"If someone is at risk of killing civilians of their own country, or serving men of mine,"

Did you even read what i wrote, you are killing civilians, generally when you kill people their families don't like it, so they resist, when they do this you call them terrorists, what would you do if flying drones were sending missiles into your town, would you say oh it serves us right for not bending over and taking that big US dick up our ass when the they decided they were going to invade our country.

"Their personal finances are irrelevant."

Actually the opposite is true, the fact is if your finances were equal you would be able invade their country and kill them cause they'd have the money to defend themselves, you have no idea what your taking about, tunr back whatever propaganda you watch, im sure it will tell you how to feel and think about this exchange cause your clearly incapable of doing so yourself.

" but I am adamant that humans are not responsible, it is just the natural cycle of the earth."

And what exactly are you basing that opinion on?

"First of all, correct punctuation and capitalization makes reading your arguments much easier."

No offense friend but i don't need your advice, i like to write my arguments in a frenzy of typing that i rearly check and that ain't changin any time soon, so if you don't like don't read it.

"Secondly, there needs to be a legitimate amount of evidence in support of global warming for there to be any changes at all to the United States' infrastructure. "

What are you even trying to say here?

"The fact is, America is in a horrible place right now."

I think some fo the coutnries you have destroyed by warfare both military and economic are much wrose places to be.

" The last thing we need is to be paying way too much for light bulbs and who knows what else"

Listen my friend i hold two masters degrees in engineering, and one is in sustainable energy engineering you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

" Even if global warming is true, why is it such a huge problem"

Again a clear demonstration that you have absolutely no idea what your talking about.

"We as humans are incredible at adapting to different environments"

Really try going to Dehli in the summer when it approaches 52 degrees celsius, see how adaptable you are to that, then try to picture it 4 degress hotter.

If your saying you don't mind 5 or billion peoepl dying during the process of adpatation fair enough.

"And also, the burden of proof lies with those who claim there is global warming"

Ya thats why there is an unending supply of evidence that prioves it, please stop trying to debate on an issue you clearly no nothing about.

"The ones that think it doesn't exist don't have to prove anything"

Do you spread this kind of vile misinformation often?

You should read into Gaia theory proposed by the scientist James Lovelock, it really does open your eyes to how pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere can change how this planet regulates itself.

"Anyone who doesn't think global warming or now (climate change) is hog wash is a moron."

Really, wow, i guess ive got it all wrong, i mean i was going to go like the sheep i am with the general concensus of the entire worlds scientific community, and the stacks of irrefutable evidence ive examined but hey if you say that makes me a Moron i better change my opinion.

Ive been absolutely amazed at how corporate power in the US have successfully twisted the reality of anthropogenic warming, and have used what little evidence exists to the contrary to completely cloud the american publics perception of which side is correct. Im not going to say Global warming is a scientific law, or even a theory but fucking hell its a lot more likely than the opposing view, and the sad reality is we can't risk continuing business as usual and having to find out the hard way that actually ya we are all just a bunch of ignorant assholes, and because of that lots, and lots of people are going to suffer, and die for our mistakes

"I refuse to agree with anything you ever say even if you're right."

Wow, i think thats the definition of ignorance right there, i mean seriously you call yourself a debator yet you openly admit that you'll never conceed anything even if you're wrong. Small mindedness like yours is the reason this world will never change my friend.

I know thats the problem................................................:-(

So your hope that you'll have something better by then is unfounded.

I don't take you seriously but i still want you to be informed on exactly what it is you're talking about, just in case you're not.

Eventually all war fighting will be done by unmanned machines."

Correction: "eventually all war fighting will be done by wealthy developed countries using unmanned drones against impoverished underdeveloped nations, and their populations"

At that stage China in alliance with Russia will be the new global superpower, and the US (and the rest of the west) will most likely be licking their bootheels, unless of course WW3 breaks out before then. Why do you think the US are building all those missile "defense shields" in eastern europe, turkey etc., adn doing likewise in South Korea, Japan etc.

The US is attempting to contain Russia and China, and doing it under the guise of the bullshit excuse of the danger posed by Iran and North Korea but anyone with a brain can see whats really going on.

I hope you realise those enemy combatants mainly consist of dirt poor Afghan, Yemeni, and Pakistani civilian's i.e.

"The former chief counter-insurgency strategist for the US State Department has estimated that drone attacks kill 50 non-targeted persons for each intended target."

“We have opened up a new realm of warfare, a new realm of breaking, breaching international and domestic law,” says Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2002-2005."

Source:http://rt.com/news/drone-us-pakistan/

3000 people were killed during the 2004-2007, the cia claimed that 80% of these eaths were islamic militants, while even the most groups not associated with the US government will admit that they kill about 10 civlians for every 1 militant, either way the uS is illegally killing lots people in another country. Something like 500 have already been killed in pakistan alone so far this year

No there a rule for that as well it just can't be fitted nicely into the ryhme i.e. i before e except after c or the combination is being pronounced as an 'A', in which case it is ei

I remember being church when i was every young thinking i wish it was the olden days when Jesus was alive cause apparently magic was possible then, i was agnotic by the time i was 13, militant athiest by the time i hit 17, and panthiest by the time i hit 20.

ya i happen to agree with Troy8, did you enjoy your ego wank? I before e except after c :-)

"It does, though."

It doesn't and ive already pionted out why.

"if that's not what you meant, fine."

Of course it wasn't, how can an idea or a concept violate anything, it exists only in the mind, how could even think thats what i meant.

"Ghosts are commonly regarded as continuations of consciousness after death"

Commonly regarded? Commonly regarded by who? You think you can find a peer reviewed scientific paper claiming they have proved that ghosts are continuations of consciousness after death. Can you provide me with a scientific paper that eludcidates what constitutes their chemical make-up, thats describes concisely and irrefutably the natural forces and mechanisms that allowed them to come into existence. Is there a scientific peer reviewed paper that derives axiomatically using the known laws of physics how their incorporeal form permeates this physical plane. No there is not, as the existence of ghosts is neither provable nor falsifiable, thats why they are classified as supernatural.Please stop.

"It can be explained why a consciousness wouldn't persist after death according to known mechanisms"

Nobody really knows what consciousness is, ive done a reasonable amount of leisurely is this area, and i can tell you one of the biggest failures of science in the 21st century is its comprehension of consciousness, and the human mind. Nobody can prove using the fundamental laws of science why it is impossble for a person consciousness to go on existing after their dead, not just because nobody really understands consciousness but also because nobody have any idea what happens when you die. I agree with the reductionist view of the dissolution of conciousness after death, but it isn't provable or falsiable.

"Ghosts are still supernatural."

Because it is impossible using to science to disprove the possiblity of their existence.

"I've made one if a convincing case is made but I don't see one."

How do you not see one?

"thing and say that pulls it out of the realm of the supernatural."

Well think about it for a second, if somehow somebody managed to prove the non-existence of the Judeo Christian God do you think that version of God would still qualify as supernatural?

"If it violates the laws of nature in order to exist, then it is supernatural."

No not necessarily, the difference is clear, we can explain why a perpetual motion machine cannot exist in this reality, we cannot explain why a ghost cannot exist in this reality, its really that simple, you have a clear misunderstanding of science can you not simply conceed to my superior understanding?

"I didn't say "Is the impossibility of a machine that exists on an endless source of energy not beyond scientific understanding?", and that is the question you answered."

The question you asked was ambiguous, and strayed from the piont of contention in the sense that it had more than one right answer but i shall answer in a way that is relevant to this debate. Your question:

"Is a source of energy that is immune to entropy and/or creates more energy not beyond scientific understanding"

Firstly, it is beyond scientific understanding to comprehend anything that doesn't exist, but it is not beyond science to disprove the existence of a source of energy that is immune to entropy, the physical property entropy is fundamental to our universe, as we know the universe cannot exist as we know it cannot exist in its absense. And we can prove this in a way that goes way beyond scepticism, and approaches axiomatic truth. Ghosts however cannot be disproved in this way thats why they are categorised as supernatural while perpetual motion machines are not.

"Again, to explain why something is impossible according to the laws of nature doesn't make it not supernatural."

If something is classified as supernatural the idea of it relies on our inadequate understanding of existence. The tools we have developed in order to understand our existence are grossly ill equipped to be able to disprove scientifically anything that qualifies as supernatural.

"the obviousness of something that would have to exist beyond nature being supernatural"

Heres the problem, nobodies knows what beyond nature or beyond existence means, thats why ghosts, and the Christian god can get in the door (so to speak). Now if perpetual motion machines can exist "beyond nature" then we'd have a pretty good scientific basis for understanding what exists beyond nature. Do you see what im getting at? Thats why they are not classified as supernatural.

"but I'm not going to say I don't think something like this is supernatural when I don't really think it is. "

You're clearly not willing to conceed to what i beleive is my superior expertise on this subject, i would ask you to try to consult somebody else with a serious background in science (i.e. masters or phd) as you clearly don't have any expertise yourself.

Ask them the same question, i would put my house on the fact that they will provide more or less the same answer i.e. perpetual motion machines are not supernatural

"Here is a paper mathematically disproving the possibility of vampires existing among humans"

I have come across papers like these before all you're demonstrating is your inferior grasp of science. It doesn't mathematically disprove anything. The paper dispells popular myths, explaining scientifically why the existence of those creatures according to the myths invented by humans could not exist in the way they are portrayed to exist due to the physical limitations of reality.

The problem with anything supernatural though is you always have an ace up your sleeve, all you have to say is their existence relies on somehting beyond scientific understanding, thats why the paper deals with the myths, and not the actual idea of a ghost or a vampire because its impossible to disprove the idea of their existence, thats the fundamental difference. We can explain scientifically why it impossible for a human to transfrom into a bat, or into smoke, or whatever, but as soon as someone says but vampires are supernatural they are immediately placed into this nebulous region where scientific understanding cannot venture, adn where it cannot disporve anything, perpetual motion machines do not qualify as supernatural as they are falsifiable, therefore they come under the umbrella of scientific understanding, and thus qulify as science, as soon as somehting becomes falsifiable it is no longer supernatural, it is scientific. Perpetual motion machines meet this criteria, and are thus not supernatural.Your semantic error is clear, you need to accept it.

"So are vampires no longer supernatural?"

No, they are supernatural, and they always will be as their existence is completely unfalsifiable, thats why the understandeing of them will always lie outside the domain of science. Thats why they will always remain supernatural, but perpetual motion machines are completely falsifiable.

"There are many, many supernatural things that can be shown not to exist according to the laws of physics."

Nothing supernatural is falsifiable, this is a complete fallacy, thats why it is supernatural, thats exactly why is resides outside the domain of science. Again you demonstrate your inadequate grasp of science. You need to do some serious study on the philosphy of science. Karl popper the eminent 20th century philosopher of science set out the lines of demarcation for what is and is not consdered scientific. Essentially if something cannot be falsified it is not scientific, supernatural entities cannot be falsified ergo...., and by their name, never will be scientific by virute of the name supernatural, and if by some strange twist of fate or paradigm shift they become falsifiable they will cease to be classifed as supernatural. You have committed a semantic error and you really need to realise it at this, i understand not wanting to conceed if there is even a little doubt that the other perons is right but i can tell you i have explained exactly why you are wrong, you just need to accept it.

"That's what makes something supernatural - if it is scientifically possible for it to exist, like Bigfoot for example, then it would be cryptozoological or something else."

Again i don't mean to insult but all you are doing is highlighting your inferior grasp of science, being scientifically possible to exist it not what makes something supernatural. The fact is everything that cannot be falsified is possible as there is no such things as pure objective knowledge or truth in science. Even the most fundamental axioms of mathematics do not qualify as purely objective knowledge, even though thats about as close as humans have come to obatining it. So i suppose in that sense you are correct, i mean who am i to tell you that some strange perpetual motion machine doesn't exist in some hyperdimensional universe where hamburgers eat people, i mean its completely unfalsifiable, but by the same token im a giant duck that happens to rule the 5th dimension with an iron duck fist, all bow down to the great overlord quacky. Try to prove me wrong, you see the problem? But we can say that perpetual motion machines cannot exist within this reality that we are presented with, we cannot say the same about ghosts.And as i stated previously if they existed in some other reality we'd have a scientific basis by which to understadn that reality, this is why they are not considered supernatural, this is why you would find a reference to perpetual motion machines in a book on the occult, you will find them in a thermodynamics textbook, you won't find any references to ghosts in a physics book though but id bet you'd find them in a book on the occult.

Look, Bertrand Russell's famous argument against theism is his floating teapot, essentially it states that if he suggests that there is a tiny china teapot orbiting the sun between earth and mars it does not make any sense for anyone to doubt him as they cannot prove him wrong as long as he assumes it is not detectable using any of our instruments.

The same is true of anything supernatural, you cannot doubt it as it is not falsifiable, nothing supernatural is falsifiable.

I understand your mistake because supernatual is a quite ill defined and ambiguous word in the english language, and there are many contrasting views on exactly what it does mean, i was wrong in a previous post when i suggested it had a very specific meaning but you need to realise if nothing else that you cannot group concepts like perpetual motion into the same category as ghosts. Just like you can't call dark matter supernatural.

Carl sagans dragon in my garage is another classic example used to demonstrate the ridiculousness in beleive in anything supernatural:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

Now, no scientists beleive in anything supernatural as supernatural phenomena lie outside the domain of science. Now i have a masters to do, i really shouldn't have devoted this much time to this debate but i can never resist a good argument. This will be last post on this argument (at least for next good couple of weeks until my masters has drawn to a close) reagardless of whether you conceed or not.

I just want to leave by saying that you are not simply arguing with me here, you are arguing with scientific orthodoxy. I have studied enough science in my life, and achieved enough in the field to know when someone is misunderstanding the fundamentals, go ask a credible scientist (like me) i guarantee you he will not agree that perpetual motion machines qualify as supernatural.

"I am reluctant to concede that something that fits the definition of a word does not fit the definition of that word."

But it doesn't fit the definition of the word thats what you seem to be having enormous trouble comming to terms with.

"I never said the ideas themselves violate the laws of physics, thats a ridiculous notion,

"Yes, you see it can violate the laws of physics if its only a hypothetical or notional concept."

- You

Then you will have to restate that, because that seems to be exactly what you are saying. "

Im sorry if i wasn't completely clear in my previous post, i acknowledge i used the idea of a perpetual motion machine and the physical reality of one interchangeably but only because a perpetual motion machine only exists as an idea. I understand your confusion but you're really clutching at straws if you think i meant an idea can violate the laws of physics.

"We know why ghosts are impossible given current scientific understanding but they are still supernatural entities."

No we really don't know exactly why the existence of ghosts is impossible because nobody knows scientifically what a ghost is, what it would be composed of, how it could have acquired the necessities of existence, how it could possible subsist on this physical plane. However we know exactly why a perpetual motion machine cannot exist, thats why it is not supernatural.

"If you're trying to tell me you feel like I'm talking down to you, I don't really care."

Look i don't want to sound arrogant i really don't, i have no idea what your qualifications are, you maybe a scientist aswell for all i know, even though id be very surprised as there aren't many scientists that would make an error like this, and if they did they would immediately realise it if it was explained to them but i don't just think im right, i know im right.

"I am going to state my arguments as simply as I can and address any information I feel should be included."

Thats admirable, whats also admirable is being capable to admit when your wrong, you made a simple semantic error, anyone could have made, but you really need to realise when you've been beaten, again im trying not to sound too arrogant (hopefully succeeding).

"Is a source of energy that is immune to entropy and/or creates more energy not beyond scientific understanding?"

This is a very vague sentence, i mean nobody even knows what energy is, the answer thats revelant to this debate is no, it is not beyond our current scientific understanding of existence to explain why a machine that produces more work than it consumes is impossible, and cannot exist.

"1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. "

Even though it doesn't highlight your error as explicitly as the defintion i provided it certainly doesn't "work for you", you can't simply provide another definition to a word and think you are vindicated, the word supernatural has a very specific meaning.

This is the key part of the definition:

"unexplainable by natural law or phenomena"

Perpetual motion and the impossibility of its success if applied in practive (and not theory) is explainable by natural law, its as simple as that really.

"Maybe we should agree on a definition of supernatural to use for this."

Supernatural has one definition, it doesn't matter what we agree it means, we can imbue the word with whatever mean you want but it only has one worldwide accepted defintion although it can be worded in a variety of ways. Unfortunately for you none of those variants support your argument as it is semantically false.

"When supernatural things are primarily defined by their violations of laws, why add the stipulation of how well its been studied?"

How are not getting this??????? I don't want to sound like im putting you down but you are extremely stubborn. Ok, its very simple, if some scientist proved mathematically by the laws of physics why ghosts cannot exist, in the same way as has been done for perpetual motion machines, Carnot heat engines etc. etc. etc. Then ghosts would cease to be classified as supernatural, they would merely fall into the category of a useless product of the human imagination that has been conclusively disproven. Now im quite done explaining why you're wrong, if you're unable to except it at this stage you never will.

Nothing really, i should have just posted the comment, sorry :-(

I really thought my previous statement would put this argumkent to bed but your clearly reluctant to admit you made a semantic error.

"This doesn't in any way support the statement that ideas themselves violate the laws of physics."

I never said the ideas themselves violate the laws of physics, thats a ridiculous notion, the reason those ideas can never be implemented successfully is precisely because they would violate the laws of physics

"They exist, there is a known mechanism that allows for them to exist,"

Yes i agree its called the human mind

"so they are not supernatural. "

You're the one trying to convince me that a perpetual motion machine is a machine that meets the criteria for being classified as supernatural, im telling your wrong.

"How can you agree to this- which is pretty much the definition of supernatural- but not concede that a perpetual motion machine is supernatural?"

I gave a reasonably concise explanation in my previous response, ill try to elucidate further, a pertual motion machine was a well understood idea from the moment of its inception, basically you had early post renaissance scientists building machines and asking questions like, what if there was no force of resistance (i.e. friction, limits of elasticitym tensile and compressive stresses etc.), this gave birth to the idea of a perpetual motion machine, this is a well studied and understood, the results of which give us the boundary or limit of much much we can exploit the physical world (as characterised by the known laws of physics) to our favour.

This is gas turbines are being continually made bigger and with more heat resistant materials because the hiher the temperature of combustion the greater the actual turbine efficiency approaches the Carnot efficiency.

Supernatural concepts by definition are unknowable, and cannot be understood with something like science, but concepts like perpetual motion are very well understood, this is the difference, you made a simple semantic error.

"I'm not trying to say it does exist, just that science cannot truly prove its nonexistence.Science is only equipped to analyze the evidence or lack of evidence for things that play by the rules of nature. "

Yes i know, im well aware of that, i happen to have a masters in Chemical and Biopharmaceutical engineering, and im currectly studying for a masters in sustainable energy engineeering, so you really don't need to explain to me what science is or isn't equipped to do.

Science cannot really prove the non-existence of anything, thats was the essence of Bertrand Russells orbiting teapot, but we can grasp what we are ecountered with (i.e. objective reality), our ability to imagine is what has allowed us to get to out current stage of technological advancement.

"It cannot exist according to the currently understood laws of physics which is exactly what would make it supernatural. "

su·per·nat·u·ral/ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/

Noun: Manifestations or events considered to be of supernatural origin.

Adjective: (of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

The highlighted part shows the origin or your semantic error.

First if all its quite disrespectful to simple post a link as a response, especially considering this is such an old debate. Are you afraid to give me your opinion just in case you say something stupid?

Ive seen all the arguments, you article presents no new information, and proves absolutely nothing, there is scientific concensus on global warming.

The US have already made known their intention to veto any move towards state hood in UN, pretty strange for country that says it supports a two-state settlement yet won't allow the other state to actually become one, don't ya think.

"When did anyone one of those organizations launch rockets at anyone? ;)"

I can't rememeber the last time another country invaded the vatican, occpuied its land, and slaughtered its people either;)

"How exactly do ideas and hypotheticals violate the laws of physics?"

Well because ideas and hypotheiticals in science are normally used to describe an ideal state that can never be replicated under any conditions in reality, and thus if implemented would fail. This is precisely because they violate the known laws of physics, but they can complrehended .

"In order for the machine itself to exist, not the notion of the machine, it would have to violate the laws of physics. "

Agreed , but it does not exist, and it cannot exist.

"This, I believe, puts such a machine in the realm of the supernatural."

Look im sorry to tell this but you are wrong. The word supernatural not only implies that something isn't scientifically observable, and that it resides outside the laws of nature or physics or whatever, but it also implies that is it something beyond scientific understanding. A perpetual motion machine is a scientific concept used by designers as an ideal reference state to benchmark their designs.This type of machince although impossible in reality is well understood, as are all ideal states, in fact in science you rarely understand reality with its infinite quirks, nuances, and physical limitations until you have a good grasp of the ideal reference state. This is why what you are saying is false.

You see you cannot place concepts like this in the realm of the supernatural, its like saying a Carnot steam cycle is a supernatural steam cycle, its ridiculous, and semantically false.

Yes, you see it can violate the laws of physics if its only a hypothetical or notional concept. Much of science use the ideal state as the reference state from which models can be built, it doesn't make that reference.