224 replies to this topic

[Corp]

Seems like when it's pointed out that the traditional view of vampires (or other monsters) can't exist in nature we get "oh no that's not what a real vampire is". Then we get a brand new definition.

[Setton]

Agent. Mulder, on 07 March 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

Its pretty wishful thinking, that ANYTHING that pops out of ones imagination, has a small chance of being here, but remains undiscovered.

But nevertheless there is no way to say categorically, that something does not exist anywhere, at all, ever. As Nibs pointed out, the only way to say something does not exist is that physics/biology etc do not work that way. It could still be the case that our entire understanding of sciences is wrong and our laws of physics just happen to work through sheer chance. Naturally, I don't think this is the case but no-one can prove it unless we know everything there is to know in the universe.

[Agent. Mulder]

Setton, on 07 March 2011 - 05:48 PM, said:

But nevertheless there is no way to say categorically, that something does not exist anywhere, at all, ever. As Nibs pointed out, the only way to say something does not exist is that physics/biology etc do not work that way. It could still be the case that our entire understanding of sciences is wrong and our laws of physics just happen to work through sheer chance. Naturally, I don't think this is the case but no-one can prove it unless we know everything there is to know in the universe.

Physics and biology lean towards vampires being pure fiction.

[Setton]

Agent. Mulder, on 07 March 2011 - 05:51 PM, said:

Physics and biology lean towards vampires being pure fiction.

Yes, I know that, as you'd know from my other posts. But, as I said, this relies on the (very reasonable) assumption that our understanding of physics and biology is correct. From all the evidence available today, this is the case but that doesn't mean something couldn't be discovered tomorrow that proves it all to be wrong.

[Agent. Mulder]

Setton, on 07 March 2011 - 05:55 PM, said:

Yes, I know that, as you'd know from my other posts. But, as I said, this relies on the (very reasonable) assumption that our understanding of physics and biology is correct. From all the evidence available today, this is the case but that doesn't mean something couldn't be discovered tomorrow that proves it all to be wrong.

I will shoot myself if that happens.

[Setton]

Agent. Mulder, on 07 March 2011 - 05:58 PM, said:

I will shoot myself if that happens.

Umm...ok then. If it makes you feel better...

I'm not sure how this makes it any less possible but hey, each to their own.

[0011235813]

HerNibs, on 07 March 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

I think we are back to the "define vampire" issue.

  Heck, we could go with "undead, drinks blood and can turn into a bat or mist" definition.

I think I'm on pretty solid ground with biology and physics don't work that way.

Nibs

We can only make a description on the "vampire" through alleged sighting's.
We cannot relie on Novel's and Movies etc.. They have been adapted to suit the author's need's, or they may simply be the image
the author has. Wether a shape shifting almost immortal afraid of garlic vampire exist's  there is no doubt it is false.
Wether a blood drinking creature with certain abilities exist's, well it's possible, and there have been a lot of sighting's.

[Agent. Mulder]

0011235813, on 07 March 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

We can only make a description on the "vampire" through alleged sighting's.
We cannot relie on Novel's and Movies etc.. They have been adapted to suit the author's need's, or they may simply be the image
the author has. Wether a shape shifting almost immortal afraid of garlic vampire exist's  there is no doubt it is false.
Wether a blood drinking creature with certain abilities exist's, well it's possible, and there have been a lot of sighting's.

How again, is this possible?

[HerNibs]

0011235813, on 07 March 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

We can only make a description on the "vampire" through alleged sighting's.
We cannot relie on Novel's and Movies etc.. They have been adapted to suit the author's need's, or they may simply be the image
the author has. Wether a shape shifting almost immortal afraid of garlic vampire exist's  there is no doubt it is false.
Wether a blood drinking creature with certain abilities exist's, well it's possible, and there have been a lot of sighting's.

I'm not sure where to go with this post...


The "sightings" and descriptions vary widely through out the ages so there is no one description.

I wasn't relying on novels or movies.  I was relying on old folklore (which too is widely varied).

Why is there "no doubt" that shape shifting immortals are NOT afraid of garlic?  How would you come to that conclusion?

Sightings are NOT evidence.  They are stories.  Interpretations of an incident.  

Nibs

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

0011235813, on 06 March 2011 - 06:41 PM, said:

Can you definitively prove it doesn't exist?
No, I didn't think so.

Thats silly logic. Come. I cant prove Santa doesn't exist either.

You cant prove that I can't fly.


This thread makes me really wonder aoubt the state of our public schools.

[P4UL N0153]

0011235813, on 07 March 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

We can only make a description on the "vampire" through alleged sighting's.
We cannot relie on Novel's and Movies etc.. They have been adapted to suit the author's need's, or they may simply be the image
the author has. Wether a shape shifting almost immortal afraid of garlic vampire exist's  there is no doubt it is false.
Wether a blood drinking creature with certain abilities exist's, well it's possible, and there have been a lot of sighting's.

Your hypothetical is lacking in fundamental features such as a plausible physiology and a basis for such a creature existing. Just because you think it may be possible for a creature like a vampire to exist, doesn't mean that it actually is possible. And if it differs enough from what one could could consider the universal understanding of what a vampire is, then it is simply another creature all together. A being that is dead and subsides on the blood of living creatures to exist, is an impossibility. Anything that strays from these basic features ceases to have the ability to be classified as a "vampire". Changing the definition too far from what is commonly understood to be traits of a vampire is describing some entirely different entity. Right?

ETA: Clarification.

Edited by Paul Disaster, 07 March 2011 - 09:18 PM.

[0011235813]

Paul Disaster, on 07 March 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:

Your hypothetical is lacking in fundamental features such as a plausible physiology and a basis for such a creature existing. Just because you think it may be possible for a creature like a vampire to exist, doesn't mean that it actually is possible. And if it differs enough from what one could could consider the universal understanding of what a vampire is, then it is simply another creature all together. A being that is dead and subsides on the blood of living creatures to exist is an impossibility. Anything that strays from these basic features ceases to have the ability to be classified as a "vampire". Changing the definition too far from what is commonly understood to be traits of a vampire is describing some entirely different entity.

So do vampires in the sense we know exist? or could there be something slightly different going on?

[The New Richard Nixon]

0011235813, on 07 March 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

So do vampires in the sense we know exist? or could there be something slightly different going on?

Vampires do not exist. Full stop.

[HerNibs]

0011235813, on 07 March 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:

So do vampires in the sense we know exist? or could there be something slightly different going on?

This doesn't make a lot of sense.  If they don't exist under what we understand as a vampire (standard definition) then they wouldn't be vampires would they?

Can you define what you mean by vampire?  

Nibs

[0011235813]

Erix, on 07 March 2011 - 09:22 PM, said:

Vampires do not exist. Full stop.

Okay Mr. know's it all. Since we are all so ignorant, why don't you enlighten us with your proof that
show's vampire's do not exist, if you can't, then I think I will remain a tiny bit skeptical of
your statement's.
If you make a statement then prove it, You cannot prove this statement, It is your opinion, not fact, so unless you come up with some proof,
then maybe you should think before you write.