Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8927 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-23-2019 6:17 PM
37 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, WookieeB (8 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,342 Year: 15,378/19,786 Month: 2,101/3,058 Week: 475/404 Day: 79/63 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Power/Reality Of Demons And Supernatural Evil.
Stile
Member
Posts: 3789
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 210 of 258 (723788)
04-08-2014 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Thugpreacha
04-08-2014 1:16 PM


Re: a personal encounter with the supernatural
Phat writes:

Should I dismiss this past event as a mistake in perception, only because evidence is lacking?

Your choice of words is interesting.
Why "dismiss" the event at all?

Why not "accept" the event as a mistake in perception, only because evidence is lacking?

Personally, I would take what I knew about the event and compare it with what I knew about reality.
If it made sense and fit in... I would think the event to be "normal."
If it doesn't make sense and fit in... I would think the event to be similar to a whole bunch of other things that don't make sense or fit in to me... things I don't know much about.

There's no reason to dismiss any event because evidence is lacking.

What we do know, though... is that it's foolish to cling to a personally preferred explanation for an event when evidence is lacking.

Have you never not understood anything else before?
And then you learn how it was done and have an "ooohhhh... I see now..." moment?
What makes you think it's impossible for such a thing to happen for this event?

It sounds to me like you're just in the first stage... you currently do not understand the event.
You simply haven't reached the second stage... learning how it was done.

That's not a reason to start creating replacements for how it was done out of thin air...
Knowing that you'll likely never get to "learn how it was done" is not a reason to go along with imaginary answers either...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-08-2014 1:16 PM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-09-2014 12:08 AM Stile has responded
 Message 235 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-05-2019 11:50 AM Stile has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3789
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 219 of 258 (723865)
04-10-2014 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Thugpreacha
04-09-2014 12:08 AM


Re: a personal encounter with the supernatural
Even if I were more critical, I couldn't explain the voices heard.

Exactly. You can't be "more critical" because you can't test the situation.
There's nothing wrong with that, it's simply the honest truth about the situation.

There were three of us who witnessed the event and we all remember the same things.

You do know that this can make things more inaccurate, right?

Check this out:

quote:
Eye Witness Memory -> Co-witness Contamination

The presence of a co-witness can often contaminate memories. When witnesses confer about an event they can end up agreeing on an incorrect narrative. Research has found that 71% of witnesses changed their eyewitness accounts to include false components that their co-witnesses remembered.


Now... did this happen?
Of course.. we can't say. Because we can't test it.
But it does mean that saying things like "but... there were 3 of us!!!" does not add any validity to your explanation for your story.

The only thing that can add validity to your explanation is testing it and processing the results.
But... we can't test it.
Therefore... we can't add validity to your explanation for your story.

Continually trying to add validity when you can't... only serves to show that you have a pre-programmed bias. It does not show that you are interested in getting towards the accurate truth.

Phat writes:

I suppose there is no way I could challenge that statement.

This is the point you need to fully understand.
You can't challenge any of these statements. You can't challenge my statements.. you can't challenge your own statements.
You can't... because we can't test it.

Maybe one day we'll learn what happened... but most likely not.
Until then, you can choose to believe in whatever explanation you prefer.

Just try not to act like you can add validity to your belief when it is obvious that you cannot... this will only serve to lead you down the trail towards inaccuracy. Well.. I suppose you need to figure out if "accuracy" if something you care about. Obviously if you're more worried about "losing your faith" than "being accurate"... then you should focus more on your faith.

Figure out your balance. Is "having faith" important to you? Or "being accurate"?
What about "having faith in something that is accurate"? What percentage of your mind is focused on the faith part vs. the being-accurate part?

Figure that out... and you'll be able to calm your worries over these situations. You won't feel like you have to show or prove anything to anyone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Thugpreacha, posted 04-09-2014 12:08 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019