Septic Skeptic

>>19297798
who dat?

>>19297796
Scientific experiments have revealed that atomic particles are aware they are being observed and can be in two places at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

>>19297796
Go read Finley's "Sorcery"

>>19297816
That's science, not supernatural.
Also, observation causing changed behavior does not equal sentient particles.

>>19297813
Its yo mom after i drilled her pussy

>>19297796
FUCK OFF. Proof threads are always bait for pointless arguments. Ignore this limpdick, let this thread die.

File: JosephusVenus2.png (2MB, 1476x873px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1476x873px

>>19297796
>You have ONE POST to convince me that something paranormal/supernatural actually exists...
>...and GO!

Ok, but you have to pay attention:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEzhGJ0nJDg

>>19297830
Supernatural means being above or beyond what is natural or explainable by natural law.
Science cant explain quantum mechanics. its supernatural.

>>19297826
Just because you wright a book about something doesn't make it real.
Also, everything in that book took place before the 80's, so not exactly the most reliable source for the modern day.

>>19297835
You just mad cuz you can't actually give valid evidence.

>>19297837
You'll have to do better than that shitty video.

>>19297845
But it can be studied objectively, while people who study the supernatural are usually connecting dots where there are none.

You plebs giving up already? That's no fun.

>>19297861
>You'll have to do better than that shitty video.

No I don't. Your denial and/or poor cognition won't change the truth...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMyj4L_x81A

>>19297835
>FUCK OFF. Proof threads are always bait for pointless arguments. Ignore this limpdick, let this thread die.
>>19297852
>>19297861
Just a reminder, cunt. Now fuck off.

>>19297879
>Proof threads are always bait for pointless arguments. Ignore this limpdick, let this thread die.

There's always someone who hates the person who has evidence that human freedom is a delusion - but that's the way it is.

Shooting the messenger is a big big mistake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hs_q5rXSbCI

>>19297876
Below-average videos about conspiracy theories aren't convincing enough for anyone I know, so I reject your submission once again.

>>19297796
You can't prove it doesn't exist, ya dingus.

>>19297879
Thread can't die unless you don't reply.
What now, cunt?

File: elisalam5.png (473KB, 731x937px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 731x937px

>>19297893
>Below-average videos about conspiracy theories aren't convincing enough for anyone I know, so I reject your submission once again.

I didn't give you any conspiracy theories - I gave you a load of evidence for the gods. Like I said, I'm not responsible for your poor cognition. You ask for evidence then complain about evidence with ad hominems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py10Xs63ewA

>>19297897
Sure... Unless you believe in science and logic.
Pretty much every scientist ever has been disproving believers since the dawn of man.

>>19297907
You call it evidence, I call it shit. Gods can't exist in a natural world.

File: trumphead.png (905KB, 1250x419px) Image search: [Google]

905KB, 1250x419px

>>19297915
>You call it evidence, I call it shit.

Then you're stupid - which is also not my problem.

A deer stands frozen in the road staring at headlights because it doesn't know what they are...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoJtxc-2I04

>>19297796
You breathe an invisible gas.

>>19297908
I don't believe there has been a scientific experiment yet conducted to : disprove the existence of some sort of god(s), to disprove the existence of "the supernatural," etc. Because that's not what science is about. I love how fedoras barely even understand their own self-proclaimed domain.

>>19297956
The world is a flat plane. Moonlight is cold. There is no south pole.

File: darkmatterapoth.png (1MB, 1266x839px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1266x839px

>>19297915
>Gods can't exist in a natural world.

P.S. That's demonstrably false.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXDL2hQ76tU

>>19297796
Okay skeptic.
" If our intelligence and volition were purposely created, what might be our Creator’s purpose for us?" copypasta

File: 1500050068996.png (343KB, 671x1047px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 671x1047px

>>19297796
TL;DR
Nobody here is gonna prove paranormal shit like ghosts exist. But does it matter to you?

Most things on /x/ can't be proven. But what's real and what's not isn't the point of /x/. Have you tried larping about what magical powers you have? Have you tried reading a paragraph about some mystical way to get revenge on your ex, and try it out when you get depressed? Have you ever had an argument with someone about how your version of demons is real, while you say their's is fake?

/x/ isn't about what's real and what's not. It's about enjoying the concepts of such extraordinary things on your own time. And hey, if you don't like it, welcome to the club. Lots of people don't like larping, and they don't like the thought of paranormal shit. If it's not your cup of tea, it's not your fault, nor is it the board's fault. It just means you should go try out another board, and try their tea. Rinse and repeat until you find a board you're more willing to spend time on.

File: 1492373000608.png (307KB, 496x406px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 496x406px

>>19299234

>>19297796
You're looking at this wrong. We do not have a perfect understanding of the world. What seems impossible today will be taught to children centuries from now. You are asking for proof of the supernatural, but I say to you that the supernatural is simply the natural! We simply do not understand it yet. If the government and all major media declared tomorrow that, say, vampires, existed and were proven to exist, but we have no understanding of how they function as they violate all known natural laws, would you say that reality is wrong? Or is it your understanding of reality that needed to be adjusted? Accept that while many people misunderstand what they see, so too do you misunderstand what can be. We are here on /x/ not to say "this is real 4 srs guis" but to say "is this real? is it not real? let us discuss". To assume that humanity, let alone yourself, has a perfect understanding of what is possible is hubris of an insane level.

>>19299277
this
>>19297796
Also OP. I'm a skeptic myself
But I made a personal code of conduct to keep an open mind
The greatest sin of humanity is pride. Science harbors some of the greatest sinners in the entire history. It is because of dumb scientists thinking they know everything that progress is stopped. It is because of that pride that new ideas get called crazy and that visionaries get murdered.
It's not about believing blindly in fairies. It's about being willing to accept that human knowledge is limited but ever growing.
The supernatural, by definition doesn't exist and will never exist. Only the undiscovered or unproven.

>>19297796
Godel's Incompleteness Theroem. No consistent system of axioms can prove their own consistency. If you accept that the laws of nature are consistent, then you MUST accept supernatural reasoning to prove their consistency. If the laws of nature are not consistent, then again you MUST accept supernatural occurences.

Either way, the laws of nature REQUIRE the paranormal.

>>19297796
Russia

>>19299540
>Either way, the laws of nature REQUIRE the paranormal.

Nah they just accept the fact they don't know "yet" and might know better in the future.
They don't seek patterns like simple civilians, they are above that. They realize the brain will keep seeking patterns because what's what it does, he will always find them in everything.

Certain things are unknown to us, but saying they are "supernatural" is wrong, because any technology advanced enough will be indistinguishable from magic.

>>19299709
>Nah they just accept the fact they don't know "yet" and might know better in the future.

How do you not understand that this doesn't matter? ANY CONSISTENT SYSTEM.

Creating a new system of natural laws, or expanding on the current one, does NOTHING to ameliorate the necessity of the paranormal to prove said natural laws.

Remote viewing and out of body experiences have a hell of a lot of evidence to back them up.

It's literally relative. No paranormal for non believers

>>19297796

To deny the paranormal/supernatural is to claim that at this precise point in human history there is no such thing as unexplained phenomena. The amount of blind, ignorant faith required to make such a bold claim is as shocking as it is common. Denial of the unknown gives a great many simple people comfort, and it has the added benefit of making them feel smarter than others, but anyone who does not understand that "scientific facts" is an oxymoron is a fool.

>>19299973
As the anon who can't understand Godel's theorem correctly stated, the unknown or unexplained is not paranormal.

>>19299540

> If you accept that the laws of nature are consistent, then you MUST accept supernatural reasoning to prove their consistency

Heres where you fucked up, the laws of nature being consistent has absolutely no bearing on a supernatural force being behind that consistency. You're completely assuming that consisted has to come from a supernatural entity based on nothing

>>19297796
canned cheese, anon.

>>19300005
No, I am restating the theorem: that any consistent system of axioms cannot prove it own consistency.

If your system is the set of natural law, then those laws CANNOT prove their consistency. They REQUIRE something that's NOT A NATURAL LAW. Thus, by definition, something supernatural.

>ITT retarded OP and posters discuss metaphysical subjects and attempting to prove or have them proofed through physically limited arguments

May you all fuck off forever.

File: 52271221_p0.png (594KB, 842x1000px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 842x1000px

Occultism is a useful practice capable of driving human beings to beyond their assumed limits mentally and physically.

Why? Biofeedback. We know it exists, it is accommodated for in every single pharmecutical trial ever done... But we don't really know how it works, other than that it is literally 'mind over body'.

>>19297845
Quantum physics is entirely explainable by observation and experimentation, it just so happens to be probabalistic and we dont yet fully understand why quantum particles dont abide by the laws of classical physics
Either classical physics is wrong, or the mediatory particles of fundemental forces interact differently at different scales in a way thats not entirely understood. Just because it has not yet been explained doesnt mean its unexplainable or imaginary like supernatural stories. We can observe all fundemental quantum particles or their effects, measure them, and interact with them, as well as predict the results of their interactions with mathematics.

>>19297898
Existence is defined as a state of having objective reality. Supernatural "phenomenon" doesnt have objective reality, therefor the supernatural does not exist.

>>19297956
If there has been nothing to establish the existence of a god or gods there is nothing to disprove. Science has explained the previously unexplained, in simple cases like lighting and rain, which was previously attributed to gods or a god. More recently we have explained the formation of the universe, and the formation of biological life, the last legs thiests had to stand on with their paper stilts made from arguements from ignorance.

>>19299540
>According to mathematical philosophy an algorithm cannot prove its own mathematical validity, therefor fake things must be real because real things cant be real without fake things

Wew lad. Really got me noggin a joggin

>>19300246
>Really got me noggin a joggin
It should have. It didn't. Try reading the second part of the theorem. Do you understand that the system for determining what is fake and what is real cannot be used to determine whether that system is fake or real? Do you understand the you cannot logically prove the reality of logic? That science can't be used to prove the efficacy of science? That no consistent system of axioms can prove the consistency of said system?

>>19297796
You don't even fucking know! Don't ask if you can't make up your mind. Coming in here all clueless thinking you can find an answer here, which you know you won't, just like the rest of everything out in the world?
Come on, man, just think about what you're asking! You don't fucking know so you ask some thing ethereal to you what it is that makes things that are ethereal real? Well, here it is, this post here, it's precisely what you're looking for, but you'll be to oblivious to SEE for your own fucking eyes.

OP here.
Wow, this got a lot more attention than I thought while I was gone. Anyway, just gonna say that I've been here on /x/ for years now, so it's not like I'm (entirely) oblivious to most things talked about here. I enjoy this board, and especially the greentext. I just thought it'd be fun to see the responses to this thread, so sorry if I ruffled any feathers.
Anyway, goodnight and farewell /x/.

>>19300305
Check out Charlie Manson over here.

In the Bible it says not to talk with spirits. Do not practice divination.
I have confirmed why this must be and experienced first hand last night why it says this.
I know it's not much coming from an anonymous user. But my whole life I have been hard headed. And for me to learn. It had to be hands on. I have to experience. I have to fail. Before I can understand why my elders who told me to do or not to do things were right.
I am young. To most. My age being late twenty's. And I am very know as a person. Being heavily influenced in satanic music.
During a ghost hunt last night I came across a spirit who identified himself as legion. And or Steven. Hard to make a shur name. I am still clearing the audio. But when asking my general questions. I got a reply from many many spirits saying that same thing. Not at the same time. But one after another. And when asking there name they said the same one. I had female voices and male. When asking the spirit to manifest it's self. It said it could not. Upon asking why. It replied with. because of Satan.
I replied with. satan what about him. And I got the clearest sentence through a evp I ever got in my life. Then it blew up. And I got it recorded. With multiple devices. I just listened to it a hundred times. Your going to ask me to release it. I will not. I am undecided what I want to do with this just yet. I'm going back to communicate again with another device soon. The last time I will. God is real and because of this I'm going to respect him. Satan is real. Hell is real. He direct referenced his name. Only one book I ever read had his name in it... Make a choice for your self. Good day

Ayy lamo

>>19300284
not him, but this is actually interesting, and unironically "made me think". thanks dude

>>19299337
There's an invisible, untouchable clone of Micheal Jackson sitting on your bed right now.
Prove me wrong!
Protip you can't, that's why I make 10 LARP threads a day on /x/!

>>19297796
If the world is not paranormal, THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

convince me why I should spoon feed a lazy ignorant

>>19297796
Keanu Reeves.
'nuff said

1. Podesta's questionable emails

2. search term for attached files STS-120

3 Profit???

>>19297796
>short vid that entertaining in its own cinematic right
Dual split experiment
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

>>19300980
it's double slit not split and the video you posted is from new age film that completely misunderstands this experiment

>>19300987
Seems very confusin

>>19300987
That clip isn't out of context, explain to me the difference between a slit and split

>>19301173
>explain to me the difference between a slit and split
You know that you can use a dictionary to find out what words mean, right?

>>19301192
They're synonymous

File: 1341181.jpg (23KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x400px

>>19300987
>..completely misunderstands this experiment
How, though? I've heard this claim whenever discussing the experiment on 4chan, and always without any further explanation, proof, or sources linked. Please don't let that be the case this time.

>>19301256
it suggests that the observer is a conscious entity which is complete nonsense
observer in this experiment is a measuring device amd has nothing to do with human consciousness and certainly does not suggest in tje slightest that consciousness in humans collapses the wave function
look the rest up yourself, im not here to spoonfeed anyone

>>19297796
>convince me
And if I don't feel it is worth my time what will you do about it?
Ultimately your fate and your life are in your hands, not mine, so don't make me responsible for your fucking poor choices of belief by putting the blame on my inability to give you grandeur of evidence.

>>19301269
just out of curiosity, what is your definition for a "measurement"? if some data is measured and then never viewed by any conscious entity, what exactly causes the state of it "having been measured"?

Finally, my thread can die. XD Ya'll need to relax a little.

>>19300284
Hard to tell if this is bait.

If not, I'll try to explain this as simply as possible; Gödel's incompleteness theorems are theorems exclusively in the realm of mathematical philosophy, not physics, not chemistry, nothing more than the philosophy of the abstraction of mathematics. You cannot just magically apply rules about abstractions to physical systems. An algorithm cannot prove all truths about arithmetic because it relies on arithmetic to achieve its purpose, and it cannot prove its own validity as such validation is circular. We can measure the spin and charge of a top quark, therefor it is a top quark. Science isn't an abstraction, it's a set of observations rigorously achieved through the scientific process. A human is a human, humans can validate they are human by objectively measuring the aspects of our biology that confirm our humanity, and we are capable of knowing all truths of our biology through observation and experimentation.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems don't apply to objective reality, they apply exclusively to mathematical abstractions.

Regardless, even if Gödel's incompleteness theorems applied to objectivity, that doesn't mean you get to plug in things that, by definition, do not exist, it would just mean that a human cannot prove itself to be a human, nor can a human prove that aspects of a human are human. It just means you you need separate verification, ie. you would need a dog to define human and the aspects of human. It wouldn't get you anywhere near "supernatural".

>>19300968
>1. Podesta's questionable emails
This

>>19299234
Otherkin detected! cringe

File: xpol.png (139KB, 366x395px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 366x395px

for red pills go to /pol/, do not stop at /leftipol/ they got no red pills. That actually is a red pill in itself.

>>19301269
Well you are the conscious entity interpreting the effects as an observer, so your logic here falls apart.
The scientist is the observe of the machine, which observes the particle. So technically, your consciousness is transferred into the device and the particle itself becomes aware of this change and must resolve itself as to not create a paradox.
Anyways, you are a conscious observer, so is every living human, so YES, you do need a conscious observer at some point to validate the currently existing reality.

>>19302073
>Gödel's incompleteness theorems are theorems exclusively in the realm of mathematical philosophy, not physics, not chemistry, nothing more than the philosophy of the abstraction of mathematics. You cannot just magically apply rules about abstractions to physical systems.

Then by all means prove the theorem incorrect. Show me ANY consistent system of axioms that can be used to prove its own consistency.

>Science isn't an abstraction, it's a set of observations rigorously achieved through the scientific process.
Science is a consistent system of axioms for problem solving. Science CANNOT BE USED to prove that science works. If you disagree, give the counterexample.

Your examples show you have no idea what is meant by consistent system of axioms. A human is not a consistent system of axioms. A quark is not a consistent system of axioms.

>It just means you you need separate verification
And what would you call separate verification of ALL NATURAL LAWS? It wouldn't be another natural law. It would be something OUTSIDE THE LAWS OF NATURE. In other words, supernatural.

>>19302468
Otherkin? What are you talking about?

>>19297796
Does mental illness exist^ Okay yes, do not call it an illness and dive in. There you go. That's how it works.

>>19297796
Where did we come from?

>>19303026
>Then by all means prove the theorem incorrect. Show me ANY consistent system of axioms that can be used to prove its own consistency.

The theorm is correct, it just only applies to mathematical abstractions. It's not a theorem of general philosophy or scientific philosophy, it is a theorem exclusively within mathematical philosophy. You cannot apply a rule of mathematical axioms to objective axioms without thoroughly proving its application.

>Science is a consistent system of axioms for problem solving. Science CANNOT BE USED to prove that science works. If you disagree, give the counterexample.

Axioms are abstract premises, the scientific method is an inquiry based on objective and empirical evidence. Gödel's theorems don't apply to science.

> A human is not a consistent system of axioms. A quark is not a consistent system of axioms.

Hence why Gödel's theorems cannot be applied to reality.

>And what would you call separate verification of ALL NATURAL LAWS? It wouldn't be another natural law. It would be something OUTSIDE THE LAWS OF NATURE. In other words, supernatural.

Demonstrate that there is something other than natural reality and we can talk about how that can be used to explain physical phenomenon. This is nonsense regardless as all it gets you to is an infinite regression of "super*n-natural" realms required to explain the previous supernatural realm.

Again, all of this is nonsense because Gödel's theorems don't apply to objective reality.

>>19304199
dedly snek eat dum monkey

>>19299740
and esp testing, read some paranormal study reviews

>>19297796
go take a parapsychology class in college, this isnt a classroom son. we arent here to teach you, were here to share with you, that means you share the info you have about paranormal, in turn we share ours and our experiences. and btw, noone HAS to redpill you on this subject, its about freewill not arrogance

>>19304199
>Geger's Xenomorphs
>Geger's

>>19297796
If energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, what happens to the human conscience when we pass? It is made and powered by electricity? Not saying an after life, but that provides some plausibility for say, EVPs, or Odd vibes.

>>19304199
This is what i wanted this thread to be. Its not that at all. Just people arguing about people (that dont exist) arguing.

>>19304039
>It's not a theorem of general philosophy or scientific philosophy, it is a theorem exclusively within mathematical philosophy.
I am applying it generally. Can you give me a counter example to prove that it cannot be applied generally?

>objective and empirical evidence
Prove there is such a thing as objective and empirical evidence. Please avoid using a circular argument of "objective and empirical evidence proves objective and empirical evidence."

>Hence why Gödel's theorems cannot be applied to reality.
The scientific method IS a consistent system of axioms. Or rather the empirical materialism it is structured upon.

>all it gets you to is an infinite regression
Yes. The general application of the second principle of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is, essentially, a formalized concept of "Yes, but what created ___?" You talk about natural reality, and you use the natural laws to describe that reality. But the natural laws cannot describe why the natural laws exist, they can only describe why nature exists.

>Gödel's theorems don't apply to objective reality.
They apply to the very axiom that there is such a thing as objective reality.

There is no such thing as paranormal Anon, the universe is infinite, all of them infinite, in that infinity everything exists, anything thing on this board you read is true, but for the most part incomplete. INFINITY EVERYTHING

>>19301986

OP you's a bitch

File: 1499485133014.jpg (4MB, 1576x2672px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1576x2672px

>>19297796

>>19297868
Hey
With that logic even the strings theory is false.
Just go away now one cares if you believe it or not.

File: 18010768u.jpg (13KB, 393x345px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 393x345px

>>19297796

>>19304199
I have always been enthralled by the concept of instinctual fears such as what has been described. My hypothesis is that the long face aspect is taken from animal snouts, the dark and sunken eyes are taken from nocturnal predators, and the humanoid appearance is from fear of hostile humans, as "[the most dangerous of animals] must have courage, cunning, and, above all, it must be able to reason. (Richard Connell, *The Most Dangerous Game*)” Such a creature would be the largest threat to human life. The razor teeth might come from blades or claws, but I cannot be certain.

>>19304693
>Can you give me a counter example to prove that it cannot be applied generally?

Anything physical, objective, or evidence is nto an axiom.

>Prove there is such a thing as objective and empirical evidence.

Something objective is something that exists independent of the mind, and empiricism is the quality of being capable of verification through observation, in contrast to pure logic alone.

Objective and empirical evidence is facts obtained from the observational study of objects that exist independent from subjectivity.

>The scientific method IS a consistent system of axioms.

Reality isn't axioms, it's objective. The scientific method is axiomatic, but can be verified through objective experimentation.

>Yes. The general application of the second principle of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is, essentially, a formalized concept of "Yes, but what created ___?" You talk about natural reality, and you use the natural laws to describe that reality. But the natural laws cannot describe why the natural laws exist, they can only describe why nature exists.

Except nature is non-axiomatic, it's objective.

>They apply to the very axiom that there is such a thing as objective reality.

Naturalism is not a subset of mathematical logic, whereas Gödel's theorems pertain exclusively to mathematical logic. Regardless, objective reality exists whether or not there are axioms to ponder its existence by definition of objective.

You can't apply mathematical logic to reality arbitrarily. For instance, say I am funding the construction of a hotel. I find that each additional worker added to a job decreases the time it takes tasks to be done at a linear rate. If I continue to hire workers as the time it takes to complete each job approaches 0, but eventually the number of workers is so great that the workers can no longer move around in a sea of workers and no jobs get done.

>>19297835
Would you rather another larp/div thread?

Threads like this are chemotherapy

>>19299234

Fuck off , where in he word "Paranormal" does it say "Larping circlejerk" ?

/X/ is getting worse and worse because of people like you who don't want to talk about the plausible and would rather stay in a regressive, childlike state playing online cops and robbers. It's pathetic.

>>19299277

This is a far better answer as to what /X/ is than "hey hey, can't we all just larp in peace?"

>>19297816
Yeah that's not how it works. Particles aren't aware that a concious is observing them. They act different because the way we observe them is the equivalent to measuring the speed of a car by shooting a cannonball at it. Quantum's weird but it ain't super natrual.

>>19300213
Consciousness alone is proof of a higher power.

Think of every little variable, everything that had to of happened to your ancestors so the 1 in a googleplex chance you exist is true

That's pretty amazing if you ask me. Almost sure proof of something guiding us

>>19306701
>Anything physical, objective, or evidence is nto an axiom.
This is an unproven axiom. If true, you have merely regressed the issue. This is a supernatural claim.

>Something objective is something that exists independent of the mind,
Another axiom. Prove this sentence or admit it is supernatural.

>empiricism is the quality of being capable of verification through observation
And I challenge you to use observation alone to prove that empiricism exists.

>Reality isn't axioms, it's objective.
This is an axiom. Prove it WITHOUT assuming this is true.

>The scientific method is axiomatic, but can be verified through objective experimentation.
You cannot use the scientific method to prove the scientific method. You cannot use any consistent system of axioms to prove the consistency of that system.

>Except nature is non-axiomatic, it's objective
Axiom.

File: download.jpg (9KB, 222x228px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 222x228px

sorry you asked for it

>>19297830
it's only paranormal, until we understand it, then it becomes normal.

>>19308340
>nuh-uh

>nuhhh

>no

>nope

>nuh-uh nope

>no

>you're wrong

>nuh uh

>>19308340
None of what I wrote was a mathematical axiom. Prove Godel's theorems apply to natural or linguistic philosophy or cede your point. Also define "supernatural".

>>19308780
>mathematical axiom
Try to keep up. This is a generalized application of the second principle of the Theorem. It has nothing to do with math other than mathematics is one type of consistent system of axioms. This applies to well beyond mathematics; it applies to any and all consistent systems of axioms.

>Prove Godel's theorems apply
I am proving it, best as you can prove a theorem. You have yet to show any consistent set of axioms that can prove their own consistency. As soon as you can do that, the generalized principle of the theorem is destroyed. But if you can't provide a counterexample, then it remains.

If you are feeling pedantic, call it Anon's Generalized Incompleteness Conjecture. Changing the name won't change that I'm right.

>Also define "supernatural".
Existing outside the consistent system of axioms used to develop the natural laws.

>>19308961
>Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system containing basic arithmetic.

Now prove it can be applied to anything other than mathematics or cede your point.

>>19308989
We aren't talking about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. We're talking about Anon's Generalized Incompleteness Conjecture.

And I have stated that any consistent system of axioms cannot be used to prove its own consistency. All you have to do to show it to be complete bunk is to give one single counterexample.

We're all waiting.

>>19308999
A dog is a dog. This axiom is tautologically true at its inception.

>>19297796
Just stop. I'm a skeptic as well, but the bigger problem is that there are a lot of people who aren't going to be convinced no matter what evidence you show them or what arguments you put forth. These are the kind of people this thread will attract.
Yelling at a stone wall isn't going to accomplish much. Unless you're Black Bolt, anyway.

>>19297897
Which, you'll note, isn't proof that a thing actually exists.
You can't disprove that I fart immaterial, massless, undetectable pixies. That doesn't mean I actually fart immaterial, massless, undetectable pixies.

>>19297834
Wrong.It is a Female Nigger

>>19309085
>A dog is a dog.
Ok. This is an axiom, agreed. Is it a consistent system? No, you did not assert this. Instead, you prove its factuality through tautology. Is tautology a consistent system of axioms?

>>19301256
He just thinks that because its in a movie it must be wrong

>>19305553
or maybe these fears don't belong to us but rather to the reptilian brain which is older than the solar system

You asked for it. Seems like a start of a proof

>>19297907
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py10Xs63ewA [Embed]

What movie is that?

>>19297796
Take 500mg of DPH and get back to me

File: tmp_4937-Supernatural-431610911.jpg (25KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 500x281px

>>19297796
you'll either experience it for yourself or you won't. it's that simple. nothing anyone could post here would ever convince a skeptic.

>>19297796
Well, OP, if you can give me an explanation for most of this videos, I will be skeptic like you. Good luck

>>19297796
TO THE unbelieving materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man's only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good.
But such is not man's end and eternal destiny; such a vision is but the cry of despair uttered by some wandering soul who has become lost in spiritual darkness, and who bravely struggles on in the face of the mechanistic sophistries of a material philosophy, blinded by the confusion and distortion of a complex learning. And all this doom of darkness and all this destiny of despair are forever dispelled by one brave stretch of faith on the part of the most humble and unlearned of God's children on earth.

Chakra Points and opening the third eye is a real thing.

But I cant prove it to you. Only you can prove it to yourself.

That is how I found out its true. I felt it.

And once you feel it. Its impossible to deny it.

How can you just deny something you have experienced? You cant.

>>19297796
Woops, sorry OP, those are the videos, forgot to emed them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai7E5svVFLM here it is. If you give an explanation for most of them, I'll be skeptic like ya. Good luck

>>19310592
A system of axioms cannot prove it's own consistency, but when the system of axioms pertains to objectivity, we can confirm it through experimentation; ie. The Theory of General Relativity, proven through gravitational redshift, gravitational radiation, the time delay of light, time dilation, gravitational lensing, the precession of Mercury, frame dragging, etc.

>>19311996
No one is saying anything about what a system of axioms can or can't do within said system, such as scientific theories regarding description of nature.

But if you assert that the system of axioms used to derive the natural laws is a consistent system, then you run into
>A system of axioms cannot prove it's own consistency
And you are forced to accept either:
>the system is validated through means outside the system, which in the case of the system for natural laws means the validation is supernatural
>the system is not consistent, which in the case of natural laws leaves open the possibility of the existence of the supernatural

No matter what, you are FORCED to accept the supernatural.

>>19297796
How do you convince a naturalist that something is supernatural

It is impossible unless he abandons his naturalism

File: 3b3152233a0aae6f54a2daf66c71d3ed-d5lvl8r.jpg (319KB, 719x1111px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 719x1111px

>>19300213
We are far from proving either of those things beyond WIDELY varying and highly-disputed theories.

>Origin of the universe
Big bang or giant simulation?

>Origin of biological life
Directed panspermia or primeval soup?

There are plenty of theories, all "scientific", but nothing has EVER been proven on the 2 subjects you referenced. I don't know why you chose those 2 but you didn't think it through.

>>19297796
Any sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic.

>>19300124
That's my new favorite catch phrase.

>>19300124
This this and only this. This is why proof threads are utter crap. Just fuck you all and let this shit die.

Do you believe humans are the only intelligent beings on earth?No? Then theres prolly something else.

File: 1500221424950.jpg (357KB, 800x900px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 800x900px

Atlantis, leavening earth under fire from yahwh.
shit is real bitch.
pic related

>>19297796
my dick gets hard when i look at pretty women. its possessed and takes on properties of stone. i have to strangle it for a while to stop

>>19300635
share the audio faggit

>>19312105
>the system is validated through means outside the system, which in the case of the system for natural laws means the validation is supernatural

Non sequitur, natural laws exist objectively regardless of axioms and provide a concrete, empiric point to verify the integrity of axioms pertaining to it. A system of axioms regarding nature can be confirmed by nature, as nature is not axiomatic.

>>19297796
gematrix.org

>>19297846
>wright

Wew lad...

File: ShillsExposed.gif (689KB, 1688x2849px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 1688x2849px

>>19297796

KB Threads(All Information is Truth & the Shills can't stand them): http://archive.4plebs.org/_/search/subject/knowledge%20bomb/username/anonymous5/tripcode/%21%219O2tecpDHQ6/

>>19313755
>natural laws exist objectively regardless of axioms
This is an axiom. What proof do you have that this is true?

>>19297796
Supernatural is a show that exists on netflix.
Go look it up.

File: 140773.jpg (232KB, 500x631px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 500x631px

>>19297796
ur an entitity who lives in a Universe that is of infinity, while u urself is a being who is of infinite potential

>Don't believe in the supernatural, eh?
>How about after you watch this youtube video narrated by a british teenager?
>YOU'RE JUST CLOSE-MINDED

>>19306766
>quantum particles dindu nuffin
I find it funny that that myth that they act different has been so well propagated without adding that its our poor measuring techniques.

File: TREES.jpg (477KB, 1278x1077px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 1278x1077px

>>19315327
fucking humanfags

>>19300175
I saw this sci-fi show were the aliens laughed at us because our understanding of science was retarded. I'm sure some game changing shit is bound to be discovered some time. Like theoretical physics is basically making shit up with barely any evidence.

>>19304825
Didn't they have like 3 or 4 different theories before they agreed that string theory is the most likely theory. And that idea could change at anytime

>>19297837
I love you m8 but I wish would actually type your shit out. Trying to decipher your August videos is a exercise in futility

>>19308567
you can say that about ANYTHING

>>19301299
not him, but basically being struck by a photon.

imagine being in a pitch black room. you want to know where your TV is. you shine a torch on the V and the reflected light allows you to detect the location of your TV. it's 'position' has been measured. now imagine something so small that the light beam actually exerts a force on it great enough to move the object to be observed. this is what happens with quantum scale particles - even a single photon of light will cause the object to move - thus it's position can never be definitively measured because the act of measuring (observing) causes a change in position.

nothing mystical. Quantum shit is just small is all.

>>19311778
Wow you found a picture of OP

>>19305448
underrated

>>19297835
You lost

File: FB_IMG_1500274976176.jpg (72KB, 720x871px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 720x871px

http://new.cseti.org/ce5initiative
siriusdisclosure.com

Watch the Sirius and Unacknowledged documentaries then train yourself in CE-5. Find a local team and do a little advanced stargazing. See what's really real for yourself.

I manifested ET contact within 5 minutes of flipping through the app. There's so much to love out there, but it's hard to see unless you love yourself.

File: anime_smug_150.png (131KB, 422x508px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 422x508px

>>19297879
Not an argument, you nerd. There is no evidence of supernatural anything.

>>19297796
Synchronicity. Some things can't be JUST coincidences

>>19297830
>Asks for proof of paranormal.
>Gets back peer reviewed evidence of paranormal.
>Says proof is science, not paranormal.

How can this shit get 160 replies?

>>19314216
doesn't john mcain have brain cancer

>>19319950
ty

>>19319968
Yes they CAN.

File: 1499286744219.jpg (217KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 750x1334px

what more is there to say

>>19320019
noone likes denialist

>>19320031
denialists*