Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inductive Atheism
tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 422 of 536 (616927)
05-25-2011 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
02-11-2011 8:57 AM


Re: Inductive Atheism
It is arrogant to suppose that 'supernatural' exists from Imagination.
Defining 'supernatural' would be the first task before you define its source.
In the context used: 'supernatural' is simply the word to describe things the human brain cannot understand.
So...you can 'imagine' an explanation...But no one understands what they are trying to explain.
For an experiment: Imagine telekinesis. Has it ever happened? Maybe. Proof? Nope? Well then...I guess it boils down to belief.
For me, Givin the track record of the human race: there is a lot to yet be discovered about everything. especially consciousness.
So do I believe supernatural events are real? Yes. But can I explain their source? No. I can't even explain the event, much less a source for it.
So this is a subjective discussion, in which everyone is right, and probably, everyone is wrong.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2011 8:57 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Straggler, posted 05-25-2011 8:24 AM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 424 of 536 (616959)
05-25-2011 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by Straggler
05-25-2011 8:24 AM


Re: Inductive Atheism
I am sure many humans throughout the ages could come to a similar conclusion. Yet in every case where the source of origin of a supernatural concept is known the source is human imagination.
You remember an essay titled Nacirema? Supernatural or 'magic' is decided by what you do know, vs. what you do not know.
Every case? I doubt a lifetime of research would be enough to allow such a bold statement to accrue any validity.
And yet ALL of the positive evidence indicates a deep human proclivity to invent such concepts for reasons that have everything to do with internal human needs and nothing to do with the actual existence of supernatural beings.
ALL? Well now, that is a subjective opinion I doubt would be reflected by a majority of intelligent human beings.
In this case, you are correct for yourself. But it is a subjective argument with little 'proof' besides educated opinions. But it is still an opinion. The Universe is still full of mystery. Choose your beliefs carefully.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Straggler, posted 05-25-2011 8:24 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 425 by Straggler, posted 05-25-2011 12:11 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 426 of 536 (617002)
05-25-2011 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Straggler
05-25-2011 12:11 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Defining 'supernatural' as anything which is not yet understood has already been tried by others in this thread. And it doesn't really wash.
Well it might not wash with you, but others seem to understand it that way. If you know how something works, it is natural. If you don't, it can appear 'supernatural'. But consider: if it exists, and is real, it is natural to the universe. Even if it isn’t natural to the human mind.
Well if you can supply some positive evidence of another source of supernatural concepts other than human imagination this is the place to present it.
The Sun was widely believed to be a god. The moon was thought of as green cheese. Of course, as technology increased with our knowledge, we now know the sun isn’t pulled across the sky by a mystical chariot. But also, Einstein did ‘thought experiments’ with the speed of light leading to the now famous theories of relativity. People all over the world have had visions of impending disasters in our history in which the disaster occurred, and there was no way they could know. Dogs and animals tend to run away from home before an earthquake, the greatest earthquake predictor of the west coast said he predicted earthquakes by watching the classifieds numbers of missing pets.
So: the supernatural concept is the concept that things work outside known physics, and I say: That’s most likely correct.
Imagination supplies explanations for what we do not understand. Yet once understood; the imagination builds on that understanding.
Imagination is the tool mankind uses to understand things: be it how a person feels ( by imagining yourself in their shoes) or how to build a shed ( which you imagine the parts coming together as a feasible project, you then research and begin the project with what you imagined in mind.)
And some beliefs/opinions are better evidenced than others.
Evidence only proves that people have an imagination. And that there are a lot of things we still do not know about life, existing, and our universe. If you subjectively have decided you understand those things, then contently live in your comfortable little place of Ignorance.
Since it is subjective, you commit no greater crime than anyone else.
Edited by tesla, : typos

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Straggler, posted 05-25-2011 12:11 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by Panda, posted 05-25-2011 3:13 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied
 Message 428 by Straggler, posted 05-25-2011 3:27 PM tesla has replied
 Message 429 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-26-2011 1:18 AM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 430 of 536 (617352)
05-27-2011 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by Otto Tellick
05-26-2011 1:18 AM


Re: Inductive Atheism
I like your post, and find nothing to disagree with or debate. However, I could elaborate concerning supernatural ideas and causation.
It is my firm belief that when a person realizes that for anything to ‘exist’ at all is a miracle: that person is born into philosophy and religion. At least, in the sense that their mind will ‘seek an answer’ to the musings and come to some form of conclusion.
Theories abound about causation of the universe, existence, or intelligence and consciousness. Whatever a person decides to accept as possible; is only limited to what they are willing to believe is possible. and so: individual human beings come to their belief and ideology (Subjectively). Be it atheism, theism, religions or what have you.
The problem with discovering the truth is no one knows what the truth is.
Is God possible? Yes. Bottom line: no 'proof' against him has surfaced, and no proof for him is acceptable to scientific standards of 'proof'.
So a human is left to choose a belief. This is where I believe the definition of supernatural becomes important. Because: A magician flying across a room was once held as supernatural. Now we know the methods of a magician are quite natural. Could you believe there was an iceberg in the sky? It was really seen-- captured on film-- with many witnesses. However, the phenomenon was simply light living up to its behavior of following the quickest path when traveling.
So I define supernatural as: things not yet understood. Not necessarily untrue; and what IS True is perfectly natural to the true dynamics of the behaviors of the universe.
As an example of how wrong or right mankind could be: let me suggest the notion that large bodies in space, like the earth, and stars, have a consciousness. That the levels of consciousness these bodies have are much greater than that of man. Let’s even say that this consciousness lives within ELF waves. I could then further elaborate this tale by saying: without a biological cell to interpret the waves; the information and consciousness living in the waves cannot be understood. Now after having said all that: could you 'prove' it isn't true? No. sounds like supernatural bullshit to me. But it is just as potential the truth of the beginning of consciousness as any other.
I choose my beliefs because there is nothing out there worth accepting for myself as what I have chosen to accept. I will honestly admit that nothing is 'proven'. It does anger me when scientists are so quick to jump on an atheistic conclusion without any proof there isn't a God, yet: willing to recognize the tentative nature of the science they research with lots of proof.
At the end of the day: I continue to search for the truth. Unless someone has discovered a way to communicate with 'God', I consider looking for God a healthy thing for mankind to do. You never know, perhaps some of the mystery of 'supernatural’ events might become ‘naturally’ understood dynamics of a beautiful universe.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-26-2011 1:18 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-27-2011 11:19 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 431 of 536 (617353)
05-27-2011 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by Straggler
05-25-2011 3:27 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
And all of this is positive evidence of the proclivity and ability of humans to invent supernatural beings where no supernatural being actually exists. This is evidence in favour of the human imagination theory. Hardly an argument against it.
You only assume it was invented. Most of the ancient stories of Gods were based on a truth. The sun God was based on the sun, an existing object.
To be fair, no one knows. Assuming your conclusion is true without any proof other than that is what you choose to believe is the same argument of most religious individuals.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Straggler, posted 05-25-2011 3:27 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Straggler, posted 05-28-2011 7:33 AM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 434 of 536 (617386)
05-28-2011 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by Otto Tellick
05-27-2011 11:19 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
To point to a nonsensical proposition like "existence is a miracle" and say this leads us to philosophy and religion... well, it speaks poorly of philosophy and religion. (Perhaps in that regard, it's actually quite apt when applied to religion.)
The Term miracle may not be the best word. The idea is what I’d like to point out:
Imagination is simply ideas belonging to the realm of consciousness. So in the end, are we dealing with the idea that things have actual reality, or the actual reality of what has being?
Suppose: you say it would not be a miracle for things to not exist. Indeed, I would agree. Religion and philosophy deal with understanding of why anything exists at all. Think about it: Energy and matter show no evidence of creation or destruction; only changing from form to form. The evidence supports there was an existing energy that all came from. This energy had to be, because if literally nothing, nothing could be. The inability to work out this problem is like the mind games of a snake swallowing its tail. Or perhaps: the door to December. It’s a truth about reality of 'all that is' we cannot solve. How could anything exist at the start? My answer: dubbed; miracle.
That is why I consider the birth of ascendant consciousness (as religions and philosophers attempt to endorse) as coming from recognition of our limitations of understanding. While at the same time: accepting that for everything that does exist (to exist as it does) requires a consciousness greater than our own to exist.
I think it's more accurate to say that notions of God are simply incompatible with any concept of 'proof'. Such notions are intrinsically imaginary, and cannot intersect in any meaningful way with a concept of 'proof' (i.e. verification), particularly in any attempt to describe interactions between God and reality.
This is where I believe you are limiting yourself by defining 'God'. God is not currently definable. If the term was, we would understand enough of what God is/was to have a better definition.
Every human definition of a god or Gods simply implies 'supremacy of being'
I consider human evolution a key to accepting: our current limitations in the realm of consciousness; may not always remain so limited. Perhaps the key to understanding the reality of this universe and potentials beyond what we can sense and comprehend 'now' will be the evolution of the biology of man.
I do not accept that God is not because no evidence supports that. I do not accept that we can never know, because one day we might. and I don't accept that we could not communicate with God, because we may discover a language we currently cannot comprehend.
As an example: observe dolphins. They communicate. Killer whales hunt in packs, and train their young without words, yet they communicate. No human fully understands a dolphin’s language. And a dolphin cannot speak to humans very effectively. This being the case: what are the chances we have the cognitive ability to discern a language greater than our own?
I choose not to limit my capacity to discover by believing that what we do not know; now can never be known.
"super" (beyond) "natural" (what is observable in nature).
This is the definition many people use this word for. But allow me to explain how this is an inaccuracy:
1. Nothing that does truly exist is beyond what is natural
2. Humans do not have the ability to observe all natural things.
3. Humans tend to call natural events 'supernatural' because of their inability to observe natural events.
With these truths: supernatural is applied to natural phenomenon, and called supernatural until understood. (Like turning water to wine)
As a thought experiment:
Suppose that when a person dies, their electrical energy holds a specific pattern which is recognizable as data. That data when the body dies, is kept in its unique form, but transferred into the ELF spectrum.
Now let’s say some human minds are more tuned to that spectrum than others, and leaves a person with the ability to 'read' some of the ELF waves and 'see' past lives.
Is this supernatural, or natural? It’s supernatural without the explanation of how a person could see a dead person’s life. But with the understanding of how it was possible, and that its perfectly natural to how the universe works, it would be natural.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-27-2011 11:19 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-29-2011 2:20 AM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 435 of 536 (617387)
05-28-2011 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 433 by Straggler
05-28-2011 7:33 AM


Re: Inductive Atheism
But it remains a fact that the only verified source of supernatural concepts is human imagination.
It only remains a fact to those who choose to believe that.
It is a fact that turning water to wine is natural. Not supernatural. Yet it was believed supernatural.
It is a fact a magician can fly, with apparently no help at all, and even carry others with them. It has been considered supernatural in the past. And it’s simply a natural thing.
The imagination did not make the water wine. The imagination did not make the magician fly. The imagination called it supernatural. When the events were natural.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 433 by Straggler, posted 05-28-2011 7:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by bluescat48, posted 05-28-2011 12:45 PM tesla has replied
 Message 439 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 9:14 AM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 437 of 536 (617396)
05-28-2011 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by bluescat48
05-28-2011 12:45 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
What natural process turned water into wine?
What natural process turned water into wine?
You’re not seriously asking are you?
The point of the reference is to point out things are not always as they seem.
There is a chemical magic trick, and other tricks. back in the time of Christ turning water to wine was a popular magician trick for the courts entertainment.
It is all achieved through natural means of illusion.
Of course, you could get you some water, boil it with fruit stock and add yeast and sugar too. But even in older days they did not consider that supernatural. Humanity has a long history of alcoholism *wink*

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by bluescat48, posted 05-28-2011 12:45 PM bluescat48 has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 440 of 536 (617508)
05-29-2011 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by Otto Tellick
05-29-2011 2:20 AM


Re: Inductive Atheism
How would someone confirm that an asserted method for communicating with 'God' is in fact what it is claimed to be? If someone opts to "look for God", what are they actually looking for, and how do they know whether they've found it?
I'm really having trouble trying to imagine any condition would make "looking for God" a worthwhile pursuit (regardless of it being "healthy").
Try imaging communication with an alien race. Let’s suppose initial communication attempts fail, and behavior is all we have to base intentions on. Unless the race decides to attempt communication with humans, it may be a difficult process. Especially if the communication is similar to sending out a low range wave at the speed of light that is then received by a genetic receiver in their bodies that interpret the communication at the speed of light. ( and also entertain the prospect that lifeforms can evolve that are not carbon based)
In this scenario it seems an impossible task for communication. However, an accident may occur in which sending out a wave receives an unanticipated response that turns into experimentation of responses and therefore a learning of the language.
Of course, a billion other probabilities of unlikely communication methods of a superior entity are available to imagine. One of bob Ross’s "happy little accidents" would be nice to begin such exploration. It's a scientific approach to communicating with 'God' nonetheless. The only difference is: with the alien entity, we were actually looking at data with the intent of communication. while looking for anomalies that apply to that scenario. An accidental or unusual reading of a wave without the subject being ‘communication’ would never be discovered as communication unless the entity was intent on repetitive replies that would flag a certain wave as a communication wave.
Hope that feeds your imagination. But also: the truth of mankind’s limitation and the possibilities available in such a massive and wonderful universe.
Um, that's what has been happening all along, ever since the Enlightenment put the Dark Ages behind us. (And it was happening before the Dark Ages as well, e.g. in ancient Greece.) It's what normally happens when you put aside the notions and terms regarding supernatural entities.
I believe when scientists and the public both accept that nothing that truly exists (no matter how awesome or strange to our perspective) is supernatural. Only then will discovery not only continue as it does now, but grow faster than anticipated on these particular issues. As long as true events are considered supernatural and discarded because we do not understand them; what are the chances of discovery? Should we not examine an event in light of the event itself? And not the current interpretations of misunderstood events?
I totally agree that 'God' is not currently definable -- in fact, it never will be -- at least not in any way that involves positive assertions that are falsifiable and allow for objective confirmation.
This belief and ideology of scientists is what scares me the most. That mankind is the top of the food chain on earth, and consciousness on earth; does not mean we are not simply a bacteria or sperm in the order of the universe. No one knows that a purpose greater than having children and dying is all we are here for. No one knows that it is not. It's because we do not know, that we should keep open minds on such issues until understanding comes. Or even if it does not come: the potential for discovery is possible if it turns out God is a true entity; with mankind being important to its essential state of being.
Meanwhile the "sincere" cases generally turn out to be isolated cases. Overall, when you put either type of 'supernatural seeing' under closer scrutiny, it tends to fall apart.
I understand the dilemma all too well. Perhaps it is because those looking at these cases approach the events with a supernatural idea to its cause, and do not research the cases by first understanding the genetics of all these cases, location of the cases, beliefs of the individuals, and brain wave spectrum function etc. another words, look for the cause natural to the language of the universe. It appears supernatural, but in truth, if it is a real event, it is natural. We just cannot discern the cause.
Here are a couple ELF links that may help you understand why I mention them. A lot of controversy and mind control ideas about them are out there. I simply find it intriguing that the earth resonates at brain wave frequency.
Home | Department of Physics and Astronomy
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=...

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-29-2011 2:20 AM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-29-2011 4:49 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 441 of 536 (617510)
05-29-2011 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Straggler
05-29-2011 9:14 AM


Re: Inductive Atheism
That humans keep on positing imagined supernatural entities as the cause of phenomena that turn out to be entirely materially explicable and natural is hardly an argument against the human imagination theory under discussion now is it?
You are worse than a liar. You have no proof to your hypothesis that all supernatural things are imagined, when usually, real events are imagined as supernatural in many cases.
how can I have an honest debate when you ignore the signifigance and truth of those words? you will just stonewall your ideology with no productive argument on the issue. If you continue along that line of debate I will have nothing to debate with you.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Straggler, posted 05-29-2011 9:14 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2011 3:51 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 443 of 536 (617517)
05-29-2011 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Modulous
05-29-2011 3:51 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Unless you are proposing that these 'real events' are actually supernatural
I'm suggesting real events like psychic phenomenon and aliens are classified supernatural when they are not.
The events could be true, called supernatural and dismissed, when the true events are natural, just called supernatural due to the inability of mankind to understand the universe they inhabit.
There isn't any 'proof' to know either way with the current limitations of our science.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2011 3:51 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2011 4:31 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 446 of 536 (617533)
05-29-2011 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by Modulous
05-29-2011 4:31 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
What we classify them as (natural or supernatural) is not really salient. The point is that there is evidence that humans make this kind of stuff up - inadvertantly and predictably and no evidence that they have existence independent of the imagination of humans.
You asked if I had a rebuttal to say supernatural things are not just imagination. And I said : yes, I can say that there are events considered supernatural as a whole, that are real events without any way of understanding how it works.
This means: It is not imagination that supernatural things exist. It is real, and grossly misunderstood with no proof to explain how a person could know or see what is impossible by all our knowledge of physics.
Imagination is at fault for the explanation of many events. (even our great science theories like dark matter)
Now, IS it true human imagination makes stuff up often? Yes. Does this mean cut and dry: ALL sources of supernatural events are from the imagination? NO.
That’s the same as saying: water is heavier than air. Because: air is not below the water. Wrong. Water is lighter than air, and collectively remains below the air.
I have a problem with coming to a decided conclusion based on a lot of evidence if any contrary evidence in at least one case indicates the statement wrong. If ONE true observation proves that statement wrong, it’s wrong.
So be honest with that: most cases of supernatural events studied are considered by many to have been products of the imagination.
See? This statement is true. But not all cases are derived from imagination.
If you want to claim that god is a natural entity that's fine, but the argument still applies: Show evidence it is a real natural entity and not an entity which is a product of the human mind interacting with its natural non-godish environment.
This is a silly debate. Prove God isn’t. Why must I prove he is? You cannot prove anything more than I can. So admit that and let’s have an honest discussion.
Does a supreme being exist? Many more people answer yes than no. Does that make it true? Maybe true, maybe not true. Can anyone prove he is? No. that proves he isn’t? No. so what do you hope to gain?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2011 4:31 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2011 5:39 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 447 of 536 (617542)
05-29-2011 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 445 by Otto Tellick
05-29-2011 4:49 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
Wait... What? It isn't any sort of "belief and ideology of scientists" that makes God undefinable. It is the essence of the "God concept" itself, as "explained" by any and every theist.
There you go again defining God. God is not yet definable scientifically. Unless you consider: 'supreme being'; Which would be adequate enough for me.
Anything that turns out to be a "true entity" -- in the sense of being objectively observable -- will necessarily turn out not to be God,
It is still possible that this entire universe is a small composition of a greater masterpiece. It’s potential that the galaxies in the universe act in a similar fashion as an atom does in our perspective.
Now this is an idea supplied by imagination, but a potential truth as all ideas that are researched can potentially become proven.
If this idea were to turn out to be fact, and the entity we live in decides the earth is like foreign bacteria in our own bodies, and then sends an antibody--just watch antibiotics go to work in a human bod-- then I’d say it would be a good idea if we knew that, and could avoid that.
I'm saying 'God' or 'Creator of this universe' is potential fact. Noteworthy enough to not dismiss on the grounds all current science cannot begin to check that.
Who is more closed minded? Those who automatically say: God is not and doesn’t know? Or those who say: God is and doesn’t know? I’d say they are the same. They are both Human beings deciding on a belief with no proof.
I gather this ties in with your earlier comment about the possibility that planets and stars have some sort of consciousness. And here you're wondering if the curious patterns of magnetic wave emanations from the earth might be some form of communication. Is that it?
No. I'm simply pointing out that there is at least one way supernatural ideas could truly exist on a natural level.
Let me be clear: These hypothetical thought experiments have only been given to point out that supernatural phenomenon has a natural method of existing even if God, Angels, Souls, psychic phenomenon etc. are real.
I do not have any answer to explain events considered supernatural. I am only pointing out that if they are true by all observations (in some cases, though isolated). As such if it is 100% true; there is a natural dynamic to the universe at play.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-29-2011 4:49 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 449 of 536 (617546)
05-29-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by Modulous
05-29-2011 5:39 PM


Re: just a theory, it's nothing personal
And nobody is claiming that as a fact. It's just a working theory. If you have any evidence which falsifies it you are welcome to present it.
Edgar Cayce's Life | The Sleeping Prophet | Psychic | Edgar Cayce's A.R.E. | Edgar Cayce's A.R.E.
Now your theory is inadequate.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2011 5:39 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2011 6:19 PM tesla has replied

tesla
Member (Idle past 1583 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 451 of 536 (617557)
05-29-2011 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 450 by Modulous
05-29-2011 6:19 PM


Re: just a theory, it's nothing personal
You may as well have cited Jesus, David Koresh or Mohammed.
Wrong. None of them had teams of scientists investigating them, nor the very strong verifiable track record for the unexplainable abilities this man exhibited.
This is your 'supernatural' you equate to imagination. Only: this wasn't imagined. Its strongly verified 'psychic' phenomena.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2011 6:19 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Modulous, posted 05-29-2011 6:41 PM tesla 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