|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 2:18:35 GMT
Simpler hypothesis are innately more likely to be true than more complex ones. I explained this to you elsewhere. You may not believe it or understand it, but that's your problem. Perhaps the simpler hypothesis is "more likely" to be true if it also explains all the evidence. Yours doesn't explain all the evidence as I have shown you at least fifteen times now. You haven't shown anything once. What simpler hypothesis doesn't explain what evidence? |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Apr 2, 2018 2:20:15 GMT
In that case, you are talking out your ass. Your question was stupid. My house was burglarized once. Stuff was moved around. Items were missing. I didn't find out who did it until days later, but I knew enough to know that someone had broken into my house and committed thievery. Or, did I need to know the names of the persons who broke into my house in order to know that my house was broken into? You need to think before you type. I think that you should think, then think again, then ask someone else's opinion, then think again, then write what you are about to post on paper, then shove the paper up your ass so that you will stop speaking out of it. Life and curcumstances can unhinge a person. MANY, MANY people are unhinged. There are no spirits. Prove me wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 2:23:12 GMT
In that case, you are talking out your ass. Your question was stupid. My house was burglarized once. Stuff was moved around. Items were missing. I didn't find out who did it until days later, but I knew enough to know that someone had broken into my house and committed thievery. Or, did I need to know the names of the persons who broke into my house in order to know that my house was broken into? You need to think before you type. Funny you bring up burglary, because in another thread I used a burglary hypothesis to explain why we should dismiss (until evidence is produced for it) the concept of an afterlife to start with. So when you were burglarized, before you found out who did it, did it occur to you that aliens did it? If not, why not? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 2:28:16 GMT
It's not really up to anybody to prove her wrong. Only to prove her right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 2:33:39 GMT
It is comparable in that the same proof exists for both cases...life after death and (for all intents and purposes) reincarnation. Reincarnation maybe, shape shifting maybe not so much. Yes there are "proofs" of the spirit and by extension various phenomena associated with the spirit. It's just that it is not widely available. You have to "be there" when it happens or you can easily assume it was faked. Consider the case of Akiane Kramarik, the women who at about age four began painting with a skill as advanced as legendary master painters. To you or me it might be just an elaborate hoax. We might assume adults painted those art works then claimed the child did. There is no convincing evidence to you or me. Her own mother however would certainly know whether there was any hoax. She would know where her daughter was and what abilities she really had at every time and age. There might well be then (I don't know) very scientific proof of abilities and senses quite beyond the ordinary. By the way, there are (short) home movies of the child painting and discussing her work at an obviously very young age. Although I have not seen any modern miracles myself, I have highly trusted relatives and friends who claim they have. None of them however feel any need to convince the rest of the world of their extraordinary experiences. Why bother when the wide world will just assume it's all mistakes or lies? They and I hope that the wide world will get its own proofs in good time. There are "authorities" maybe not ours who attempt to catalog, understand and if possible validate the various proofs of the spirit. I suspect psychokinesis is extremely rare and there might be no shape shifters all. What "lesson" would a shape shifter bring? The communication of needful news to various persons or groups dominates the data. Your example is an odd one for "proofs of the spirit." We've seen child prodigies in the arts before. Nobody doubts they exist. I don't know about your assertion that she had a "skill as advanced as legendary master painters," it would take someone more knowledgeable than me in the visual arts to argue that, but nobody doubts that young children can have prodigious artistic skills. Plus, in the case of child prodigies, many of them HAVE performed live in front of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people (if they were on TV). With the advent of TV talent shows, it's more common than ever. I'm not sure how this is "proof of the spirit," though; people can't be talented without the spirit? I side with Alexander Pope on that front: "true ease in writing comes by art, not chance; as those move easiest who have learned to dance." Again with the miracles, we should expect to see "miracles" (ie, highly improbably phenomena) by sheer coincidence. I already linked you to a book that explains this concept mathematically. Experiencing improbable phenomena isn't, by itself, evidence of the spirit or God or anything like that. Again, many of us don't doubt the experiences or think people are lying; we just doubt their explanations. If something like psychokinesis was real at all then, again, it would be easily demonstrable in a scientific setting. Hell, someone would've claimed James Randi's prize by now if any of that stuff was real. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 2, 2018 2:36:27 GMT
Your question was stupid. My house was burglarized once. Stuff was moved around. Items were missing. I didn't find out who did it until days later, but I knew enough to know that someone had broken into my house and committed thievery. Or, did I need to know the names of the persons who broke into my house in order to know that my house was broken into? You need to think before you type. Funny you bring up burglary, because in another thread I used a burglary hypothesis to explain why we should dismiss (until evidence is produced for it) the concept of an afterlife to start with. So when you were burglarized, before you found out who did it, did it occur to you that aliens did it? If not, why not? Aliens would have had little use for the items stolen; a pistol and ammunition, and a six pack of beer, don't you think? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 2, 2018 2:39:12 GMT
Your question was stupid. My house was burglarized once. Stuff was moved around. Items were missing. I didn't find out who did it until days later, but I knew enough to know that someone had broken into my house and committed thievery. Or, did I need to know the names of the persons who broke into my house in order to know that my house was broken into? You need to think before you type. I think that you should think, then think again, then ask someone else's opinion, then think again, then write what you are about to post on paper, then shove the paper up your ass so that you will stop speaking out of it. Life and curcumstances can unhinge a person. MANY, MANY people are unhinged. There are no spirits. Prove me wrong. You should have started with that from the beginning. You claim there are no spirits? Prove it. And while you're at it, tell me what you think is the cause, or does life and circumstance completely cover it? |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Apr 2, 2018 2:47:29 GMT
I think that you should think, then think again, then ask someone else's opinion, then think again, then write what you are about to post on paper, then shove the paper up your ass so that you will stop speaking out of it. Life and curcumstances can unhinge a person. MANY, MANY people are unhinged. There are no spirits. Prove me wrong. You should have started with that from the beginning. You claim there are no spirits? Prove it. And while you're at it, tell me what you think is the cause, or does life and circumstance completely cover it? I absolutely claim there are no non-living spirits. Life and circunstamce completely cover it. Being alive means being a victim of yout thoughts and emotions. Circumstances can certainy cause many different things to happen to many different people in many different ways. Do you think 'spirits' caused the Parkland and Pulse shootings, or 9/11? |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 2, 2018 2:55:19 GMT
In one way or another, yes. Most of these episodes are rigged by the Illuminati, and they're quite spiritual.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 3:02:02 GMT
In one way or another, yes. Most of these episodes are rigged by the Illuminati, and they're quite spiritual. But do you have any reason to believe this? Other than that it turns you on, I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 2, 2018 3:20:20 GMT
How the hell should I know, in a world with so many spirits? Apologies, we are all forgetting that you totally a 'Stella' man! |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 2, 2018 3:59:44 GMT
Funny you bring up burglary, because in another thread I used a burglary hypothesis to explain why we should dismiss (until evidence is produced for it) the concept of an afterlife to start with. So when you were burglarized, before you found out who did it, did it occur to you that aliens did it? If not, why not? Aliens would have had little use for the items stolen; a pistol and ammunition, and a six pack of beer, don't you think? That would just be an assumption: why can't there be aliens that like guns and beer? The problem with the alien hypothesis should be obvious: it's just too complex. We don't know aliens exist, we don't know if they exist that they (would) visit earth, if they visit earth it's unlikely they'd just visit one person, and even if they did visit one person it's unlikely they'd be be interested in guns and beer. For the alien hypothesis to be correct you'd have to have unknown * unknown * unlikely * unlikely all just happen to be true. Compare that to: we know humans exist, we know they live on earth, we know they burgle people, an we know many are interested in guns. So in that case it's known * known * known * known. We aren't making very many assumptions at all. It's not that the alien hypothesis couldn't be true, or that we can prove it's not true, it's just that we have a much simpler one that accounts for all the evidence. To me, the same kind of thinking applies to stuff like the afterlife, God, and Robin Williams being reincarnated as a shape-shifter. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 2, 2018 19:45:00 GMT
In any case, I don't know why the burden would ever be on people to prove crazy wrong rather than crazy proving it was right. Shades of "Hard Dawn".  |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 2, 2018 20:37:00 GMT
That my position is more logical than his IS proven by the fact that I make no claims about whether god exists or not while he does! Since neither of us has proof either way, and he makes the affirmative claim without evidence, HIS position is illogical. Especially if he wants to convince anyone else that his opinion is based on “reason” and should be adopted. I have already explained to this board how the burden of proof actually works. The party (or parties) supporting the status quo has (have) no burden of proof. The those challenging the status quo do have the burden of proof. A common mistake and yours is to assume that the status quo means some "original" state. In your case your assumption is that "no" heaven or hell qualifies as the "original" state. You have no such privilege. "Status quo" means the state of things as they are, not were. Religion is "established." Being established it might claim status quo privileges in debate, but usually does not. It's generous that way. It is no less established though. There is considerable testimony regarding quite much in religion, including the existence of heaven and hell. Literally millions of people accept or at least consider noteworthy much of that testimony. You have no right to dismiss all that with your twisted views of logic. Actually, I have every right to dismiss them (and you) after that ridiculous line of reasoning, based on this: Argumentum ad populum |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 2, 2018 20:47:09 GMT
That my position is more logical than his IS proven by the fact that I make no claims about whether god exists or not while he does! Since neither of us has proof either way, and he makes the affirmative claim without evidence, HIS position is illogical. Especially if he wants to convince anyone else that his opinion is based on “reason” and should be adopted. Your "position" is that heaven and hell don't apply to you because you don't believe in them.Just like your position is they do apply to you because you believe in them. The part you are not getting is that it doesn’t matter either way. Whether heaven and hell exist or not is of no concern to me (because I don’t believe they exist, and have no reason to believe they exist, and many reasons to believe they don’t). So assuming they DO exist would be a complete waste of time since there is no way to know. Acting as though something existed when there is no reason to believe it does is illogical. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 3, 2018 1:30:12 GMT
In any case, I don't know why the burden would ever be on people to prove crazy wrong rather than crazy proving it was right. Shades of "Hard Dawn".  |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Apr 3, 2018 10:00:35 GMT
Mental illness does not exist. The line between mental ilmess and non-mental illness is arbitrary. It's just created by bigots to control people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2018 14:45:02 GMT
You can't. All you can do is say things like this woman is clearly mentally ill and it's nothing mysterious because the entertainment industry leaves a lot of people messed up. You were in show biz? |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Apr 3, 2018 18:57:53 GMT
Shades of "Hard Dawn". He once linked an article off a satire site "Hard Dawn" (say it out loud). Check it out (the banner is just .... so... manly) harddawn.com/ . They do conspiracy type parodies, he thought it was real, brought it to IMDB. A couple of people pointed out the article and site were actually satire, not a real claim at all. You would have thought it ended there with an "Ah, my bad." Hell, I've fallen for The Borowoitz Report multiple times. Instead all we got was "BUT CAN ANYONE PROVE IT WRONG?!?!". Bruised ego is a helluvadrug. It makes a sort of perverse sense, though... what mentality could more comfortably fit the conspiracy mindset than the notion of the burden being to prove the negative rather that support the assertion. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Apr 3, 2018 19:07:06 GMT
Breaking news...old person loses their grip.
|
|
