|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 8, 2019 12:53:59 GMT
How is that absurd? It's one thing to say: "there are probably things that exist that we can't sense." That's actually true as we've developed devices that can measure things (sights, sounds, etc.) outside of our perceptual range; for example, there are frequencies higher than 20kHz that we can't hear, but dogs can. But it's another thing entirely to say: "THIS thing that we can't sense exists." When you say that, what evidence are you relying on? In the case with higher frequencies, we can measure them, and thus see them on measurement devices. People rely on the testimony of others much of the time. It can be efficient. Do you deny you have? First hand accounts (anecdotal evidence) are ok for criminal investigations (if that's what you're referring to) but things like DNA and fingerprints evidence (scientific/objective data) are far preferable as witnesses are often prone to making mistakes (or even flat out lying). But even then that isn't really comparable to first accounts of the supernatural, we know people get murdered/robbed/etc (there's plenty of video footage of that ), it's been known to happen so there's actual plausibility on murder and robbery claims, there's no solid concrete evidence for the supernatural/metaphysical/etc so the plausibility of such claims is no where no near comparable. It's why "I saw that person get murdered" is far more believable than "I saw that person vanish into thin air". One is far more plausible than the other.
|
|
