Near Death experiences and the scientific method.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure, I understand that, I am referring to the possibility of their being spiritual realms.

Maybe I missed something.
When was a "spiritual realm" ever demonstrated to being a possibility?

Falling down the stairs is a possibility.
A volcano erupting is a possibility.
Being struck by lightning is a possibility.
Conversely, if you jump on a trampoline it is an impossibility to shoot of into space instead of falling back to earth.



How is "spiritual realm" a possibility?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There's a difference between considering something a "possibility" on the one hand, and being able to rule something out as an impossibility.

As far as I know, nobody has ever shown that the easter bunny is possible, let alone plausible.
Likewise, nobody has ever shown that supernatural beings are possible, let alone plausible.

Neither has anybody ever shown either to be impossible.


That's how it goes with unfalsifiable, unsupportable, undefendable, undemonstrable claims.
It's also why I see no reason to believe them. Or even consider them.

So given your claim that you are agnostic about the easter bunny since you can't rule it out with certainty, then I can only say gosh, you really are taking agnosticism to limits unheard of in my experience.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Maybe I missed something.
When was a "spiritual realm" ever demonstrated to being a possibility?

Falling down the stairs is a possibility.
A volcano erupting is a possibility.
Being struck by lightning is a possibility.
Conversely, if you jump on a trampoline it is an impossibility to shoot of into space instead of falling back to earth.



How is "spiritual realm" a possibility?

It is now me who has missed something, I don't remember saying that to you, please provide the post number so I can see the context?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So given your claim that you are agnostic about the easter bunny since you can't rule it out with certainty, then I can only say gosh, you really are taking agnosticism to limits unheard of in my experience.

Perhaps that is the case because you don't really understand what the terms "agnosticism" and "atheism" really mean.

As can be seen by some of your posts in this very thread about this subject.

It's rather simple:
- can it be conclusively disproven?
=> no.
In that case, you can't conclusively rule it out. So you are agnostic about it.

Is it likely that the easter bunny exists? lol no
Is it plausible? Heck no
Is it possible? fundamentally we don't know, but given everything we do know - it seems very likely to not being possible

Is it impossible? => we don't know, it would require the ability of conclusively disproving it in order to be able to say "yes" to this question.


When dealing with subjects that find themselves in such category, then for all practical intents and purposes, we assume the position of these things not existing. Strictly speaking we don't know - we are agnostic.

But there is no reason at all to believe it and it seems very unlikely - so we don't believe it and therefor live our lives as if these things don't exist.

This is also why you wouldn't slam your breaks in the middle of high traffic speedway when I suddenly claim that there is a pile of invisible rocks blocking your way. You will not risk getting rear-ended by slamming your breaks "just in case" there is a pile of invisible rocks there, since you can't "disprove" the existence of such.

So strictly speaking, you'ld be agnostic about those rocks, but drive on anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is now me who has missed something, I don't remember saying that to you, please provide the post number so I can see the context?

It seems to me that you said that an agnostic atheist and based it on his agnosticism.
That because he is agnostic, that that means (or should mean) that he accepts that a spiritual realm is a "possibility".

Isn't that what you were saying?

 

[rational experiences]

In science a man human scientist said a gas is a spirit as it is ethereal.

As compared to one of the earth as a God science product.

Science said as no space exists in our heavens as our earth space was filled in by heavens. Our heavens is aligned to the eternal form.

Becoming a returned body form that arose out of gods flesh body earth....as the changed replaced eternal body that isn't eternal.

It now exists with the eternal but just in creation. The explanation itself.

As spiritually the spirit self came out of the eternal into the heavenly atmosphere. As the heavens joined with the eternal.

A teaching why we came out of the eternal spirit by heavens causes.

As the eternal body had in fact released creation then the eternal self spirit as animals and then human took on the highest changed heavenly eternal form. Water biology not of any other type.

Why biological human chemistry is self owned by our spiritual change. Human.

If a man bodily returned from being deceased without owning a deceased body then obviousky it occurred if witnessed.

As I've seen ghosts myself that came back then disappear. Of a pre living human wearing clothing they wore only in life.

They never are seen naked.

Which is not any NDE.

 

[night912]

If within context that the spiritual realm is if the supernatural, then I don't believe that a spiritual realm exist.

II don't know what that means.

If you don't know what it means for someone to "don't believe in something," then it shows that you are not qualified to engage in discussions about atheism and theism. Why should anyone care about your reasons for calling someone an atheist, theist, agnostic, or gnostic when you've demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding what it means for someone to not believe in something?

 

[night912]

It was not I who raised and applied "pure" to atheist and agnostic, it was night912 in post #1296 My subsequent use of it was in the context of trying to understand what he meant.

Yes, you did. You first applied it to atheist in post #1287.

So all this time I must admit to presuming your position was pure atheist, I am happy to discover an agnostic, gosh you're halfway there.

Just in case you're not aware of it, #1287 comes before #1296.

From your comment in post #1297, it appears that you did understand the context of how I was using "pure."

Didn't you forget the pure theist part from her youth, now average the three and she comes out an agnostic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is it likely that the easter bunny exists? lol no

Is it impossible? => we don't know, it would require the ability of conclusively disproving it in order to be able to say "yes"

This is my response to someone who doesn't know if it is possible for the Easter Bunny to exist....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It seems to me that you said that an agnostic atheist and based it on his agnosticism.
That because he is agnostic, that that means (or should mean) that he accepts that a spiritual realm is a "possibility".

Isn't that what you were saying?

C'mon, put up and provide the details of where and when I was supposed to say that to you, either a link or post number will suffice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is my response to someone who doesn't know if it is possible for the Easter Bunny to exist....

I'm sorry you can't bother with a mature intellectual approach to the subject.
While you laugh, perhaps try to come up with conclusive proof that the easter bunny doesn't exist, or how you can demonstrate that it is impossible for it to exist, or possible for that matter, so that you can put your money where your juvenile laughing is.

I won't be holding my breath though.


ow well. Not sure why I expected more.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

C'mon, put up and provide the details of where and when I was supposed to say that to you, either a link or post number will suffice.

You weren't talking to me. Not sure why you keep coming back to that. Does it matter who you were talking to?

I'm just addressing a statement you made.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If you don't know what it means for someone to "don't believe in something," then it shows that you are not qualified to engage in discussions about atheism and theism. Why should anyone care about your reasons for calling someone an atheist, theist, agnostic, or gnostic when you've demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding what it means for someone to not believe in something?

So this is what you said, "If within context that the spiritual realm is if the supernatural, then I don't believe that a spiritual realm exist."
Read it to yourself, it does not make sense!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You weren't talking to me. Not sure why you keep coming back to that. Does it matter who you were talking to?

I'm just addressing a statement you made.

Of course it matters, what is wrong with you. There was a certain context involved that is not apparent when you do this, that is why it is wrong.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm sorry you can't bother with a mature intellectual approach to the subject.
While you laugh, perhaps try to come up with conclusive proof that the easter bunny doesn't exist, or how you can demonstrate that it is impossible for it to exist, or possible for that matter, so that you can put your money where your juvenile laughing is.

I won't be holding my breath though.


ow well. Not sure why I expected more.

This may sound shocking to you, but I really do have more important things to deal with then the proving the easter bunny doesn't exist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, you did. You first applied it to atheist in post #1287.



Just in case you're not aware of it, #1287 comes before #1296.

From your comment in post #1297, it appears that you did understand the context of how I was using "pure."

So this is what you said in your comment #1296 "She's a pure agnostic and a pure atheist."

So I can understand if there is any difference between the two, pure agnostic and pure atheist, what does the pure atheist night9 say about the possibility of there being a spiritual realm, and what does the pure agnostic night912 say about the possibility of a spiritual realm?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course it matters, what is wrong with you. There was a certain context involved that is not apparent when you do this, that is why it is wrong.

The context was agnosticism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This may sound shocking to you, but I really do have more important things to deal with then the proving the easter bunny doesn't exist.

Dodging the actual point I see.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So this is what you said in your comment #1296 "She's a pure agnostic and a pure atheist."

So I can understand if there is any difference between the two, pure agnostic and pure atheist, what does the pure atheist night9 say about the possibility of there being a spiritual realm, and what does the pure agnostic night912 say about the possibility of a spiritual realm?

The "pure" atheist says (s)he doesn't believe such a realm exists
The "pure" agnostic says (s)he considers it unknowable that such a realm exists.

Not sure what the "pure" qualifier is supposed to mean, but there you go.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The context was agnosticism.

Go back and find out who I was talking with and show the last two exchanges between us (not you), only then will the context be determined. If you are not prepared to do that, an apology would be in order.