attrayant

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Actually, in a very scientific way, i can claim that, as there are "inferior beings" ( ants, microbes, bacteria) there must be "superior beings".

 

Did you know that an ant can carry twenty times its own body weight?  How about you?  Can you carry 1,500kgs?  An ant can fall from a great height and not be hurt, thanks to its low mass.  Can you fall from the top of a twenty story building and survive like that?

 

You can see the problem with using words like 'superior' and 'inferior' unattached to clear parameters.  We can interpret them as we like just by adding some context. 

 

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

In the same way, if there is life on 1 planet, there must be countless lives in countless planets.

 

I really don't know where you're going with this post.  Many scientists accept the possibility of life on other planets.  I'm not aware of any who say that there is definitely NO life anywhere else in the universe.

 

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

The fact that we cannot see something is NOT evidence that something doesn't exist.

 

On, no, you did it again.  Say it with me now: Science does not prove negatives.  If you think something exists, present your hypothesis and whatever evidence that lead you to that hypothesis.  If your evidence is sound, your hypothesis will gain acceptance.  

 

2 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

Some scientists most certainly DO declare that God does not exist.

 

I'd like to see their exact phrasing.  If some scientists are declaring this, then they are stating their opinion or estimating a likelihood (stating the odds).  They are doing what I sad in my earlier post about pending evidence - they are saying that claims about the existence of a deity are false, because the statistical likelihood of the claim being true is so infinitesimally small as to warrant no serious consideration. 

 

Similar to me saying Santa Claus does not exist.  I am not going to turn over every grain of sand on the planet trying to support my statement of non-existence.  Why? Because based on what we know about the physical world, the impossibility of the existence of Santa Claus is a metaphysical certainty.

 

If you are going to invoke an all-powerful being who is capable of anything, such as violating the laws of nature and logic, then all bets are off and no meaningful discussion can be had.  This is special pleading.

20 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Before going as far as the universe borders, i would like some scientist to tell me which was first, the egg or the chicken, but i am not holding my breath.

 

It's the same thing: you are asking a question not out of genuine desire to learn, but on the presumption that it will stump science and therefore the lack of a satisfying answer means we can substitute our own fantasies about fairies or demons or intelligent design or whatever.

 

But since you asked, here you go:

 

 

Eggs existed long before chickens did.  The first animals to have eggs that could survive on land evolved from reptiles about 300 million years ago.  This allowed their descendants to evolve into larger life forms like... chickens.

 

Hopefully that is sufficient.  Going deeper into the details requires a long discussion of evolutionary biology, which is beyond the scope of this discussion.

8 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

But, if humans can produce those instruments, can you honestly expect me to believe that the human mind is the result of an accident ?

 

Are you asking rhetorically?  Because I didn't say that I expect you to believe that.  Let's try to stay focused on the subject of validating superstition and not get down into the weeds of specific theories like evolution or cosmology.

50 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry, but that's a very poor analogy, it's like claiming that science is answering everything, apart from some useless details.

 

No, it's not like claiming that science is answering everything.  Nyezhov asked about the formation of the universe, and I am still not sure how the question is relevant to the matter at hand, but my presumption is that he is saying that until/unless everything is known, nothing can be known (which is false on its face).  If that was his meaning, then the Mona Lisa analogy is a perfect fit.

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

becasue its germane to the issue at hand. Glad to see you view your fellows here of being incapable of a deep discussion....

 

Everyone interested in a discussion of the origin of the universe in a thread about superstition, raise your hand.

 

I thought so.

41 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

he didnt say someone should disprove it, he said they should prove it

 

 

He said "So if someone claims God does not exist, they should be able to prove it?"

 

Proving non-existence is the same as disproving existence.  To avoid all this semantic mucking about with the language, we simply state that we can't prove a negative.  The negative statement he made is "god does not exist".

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

We base our knowledge on the physical senses, would you agree that the physical senses are very limited, and , if you apply some logic to it, they give you an infinitesimally small understanding of what's going on around us ?

 

I agree with conditions.  We have made instruments that are extremely sensitive and can detect particles, forces and energy levels that are far outside of our human detection abilities.  This has greatly increased our understanding of the natural world and provided explanations to many, previously unsupported claims.  The rainbow is a good example.  If we still relied only on our meager senses, we might still today believe that rainbows are manifestations created by magical beings, merely because there would be no better explanation.

28 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

So if someone claims God does not exist, they should be able to prove it?

 

That claim is negative, and I have already said that negative statements do not get disproved.  It's up to the person who asserts that a deity exists to prove it.  Until then, such a claim goes into the 'pending' bucket with the world's other 4000+ deities.

 

28 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

I ask the same question, in all my various incarnations,  everytime these threads pop up on the internet, to wit: how did the universe start?

 

Why do you ask this question?  I recommend you find a cosmology forum if you want a deep discussion like that.

 

28 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Until that question is answered, Ill hedge my bets and Im skeptical of everything.

 

So because we don't have the answers to everything, we can't know the answers to anything?  That's the Mona Lisa puzzle dilemma!

 

 

Look - we're missing a few pieces of the puzzle, therefore it's impossible to know if this is the Mona Lisa!

 

2 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

that doesn't mean that science can declare that something does not exist

 

Science does not do this.  The only time we hear the word "false" in science is when somebody makes an unsupported claim about something for which we already have a solid understanding with lots of strong, supporting evidence.  If you say that rainbows are caused by a leprechaun's pot of gold, that claim will be labeled false because we have a good understanding of the laws of light propagation and refraction.

 

If somebody makes an extraordinary claim, that claim is not automatically accepted as true until it is validated by evidence.  There are three buckets we can put claims in:
 

True: statements go into this bucket when we have established good, factual evidence for them and they can be validated and repeated by others. Examples: 

•  Germ theory
•  Gravity
•  Spherical Earth

 

Pending: claims that are unsubstantiated by evidence and for which there are no better explanations:

•  Deities
•  Ghosts
•  Cryptozoology (Bigfoot, Nessie)

 

False: statements or claims that have been made for which there are other, more rational and verifiable explanations:

•  Rainbows are caused by leprechauns
•  Mysterious floating globes in nighttime flash photography are "spirit orbs"
•  Ouija Boards

 

Some people might reply "false" about claims that are pending evidence, because the statistical likelihood of the claim being true is so infinitesimally small as to warrant no serious consideration (UFOs are aliens visiting Earth, David Icke claims, etc).

39 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You said that it's not up to science to disprove anything, in that case you are admitting that you have not any right to ridicule God-believers.

 

Beliefs (not people) deserve to be ridiculed in direct proportion with how ridiculous the claims are.  It's the same rule that applies in formal debate: attack the belief, assertion or idea; not the person making it.

 

 

18 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

If someone makes a claim that something does not exist

 

You too?  Please read what I have said (twice now) more carefully: Science does not attempt to disprove negative statements.  Science is a tool for evaluating the evidence that is presented in support of a hypothesis.  Nobody can disprove that I am receiving telepathic transmissions from a walrus on Pluto, and they shouldn't have to disprove it.  It should be my burden to prove such a ridiculous statement.

 

The burden of proof falls upon the shoulders of those who make extraordinary claims; it's not upon others to refute such claims.  Since this misunderstanding seems to keep popping up again and again, I would appreciate it if anyone whop still does not understand what the burden of proof means to please watch this explainer video on the burden of proof in logical debate (where you'll see the walrus claim examined in greater detail):

 

 

 

 

 

Just now, mauGR1 said:

First, i am not embracing any belief.

 

Firstly, don't make this personal.  I didn't say that YOU personally are embracing any particular belief.  We're speaking in the hypothetical sense, so that "you" means a hypothetical you.

 

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Second, if science "makes an extraordinary claim" that God doesn't exist, i expect it to prove it.

 

Did you not read what I said?  I said "It's not up to science to disprove anything."

 

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Third, if "people" think that i "should be confined to the loony bin", well, up to you.

 

Once again, that was the hypothetical "you", not you personally.  If it helps, read the sentence this way:

 

Fine, but then don't wonder why people think [those who don't want to provide evidence for their extraordinary beliefs] should be confined to the loony bin.

 

That's a bit wordy, isn't it?  Now you see why I used a hypothetical 'you' instead of the wordy 'those who...".

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

 

But i can tell you that, if thoughts are real, every thought is real, and it exists in some way.

 

Thoughts are real but they are also subjective, like ideas and emotions.  Also, many thoughts are real but untrue.  If I think that, when I let go of this stone it will fall 'up' to the ceiling, my thought is real but it is clearly an error and I can discover this by simply experimenting with the stone.

 

Just because we have a real thought does not mean we have a correct, factual thought.

On 9/30/2018 at 2:06 PM, mauGR1 said:

Feng Shui is still popular for rich people in rich countries like Japan among others

 

 

Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you, but you've provided a lot of fertile ground for discussion.

 

That some belief is popular does not mean it's correct.  I hope you agree with that.  If our understanding of reality worked that way, all we'd need to do to label any idea as correct would be to get enough people to agree with it.

 

Quote

Western writers write and sell books about it.

 

Hmmm... believe something because somebody wrote a book about it?  There are tons of books on astrology, but many of them disagree with each other about how it works, and how to interpret the signs.  How do we ascertain which of these "western writers" is correct?  There's got to be a way.

 

Quote

Interesting stuff, not only for uneducated people.

 

Rich people ≠ uneducated people.

On 9/30/2018 at 1:19 PM, mauGR1 said:

suppose we talk about "feng shui", it's a real thing for so many people

 

If something is real, it's real whether people are there to believe it or not.  Suppose every person disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow.  Would feng shui still be a real thing?

The guy who installed fiber at my home a few weeks ago used a hammer drill to get through the wall.  Using an iPhone app, I measured the noise at 110 dB, which is about what you'd get in the front row of a rock concert.  Of course no ear protection.  They just don't care.

Last time I went to Big C there were dart boards for sale in the kids toy section.  Why would you need a license to play with a toy that's for sale to kids?

 

23 minutes ago, malt25 said:

Why don't you invite Alex ?

 

Because... just read that post again.

Of course they're not going to tell you the ingredients of the cola syrup, as that's an industry secret.  The rest of the ingredients are pretty mundane - just a sweetener and water.  Strangely there is no mention of either caffeine, acidity regulator (usually phosphoric or citric acid) and no mention of the carbonating agent (usually CO₂).  Perhaps labeling laws are different here and they don't need to list these things.

On 9/19/2018 at 9:52 PM, madusa said:

Don't look like a mosquito trap to me though, is that the right photo you have on?  Sure it is not for BBQ ? I see the gas tank below for the BBQ fire. No, still don't look right for me.

 

It uses a propane tank as a fuel source to generate CO₂, which is a mosquito attractant.  These big ones can have an effective range of an acre or more.  You can use it only outside, of course.

I read that as thirteen baht and fifty satang because of the decimal point in the OP instead of a colon.  

I lived in a house with a fireplace for 20 years and never heard of these.  According to this video they're used for getting the fire started (because split logs don't catch fire that easily).  Why not just use real kindling?  It's not like there's a shortage of sticks and twigs here.

I have trouble finding tasty chicken in Thailand. everything tastes like cardboard.
sure, it's possible to make it juicy, tender and well-spiced, but there is no chicken flavor.
 
although this is a trand in Europe too, it's more and more difficult to find chicken with proper chicken flavor.

I wonder if any of us has considered that it might be our sensory faculties that are in decline. All our senses start to deteriorate as we age.

Unflavored/unseasoned chicken is such a mild meat to begin with. I have found that most of its flavor depends on how it’s processed by the cook.