I don't think hands on-edness is the defining requirement for evil. When someone witnesses a crime and doesn't do anything, I'm not inclined to label that an act of goodness, especially if it's out of indifference. Also, what about when people actively help others; can't you think of times when that's not generally thought of as evil?

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

It does, though.

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.

I don't actually think this point relevant to the discussion or to my argument, so I'm not trying to hold onto it for any reason - if that's not what you meant, fine. It seemed like that's what you meant, so I addressed it like that.

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.

Ghosts are commonly regarded as continuations of consciousness after death. It can be explained why a consciousness wouldn't persist after death according to known mechanisms. Ghosts are still supernatural.

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).

If I thought I made a mistake, I would admit it. I am still willing to admit I've made one if a convincing case is made but I don't see one. I understand you might not be willing to make one past a certain point, and that's fine, but I don't think it's enough to simply outline the impossibility of a thing and say that pulls it out of the realm of the supernatural. If it violates the laws of nature in order to exist, then it is supernatural. Break down the word as it would apply in the context it is used - super: extra or beyond and natural: pertaining to nature.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I'm being 'stubborn' about this because I feel as strongly as you do about the obviousness of something that would have to exist beyond nature being supernatural. I won't pursue the debate if you stop, but I'm not going to say I don't think something like this is supernatural when I don't really think it is.

Here is a paper mathematically disproving the possibility of vampires existing among humans. There are sections on ghosts and zombies which I am sure are interesting but I have not looked at those.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608059

So are vampires no longer supernatural? There are many, many supernatural things that can be shown not to exist according to the laws of physics. 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.

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

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

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.

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.

I understand this point; perpetual motion machines have a long history and have been studied and utilized a lot. This doesn't really change anything: just because it is known exactly why something is impossible doesn't mean anything. We know why ghosts are impossible given current scientific understanding but they are still supernatural entities.

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.

If you're trying to tell me you feel like I'm talking down to you, I don't really care. I am going to state my arguments as simply as I can and address any information I feel should be included.

The highlighted part shows the origin or your semantic error.

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

Also I can quote a different one that works for me, too:

su·per·nat·u·ral

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

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural

Maybe we should agree on a definition of supernatural to use for this. You seem to be saying that is something is subject of lots of scientific study and reasonably well-understood, then it is not supernatural even if it violates the laws of nature. When supernatural things are primarily defined by their violations of laws, why add the stipulation of how well its been studied?

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. This is precisely because they would violate the known laws of physics.

This doesn't in any way support the statement that ideas themselves violate the laws of physics. They exist, there is a known mechanism that allows for them to exist, so they are not supernatural. I'm not even sure how this is relevant.

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

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'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.

It cannot exist according to the currently understood laws of physics which is exactly what would make it supernatural. Regardless of how well it is scientifically understood and how often it is used as a model, it would have to operate outside the laws of nature in order to exist.

Those possibilities become relevant when someone says or implies that science has authority over unfalsifiable supernatural arenas. I think it is intellectually dishonest of religious people to pretend they know there is a god, and equally dishonest of nonbelievers to pretend they know there isn't. It would be hypocritical to criticize one but ignore the other.

I also want people to be honest about what science can and can't do. That doesn't mean I think science's natural caution necessitates that we operate as though everything unfalsifiable is true or even credible.

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

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

Aside from that, I am not talking about the physical possibilities of notions or hypotheticals. In order for the machine itself to exist, not the notion of the machine, it would have to violate the laws of physics. This, I believe, puts such a machine in the realm of the supernatural.

Yes, I don't think science cannot prove the nonexistence of those, but it can discern whether or not any evidence exists. That by itself doesn't even begin to build a good case for the existence of any of those things, but science is cautious and tends to avoid absolute statements.

I would be wrong to assert that something that violates the laws of physics is supernatural?

Would you agree with a definition of 'supernatural' to be something outside the laws of nature or beyond what is observable? If so, I think a machine like that would meet the criteria, and science is not equipped to prove the existence or nonexistece of things it cannot measure or observe.

Science can't prove that something does not exist, especially something to which supernatural qualities are attributed.

You don't need faith to think something probably doesn't exist when there is no evidence, but you need it to say you 'know' it doesn't.

'Monkey' is a name given to certain extant species of primates with specific morphological characteristics. The last common ancestor of monkeys and apes, Saadanius hijazensis, does not have all the same characteristics is not placed in either of the monkey superfamilies.

Not sure about anyone else but that link wants me to sign into a Cox email account or something. I found it elsewhere here:

http://www.infowars.com/theres-a-mini-ice-age-coming-says-man-who-beats-weather-experts/

I started to type up a response then decided I'm not interested in arguing belief with you especially in a debate that doesn't even have anything to do with it. It's so obvious to me (and probably anyone else) that you have a personal grudge against atheists and that you try to bring it up whenever you can, but since you have somehow convinced yourself this isn't true, explaining my case is useless.

Even if this debate were meant to facilitate a serious discussion, it doesn't have anything to do with religion or belief, yet you managed to cram into your short post the irrelevant assertion that nonbelievers are wrong and you are right.

PS: I don't know many people who have no vendettas and you clearly have a vendetta against atheists, evidenced by your constant petty attacks and generalizations.

No, he doesn't.

In all seriousness though, you're really good at dragging your personal vendettas into pretty much every debate, whether or not they have any bearing on the issue at hand.

Anyway Joe, I'm not usually a fan of your more frivolous debates but I guess this one redeems itself with a Monty Python sketch. The first few minutes are a little like what I imagine CD would look like if it was a place.

PETA is an extremist group and I rarely agree with extremists on any issue, so I'll preface by saying by and large I think they are doing more harm than good for the cause and I don't generally support them.

But people have no business owning wild animals, especially animals as strong, intelligent, and willful as chimpanzees. It is practically an inevitability that someone treating a chimpanzee like a child or a puppy is going to get hurt. The victim (who was not even the chimp's owner) didn't at all deserve to be injured, and more people might have been hurt if the chimp hadn't been shot, but when a wild animal acts like a wild animal, who is to blame? The animal, or the person who attempted to keep the animal such an unsafe way? The same principles apply to the whale's situation. Animals were not put on this earth solely to serve people in any way, whether as food, entertainment, or decoration. We certainly have the intelligence and technology to use them that way, but we also have the compassion and empathy to understand that they are capable of suffering as well. We can raise an animals for their products without putting them through a torturous life and painful, prolonged death, and we can learn to respect that nature cannot be and should not be completely subjugated.

Not necessarily conservatives either but I guess you are right, liberals is one of the few labels you can shorten to one syllable.

I think it would be better to pick on other groups besides liberals, as there are people here on both sides of any issue that say foolish things.

But...I did laugh.

Being put in jail makes everything alright. Ask the victims family if their loved ones came back to life?

And ask them the same thing after the criminal has been brutally put to death.

If you treat the criminal no better than they treated their victim, how are you better than the criminal?

Use taxpayer money to house them for a crime and not get anything in return

What you get is the security that they will be unable to hurt innocent citizens as long as they are in jail. That sounds pretty good to me.

Are they people or just a step below animals?

Test their DNA, look at their brains, talk to them. As reluctant as you are to admit it, they are people just as much as you and me. It is useless to distance yourself from them so and like I said, is counterproductive to the understanding necessary to stop the problem.

It is only the responsibilty of society to pick a punishment that fits the crime.

I do not think retributive justice is the most productive path. Instead, perhaps society should focus on finding and implementing more effective ways to prevent and cure criminal behaviour.

They are people. To write them off as monsters is dismissing the fact that real conditions turn people into killers and criminals, and impedes the recognition and study of those conditions so they can be eliminated.

It certainly seems dispassionately pragmatic to put lifers and those on death row to 'good use'. However, I am not a supporter of torture, whether the victim is animal or human.

Good point! I went and looked this up.

Celebrities are defined as public figures, which legally lack some of the same rights your 'average person' has when it comes to privacy. However, since this is a pretty nebulous issue, there are quite a few cases of celebrities pursuing lawsuits and receiving settlements when they had photos taken of them illegally. I am sure all of them could do it, but the majority of them consider it to be a waste of time.

So I guess this is okay as long as the subject is famous but I don't think you will find many celebrities in skorts these days.

Is it illegal to take intimate pictures without the permission of the subject? Yes.

Also, the only people I see wearing skorts anymore are usually younger than 7 so that's probably a couple extra years in jail.

Well, not to me, anyway.

......................................