Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 161 (8146 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-31-2014 4:41 PM
80 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, NoNukes, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Taq, Theodoric, vimesey (9 members, 71 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: prof premraj pushpakaran
Post Volume:
Total: 739,086 Year: 24,927/28,606 Month: 2,228/1,786 Week: 443/647 Day: 48/79 Hour: 3/4

Internal Message Text
 
 
 
 
 
Author: [mbrid=1880]
Forum: [fid=11]
Thread: [tid=15914]
Message #: [midt=634913]50[/midt]

A small sample:[qs=Zen Deist]Personally, I do not see it being possible to test any real supernatural aspects that may be in the {exist} set, because in order to properly validate (ie tested, calibrated and known(1)) to produce proper results) such a test you would need bonafide positive and negative results, which would make the whole exercise unnecessary.

This means you can only logically test for the effects of supernatural presence\essence on natural systems that can be tested. Problems here are (a) the strong possibility of false negative results, and (b) results that are confused with and ascribed to natural causes.

Thus we have to work from inference from indirect evidence, rather than direct observation and deduction, and thus we need to practice extreme care not to make premature conclusions, pro or con.[/qs]

Nice post Zen Deist.

Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014