. (Or should that be in the irrational thread?)
Lincoln wrote:For the record, I don't believe one iota in magic and the supernatural (whatever that means) and I loved the Harry Potter stories. I also like Tolkien's stuff, but I don't believe in elves. I love an awful lot of science fiction, but I note that there is "fiction" in the title.
It's perfectly fine to enjoy a story set in a world the way you wish it could be. The problem that many religious people make is that they mix up "the way I wish it could be" with "the way it is."
Lincoln wrote:See, I have an edge. I can pick her up in my own Porsche. I won't have to have my Mom drive us there.
ronjanec wrote:So what are you going to do on your date with her? Talk about particle physics? Next!
kudayta wrote:Well, even if it was just me and Lincoln that didn't believe in the supernatural, that still wouldn't make it true.
Lincoln wrote:ronjanec wrote:So what are you going to do on your date with her? Talk about particle physics? Next!
One important life lesson. As women get older, they value more intelligence and accomplishment. He who was a geek as a youngster gets increasing traction as time goes on.
And, of course, it doesn't hurt that it's a well known fact that physicists are very desirable mates: studly, brilliant, charming, debonair, ....
Lincoln wrote:My impression is that this is true of the younger ones as well.
And, as kudayta has suggested, millions of kids go to sleep on December 24th every year with great expectations. That doesn't make their expectations reasonable. Actually, their expectations are more reasonable than most. At least they have concrete evidence to support their hypothesis.
Lincoln wrote:And, just so we're clear on this, how many older ones have you dated?
I am going to make a case that science can only explore some sense experiences. Science cannot explore metaphysics. To say that metaphysics is useless would itself be a useless statement, and is thus self-defeating.Lincoln wrote:But, and here's the kicker, since I define "everything" to be "everything," and you bifurcate the world into "physical" and "spiritual," it is your responsibility to define the dividing line between the two classes. I don't have that problem. And, to be useful, it must be sufficiently clear (the dividing line) so as to be totally unambiguous. We might then fight over whether the bifurcation makes sense (I'll likely say it doesn't,) but at least we'll finally be talking about crucial ideas and not ambiguous, unclear, irritating, words.
I would like to emphasize the last sentence, in parentheses. What this is saying is that we cannot, scientifically, argue whether certain rare, unpredictable events do or do not happen. Therefore, if our evidence is of this form, it cannot be discussed scientifically. I don't see how it is valid to dismiss all such experiences as hallucinations. So, we have a kind of evidence which is not empirical, but is evidence!Popper, p23-24 wrote:Every experimental physicist knows those surprising and inexplicable apparent 'effects' which in his laboratory can perhaps even be reproduced for some time, but which finally disappear without trace. Of course, no physicist would say that in such a case that he had made a scientific discovery (though he might try to rearrange his experiments so as to make the effect reproducible). Indeed the scientifically significant physical effect may be defined as that which can be regularly reproduced by anyone who carries out the appropriate experiment in the way prescribed. No serious physicist would offer for publication, as a scientific discovery, any such 'occult effect', as I propose to call it – one for whose reproduction he could give no instructions. The 'discovery' would be only too soon rejected as chimerical, simply because attempts to test it would lead to negative results. (It follows that any controversy over the question whether events which are in principle unrepeatable and unique ever do occur cannot be decided by science: it would be a metaphysical controversy.)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests