Are there any questions that are beyond the realm of scientific enquiry?

What happens to us, our personalities, when we die? Everyone's gonna find out but so far we have no idea what it's like when it happens to you.

People in near death experiences often report seeing a tunnel or a light, but as they became really dead, it may be nothing.

Originally posted by Omgu8mynewt
What happens to us, our personalities, when we die? Everyone's gonna find out but so far we have no idea what it's like when it happens to you.

People in near death experiences often report seeing a tunnel or a light, but as they became really dead, it may be nothing.

Please do not confuse NDE with death. They are not the same thing. Death is not an event, but it is a process. Science can study death, and has.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yes. It is ignorant to think that we know everything there is to know about everything or that weknow how or have the tools to measure it.

That's not the question, though.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
mathematicians can define several different forms of infinite. and it doesnt matter whether they can or they can not, there is no evidence for an infinite being so its kind of like saying, logic cant define a square circle, therefore a square circle exists but no1 knows about it. its absurd.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
just because we dont have evidence of something that doesnt mean it doesnt exist. a killer can kill some one but despose of the body and all the evidence.if police doesnt have any evidence does that mean it didnt happen. flawd logic.....🙄

Sure, but there are an infinite number of things we don't have evidence for, do you believe that all of them are real? Odin, Athena, Eru Iluvatar, unicorns, Martian teapots, Superman.

Or we can look at the example you gave. If the police have no evidence of a crime should they be allowed to arrest someone? By those standards everyone would be a criminal a million times over.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
scientist have theorys of many things with no evidence at all

Since "scientists" aren't a monolithic group you'll have to give some specific examples.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
when people thought the world was flat, at the time our techonology had no way to prove it wasnt and no evidence that it was round, in the Far furture our technology maybe can prove an infinit being.

We didn't need technology to prove the world was round. Basic geometry and a few years of patience was all it took.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure, but there are an infinite number of things we don't have evidence for, do you believe that all of them are real? Odin, Athena, Eru Iluvatar, unicorns, Martian teapots, Superman.

Or we can look at the example you gave. If the police have no evidence of a crime should they be allowed to arrest someone? By those standards everyone would be a criminal a million times over.

Since "scientists" aren't a monolithic group you'll have to give some specific examples.

We didn't need technology to prove the world was round. Basic geometry and a few years of patience was all it took.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sure, but there are an infinite number of things we don't have evidence for, do you believe that all of them are real? Odin, Athena, Eru Iluvatar, unicorns, Martian teapots, Superman.

Or we can look at the example you gave. If the police have no evidence of a crime should they be allowed to arrest someone? By those standards everyone would be a criminal a million times over.

We didn't need technology to prove the world was round. Basic geometry and a few years of patience was all it took.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Because something cannot be proven true, it must be false

Do you really believe that everything we cannot prove to be absolutely impossible is real? That seems intensely foolish and wasteful.

Or alternately, if you simply believe that some things we cannot prove to be absolutely impossible are real, why do you think that when there is no good reason to?

Originally posted by One Free Man
Mmmhmmm

You'll have to expand on that incredibly lucid bit of writing.

Originally posted by One Free Man
this isn't technology? or this? How about this?
we didn't walk over there with the shirts off of our backs.

None of those were used to originally demonstrate that the world was round. All it takes is geometry, the ability to travel a few hundred miles and eyes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please do not confuse NDE with death. They are not the same thing. Death is not an event, but it is a process. Science can study death, and has.

But we will never be able to study what the experience of death has on an individual, by which i mean what it is like to happen to you.

You can never prove the nonexistence of something, only its existance.
e.g. loch ness or ghosts, because there isn't much scientific proof for them could just mean they are still waiting to be discovered 😛

Originally posted by Omgu8mynewt
But we will never be able to study what the experience of death has on an individual, by which i mean what it is like to happen to you.

You can never prove the nonexistence of something, only its existance.
e.g. loch ness or ghosts, because there isn't much scientific proof for them could just mean they are still waiting to be discovered 😛

If you mean we can't explain what happens to a soul after death, then you would first have to prove that a soul exists to have an experience.

If there is no evidence that something exists other then eye witness accounts, then a reasonable investigation should be made. If that investigation turns out to be negative, then any further investigation would be a waist of time. Until evidence is brought forward, it is reasonable to assume that the "thing" (Loch Ness, ghosts, gods or whatever) is not real.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you really believe that everything we cannot prove to be absolutely impossible is real? That seems intensely foolish and wasteful.

Or alternately, if you simply believe that some things we cannot prove to be absolutely impossible are real, why do you think that when there is no good reason to?

None of those were used to originally demonstrate that the world was round. All it takes is geometry, the ability to travel a few hundred miles and eyes.

Originally posted by One Free Man
No, you are ad hominem ing at this point. If you can't prove it isn't real and you can't prove it is real, there is no evidence either way. To say something doesn't exist because there is no accessible proof, is a logical fallacy. Master chief can not be proved to exist or not to exist. It doesn't mean I believe that he exists.

No I'm not. There's no good reason to believe in something if you can't come up with a good reason to believe it exists. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by One Free Man
click the link. you are begging the question.

Naming logical fallacies is not a proper form of debate, you have to actually explain how the other person has made a logical error.

For example.

Originally posted by One Free Man
Actually, these little pieces of technology were used before anyone would legitimately believe the world was round.

Irrelevant, the Greeks demonstrated that the world was round without needing to use them. Science is cool like that, it lets us make reasonable predictions before there is absolute proof (and there's no such thing as absolute proof

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No I'm not. There's no good reason to believe in something if you can't come up with a good reason to believe it exists. Plain and simple.

I did click the link. Naming logical fallacies is not a proper form of debate, you have to actually explain how the other person has made a logical error.

Irrelevant, the Greeks demonstrated that the world was round without needing to use them.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
you my friend is simple minded, your exactly what the link calls absurd....

🙄

If you want to go around believing things without evidence, go ahead. Just don't claim that it's somehow logical just because you want people to prove a negative.

Or let me put it another way: being open minded is good, just don't be so open minded that your brain falls out

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No I'm not. There's no good reason to believe in something if you can't come up with a good reason to believe it exists. Plain and simple.

Irrelevant, the Greeks demonstrated that the world was round without needing to use them. Science is cool like that, it lets us make reasonable predictions before there is absolute proof (and there's no such thing as absolute proof

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
your brain falls out

Originally posted by One Free Man
Hopefully people will learn from your mistake.

Was this necessary?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Naming logical fallacies is not a proper form of debate, you have to actually explain how the other person has made a logical error.

No you don't. Just calling someone on their b.s. is enough to do just that: call their b.s.

Nothing else is required at all. It is up to the other person to either ask "how am I committing x" or "how does that qualify as x", or, the accused has to say why their point was not that logical fallacy.

This does not apply, of course, if the accuser is being a retard and just throwing logical fallacy accusations left and right. In which case, the fool is to be ignored and you facepalm.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No you don't. Just calling someone on their b.s. is enough to do just that: call their b.s.

Nothing else is required at all. It is up to the other person to either ask "how am I committing x" or "how does that qualify as x", or, the accused has to say why their point was not that logical fallacy.

This does not apply, of course, if the accuser is being a retard and just throwing logical fallacy accusations left and right. In which case, the fool is to be ignored and you facepalm.

The scientists thinking that they're too intelligent, assumed they didn't need God anymore. One scientist said, "God, we don't need you anymore. We're already as intelligent as you are. We know how to create a man. See, we can clone humans." So God said, "Verily, let's have a man-making contest. Let's do it the way I did Adam." The scientist agreed then he started to pick up some dust but God told him,
"No. You make your own dust."

hmm