Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well how do we justify belief in reality beyond nature? After all, we cannot observe it directly, and observing it indirectly would require the experience of a miracle.The experience of a miracle in fact requires two conditions. First we must believe in a normal stability of nature, which means we must recognize that the data offered by our senses recur in regular patterns. Secondly, we must believe in some reality beyond Nature.
Coincidence? No. I think that a lot of people who simply view the matter as good fun started to imagine things, etc. We see the same thing with the fascination shown more recently in Vampires and Zombies (neither of which has been correctly portrayed in the pop media). These hangers-on or whatever else you'd call them don't really prove anything, not any more than the moon landing probably contributed to the popularity of Star Wars and Star Trek. But neither do I judge all issues relating to space travel by what I see in these movies and TV series.
My point again, is not that X number of paranormal investigations have proven or disproven the soul or anything else that has jumped into the mind of any readers here. It was that we cannot conclusively close out the possibility that there's something more, not with the great number of incidents spanning many decades and not with many of them remaining unexplained.
If X number are disproven, it doesn't change the fact that too many are unexplained for us to say, logically, "Well, that settles it; there's nothing to these kinds of claims about there being a spirit world."
We cannot justify it Scientifically. Which is why human Reason is itself invalidated if we work purely out of a perspective of Naturalistic Materialism.Well how do we justify belief in reality beyond nature? After all, we cannot observe it directly, and observing it indirectly would require the experience of a miracle.
That seems like a fairly extreme non sequitur. It could be just as valid to claim that we cannot justify it at all. After all, if we remove the justification of science and empiricism, what method do we use to determine the truth of something? "I believe it" is not good enough. And why would this "invalidate human reason itself"? That simply does not follow.We cannot justify it Scientifically. Which is why human Reason is itself invalidated if we work purely out of a perspective of Naturalistic Materialism.
You talk as though every incident that hasn't been disproved is just a tale told like some fairy tale. Obviously we are not speaking of that sort of thing but of incidents that have something to them.Yeah? What do you suppose the preponderance of reports of UFOs was back in say....the 1800s?
Is that really how you think though? It wouldn't be difficult to believe that there's probably millions upon millions of Hindus who claim to have had some sort of spiritual communion of some kind with any number of Hindu deities....do you consider it just as "possible" that they're all correct? Or at least that some are?
Or do you discount those experiences because of a lack of evidence.
So in your mind....even though we don't have any real evidence (hard evidence), just personal accounts of these experiences...we can never fully discount these claims?
I'm saying....let's assume that for the next hundred years, nothing changes. We've still got lots of personal accounts without any evidence, and we've got researchers scientifically disproving some of these accounts time and time again....
You'd still say "we have to consider the possibility of the supernatural"?
Is there no way to disprove these kinds of claims in your mind?
That's rather close-minded isn't it? It would only take one bit of verifiable scientific evidence for me to change my position....yet no amount of science disproving these accounts would change your position?
You talk as though every incident that hasn't been disproved is just a tale told like some fairy tale. Obviously we are not speaking of that sort of thing but of incidents that have something to them.
Ergo, I give little thought to what a boy says he saw in a dream but I don't dismiss quite so easily a near death experience in which the person accurately describes every detail of the other side of the hospital that she'd never seen, having been rushed to the emergency room of a strange hospital while traveling across the country.
You talk as though every incident that hasn't been disproved is just a tale told like some fairy tale. Obviously we are not speaking of that sort of thing but of incidents that have something to them.
Ergo, I give little thought to what a boy says he saw in a dream but I don't dismiss quite so easily a near death experience in which the person accurately describes every detail of the other side of the hospital that she'd never seen, having been rushed to the emergency room of a strange hospital while traveling across the country.
But there could be.You're free to think and believe what you like. There's no proof of souls, though.
The scientist in question Duncan MacDougall again, or is there anything else to go on? What's your source?But there could be.
Scientist have found that bodies lose mass, equal to 30 grams, right at the moment of death.
Not attributed to waste, or gas, or any other material associated with post death.
To my knowledge (and to the knowledge of Google), we havn't found what causes the weight loss.
Some say chemical changes, but that occurs atleast an hour after death.
But there could be.
Scientist have found that bodies lose mass, equal to 30 grams, right at the moment of death.
Not attributed to waste, or gas, or any other material associated with post death.
To my knowledge (and to the knowledge of Google), we havn't found what causes the weight loss.
Some say chemical changes, but that occurs atleast an hour after death.
I can't remember his name, but I saw it in a documentary and found it interesting. I didn't find a name on google and I didn't catch the name of the documentary. Sorry.The scientist in question Duncan MacDougall again, or is there anything else to go on? What's your source?
Very old and questionable experiment. Even if accurate, it's evidence of something happening at point of death, not the soul, per se. Google "27 grams".But there could be.
Scientist have found that bodies lose mass, equal to 30 grams, right at the moment of death.
Not attributed to waste, or gas, or any other material associated with post death.
To my knowledge (and to the knowledge of Google), we havn't found what causes the weight loss.
Some say chemical changes, but that occurs atleast an hour after death.
The scientist in question Duncan MacDougall again, or is there anything else to go on? What's your source?
I don't see what that has got to with anything, but no, I didn't.
I explained it in my first post. I am sorry, I assumed you had read it.That seems like a fairly extreme non sequitur. It could be just as valid to claim that we cannot justify it at all. After all, if we remove the justification of science and empiricism, what method do we use to determine the truth of something? "I believe it" is not good enough. And why would this "invalidate human reason itself"? That simply does not follow.
Asking for of the soul is like asking for proof of oneself
I can't remember his name, but I saw it in a documentary and found it interesting. I didn't find a name on google and I didn't catch the name of the documentary. Sorry.
I don't see what that has got to with anything, but no, I didn't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?