You are expressing your opinion I differ with.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Posit: The Concept of the Supernatural Cannot Exist.
- Thread starter Mycroft
- Start date
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
No, we are talking about empirical evidence - data, observations verified by some form of protocol. I agree that there is plenty of fantastic anecdotal evidence.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I'm just going with the scientific consensus on that point. There has been no good reliable evidence from 150 years of experimentation.
Review the definition of 'empirical evidence'.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Yes we've covered that George, a few posts ago.
again your opinion I differ with. And experimentation is only a part of the field.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sure, but it is the part of the field we are discussing.
I agree. I believe there are experiments with positive results not due to chance or experimental error. We've done that debate before.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Yes, the Ganzfield experiment -but we agreed that it just identified a statistical anomaly, not evidence of the supernatural. It does not even claim to have such evidence - I read the whole thing.
There was also a statue that drank milk, I went home and made one. I could sell it to you?
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
Because anything that acts on the physical must also have some basis in physicality itself.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
You'd have to rephrase that Question: Anything that acts on the physical what does that mean?
In ife, there is no "must haves." That's actually stating that life has to run up under some type of law and cannot have hidden valuables to it. Making life static.
Also, in this case, we taking about any event. So not all events act on the physical there's got to be another common foundation for which all events both that we can understand (think is natural) and don't understand (think is, "supernatural" aka mystery).
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Then you should be able to show objective evidence that the paranormal is actually real. That's what all of this comes down to. You keep making claims that you cannot back up, people keep pointing out that you've got nothing of worth to actually present and you just shrug and keep believing it anyhow. Is it any wonder nobody takes you seriously?
I have presented my objective evidence many times in these threads. It comes from my objective study of beyond the normal human experiences and masters I believe have understood the nature of reality beyond our common understanding. Because you keep claiming I have nothing of worth to show does not mean I have nothing of worth.
There are millions upon millions upon millions of words written and spoken on these subjects. In a reply posts I can only give a synopsis of it all.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
It appears that you are equating the natural with the physical. So, I'm failing to see why the nonphysical cannot exist.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
No, you've proven time and time again that you have no clue what objective means. Everything you present is subjective. In order to be objective, it must " not be influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts". That's what the word means. Nothing you've said meets that criteria. Simply repeating the same disproven claim over and over again doesn't impress anyone.
In a criminal court case the jury lays all the evidence and argumentation for guilt and all the evidence and argumentation for innocence in front of themselves and decides what is most reasonable to believe factoring in everything. Their job is to be as objective as possible. Do you know a better system when there is no proof/disproof.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Yet juries come to factually wrong decisions all the time and we know it. In fact, most court lawyers aren't interested in the truth, just how they can spin a case to the jury so they will decide in their favor. Juries are not particularly objective, nor does the legal profession want them to be. There are plenty of other systems that are much, much better. There is also no proof/disproof for anything, proof is for mathematics and alcohol. There is evidence though, and the jury system is about the worst imaginable (other than blind faith) for determining factual reality.
You may have missed my point. How then does Cephus come to an opinion on any disputed topic in spirituality and the paranormal?? Does he not consider both sides?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sorry George, but that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
That phrase doesn't apply here.
Point is your opinion and my opinion are both ultimately subjective and are only as good as how well we objectively considered both sides.