[Zhavric]

Quote by: RealRockingham 1)No. I recognise its scientifically and "logically" impossible. What I DONT recognise is that science and logic are undebatably correct.

Then embrace intellectually honesty. Accept that proven things are the way they are until evidence comes along to challenge them. Science and logic aren't a set of arbitrary assertions that are ready to change at the drop of a hat. They're proven facts and we have a very specific way of upgrading our knowledge. We don't simply discard things nor do we ignore what's proven because someone feels it might be disproven later. This is what makes context so important. For example:

"Man will never be able to teleport" is unknown.

"Man cannot teleport right now" is true.

So, please specify when you say something is impossible, impossible according to WHAT world view? Your own? You MAY be wrong, and if you can't accept that you are narrow minded and set in your ways.

It's no good name calling. No amount of ad homs on your part will convince any intellectually honest person that 1+1=3, nor is it "narrow minded" to call a spade a spade and point out that impossible things are impossible. Nor is it any great mystery as to why teleporting accross continents is impossible. I am truly in awe of volconvo's ability to draw individuals who struggle with this basic concept. You are certainly among friends (the ones that haven't been banned, anyway).

2) You misinterpreted me. I was saying that, if the Mormon God was real, their WOULDN'T need to be more energy on the Earth then the sun to transport them.

That's what's known as a tremendous cop out. We wouldn't accept that sort of reasoning in any walk of science or academia. Why should we accept it here? "If this monumentally silly thing is real then it allows for this other impossible thing to not be impossible." You'd be laughed out of any classroom you tried to present that to and rightly so. Why, then, make a special pleading for religion? Remember that god, itself, is a claim that requires support. Effectively, your argument reads, "It's possible to teleport to the moon and back with the help of my super-moon-teleporter-chicken-apparatus."

3)Prove its false.

*sigh*

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:

Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Examples of Burden of Proof

Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system."
Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury."
Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?"

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

"You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does."

5) Your using YOUR logic. It makes logical sense to others. Logic is to quite some extent a product of the individual.

Absolutely false. Logic is 100% universal. What's true for me is true for you unless you're changing the context.

Logic and science aren't synonomous.

Thank you, Fonceai. To be sure, logic and science go hand in hand. Science requires logic and reason and logic requires empirically gathered data to go beyond a raw abstract.

6) I have a grasp of what is scientifically possible, and in everyday life subscribe to it. But we are talking theoretically, are we not?

*sigh*

Fallacy: Special Pleading

You need to stop employing fallacies when you debate.