Bonky

Nonbeliever
  • Content count

    511
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

600 Excellent

3 Followers

About Bonky

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,378 profile views
  1. From the article: If you want exact details then I'm sure you can research that. I feel that I'm showing that those two collaborated and Planck indeed supported GR. If you can find false statements go ahead. Until then instead of just rejecting the source because it's a wiki article...how about reading it? Especially the parts that talk about Planck supporting Einstein and GR.
  2. Taken from http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_planck.html You can also read about Planck's involvement here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity I'd have to read the context of the quote to get a better understanding of what he meant by "faith". I don't know that I care enough though to actually look it up.
  3. Planck not only embraced Einstiens theory of relativity he also contributed to it. Planck dealt with quantum mechanics and theoretical physics....stuff you refer to as hogwash right? Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. Planck didn't believe in miracles...I think he was more of a Deist than a Theist I guess. Faith in what?
  4. I wouldn't suggest that he's lying. He was a religious man making a religious statement, is it all that surprising? I find it odd that you think so highly of Planck but you scoff at Einstein. Are you favoring Planck merely because he was a man of faith? "The faith in miracles must yield, step by step, before the steady and firm advance of the facts of science, and its total defeat is undoubtedly a matter of time." - Max Planck
  5. I don't care about how stern the opinion is, I care about whether it's true.
  6. It mentioned the fact that he was a nobel prize winning physicist, so to some degree there's an attempt to draw attention to the credentials of the scientist. You quoted it as if it was a known fact when it sounded like an opinion to me.
  7. As long as it's not an appeal to authority.
  8. In the many debates I've listened to over the years, the participants often clarify how they are using certain words. If you're not talking about the same thing you end up going in circles. There's nothing wrong with clarifying. I'm not interested in micro analyzing the definition of "supernatural". Context does too, but you have to be sharp enough to catch it.
  9. Well if Max Planck says this then that must be the case because right?
  10. Ok but what's the point, we [or at least I] am not using supernatural in that context. I look up the term in google and the definition I was going for is exactly what I get: adjective 1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. "a supernatural being" synonyms: paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman, supernormal; More noun 1. manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin, such as ghosts. You mean "science" isn't a person!?!? I thought it was obvious I'm referring to scientific investigation which is generally done by trained scientists. It almost seems as though you purposely take terms the wrong way. This isn't how I was using the term. Earlier in this discussion I mentioned "demons, angels and ghosts". That should make it clear how I'm using the term.
  11. Ok but do you think that kind of faith is a good method for finding truth? We can empirically and objective say "no". The evidence? The 400 bazillion different views of the afterlife, heaven, hell, God etc that are often incompatible. We live in a world with so many competing views about things we can't possibly double check or confirm, to have such massive consequences hang in the balance and purposely hide evidence seems cruel.
  12. I'm referring to the supernatural, not the material world. Science can investigate the material world but how do we investigate a supernatural one? So if X allegedly exists but we cannot investigate or detect X then X is similar to something that doesn't actually exist. That isn't to argue X doesn't exist, but we can't tell the difference.
  13. I absolutely agree...the big difference is that we actually discovered Pluto. What demon, angel or ghost did we discover?
  14. All the extra stuff is what is hard to navigate. What is fact, what is fiction? If you can't detect X, then X is indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.
  15. I find the experiment to be flawed I guess. I mean if someone deeply loves their girlfriend/wife then I would expect that they would take the burden and keep them and take care of them. If the relationship was rocky or not much deeper than skin deep then I could see the man moving on perhaps. Let's say he chose the latter, it's not like this woman just sits in a wheelchair and eventually dies. She would...or should have family and/or government assistance. There are plenty of people that live in wheelchairs and they're not suffering. Interesting this is in America we have this waging war on healthcare and whether it's a right or not. If you were to poll those who thought healthcare isn't a right and are upset their taxes are going to pay for "other people's problem", which party do you think they would fall under? I'd bet money it's the same party that focuses on "family values" and a strong belief in God. I don't mean to politicize the issue but the moral example talks about a health issue so I thought it was an interesting side point.