CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
"In order to be an Atheist, you have to have faith that there's no God."
You could just have faith that if god was real, relevant, and understandable then you could understand him by logic.
Analyzing the properties of various gods can lead you to reject the inconsistent ones.
Your lack of belief in what is typically considered god then would not be by faith that there is no god, but by faith that if there is a god then god is logically consistent.
Really though, if you think about it; God being a contradiction would explain why he is supposedly all powerful since you can conclude anything from a contradiction, although that would make any and all arguments of what God means to humanity invalid, since they would ultimately be reasoning from a contradiction. Faith that, if a god exists then it is a meaningful god will lead you to reject the most common versions of god.
I did not make a leap of faith in order to deny a belief in a deity.
When others tell me that God exists, I merely decide that unless they have compelling arguments, I'm not going to believe in such a thing. That is not faith... that is basic reasoning.
I will say, however, that the interest of whether we can actually conclude if God exists or not (and in what form) is solved through Philosophy. And while there are many philosophical arguments out there, you will never be able to truly understand your faith or reasoning unless you argue from your own mind (and not just quote Epicurus or Aristotle).
There is only one type of Atheism that asserts any type of belief, and that, I would argue in my opinion they must have faith in order to assert that belief. However, the question is worded to where it implies faith must be a requirement in order to be an Atheist; which is false. Only one type does, the others don't require faith because there is no belief to rely on faith or evidence for.
nope faith is believing nomatter the facts. I do not believe there is no God I KNOW based on scientific fact. If there is a table in the middle of the room I do not have faith that it is there or believe it is there. I KNOW it is there! Big Difference!
What are you talking, atheism is lack of faith due to the absence of credible evidence, it is quite foolhardy to make a statement like;"I do not believe there is no God I KNOW based on scientific fact," because i can tell you there isn't a single scientist in the world that would agree with it, and that includes myself.
Ummm I think one of the most famous and brilliant scientists of our times just stated that There is NO God! his name is (perhaps you have heard of it) Stephen Hawkings!
Listen my friend im sorry to tell you that you have misinterpreted what Stephen Hawking's and this "pantheon of astrophysicists" have said.
No scientist would say conclonsively there is no God, there are no absolute's in science (there are no absolutes period, but religion tries to make you belevie that there are), science is a best guess, and the best guess based on available evidence is that the creation myth from whatever religion you want to specify is just that, a myth.
Even Richards Dawkins attempted in a seminar i saw to quantify his degree of certainty of the non-existence of god, he gave a figure like 98%.
I do want to thank you for your intelligent, concise and expert knowledge in this subject. I wish more eople would give answers like this as opposed to one sentence agree or disagree! Whether we agree or not Thank you!
Would you agree with a definition of 'supernatural' to be something outside the laws of nature or beyond what is observable? If so, I think a machine like that would meet the criteria, and science is not equipped to prove the existence or nonexistece of things it cannot measure or observe.
"If so, I think a machine like that would meet the criteria"
Well you'd be wrong to think that based on our current understanding of the laws of physics. The existence of a perpetual motion mahince would violate the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics .
"and science is not equipped to prove the existence or nonexistece of things it cannot measure or observe."
I agree in fact it isn't equipped to prove anything conclusively, but your intial assertion is wrong.
Yes, you see it can violate the laws of physics if its only a hypothetical or notional concept. Much of science use the ideal state as the reference state from which models can be built, it doesn't make that reference.
Yes, you see it can violate the laws of physics if its only a hypothetical or notional concept.
How exactly do ideas and hypotheticals violate the laws of physics?
Aside from that, I am not talking about the physical possibilities of notions or hypotheticals. In order for the machine itself to exist, not the notion of the machine, it would have to violate the laws of physics. This, I believe, puts such a machine in the realm of the supernatural.
"How exactly do ideas and hypotheticals violate the laws of physics?"
Well because ideas and hypotheiticals in science are normally used to describe an ideal state that can never be replicated under any conditions in reality, and thus if implemented would fail. This is precisely because they violate the known laws of physics, but they can complrehended .
"In order for the machine itself to exist, not the notion of the machine, it would have to violate the laws of physics. "
Agreed , but it does not exist, and it cannot exist.
"This, I believe, puts such a machine in the realm of the supernatural."
Look im sorry to tell this but you are wrong. The word supernatural not only implies that something isn't scientifically observable, and that it resides outside the laws of nature or physics or whatever, but it also implies that is it something beyond scientific understanding. A perpetual motion machine is a scientific concept used by designers as an ideal reference state to benchmark their designs.This type of machince although impossible in reality is well understood, as are all ideal states, in fact in science you rarely understand reality with its infinite quirks, nuances, and physical limitations until you have a good grasp of the ideal reference state. This is why what you are saying is false.
You see you cannot place concepts like this in the realm of the supernatural, its like saying a Carnot steam cycle is a supernatural steam cycle, its ridiculous, and semantically false.
Well because ideas and hypotheiticals in science are normally used to describe an ideal state that can never be replicated under any conditions in reality. This is precisely because they would violate the known laws of physics.
This doesn't in any way support the statement that ideas themselves violate the laws of physics. They exist, there is a known mechanism that allows for them to exist, so they are not supernatural. I'm not even sure how this is relevant.
Agreed , but it does not exist, and it cannot exist.
How can you agree to this- which is pretty much the definition of supernatural- but not concede that a perpetual motion machine is supernatural?
I'm not trying to say it does exist, just that science cannot truly prove its nonexistence. Science is only equipped to analyze the evidence or lack of evidence for things that play by the rules of nature.
It cannot exist according to the currently understood laws of physics which is exactly what would make it supernatural. Regardless of how well it is scientifically understood and how often it is used as a model, it would have to operate outside the laws of nature in order to exist.
I really thought my previous statement would put this argumkent to bed but your clearly reluctant to admit you made a semantic error.
"This doesn't in any way support the statement that ideas themselves violate the laws of physics."
I never said the ideas themselves violate the laws of physics, thats a ridiculous notion, the reason those ideas can never be implemented successfully is precisely because they would violate the laws of physics
"They exist, there is a known mechanism that allows for them to exist,"
Yes i agree its called the human mind
"so they are not supernatural. "
You're the one trying to convince me that a perpetual motion machine is a machine that meets the criteria for being classified as supernatural, im telling your wrong.
"How can you agree to this- which is pretty much the definition of supernatural- but not concede that a perpetual motion machine is supernatural?"
I gave a reasonably concise explanation in my previous response, ill try to elucidate further, a pertual motion machine was a well understood idea from the moment of its inception, basically you had early post renaissance scientists building machines and asking questions like, what if there was no force of resistance (i.e. friction, limits of elasticitym tensile and compressive stresses etc.), this gave birth to the idea of a perpetual motion machine, this is a well studied and understood, the results of which give us the boundary or limit of much much we can exploit the physical world (as characterised by the known laws of physics) to our favour.
This is gas turbines are being continually made bigger and with more heat resistant materials because the hiher the temperature of combustion the greater the actual turbine efficiency approaches the Carnot efficiency.
Supernatural concepts by definition are unknowable, and cannot be understood with something like science, but concepts like perpetual motion are very well understood, this is the difference, you made a simple semantic error.
"I'm not trying to say it does exist, just that science cannot truly prove its nonexistence.Science is only equipped to analyze the evidence or lack of evidence for things that play by the rules of nature. "
Yes i know, im well aware of that, i happen to have a masters in Chemical and Biopharmaceutical engineering, and im currectly studying for a masters in sustainable energy engineeering, so you really don't need to explain to me what science is or isn't equipped to do.
Science cannot really prove the non-existence of anything, thats was the essence of Bertrand Russells orbiting teapot, but we can grasp what we are ecountered with (i.e. objective reality), our ability to imagine is what has allowed us to get to out current stage of technological advancement.
"It cannot exist according to the currently understood laws of physics which is exactly what would make it supernatural. "
su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.
Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
The highlighted part shows the origin or your semantic error.
I really thought my previous statement would put this argumkent to bed but your clearly reluctant to admit you made a semantic error.
I am reluctant to concede that something that fits the definition of a word does not fit the definition of that word.
I never said the ideas themselves violate the laws of physics, thats a ridiculous notion,
"Yes, you see it can violate the laws of physics if its only a hypothetical or notional concept."
- You
Then you will have to restate that, because that seems to be exactly what you are saying.
I gave a reasonably concise explanation in my previous response, ill try to elucidate further, a pertual motion machine was a well understood idea from the moment of its inception, basically you had early post renaissance scientists building machines and asking questions like, what if there was no force of resistance (i.e. friction, limits of elasticitym tensile and compressive stresses etc.), this gave birth to the idea of a perpetual motion machine, this is a well studied and understood, the results of which give us the boundary or limit of much much we can exploit the physical world (as characterised by the known laws of physics) to our favour.
I understand this point; perpetual motion machines have a long history and have been studied and utilized a lot. This doesn't really change anything: just because it is known exactly why something is impossible doesn't mean anything. We know why ghosts are impossible given current scientific understanding but they are still supernatural entities.
Yes i know, im well aware of that, i happen to have a masters in Chemical and Biopharmaceutical engineering, and im currectly studying for a masters in sustainable energy engineeering, so you really don't need to explain to me what science is or isn't equipped to do.
If you're trying to tell me you feel like I'm talking down to you, I don't really care. I am going to state my arguments as simply as I can and address any information I feel should be included.
The highlighted part shows the origin or your semantic error.
Is a source of energy that is immune to entropy and/or creates more energy not beyond scientific understanding?
Also I can quote a different one that works for me, too:
su·per·nat·u·ral
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
Maybe we should agree on a definition of supernatural to use for this. You seem to be saying that is something is subject of lots of scientific study and reasonably well-understood, then it is not supernatural even if it violates the laws of nature. When supernatural things are primarily defined by their violations of laws, why add the stipulation of how well its been studied?
"I am reluctant to concede that something that fits the definition of a word does not fit the definition of that word."
But it doesn't fit the definition of the word thats what you seem to be having enormous trouble comming to terms with.
"I never said the ideas themselves violate the laws of physics, thats a ridiculous notion,
"Yes, you see it can violate the laws of physics if its only a hypothetical or notional concept."
- You
Then you will have to restate that, because that seems to be exactly what you are saying. "
Im sorry if i wasn't completely clear in my previous post, i acknowledge i used the idea of a perpetual motion machine and the physical reality of one interchangeably but only because a perpetual motion machine only exists as an idea. I understand your confusion but you're really clutching at straws if you think i meant an idea can violate the laws of physics.
"We know why ghosts are impossible given current scientific understanding but they are still supernatural entities."
No we really don't know exactly why the existence of ghosts is impossible because nobody knows scientifically what a ghost is, what it would be composed of, how it could have acquired the necessities of existence, how it could possible subsist on this physical plane. However we know exactly why a perpetual motion machine cannot exist, thats why it is not supernatural.
"If you're trying to tell me you feel like I'm talking down to you, I don't really care."
Look i don't want to sound arrogant i really don't, i have no idea what your qualifications are, you maybe a scientist aswell for all i know, even though id be very surprised as there aren't many scientists that would make an error like this, and if they did they would immediately realise it if it was explained to them but i don't just think im right, i know im right.
"I am going to state my arguments as simply as I can and address any information I feel should be included."
Thats admirable, whats also admirable is being capable to admit when your wrong, you made a simple semantic error, anyone could have made, but you really need to realise when you've been beaten, again im trying not to sound too arrogant (hopefully succeeding).
"Is a source of energy that is immune to entropy and/or creates more energy not beyond scientific understanding?"
This is a very vague sentence, i mean nobody even knows what energy is, the answer thats revelant to this debate is no, it is not beyond our current scientific understanding of existence to explain why a machine that produces more work than it consumes is impossible, and cannot exist.
"1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. "
Even though it doesn't highlight your error as explicitly as the defintion i provided it certainly doesn't "work for you", you can't simply provide another definition to a word and think you are vindicated, the word supernatural has a very specific meaning.
This is the key part of the definition:
"unexplainable by natural law or phenomena"
Perpetual motion and the impossibility of its success if applied in practive (and not theory) is explainable by natural law, its as simple as that really.
"Maybe we should agree on a definition of supernatural to use for this."
Supernatural has one definition, it doesn't matter what we agree it means, we can imbue the word with whatever mean you want but it only has one worldwide accepted defintion although it can be worded in a variety of ways. Unfortunately for you none of those variants support your argument as it is semantically false.
"When supernatural things are primarily defined by their violations of laws, why add the stipulation of how well its been studied?"
How are not getting this??????? I don't want to sound like im putting you down but you are extremely stubborn. Ok, its very simple, if some scientist proved mathematically by the laws of physics why ghosts cannot exist, in the same way as has been done for perpetual motion machines, Carnot heat engines etc. etc. etc. Then ghosts would cease to be classified as supernatural, they would merely fall into the category of a useless product of the human imagination that has been conclusively disproven. Now im quite done explaining why you're wrong, if you're unable to except it at this stage you never will.
But it doesn't fit the definition of the word thats what you seem to be having enormous trouble comming to terms with.
It does, though.
Im sorry if i wasn't completely clear in my previous post, i acknowledge i used the idea of a perpetual motion machine and the physical reality of one interchangeably but only because a perpetual motion machine only exists as an idea. I understand your confusion but you're really clutching at straws if you think i meant an idea can violate the laws of physics.
I don't actually think this point relevant to the discussion or to my argument, so I'm not trying to hold onto it for any reason - if that's not what you meant, fine. It seemed like that's what you meant, so I addressed it like that.
No we really don't know exactly why the existence of ghosts is impossible because nobody knows scientifically what a ghost is, what it would be composed of, how it could have acquired the necessities of existence, how it could possible subsist on this physical plane. However we know exactly why a perpetual motion machine cannot exist, thats why it is not supernatural.
Ghosts are commonly regarded as continuations of consciousness after death. It can be explained why a consciousness wouldn't persist after death according to known mechanisms. Ghosts are still supernatural.
Thats admirable, whats also admirable is being capable to admit when your wrong, you made a simple semantic error, anyone could have made, but you really need to realise when you've been beaten, again im trying not to sound too arrogant (hopefully succeeding).
If I thought I made a mistake, I would admit it. I am still willing to admit I've made one if a convincing case is made but I don't see one. I understand you might not be willing to make one past a certain point, and that's fine, but I don't think it's enough to simply outline the impossibility of a thing and say that pulls it out of the realm of the supernatural. If it violates the laws of nature in order to exist, then it is supernatural. Break down the word as it would apply in the context it is used - super: extra or beyond and natural: pertaining to nature.
This is a very vague sentence, i mean nobody even knows what energy is, the answer thats revelant to this debate is no, it is not beyond our current scientific understanding of existence to explain why a machine that produces more work than it consumes is impossible, and cannot exist.
I didn't say "Is the impossibility of a machine that exists on an endless source of energy not beyond scientific understanding?", and that is the question you answered.
Perpetual motion and the impossibility of its success if applied in practive (and not theory) is explainable by natural law, its as simple as that really.
Again, to explain why something is impossible according to the laws of nature doesn't make it not supernatural.
How are not getting this??????? I don't want to sound like im putting you down but you are extremely stubborn. Ok, its very simple, if some scientist proved mathematically by the laws of physics why ghosts cannot exist, in the same way as has been done for perpetual motion machines, Carnot heat engines etc. etc. etc. Then ghosts would cease to be classified as supernatural, they would merely fall into the category of a useless product of the human imagination that has been conclusively disproven. Now im quite done explaining why you're wrong, if you're unable to except it at this stage you never will.
I'm being 'stubborn' about this because I feel as strongly as you do about the obviousness of something that would have to exist beyond nature being supernatural. I won't pursue the debate if you stop, but I'm not going to say I don't think something like this is supernatural when I don't really think it is.
Here is a paper mathematically disproving the possibility of vampires existing among humans. There are sections on ghosts and zombies which I am sure are interesting but I have not looked at those.
So are vampires no longer supernatural? There are many, many supernatural things that can be shown not to exist according to the laws of physics. That's what makes something supernatural - if it is scientifically possible for it to exist, like Bigfoot for example, then it would be cryptozoological or something else.
Of course it wasn't, how can an idea or a concept violate anything, it exists only in the mind, how could even think thats what i meant.
"Ghosts are commonly regarded as continuations of consciousness after death"
Commonly regarded? Commonly regarded by who? You think you can find a peer reviewed scientific paper claiming they have proved that ghosts are continuations of consciousness after death. Can you provide me with a scientific paper that eludcidates what constitutes their chemical make-up, thats describes concisely and irrefutably the natural forces and mechanisms that allowed them to come into existence. Is there a scientific peer reviewed paper that derives axiomatically using the known laws of physics how their incorporeal form permeates this physical plane. No there is not, as the existence of ghosts is neither provable nor falsifiable, thats why they are classified as supernatural.Please stop.
"It can be explained why a consciousness wouldn't persist after death according to known mechanisms"
Nobody really knows what consciousness is, ive done a reasonable amount of leisurely is this area, and i can tell you one of the biggest failures of science in the 21st century is its comprehension of consciousness, and the human mind. Nobody can prove using the fundamental laws of science why it is impossble for a person consciousness to go on existing after their dead, not just because nobody really understands consciousness but also because nobody have any idea what happens when you die. I agree with the reductionist view of the dissolution of conciousness after death, but it isn't provable or falsiable.
"Ghosts are still supernatural."
Because it is impossible using to science to disprove the possiblity of their existence.
"I've made one if a convincing case is made but I don't see one."
How do you not see one?
"thing and say that pulls it out of the realm of the supernatural."
Well think about it for a second, if somehow somebody managed to prove the non-existence of the Judeo Christian God do you think that version of God would still qualify as supernatural?
"If it violates the laws of nature in order to exist, then it is supernatural."
No not necessarily, the difference is clear, we can explain why a perpetual motion machine cannot exist in this reality, we cannot explain why a ghost cannot exist in this reality, its really that simple, you have a clear misunderstanding of science can you not simply conceed to my superior understanding?
"I didn't say "Is the impossibility of a machine that exists on an endless source of energy not beyond scientific understanding?", and that is the question you answered."
The question you asked was ambiguous, and strayed from the piont of contention in the sense that it had more than one right answer but i shall answer in a way that is relevant to this debate. Your question:
"Is a source of energy that is immune to entropy and/or creates more energy not beyond scientific understanding"
Firstly, it is beyond scientific understanding to comprehend anything that doesn't exist, but it is not beyond science to disprove the existence of a source of energy that is immune to entropy, the physical property entropy is fundamental to our universe, as we know the universe cannot exist as we know it cannot exist in its absense. And we can prove this in a way that goes way beyond scepticism, and approaches axiomatic truth. Ghosts however cannot be disproved in this way thats why they are categorised as supernatural while perpetual motion machines are not.
"Again, to explain why something is impossible according to the laws of nature doesn't make it not supernatural."
If something is classified as supernatural the idea of it relies on our inadequate understanding of existence. The tools we have developed in order to understand our existence are grossly ill equipped to be able to disprove scientifically anything that qualifies as supernatural.
"the obviousness of something that would have to exist beyond nature being supernatural"
Heres the problem, nobodies knows what beyond nature or beyond existence means, thats why ghosts, and the Christian god can get in the door (so to speak). Now if perpetual motion machines can exist "beyond nature" then we'd have a pretty good scientific basis for understanding what exists beyond nature. Do you see what im getting at? Thats why they are not classified as supernatural.
"but I'm not going to say I don't think something like this is supernatural when I don't really think it is. "
You're clearly not willing to conceed to what i beleive is my superior expertise on this subject, i would ask you to try to consult somebody else with a serious background in science (i.e. masters or phd) as you clearly don't have any expertise yourself.
Ask them the same question, i would put my house on the fact that they will provide more or less the same answer i.e. perpetual motion machines are not supernatural
"Here is a paper mathematically disproving the possibility of vampires existing among humans"
I have come across papers like these before all you're demonstrating is your inferior grasp of science. It doesn't mathematically disprove anything. The paper dispells popular myths, explaining scientifically why the existence of those creatures according to the myths invented by humans could not exist in the way they are portrayed to exist due to the physical limitations of reality.
The problem with anything supernatural though is you always have an ace up your sleeve, all you have to say is their existence relies on somehting beyond scientific understanding, thats why the paper deals with the myths, and not the actual idea of a ghost or a vampire because its impossible to disprove the idea of their existence, thats the fundamental difference. We can explain scientifically why it impossible for a human to transfrom into a bat, or into smoke, or whatever, but as soon as someone says but vampires are supernatural they are immediately placed into this nebulous region where scientific understanding cannot venture, adn where it cannot disporve anything, perpetual motion machines do not qualify as supernatural as they are falsifiable, therefore they come under the umbrella of scientific understanding, and thus qulify as science, as soon as somehting becomes falsifiable it is no longer supernatural, it is scientific. Perpetual motion machines meet this criteria, and are thus not supernatural.Your semantic error is clear, you need to accept it.
"So are vampires no longer supernatural?"
No, they are supernatural, and they always will be as their existence is completely unfalsifiable, thats why the understandeing of them will always lie outside the domain of science. Thats why they will always remain supernatural, but perpetual motion machines are completely falsifiable.
"There are many, many supernatural things that can be shown not to exist according to the laws of physics."
Nothing supernatural is falsifiable, this is a complete fallacy, thats why it is supernatural, thats exactly why is resides outside the domain of science. Again you demonstrate your inadequate grasp of science. You need to do some serious study on the philosphy of science. Karl popper the eminent 20th century philosopher of science set out the lines of demarcation for what is and is not consdered scientific. Essentially if something cannot be falsified it is not scientific, supernatural entities cannot be falsified ergo...., and by their name, never will be scientific by virute of the name supernatural, and if by some strange twist of fate or paradigm shift they become falsifiable they will cease to be classifed as supernatural. You have committed a semantic error and you really need to realise it at this, i understand not wanting to conceed if there is even a little doubt that the other perons is right but i can tell you i have explained exactly why you are wrong, you just need to accept it.
"That's what makes something supernatural - if it is scientifically possible for it to exist, like Bigfoot for example, then it would be cryptozoological or something else."
Again i don't mean to insult but all you are doing is highlighting your inferior grasp of science, being scientifically possible to exist it not what makes something supernatural. The fact is everything that cannot be falsified is possible as there is no such things as pure objective knowledge or truth in science. Even the most fundamental axioms of mathematics do not qualify as purely objective knowledge, even though thats about as close as humans have come to obatining it. So i suppose in that sense you are correct, i mean who am i to tell you that some strange perpetual motion machine doesn't exist in some hyperdimensional universe where hamburgers eat people, i mean its completely unfalsifiable, but by the same token im a giant duck that happens to rule the 5th dimension with an iron duck fist, all bow down to the great overlord quacky. Try to prove me wrong, you see the problem? But we can say that perpetual motion machines cannot exist within this reality that we are presented with, we cannot say the same about ghosts.And as i stated previously if they existed in some other reality we'd have a scientific basis by which to understadn that reality, this is why they are not considered supernatural, this is why you would find a reference to perpetual motion machines in a book on the occult, you will find them in a thermodynamics textbook, you won't find any references to ghosts in a physics book though but id bet you'd find them in a book on the occult.
Look, Bertrand Russell's famous argument against theism is his floating teapot, essentially it states that if he suggests that there is a tiny china teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars it does not make any sense for anyone to doubt him as they cannot prove him wrong as long as he assumes it is not detectable using any of our instruments.
The same is true of anything supernatural, you cannot doubt it as it is not falsifiable, nothing supernatural is falsifiable.
I understand your mistake because supernatual is a quite ill defined and ambiguous word in the english language, and there are many contrasting views on exactly what it does mean, i was wrong in a previous post when i suggested it had a very specific meaning but you need to realise if nothing else that you cannot group concepts like perpetual motion into the same category as ghosts. Just like you can't call dark matter supernatural.
Carl sagans dragon in my garage is another classic example used to demonstrate the ridiculousness in beleive in anything supernatural:
Now, no scientists beleive in anything supernatural as supernatural phenomena lie outside the domain of science. Now i have a masters to do, i really shouldn't have devoted this much time to this debate but i can never resist a good argument. This will be last post on this argument (at least for next good couple of weeks until my masters has drawn to a close) reagardless of whether you conceed or not.
I just want to leave by saying that you are not simply arguing with me here, you are arguing with scientific orthodoxy. I have studied enough science in my life, and achieved enough in the field to know when someone is misunderstanding the fundamentals, go ask a credible scientist (like me) i guarantee you he will not agree that perpetual motion machines qualify as supernatural.
Science can't prove that there isn't a separate universe somewhere that has different laws then us(unless it can prove that there should be some type of portal or bridge in that case and there isn't), but it can prove or rather supply a very good chain of evidence which approximates a proof, that within our observable universe, where the scientific laws are consistent as far as is observable, that a perpetual motion machine is impossible.
I could be in an ocean at the moment, near the bottom and never know it, while simultaneously in front of a computer due to the possibility of the super-natural. How relevant is that though? The ocean existing and not existing has the same meaning. Its kinda like multiplying a variable by zero, the variable might have a value other then zero, but what does it matter if all we know for sure is the result? math might not be able to tell you the value of the variable, only what it could be, but it can tell you the result which is what is actually relevant. In a similar line of thought, science might not be able to tell you if a irrelevant supernatural perpetual motion machine exists but it can tell you if a natural one does, since the evidence science can provide for or against such a thing is good enough that it might as well constitute a proof.
Those possibilities become relevant when someone says or implies that science has authority over unfalsifiable supernatural arenas. I think it is intellectually dishonest of religious people to pretend they know there is a god, and equally dishonest of nonbelievers to pretend they know there isn't. It would be hypocritical to criticize one but ignore the other.
I also want people to be honest about what science can and can't do. That doesn't mean I think science's natural caution necessitates that we operate as though everything unfalsifiable is true or even credible.
Okay so do you think science cannot prove that magic, leprachauns, faith healing etc. do not exsist. These are all "supernatural" things that I think most rational people know that these ideas are foolish and live within the realm of fiction!
Yes, I don't think science cannot prove the nonexistence of those, but it can discern whether or not any evidence exists. That by itself doesn't even begin to build a good case for the existence of any of those things, but science is cautious and tends to avoid absolute statements.
Faith is belief despite matters of accuracy. Every system of thought has basic axioms, when people hold a belief about these axioms or their resulting theorems they are also implementing faith because these axioms either possess no way to verify their accuracy or their accuracy isn't considered in the belief. For example: 2+2 = 4 can be wrong if some axioms of math doesn't hold. In the world we commonly observe we can see that rain drops do not add together, so 2 raindrops +2 raindrops = 1 raindrop(albeit a bigger one, but that is irrelevant). To say that 2+2 = 4 is to assume that what you are adding possess certain properties, aka to interject a belief which has an unknown accuracy. Your effectively creating a pretend world, and acting on faith that the pretend world and actual world match up nicely. It is only in a pretend world where everything has certain properties such that 2+2=4. In actually, the degree which anything possess those properties is less then ideal. For example, if two pieces of identical cake become smashed together, are they now 1 large(likely messy) piece of cake or just 2 pieces really close together? Keep in mind that cakes are formed in multiple pieces, such as wedding cakes. These types of objections against math being a matter of fact applies to any system of thought, for there is always uncertainty and thus some level of faith or at least, some level of acting like you have faith. Faith, or at least acting as if you have it, is an essential part of modeling, which is an essential part of living.
How do you know your perception isn't faulty?
The table could be part of a psychotic break.
Also, god is a question which science lacks the means to assess. Logic doesn't, but science does. God as usually understood is an empirically unfalsifiable hypothesis because god is usually considered as outside of nature and science deals only with nature and falsifiable hypothesizes about it. Now, if your a pantheist god is something different...
Atheism is a negative (as in argument position, not as in a bad thing. Just saying to clear up) position, it's merely rejecting the position of the existence of a deity. Is an atheist taking the stance he/she does just because they believe so regardless of any facts? I beg to differ. Atheists take up their stance because:
1. Lack of evidence from the affirmative positiion, which in this case is from the people claiming that a deity exists. The affirmative position is the one with the burden of proof since they are asserting a position while the negative position questions the affirmative position.
2. Contradictions in scripture, and in religion itself.
3. Faith is blind, it requires no evidence to believe in it. Atheists do not blindly support Atheism just because. Atheists use facts, evidence, observations, and other natural phenomena to make decisions.
