Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 142 (8494 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-26-2015 9:47 PM
90 online now:
Atheos canadensis, Coyote (2 members, 88 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: howling
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume:
Total: 772,046 Year: 27,004/30,875 Month: 1,306/1,718 Week: 243/477 Day: 50/49 Hour: 0/0

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 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2015