Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Saurus

originally posted by: TzarChasm

because magic isnt real.

Just because you haven't seen evidence of magic, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. On this point, I will actually voice an opinion and strongly disagree with you.

when you devise an experiment, execute it, record your findings and present them to a board of certified peers, then i will consider your claim.

A discussion on this topic would require a new thread. Suffice it to say that much thought on modern magic is based on the premise that the subconscious (or, as Carl Jung later retagged it, the unconscious) will do the job if it is properly addressed and/or conditioned.

a reply to: Barcs

Personally, I agree with you. However, I do find that 'scientists' are often so obsessed with evidence that they argue against anything that is not empirical.

While there may not be evidence to support something, so often 'scientists' fall into the trap of arguing against something because there is no evidence. This is wrong and unscientific.

The scientific method dictates that to argue against something would require evidence against it. But so often, scientists forget that.

I observed that trend in this thread (not your argument in particular), which is why I tried to play the devil's advocate to those arguments.

originally posted by: Barcs
Your fatal flaw here is that you are assuming that eternity or infinity exists. Nobody knows that. The universe could easily be finite.

Touche'. ;-)

originally posted by: Saurus

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Saurus

originally posted by: TzarChasm

because magic isnt real.

Just because you haven't seen evidence of magic, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. On this point, I will actually voice an opinion and strongly disagree with you.

when you devise an experiment, execute it, record your findings and present them to a board of certified peers, then i will consider your claim.

A discussion on this topic would require a new thread. Suffice it to say that much thought on modern magic is based on the premise that the subconscious (or, as Carl Jung later retagged it, the unconscious) will do the job if it is properly addressed and/or conditioned.

Subconscious conditioning and pareidolia. Got it. Meanwhile, you can look up the appropriate methods for earning your hypothesis a respected name in the certified community, and maybe even getting a theory out of it.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Subconscious conditioning and pareidolia.

Now you're putting words in my mouth and trying to twist my meaning.

Got it. Meanwhile, you can look up the appropriate methods for earning your hypothesis a respected name in the certified community, and maybe even getting a theory out of it.

The whole point is that I have a problem with scientists rejecting anything that is not empirical. Trying to get a theory by finding empirical evidence for magic defeats my objective entirely. Just because we cannot see something does not mean it does not exist!

originally posted by: Saurus
Aah, but we don't have a comprehensive explanation.

I disagree and so do the vast majority of scientists who are both theists and atheists.

Science is empirical - it's based on what we can observe. And since the only thing that humans can comprehend is that which is observable within the electromagnetic spectrum, we discount everything else. An assumption that only stuff that is observable through the electromagnetic spectrum exists is a lot to simply assume. To discount whatever we cannot observe inhibits progress in science, methinks.

Without evidence there's nothing to investigate nor even a reason to assume it even exists. There's no difference between what you're suggesting and something that doesn't exist.

Yeah, quoting supernatural entities is bizarre. To actually quote supernatural beings means that one must physically have 'heard' the quote. Anything that can 'speak', by definition, would be natural.

A more likely explanation is that someone made it up....people make things up all the time and without any evidence it shouldn't be taken as anything else.

a reply to: Saurus

Now you're putting words in my mouth and trying to twist my meaning.

well, to continue our discussion on the matter, would require another thread. regretfully that thread doesnt yet exist.

The whole point is that I have a problem with scientists rejecting anything that is not empirical. Trying to get a theory by finding empirical evidence for magic defeats my objective entirely. Just because we cannot see something does not mean it does not exist!

that leaves quite a margin for human error. coincidence?

originally posted by: Saurus
The whole point is that I have a problem with scientists rejecting anything that is not empirical. Trying to get a theory by finding empirical evidence for magic defeats my objective entirely. Just because we cannot see something does not mean it does not exist!

While your last statement is true, non existence is logical default for something that has no evidence in support of it, so you can't really blame them for arguing against folks that claim these things are true. They are only following logic. I don't usually see people arguing that they absolutely do not exist, they argue with what conflicts with known science, and this is perfectly acceptable. One cannot be a scientist if they do not follow the proper methods and logic. There are millions of possible things that exist out there, but logically you can rule out the ones without evidence because they only make the picture cloudy and it is an unscientific viewpoint.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Without evidence there's nothing to investigate nor even a reason to assume it even exists. There's no difference between what you're suggesting and something that doesn't exist.

that makes it easy to disguise backtracking and stalling as progress and consideration.