Phi for All

And in the 14th century Occam's Razor told us that the simplest explanation for untreatable illnesses was bad humours and elements. Newton's laws were unborn and the simplest explanations often involved things assumed to be outside of known science.

It was his Donny Yen, right? I thought the same thing, Sev, that his Donny Yen could have been a lot stronger.

Orbiting is not floating aimlessly; while not physically connected by matter, earth's orbit is affected by forces which connect a process of orbiting. Are you using the word "caliber" to mean quality or size? Do you mean organized as in the periodic table of elements? Electro-magnets have electricity running through them; permanent magnets do not. Lightning strikes in sandy ground can produce fulgurites, fused tubes of sand and rock that mark the lightning's path. This does not give us electricity from metals, however, nor is it how a lodestone gets its magnetism. I sense the holes are important to your thesis but I don't understand why. The shininess of metals is a reflective quality, whereas a sun (or star) shines due to burning gases. Give some examples of the sun controlling our thoughts, please. Explain, please. Give examples of "something", please. Debatable. Our world is actually the most prominent "thing" in our world. Sol is the most prominent star in our world. Please take a deep breath and restate your idea. Use shorter sentences and more punctuation if you can. Define some of the more vague parts ("something", "metal") and remember to give us some reasoning behind your ideas. It helps if you are using your ideas to explain why a certain action takes place.

Was docbill the guy who turned out to be a total fraud after a bunch of posts touting his qualifications? I seem to remember something about him plagiarizing a lot and then getting found out....

You mean I have to hit that hole behind where you're standing?! I used to bullseye wamp-rats in my T-16 and they're not much bigger than 2 meters.

This is possible with design patents. Change enough of the design and you've got a completely different patentable product. Design patents aren't worth much in situations like the ones we're describing. Utility patents are different. They must have many features which make the device unique. Searching for and understanding how a device works may be worthless if you can't change the points on which the utility patent was issued. Most of the time a good utility patent will make it impossible to copy the device without making it worthless in the process. The law sees no difference between a patent and any other property, you're right there. This would need to be addressed before any changes in patent law can occur. Intent is the key, imo. Suppression should not be part of what the patent office helps inventors do. An improved battery that would limit our dependence on foreign oil and improve our energy infrastructure? Not such a stretch really. It could even seem like it was in the interest of national security to some. A special provision in the patent laws seems necessary, one which preserves the rights of the inventor while making it impossible for a company with the resources to suppress or shelve technology just to protect an investment. Let everyone protect their investments through competition and ingenuity, not by suppressing competition and ingenuity.

If you mean the temperature of space with no influence from planetary matter, I believe it's just under 3 degrees Kelvin. There's always some background radiation giving some warmth.

Patience finds it's greatest rewards in punch-lines like this one. Priceless.

I have a theory about john5746 and some missing corn squeezins. Does that song have a tune, btw? It is kinda catchy.

So science can explain natural phenomena but should remain skeptical about anything claiming to be supernatural. Lack of proof isn't proof of lack. Science is certain that there is nothing supernatural because there will eventually be a natural explanation for everything. So why such atheistic adamancy that there can't be a power we can't detect currently? Perhaps God merely manipulates the Higgs boson in ways we can't figure out right now. That would make It *seem* omnipotent but give It a natural explanation, one we may soon be able to observe scientifically for the first time in history.

Come on, you know that's not the purpose of this thread. That way lies thread closure. The fact is there are a lot of people who have faith in something heretofore unobserved, and there are a lot of people who say if you can't observe it it's not there. They both exist and neither group seems inclined to just go away, and neither group is likely to influence the other with fundamentalist arguments.

Equivocation. The OP was very broad, but I narrowed it down many times to just the subject of an inherently unobservable supernatural deity being observed by scientific methods. Addressing individual claims is definitely within the purview of science. These are supposed *effects* attributed to the presence of higher powers that are themselves unobservable otherwise. You know that's not what I'm talking about. Science will either explain such effects naturally, or failing in that, will simply say we don't have a natural explanation *yet*. Science will never say that such unexplainable phenomena *might* be caused by supernatural means. That is what religion is asking of science and science will never give them that. Similarly, many religions have a death grip on the idea of omnipotence to explain why natural physics can be suspended in the presence of their god. Until they can admit that it's possible their god simply uses natural laws in ways that only *seem* omnipotent to us, they will never be able to interact favorably with science. I'm merely trying to give both sides a playing field that isn't pre-stacked against either side. To me, saying there is no god and saying a god is above its own laws are fundamentalist and extremist views. Both deny the other's POV on those fundamental levels and there will never be any meaningful discussion as long as they both are ensconced in their unassailable towers of logic and faith.

Just remember that life isn't *all* studying and modeling. Take some personal growth time for yourself as well. May be you can cut back on SFN instead of giving it up altogether. Best of luck. It's not goodbye, it's goodbye for now.

So it's a strawman. I've been pretty clear that I'm talking about using scientific methodology to prove/disprove God (isn't that what you attempt to do when you ask for proof of religious claims?). Undocumented, unpredictable claims and feelings will not pass peer review. I was going to respond methodically but let's just cut to the chase. If you use science as an argument against religion, religion can't give an answer acceptable to science. If religion uses an omnipotent deity as an argument against science, science can't give an answer acceptable to religion. I just think there will always be an impasse there, one you can't bridge in a meaningful way to both sides, if both sides don't agree to at least drop this circular process. Can't science admit there's a *slight* possibility there is more than can be observed with our current capabilities? Can't religion admit that God doesn't have to defy His own physics to be considered a higher power?

First off, shame on you for using the bible as a scientific reference. Booooo! Since you opened the door though, I believe many religions declare, in their various texts, that their god has chosen not to reveal Himself until a chosen time, or that He has chosen an earthly entity through which He'll reveal His wishes, or encourages faith in His existence even though you'll never actually see Him in this lifetime. Next, point me to those instances of revelations and miracles that let us scientifically observe God. Remember they must be testable and capable of making predictions. Which supernatural aspects have been proven scientifically? I keep waiting and I've gotten nothing. The atheistic POV usually wants scientific proof. The religious POV often uses a deity's supernatural powers to change natural laws. Both PsOV are requiring something the other is incapable of giving. There is no "proof" of God. Additionally, science can't measure a force that can change natural laws at will. Science shouldn't be used either for or against religion.

Well, granting immunity is what would stop it. And coincidentally, it wouldn't give any evidence of further wrong-doing by the government a decent chance of being discovered by investigation either.

izzasector, if you wish to revive this thread, please repost it with your idea attached. No more emails, please. We don't know you, don't trust you with our addresses, chemistry is involved, you get the picture. Waited 10 days for you to reply with your concept, thread closed.

Some perhaps, but not by all on either side, and no scientific "law" applies to a being which is, by definition and alleged choice, unobservable by scientific methods. I agree, it is illogical to apply science to a God who requires only faith in His existence and therefore refuses to be observed. It is also illogical to argue that an omnipotent higher power can change scientific "laws" at his whim. Pure science is a poor tool for measuring faith, and faith alone is equally ill-suited to treat with science.

If it's a position on a subject science is not equipped to measure, why would it be right?

I think the culprit here is the term "conspiracy theory". It's a nasty, vicious meme that has simultaneously discredited legitimate concerns over many questionable actions made by those in powerful positions *and* scientific methodology. Now whenever anyone uses the term "theory" you can hear the quotes around it even if you can't see the four-finger gesture.

I don't expect proof of the supernatural. Many things used to be supernatural until our observations became sophisticated enough to realize they were natural all along. Science tells me there are things that exist I can't observe, and dimensions I can't even imagine. I think the limit is with me and my senses. I don't argue that a previously unobserved higher power exists, but I'm open to the possibility. Very skeptical, but open. I learned that here at SFN, that scientific skepticism. That, and never, never, NEVER use absolutes.

You're too kind, sir. You know I love it!

I get very tired of having my concerns about mega-corporations being dismissed as class envy or leftist liberal ranting. I have been in business longer than some of you have been alive, and I see the kind of stranglehold a free market suffers when these giants border on monopoly and suppress the ability of smaller competitors unfairly with their political and financial clout. And they were getting very good at spin-doctoring the news even before Clinton allowed them to own more of the media. Poor, working class Americans wouldn't have been in a position to violate their clients' trust in this fashion (or at least I can't imagine such a situation). But if this was the ACLU or NAACP that had broken their agreement with their clients to comply with a questionable government request I'd want them to feel the consequences of any legal misdeeds as well. And I'd scream bloody murder if any president wanted to grant them immunity retroactively.

Remember that atheistic arguments are part of this topic too.

Then let's narrow the field. Does anyone think arguments relating to the supernatural should include natural scientific measurements? Remember that Creationism is a special case; it attempts to invalidate accepted science and replace it with a variable physics manipulated by God.