Page 6 of 6 [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

01 Jun 2008, 1:05 pm

Sand wrote:
Bringing dead people back to life is more in the nature of starting an automobile than using the tremendous power of a finger snap for the trivial exercise of defying the second law of dynamics. The secret government laboratories in charge of finger snap technologies have never revealed the secret work they are doing so I am not at liberty to disclose their latest discoveries involving not only left handed finger snaps but octopus tentacle snaps and the basic social forces released by a raised eyebrow.
:roll:

Alright Sands, from this point foward dont expect anything you say in this thread to be taken seriously since you wont take others seriously :wink: . BTW, you really must know Not know Jack Sh1t about chemistry, biochemistry, and thermodynamics to liken reviving a dead body to starting an automobile. Ever heard of something called Entropy?



D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

01 Jun 2008, 1:16 pm

slowmutant wrote:
By proving a negative, you'd have to show the non-existence of something? How do you show non-existence if you have nothing to work with? You cannot prove a negative, only a positive. But first you'd have to figure out which is the negative (nothing) and wihch is the positive (something).


To prove a Negative, you must show that something cannot exist. Of course, all that has to be dont to disprove a negative
is provide an example of this thing which is claimed to not exist.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Jun 2008, 6:16 pm

D1nk0 wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
D1nk0 wrote:
If you make a Negation-a universal claim that something does NOT exist Anywhere or Cannot exist then You TOO bear the burden of proving it!


uh...no. the burden of proof is on someone trying to prove the existence of something. you cannot prove a negative...only disprove claims made.


Incorrect. You CAN prove a negative by showing that its existance would contradict facts that can be demonstrated by repeatable experiments. A good example of that would be the resurrection of the dead, which is a Flagrant violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Such would be like smashing a cup & saucer on the streat and then snapping your fingers and having all the broken shards come back together as a cup & saucer again :wink: .



that's not the same thing. you just discussed causality which isn't exactly proving it doesn't exist but rather proving that a set of actions does not cause something else to happen.. i'm discussing existence (as to the topic of this thread relates to the existence of ghosts). if someone claims something exists but no one else ever sees it or records it, how can you prove that it isn't there?



LiendaBalla
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,736

01 Jun 2008, 8:57 pm

just-me wrote:
merr wrote:
or anything that you are certain you cannot rationally explain, but you are sure you have actually seen something?


Yes I have, when I was young I saw a devil type thing in my room just staring at me. I was a head that was glowing an orange, red. It had 2 horns on top of a shrunken face , and it had a big grin and flat teeth like a human has. It had such an evil looking grin and it just sat there looking at me from across the room. I was so scared I couldn't move or use my voice.


I never saw anything like that, but eep. *scratches head* I drew something that would resemble some annoyance bothering me for some time and causing issues. "Ok if I were to give my paranoya, or bad luck, or strange feelings of intrusion an image. What would it look like?" I drew a round head, horns, crazy stareing eyes, and a big fat phsyco grin all over his, infact small, 'face'. Honestly, this now creaps me out a little.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

01 Jun 2008, 9:20 pm

It creeps everybody out, what you just described. IF you're a human being, you're never completely immune to superstition. Superstition and spirituality aren't the same thing. But they're close. "Getting the creeps" is the atavistic response common to all of humanity.



Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

01 Jun 2008, 9:58 pm

D1nk0 wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
uh...no. the burden of proof is on someone trying to prove the existence of something. you cannot prove a negative...only disprove claims made.


Incorrect. You CAN prove a negative by showing that its existance would contradict facts that can be demonstrated by repeatable experiments. A good example of that would be the resurrection of the dead, which is a Flagrant violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Such would be like smashing a cup & saucer on the streat and then snapping your fingers and having all the broken shards come back together as a cup & saucer again :wink: .

BTW Sands, What sort of rigorous, serious scientific investigations have their been of Ghosts?
Now I recant calling you names but I want to know WHY you responded with sarcasm when I spoke of actually doing the WORK of investigating this for myself to find out the Truth? Truth is perhaps the ONLY thing in this Cosmos that I actually value more than myself :P .


Well, if you are going by that logic, the second law really disproves ghosts as well. I mean, where are they getting the energy to keep thinking and moving?



Nexus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 833
Location: On I2

01 Jun 2008, 10:15 pm

Speckles wrote:
D1nk0 wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
uh...no. the burden of proof is on someone trying to prove the existence of something. you cannot prove a negative...only disprove claims made.


Incorrect. You CAN prove a negative by showing that its existance would contradict facts that can be demonstrated by repeatable experiments. A good example of that would be the resurrection of the dead, which is a Flagrant violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Such would be like smashing a cup & saucer on the streat and then snapping your fingers and having all the broken shards come back together as a cup & saucer again :wink: .

BTW Sands, What sort of rigorous, serious scientific investigations have their been of Ghosts?
Now I recant calling you names but I want to know WHY you responded with sarcasm when I spoke of actually doing the WORK of investigating this for myself to find out the Truth? Truth is perhaps the ONLY thing in this Cosmos that I actually value more than myself :P .


Well, if you are going by that logic, the second law really disproves ghosts as well. I mean, where are they getting the energy to keep thinking and moving?


Ambient Infrared/UV/X-Ray/Gamma Radiation, Geomagnetic Field, Light, Dark Energy? In theory a life form of such type, would rest like a reptile and it's cells would have a battery-like system to charge up, then discharge for functionality. Although if efficient enough, it could even function 24/7. However in both cases it wouldn't have too much physical mass (as too much mass, would require too much energy to move), so they'd be rather small in total density. There's a lot of energy flowing everywhere, from geological to cosmic sources, so it's possible. In fact you could classify such a being as a animated plant, rather than an animal. Although like a living thing, it would need to consume natural resources to repair damaged cells over time on occasion, and emit some sort of waste (dead cells).

I don't believe in ghosts in a sense of dead relatives, but I believe in ghost being a type of life form (possibly alien) that was observed in the distant past, and became folklore and myth, and it was mistaken to be a typical ghost. I'd say most cases of ghost encounters are superstition, not a ghost but something else, or delusion. I can't say I've see a ghost, because the definition is rather subjective depending on belief and culture.


_________________
"Have a nice apocalypse" - Southland Tales


Last edited by Nexus on 01 Jun 2008, 10:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

01 Jun 2008, 10:23 pm

Interesting. Modern physics does suggest the existence of higher dimensions, though AFAIK this has yet to be experimentally proven. Furthermore, it was once thought that "spirits" were beings from higher dimensions passing through 3-space. BTW speckles, there ARE other places where Ghosts could get their energy. Energy is really not all that uncommon in the universe ya know :lol: .



Nexus wrote:
Speckles wrote:
D1nk0 wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
uh...no. the burden of proof is on someone trying to prove the existence of something. you cannot prove a negative...only disprove claims made.


Incorrect. You CAN prove a negative by showing that its existance would contradict facts that can be demonstrated by repeatable experiments. A good example of that would be the resurrection of the dead, which is a Flagrant violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.Such would be like smashing a cup & saucer on the streat and then snapping your fingers and having all the broken shards come back together as a cup & saucer again :wink: .

BTW Sands, What sort of rigorous, serious scientific investigations have their been of Ghosts?
Now I recant calling you names but I want to know WHY you responded with sarcasm when I spoke of actually doing the WORK of investigating this for myself to find out the Truth? Truth is perhaps the ONLY thing in this Cosmos that I actually value more than myself :P .


Well, if you are going by that logic, the second law really disproves ghosts as well. I mean, where are they getting the energy to keep thinking and moving?


Ambient Infrared/UV/X-Ray/Gamma Radiation, Geomagnetic Field, Light, Dark Energy? In theory a life form of such type, would rest like a reptile and it's cells would have a battery-like system to charge up, then discharge for functionality. Although if efficient enough, it could even function 24/7. However in both cases it wouldn't have too much physical mass (as too much mass, would require too much energy to move), so they'd be rather small in total density. There's a lot of energy flowing everywhere, from geological to cosmic sources, so it's possible. In fact you could classify such a being as a animated plant, rather than an animal. Although like a living thing, it would need to consume natural resources to repair damaged cells over time on occasion, and emit some sort of waste (dead cells).

I don't believe in ghosts in a sense of dead relative, but I believe in ghost being a type of life form (possibly alien) that was observed in the distant past, and became folklore and myth. I can't say I've see a ghost, because the definition is rather vague depending on belief and culture.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Jun 2008, 10:27 pm

D1nk0 wrote:
Energy is really not all that uncommon in the universe ya know :lol: .



yeah, we just suck at harnessing it for our own use and manipulation.