Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 125 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-21-2017 11:38 AM
460 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 799,042 Year: 3,648/21,208 Month: 2,043/1,605 Week: 243/376 Day: 33/113 Hour: 6/2

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 © 2017