Receiving Messages....

[Moral Orel]

You stating, 'Her lack of evidence is not evidence in your favor.' tells me it is you whom needs to disprove my haunted house claim, or any other claim I choose to make at any time.

No, because I'm not claiming that your house is not haunted. I am not making a claim, so the burden of proof isn't on me. You're claiming that her story is bologna, so the burden is on you to prove it. The irony of the fact that you know you can't prove a negative claim, yet you made a negative claim, and then tried to shift the burden to me is astounding.

I'm not lending her story credence. I'm discarding it. You're claiming that you can refute it. So do that. You made the claim, prove your claim. "She didn't prove her claim, therefore my claim is proved by default" is nonsense. Provide evidence for your claim that her story is bologna, or stand by your assertion that claims without evidence should be rejected. This is logic. This is showing a contradiction in your position that you need to reconcile. You cannot both reject claims that have no evidence, and then make claims without providing evidence without being logically inconsistent.

So provide evidence for your claim, "Her story is bologna" or reject your own claim. Your choice.

 

[cvanwey]

You're claiming that her story is bologna

I'm going to stop you right here....

Actually, the kicker here is that I never told her that her story is 'false'. I later agreed with you, that her story is most likely bologna. Don't get it twisted. You are attempting to set up a straw man. I'm not biting... Please locate where I told her that her story is false?

I questioned yes, I probed yes, and re-questioned yes. I doubted, yes. You later intervened in an attempt to locate a flaw in my reasoning, or 'pick a fight'. At the end of the day, I never told her that the story was false. And even if everything you stated was true, adds or lends nothing to the fact that we live in a world where we encounter daily affirmations of the 'beyond.'

It would be safe to say a large majority of people have experienced some sort of interpreted contact from beyond. We hear it all the time. There exists an infinite number of claims.

Thus far, such claimed contact has either resulted in self manifestation, or not corroborated. This was one of the main points raised with her. It's funny how such experiences happened alone with her.

Playing Occam's razor, is it more likely her contact was self manifested, or actual? Let's explore, how many documented examples do we have of hallucinations (for whatever reason)? How many documented cases do we have of contact from beyond? From my estimation, it's like one million vs zero

So if we were to somehow prove some temporary psychosis in her past, would this still confirm she was not contacted? Still no! Why, it's not falsifiable. Just like any claim I make up right now.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

And even if everything you stated was true, adds or lends nothing to the fact that we live in a world where we encounter daily affirmations of the 'beyond.'

It would be safe to say a large majority of people have experienced some sort of interpreted contact from beyond. We hear it all the time. There exists an infinite number of claims.

Most all the people of the world is subject to the "prince of the power of the air, (the devil)" .
Ephesians 2, et al.

Even followers of Jesus before they are saved are subjects just like the sons of disobedience (the whole world).

Thus millions of demonic activities, lessons, teachings, visions and so forth, even among 'Christian' groups worldwide, daily, every day.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm going to stop you right here....

Actually, the kicker here is that I never told her that her story is 'false'. I later agreed with you, that her story is most likely bologna. Don't get it twisted. You are attempting to set up a straw man. I'm not biting... Please locate where I told her that her story is false?

I questioned yes, I probed yes, and re-questioned yes. I doubted, yes. You later intervened in an attempt to locate a flaw in my reasoning, or 'pick a fight'. At the end of the day, I never told her that the story was false. And even if everything you stated was true, adds or lends nothing to the fact that we live in a world where we encounter daily affirmations of the 'beyond.'

You claimed to me that her story was bologna. Right here:

No, the story is bologna

So not a straw man at all. The irony is that I said you made the claim, and you responded with "I never made the claim to her" Now that's a straw man. Also, I never said her story was bologna, I said that your reasoning falls flat that led to the conclusion that you believe it's bologna. I don't make the mistake of making negative claims I can't prove. That's the whole point here. So hows about you don't twist it?

Now, back up your claim with evidence, or reject your own claim.

It would be safe to say a large majority of people have experienced some sort of interpreted contact from beyond. We hear it all the time. There exists an infinite number of claims.

Thus far, such claimed contact has either resulted in self manifestation, or not corroborated. This was one of the main points raised with her. It's funny how such experiences happened alone with her.

Playing Occam's razor, is it more likely her contact was self manifested, or actual? Let's explore, how many documented examples do we have of hallucinations (for whatever reason)? How many documented cases do we have of contact from beyond? From my estimation, it's like one million vs zero

So if we were to somehow prove some temporary psychosis in her past, would this still confirm she was not contacted? Still no! Why, it's not falsifiable. Just like any claim I make up right now.

This is just more "There's no evidence that it is real, therefore it isn't real". That isn't evidence. Don't you get that? We can just as easily say, "There's no evidence that it isn't real, therefore it is real".

The fact of the matter is, there's no evidence one way or another, so we should just ignore it until there is some. But that's not what you've done. You've claimed it to be false, so let's see the evidence. Don't try to backpedal just because you didn't make the claim to her. You made the claim, support it with evidence or reject it. So far all you've shown as evidence is a lack of evidence and your opinion, which mean squat.

 

[cvanwey]

You claimed to me that her story was bologna. Right here:

Seriously...? I don't use the word 'bologna' in my normal 'word bag'. I didn't do so until I was using 'word play' from your post in #65 We both don't believe her. Just leave it at that....

"I never made the claim to her" Now that's a straw man.

I didn't. I questioned her. I agreed with you later, after you stated you don't buy her story either. And please don't get caught up on the exact words. It would be nice if you expended some of that energy in the meat of this thread. But you have already conceded the premise of it as such. So I'm not sure WHAT you are still doing here?.?.? But lets keep the madness going I guess...

Now, back up your claim with evidence, or reject your own claim.

Okay, I'll play your game... I once had a dream I was dying. I felt a tug at my side. I thought someone was waking me up. But when I woke up and turned over, no one was not there. It never happened again. It must have been a spirit, ghost, or God whom touched me on the side. I just made a positive claim. It happened years ago and I have no explanation, other than something or someone definitely touched me. Now disprove it.

The fact of the matter is, there's no evidence one way or another, so we should just ignore it until there is some. But that's not what you've done. You've claimed it to be false, so let's see the evidence. Don't try to backpedal just because you didn't make the claim to her. You made the claim, support it with evidence or reject it. So far all you've shown as evidence is a lack of evidence and your opinion, which mean squat.

Okay, here we go with some more shenanigans....

Often times, the supernatural is asserted to defy the natural. I claim that last week, I held a ball out, let go of it, and it suspended in mid air for 5 seconds, before falling to the ground. I tell YOU to disprove my claim. Do you think my claim is false (internally)? You bet your sweet patootie you do I somehow can read your mind, and discern that you do not believe me. I then press you to disprove it.

You take the same ball, and drop it thousands of times. When does my claim become false? Ding ding ding, never. Because it's NOT FALSIFIABLE.

So whether you state it in text here or not, you think her claim is false. Why? For the very same reason you think the person on the busy street corner's God claim to the public is false

 

[Moral Orel]

Seriously...? I don't use the word 'bologna' in my normal 'word bag'. I didn't do so until I was using 'word play' from your post in #65 We both don't believe her. Just leave it at that....

No, I don't believe her. You believe she's wrong. There's a difference. A big difference.

I didn't. I questioned her. I agreed with you later, after you stated you don't buy her story either. And please don't get caught up on the exact words. It would be nice if you expended some of that energy in the meat of this thread. But you have already conceded the premise of it as such. So I'm not sure WHAT you are still doing here?.?.? But lets keep the madness going I guess...

I know you didn't tell her it was bologna. I never said you did, that's why it's a straw man to tell me you didn't when I never made that claim. I said you made the claim, and you did. Telling me you didn't make the claim to her is just a way to dodge acknowledgement of the claim you made to me.

Okay, I'll play your game... I once had a dream I was dying. I felt a tug at my side. I thought someone was waking me up. But when I woke up and turned over, no one was not there. It never happened again. It must have been a spirit, ghost, or God whom touched me on the side. I just made a positive claim. It happened years ago and I have no explanation, other than something or someone definitely touched me. Now disprove it.

Why would I do that? I'm not claiming it didn't happen. So how is that "my" game? That would be a shifting of the burden of proof, which would be your game.

Okay, here we go with some more shenanigans....

Often times, the supernatural is asserted to defy the natural. I claim that last week, I held a ball out, let go of it, and it suspended in mid air for 5 seconds, before falling to the ground. I tell YOU to disprove my claim. Do you think my claim is false (internally)? You bet your sweet patootie you do I somehow can read your mind, and discern that you do not believe me. I then press you to disprove it.

You take the same ball, and drop it thousands of times. When does my claim become false? Ding ding ding, never. Because it's NOT FALSIFIABLE.

So whether you state it in text here or not, you think her claim is false. Why? For the very same reason you think the person on the busy street corner's God claim to the public is false

I'll continue to behave and live my life as if these things never happened, but that's not the same as holding a belief that they didn't happen. It's more like forgetting them completely. If we're only supposed to accept claims that are backed by evidence, it would be irrational for me to believe you and her are lying. I don't have evidence of that.

Do these stories feel likely to me? No. But that's just my opinion and it has absolutely zero bearing on whether they actually happened or not. You seem to think that your opinion has a bearing on the truth, that's why you stated your opinion as if it was evidence to that fact. But it doesn't and it isn't. You made a bad argument.

 

[cvanwey]

No, I don't believe her. You believe she's wrong. There's a difference. A big difference.

We don't even have an absolute way to prove naturalistic claims. So please don't play these games.

There would be no way to PROVE she's 'wrong'. That's my point. Just like there is no way to PROVE we are not in the Matrix. You are getting caught up in semantics again. Just like you cannot prove thousands of other seemingly outlandish claims. Or even seemingly 100% actual proven and founded positive evidence based claims. Again, we could all be in the Matrix. But if you want to play that game, then this entire conversation is a vapid mess.

But for the sake of brevity, I will even throw you a bone, and claim that she's 'wrong', and do so confidently knowing that thousands of similar claims have been made, and none have ever panned out with evidence. I can claim she is 'wrong' because we have yet to deduce the supernatural, and tie it to any claim as such. And if we ever do, and I'm still alive, I will gladly admit I was wrong. Just like the many whom had to with the shape of the earth 400 years ago, etc... But until then, wrong wrong wrong. The same way YOU can say that every time you are not in the forest, the forest gnomes come out to play, is wrong. So no, there is little difference quite frankly.

You don't believe (because) you obviously think she's wrong, or mistaken, or other.... You can use other words, and dance around it. But at the end of the day, there you go... You just state you don't believe her. Well, okay. How noble of you.

I know you didn't tell her it was bologna. I never said you did, that's why it's a straw man to tell me you didn't when I never made that claim. I said you made the claim, and you did. Telling me you didn't make the claim to her is just a way to dodge acknowledgement of the claim you made to me.

You are investing way too much energy into nothing. You don't believe her. I don't believe her. That is that.

Do these stories feel likely to me? No. But that's just my opinion and it has absolutely zero bearing on whether they actually happened or not. You seem to think that your opinion has a bearing on the truth, that's why you stated your opinion as if it was evidence to that fact. But it doesn't and it isn't. You made a bad argument.

LOL. It's not my opinion that we have no documented cases of demons. That was my argument. My 'opinion', that the likelihood of her case being true is most likely nil to none, based upon past findings and undocumented accounts, is not a bad argument Yes, I could still be wrong. Just like I could be wrong about us not being in the Matrix. And if there were ever a case to be made for demons, I would be the first to recant.

 

[Moral Orel]

We don't even have an absolute way to prove naturalistic claims. So please don't play these games.

There would be no way to PROVE she's 'wrong'. That's my point. Just like there is no way to PROVE we are not in the Matrix. You are getting caught up in semantics again. Just like you cannot prove thousands of other seemingly outlandish claims. Or even seemingly 100% actual proven and founded positive evidence based claims. Again, we could all be in the Matrix. But if you want to play that game, then this entire conversation is a vapid mess.

But for the sake of brevity, I will even throw you a bone, and claim that she's 'wrong', and do so confidently knowing that thousands of similar claims have been made, and none have ever panned out with evidence. I can claim she is 'wrong' because we have yet to deduce the supernatural, and tie it to any claim as such. And if we ever do, and I'm still alive, I will gladly admit I was wrong. Just like the many whom had to with the shape of the earth 400 years ago, etc... But until then, wrong wrong wrong. The same way YOU can say that every time you are not in the forest, the forest gnomes come out to play, is wrong. So no, there is little difference quite frankly.

You don't believe (because) you obviously think she's wrong, or mistaken, or other.... You can use other words, and dance around it. But at the end of the day, there you go... You just state you don't believe her. Well, okay. How noble of you.

Just so we're clear, you're making this claim with zero evidence and you don't actually have any idea whether it's right or not, so this claim should be rejected by myself and you. This whole "I can't absolutely prove it" bit is nonsense. You can't show it to be likely one way or the other at all, let alone "absolutely". I'm not playing the "absolute proof" game. You haven't shown one iota of evidence whatsoever. Why shouldn't I dismiss your claim?

You are investing way too much energy into nothing. You don't believe her. I don't believe her. That is that.

No, you think you can show that she's wrong or even just that she's likely to be wrong, and you can't. That's the argument you failed to produce.

LOL. It's not my opinion that we have no documented cases of demons. That was my argument. My 'opinion', that the likelihood of her case being true is most likely nil to none, based upon past findings and undocumented accounts, is not a bad argument Yes, I could still be wrong. Just like I could be wrong about us not being in the Matrix. And if there were ever a case to be made for demons, I would be the first to recant.

No, it's your opinion that a lack of documentation of demons is an indication that demons didn't attack her. Yes, that's a bad argument. It is not a fact that a lack of evidence for something is evidence that something doesn't exist. That's just, like, your opinion, man. So hold your opinion, that's fine, just be honest that that's all it is. Don't pretend like you're being "logical" because you have a feeling about something. I can reject your bad argument the same way I don't believe her story. Neither of them are have any evidence to support them. And if you claim to reject things that aren't evidenced, you should reject your argument too.

 

[cvanwey]

This whole "I can't absolutely prove it" bit is nonsense.

No it isn't sir. Can we absolutely prove anything, even within scientific theory? no. It goes both ways quite frankly. One cannot absolutely prove (for) or (against) it. Yes, things under the blanket of theory appear much more likely 'true', with mounds of 'evidence'. And yes, also practically completely doubt that it is false. So in a sense, everything is 'opinion' Maybe just a much more well substantiated peer reviewed 'opinion'. Heck, there still exists a 'Flat Earth Society' who rejects all 'evidence' to the contrary. I'm not saying you fall under any of this, I'm just trying to drive my point. You then must ask... What actually counts as evidence? "Opinions' vary Again, I know you and I are mostly on the same page on most of this. I'm actually not trying to avoid anything. And yes, I get what you are saying.

I just find it interesting and odd, that we have had thousands of years of claims from the beyond, and not one 'substantiated'. And yes, you can make the same case for aliens. Because if they exist, we may never encounter any. So why not say that 'aliens are real' is false? But I guess I'm driving the line of demarcation between the natural and the supernatural. Aliens would still fall within the natural. Theologians have had thousands of years, quite frankly. Scientists have had a few hundred years quite frankly. And yet, there appears nothing substantiated to exist in the 'supernatural realm', where-as for the natural claims get 'proven' again and again and again. But again, what is 'evidence'?????

So no, I do not find my assertion 'nonsense'

But on the same note, what if someone wanted to even tell me 'I'm wrong' about my claim that I went 'number 2' last Thursday at 2PM pac. time. Yes, I could even show them that I can go right in front of them. But could I actually prove to them I went last Thursday at 2PM? (hypothetical)

Just because someone makes a claim, does not mean we lend it any credence. If there existed any demonstration of anything beyond the realm of the natural, and books tell us this supernatural force(s) interact with humans, and yet, we can never substantiate ANY of them, how many cases, and how many millennia must one endure, before we can tell them they are wrong?.?.?. But again, what counts as 'evidence'?.?.?.?

 

[Moral Orel]

No it isn't sir. Can we absolutely prove anything, even within scientific theory? no. It goes both ways quite frankly. One cannot absolutely prove (for) or (against) it. Yes, things under the blanket of theory appear much more likely 'true', with mounds of 'evidence'. And yes, also practically completely doubt that it is false. So in a sense, everything is 'opinion' Maybe just a much more well substantiated peer reviewed 'opinion'. Heck, there still exists a 'Flat Earth Society' who rejects all 'evidence' to the contrary. I'm not saying you fall under any of this, I'm just trying to drive my point. You then must ask... What actually counts as evidence? "Opinions' vary Again, I know you and I are mostly on the same page on most of this. I'm actually not trying to avoid anything. And yes, I get what you are saying.

That's one line out of context, ain't it? Look at the rest of that paragraph. I was explaining that I'll settle for just a little smidgen of evidence that your claim is true, which you haven't provided. Of course we can't "absolutely prove" anything. Sheesh.

I just find it interesting and odd, that we have had thousands of years of claims from the beyond, and not one 'substantiated'. And yes, you can make the same case for aliens. Because if they exist, we may never encounter any. So why not say that 'aliens are real' is false? But I guess I'm driving the line of demarcation between the natural and the supernatural. Aliens would still fall within the natural. Theologians have had thousands of years, quite frankly. Scientists have had a few hundred years quite frankly. And yet, there appears nothing substantiated to exist in the 'supernatural realm', where-as for the natural claims get 'proven' again and again and again. But again, what is 'evidence'?????

So what if you find it interesting? Your feelings aren't evidence. A lack of evidence isn't evidence either. There was a time when there was no evidence that the Earth was round, but that doesn't mean it was flat.

And "what is evidence?"... if you need to slip all the way into a "Everything is subjective and based on assumptions we can't prove so evidence doesn't exist!" argument, I think you're done.

But on the same note, what if someone wanted to even tell me 'I'm wrong' about my claim that I went 'number 2' last Thursday at 2PM pac. time. Yes, I could even show them that I can go right in front of them. But could I actually prove to them I went last Thursday at 2PM? (hypothetical)

Just because someone makes a claim, does not mean we lend it any credence. If there existed any demonstration of anything beyond the realm of the natural, and books tell us this supernatural force(s) interact with humans, and yet, we can never substantiate ANY of them, how many cases, and how many millennia must one endure, before we can tell them they are wrong?.?.?. But again, what counts as 'evidence'?.?.?.?

I've never lent her any credence, and that's why you don't "get what I'm saying". You can't tell someone they're wrong when they make an unfalsifiable claim. You can't make a good argument against an unfalsifiable claim. She made an unfalsifiable claim, so it is impossible for your argument against it to be a good one. So you never get to tell someone with an unfalsifiable claim that they're wrong. All you get to say is, "I have no good reason to believe that" and move on with your life.

 

[cvanwey]

That's one line out of context, ain't it? Look at the rest of that paragraph. I was explaining that I'll settle for just a little smidgen of evidence that your claim is true, which you haven't provided. Of course we can't "absolutely prove" anything. Sheesh.

Maybe you are only 'skimming' my responses too. I will shorten them, so you do not seem to do so, moving forward.

I've also agreed with you repeatedly that it is not falsifiable.

I'm already aware that "absence of evidence does not lead to evidence of absence."

So what if you find it interesting? Your feelings aren't evidence.

I know. But you skipped over everything else I said, which I'm not going to repeat, yet again...

And "what is evidence?"... if you need to slip all the way into a "Everything is subjective and based on assumptions we can't prove so evidence doesn't exist!" argument, I think you're done.

Yes, it is sad, very sad.... But, this seems to be the level one must stoop to, when arguing the truth in claims for any anecdotal supernatural claims. Including the ones from the Bible.

I've never lent her any credence, and that's why you don't "get what I'm saying".

No, I do get what you are saying. We both don't believe her. The next question remains, why do you not believer her, verses why I don't believe her, is where we might differ. I'll just leave it at that...

You can't tell someone they're wrong when they make an unfalsifiable claim. You can't make a good argument against an unfalsifiable claim. She made an unfalsifiable claim, so it is impossible for your argument against it to be a good one.

Then you should address another forum, and not waste your time here. Every claim of supernatural assertion, from the Bible, is not falsifiable Either that, or just state, 'I don't believe you', over and over and over.

 

[Moral Orel]

I've also agreed with you repeatedly that it is not falsifiable.

Then how could you possibly think you've made a "good argument" against it? You can't falsify the unfalsifiable, so your argument must be a bad argument.

I'm already aware that "absence of evidence does not lead to evidence of absence."

Then why do you keep talking about an absence of evidence as if it matters?

I know. But you skipped over everything else I said, which I'm not going to repeat, yet again...

You just took part of a sentence out of an entire post and ignored the rest then went on a rant about it, so I'm not going to listen to you whine about me not addressing every single thing that you've been repeating adnauseum that I've repeatedly shown you to be inconsequential that you acknowledge is inconsequential and yet somehow insist that it is somehow consequential.

No, I do get what you are saying. We both don't believe her. The next question remains, why do you not believer her, verses why I don't believe her, is where we might differ. I'll just leave it at that...

Nope. We both don't believe her because there's no evidence. The difference is that you think that lack of evidence justifies actively believing the opposite of her claim.

Then you should address another forum, and not waste your time here. Every claim of supernatural assertion, from the Bible, is not falsifiable Either that, or just state, 'I don't believe you', over and over and over.

There's plenty of logical inconsistencies that can be pointed out. I can't prove her claim wrong, no, that's why I didn't bother addressing her. But I proved you wrong, and here we are.

 

[cvanwey]

There's plenty of logical inconsistencies that can be pointed out. I can't prove her claim wrong, no, that's why I didn't bother addressing her. But I proved you wrong, and here we are.

Speaking of logical inconsistencies, maybe we should explore a bit...

(you) You first chimed in to let me know that some may not report as such, because they are traumatized.

(me) Yes, but many do. And the ones that do so seem to go invalidated. And yet, the ones whom do decide to report rape, become validated, as much as they can be anyways.

(you) Then informed me I was responding to her because she was 'easy'.

(me) No, that's you saying that. I responded because she actually engaged in the OP topic. I asked questions and did not tell her she was 'wrong'. I also try to respond to everyone, where applicable...

(you) also chimed in stating claims that are unfalsifiable, are all opinion, and that you do not care to continue reading my opinions.'

- Fine, then why would you start the conversation, unrelated to the OP topic, by interjecting opinion about why most don't report traumatizing events? Especially when many do.

(you) keep harping on minutiae to try and prove a trivial point, about how I later told you I feel she's wrong, while I never would have expressed that to her in the posting until you agreed with the premises of my OP and stating you too disbeliever her.

(me) It's funny how we have rape victims, whom do report, that can 'substantiate' their claims. Where-as, we have victims of demon attacks, whom can never prove as such.

So yes, if you wish to reduce the entire body of our conversation to the likes of 'it cannot be 'disproven', beyond a reasonable doubt'. Great.

Good job.

 

[Moral Orel]

Speaking of logical inconsistencies, maybe we should explore a bit...

Okay, I didn't see anything "illogical" in what you wrote. Maybe you just meant it's your "opinion" I did something wrong though. I know you use those words interchangeably.

Once again you've snipped one line out of a whole post. What was it you were saying before about how that's a bad thing to do? Whatever. The things you deflect from and refuse to address, I'll just chalk up to me being far too correct for you to even attempt to argue against.

(you) You first chimed in to let me know that some may not report as such, because they are traumatized.

(me) Yes, but many do. And the ones that do so seem to go invalidated. And yet, the ones whom do decide to report rape, become validated, as much as they can be anyways.

You argued that her not seeking an unbiased source to document her experience was suspicious, I pointed out that it is completely normal to not do so.

(you) Then informed me I was responding to her because she was 'easy'.

(me) No, that's you saying that. I responded because she actually engaged in the OP topic. I asked questions and did not tell her she was 'wrong'. I also try to respond to everyone, where applicable...

I didn't "inform" you. It was an honest question since you tried to dismiss me so quickly instead of engaging me. I'm engaged in the OP topic in as much as you made an argument about it, and I debunked your argument about the OP topic. That's on topic. I'm sorry that you want to go unchallenged in your baseless arguments.

(you) also chimed in stating claims that are unfalsifiable, are all opinion, and that you do not care to continue reading my opinions.'

What? No. That's all nonsense. There are unfalsifiable claims, which she made. There are opinions, which are what you presented as if they are arguments.

- Fine, then why would you start the conversation, unrelated to the OP topic, by interjecting opinion about why most don't report traumatizing events? Especially when many do.

Why people don't report traumatizing events are facts, not opinions. Learn the difference between facts, claims, and opinions.

(you) keep harping on minutiae to try and prove a trivial point, about how I later told you I feel she's wrong, while I never would have expressed that to her in the posting until you agreed with the premises of my OP and stating you too disbeliever her.

I don't think that your argument being completely baseless and unevidenced is minutiae. You say that claims without evidence should be rejected, and then present a claim without evidence to prove her claim is wrong. That is a logical inconsistency.

(me) It's funny how we have rape victims, whom do report, that can 'substantiate' their claims. Where-as, we have victims of demon attacks, whom can never prove as such.

It's not funny at all. It's not suspicious. It means nothing. I understand you feel that way, but your feelings aren't an argument.

So yes, if you wish to reduce the entire body of our conversation to the likes of 'it cannot be 'disproven', beyond a reasonable doubt'. Great.

No. There is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" here. You haven't shown any evidence at all that it doesn't exist. Your argument isn't weak, it's worthless.

Good job.

Thank you.

 

[cvanwey]

I've noticed people loose interest, when there exists 'blow by blow responses', leading to long drawn out personal responses to one another. But since you insist, I will actually respond to (every) statement you make, as uninteresting as they may be to others (from both sides)...

Okay, I didn't see anything "illogical" in what you wrote. Maybe you just meant it's your "opinion" I did something wrong though. I know you use those words interchangeably.

okay

Once again you've snipped one line out of a whole post. What was it you were saying before about how that's a bad thing to do? Whatever. The things you deflect from and refuse to address, I'll just chalk up to me being far too correct for you to even attempt to argue against.

You mean just like the many things you skipped prior, 'stating my opinion does not matter'?

Okay

You argued that her not seeking an unbiased source to document her experience was suspicious, I pointed out that it is completely normal to not do so.

Yes, after a full year of even seeing bunnies, no one else even reported THAT. Pretty traumatizing though. I empathize accordingly.

I didn't "inform" you. It was an honest question since you tried to dismiss me so quickly instead of engaging me. I'm engaged in the OP topic in as much as you made an argument about it, and I debunked your argument about the OP topic. That's on topic. I'm sorry that you want to go unchallenged in your baseless arguments.

I don't recall trying to 'dismiss' you. If that is what you think I was doing, then my apologies! You must admit communication over text, can be misunderstood, with even the purest of intensions behind them.

Case and point, your very first response to me started with the word 'nonsense!' So the tone was already set, quite frankly Was I mistaken?

What? No. That's all nonsense. There are unfalsifiable claims, which she made. There are opinions, which are what you presented as if they are arguments.

Many rape victims, whom report their rape, sometimes produce evidence to support the claim.

Many demon contacted victims whom report their demon contact, have yet to even begin to fulfill their burden of proof to support their claim.

Is the above opinion, or a reasonable argument?

In regards to 'opinion', one could make the case as to what counts as 'evidence'. And as I stated prior, once one places the natural and supernatural on the same playing field, we all have no choice but to 'loosen' the rules.

But you dismissed this already

Why people don't report traumatizing events are facts, not opinions. Learn the difference between facts, claims, and opinions.

Let's 'learn' together:

fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true. a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article. - google.com

claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof. an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt. - google.com

opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. the beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing. - google.com

So I guess learning the differences really gets us no closer to resolve now does it

I think we spoke past each other on the last round.?.?

I'm aware of what you are saying above. (My) point was that it's a fact that many do report, and all such reports go invalidated Even though we have had 'news reports' and 'articles', as indicated in the definition to facts.

So again, from what you dismissed prior, what do we consider 'evidence'.?.?.?.?.?.

In the terms of the claims for the supernatural, we must be VERY LOOSE. Which you also quickly dismissed as nonsense BTW

I don't think that your argument being completely baseless and unevidenced is minutiae. You say that claims without evidence should be rejected, and then present a claim without evidence to prove her claim is wrong. That is a logical inconsistency.

I disagree with your 'opinion'. Please read above. And all other prior points, I care not to repeat again, in which you dismissed as 'opinion'.

It's not funny at all. It's not suspicious. It means nothing. I understand you feel that way, but your feelings aren't an argument.

True, but the points you have been dismissing are. Please trek back to natural vs supernatural.... for starters. If that isn't 'an argument', then like you said prior, I guess 'we are done here'.

No. There is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" here. You haven't shown any evidence at all that it doesn't exist. Your argument isn't weak, it's worthless.

Let's try one last time...

The natural exists (I would assume we both agree).

The Bible states demons, and Jesus/Yahweh IS interactive.

Okay...

If the Bible states as such are interactive, and yet we cannot confirm interaction, is it 'reasonable' to conclude humans or too naive, dumb, unreceptive, etc? Or, the one's claiming interaction are delusional. Well, we have proof of delusion. I have even experienced it myself.

So though you may grasp at the 'logic' that we cannot 'falsify' such claims, what say-you about the Bible claiming such agents are interactive? One might think a couple thousand years of interactive claims might go detected in some falsifiable way.?.?.? No? Okay, then I guess it's 'possible' then

But yea, lets exhaust the fact of unfalsifiability another 30 posts... Shall we...? Because I 'just don't get it'

 

[Moral Orel]

Many rape victims, whom report their rape, sometimes produce evidence to support the claim.

Many demon contacted victims whom report their demon contact, have yet to even begin to fulfill their burden of proof to support their claim.

Is the above opinion, or a reasonable argument?

Lets focus on this, because you don't seem to understand what an argument is either. An argument should end in something along the lines of "therefore", you know. We might call it a "fact" that there's no evidence to support the claims of the supernatural. What should we conclude from this "fact" if anything at all?

I'll help you out. Absence of evidence can be evidence if there's some good reason to expect evidence. Think about the global flood. We know what floods look like, and we know what kind of evidence they leave behind. If there was a global flood, we would see that evidence everywhere, and in the same place. We don't, therefore we can conclude that it's very likely there was no global flood.

So to apply that to your "argument", what do we know about the supernatural, how it manifests, what it's capable of, what effect it has on the physical world, etc. that we can make predictions about where we would find evidence for it, or what that evidence would look like? I posit that what we know in regards to this is nothing, therefore we can make no conclusions about the absence of it's evidence. So why do you think we should see evidence for it, and what would that evidence look like? Put it in an argument: "We should see evidence here, it isn't here, so it isn't true". If you don't know the answers to these questions, you can't draw any conclusions about the supernatural at all.



Since I took a snippet from a long post and ignored the rest, I'm sure you'll be wondering about his bit, so I'll address it:

You mean just like the many things you skipped prior, 'stating my opinion does not matter'?

Okay

I never said it's bad to ignore sections of people's posts. I only said it's bad to complain about people doing to you what you do to others. Live by your own rules.

 

[cvanwey]

Lets focus on this, because you don't seem to understand what an argument is either. An argument should end in something along the lines of "therefore", you know. We might call it a "fact" that there's no evidence to support the claims of the supernatural. What should we conclude from this "fact" if anything at all?

I'll help you out. Absence of evidence can be evidence if there's some good reason to expect evidence. Think about the global flood. We know what floods look like, and we know what kind of evidence they leave behind. If there was a global flood, we would see that evidence everywhere, and in the same place. We don't, therefore we can conclude that it's very likely there was no global flood.

So to apply that to your "argument", what do we know about the supernatural, how it manifests, what it's capable of, what effect it has on the physical world, etc. that we can make predictions about where we would find evidence for it, or what that evidence would look like? I posit that what we know in regards to this is nothing, therefore we can make no conclusions about the absence of it's evidence. So why do you think we should see evidence for it, and what would that evidence look like? Put it in an argument: "We should see evidence here, it isn't here, so it isn't true". If you don't know the answers to these questions, you can't draw any conclusions about the supernatural at all.

Wow. Just, wow...

Argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

In my 'opinion', I'll go with the ones defined from the Oxford Dictionary, over your loose translation...

But please ignore my points, by all means.... Whatever floats your chicken

Since I took a snippet from a long post and ignored the rest, I'm sure you'll be wondering about his bit, so I'll address it:

I never said it's bad to ignore sections of people's posts. I only said it's bad to complain about people doing to you what you do to others. Live by your own rules.

I think you will find I address all points of (other people's) posts, where applicable. I only did it to you, after you did to me, and after throwing terms of 'nonsense' and 'pick a fight' around.

Good evening

 

[Moral Orel]

a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

Yes, let's see those "reasons". Starting with this question:

So why do you think we should see evidence for it, and what would that evidence look like?

Maybe demonic oppression is like this when you're experiencing it:

And it's like this when you try to show it to someone else:

How do you know the likelihood it isn't similar to how I just described it? Could it be that the knowledge of that likelihood of an unfalsifiable thing is unknowable?

And this:

I think you will find I address all points of (other people's) post, where applicable. I only did it to you, after you did to me, and after throwing terms of 'nonsense' and 'pick a fight' around.

Good evening

Then don't complain about it. Feel free to sink to my level. But once you do, you don't get to complain about your own behavior.

 

[cvanwey]

Yes, let's see those "reasons". Starting with this question:

Maybe demonic oppression is like this when you're experiencing it:

And it's like this when you try to show it to someone else:

How do you know the likelihood it isn't similar to how I just described it? Could it be that the knowledge of that likelihood of an unfalsifiable thing is unknowable?

And this:

Then don't complain about it. Feel free to sink to my level. But once you do, you don't get to complain about your own behavior.

Awesome!

The poster claimed bunnies as a part of demon torment. But I guess she picked the wrong species