Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Movie Paranormal Activity
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 106 of 285 (613088)
04-21-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by jar
04-21-2011 2:09 PM


Re: Is GOD Supernatural?
jar writes:
As for after I am dead, well, not having been dead yet I can't tell you what is different, which is why I have (I think) suggested that after I am dead I might be able to tell what was different.
Having not yet experienced biblical Armageddon you cannot tell me what might be different either. Yahweh might imbue everyone with the certainty of his supernatural divine existence just to make sure people really knew judgement was upon them. In which case you discarded your supernatural folder somewhat prematurely didn't you?
jar writes:
I don't see any way that your imagined Biblical Armageddon would remove me from this natural world.
How might your postulated existence once dead remove you from the natural world?
jar writes:
What is the test I apply to determine that it is really divinely invoked by Yahweh himself?
What is the test you apply to know that you are both dead and no longer part of the natural world.
jar writes:
As long as I am alive, I can't see any tests that can be applied to determine that.
What tests are you applying once dead to determine that you are no longer part of the natural world?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 2:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 2:48 PM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 107 of 285 (613091)
04-21-2011 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Straggler
04-21-2011 2:38 PM


Re: Is GOD Supernatural?
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
As for after I am dead, well, not having been dead yet I can't tell you what is different, which is why I have (I think) suggested that after I am dead I might be able to tell what was different.
Having not yet experienced biblical Armageddon you cannot tell me what might be different either. Yahweh might imbue everyone with the certainty of his supernatural divine existence just to make sure people really knew judgement was upon them. In which case you discarded your supernatural folder somewhat prematurely didn't you?
jar writes:
I don't see any way that your imagined Biblical Armageddon would remove me from this natural world.
How might your postulated existence once dead remove you from the natural world?
jar writes:
What is the test I apply to determine that it is really divinely invoked by Yahweh himself?
What is the test you apply to know that you are both dead and no longer part of the natural world.
jar writes:
As long as I am alive, I can't see any tests that can be applied to determine that.
What tests are you applying once dead to determine that you are no longer part of the natural world?
I'll try yet again.
Since I have never yet been dead I can't tell you if it would be any different, which is why I have said (I think) that after I am dead I might be able to tell.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 2:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 2:59 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 108 of 285 (613093)
04-21-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by jar
04-21-2011 2:48 PM


Re: Is GOD Supernatural?
jar writes:
Since I have never yet been dead I can't tell you if it would be any different, which is why I have said (I think) that after I am dead I might be able to tell.
Since you have never yet experienced biblical Armageddon you presumably can't tell me if it would be any different (e.g. being divinely imbued with knowledge that the supernatural exists) either.
So during biblical Armageddon you might need that supernatural folder after all mightn't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 2:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 3:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 109 of 285 (613095)
04-21-2011 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Straggler
04-21-2011 2:59 PM


Re: Is GOD Supernatural?
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
Since I have never yet been dead I can't tell you if it would be any different, which is why I have said (I think) that after I am dead I might be able to tell.
Since you have never yet experienced biblical Armageddon you presumably can't tell me if it would be any different (e.g. being divinely imbued with knowledge that the supernatural exists) either.
So during biblical Armageddon you might need that supernatural folder after all mightn't you?
Again, as I have said, I cannot imagine anyway while I am alive that I could determine that I was divinely imbued with knowledge.
When you present a testable mechanism for that I will reevaluate my position.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 2:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Straggler, posted 04-23-2011 7:18 AM jar has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 110 of 285 (613096)
04-21-2011 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by jar
04-21-2011 11:37 AM


Re: Is GOD Supernatural?
Hi jar,
I said already that I cannot imagine any way I could identify anything as supernatural while I am alive.
As long as I am natural, part of the natural world, I can only experience natural things.
I may experience something unexplained, I may even personally think it is supernatural, but honest compels me to place all such things in the Unknown folder.
Been over this with you.
That's my position. If you don't like it, that too is fine. No skin off my butt.
(emphasis added)
I emphasised the word supernatural here, to show that you yourself used it with the common dictionnary definition.
Now if you are consistent and honest, you should right now consider that you were wrong in trying to redefine terms in order to make them fit your double-folder view.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not really arguing your folders. You can seperate things the way you like, even if some ways are better then others (and even if I think your way isn't particularly helpful for anything). I am just saying that you can't redefine ''supernatural'' to mean ''unknown'', just because you personnally just put the supernatural claims into the unknown folder.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 11:37 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 3:12 PM slevesque has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 111 of 285 (613097)
04-21-2011 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by slevesque
04-21-2011 3:10 PM


Re: Is GOD Supernatural?
But when I am dealing with reality, I place even the supernatural in the Unknown Folder.
AbE:
what is the test to determine if something is supernatural as opposed to just unknown?
Edited by jar, : ask question yet again.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by slevesque, posted 04-21-2011 3:10 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by slevesque, posted 04-21-2011 3:42 PM jar has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 112 of 285 (613099)
04-21-2011 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by New Cat's Eye
04-21-2011 10:37 AM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
Without a scientific explanation for it, its not going to count as being evidenced. If its evidenced, with a scientific explanation, then its not going to count as being supernatural.
I think the first part you said here is the crux of the matter: can things be evidenced, even without having a scientific explanation ?
You apparently say no, but I think this is a misstep because there comes a point where you do have evidence that something happened, but still without scientific explanation.
Now I am not talking here about observed, repeatable phenomenons. The sun rising, or the universe apparently demanding some sort of dark matter. I agree that such things are to be put into the unknown folder.
However, I think this is a qualitative difference from what we see in the movie paranormal activity: these are evidenced (let's suppose that the video is genuine, ie not a hoax) yet are one time, unrepeatable events, and so still fall outside the realm of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2011 10:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2011 4:23 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 113 of 285 (613105)
04-21-2011 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by jar
04-21-2011 3:12 PM


Re: Is GOD Supernatural?
But when I am dealing with reality, I place even the supernatural in the Unknown Folder.
The I have no problem with you doing that.
I only had a problem with you saying that, by definition, the supernatural most go into the unknown folder.
what is the test to determine if something is supernatural as opposed to just unknown?
Now we may finally be getting somewhere.
If the phenomenon is repeatably observable (dark matter), then I would also put it into the unknown folder. This is not done by definition, but rather by inductive reasoning that throughout history such phenomenons have been found to be natural in nature.
However, if it is unrepeatable, and falls outside scientific investigation, and if it comes in direct contradiction with known laws of nature, for example someone raising someone from the dead after the corpse has been rotting for 3 days.
You could probably ask if such events do really fall outside of scientific investigation, and I would find no other to show that it is so then by pointing out that scientists never try to find a scientific explanation for how such a thing could happen (for example. ressurection after three days), rather, they simply say that the event never happened in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 3:12 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 04-21-2011 3:45 PM slevesque has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 114 of 285 (613106)
04-21-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by slevesque
04-21-2011 3:42 PM


Re: Is GOD Supernatural?
slevesque writes:
But when I am dealing with reality, I place even the supernatural in the Unknown Folder.
The I have no problem with you doing that.
I only had a problem with you saying that, by definition, the supernatural most go into the unknown folder.
what is the test to determine if something is supernatural as opposed to just unknown?
Now we may finally be getting somewhere.
If the phenomenon is repeatably observable (dark matter), then I would also put it into the unknown folder. This is not done by definition, but rather by inductive reasoning that throughout history such phenomenons have been found to be natural in nature.
However, if it is unrepeatable, and falls outside scientific investigation, and if it comes in direct contradiction with known laws of nature, for example someone raising someone from the dead after the corpse has been rotting for 3 days.
You could probably ask if such events do really fall outside of scientific investigation, and I would find no other to show that it is so then by pointing out that scientists never try to find a scientific explanation for how such a thing could happen (for example. ressurection after three days), rather, they simply say that the event never happened in the first place.
HUH?
First, there really is no evidence that Jesus resurrection did happen, BUT, similar events have been known and investigated.
But stop and think.
If science did investigate it there are still only two possible outcomes:
1. they figure out how it did happen and so it goes in the Known folder.
2. They cannot figure out how it happened and so it goes in the Unknown folder.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by slevesque, posted 04-21-2011 3:42 PM slevesque has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 285 (613112)
04-21-2011 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by slevesque
04-21-2011 3:23 PM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
I think the first part you said here is the crux of the matter: can things be evidenced, even without having a scientific explanation ?
That depends on what you mean by "Evidenced"...
Typically, people mean that its scientifically explained. But I agree that you don't have to define it that way.
You apparently say no, but I think this is a misstep because there comes a point where you do have evidence that something happened, but still without scientific explanation.
Here, you'd have a reason to believe something happened, but not actual "evidence" that it did happen.
Now I am not talking here about observed, repeatable phenomenons. The sun rising, or the universe apparently demanding some sort of dark matter. I agree that such things are to be put into the unknown folder.
However, I think this is a qualitative difference from what we see in the movie paranormal activity: these are evidenced (let's suppose that the video is genuine, ie not a hoax) yet are one time, unrepeatable events, and so still fall outside the realm of science.
Typically, people would not count that as actual evidence then. But yes, it would be a good reason for you to accept them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by slevesque, posted 04-21-2011 3:23 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by slevesque, posted 04-21-2011 4:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 116 of 285 (613113)
04-21-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
04-21-2011 4:23 PM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
That depends on what you mean by "Evidenced"...
Typically, people mean that its scientifically explained. But I agree that you don't have to define it that way.
I do not think that evidence automatically has to be scientific evidence. I can't see why it should be so either.
In court, evidence isn't always scientific. It can be testimonial evidence, video evidence, etc. (and of course scientific evidence. through DNa testing etc.)
Here, you'd have a reason to believe something happened, but not actual "evidence" that it did happen.
I don't see why the word evidence would imply ''scientific evidence'', while other things would simply be 'reasons'.
When I want to talk about scientific evidence, I simply say scientific evidence. And when I want to talk about testimonial evidence, I say testimonial evidence. Seems to me it makes discussions a whole lot easier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2011 4:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2011 5:23 PM slevesque has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 285 (613115)
04-21-2011 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by slevesque
04-21-2011 4:39 PM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
I do not think that evidence automatically has to be scientific evidence. I can't see why it should be so either.
In court, evidence isn't always scientific. It can be testimonial evidence, video evidence, etc. (and of course scientific evidence. through DNa testing etc.)
I don't disagree, I'm just saying that's not what people are typically talking about when they ask about evidence. Take the OP:
quote:
And would footage like that actually be objectively considered to be evidence of real paranormal activity?
Do you think they're just asking if it would hold up in court or not?
I don't see why the word evidence would imply ''scientific evidence'', while other things would simply be 'reasons'.
Sometimes people do use the word 'evidence' more loosely in the sense of it just being a reason for belief. But usually when people are discussing whether something is evidence or not, they are talking about in the scientific sense.
When I want to talk about scientific evidence, I simply say scientific evidence. And when I want to talk about testimonial evidence, I say testimonial evidence. Seems to me it makes discussions a whole lot easier.
To each his own, I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by slevesque, posted 04-21-2011 4:39 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by slevesque, posted 04-21-2011 5:51 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 118 of 285 (613117)
04-21-2011 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by New Cat's Eye
04-21-2011 5:23 PM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
I don't disagree, I'm just saying that's not what people are typically talking about when they ask about evidence. Take the OP:
quote:
And would footage like that actually be objectively considered to be evidence of real paranormal activity?
Do you think they're just asking if it would hold up in court or not?
I can't speak for Tram Law, but I think that is how it should be taken. Or else all this discussion makes little sense.
Direct scientific evidence of the paranormal is, by definition, impossible. As I have said all throughout this thread.
However, I have also said that this same definition does not make evidence of the paranormal impossible. It is just that other types of evidence must be considered. These 'other types' are not some strange inventions of mine, I am referring to all the types of evidence that we do take into account in court, or in studying historical claims. This tells us that it has nothing to do specifically about supernatural claims, it has more to do with claims of one-time events. Either it be a murder, or the conquest of a city in ancient times, or the ressurection of someone after three days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-21-2011 5:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 119 of 285 (613139)
04-21-2011 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Straggler
04-21-2011 12:08 PM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
Straggler writes:
Why can't it be both known to exist and supernatural?
Politics, Straggs, politics.....

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 12:08 PM Straggler has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 120 of 285 (613186)
04-22-2011 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Straggler
04-21-2011 12:08 PM


Re: Evidencing The Supernatural
Hi Stragger,
Strag writes:
Why can't it be both known to exist and supernatural?
Well as far as I know, anything that violates the laws of physics is not known to exist. Hence it goes into the unknown folder. If you are aware of such a thing please post a link so we can all be privy to this as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2011 12:08 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Straggler, posted 04-24-2011 10:42 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024