Darren New wrote:
>> I would argue that, in fact, we have a clear enough picture at this 
>> point that the odds of the supernatural being involve is... slim to none.
> 
> I would disagree that it's possible to know such a thing, by definition 
> of the word "supernatural."  By definition, research into the 
> supernatural will never show you the existence of the supernatural. 
> Otherwise, it would be natural.
>

Tell that to the idiots running around doing Blair Witch every week on 
Syfy (or how ever they are spelling it now), who claim to be ghost 
hunters.. lol

>> Answered in the other part, about ridiculous directions. But, in 
>> reality, at this point, it simply doesn't rise above "hypothesis". 
> 
> Sure. But we're discussing the consequences of what the hypothesis being 
> true or false would be, not whether it's true or false.
> 

Ok, so what.. We are arguing with the intent of writing a novel, or 
something? lol Seriously, we could have a much more productive, and 
interesting, discussion of the consequences that the sky where green, or 
  Simpson's yellow, instead of blue, since at least we have the tools 
here to "show" what that would be. The thing that annoys me, I suppose, 
about the supernatural is that while we, onces its established we are 
talking about pure hypotheticals, are not seriously examining something 
that, by any measure or standard we apply to things, doesn't exist, this 
doesn't alter the fact that there are in indeterminate number of wackos 
around that will quote mine any serious attempts to discuss it, as 
though it where true, as evidence that someone, someplace *thinks* its true.

Besides, you never the less have a problem, in that its hard to escape 
what you *do* know, to talk about such hypotheticals, without wandering 
into areas that are, if anything, more absurd than what other people 
have already come up with. Witness what the ID people have done to both 
theology *and* science, by trying to cram mythology into biology. Its 
incoherent gibberish, supported by nothing by careful cherry picking of 
any tiny scrap of information that appears, superficially, since looking 
too hard tends to derail things, to support their position.

I guess I just have an easier time applying my imagination to "what 
ifs", when the universe they are being applied to already defies the 
laws of physics, so beating more of them to death with the arm you 
ripped off the corpse of logic, to come up with such a universe, isn't 
quite so irritating. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message