Who needs bombs?

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

Crissa wrote:
Because...

I hope this isn't another alternate-reality like 'democrats are the same as republicans'.

*sigh*

-Crissa


I'm highly sedated now, so I don't get angry like I used to. But do you realize that you come off as extremely rude when someone disagrees with you?

I will be more than happy to explain my opinions in great detail, and I will do so politely. But you need to ask politely, and not insinuate that I'm stupid, or that I'm insane, or that I'm somehow inferior to you because I don't think liek you.

Can you do that for me, Crissa? I would like to end the days of me being mean to people online needlessly, and that means I simply won't talk to people that are trying to provoke me.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1158857644[/unixtime]]There is nothing supernatural, nor isit possible for there to be any. If something existed, it would by definition by natural. The fact that we don't know that something exists doesn't make it supernatural. There is nothing supernatural about the coelacanth, nor was there when modern science had seen them only in ancient fossil records.

There is no magic, only physics. Whatever capabilities any creatures have, they are a result of the physics which actually govern our universe, even if those rules aren't what we think they are.

The attheist point of view, therefore, is necessarily true. Even if the wood spirits that the Shinto light candles to are real, they aren't supernatural. The atheist stance is logically proven even if one or more religions is telling the truth.

Infinite power is logically impossible. It's not just that such a thing doesn't exist, it's that it literally doesn't make any sense to even consider the option of its existence. Can an infinitely powerful being create a rock so big it can't lift it? Since the answers of yes and no imply a limit to its power, the claim of infinite power is itself ridiculous.

The monotheists therefore, are lying to you. Even if their god is real, the stories they tell about it are false. Their core belief is something that it doesn't make any sense to believe. Their stories are contradictory. You don't have to do any scientific research to disprove their sermons - they are false on first principles alone. The monotheists are seriously demanding that their believers accept A and ~A.

It's just like 1984, once you accept that 2 + 2 = 5, you'll accept anything. We've always been at war with Oceania. Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. Monotheism is able to rally people to do horrible things to innocent people so easily because it starts by getting people to believe a contradiction.

Polytheist beliefs are unlikely. I do not think that lightning bolts are in any way mediated by invisible dudes that live on a decently large mountain in Greece. It's not impossible, it's just stupid and I have no reason to believe it. Monotheism is logically impossible. The falseness of their stories is trivially easy to prove with certainty.

And the truth of Atheism is itself obvious. It's easy to prove, because the claims about the world that it makes are so modest. Everything that exists, exists. Holy shit! That's a tautology, no wonder it's so amazingly obvious that it's true.

-Username17


Frank, you explained your view politely, so I'll share mine politely as well.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm inclined to believe you, I've come to the conclusion myself that religion tends to be illogical and contradictory.

But, does that give us both the right to lord it over others?

Does that mean that we need to force it right down everyone's throats?

Do you like it when people shove the judeo-christian god down your throat? That's how religious people feel when an atheist is going off on them.

Maybe it's the antipsychotics I've been taking lately, but I lately don't feel that being "right" gives you the privilege to force people to think like you. (Yeah, it feels weird seeing myself type that, they must have me doped up higher than I thought. But it does keep me from going off on people for no reason, which is a good thing.)

That is my stance. An agressive, overly zealous person is the same from my point of view whether they are pushing God, Allah, Krishna, Voodoo man, or that dopey atom thing that Atheists have on their tombstones. (Could we please pick something that DOESN'T look like the person symbol of a James Bond villain?)

I just want to live my life without people insisting I join their cause, and if it wasn't for my wife and the debt she insisted we accrue because she wanted a house, I would be out in the woods somewhere living a feral existance. Which would be pretty cool, but the old lady doesn't much care for it.

I've got my own battles to fight. I don't want other people's.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Crissa »

Yes, I come off rude when people disregard things - like the sky being blue on a sunny day.

I can be very polite.

...But not when people attribute non-facts to groups of which I associate with.

Other people call those 'insults'.

-Crissa

PS: Yay for modern pharmacology! Many great minds were lost in the past when we didn't have such things.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

Well, then I apologize, as it wasn't my intention to insult you.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Crissa »

Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1158958728[/unixtime]]Well, then I apologize, as it wasn't my intention to insult you.

I didn't think so. Which is why I don't take it personally.

Yeah; my spouse, I, and Frank can come off as seemingly superior for choosing not to look up to a mystical sky leprechaun.

But on the other hand, we don't hold any power over other people, and even when we do, we don't hold illogical 'faith' against someone unless it specifically gets in the way of a task.

-Crissa
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

Yeah, I'm about as guilty when it comes to sounding like a jerk too.

But I'm working on it.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
Draco_Argentum
Duke
Posts: 2434
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Draco_Argentum »

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1158939285[/unixtime]]

No it would also have to be able to get it back, so the power is never relinquishable, simply voluntarily not used. Christian philosophers have tried to come up with an actual answer as to why their faith isn't a set of intractible contradictions for two thousand years and failed miserably. I doubt that we're going to see the breakthrough here on a message board.


The getting it back part isn't necessary. If you voluntarily stop being omnipotent you don't have to be able to get it back since you are no longer defined as 'able to do anything'.

Thats all fine and dandy for a logical arguement, I'm going to guess that since it involves god being less cool and not being able to get it back its not very palatable to theists. Still, I do realise that me solving the big rock conundrum on a messageboard means I'm either smarter than I think I am* or I'm missing something.

*Hint: I think I'm really smart. ;)
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

I can make a rock too heavy for me to lift. Does that count for anything?
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Username17 »

Count wrote:I would like to end the days of me being mean to people online needlessly


Who are you, and what have you done with Count Arioch?

Count wrote:
But, does that give us both the right to lord it over others?

Does that mean that we need to force it right down everyone's throats?


Of course it is. In fact, it's not simply OK, it is a moral imperative that we do so.

Unlike religions, which claim to give perfectly knowable Truth, science makes the much more modest claim of giving us a "best guess" given the results of our investigations. A month from now, some of the ideas I currently accept will be (at least seemingly) disproven, and I shall adjust my beliefs accordingly. Religions don't do that, and that makes them bad. Bad for people, bad for the world.

See, there are ideas that are good for people, and ideas hat are bad for people. It is the clear intention of science to critically consider all of our ideas and throw out the ones that cause us harm. Religions do not. They not only persist in believing ideas that harm us, they actively spread those beliefs to others.

Whether it is the 7th Day Adventist refusal to admit vaccines into their body (an act which jeopardizes the health of every man, woman, and child on Earth and almost guarantees the creation of a steady reserve of powerfully antibiotic resistant diseases in the future that shall someday cause plagues that will lay waste to continents), the Islamic refusal to allow Law to move forward into the eleventh century, or the fundamental Christian tenet that you can get away with anything by committing a ritual blood drinking ceremony properly – these religions have ideas that harm us as a people and boththe religion as a whole and the brainwashed adherents thereof refuse to critically examine them or assist in their removal.


We do ourselves no favors by pretending that ideas are of equal merit. Just as not every position is of equal merit in a game, it is equally true that believing in giant sky hands simply is not as efficacious as believing in The Germ Theory of Disease, Evolution, Electrodynamics, or the Water Cycle. Allowing people to persist in believing that electricity is made in plugs is doing them no favors. It's dangerous to have people living in modern society that don't understand how electricity is produced and conducted into their homes. And it's dangerous to have people believe in "souls" that they can't detect, because sometimes those people decide to pull an Eric Rudolph and kill people in an attempt to protect those undetectable things that they have decided reside… wherever they decide those things reside.

Belief in things that does not make sense is bad. For everyone. And you are failing those around you, yourself, and future generations by not doing your part to make the world better.

Tolerance is a virtue of sorts, but ideas also evolve. People die, and the knowledge they carry dies with them. But knowledge can also be passed down from person to person. It's even better than DNA, because you can pass knowledge to your brother, or your fifth cousin, or someone whose last common ancestor with you lived thirty thousand years ago in Africa. But if you don't pass it on, other ideas will take their place. Stupid, dangerous, intolerant ideas. By allowing people to believe whatever they want, you are really simply allowing harm to fester and grow.

If you don't tell people, show people how condoms work, the Catholic Church will claim that they spread AIDS and that Africans shouldn't use them (killing tens of millions of people). If you don't show people how water sanitization works, Muslims will fill that void with the idea that all disease is the Will of Allah and people will drink water exposed to their own waste and Cholera will spread in Pakistan (killing thousands each time).

Stopping these hurtful ideas from spreading themselves is not something that you have to even contemplate whether it is your "right" to do. No, the question you should ask yourself is whether you can live with yourself if you fail to do your part in abolishing this madness.

The Age of Reason has broken through generations of faithfulness because it works. The Islamic societies have failed utterly. The Christian theocracies have likewise failed. They have failed their people and they will nonetheless try to spread their poison to us. Even now there are movements to tear down our achievements and replace them with darkness and witch hunts. And these could succeed. Iran was overthrown by a socialist movement in the 70s and they were in turn overthrown by Islamic Fundies with guns from Ronald Reagan. The Christians are so afraid of our godlessness that they will promote repressive regimes that threaten to destroy the world will the holocaust of nuclear war. They've done it before, they'll do it again.

No, you do not have the right to spread scientific ideals and shed light into the hypocrisy and madness of the religious zealots. You have the obligation to do so. Can you face the future generations and tell them that you sat idly by while the forces of irrationality brought back stoning and beheading? Will you be able to lift your head when you tell them that torture was brought back into war and you did nothing?

-Username17
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Crissa »

"The point of anti-terrorist policies is to reduce terror, not just look tough.

Yeah, he says the same thing, but with links to the nytimes and details that the Administration and House are lying, again.

-Crissa
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by User3 »

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1158857644[/unixtime]]There is nothing supernatural, nor isit possible for there to be any. If something existed, it would by definition by natural. The fact that we don't know that something exists doesn't make it supernatural.

* * *

And the truth of Atheism is itself obvious. It's easy to prove, because the claims about the world that it makes are so modest. Everything that exists, exists. Holy shit! That's a tautology, no wonder it's so amazingly obvious that it's true.

-Username17


Well, think on this, though. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's "natural". These are terms that can get confused becuase they have specific meanings when you're talking about religion and gods and stuff.

The supernatural are those things that can't be explained by science, those things that aren't explainable by replicable experiments. Generally for atheists, the supernatural quite literally doesn't exist. For example, Jesus being resurrected is supernatural. If it happened, it has no natural explanation. So, Atheists by and large either say it didn't happen, or say it happened but Jesus was in some suspended animation state, or pretended, or or was an alien. Or something. In other words, they have a "natural" explanation for the phenomemon.

If, on the other hand, you believe the hand of god reached out from a spiritual dimension and restored Jesus to life, you believe in the supernatural. This can not be replicated. It is not scientific, not "natural." It literally refers to something that is outside of nature.

("Dimensions" mean different things for religion than they do in science. In science, a dimension means roughly a plane at right angles to another plane. In religions, dimension means roughly another state of being, like D&D pretty much.)

There's a lot of different ways to get here. Any natural thing has causes and effects. Something caused it, and it has effects (Big Bang a possible exception). A supernatural thing has no cause. God's hand? Nothing causes that to come out of heaven to resurrect Jesus, it just happens.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Crissa »

For example, Jesus being resurrected is supernatural. If it happened, it has no natural explanation.

No, if it happened, then it must be explainable.

According to the bible, he was declared dead long before he was expected to die; perhaps he fell into a deep coma, or he had a supporter who declared him dead early, or he was spirited out of the cave, etc, etc.

If it happened, it's explainable. Maybe I don't know the explaination: That doesn't make it magic.

-Crissa
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Username17 »

The supernatural are those things that can't be explained by science


Fine. Then there's nothing supernatural, nor can there be.

Science is descriptive. Whatever happens, science is ready to accept it, that's the whole point. If something dies and comes back from the dead, scientific theories get modified to take that into account.

Death, for example, used to be defined by the stoppage of the heart. CPR made that definition pointless because so many people could be brought back to life after their heart stopped, and science has changed the definition of death so that many people who were "dead" according to the definitions used in the past are merely in critical condition.

Even the current definitions of death (cessation of neural function) are potentially reversable within a short time frame (usually less than 6 minutes, but almost always under ten minutes). And if we find that even that definition of death is skirtable on too regular a basis we'll jolly well make new definition.

Science can explain anything, because it only has theories. If the sky turned red tomorrow, scientists would begin coming up with theories for why that happened immediately, and when they found one that fit the data well enough they'd stick to it until new data or a new theory made another theory look better.

It's literally impossible for something to be outside of science. Science is everything everywhere. By definition. That's how it works.

And it does work. You can turn on a light switch and be pretty sure that light is going to come out. It doesn't always, but science has explanations for that too.

If something happened, or will happen, or could happen, there's a scientific explanation for it. Even, perhaps especially if it doesn't fit with the theories we currently use, there's still a scientific explanation for it. A scientist can be wrong. Science can't be, because the only claim it ever makes is that "At the moment, our best guess as to what happens and why it happens is...."

-Username17
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by User3 »

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1159303420[/unixtime]]
Even the current definitions of death (cessation of neural function) are potentially reversable within a short time frame (usually less than 6 minutes, but almost always under ten minutes).


It's possible to resuscitate at least 6 hours after cessation of neural function. Give someone a fuckload of heroin, drain out their blood, and replace it with 33 Deg. F. saline. It's only been done with dogs (something about "unethical" human research), but there is no reason it wouldn't work. It's theoretically possible to keep a person in the fridge like that until they start to mold.

So the definition of death may, as you say, soon change again. And that isn't even touching on "mind uploading."
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Crissa »

An article about an interview with a Republican administration Judicial appointee who crossed the religion crowd recently...

-Crissa
Tokorona
Journeyman
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Tokorona »

Yeah, the REpublican Party has become radicalized, and it's sad. The current Republican party no longer even reflects the Republican ideal... it's just... I don't know what to say about it.

In related news, they managed to suspend habeas corpus for "enemy combatants". Hopefully the ACLU will sue.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by User3 »

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1159303420[/unixtime]]
The supernatural are those things that can't be explained by science


Fine. Then there's nothing supernatural, nor can there be.

Science is descriptive. Whatever happens, science is ready to accept it, that's the whole point. If something dies and comes back from the dead, scientific theories get modified to take that into account.


No. Science isn't descriptive, it's predictive. Science can only describe things that are repeatable and therefore predictable. Replication is science. If something can't be replicated, science doesn't take it into account. That's what seperates bullshit from science.

You're only talking about one part of the scientific method - hypothesis. Of course it could be "described" in a non-scientific sense. If a person, dead for 3 days, came back to life, we have the raw language to describe it. But we don't have the scientific language to describe it.

It's really pretty simple. Natural, scientific theory says that people who die stay dead. End of story. Now Jesus gets resurrected in 3 days. Blam, out of the blue - no tricks, no aliens, no nothing. So you have a theory. Let's call it "Spontaneous Biological Rebirth." You get lots of math and diagrams and stuff. But how do you test it? You could kill off a thousand people and never see another resurrection. In fact, you do.

If "natural" means only that you can make up a theory that explains it, "natural" has no meaning, not "supernatural.
Tokorona
Journeyman
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Tokorona »

And yes, it's descriptive in that it describes things that can be predicted to occur with accuracy. In short, PK and other theories are psuedoscience because they cannot be predicted and are clearly not anything extra.

Martin Gardner and James Randi state this rather clearly in ("Fads and Fallacies About Science", "Science: Good,Bad and Bogus.", "Flim-Flam!") that just because it can be described to happen doesn't mean it happens according to a new scientific law, that it must be repetable and explainable.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Crissa »

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1159575632[/unixtime]]If a person, dead for 3 days, came back to life, we have the raw language to describe it. But we don't have the scientific language to describe it.

It's really pretty simple. Natural, scientific theory says that people who die stay dead. End of story. Now Jesus gets resurrected in 3 days. Blam, out of the blue - no tricks, no aliens, no nothing. So you have a theory. Let's call it "Spontaneous Biological Rebirth." You get lots of math and diagrams and stuff. But how do you test it? You could kill off a thousand people and never see another resurrection. In fact, you do.

Sure.

And I'm sure you're not done being distracting from anything happening in the last two millenia, but our description of 'dead' is alot more descriptive than people a couple thousand years ago.

There's only a handful of cases in the US of humans being consumed in fire which did not spread past their bodies, either. But just because we can't replicate it (or want to), that doesn't make it supernatural.

That's why every scientist believes in "UFOs" and "Life outside of the Earth" - because to not believe in things which have insufficient data or that are highly improbable to be false is foolish. That's Every Scientist - and of course, they similarly don't believe we've been visited by intelligent aliens.

But those of us in the reality community have things to worry about in the here and now... Like our country falling down the slippery slope leading to authoritarianism.

-Crissa
Tokorona
Journeyman
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Tokorona »

That's why every scientist believes in "UFOs" and "Life outside of the Earth" - because to not believe in things which have insufficient data or that are highly improbable to be false is foolish. That's Every Scientist - and of course, they similarly don't believe we've been visited by intelligent aliens.


No scientist believes anything. A scientist will say that x is correct becaue the order of likeablity is extremely high. (as a note, most mainstream scientists belive that IT IS POSSIBLE. but hasn'thappend and isn't likely.)




And no, you are not the reality community. While we are sliding downt he slope, we have done so since 1939 - this is merely the latest step. Not all things are politics.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by User3 »

Tokorona at [unixtime wrote:1159630090[/unixtime]]
No scientist believes anything.


Every scientist I know believes in Science ("Scientific Method"). This includes me, my girlfriend, my parents, my grandfather, and a number of friends and others. It's a rational belief, but not a scientific one.

But yes, science as I know it is predictive. It can be descriptive when it has to, but that's more a function of the language of science and natural philosophy. The great thing about science, though, is when it's predictions are wrong it is supposed to revise them. That's why we have Einstein's Relativity instead of Brahe's astronomy, and Pasteur's biochemistry instead of Spontanious Generation.

The problem with Jesus' Resurrection is it is only possible to examine it through literary surveys (of the Bible & Gospels) and Archaeology. This can shed light on a lot of interesting cultural issues, but it doesn't help at all to determine whether whatever really happened was explainable by current science.

It is possible to study methods of 'resurrection,' and use those to model possible ways in which The Resurrection as detailed in The Bible could have happened. But who really cares? The Bible is just another best selling work of fiction. It would be a waste of time to test various methods of wand construction and ways to say "Expeleramus!" to see if Harry Potter is scientifically true.

The difference between Harry Potter and The Bible is Harry Potter gives insight into our current culture, while The Bible gives insight into the cultures of herdsmen inhabiting south eastern Africa through western India thousands of years ago, Roman politics, and specific areas and events in north east Africa and the Middle East.
You have to take both works with a grain of salt if you want to use them to understand the past (or present). There is a London, but there is no Hogwarts. This only gets harder with the passage of time.

Anyway, I seem to be rambling on, so I'll stop. By the way, does anyone know if Led Zepplein is neoNAZI?
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Crissa »

I recently saw a movie which showed people speaking in tongues and performing rituals and idolatry praying for the power of Jesus to keep their electricity on and Power Point running.

...Instead of, ya know, actually performing any maintainence on their building.

http://JesusCampthemovie.com/

-Crissa
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by User3 »

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1158959764[/unixtime]]
Yeah, my spouse, Frank


Congrats you two! We always knew you two kids would get together someday.

I'm very tired, and this has been my misread of the day.
User avatar
Crissa
King
Posts: 6720
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Santa Cruz

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by Crissa »

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1160118083[/unixtime]]
Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1158959764[/unixtime]]Yeah, my spouse, Frank

Congrats you two! We always knew you two kids would get together someday.

Bah, English.

List reordered to be less ... whatever that is.

Oh, hey, did you hear? "....The intelligence source said the alleged plot [to use liquids in transatlantic airliners] had not been at the advanced planning stage."

Also, there's a scoop on the no-fly list contents via 60 Minutes.

Heh.

-Crissa
RandomCasualty
Prince
Posts: 3506
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Who needs bombs?

Post by RandomCasualty »

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1159303420[/unixtime]]
It's literally impossible for something to be outside of science. Science is everything everywhere. By definition. That's how it works.


Well, no, things can be beyond modern science. It doesn't mean that we'll never explain them, it just means that we can't adequately explain them right now. Science is about the creation of theories that actually work and are testable. If you can't prove the theory, then it's not science.

Lightning storms are created by Zeus is a theory, but it's not science, because you can't actually test it.

Science has to do with explaining the unexplainable. Everything that we can't explain scientifically is termed supernatural. There was a time that lightning storms were supernatural, though obviously they are no longer that way. Still, there are many events which have yet to be explained scientifically.
Post Reply