Originally posted by Shabazz916I don't usually back Shakya (To be honest for a while I thought he had me on ignore) but really, what evidence is there for the things you or anyone in this thread claim?
of course you dnt believe becuz... you can believe bcuz your spirit is lost by the devil who doesnt want you to be saved.. he wants to drag you down...
Originally posted by NemeBroyou see the hate everyday... when you see kids play together or different races.. is there racism in their heart ?
I don't usually back Shakya (To be honest for a while I thought he had me on ignore) but really, what evidence is there for the things you or anyone in this thread claim?
when do you think good and evil comes from ? you dnt see it like that bcuz your vision is clouded
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Until you can do that I'm simply going to dismiss your position because you essentially have no standing. Provide something to examine and falsify to demonstrate the truth of your position, blue.
While I understand your position and I feel you shouldn't need any rationale not to believe in something that is essentially a belief, I don't think it's reasonable to demand proof for the supernatural.
Originally posted by Shabazz916of course you don't believe ...
you [can't] believe because your spirit is lost by the devil,
who doesn't want you to be saved ...
he wants to drag you down...
Interesting to note, if that WERE what is going on here, that might conform well to the following:
(Note: the "god" spelled with a lower case "g" here is Satan.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Corinthians 4 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
4 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2 but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%204&version=AKJV
Originally posted by Bentley
While I understand your position and I feel you shouldn't need any rationale not to believe in something that is essentially a belief, I don't think it's reasonable to demand proof for the supernatural.
It's reasonable when the assertions about the supernatural cross over into the physical world. If a person is making claims that the supernatural not only exists but can and does have a causal effect in the physical world I think it's very reasonable to ask for a falsifiable example or demonstration of this supernatural agent, or that supernatural agency is even a plausible claim to begin with. Just as I would ask someone claiming that they were abducted by Aliens and had surgical procedures conducted on them by these Aliens for some form of falsifiable, corroborating evidence to support their claims regarding encounters with intelligent extraterrestrial life.
Is it reasonable to demand evidence of extraterrestrials when claims are made about their activities on Earth?
Originally posted by Shabazz916Which kids are these?
you see the hate everyday... when you see kids play together or different races.. is there racism in their heart ?when do you think good and evil comes from ? you dnt see it like that bcuz your vision is clouded
I think good and evil are human constructs, words used by men and women to separate those whose moralities correlate with the accepted morality and those whose moralities do not. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I have my own perceptions of good and evil, just like you.
Clouded by what?
Originally posted by MF DELPH
It's reasonable when the assertions about the supernatural cross over into the physical world. If a person is making claims that the supernatural not only exists but can and does have a causal effect in the physical world I think it's very reasonable to ask for a falsifiable example or demonstration of this supernatural agent, or that supernatural agency is even a plausible claim to begin with. Just as I would ask someone claiming that they were abducted by Aliens and had surgical procedures conducted on them by these Aliens for some form of falsifiable, corroborating evidence to support their claims regarding encounters with intelligent extraterrestrial life.Is it reasonable to demand evidence of extraterrestrials when claims are made about their activities on Earth?
Eh, I worded my phrase poorly. It shouldn't have been a generalisation that wide, probably my mind drifted because I was thinking about stuff from the religion forums.
What is supernatural about extraterrestrials? Nothing at all. They would be beings from another planet. If someone makes an iffy claim that could be proved by physical means, it's fair and reasonable to ask for proof about it. I'd argue that if such proof exists, then the phenomena wouldn't be really supernatural.
Let's say I ask you to prove that ghosts exist. You can go an prove that there is a physical manifestation, light entity or corroborate physically energy fluctuations and stuff. Let's say that the effect the ghost would've in the world, can be proved by science. Cool. That would still not prove it's actually a ghost, in the sense of a death soul coming back to Earth. In a scientific sense, we'd have a thing that exists but that may be or may not be a ghost, until we get more information.
For example, that kind of proof can exist about an after-death experience? If you came back alive, then you cannot really be sure it wasn't just a delirium. Also if you weren't really perpetually dead, you cannot know if the place you saw was really an afterlife. What I originally meant was that there are some phenomena in which I'd find heavily unreasonable to ask for proof about them, because you know that such proof cannot exist.
Again, I went stupid and wrote a general statement about this, and you were right in correcting me because it was factually false. Sorry about that 🙁
Originally posted by NemeBro
No, you have.Because I'm not an idiot and as such don't make empirical statements on whether or not something that has yet to be proven or disproven exists or not.
I'm an idiot for making a thread based from a supposedly empiracle point of view instead of...theory...? There's no logic in saying there's a Creator? When everything around us is a creation?
Maybe a cheap shot, but a shot nonetheless.
^I think that's the rub.
How have you determined that everything in our universe is a "creation"?
What methodology did you employ to eliminate all other possible causes for our universe's existence?
How did you determine that existence has not simply always existed in one state or another and requires the actions of a being that existed outside of space and time?
How have you determined that such a being (or beings) is even plausible?
Originally posted by Bentley
Eh, I worded my phrase poorly. It shouldn't have been a generalisation that wide, probably my mind drifted because I was thinking about stuff from the religion forums.What is supernatural about extraterrestrials? Nothing at all. They would be beings from another planet. If someone makes an iffy claim that could be proved by physical means, it's fair and reasonable to ask for proof about it. I'd argue that if such proof exists, then the phenomena wouldn't be really supernatural.
Let's say I ask you to prove that ghosts exist. You can go an prove that there is a physical manifestation, light entity or corroborate physically energy fluctuations and stuff. Let's say that the effect the ghost would've in the world, can be proved by science. Cool. That would still not prove it's actually a ghost, in the sense of a death soul coming back to Earth. In a scientific sense, we'd have a thing that exists but that may be or may not be a ghost, until we get more information.
For example, that kind of proof can exist about an after-death experience? If you came back alive, then you cannot really be sure it wasn't just a delirium. Also if you weren't really perpetually dead, you cannot know if the place you saw was really an afterlife. What I originally meant was that there are some phenomena in which I'd find heavily unreasonable to ask for proof about them, because you know that such proof cannot exist.
Again, I went stupid and wrote a general statement about this, and you were right in correcting me because it was factually false. Sorry about that 🙁
Well, couple things:
I used the extraterrestrial example because the claims made about them parallel the claims made about supernatural entities. We would require evidence for aliens but engage in special pleading regarding claims of the supernatural that allegedly manifest in our physical world. If these phenomena manifest in the physical world and have a causal influence they'd be detectable, as well as recordable. People have been actively attempting to catalog ghosts, sasquatches, etc. for decades. Moreover, people have simply stopped believing in various supernatural phenomena that had been alleged to facilitate functions in the physical world once we discovered what the true cause was. Zeus doesn't cast lightning bolts, the Gods aren't angry when volcanoes erupt, demons and spirits don't cause disease, etc. Magic doesn't have any true explanatory ability. It's essentially a place holder in lieu of our discovering a true agent. You'd might as well say "X was the cause". I'm in the position of "Now solve for X".
Regarding near-death and after-death experiences. If a person was revived from a critical state they weren't dead, as in brain dead/no brain function, so we're talking near-death, not post-death. A brain in an impaired state can produce all kinds of imagery and impulses, so yes, I'd require a means of distinguishing these experiences from the delirium of an impaired brain, because people on hallucinogens and other psychotropic substances also claim to experience the same imagery. I'd also need a means of determining why members of different religions see near-death imagery from their own religion rather than seeing the same thing universally. Why don't all Hindus, Native Americans, or Aborigines see Gabriel or Jesus when near death? Why don't all Christians/Catholics, Jews, or Muslims see Krishna or a spirit animal? Coming back from death, as in zero brain function and rigamortis having set in and then being 'resurrected', to my knowledge, has never occurred outside of anecdote in various old books and myths. If you are aware of a non-theistic real world example of a corpse reanimating with it's mental faculties intact and relating it's experiences please share.
Originally posted by Bentleyso supernatural is basically just another word for things we can't access through physical evidence? are scientific models of the multiverse or what happen in the first few instances of the big bang supernatural?
Eh, I worded my phrase poorly. It shouldn't have been a generalisation that wide, probably my mind drifted because I was thinking about stuff from the religion forums.What is supernatural about extraterrestrials? Nothing at all. They would be beings from another planet. If someone makes an iffy claim that could be proved by physical means, it's fair and reasonable to ask for proof about it. I'd argue that if such proof exists, then the phenomena wouldn't be really supernatural.
Let's say I ask you to prove that ghosts exist. You can go an prove that there is a physical manifestation, light entity or corroborate physically energy fluctuations and stuff. Let's say that the effect the ghost would've in the world, can be proved by science. Cool. That would still not prove it's actually a ghost, in the sense of a death soul coming back to Earth. In a scientific sense, we'd have a thing that exists but that may be or may not be a ghost, until we get more information.
For example, that kind of proof can exist about an after-death experience? If you came back alive, then you cannot really be sure it wasn't just a delirium. Also if you weren't really perpetually dead, you cannot know if the place you saw was really an afterlife. What I originally meant was that there are some phenomena in which I'd find heavily unreasonable to ask for proof about them, because you know that such proof cannot exist.
Again, I went stupid and wrote a general statement about this, and you were right in correcting me because it was factually false. Sorry about that 🙁
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Well, couple things:I used the extraterrestrial example because the claims made about them parallel the claims made about supernatural entities. We would require evidence for aliens but engage in special pleading regarding claims of the supernatural that allegedly manifest in our physical world. If these phenomena manifest in the physical world and have a causal influence they'd be detectable, as well as recordable. People have been actively attempting to catalog ghosts, sasquatches, etc. for decades. Moreover, people have simply stopped believing in various supernatural phenomena that had been alleged to facilitate functions in the physical world once we discovered what the true cause was. Zeus doesn't cast lightning bolts, the Gods aren't angry when volcanoes erupt, demons and spirits don't cause disease, etc. Magic doesn't have any true explanatory ability. It's essentially a place holder in lieu of our discovering a true agent. You'd might as well say "X was the cause". I'm in the position of "Now solve for X".
Regarding near-death and after-death experiences. If a person was revived from a critical state they weren't dead, as in brain dead/no brain function, so we're talking near-death, not post-death. A brain in an impaired state can produce all kinds of imagery and impulses, so yes, I'd require a means of distinguishing these experiences from the delirium of an impaired brain, because people on hallucinogens and other psychotropic substances also claim to experience the same imagery. I'd also need a means of determining why members of different religions see near-death imagery from their own religion rather than seeing the same thing universally. Why don't all Hindus, Native Americans, or Aborigines see Gabriel or Jesus when near death? Why don't all Christians/Catholics, Jews, or Muslims see Krishna or a spirit animal? Coming back from death, as in zero brain function and rigamortis having set in and then being 'resurrected', to my knowledge, has never occurred outside of anecdote in various old books and myths. If you are aware of a non-theistic real world example of a corpse reanimating with it's mental faculties intact and relating it's experiences please share.
Again, even if such zombie came back to life, and it saw heaven with Jesus and Hindu gods, how would you prove he actually saw that?
Imagine we can prove that he saw that: How can we even describe the afterlife with its sensations? How did it see? Was it light that came to his -non-physical?- eyes? It produces questions instead of proving anything. This is why I believe asking for irrational proof is an elaborate confirmation of bias.
That was meant to be my original point, which as I said, was very poorly posted at first.
Originally posted by red g jacks
so supernatural is basically just another word for things we can't access through physical evidence? are scientific models of the multiverse or what happen in the first few instances of the big bang supernatural?
I don't see why we would claim something is supernatural unless we cannot describe it by natural means. The problem is that even defining something as truly supernatural is extremely difficult under our current models, which makes it a very weak word to throw around if we want clarification about stuff.
Originally posted by Bentley
Again, even if such zombie came back to life, and it saw heaven with Jesus and Hindu gods, how would you prove he actually saw that?Imagine we can prove that he saw that: How can we even describe the afterlife with its sensations? How did it see? Was it light that came to his -non-physical?- eyes? It produces questions instead of proving anything. This is why I believe asking for irrational proof is an elaborate confirmation of bias.
That was meant to be my original point, which as I said, was very poorly posted at first.
I don't see why we would claim something is supernatural unless we cannot describe it by natural means. The problem is that even defining something as truly supernatural is extremely difficult under our current models, which makes it a very weak word to throw around if we want clarification about stuff.
Well, that's the rub. We'd first need said zombie with it's faculties to address and examine that possibility, correct? We can agree it would actually need to exist and be observable in the first place? And I have no problem with addressing these questions. That's the avenue to answers. But it would require investigation and corroboration. If you can't differentiate between the claim and a delusion the rational position is to not believe the claim without evidence to substantiate it.
If someone claimed that Pixies told them to starve their children what would the method of examining this claim be?