There are no Fatman launchers in New Vegas.
TheEvilBaron's forum posts
[QUOTE="TheEvilBaron"]Cause when you're using science to define and shape your outlook on life, it becomes an ideology does it not? You're very closed minded as to the whole possibility of more, I'm not closed to the idea that there's nothing, but to disregard the idea of more would be wrong. There's plenty of strange happenings I suppose you'd come out with some other notion to dismiss and stand firm to your own view. foxhound_foxI'm closed minded? LOL. I'm perfectly open to new things... I just need to see reasonable evidence to show that it is true. And you can't use science to define and shape your outlook on life... when you start asking "why?" that enters the realm of atheism.
If the very scientists who did the NDE project (2011) said they can't find conclusive evidence to rule out an afterlife.TheEvilBaron"You can't prove God doesn't exist." Yeah, same goes for this. Trying to prove a negative is a fallacy. One has to prove it EXISTS.
If Science can't pin point where consciousness is in the mind like it can with other functions. If the Anthropic Principle is making scientists stop and think about the nature of the universe. Then what you have to say is nothing but opinion just as mine. So stop acting like you're 100% proven in your thoughts on afterlife, when you're clearly not.TheEvilBaronThe Anthropic Principle is philosophy, not science (they are related, but not the same). And I never said my views on the afterlife are 100% proven. I merely said the most likely explanation is the non-supernatural one. Good job fighting that strawman though.
I've no idea why you assume God goes hand in hand with an after life. They're not mutually exclusive, the afterlife is capable of being a possibility without a deity.
How is either explanation more likely than the other? Science is not unanimous on the events of after death so it's really as feasible you could live on just as much as die. So it's 50/50 in outcome and one that if it existed, nobody could truly pop back and tell the world, "Oh, by the way, in death you realise there's a whole new dimension to existence."
You can use science to define your way of life, I'm not on about the whole of science, but a man could go, "I should be a good Christian and live like it says in the Bible." Or go, "Science says against the odds of God and an afterlife, so I'm going to live a good life, but not worry too much on the whole issue of sex before marriage." (etc)
On the nature of an afterlife (Don't know why you keep insisting on mentioning God when I've not spoken about God once) and there not being one, you can't prove it can you. That's the very nature of faith in your own personal belief. Plus we're talking about spiritual existence which goes beyond our ability to look into, so looks like we're going to be stuck with neither disproving the other for a while.
I'm not misrepresenting anything, read into your Science. The universe is seen as a random for its existence, by chance, the Big Bang just happened for whatever reason by sheer luck cause life itself is seen as random. You don't know your science if you're denying that is the position that Science takes for existence. Irony there, just because you WANT there to be nothing doesn't mean it's true. I don't dread not existing, it's a moot point, I won't be aware of it. It's just you can't deal with the idea that your Scientists do believe that life is random or that maybe there's more to life than this.[QUOTE="TheEvilBaron"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] No. Quit misrepresenting science and we can continue this conversation. Just because you WANT there to be something after death, doesn't mean it is true. Unfortunately, for many people, the idea of non-existence is dread-inducing, and they want to find any way to avoid thinking about it.Mordred19
you need to show that that is the scientific consensus. last I checked, cosmologists weren't imposing their views on why the earliest state of the universe (that they can extrapolate) was the way it was. perhaps there was no other possibility, and that it wasn't random.
have you looked into the question of determinism? "scientists" aren't banging the drum that everything is random, especially not life.
But that's what I mean, they just accept it as it is, as a result of unpredictability and random events unless they discovered some force that guided it. I don't mean that they say randomness, I said they take the position of random and unpredictability, so just take it in the state it is without questioning like religion does on the whole, "Why are we here?... God" Science just says, "It's like that, cause it is." cause science doesn't know why. Yeah, I'm a big fan of Determinism, so much as to say in my mind, everything happened as it did because it was always going to no matter how many choices or options, the same one way is always going to play out if you rewind the time. But like I said, I'm a demon for playing Devil's Advocate.[QUOTE="TheEvilBaron"]The universe is seen as a random for its existence, by chance, the Big Bang just happened for whatever reason by sheer luck cause life itself is seen as random. You don't know your science if you're denying that is the position that Science takes for existence. foxhound_foxNo. YOU don't know science. You are stating exactly what Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents do when they talk about science and the big bang. They believe that science, to scientists, is an ideology, and that they "have faith" in their findings. This is a patently false and intellectually dishonest assertion that reeks of ignorance and inability to understand another position. Science is the method of determining how the universe works. There is no "why" answered by science. If you want to believe that it is just a random series of events controlled by nothing, then go ahead, science won't have any part of it. The fact you capitalize "Science" like that, definitely leads me to believe you are an ID proponent. No one who understands the scientific method would see science as an "ism" worthy of capitalization. The second you use a field to challenge the religious view, you become an ideology, given it's not the sort of ideology that openly tells you anything on how to think or life, but in openly challenging religious idea on the why and how you take up the role, even Science on the whole isn't geared towards being so. Well, one would hope that the scientists have faith in their findings and discoveries, other wise, why are they doing their research if not trusting in their views. You can deny it till you're blue in the face. Science on the issue of life revolves around random/unpredictability on life. That the universe and life is pointless, brought about by chance with no aim but to be. My true stance on life is not ID, I have no stance, cause all the ideas are just theories.
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="TheEvilBaron"]The universe is seen as a random for its existence, by chance, the Big Bang just happened for whatever reason by sheer luck cause life itself is seen as random. You don't know your science if you're denying that is the position that Science takes for existence. GameGuy642003No. YOU don't know science. You are stating exactly what Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents do when they talk about science and the big bang. They believe that science, to scientists, is an ideology, and that they "have faith" in their findings. This is a patently false and intellectually dishonest assertion that reeks of ignorance and inability to understand another position. Science is the method of determining how the universe works. There is no "why" answered by science. If you want to believe that it is just a random series of events controlled by nothing, then go ahead, science won't have any part of it. The fact you capitalize "Science" like that, definitely leads me to believe you are an ID proponent. No one who understands the scientific method would see science as an "ism" worthy of capitalization. Take it TheEvilbaron take it, you just got seeeeerved son Oh no, doesn't bother me. I'm playing Devil's Advocate, I enjoy probing a lot.
[QUOTE="TheEvilBaron"]There's an article floating about somewhere on a team that investigated these orbs and they found very interesting results that baffled them. They'd have one object and multiple cameras focused on it, they ensured the cameras were throughly cleaned and all took pictures. One camera had the orb, despite being cleaned. Doesn't sound too weird right? One camera, maybe there was dirt. However they couldn't get any more orbs to show up on their cameras after that. So they took do doing something very strange for Scientists and asked for the orb to show itself and every time they did, one of the cameras would have it. They brought this forward to the Scientific Community, not as whole evidence that the orbs are definitely anything, but that the area requires further research because obviously, that's a rather strange experiment outcome. foxhound_fox
It is the flash reflecting off of dust particles in the air... not on the lens. What you are referring to is "pseudo-science." The attempt to find evidence to support a conclusion... rather than deriving a conclusion from the evidence.
It is quite a well-known problem in the photographic community.
EDIT: And why do you keep capitalizing "science" and "scientific community"? It (the former) is not an ideology and they (the latter) are not a religion.
But as I said in the post, they never stated it was total proof, they were just baffled as to why it would only happen again when they asked for it. Hardly like they came out and just said, "Yes, these are definitely paranormal."
Cause when you're using science to define and shape your outlook on life, it becomes an ideology does it not? You're very closed minded as to the whole possibility of more, I'm not closed to the idea that there's nothing, but to disregard the idea of more would be wrong. There's plenty of strange happenings I suppose you'd come out with some other notion to dismiss and stand firm to your own view.
If the very scientists who did the NDE project (2011) said they can't find conclusive evidence to rule out an afterlife. If Science can't pin point where consciousness is in the mind like it can with other functions. If the Anthropic Principle is making scientists stop and think about the nature of the universe. Then what you have to say is nothing but opinion just as mine. So stop acting like you're 100% proven in your thoughts on afterlife, when you're clearly not.
[QUOTE="TheEvilBaron"]The Scientists who back the idea of nothing but what we see around us, posits randomness for the universe, that it's just plain dumb "luck" we're sat here debating this. foxhound_foxNo. Quit misrepresenting science and we can continue this conversation. Just because you WANT there to be something after death, doesn't mean it is true. Unfortunately, for many people, the idea of non-existence is dread-inducing, and they want to find any way to avoid thinking about it. I'm not misrepresenting anything, read into your Science. The universe is seen as a random for its existence, by chance, the Big Bang just happened for whatever reason by sheer luck cause life itself is seen as random. You don't know your science if you're denying that is the position that Science takes for existence. Irony there, just because you WANT there to be nothing doesn't mean it's true. I don't dread not existing, it's a moot point, I won't be aware of it. It's just you can't deal with the idea that your Scientists do believe that life is random or that maybe there's more to life than this.
[QUOTE="TheEvilBaron"]Well if they happen while the person is brain dead and can be recreated artificially then O.R is of no help in this. Though to be honest, O.R is rubbish to use when dealing in the matter of Life, Life isn't simple so you can't rely on it's roots or reason or lack of meaning to be simple. How is it simpler to assume that life is the be all and that the universe is random in its being here when it's far, far simpler for everything to just not exist in the first place. One Scientist disputes that idea, but he's not supported and it's seen as a crackpot idea that it's easier for the universe to exist than to not. foxhound_foxWhat makes you think science posits randomness? Order does not have to be directed by a divine entity to be extant. Occam's Razor states that the explanation with the least amount of assumptions is the most probable. When comparing DMT excretions to a supernatural afterlife, the former is preferred.
Who said Divinity is what has to be the reason for the Order. Just stated that the Order doesn't have to be random or meaningless. The Scientists who back the idea of nothing but what we see around us, posits randomness for the universe, that it's just plain dumb "luck" we're sat here debating this. The Scientists who disagree, don't all assume that there's Divinity behind it, there's other ideas.
Yes, but you're overlooking that O.R isn't some infallible rule. Simple answer with less assumptions doesn't mean that it's right. If we're all honest, as much as Humanity has advanced, we're not all knowing.
Heck, the LHC showed reports twice showing Neutrinos exceeding the Speed of Light. Yes these could be wrong, we'll find out soon when they check into the results more and recreate the tests. But Mankind has been known to get a lot of things wrong. We assume this is all there is, we could be very wrong. We assumed the world was flat at first. That we were the centre of the universe and many other things. So Mankind could be very wrong on the only form of existence being that of a physical nature.
[QUOTE="TheEvilBaron"]It's not proven 100% at all. The findings were inconclusive. foxhound_foxOccam's Razor. Well if they happen while the person is brain dead and can be recreated artificially then O.R is of no help in this. Though to be honest, O.R is rubbish to use when dealing in the matter of Life, Life isn't simple so you can't rely on it's roots or reason or lack of meaning to be simple. How is it simpler to assume that life is the be all and that the universe is random in its being here when it's far, far simpler for everything to just not exist in the first place. One Scientist disputes that idea, but he's not supported and it's seen as a crackpot idea that it's easier for the universe to exist than to not.
Log in to comment