Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
X writes:
I think the main point is that all of these sorts of evidences are only coming into play when the desired objective scientific evidence is simply not available.
And how does this justify the conclusion that these "subjective experiences" have supernatural rather than natural causes?
RAZ says that documented experiences of this type constitute "objective empirical evidence". But what is he saying they are "objective empirical evidence" of exactly? And can he supply us with some examples of these documented experiences so we know exactly what he is talking about?
RAZD writes:
Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings.
You are free to define a fictional character as such if you like, but I'd rather leave all those out of the issue at hand, to save time.
So as far as you are concerned there can be no such thing as an intentionally fictional supernatural concept? Then I have no idea how you are defining "supernatural". Can you enlighten me?
Films about vampires that can turn into bats? Magical dragons in fantasy novels? Stories about ghosts? Etc. None of these things are tales of the "supernatural" as far as you are concerned?
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. I await your definition.
I have no idea what you are talking about. And you seem to have some sort of definition in mind that no dictionary anywhere in the world would agree with.
As far as I can see by your definition the concept of a perpetual motion machine is "supernatural" but a bat transforming Dracula isn't.
Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
Would you also ask him on what basis he concludes that these much vaunted "subjective experiences" are likely to have supernatural rather than natural causes?
Re: RAZD and Documented Beliefs as Objective Evidence
X writes:
Straggler writes:
Would you also ask him on what basis he concludes that these much vaunted "subjective experiences" are likely to have supernatural rather than natural causes?
Probably not.
Probably for the best. His brain might dissolve into a puddle of cognitive dissonance if anything that pertinent were to get through.
Because the more you have said on this the less sense you have made. I only asked for a definition. In response you seem to be claiming that anything scientifically unexplained qualifies as supernatural except where you personally decide it’s not supernatural for some long winded reason.
X writes:
Why waste time scientifically investigating whether Dracula is a supernatural being when we already know he doesn't truly exist?
Who on Earth is suggesting that we need to go round scientifically investigating the actual existence of the supernatural characters in Being Human or Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Why does being an intentional fiction preclude something from being supernatural?
X writes:
Dracula has been scientifically explained already, and therefore cannot be supernatural.
What? A vampire is an undead being that craves human blood, has no reflection and can only be killed by mans of a wooden stake through the heart. Etc. This is a supernatural concept. Whether the vampire in question is Buffy’s undead fictional boyfriend or some Romanian Count that people actually genuinely once believed had these properties has nothing to do with whether the concept is supernatural or not.
X writes:
Another kind of thing that is unexplained, but later is explained..
By the terms of your nonsensical definition it would seem that quantum gravity and the Higgs Boson currently qualify as supernatural.
You are not making any sense. Can you just tell us what you mean by supernatural without the stories and furniture (to use your phrase).
I Believe My Beliefs Are Evidence Of That Which I Believe to be Evidenced
In his latest post in the Subbie great debate topic RAZ gives the clearest indication yet of what he is talking about with regard to the role of thesee much vaunted documented experiences.
RAZD previously writes:
Religious documents and reports of supernatural experiences. These religious documents and reports are abundant, they are objective empirical evidence that should be considered in any discussion of supernatural beings.
RAZ now writes:
These documents are objective empirical evidence of people that believe god/s exist. These documents do not need interpretation to see that many people believe they have sufficient evidence to believe that god/s exist. Message 14
So apparently if people believe that they have evidence that gods exist this constitutes some sort of evidence that gods do indeed exist.
Re: I Believe My Beliefs Are Evidence Of That Which I Believe to be Evidenced
Bluegenes writes:
Kids will be happy to know that there's evidence that their favourite cartoon characters really exist because people have subjective experiences of their presence and actually believe they're there. And we finally have evidence for the real existence of those evil spirits that cause disease, still widely believed in, and even for a real Harry Potter.
No no no Bluegenes. You are still not getting it.
It's not just believing. It's documenting those beliefs. Because once documented the documented beliefs become "objective empirical evidence".
Re: I Believe My Beliefs Are Evidence Of That Which I Believe to be Evidenced
bluegenes writes:
Note my link to a (peer reviewed) document in a post further up the thread, in which a woman describes her subjective experiences of both cartoon characters and Christ.
So we have peer reviewed objective empirical evidence in the form of documented subjective experiences. Where does that put our confidence in the the actual existence of these cartoon characters (and less significantly Jesus Chris) if we apply the latest of RAZD's numerous confidence scales? Message 12
Re: Documented evidence of SB communication belief.
What about George Bush and his hotline to God? It seems that this "objective empirical evidence" in the form of documented experience is indeed abundant. We are fools to ignore it.
"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."
"I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."
Xongsmith how do you decide whether or not a concept qualifies as supernatuiral? Why can you not just answer that simple question without telling an individual long winded story for each example?
X writes:
Yunno? I think there is a problem here with using the word "concept".
Yunno I think that given that Bluegenes theory is all about supernatural CONCEPTS and their source of origin that this might be part of your ongoing comprehension problem in these threads.
Re: I Believe My Beliefs Are Evidence Of That Which I Believe to be Evidenced
Are you now saying that we can't apply RAZ's confidence scale to subjectively experienced and believed to exist cartoon characters because we will come out as pseudoskeptics towards the actual existence of these blatantly fictional entities?
Don't forget that RAZ himself has refused to discount the existence of the pink fluffy and magically undetectable Easter Bunny as a fiction with any greater confidence than that of a low confidence unevidenced personal opinion.
Personally I am pretty frikkin sure that the pink fluffy magical Easter Bunny does not exist. Call me a psudoskeptic if you will.
X writes:
Why waste our time trying to decide if Casper The Ghost is real?
Who but you is suggesting that being fictional precludes a concept from being classed as supernatural?
X writes:
Why waste time scientifically investigating whether Dracula is a supernatural being when we already know he doesn't truly exist?
Do you agree that the concept of Thor (the Norse God) is a supernatural concept? Do you think we need to send a team of men in white coats off to Valhalla to confirm this?
™ Version 4.2
(1)