If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Listverse)   Top 10 things you can't prove but people believe anyway   (listverse.com) divider line 237
    More: Interesting, empirical method  
•       •       •

16804 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Nov 2012 at 10:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



237 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-05 10:47:25 PM

nmemkha: X-rays were fantasy for thousands of years of human evolution until their discovery.

Who is to say we won't invent a spirit cam someday and can see what our other senses cannot perceive? Hell Dark Matter makes up most of the universe and we have no farking clue what it is since we cannot directly perceive it.


I want some Leprechaun detection glasses.

/aleprechaunist
 
2012-11-05 10:48:22 PM
Theaetetus: That one depends on your definition of "god", I think. The classic omnipotent-omniscient-omnibenevolent leads to internal contradictions.

I believe that regardless of the definition you use, there's some infinitesimal chance that it's legit.

God makes the rules, so can contradict him/her/itself if he/she/it wants to, right?

BUT, infinitesimal chances are not worth giving any real thought to, the phrase I use for this is (ridiculously improbable).
 
2012-11-05 10:54:18 PM
ReverendJasen: Now, since I think I am a piece of god, and I know I exist, therefore I know god exists, thus obviating the rest. :)

I am part of the universe, and I know the universe is likely to exist given the measurable evidence (there's always the chance that we're all in a matrix like shared simulation, but that's ridiculously improbable).

And for me, the existence of the universe doesn't necessitate the existence of a creator.

With no no evidence of a creator (outside of the existence of the universe, which doesn't need a creator), the evidence for the existence of god(s) is ridiculously improbable to me.

// And even then, I would have to ponder, if god(s) created the universe, then what created god(s). And before you know it, you have 'turtles all the way down'.
 
2012-11-05 11:31:16 PM

nmemkha: X-rays were fantasy for thousands of years of human evolution until their discovery.

Who is to say we won't invent a spirit cam someday and can see what our other senses cannot perceive? Hell Dark Matter makes up most of the universe and we have no farking clue what it is since we cannot directly perceive it.


For a spirit cam to be possible, people would have to have souls. The concept of a soul comes from stone-age understandings of the mind. I wouldn't bet on it.
 
2012-11-05 11:46:38 PM

HighZoolander: nmemkha: X-rays were fantasy for thousands of years of human evolution until their discovery.

Who is to say we won't invent a spirit cam someday and can see what our other senses cannot perceive? Hell Dark Matter makes up most of the universe and we have no farking clue what it is since we cannot directly perceive it.

For a spirit cam to be possible, people would have to have souls. The concept of a soul comes from stone-age understandings of the mind. I wouldn't bet on it.


Are you a God?
 
2012-11-06 12:06:55 AM
FTA-

Anyone who claims to have seen a ghost might say that there is proof of spirit life, but skeptics would argue that any ghostly sighting can be explained away by lighting tricks or other logical reasons. At the end of the day, there may never be indisputable, tangible proof of ghosts. While ghost hunters have electronic tools meant to measure ghost activity, results are open to interpretation. Yet, we believe in ghostly encounters and phenomenon - that when things go bump in the night or move suddenly, a ghost can be the cause.

So... you CAN prove it by seeing it, but skeptics will argue, so its not proof.

I see.

So you cant prove Global Warming, ever, because skeptics will argue. And you cant prove that the world actually exists, because skeptics will argue. And you cant prove that the sky is blue, because skeptics will argue.

skeptics will argue against anything. Its what makes Fark work.
 
2012-11-06 12:20:03 AM
It seems to me that this "list" is simply a collection of untestable hypotheses that have not been validated; and, due to the nature of their claims, are not subject to invalidation.

The correct phrasing would be "Top 10 things for which all presentations of proof have failed, yet people still insist on investing time, money, and emotion in."

To say that they can't be proven is incorrect; there just simply has not been an occurance of it. And, since disproving is impossible, there will always be morans out there to buy into them. Cue Dinesh D'Souza arguing, "Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense." D'Souza is a grade-A douche and pseudo-intellectual, but techincally correct.

And technically correct is the best kind of correct.
 
2012-11-06 01:14:43 AM
I always felt that if you truly believed in (new age style) karma, you were an idiot. But if you were smart, you'd live your life as if you did.
 
2012-11-06 02:23:08 AM

nmemkha: HighZoolander: nmemkha: X-rays were fantasy for thousands of years of human evolution until their discovery.

Who is to say we won't invent a spirit cam someday and can see what our other senses cannot perceive? Hell Dark Matter makes up most of the universe and we have no farking clue what it is since we cannot directly perceive it.

For a spirit cam to be possible, people would have to have souls. The concept of a soul comes from stone-age understandings of the mind. I wouldn't bet on it.

Are you a God?


I'm a god. I'm not *the* God... I don't think.
 
2012-11-06 02:37:11 AM

lordargent: And for me, the existence of the universe doesn't necessitate the existence of a creator.

With no no evidence of a creator (outside of the existence of the universe, which doesn't need a creator), the evidence for the existence of god(s) is ridiculously improbable to me.


I never said anything about a creator, so not sure why you quoted me. This is more along the lines of a monotheistic/Christian deity or something. I'm atheist.

I agree the existence of the universe is natural, and the rise and existence of life is as natural a function as the carbon cycle is, given the proper conditions (such as on Earth).
The "god" I speak of is consciousness. You and I are but small pinholes of it. It does not know right or wrong, it doesn't command you to do anything, nor ask for worship. You can pray if you want, but remember that you pray to yourself--and answer your own prayers. This consciousness is the opposite force of entropy. While all matter seeks to return to simplicity, consciousness seeks to create complexity.
We are all god, we can all create.

/do I sound crazy yet? :)
 
2012-11-06 03:04:01 AM
#11 That "top 10 lists" have relevance or meaning.
#12 [redacted]
#13 That I'm wearing pants.
 
2012-11-06 03:58:33 AM
Often in these threads I read people posting that its probable or statistically likely that aliens exist. I really don't think that's true at all. These calculations are always made off some variation of the Drake equation which at some point forces you to make up some figures that are actually pure guesses. Yet everyone seems so certain that probability is on their side. You can just as easily calculate that its probable that were alone in the universe.
 
2012-11-06 04:48:43 AM
Jonny17: made off some variation of the Drake equation

The Drake equation focuses on determining the number of detectable civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. Forget about that for a second.

I instead rely on the Law of Truly Large Numbers.

We know that life exists somewhere in the universe (right here on planet earth).

So, top of the head calculation, what do you think the chances of life developing on some random planet out floating in space? One in a billion? A trillion?

The estimate is that there are
300 sextillion stars in the universe

When the sampling size grows large, the probability of something uncommon occurring shifts from unlikely to likely.

And that's basically about as much as you're going to be able to get since the things we're dealing with here (the universe) are too large for us to observe in a practical manner.
 
2012-11-06 05:02:08 AM

Leeds: uttertosh: uttertosh: alwaysjaded: And I don't know how I feel about intuition. I'm naturally skeptical

I've always viewed my intuition as linked to my scepticism. Dress a 'gut-feeling-about-something' however you want, we all get them.

in fact it'd be interesting to see if the same areas in a brainscan showed for OCD attacks. Just a... um.. hunch.

Are you suggesting that an OCD attack is akin to having rapidly repeated "gut feelings" that the stove was left on?


You don't think that the same part of the brain may be misfiring in OCD sufferes? Part of the reflex system?

I often get the feeling of falling crossed with a kind of 'electric shock' sensation when I've getgut-feelings - explain that
 
2012-11-06 05:20:39 AM

lordargent: Jonny17: made off some variation of the Drake equation

The Drake equation focuses on determining the number of detectable civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. Forget about that for a second.

I instead rely on the Law of Truly Large Numbers.

We know that life exists somewhere in the universe (right here on planet earth).

So, top of the head calculation, what do you think the chances of life developing on some random planet out floating in space? One in a billion? A trillion?

The estimate is that there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe

When the sampling size grows large, the probability of something uncommon occurring shifts from unlikely to likely.

And that's basically about as much as you're going to be able to get since the things we're dealing with here (the universe) are too large for us to observe in a practical manner.


Fair points. Especially about the universe being too large for us to observe in a practical manner (which may well skew the. But I still think that within current estimates - even an incredibly large sample size ( like 300 sextillion stars), the odds are still against life developing. Not saying impossible, just unlikely.
 
2012-11-06 08:07:09 AM
11. There is an intelligent Farker
 
2012-11-06 08:09:23 AM

lordargent: Very religious folks
KNOW god exists and BELIEVE god exists


do you believe lordargent exists?

do you KNOW this?
 
2012-11-06 08:15:42 AM

Cythraul: 11) Jesus


WHAR birf certificate
WHAR?
\0/
|
/\
 
2012-11-06 08:44:53 AM

Porous Horace: #11 That "top 10 lists" have relevance or meaning.
#12 [redacted]
#13 That I'm wearing pants.


Nobody believes that
 
2012-11-06 09:12:43 AM

Jonny17: Fair points. Especially about the universe being too large for us to observe in a practical manner (which may well skew the. But I still think that within current estimates - even an incredibly large sample size ( like 300 sextillion stars), the odds are still against life developing. Not saying impossible, just unlikely.


Yeah ... that would just be because you can not comprehend 300 sextillion. Even the most infinitesimally small chance becomes likely with that many opportunities.
 
2012-11-06 10:48:07 AM

lordargent: Jonny17: made off some variation of the Drake equation

The Drake equation focuses on determining the number of detectable civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. Forget about that for a second.

I instead rely on the Law of Truly Large Numbers.

We know that life exists somewhere in the universe (right here on planet earth).

So, top of the head calculation, what do you think the chances of life developing on some random planet out floating in space? One in a billion? A trillion?

The estimate is that there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe

When the sampling size grows large, the probability of something uncommon occurring shifts from unlikely to likely.

And that's basically about as much as you're going to be able to get since the things we're dealing with here (the universe) are too large for us to observe in a practical manner.


Thus unicorns exist, somewhere, QED.
 
2012-11-06 10:53:48 AM

Fano: lordargent: Jonny17: made off some variation of the Drake equation

The Drake equation focuses on determining the number of detectable civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. Forget about that for a second.

I instead rely on the Law of Truly Large Numbers.

We know that life exists somewhere in the universe (right here on planet earth).

So, top of the head calculation, what do you think the chances of life developing on some random planet out floating in space? One in a billion? A trillion?

The estimate is that there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe

When the sampling size grows large, the probability of something uncommon occurring shifts from unlikely to likely.

And that's basically about as much as you're going to be able to get since the things we're dealing with here (the universe) are too large for us to observe in a practical manner.

Thus unicorns exist, somewhere, QED.


Thus life began through cosmic evolution and abiogenesis, QED.
 
2012-11-06 11:06:22 AM

I drunk what: Fano: lordargent: Jonny17: made off some variation of the Drake equation

The Drake equation focuses on determining the number of detectable civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy. Forget about that for a second.

I instead rely on the Law of Truly Large Numbers.

We know that life exists somewhere in the universe (right here on planet earth).

So, top of the head calculation, what do you think the chances of life developing on some random planet out floating in space? One in a billion? A trillion?

The estimate is that there are 300 sextillion stars in the universe

When the sampling size grows large, the probability of something uncommon occurring shifts from unlikely to likely.

And that's basically about as much as you're going to be able to get since the things we're dealing with here (the universe) are too large for us to observe in a practical manner.

Thus unicorns exist, somewhere, QED.

Thus life began through cosmic evolution and abiogenesis, QED.


Except that shows a physical method by which life can originate, no magic needed.
 
2012-11-06 11:27:14 AM

Fano: Except that shows a physical method by which life can originate, no magic needed.


you can't argue with math, 50% of the time it is 100% correct

scientific unicorns, with physical rainbows coming out of their arse

friendship is a chemical reaction
 
2012-11-06 11:28:22 AM

I drunk what: Fano: Except that shows a physical method by which life can originate, no magic needed.

you can't argue with math, 50% of the time it is 100% correct

scientific unicorns, with physical rainbows coming out of their arse

friendship is a chemical reaction


93% of statistics are made up on the spot!
 
2012-11-06 11:29:45 AM

slayer199: I don't believe in Aliens but I believe it's statistically likely there's intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.


It is statistically likely or it isn't.
It requires no belief on your part or anyone else's.
It isn't a belief issue. That would be called religion.
 
2012-11-06 11:34:06 AM

ADHD Librarian: Religious texts?
I believe in them, I have seen several. I was given a free copy of the book of Mormon once, I touched it (I even read some of it) it was certainly real.

I also believe that the Torah is real, the Koran too. I believe that the Christian bible exists and the Tipitaka (and not just because I saw him on TV with a talking monkey). I believe in the existence of the Bhagavad Gita...


but what about the claims made within them texts, silly?

you can't prove that stuff, therefore it never happened
 
2012-11-06 11:36:38 AM

I drunk what: Thus life began through cosmic evolution and abiogenesis, QED.


Nobody claims these theories are true. They are just scientific theories that propose possible explanations supported by evidence. Many feel that they are correct to some degree or another but holding that opinion is a far cry from claiming knowledge of truth.

Whereas magic believers do claim to know the truth.
 
2012-11-06 11:39:29 AM

I drunk what: but what about the claims made within them texts, silly?

you can't prove that stuff, therefore it never happened



No. Nobody says this. Why do you need to misrepresent people who hold different opinions than yours?

If you cannot provide evidence then there is no reason to accept the claim that it happened. This is not saying it did not happen ... it is saying that we don't know what happened and your unsupported claim is not changing anything.
 
2012-11-06 11:47:59 AM

yves0010: I drunk what: Fano: Except that shows a physical method by which life can originate, no magic needed.

you can't argue with math, 50% of the time it is 100% correct

scientific unicorns, with physical rainbows coming out of their arse

friendship is a chemical reaction

93% of statistics are made up on the spot!


look, let me make this simple for you, that drake stuff is too advanced

using our solar system we see that 1 out of 8 planets has life, therefore there is a 12.5% chance that any given star system will produce life.

so then if we can find at least 8 more stars in the galaxy there will be 8 * 12.5% = 100% chance that we will find life outside of this system

because Scientifically speaking the origin of Life can easily be calculated, if you don't believe me just watch nothing for a while and *bamf* something will explode out of it, then if you wait 14-15 billion years you can observe matter forming itself up to and including Life... it happens all the time (~93%)

we have observed these experiments repeatedly and tested the data, before forming the hypothesis

you don't think we are just talking out of our arses do you? that's where the rainbows come from
 
2012-11-06 11:51:01 AM

I drunk what: you don't think we are just talking out of our arses do you? that's where the rainbows come from


Who the hell is 'we'?? I don't know any rational person who would agree with the ridiculous crap you just spewed.

If you don't understand how statistics work then just admit it or don't comment on it. There is no reason to so clearly illustrate your ignorance.
 
2012-11-06 12:21:33 PM

Farking Canuck: Many feel that they are correct to some degree or another


i like to simplify my terms so that all can keep up

gnostic x = the % you are sure about x > the % you are unsure about x

and likewise

agnostic x = the % you are sure about x < the % you are unsure about x

this can apply to both scientific and religious beliefs
 
2012-11-06 12:25:08 PM

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: It is statistically likely or it isn't.
It requires no belief on your part or anyone else's.
It isn't a belief issue. That would be called religion.


Thanks for splitting hairs. I said believe because I hadn't had time to check the statistical likelihood of intelligent life (there's a formula somewhere that I couldn't recall). If I could remember the name of the formula and look at that stats again, I'd say it's statistically likely.

So in this case, my use of believe was accurate.
 
2012-11-06 12:27:34 PM

Farking Canuck: If you don't understand how statistics work then just admit it or don't comment on it.


if you like i could interpolate how many husbands you will have by the end of the month..?

Farking Canuck: If you cannot provide evidence then there is no reason to accept the claim that it happened.


isn't that what faith is for? "believing in stuff without evidence..." ?

checkmate, theists
 
2012-11-06 12:43:00 PM

Farking Canuck: Whereas magic believers do claim to know the truth.


invisibleskywizarddidit?

Farking Canuck: I don't know any rational person who would agree with the ridiculous crap you just spewed.


not enough coefficients? what if i threw in a ft fraction of solar systems that drive a toyota?

...now it looks more legit

/puffs on pipe
//blows bubbles
 
2012-11-06 12:56:53 PM

lordargent: there's always the chance that we're all in a matrix like shared simulation, but that's ridiculously improbable


redpenofdoomdotcom.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-11-06 01:29:03 PM

I drunk what: Farking Canuck: Many feel that they are correct to some degree or another

i like to simplify my terms so that all can keep up

gnostic x = the % you are sure about x > the % you are unsure about x

and likewise

agnostic x = the % you are sure about x < the % you are unsure about x

this can apply to both scientific and religious beliefs


Huh ... you are one of the few people using the correct, original, definitions of agnostic/gnostic. They are independent of the topic of religion.

That said, even if you are very confident (gnostic) that a scientific theory is correct, you are still not making a claim of knowledge of truth. You are simply expressing an opinion on the weight of evidence supporting a theory (i.e. you find the weight of evidence to be significant enough to be convincing).
 
2012-11-06 02:08:04 PM

Farking Canuck: You are simply expressing an opinion on the weight of evidence supporting a theory (i.e. you find the weight of evidence to be significant enough to be convincing).


and how is religion different than this?

Farking Canuck: even if you are very confident (gnostic) that a scientific theory is correct, you are still not making a claim of knowledge of truth


you say po-ta-to, i say pah-tah-to
 
2012-11-06 02:11:26 PM

Farking Canuck: you are one of the few people using the correct, original, definitions


can you imagine a world in which people's words have meaning?

...and they actually used their brains??
 
2012-11-06 02:35:54 PM
See, the reason I oppose the "large number inevitability of intelligent life" is that it allows Creationists to come in and use the "tornado hits a junkyard, creates fully loaded and fuelled 747" objection they like so much.
 
2012-11-06 03:01:59 PM

I drunk what: Farking Canuck: You are simply expressing an opinion on the weight of evidence supporting a theory (i.e. you find the weight of evidence to be significant enough to be convincing).

and how is religion different than this?



The evidence part.
 
2012-11-06 03:10:38 PM

I drunk what: and how is religion different than this?


True, I believe religion is quite natural, and I can prove it scientifically.
 
2012-11-06 03:19:01 PM

Farking Canuck: The evidence part.


*ahem*:

I drunk what: isn't that what faith is for? "believing in stuff without evidence..." ?

checkmate, theists


yeah we already covered that part skippy, keep up

so what beats checkmate again? i forget

vactech: True, I believe religion is quite natural, and I can prove it scientifically


you're mom
 
2012-11-06 03:21:32 PM

I drunk what: vactech: True, I believe religion is quite natural, and I can prove it scientifically

you're mom


I am? How did you know?
 
2012-11-06 03:27:05 PM

Fano: Creationists to come in and use the "tornado hits a junkyard, creates fully loaded and fuelled 747" objection they like so much


that would be silly of them to do

Life is far more complicated than that...

it would be just as silly trying to convince someone that the tornado created a fully functioning airport... maybe we could convince them that airplanes are self replicating and that buhllions of years have passed

then, it would sound more legit
 
2012-11-06 03:28:36 PM

vactech: How did you know?


I have your eyes

*opens small case**
 
2012-11-06 03:32:38 PM

Fano: See, the reason I oppose the "large number inevitability of intelligent life" is that it allows Creationists to come in and use the "tornado hits a junkyard, creates fully loaded and fuelled 747" objection they like so much.


"They" say the big bang was loud, but it could not big, or loud enough to create evolution like the imbeciles here would have you believe.
 
2012-11-06 03:39:01 PM
what could big enough to create evolution?
 
2012-11-06 03:41:01 PM

I drunk what: what could big enough to create evolution?


I see what your doing there.
 
2012-11-06 03:41:47 PM

I drunk what: big enough


www.bluetonemedia.com

my hair is a big bang your argument is invalid
 
Displayed 50 of 237 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report