scientific proof of god

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

I understand what you are saying Psi but you are thinking along the same lines as Bonkey, that we are the important factor in the argument when in fact we are irrelevant to the argument entirely.

I dont think you do.

If you can put together a scientific examination to test the hypothesis that ducks exist (and I'll be picking flaws in it) then I'll show you what I mean.

As I have said, even if God himself (assuming he exists) is the only intelligence that can actually scientifically determine he exists, then that is still scientific method. And even if God himself cannot come up with a way to do it, it doesn't prove it is impossible (well, without getting into the theological debate that God and do anything).

You miss the point entirely. By definition of the term "scientific enquiry" you cannot construct a scientific enquiry into thematter at hand.

I mean if humans had never existed, it would still be possible to measure the speed of light and test for electomagnetic radation.

Its not the testers that I take issue with, its the testing thats the issue.

Observation is not scientific enquiry.

Zombrex

larryone wrote:

Fair enough.
Directly from Wikipedia.
"The supernatural (Latin: super- "exceeding" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are beyond the current scientific understanding and concept of nature, and which may actually directly contradict conventional scientific understandings. Concepts in the supernatural domain are closely related to concepts in religious spirituality and metaphysics."

"Nature (also called the material world, the material universe, the natural world, and the natural universe) is all matter and energy, especially in its essential form. Nature is the subject of scientific study, and the history of the concept is linked to the history of science."

Ok, can you not see the contradition in those two definitions?

The first definition basically says anything that does not fit with in the current model of scientific understanding is super-natural. That definition fails to understand what science actually is.

For example, if something contradicts a law of nature, instead of that something being "super-natural" it is act the law of nature that is incorrect. The law changes to this new understanding of reality.

For example, ghosts. Ghosts are normally considered "super-natural" in that they contradict the ideas we have about the nature of reality. But if ghosts actually exist they are prefectly natural and fall inside the nature of reality as much as telephones and wine bottles (strange example I know, just looking around my desk ). It is only our arrogance and lack of understanding that classifies them as super-natural because they fall outside of our understand, not outside of reality. It isn't the ghosts that our wrong, it is our ideas of what reality should be like that is wrong.

The second definition is the one I would use - nature is all matter and engery (and I would imagine any other fundamental "things" we have not yet discovered or put a name to). So basically nature is everything. If ghost exist they are simply another part of nature. If God exists he is simply another part of nature, on a par with my telephone.

The term "super-natural" is a human concept/buzz word, for things we don't understand, just like "magic" is a term we give to something when we don't understand how it happened. In reality everything we don't understand and term "super-natural" are (if they actually exist) just another part of nature.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

If you can put together a scientific examination to test the hypothesis that ducks exist (and I'll be picking flaws in it) then I'll show you what I mean

You are missing my point ... if I can't do that does it mean it is impossible to determine if a duck exists? Ever?

I will humour you. The most obvious examiniation would be to find a duck and look at it. Maybe pick it up and give it a good shake. (yes I know actual science is a bit more complicated that shaking ducks)

Of course I know where you are going with this, I have to know where to find a duck before I can determine if it exists or not. And since I don't know how to determine if God exists I can never test if he does in the first place.

But imagine for a sec I find a duck. Now imagine all the tests that you would recommend I do on that duck to determine if it is really there. Ok ... all the tests and examinations that you would do, in your head swirling around.

Ok now imagine, just before you do the test, all humans are wiped out. In fact imagine all intelligence everywhere and that will ever exist, is wiped out. Do all the methods you have though of just evaporate because we are not there to actually carry them out? Does it now become impossible, using those same methods, to determine if the duck exists? No, the methods are all still vaild, there is just no one around to actually do them. In fact the methods were valid before you even "discovered" them.

If the answer to the question "Can you show a duck exists, using scientific methods" is yes before all humans are destroyed, the answer is still yes even after all humans are destroyed. In fact the answer was yes before the question was even asked. The answer is always yes.

This is where it gets a bit tricky. The methods are vaild even if no one has actually thought of them yet. The method to determine if a duck exists is valid a 100 million years ago before there actually were ducks, and long before anyone actually came up with the idea. If a duck magically appeared 100 million years ago you could (assume you also appeared) perform the same tests to determine if it is a duck and those tests would be valid.

The validity of the method exists independently of us actually thinking to use it.

If God exists the scientific method to determine he exists also exists independently of if we will ever discover it, or even realise its there.

psi wrote:

You miss the point entirely. By definition of the term "scientific enquiry" you cannot construct a scientific enquiry into thematter at hand.

No, the enquiry must be able to be to be independently verified. For example, if I walk into a wall I know I exist, but to be proper enquiry someone else needs to be able to throw me into a wall and see what happens. But me throwing myself into a wall is still a vaild method to determine if I exist.

psi wrote:

Its not the testers that I take issue with, its the testing thats the issue.

But your argument seems to be we can't think of way to test so therefore it is impossible to ever test.

psi wrote:

Observation is not scientific enquiry.

Observation is part of scientific enquiry. I don't remember saying it was the only part.

larryone

Wicknight wrote:

Ok, can you not see the contradition in those two definitions?

The first definition basically says anything that does not fit with in the current model of scientific understanding is super-natural. That definition fails to understand what science actually is.

No it doesnt, it says anything that doesnt fit within the current scientific understanding and concept of nature is supernatural.

Wicknight wrote:

For example, if something contradicts a law of nature, instead of that something being "super-natural" it is act the law of nature that is incorrect. The law changes to this new understanding of reality.

For example, ghosts. Ghosts are normally considered "super-natural" in that they contradict the ideas we have about the nature of reality. But if ghosts actually exist they are prefectly natural and fall inside the nature of reality as much as telephones and wine bottles (strange example I know, just looking around my desk ). It is only our arrogance and lack of understanding that classifies them as super-natural because they fall outside of our understand, not outside of reality. It isn't the ghosts that our wrong, it is our ideas of what reality should be like that is wrong.

They fall outside the current scientific understanding and concept of nature. You are assuming nature to be synonymous with reality. If it is possible for something to exist that is supernatural, then it exceeds the definition of nature as it is generally understood. Your understanding may be different.

Wicknight wrote:

The second definition is the one I would use - nature is all matter and engery (and I would imagine any other fundamental "things" we have not yet discovered or put a name to). So basically nature is everything. If ghost exist they are simply another part of nature. If God exists he is simply another part of nature, on a par with my telephone.

Nature is everything that can be considered matter and energy.

Wicknight wrote:

The term "super-natural" is a human concept/buzz word, for things we don't understand, just like "magic" is a term we give to something when we don't understand how it happened. In reality everything we don't understand and term "super-natural" are (if they actually exist) just another part of nature.

That's one perspective. Where does spirituality fit into this?

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

Ok ... what is the standard definition of natural phenomenon that can exclude things that do exist?

You still have not provided me a definition of the term natural phenomenon


Still waiting ...

Still no definition of what you mean by "natural" phenomenon ...

Still .... waiting ..... *gasp* ...

I've told you how to find it, and why its important.

I've also told you I'm not willing to be your proxy/teacher.

After that, its up to you.

I am saying that one way to definitely prove the centre of galaxy is or is not made of cheese is to go there and actually look (observe) ... are you saying that would not be considered observable enough for scientific method?

Go back and read what you originally posted. You claimed one could scientifically prove that it is made of mice and cheese, but that doesn't make it so.

I said that is not the case.

IF you're now changing that to say that you can propose a test to determine whether or not it is so, then your claim has changed, and clearly my refutation shouldn't be assumed to still hold. I have consistently arguing that this is what could be done, and that this is not what you originally claimed.

So you've now shifted your stance to agree with what I said in order to suggest that I'm the one in the wrong?

Sigh ... I wasn't actually claiming the centre of the galaxy is made of cheese ... :rolleyes:

No - you said it could be scientifically proven. I said it couldn't. Now, if thats pedantry on my part, and you're getting frustrated by all of this nit-picking, I would suggest that such clarity of distinction is a central requirement with science, and the discussion of it. It is the exactly relaxing of such precision that leads to the popular acceptance of misconceptions such as the concept (stated by Bush, I believe) that "what is a theory but another word for an idea". This is not true when using the term in a scentific sense, but this was the sense the term was being used in.

Bonkey you have jumped way off topic into the realm of the philosophical debate that "nothing can be really know" in an attempt to show that you cannot prove God exists cause you can't prove anything actually exists ... sigh ...

No. I haven't. I'm fully staying on-topic insisting that it is impossible to prove God exists, because we cannot address the question using scientific methods.

I have clarified, subsequent to your suggestions, that this is intened to be read in the present. I do not rule out that science may some day be able to formulate such tests rather than speculate that they may exist. I don't rule out that should such tests be accepted, that we may some day have the ability to carry them out.

However, such acceptance would require those who define God to agree that something was an acceptable test, ideally prior to its predictions being tested.

I have also have argued that God will, in my opinion, always be "retreated" to the Gaps. Indeed, given that there will always be the unproveable (and we can prove that!), I believe that God will remain in this category....this, however, is belief- and not science-based.

"There is no actual reason why there cannot be a scientific determination of God's existance (assuming he does exist) to that same standard that there can be a scientific determination of anything"

If you mean "cannot" in the continuous, then you're basically suggesting that a univeral negative cannot be proven. Thats obvious. Just as you can't prove that God doesn't exist, you can't prove that a Theory of God or a Proof of God does not and can not exist.

Universal Negatives aren't worth much though.

Anything that actually exists can be determined (heaven forbit I use the word "proved") to exist by scientific methods.

This is a belief, not an established scientific principle. This is also contradicted by the accepted scientific understanding of the meaning "natural phenomenon", which I have told you how to find.

Nothing that exists lies outside of the realm of science. To claim otherwise is to not understand what science is.

Given that "existence" in that sense isn't a scientific concept in the first place, I find that suggestion ludicrous.

So clearly, you must feel that I don't understand what science is.

I, On the other hand, am frustrated by your refusal to accept clear instructions on how to find a meaning for a term as an answer to what the term means.

I see no point in continuing. Take your final shot if you like, but I feel I've made my point as well as I can at this stage.

jc

Zombrex

Not sure that post clariffied what I was saying ...

You are talking about the ability to form the method used to test the idea, ie we cannot form the tests need to prove God exists.

But the ability of the methods to test the idea are actually independent on our ability to formulate these methods in the first place. The way to test for atoms (not saying there is one way) was a valid method before we even thought of it, or even knew we were supposed to be looking at atoms in the first place.

Freddie59

Son Goku wrote:

And here we have the crux of the problem.

bonkey, you know you're correct, I know you're correct and anybody here can see from your posts that you're correct.
The problem is that your point, about science not addressing these issues, is just ignored by these kind of people. Instead of you being somebody patiently explaining something, you're just "the arrogant science guy" in their eyes.

Is there a scientific proof of God?
No, of course not. There is no debate, the mere definition of science crushes such a conjecture immediately.

Look at the language of the post above, it has all the trade marks I've seen over and over again of people who just inexplicably hate science.
Making fun of the fact that science uses big words (Ignoring the fact that science needs to because a lot of the things it deals with have no common language term.)and saying it's part of a long standing "tradition of deception".

Freddie59, science is trying to prove God isn't there, you aren't under attack and claims about science being bull**** that has been paddle for centuries are obviously incorrect.
(Hello technology that only appeared in the 20th century)

So man, grow up. Science isn't an angry old professor telling you that you can't go to Church, it's a complimentary discipline, another subject area in the sea of human knowledge.

And thats it.

No it isn't actually. Can science prove He isn't there.......:D

Freddie59

bonkey wrote:

After seeing someone use the term on slashdot, I like to refer to such approaches as scientism rather than science.

I can jsut see the Shopping Channel ad now...

Scientism...all the power of Science, but none of the annoying restrictions.
But wait...there's more!
If you buy into Scientism today, you can believe whatever you like and ridicule science at the same time absolutely free.
Buy your Introduction to Scientism today for the unbelievably cheap* price of $99.99, and your world will never be the same

*Scientismically true


/me changes channels....

jc

Well, there's only one biblical quote that adequately covers this post, and it is:

"Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you."

And there's quite a few of you here. No point in continuing. God was, is, and always will be - regardless of how much you try to argue Him out of existence. He will, when your time comes, always be there to forgive you the times when you denied Him. As I bow out, may I take this opportunity to wish all of you in this thread (both believers and non-believers...and even the scientists;) ) a very Happy, Holy and peaceful Christmas. God bless to one and all.

Son Goku

Freddie59 wrote:

No it isn't actually. Can science prove He isn't there.......:D

I meant to say "science isn't trying to prove that God isn't there".

rsynnott

Freddie59 wrote:

No it isn't actually. Can science prove He isn't there.......:D

Can science disprove that invisble giant kittens walk the land? That Santa Claus, moving at thousands of times the speed of sound, visits every house on Christmas Eve? That Mary Harney can fly?

Do you think it's likely that any of those things are true?

GuanYin

Freddie59 wrote:

No it isn't actually. Can science prove He isn't there.......:D

I'll tell you what. I'll go door to door preaching the word of the christian God if you can complete this challenge:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/19/boing_boings_250000_.html

Hamza

This is in relation to "bonkey's" argument that "something can come out of nothing" is extremely shallow, hilarious and naive. No i'm not a christian. He says that at a quantum level even empty space can produce something without any governing intelligence/law. what he is saying is that "empty space is more intelligent than him because even bonkey cant create something out of nothing. Secondly, with his logic of randomness we should expect to see dogs wearing bikinis, eating prawns with a fork and knife, the fish doing the twist and rock'n'roll on the sands of sahara and on and on. People who know little of science are atheists, people who know science in depth believe in a higher intelligence/being..... Francis bacon.

GuanYin

Sorry for my delay in getting back to this. "Rebranded Pagan Festival Cheer" and all that.

Wicknight wrote:

You are missing my point ... if I can't do that does it mean it is impossible to determine if a duck exists? Ever?

I will humour you. The most obvious examiniation would be to find a duck and look at it. Maybe pick it up and give it a good shake. (yes I know actual science is a bit more complicated that shaking ducks)

If you don't know if a duck actually exists or not, how dod you find a duck?

Of course I know where you are going with this, I have to know where to find a duck before I can determine if it exists or not. And since I don't know how to determine if God exists I can never test if he does in the first place.

Spot on. A+. You cannot test a hypothesis generated around a set of conditions that are unknown. At least not in this situation.

But imagine for a sec I find a duck. Now imagine all the tests that you would recommend I do on that duck to determine if it is really there. Ok ... all the tests and examinations that you would do, in your head swirling around.

I fail to see how, scientifically, you can continue with the charade.

I'll humour you though. In order for you to find a duck, you need to know what a duck looks like, or at least what a duck is likely to look like. What it boils down to is testing to see if what you find is a duck or not. You're not testing to see if it exists, for it must surely do in order to be there.


Transmute this scenario to God (or unicorns, fairies or elves - whatever). What do they look like? Where do you look for them? We know none of these things. So how do we go about testing whether something is a God or not. Because it looks like one?

A scientific enquiry constructs a hypothesis. Some assumptions can be made, but if the overriding assumption MUST be valid in order to even conduct the test, then it is not a valid scientific enquiry.

Ok now imagine, just before you do the test, all humans are wiped out. In fact imagine all intelligence everywhere and that will ever exist, is wiped out. Do all the methods you have though of just evaporate because we are not there to actually carry them out? Does it now become impossible, using those same methods, to determine if the duck exists? No, the methods are all still vaild, there is just no one around to actually do them. In fact the methods were valid before you even "discovered" them.

Your missing the point. My argument is irrespective of who or what is carrying out the test.

My argument is on the basis and nature of scientific enquiry. What you are proposing, is not science. There is no logical chain of progressive steps to arrive at your final test.

If the answer to the question "Can you show a duck exists, using scientific methods" is yes before all humans are destroyed, the answer is still yes even after all humans are destroyed. In fact the answer was yes before the question was even asked. The answer is always yes.

No, because a duck either exists or it doesn't. Science, scientific enquiry and any hypothesis you generate to test the model, REQUIRES a duck to exist before you can test it.

This is where it gets a bit tricky. The methods are vaild even if no one has actually thought of them yet. The method to determine if a duck exists is valid a 100 million years ago before there actually were ducks, and long before anyone actually came up with the idea. If a duck magically appeared 100 million years ago you could (assume you also appeared) perform the same tests to determine if it is a duck and those tests would be valid.

Again, your showing a basic mis-understanding of scientific enquiry. Time, testers, people and methodology are irrelevant. The provision required for doing the test overrides the outcome of the test.

In essence, the very nature of being able to carry out the procedure invalidates the outcome. This is not science.

The validity of the method exists independently of us actually thinking to use it.

Again, read above. In order for the method to be valid, the hypothesis is redundant.

If God exists the scientific method to determine he exists also exists independently of if we will ever discover it, or even realise its there.

Yes, but that not science.

No, the enquiry must be able to be to be independently verified. For example, if I walk into a wall I know I exist, but to be proper enquiry someone else needs to be able to throw me into a wall and see what happens. But me throwing myself into a wall is still a vaild method to determine if I exist.

See above (your arguing the same case in alot of different ways).

But your argument seems to be we can't think of way to test so therefore it is impossible to ever test.

No, my argument is that if we can think of a way to test then the hypothesis fall to pieces.

Observation is part of scientific enquiry. I don't remember saying it was the only part.

Fair enough. But scientific observation is about gathering data, impartially. Seeing as there is an inherent bias in testing to see if something exists (you need to know the criteria for its existance) thenyou can't construct a valid test.

What you can do is observe that something exists and test to see what it is. But that not the same thing.

Son Goku

Hamza wrote:

This is in relation to "bonkey's" argument that "something can come out of nothing" is extremely shallow, hilarious and naive. No i'm not a christian. He says that at a quantum level even empty space can produce something without any governing intelligence/law. what he is saying is that "empty space is more intelligent than him because even bonkey cant create something out of nothing. Secondly, with his logic of randomness we should expect to see dogs wearing bikinis, eating prawns with a fork and knife, the fish doing the twist and rock'n'roll on the sands of sahara and on and on. People who know little of science are atheists, people who know science in depth believe in a higher intelligence/being..... Francis bacon.

Eh, something can come from nothing at the quantum level.
It isn't bonkey's logic of randomness or him trying to say that empty space is somehow more intelligent than him, it is an observed fact.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

No, because a duck either exists or it doesn't. Science, scientific enquiry and any hypothesis you generate to test the model, REQUIRES a duck to exist before you can test it.

Ok, I think I see the confusion here

I am not saying science can test if God exists or doesn't exists (ie provide an answer to that question). As you said it REQUIRES a duck to exist first.

I am saying that if God exists, it is possible to show he exists using science, merely by the fact that he does eixst. That if he exists he does not some how fall outside of science.

But he has to exist in the first place, just like the duck has to exist for one to test for it.

psi wrote:

Time, testers, people and methodology are irrelevant.

That is my entire point.

Bonkey was claiming that, even if God exists, that it is still impossible for science to determine (prove) this existance because God is super-natural, that science only looks at the natural world, and that we as a species cannot come up with the tests to do this, or understand the outcome of these test.

I am saying our ability to discover the method to test that God exists is irrelevant to the issue of if it is possible or not (if God actually exists in the first place).

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

That is my entire point.

Bonkey was claiming that, even if God exists, that it is still impossible for science to determine (prove) this existance because God is super-natural, that science only looks at the natural world, and that we as a species cannot come up with the tests to do this, or understand the outcome of these test.

Ok, get out of the habit of suggesting science aims to prove anything. It doesn't, never has and never will.

If he exists and we find him, our definition of what is natural changes, so if that is your point then technically you're both right.

But thats very different to saying we can or can't prove he exists.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Ok, get out of the habit of suggesting science aims to prove anything. It doesn't, never has and never will.

If he exists and we find him, our definition of what is natural changes, so if that is your point then technically you're both right.

But thats very different to saying we can or can't prove he exists.

I'm not, I am saying God, if he exists, is a natural entity, part of the natural world, and falls into the realm of science. Therefore it is not impossible for science to show the existance of God.

This position (ironically) is used by a lot of scientists and philosophiers, and by myself, as as sign that God doesn't actually exist in the first place.

As one physics professor on Horizon or some BBC program put it

"If God exists he is just another law of physics, the ball will fall due to gravity unless God stops it. Which kinda makes you think he doesn't exist"

bounty

no one knows anything about how the universe was created, therefore there is infinite possibilities, which means one theory is as correct as the next

personally i like my dog's theory, when i asked her, she said "woof woof"... i call it the woof woof theory of creation... fascinating

bonkey

Freddie59 wrote:

And there's quite a few of you here. No point in continuing. God was, is, and always will be - regardless of how much you try to argue Him out of existence.

And yet again, we see a poster who is inable to distinguish between the assertions that "There is not and cannot be scientific proof that God exists" and "God does not exist".

Its perhaps just as well that you choose to bow out. While you remain incapable of making the distinction I have (once again) noted above, you will only ever be frustrated by your misinterpretation of what is being said.

Hamza wrote:

People who know little of science are atheists, people who know science in depth believe in a higher intelligence/being..... Francis bacon.

Same as to Freddie59 - this has nothing to do with what I said. It is only relevant to those who wish to blur the issue to launch yet another religious attack on science and its purposes.

The rest of your analysis of my previous posts is, to be frank, worthless. Its not worth taking seriously enough to respond to.

jc

bonkey

bounty wrote:

no one knows anything about how the universe was created, therefore there is infinite possibilities, which means one theory is as correct as the next

personally i like my dog's theory, when i asked her, she said "woof woof"... i call it the woof woof theory of creation... fascinating

The word 'theory', in both instances above, cannot be understood in the scientific sense of the word. So the point is irrelevant to the topic.

What you're basically saying is "believe what you like cause no-one can prove otherwise". In otherwords....you're agreeing that there cannot be a scientific proof

jc

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

I am saying that if God exists, it is possible to show he exists using science, merely by the fact that he does eixst. That if he exists he does not some how fall outside of science.
...
Bonkey was claiming that, even if God exists, that it is still impossible for science to determine (prove) this existance because God is super-natural, that science only looks at the natural world, and that we as a species cannot come up with the tests to do this, or understand the outcome of these test.

I am saying our ability to discover the method to test that God exists is irrelevant to the issue of if it is possible or not (if God actually exists in the first place).

Let me put it another way.

I posit that there is a "parallel" universe, which exists entirely seperately to this one, with no possible method of communication between the two.

By your logic, if this universe exists, then science can "prove" it does.

There can be no proof that this completely seperate universe doesn't exist, but equally there can be no proof that it does, as by definition it is unproveable using scientific methodology, for in order to obtain this "proof", we would have to refute the underlying definition that there is no way of communicating with (hence receiving information from, hence detecting) this universe.

This shows that your logic is not consistent without either redefining what the question is addressing (e.g. "completely undectable" must be read as "completely undetectable thus far", or somesuch), or what constitutes a scientific theory.

So the argument that "existence == proveable by science" is not consistently true, even if we ignore the misuse of the notion of proof.

jc

Dades

bonkey wrote:

I posit that there is a "parallel" universe, which exists entirely seperately to this one, with no possible method of communication between the two.

Then this parallel universe might as well not exist. If it cannot be seen, measured, detected, communicated with, and cause any noticable effects within our own universe - it is simply conjecture or the product of someone's imagination.

Is this not why wicknight was suggesting that if God existed we would be show his existence using science?

Excuse me if I'm in catch up mode.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

I posit that there is a "parallel" universe, which exists entirely seperately to this one, with no possible method of communication between the two.

Can anything exist in that universe?

bounty

bonkey wrote:

The word 'theory', in both instances above, cannot be understood in the scientific sense of the word. So the point is irrelevant to the topic.

well science doesnt understand anything about the creation, so you cant put any restrains on the types of theorys, anythings possible

bonkey wrote:

What you're basically saying is "believe what you like cause no-one can prove otherwise". In otherwords....you're agreeing that there cannot be a scientific proof.....

....yet

im confident that scientists will figure everything about the universe(s) out, what it is, how or if it could start, and how or if it could end... just a matter of time

The Atheist wrote:

Then this parallel universe might as well not exist. If it cannot be seen, measured, detected, communicated with, and cause any noticable effects within our own universe - it is simply conjecture or the product of someone's imagination.

while watching those string theory movies i posted in maths, the guy behind m-theory was talking about that maybe the reason that the force of gravity is so weak, compared to the other forces, is because gravity is not confined to our universe. he went on to say, that maybe one day it may be possible to use gravity to communicate with other universes

personally i think there has to be infinite universes because i cant believe i defied the centillions to 1 chance that i exist, everything thats possible must happen

Moriarty

bounty wrote:

personally i think there has to be infinite universes because i cant believe i defied the centillions to 1 chance that i exist, everything thats possible must happen

You have to exist to be able to think that though, so effectively there is no 'chance'. You will always exist when you have the ability to think about whether you exist or not. Your existance has no bearing on whether there is a single universe and it was just a fluke that conditions were right for our existance, or if there are an infinite amount of universes and this one had the right conditions for life, or indeed if there are countless other universes with another you thinking exactly the same thing at exactly the same time.

bounty

yea, your right Moriarty, its impossible to say with any confidence either way, i do like the idea of there being countless other me's, i wonder if theres a me somewhere who has figured out how to communicate with other me's?

but my opinion is slightly towards there being infinite universes over just one, because in those movies they talk about how everything is random at the quantum level, i think this is somehow related to different universes diverging yea, im probably wrong

Dades

bounty wrote:

i posted in maths, the guy behind m-theory was talking about that maybe the reason that the force of gravity is so weak, compared to the other forces, is because gravity is not confined to our universe. he went on to say, that maybe one day it may be possible to use gravity to communicate with other universes

How have we determined that the force of gravity is weak?!

There is only one force of gravity, one that governs the entire cosmos, one that has dictated the size and consistancy of all life (on this planet, at least). If we have nothing to compare it with what is it weak in comparison to?

rsynnott

The Atheist wrote:

How have we determined that the force of gravity is weak?!

There is only one force of gravity, one that governs the entire cosmos, one that has dictated the size and consistancy of all life (on this planet, at least). If we have nothing to compare it with what is it weak in comparison to?

I think he means as compared to electromagnetic force, and to the strong and weak atomic force.

Son Goku

The Atheist wrote:

How have we determined that the force of gravity is weak?!

There is only one force of gravity, one that governs the entire cosmos, one that has dictated the size and consistancy of all life (on this planet, at least). If we have nothing to compare it with what is it weak in comparison to?

The other forces, its absurdly weak compared with them, but possibly because it is so different from the rest of them.

Dades

I think he means as compared to electromagnetic force, and to the strong and weak atomic force.

The other forces, its absurdly weak compared with them, but possibly because it is so different from the rest of them.

Okay. Clear as mud.

As you were...

Moriarty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction for an explanation, The Atheist.

Dades

Moriarty wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction for an explanation, The Atheist.

Thanks M.

Answers how gravity could be seen as "weak" part anyway.

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

Thanks M. theory.

Answers how gravity could be seen as "weak" part anyway.

Corrected.
Ah String theory, my favourite theory, I pray to almighty father in the north pole that they find gravitons and supersymmetry. I would party that day.
Anyway even if there are eleven dimensions and infinite universes...nothing about the start is explained, we would be even more confused if that is possible, which will always be the question that bothers me.

EDIT: just read this thread, it is hilarious(yet sad to see) to see people who know nothing about science comment on it, it really is.
I'm way too late to argue with everybody though...although...if I have the time... *winky smily!*

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

Is this not why wicknight was suggesting that if God existed we would be show his existence using science?

Kinda, but the point I was trying to make (i doubt I am going to get an answer to my quetsion) about Bonkey's unobservable universe is that it is not dependent on us observing the universe for the possibility to exist that it can be proven (bad word I know) through science.

If you existed inside that universe it would be as easy to show it exists as it would be to show this current universe exists.

Son Goku

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Corrected.
Ah String theory, my favourite theory, I pray to almighty father in the north pole that they find gravitons and supersymmetry. I would party that day.
Anyway even if there are eleven dimensions and infinite universes...nothing about the start is explained, we would be even more confused if that is possible, which will always be the question that bothers me.

Off Topic: Supersymmetry would be great (if it was N=1), but I'd have to say I'd be severely disappointed if gravitons were found.

With regards to the beginning, in General Relativity the Universe doesn't have or require a beginning, just thought I'd through that out.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

If you existed inside that universe it would be as easy to show it exists as it would be to show this current universe exists.

Which is little different to saying that "if god exists, God can prove God's existence, and hence God's existence would be proveable".

It still brings us nothing, and from our perspective is little more than an implicit admission that we cannot prove this.

Ultimately, its little more than a rewording of a universal negative. Because I cannot rule out that some intelligence somewhere may have a perspective that allows them to generate some proof, I cannot say something is unproveable. Thats ultimately all your argument boils down to.

For me, its all about perspective. If we cannot prove it and can prove that we cannot prove it, then from our perspective it is unproveable. Given that science, the scientific method and so on all require observation etc. they cannot be meaningfully seperated from the observer.

Kinda, but the point I was trying to make (i doubt I am going to get an answer to my quetsion) about Bonkey's unobservable universe is that it is not dependent on us observing the universe for the possibility to exist that it can be proven (bad word I know) through science.

I notice that to form this line of questioning, you'd have to interpret "(un)observeable" to mean "(un)observeable by us", but "(un)proveable" to mean "(un)proveable by anyone".

if you interpret the two consistently (either "by anyone" or "by us"), then you'll find that your argument disappears, which then begs the question to be re-asked - if it is unobserveable, does this mean its existence is unproveable, or that it does not and can not exist?

I side firmly with the former. You appear to side with the latter.

jc

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

Because I cannot rule out that some intelligence somewhere may have a perspective that allows them to generate some proof, I cannot say something is unproveable. Thats ultimately all your argument boils down to.

Pretty much yeah, along with

"If something exists it is possible to show it exists within a scientific framework, simply by the fact that it exists"

I would also point that the an intelligence existing that can do something is irrelevent to the method of doing something being valid.

The scientific methods to determine the speed of gravity on earth is valid. As such it has always been valid, it was valid at the big bang and it will be valid at the end of time. It was valid 4 billion years ago when we were just protiens in a ocean, before anyone even knew what gravity was.

Of course we only find out that a method is valid after we have discovered it. But the method always exists, as so far as an idea can "exist"

bonkey wrote:

Given that science, the scientific method and so on all require observation etc. they cannot be meaningfully seperated from the observer.

True, but it is incorrect to assume we have to be the observers.

We could not see the back of the moon for millions of years. Light was still banging off the back of the moon though. The method to observe, map, study, the back of the moon is constant.

As I said before, even if the human race had never existed, even if no intelligence had ever or will ever exist in the universe, the methods to show through science the rotation of the planets, the effects of electrons in metal, the changes of hygrogen into helium in stars are all still valid and will work.

Take another example. I know the quickest method to get from my house to the local Spar. If I die, or if I never existed, or if humanity was wiped from the face of the earth tomorrow in an orgy of nuclear war, the quickest method to get from my house to the local Spar is still the quickest method to get from my house to Spar. In fact it was the quickest method before I even realised it was the quickest method, when I was back walking the long route.

What I am saying is that one cannot say that God, if he/she/it exists, lies some how outside of science, outside of the definition of the natural world/universe, because that doesn't make sense. If something that exists can lie outside of the natural existence then the definition of what is natural existence is wrong.

bonkey wrote:

I notice that to form this line of questioning, you'd have to interpret "(un)observeable" to mean "(un)observeable by us", but "(un)proveable" to mean "(un)proveable by anyone".

Well no, not really, that was your defintion of it.

bonkey wrote:

I side firmly with the former. You appear to side with the latter.

Actually that was The Athesist.
I haven't made any comments on the possibility that such a thing could exist.

The Atheist wrote:

Then this parallel universe might as well not exist.

Dades

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

just read this thread, it is hilarious(yet sad to see) to see people who know nothing about science comment on it, it really is.

You better not be talking about me...

Can people who know nothing about photography not comment on a photograph?

Gegerty

Who cares you're still going to die and no God can help you there. Lets sort out the World and enjoy what we DO know about the universe. Eventually we'll get some proof in favour or against and that day will come quicker if we sort out a whole load of other sh*t first.

Personally I think our whole existence is to work something out and just like ants on the ground we have no idea of the bigger picture and never will.

Tar.Aldarion

The Atheist wrote:

You better not be talking about me...

Can people who know nothing about photography not comment on a photograph?

Nah man, wasn't talking about you. More the people with em ...'interesting' viewpoints.

Off Topic: Supersymmetry would be great (if it was N=1), but I'd have to say I'd be severely disappointed if gravitons were found.

With regards to the beginning, in General Relativity the Universe doesn't have or require a beginning, just thought I'd through that out.

Why praytell would you be disappointed?

One of the possiblities is that there was no beginning and as I can't think of a possible way there could or couldn't have been a beginning...it rather annoys me.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

What I am saying is that one cannot say that God, if he/she/it exists, lies some how outside of science, outside of the definition of the natural world/universe, because that doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense if you use all of those terms in the sense that they are mean to be understood with relation to science.

Of course, now we've come full circle to the whole issue of whether or not you've actually checked up what "natural" means in the scientific sense given that you effectively admitted earlier that you didn't know what that meaning was when I insisted that this is how I was using the term and you refused to look it up.

Lets see...

If something that exists can lie outside of the natural existence then the definition of what is natural existence is wrong.

This is not consistent with how the term "natural" is used in the scientific sense. So either you haven't looked that up, or have done so and disagree.

In either case, your resultant definition of science is non-standard, and therefore your conclusions about what science can and cannot do must also be. I have no problems agreeing that a non-standard definition of what science is can lead to whatever conclusions you like in terms of what science can do.

jc

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

Of course, now we've come full circle

Agreed .. I think the last time we where here I asked you for the definition of "natural" that you were using and all I got was "The standard one", but you refused to expand on what you believed that actually was.

So as you said, full circle....

Son Goku

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Why praytell would you be disappointed?

It would mean that gravity is just another Quantum Field like the other three forces, which would be a severe let down after all the weirdness it indicates, like inducing decoherence, being nonlinear and its role in parameterising the other fields.

Gravity goes from being a property of spacetime, to just being another field in a flat background.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

I asked you for the definition of "natural" that you were using and all I got was "The standard one", but you refused to expand on what you believed that actually was.

Thats simply not true.

I provided you with the information I searched google with, and pointed out that in several of teh hits off the first page exactly this term was discussed and clarified and that my understanding was in agreement with those.

You have consistently ignored this information, and consistently portrayed it instead as my refusal to answer your question.

You may also recall that when this whole "what do you mean by natural" thing started, I asked you at the same time if you could provide me with a reference for your chosen definition of science that did not have the rider about "natural" alongside it. This request did[/i[ get ignored, unlike your request to me about my understanding of the term.

Not only that, but your lack of awareness of the consistent useage of the term "natural" in the definition of what science addresses only suggests that you didn't know it was a standard qualifier at the time. Now that you've apparently accepted it is a standard qualifier, I'm staggered that you continue to show a refusal to go and check up what it means, either using the approach I offered, or any other, and instead stick to what you've decided it means.

AS I said - if you want to use a non-standard definition, thats fine, but you'll come to a non-standard conclusion.

jc

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

You have consistently ignored this information, and consistently portrayed it instead as my refusal to answer your question.

You haven't provided me with any information. You haven't even provided me with a link to where you are getting your definition.

You simply said Google it, which it ridiculous and I think against the charter of Humanities. I mean I might as well say "Well I have been proven completely right and if you Google it you will see I am"

How this is easier than simply printing the definition you are using I have no idea ...

But ok lets see what the first 5 hits from Google for "Natural Phenomen" are -
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=natural+phenomena&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

1 - Natural Phenomena Named After Frank Zappa - ok, not very helpful

2 - Weather/Natural Phenomena - ok, only good if you want weather

3 - Natural Phenomena - umm, maybe, no wait it's a page about forests

4 - THE NATURAL PHENOMENA OF ANTIGRAVITATION AND INVISIBILITY IN ... - Less said about that the better

5 - Costa Rica - Natural Phenomena: Earthquakes, floods, etc. Costa Rica earthquakes, nope no good

bonkey wrote:

If you want to know more, then google your own definition and you'll have no problems finding out what my meaning of the term is based on the hits you get from the first page alone.

If you google my own definition you get back links to the definition all over the web. Not very helpful, I already have the definition of "science"

bonkey wrote:

You may also recall that when this whole "what do you mean by natural" thing started, I asked you at the same time if you could provide me with a reference for your chosen definition of science that did not have the rider about "natural" alongside it. This request did[/i[ get ignored, unlike your request to me about my understanding of the term.

It didn't get ignored, I said I took out the "natural" bit because you obviously had a different definition than what I would understand as natural, and you were using this as a technicality as to why science cannot deal with God, along the lines of the definition of science is "natural phenomona" and God is super-natural so therefore science cannot deal with God. I spent a number of posts trying to get your definintion of "natural" and "super-natural" out of you, and explaining that "super-natural" doesn't actually mean anything logically. But to no avail.

bonkey wrote:

Not only that, but your lack of awareness of the consistent useage of the term "natural" in the definition of what science addresses only suggests that you didn't know it was a standard qualifier at the time.

Your point boils down to you saying I don't know what "natural" really means, where as you do, yet you refuse to provide where your definition comes from, or even what it is.

Thats like saying I know you are wrong because I have the correct answer but I am not going to explain how I know it or even show you what the answer is. Hardly a convincing argument.

You have completely ignored my questions as to how something can exist yet fall outside the definition of natural phenomona. I mean we can't even start tackling that question until you provide what you understand to mean as "natural", but if you ever do, the next question would be ok if that is natural, what is outside that set of things.

God seemingly is, so the next question would be Can anything else fall outside of the definition of natural phenomona? This is the point I have been trying to get to, but since we don't even have a start point it is rather pointless

bonkey wrote:

I'm staggered that you continue to show a refusal to go and check up what it means, either using the approach I offered, or any other, and instead stick to what you've decided it means.

Because searching the dictionary provides this

"All non-artificial phenomena", which would seem to include God (if he exists)

Wikipedia says
"is all matter and energy, especially in its essential form", which would also include God (if he exists)

Searching Google provides web pages about Costa Rica. So can you see where I would be a bit confused when you say "Just Google it"

micromegas

The Atheist wrote:

Okay. Clear as mud.

As you were...

Haha. I love that saying.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

You simply said Google it,

No, I didn't. As you even quoted me below, I said to google your own definition.

But ok lets see what the first 5 hits from Google for "Natural Phenomen"

Your definition was not the two words "natural phenomenon". So you're still not doing what I suggested which is to search for the definition you supplied me with.

- Take your definition as originally posted.
- Copy it to the clipboard
- Go to www.google.com
- paste the contents of your clipboard into the search-terms box.
Hit the search button on the screen, causing google to run a search against what I told you to search again - your definition, and not some arbitrarily chosen subset of terms from it.

Is that clear enough?

Would it have made you feel better if I did this, checked each fo the links, filtered down to the ones that did contain the discussion, and asked you to read them? Is google that difficult to use? I won't ask whether or not you have the time and/or effort to invest, because you've spent far longer insisting that I haven't given you any information and am refusing to answer the question than it would have done to actually take my advice, google your definition, and do some reading.

If you google my own definition you get back links to the definition all over the web. Not very helpful, I already have the definition of "science"

Disingenuous. If you google your definition, you get back links to where the definition is used all over the web. I'd be surprised if someone explained what the terms of the definition meant somewhere other than where the term was used. It would seem like a logical starting place to me.

As of the time I told you how to find out what the term "natural" meant in this regard, over half the links on the first page of a search done against your definition all discussed this point.

Do you think I should look for a definition of the term somewhere it isn't used?

It didn't get ignored, I said I took out the "natural" bit because you obviously had a different definition than what I would understand as natural,

And this is my point all along. Its not about how you undersdtand the term natural. Its about how the people who decided this term was apt to the definition of science believe(d) it should be interpreted. To learn what this is, you need to look up where others have explained it, and adapt their meaning.

Again, looking for where the definition is used and explanied on the web would seem like the obvious starting place for me, but apparently you think that looking for where the definition is used is a pointless place to check.

and explaining that "super-natural" doesn't actually mean anything logically.

Logically? I thought we were talking about whether or not it meant anything scientifically. The definition of science inherently addresses the issue of supernatural vs natural, whilst you insist that one is a logical non-entity. How you can conclude the correctness of your understanding of what science is from this is beyond me.

Your point boils down to you saying I don't know what "natural" really means,

No, it boils down to me saying you don't know what it means when used in this context, and pointing out your absolute refusal to go and check it up. I refuse to believe its an inability to actually use google.

Thats like saying I know you are wrong because I have the correct answer but I am not going to explain how I know it or even show you what the answer is.

Huh? I've given you - and anyone else reading this - instructions on how to fnid the meaning I'm looknig for. You'll find it discussed in no shortage of places where your definition is used, and hence a google is the best way of finding it. Multiple locations - as a search-engine provides - should show there is a consistency of agreement in the meaning of the term, buit which is not in agreement with your useage.

I haven't refused to anyone to explain this. I just have refused to be your cut-and-paste engine. I believe that anyone who knows what I'm talking about will not need to look things up, as they will see you are misusing the term. Anyone who doesn't already know will be better served by acquiring the knowledge themselves given the information of how to find it. That way they can choose how much or how little to read around the issue, how many differing points of view to take, and can see objectively how much general agreement there is in the useage of the term, that agreement being at odds with your insistence of its meaning.

Hardly a convincing argument.

I gave you what you needed to find as much as you wanted about what I was saying. You have superbly demonstrated how much you want to know by your constant refusal to take any initiative in actually looking it up.

I'm not maknig a convincing argument. I'm saying you're misinformed, and my interest here is not in educating you, but in discussing the point at hand. I've told you how to educate yourself so the discussion could continue, but all I've met in response is truculent refusal. Do you see yoru truculence as somehow being a convincing argument?

You have completely ignored my questions as to how something can exist yet fall outside the definition of natural phenomona.

The definition of what constitutes natural phenomena, when used in context of the definition of science clearly delineates this. I've told you how to find this information. I've told you that your insistence that "supernatural" == "bunkum" is at odds with this information.

Again, what more do you need?

I haven't refused to do anything except play the kindergarten schoolteacher who does all the work for you.

God seemingly is,

You've been insisting all along that God either doesn't exist, or else God is a natural phenomenon. Now you're saying God "seemingly is" not a natural phenomenon. So what seemingly is God?, should God exist? Surely not supernatural, given that you've asserted isuch a thing doesn't exist.

so the next question would be Can anything else fall outside of the definition of natural phenomona?

Thats not the next question until we get agreement that God - should God exist - is not a natural phenomenon. Other than your "seemingly" comment above, you've flat-out rejected this notion, so I don't see how we can meaningfully progress to any next question. Are you shifting stance and accepting that God (should God exist) is supernatural?

This is the point I have been trying to get to, but since we don't even have a start point it is rather pointless

We have a start-point. The start point is that you stop using yoru hand-picked interpretation of a term, and instead look up how it is meant to be understood. Once we're both on a common ground, we can progress.

Wikipedia says
"is all matter and energy, especially in its essential form", which would also include God (if he exists)

Would it? How? Thats highly presumptive, wouldn't you say? You're making assumptions about the nature of God and/or energy/matter with no observational basis (direct or indirect).

Your assertion that God would be included is highly unscientific in nature, being based on conjecture and assumption rather than on observation, experimentation, theory, or anything else scientific.

And didn't you only early state that God "seemingly is" something which falls outside the realm of natural phenomena and want to move on to the next question. Now you're back once more saying that God would have to be a natural phenomenon if God exists. So which is it?

Or when you said "seemingly", did you mean something other than its conventional, accepted meaning?

So can you see where I would be a bit confused when you say "Just Google it"

Thats why I didn't say that. I said google your definition, as you even quoted me as saying.

As I mentioned before in relation to something else, this isn't just pedantry on my part. This is being precise.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

Thats why I didn't say that. I said google your definition, as you even quoted me as saying.

Bonkey if you Google my definition you get back 290,000 pages, most of which seem to contain the definitino of science

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=The+observation%2C+identification%2C+description%2C+experimental+investigation%2C+and+theoretical+explanation+of+phenomena.&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

I have scanned the first 10 or 15 and I cannot find anything the goes into the definitions of "natural" as opposed to super-natural or any defintion that would lead one to believe the God (or anything) can fall out of the the definition of natural

I can only conclude from that you don't actually have a definition to begin with, and all this was just a round-and-round method to get out of providing a definition. I mean it is a pretty weak argument to say its in Google, go find it yourself. I must try that on politics some day ... :rolleyes:

Anyway, I've better things to be doing with my time ... when you get round to finding a definition of natural you are happy with come back to me ..

bonkey

Wicknight wrote:

Bonkey if you Google my definition you get back 290,000 pages, most of which seem to contain the definitino of science

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=The+observation%2C+identification%2C+description%2C+experimental+investigation%2C+and+theoretical+explanation+of+phenomena.&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

I have scanned the first 10 or 15 and I cannot find anything the goes into the definitions of "natural" as opposed to super-natural or any defintion that would lead one to believe the God (or anything) can fall out of the the definition of natural

Well, I took your link, ran it, took this link from the first page of results, and now copy and paste the following comments from that page.

Some attributes of Science:
...

* Is evidence based (backed up by independent observations of nature)
* Consequently, can only deal with issues that have some direct manifestation in the natural world
* Examples:
o Cannot directly address issues of matters outside the natural world (i.e., whether or not a god or gods exist; whether a particular political or philosophical position is "better" in a non-tangible way, etc.)
...
# Is NOT the same thing as "ontological naturalism" (the statement that supernatural entities do not exist). Potentially, one can believe in supernatural entitities, but as long as you don't invoke them as explanations you are doing Science. However, once you DO invoke them as explanations, you have abandoned Science because you have introduced elements which are immune to independant investigation.


"Clearly" this is saying nothing about the natural world and whether or not God (should God exist) is part of it.

Oh, except for saying that the argument about God's existence is not one which can be addressed as part of the natural world, which is....strangely enough....exactly what I've been saying.

Notice also the bit which points out that science is not based on the insistence that the supernatural does not exist? The supernatural is irrelevant to science. Again, what I've been saying, and in disagreement with your insistence that there is no supernatural.

I can only conclude from that you don't actually have a definition to begin with,

You've caught me out. I made it all up, and then created all these webpages to argue the same as me, and somehow managed to ensure that some would appear in your first page of results but invisibly to you.

Also, seeing as you quoted wikipedia earlier on, one would imagine it wouldn't have been a huge stretch to look up "supernatural" there, although I guess because the artcle is only linked to directly from the results from your search, rather than being a direct hit on the first page itself, and that I didn't actually tell you to look there, its not obvious enough.

Anyway...what did it have to say on the subject....

In this, the most common view, the term supernatural is contrasted with the term natural, which presumes that some events occur according to natural laws, and others do not, because they are caused by forces external to nature. In essence, the world is seen as operating according to natural law "normally," until a force external to nature (such as God) intervenes. Some believe strongly in the forces beyond the natural realm; but others have a strong belief in the powers of nature and only nature.

Hmmm. Clearly what I've been saying, and what you've been disagreeing with.

Strange how all these sites are agreeing with my made-up, unsupported understanding of the terminology, and are disagreeing with your interpretation.

The information is there, Wicknight. Its not hard to find, unlike arguments using your definition of science that claim God is part of the natural world. Just because you want to pretend that its not there and that I've asked some gargantuan task of you rather than provide my own explanation doesn't change that.

At this point, the only thing being really called into question is your capability of actually finding the information you're looking for. You've supplied nothing supporting your own interpretation and show an unfailing inability to find what I located without breaking a sweat even when I was using your results from google (although, admittedly, I also went so far as to follow a single hyperlink on the pages when it seemed highly relevant).

On the basis of this alone, you should consider who's claim to have a proper understanding of the terminology is more likely to be correct - the person who shows they can research something given some clues, or the person who erroneously insists the information pointed at doesn't exist and that a "scanning" of 10 or 15 results is enough to show this.

Consider whether or not this likelihood is changed by the person who insists the inforamtion doesn't exist also claiming their own viewpoint holds water despite not showing any linkage at all to support their own interpretations, whilst claiming the opposing one doesn't hold water because no direct linkage has been supplied.

So I await your direct linkage with eagerness.....or else I can assume - as you have done - that your unwillingness to provide direct linkage means it is just a meaning you've made up yourself.

Given that you're so opposed to actually asking other posters to be willing to put some effort into finding things, it is all but inconceivable that you would use such a tactic regarding the support of your own argument.


So step up Wicknight.

Show you can live by the standards you would hold others to. Or will you instead show that all your distress and upset at being asked to do some of the resaearch work yourself was nothing but bluster and that you believe I was perfectly entitled to point you at google because its what you would do yourself.

I must try that on politics some day

With the level of detail I gave you, it would meet the requirements of the charter perfectly. The rules for that forum regarding linkage were specifically written to prevent people using the "Spoon feed me, or your argument cannot be said to hold up" line of reasoning that you've employed here.