You don't believe in god but do you believe in someone else?

[Dathu]

agrab0ekim

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

Nope. I am a strict Atheist, and a skeptic. If it cannot be proven to exist, then it doesn't.

can you prove that it doesnt?

See, if you accept the logic of can you prove then there is no gravity, no air, no electrons, no atom, no mass, no anything... Nothing can be proven

Therefore, without evidance I must assume it not to be.

show me evidence of gravity? or light? or life? or existence... You can not show evidence of any of these things... It is not possable, as evidence is defined by different people and interpreted that way

Well, if you're willing to accept the scientific method, and I hope you would, then there is evidance for gravity, life, light, and existance. If that's not good enough for you, then it is only your opinion that it is not possible, and not a descision based on reason, logic, or science. I understand from a philosophical perspective that "anything is possible and impossible," but I try to stay down to earth. But that's just me. mrgreen  

[agrab0ekim]

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

Nope. I am a strict Atheist, and a skeptic. If it cannot be proven to exist, then it doesn't.

can you prove that it doesnt?

See, if you accept the logic of can you prove then there is no gravity, no air, no electrons, no atom, no mass, no anything... Nothing can be proven

Therefore, without evidance I must assume it not to be.

show me evidence of gravity? or light? or life? or existence... You can not show evidence of any of these things... It is not possable, as evidence is defined by different people and interpreted that way

Well, if you're willing to accept the scientific method, and I hope you would, then there is evidance for gravity, life, light, and existance. If that's not good enough for you, then it is only your opinion that it is not possible, and not a descision based on reason, logic, or science. I understand from a philosophical perspective that "anything is possible and impossible," but I try to stay down to earth. But that's just me. mrgreen

atually, using the scientific method doesnt say that they are here, but that they probably are here... The method does not show that gravity does exist, it merly shows that two objects tend to fall towards each other... it could be magnetism, could be gravatons, could be coincidence, etc.  

[Dathu]

agrab0ekim

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

Nope. I am a strict Atheist, and a skeptic. If it cannot be proven to exist, then it doesn't.

can you prove that it doesnt?

See, if you accept the logic of can you prove then there is no gravity, no air, no electrons, no atom, no mass, no anything... Nothing can be proven

Therefore, without evidance I must assume it not to be.

show me evidence of gravity? or light? or life? or existence... You can not show evidence of any of these things... It is not possable, as evidence is defined by different people and interpreted that way

Well, if you're willing to accept the scientific method, and I hope you would, then there is evidance for gravity, life, light, and existance. If that's not good enough for you, then it is only your opinion that it is not possible, and not a descision based on reason, logic, or science. I understand from a philosophical perspective that "anything is possible and impossible," but I try to stay down to earth. But that's just me. mrgreen

atually, using the scientific method doesnt say that they are here, but that they probably are here... The method does not show that gravity does exist, it merly shows that two objects tend to fall towards each other... it could be magnetism, could be gravatons, could be coincidence, etc.

Coincidence isn't consistant. If something happens everytime, we don't call it coincidence, we call it fact. It's pretty well assured that all large bodies bending space-time create gravity. You can accept it or not. But so far the scientific method has proven a very reliable way of explaining the physical world, and has led to the developement of the very functional computers we are now debating on, so I'm putting all my money on the scientific method.  

[agrab0ekim]

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

Therefore, without evidance I must assume it not to be.

show me evidence of gravity? or light? or life? or existence... You can not show evidence of any of these things... It is not possable, as evidence is defined by different people and interpreted that way

Well, if you're willing to accept the scientific method, and I hope you would, then there is evidance for gravity, life, light, and existance. If that's not good enough for you, then it is only your opinion that it is not possible, and not a descision based on reason, logic, or science. I understand from a philosophical perspective that "anything is possible and impossible," but I try to stay down to earth. But that's just me. mrgreen

atually, using the scientific method doesnt say that they are here, but that they probably are here... The method does not show that gravity does exist, it merly shows that two objects tend to fall towards each other... it could be magnetism, could be gravatons, could be coincidence, etc.

Coincidence isn't consistant. If something happens everytime, we don't call it coincidence, we call it fact. It's pretty well assured that all large bodies bending space-time create gravity. You can accept it or not. But so far the scientific method has proven a very reliable way of explaining the physical world, and has led to the developement of the very functional computers we are now debating on, so I'm putting all my money on the scientific method.

Proven... Proven... wait, the fundemental nature of science is that nothing is ever proven... That is why things are alway under scrutiny... Nothing is proven because there are always exceptions... Black holes prove that gravity is not correct (as we assign it to mass and mass to dimensions... black holes have no dimensions...)  

[Dathu]

agrab0ekim

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

Therefore, without evidance I must assume it not to be.

show me evidence of gravity? or light? or life? or existence... You can not show evidence of any of these things... It is not possable, as evidence is defined by different people and interpreted that way

Well, if you're willing to accept the scientific method, and I hope you would, then there is evidance for gravity, life, light, and existance. If that's not good enough for you, then it is only your opinion that it is not possible, and not a descision based on reason, logic, or science. I understand from a philosophical perspective that "anything is possible and impossible," but I try to stay down to earth. But that's just me. mrgreen

atually, using the scientific method doesnt say that they are here, but that they probably are here... The method does not show that gravity does exist, it merly shows that two objects tend to fall towards each other... it could be magnetism, could be gravatons, could be coincidence, etc.

Coincidence isn't consistant. If something happens everytime, we don't call it coincidence, we call it fact. It's pretty well assured that all large bodies bending space-time create gravity. You can accept it or not. But so far the scientific method has proven a very reliable way of explaining the physical world, and has led to the developement of the very functional computers we are now debating on, so I'm putting all my money on the scientific method.

Proven... Proven... wait, the fundemental nature of science is that nothing is ever proven... That is why things are alway under scrutiny... Nothing is proven because there are always exceptions... Black holes prove that gravity is not correct (as we assign it to mass and mass to dimensions... black holes have no dimensions...)

Well, we don't know if they do because we can't measure it. Our technology isn't capable yet. But, a black hole is incredibly dense, meaning it has incredible mass, hense it's incredible gravity. That sounds about right to me.  

[agrab0ekim]

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

Well, if you're willing to accept the scientific method, and I hope you would, then there is evidance for gravity, life, light, and existance. If that's not good enough for you, then it is only your opinion that it is not possible, and not a descision based on reason, logic, or science. I understand from a philosophical perspective that "anything is possible and impossible," but I try to stay down to earth. But that's just me. mrgreen

atually, using the scientific method doesnt say that they are here, but that they probably are here... The method does not show that gravity does exist, it merly shows that two objects tend to fall towards each other... it could be magnetism, could be gravatons, could be coincidence, etc.

Coincidence isn't consistant. If something happens everytime, we don't call it coincidence, we call it fact. It's pretty well assured that all large bodies bending space-time create gravity. You can accept it or not. But so far the scientific method has proven a very reliable way of explaining the physical world, and has led to the developement of the very functional computers we are now debating on, so I'm putting all my money on the scientific method.

Proven... Proven... wait, the fundemental nature of science is that nothing is ever proven... That is why things are alway under scrutiny... Nothing is proven because there are always exceptions... Black holes prove that gravity is not correct (as we assign it to mass and mass to dimensions... black holes have no dimensions...)

Well, we don't know if they do because we can't measure it. Our technology isn't capable yet. But, a black hole is incredibly dense, meaning it has incredible mass, hense it's incredible gravity. That sounds about right to me.

density is based on its size... density is the mass divided by the dimensions (area)... a black hole has no area, and therefor it is impossable to have density (can not divide by zero)  

[Dathu]

agrab0ekim

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

Well, if you're willing to accept the scientific method, and I hope you would, then there is evidance for gravity, life, light, and existance. If that's not good enough for you, then it is only your opinion that it is not possible, and not a descision based on reason, logic, or science. I understand from a philosophical perspective that "anything is possible and impossible," but I try to stay down to earth. But that's just me. mrgreen

atually, using the scientific method doesnt say that they are here, but that they probably are here... The method does not show that gravity does exist, it merly shows that two objects tend to fall towards each other... it could be magnetism, could be gravatons, could be coincidence, etc.

Coincidence isn't consistant. If something happens everytime, we don't call it coincidence, we call it fact. It's pretty well assured that all large bodies bending space-time create gravity. You can accept it or not. But so far the scientific method has proven a very reliable way of explaining the physical world, and has led to the developement of the very functional computers we are now debating on, so I'm putting all my money on the scientific method.

Proven... Proven... wait, the fundemental nature of science is that nothing is ever proven... That is why things are alway under scrutiny... Nothing is proven because there are always exceptions... Black holes prove that gravity is not correct (as we assign it to mass and mass to dimensions... black holes have no dimensions...)

Well, we don't know if they do because we can't measure it. Our technology isn't capable yet. But, a black hole is incredibly dense, meaning it has incredible mass, hense it's incredible gravity. That sounds about right to me.

density is based on its size... density is the mass divided by the dimensions (area)... a black hole has no area, and therefor it is impossable to have density (can not divide by zero)

We don't know if it has no are because we can't measure it. Unless you think you can walk up to a black hole and measure it, then go ahead. But we do know it takes in everything that gets close enough. And since matter can not be destroyed is must still be there, but in infinate density. If you look up the definition of a black hole you'll see where they mention "extreme density." They believe this because of the imense gravity.

Anyway, discussing the universe and the reliability of the scientific method were not my intentions in posting here, and I think we've gone a little off topic. My point simply being, if you don't have solid proof, don't expect me to believe, which no one has done.  

[agrab0ekim]

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

Coincidence isn't consistant. If something happens everytime, we don't call it coincidence, we call it fact. It's pretty well assured that all large bodies bending space-time create gravity. You can accept it or not. But so far the scientific method has proven a very reliable way of explaining the physical world, and has led to the developement of the very functional computers we are now debating on, so I'm putting all my money on the scientific method.

Proven... Proven... wait, the fundemental nature of science is that nothing is ever proven... That is why things are alway under scrutiny... Nothing is proven because there are always exceptions... Black holes prove that gravity is not correct (as we assign it to mass and mass to dimensions... black holes have no dimensions...)

Well, we don't know if they do because we can't measure it. Our technology isn't capable yet. But, a black hole is incredibly dense, meaning it has incredible mass, hense it's incredible gravity. That sounds about right to me.

density is based on its size... density is the mass divided by the dimensions (area)... a black hole has no area, and therefor it is impossable to have density (can not divide by zero)

We don't know if it has no are because we can't measure it. Unless you think you can walk up to a black hole and measure it, then go ahead. But we do know it takes in everything that gets close enough. And since matter can not be destroyed is must still be there, but in infinate density. If you look up the definition of a black hole you'll see where they mention "extreme density." They believe this because of the imense gravity.

Anyway, discussing the universe and the reliability of the scientific method were not my intentions in posting here, and I think we've gone a little off topic. My point simply being, if you don't have solid proof, don't expect me to believe, which no one has done.

do you have solid proof of anything is again my responce... based on your logic, you can not believe in anything, including, but not limited to, what i am saying now  

[Dathu]

agrab0ekim

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

agrab0ekim

Dathu

Coincidence isn't consistant. If something happens everytime, we don't call it coincidence, we call it fact. It's pretty well assured that all large bodies bending space-time create gravity. You can accept it or not. But so far the scientific method has proven a very reliable way of explaining the physical world, and has led to the developement of the very functional computers we are now debating on, so I'm putting all my money on the scientific method.

Proven... Proven... wait, the fundemental nature of science is that nothing is ever proven... That is why things are alway under scrutiny... Nothing is proven because there are always exceptions... Black holes prove that gravity is not correct (as we assign it to mass and mass to dimensions... black holes have no dimensions...)

Well, we don't know if they do because we can't measure it. Our technology isn't capable yet. But, a black hole is incredibly dense, meaning it has incredible mass, hense it's incredible gravity. That sounds about right to me.

density is based on its size... density is the mass divided by the dimensions (area)... a black hole has no area, and therefor it is impossable to have density (can not divide by zero)

We don't know if it has no are because we can't measure it. Unless you think you can walk up to a black hole and measure it, then go ahead. But we do know it takes in everything that gets close enough. And since matter can not be destroyed is must still be there, but in infinate density. If you look up the definition of a black hole you'll see where they mention "extreme density." They believe this because of the imense gravity.

Anyway, discussing the universe and the reliability of the scientific method were not my intentions in posting here, and I think we've gone a little off topic. My point simply being, if you don't have solid proof, don't expect me to believe, which no one has done.

do you have solid proof of anything is again my responce... based on your logic, you can not believe in anything, including, but not limited to, what i am saying now

Yes, I do. However, you don't feel that what I, and the scientific community, consider to be solid is just that. No offense, but if given the option of your abstract philosophy or proven science, I'm guuna pick science. In the end, what we're debating is what is "acceptable" evidence, and I really don't think we're gunna reach an agreement.  

[agrab0ekim]

correct, we wont in that regard... however, back to your previous responce

first, the blackholes do release matter (at their poles streams of x and gamma rays that somehow are carrying electrons (we dont know how yet) are emitted)...

also, we can measure the size by triangulation and the doplar effect  

[Cloud0.0Strife]

Prove that we exist eh. . . Well there is that saying "I think therefore I am" but theres no point me saying that because I don't think anything can be proven.  

[agrab0ekim]

Cloud0.0Strife

Prove that we exist eh. . . Well there is that saying "I think therefore I am" but theres no point me saying that because I don't think anything can be proven.

one can prove to oneself that they exist but nothing more  

[Cloud0.0Strife]

agrab0ekim

Cloud0.0Strife

Prove that we exist eh. . . Well there is that saying "I think therefore I am" but theres no point me saying that because I don't think anything can be proven.

one can prove to oneself that they exist but nothing more

Or can they even do that.for all we know we are A.I. in a computer.  

[agrab0ekim]

Cloud0.0Strife

agrab0ekim

Cloud0.0Strife

Prove that we exist eh. . . Well there is that saying "I think therefore I am" but theres no point me saying that because I don't think anything can be proven.

one can prove to oneself that they exist but nothing more

Or can they even do that.for all we know we are A.I. in a computer.

yes... MATRIX right?  

[Cloud0.0Strife]

Yes pretty much. For all we know we could just be a program.