Is this faith?

[mican333]

JJ,

We need to take a pause and focus on something that's important before we continue.

You have continually used the "argument from ignorance" fallacy and apparently won't stop using it. In this post alone, it is used 5 times. Such as:

3. There is no experimental data to prove any of these powers.


5. There is still no evidence for the supernatural world - i.e. that particular aspect of the universe has not been proven.

6. The claims of the supernatural are usually couched in pseudo science, again with no proof.


It is also bolstered by the fact there is no evidence for the supernatural. There is no reason to hold a neutral or positive position.


My understanding of the universe does not support the supernatural (because of the lack of proof).


No it isn't but there are zero reasons to believe any of these powers even exist but further, there are zero reasons to believe that the stories and events around them.

Here is a link explaining why it's a fallacy:

"Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

--------------------

Let me also demonstrate how "Argument from Ignorance" is a fallacy with a question:

Does X exist? (X being something that is unknown)

The possible three answers are:

1. X does exist
2. X does not exist
3. We don't know if X exists.

And since we don't know what X is, answer 3 is clearly the correct answer.

Now keep in mind that I've provided absolutely no evidence that X exists. So if the argument from ignorance argument was valid we would conclude that "Because we have no evidence that X exists, we must conclude that X does not exist" and we would say answer 2 is correct instead of 3. So would you agree that answer 2 is actually correct instead of answer 3? If so, you have committed a logical fallacy.

-------------------

So I want to know - do you accept that the argument from ignorance fallacy is indeed a logical fallacy and therefore should not be used as support for a position in a debate?

If so, then I will ignore any arguments of yours that uses it and just simply point out that the argument uses that fallacy.
If not, then please justify continuing to use that fallacy.

If not, then please justify its usage.

Once this is settled, I will respond to your last post point-by-point. I have generated a reply - I just haven't posted it at this time.

[pladecalvo]

And if they were all proven hoaxes we would not be debating it either as the issue would be clearly settled.

It is settled! It's a bit like religion. It is only believed by those that desperately want it to be true. There is no verifiable evidence that it is true, there is only trickery and humbug. However, you could always prove us wrong and get yourself fabulously rich into the bargain.

'The James Randi Educational Foundation will pay US$1,000,000 (One Million US Dollars) ("The Prize") to any person who demonstrates any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability under satisfactory observation. Such demonstration must take place under the rules and limitations described in this document. An applicant can be from or in any part of the world. Gender, race, and educational background are not factors for acceptance. Applicants must be at least 18 years of age and legally able to enter into binding agreements.'
http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

In fact there is loads of dosh to be made!

The Australian Skeptics offer $100,000 (Australian), $80,000 for the psychic and $20,000 for anyone "who nominates a person who successfully completes the Australian Skeptics Challenge." If you nominate yourself, and are successful, you get the whole hundred grand.

The Association for Skeptical Inquiry (ASKE), a U.K. skeptic organization, offers £12,000 for proof of psychic powers.

The Independent Investigations Group "offers a $50,000 prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

The North Texas Skeptics offer $12,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic or paranormal power or ability under scientifically valid observing conditions.

The Quebec Skeptics offer $10,000 to any astrologer who can demonstrate her craft according in a formal scientific experiment.

The Tampa Bay Skeptics offer $1,000 to anyone able to demonstrate any paranormal phenomenon under mutually agreed-upon observing conditions.

A group in New Zealand calling itself "Immortality" is offering a prize of $NZ2,000,000 to anyone "who can display an actual paranormal ability, under controlled conditions." One million goes to the successful applicant and one million to the charity of his or her choice.
http://skepdic.com/randi.html

So there you go Miccan. It's all there just waiting for you to pick up.

Hey! Prove your case by telling me the colour of the glass bottle that's in front of me at the moment.

[JimJones8934]

JJ,

We need to take a pause and focus on something that's important before we continue.

You have continually used the "argument from ignorance" fallacy and apparently won't stop using it. In this post alone, it is used 5 times. Such as:
-------------------

So I want to know - do you accept that the argument from ignorance fallacy is indeed a logical fallacy and therefore should not be used as support for a position in a debate?

If so, then I will ignore any arguments of yours that uses it and just simply point out that the argument uses that fallacy.
If not, then please justify continuing to use that fallacy.

If not, then please justify its usage.

Once this is settled, I will respond to your last post point-by-point. I have generated a reply - I just haven't posted it at this time.

It is entirely justified because nobody knows what the supernatural is either. Nor can it be explained, detected or described in a manner that makes sense. All I am doing is pointing out the sum total of what we know about it: i.e. nothing. Why do we know nothing? Because the entire enterprise is a fabrication. There are no solid claims to challenge, nothing to experiment with. And competing claims regarding what is true or possible come from all angles, each equally as plausible as the next because there is literally no basis for establishing any kind of truth statement.

I justify all my statements not as appeal to ignorance but as a summary of what we know about the supernatural. The lack of plausibility, reliable stories, repeatable actions and an enterprise fraught with fraudsters, pseudo-science and self-serving practitioners, points 100% towards a totally fabricated system with no basis for self-consistency never mind actual truth.

You don't get to throw out ideas and expect them to stick - it isn't my point to prove it is not true. It is my point that there isn't even enough plausible or reliable material to even think about the supernatural to even think about it logically or consistently.

As I pointed out earlier, you are proof there is no such thing as psychic abilities - you have a paucity of stories; whereas if it were true, you would have daily examples of your own successes. Like other believers of the supernatural, you shove the burden on proof on disbelievers, and you try to mask the fact that there is no evidence for you claims inside of logical sophistry such as 'argument from ignorance'. The fact is that there is no convincing proof of the supernatural or psychic powers so at best, you can only argue for a neutral position - but you can only do so by ignoring ALL the counter evidence.

I don't need to definitively prove that the supernatural doesn't exist - it is sufficient to know that the weight of evidence is away from any of these claims have any merit.

Hope that makes sense! There is just nothing in any of the claims to even begin a logical discussion - only personal testimonies from unreliable sources. And if there is nothing, then that's not an appeal to ignorance - it is a statement of fact; it is NOT an arguing from a point of ignorance - I'm not saying I don't know the claims - I am saying, I know the claims, the people, the evidence and theories and find them wanting.

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:29 PM ----------

It is settled! It's a bit like religion. It is only believed by those that desperately want it to be true. There is no verifiable evidence that it is true, there is only trickery and humbug. However, you could always prove us wrong and get yourself fabulously rich into the bargain.

'The James Randi Educational Foundation will pay US$1,000,000 (One Million US Dollars) ("The Prize") to any person who demonstrates any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability under satisfactory observation. Such demonstration must take place under the rules and limitations described in this document. An applicant can be from or in any part of the world. Gender, race, and educational background are not factors for acceptance. Applicants must be at least 18 years of age and legally able to enter into binding agreements.'
http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

In fact there is loads of dosh to be made!
...

Good points - but I think that successful Mediums earn more than the prize money bilking people! Even if they're proven wrong, they still make money!

[mican333]

It's a bit like religion. It is only believed by those that desperately want it to be true.

Or rejected by those who desperately want it to not be true.

There is no verifiable evidence that it is true

Which is not evidence that it is not true.

To say otherwise is to engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

there is only trickery and humbug.

Support or retract.

I mean I agree that there are fake psychics out there. But to use that fact to conclude that all of them are fake is to engage in the hasty generalization fallacy.

'The James Randi Educational Foundation will pay US$1,000,000 (One Million US Dollars) ("The Prize") to any person who demonstrates any psychic, supernatural, or paranormal ability under satisfactory observation. Such demonstration must take place under the rules and limitations described in this document. An applicant can be from or in any part of the world. Gender, race, and educational background are not factors for acceptance. Applicants must be at least 18 years of age and legally able to enter into binding agreements.'
http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

In fact there is loads of dosh to be made!

The Australian Skeptics offer $100,000 (Australian), $80,000 for the psychic and $20,000 for anyone "who nominates a person who successfully completes the Australian Skeptics Challenge." If you nominate yourself, and are successful, you get the whole hundred grand.

The Association for Skeptical Inquiry (ASKE), a U.K. skeptic organization, offers £12,000 for proof of psychic powers.

The Independent Investigations Group "offers a $50,000 prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event."

The North Texas Skeptics offer $12,000 to any person who can demonstrate any psychic or paranormal power or ability under scientifically valid observing conditions.

The Quebec Skeptics offer $10,000 to any astrologer who can demonstrate her craft according in a formal scientific experiment.

The Tampa Bay Skeptics offer $1,000 to anyone able to demonstrate any paranormal phenomenon under mutually agreed-upon observing conditions.

A group in New Zealand calling itself "Immortality" is offering a prize of $NZ2,000,000 to anyone "who can display an actual paranormal ability, under controlled conditions." One million goes to the successful applicant and one million to the charity of his or her choice.
http://skepdic.com/randi.html

And exactly what is the level of ability one must demonstrate to satisfy the panel?

For instance, I took a psychometry class and correctly figured that my partner volunteered at a hospital and had two kids and a dog. I consider that pretty strong evidence that I, at least in that one instance, was able to successfully read an object. I somehow suspect if I did that again at one of these challenges, it would not cross the threshold of success as they have set it. I mean if I thought they actually would pay out if I did something like that in their challenges, I'd see if I could do it again and assuming I was able to consistently repeat what I did back then, I would enter the challenge.

But when the organization's mission is to prove that one cannot do such things I really doubt they are going to take an unbiased look at my abilities (again, assuming I could do it again and do it consistently).

Sort of like challenging people to jump 1000 feet and if no one succeeds at jumping 1000 feet you can say that you proved that people can't jump at all.

'So there you go Miccan. It's all there just waiting for you to pick up.

Hey! Prove your case by telling me the colour of the glass bottle that's in front of me at the moment.

And there you go. Apparently if I can't do that one specific thing of your choosing, you've proven that I cannot do anything at all.

I can't jump 1000 feet so it's been shown that I can't jump.

[pladecalvo]

Good points - but I think that successful Mediums earn more than the prize money bilking people! Even if they're proven wrong, they still make money!

Yep! There will always be people that buy a proven bad product for no other reason than they like it - and this is where the irrationality of faith comes in - they just hope that in their case the product will work, despite all the verifiable evidence that it has never worked before.

---------- Post added at 07:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 AM ----------

Or rejected by those who desperately want it to not be true.

Why would I not want it to be true?

Which is not evidence that it is not true.

If there is no verifiable evidence that it is true then the default position should be that it is not true. Strangely enough, you do that thousands of times every day. I'm sure that you don't believe that leprechauns exist - and the only reason you don't believe that leprechauns exist is because you see no evidence for leprechauns.

And exactly what is the level of ability one must demonstrate to satisfy the panel?

You can download the conditions here:
http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html

For instance, I took a psychometry class and correctly figured that my partner volunteered at a hospital and had two kids and a dog.

OK. So tell me how many kids I have.

I mean if I thought they actually would pay out if I did something like that in their challenges, I'd see if I could do it again and assuming I was able to consistently repeat what I did back then, I would enter the challenge.

...but that's what JJ said you should be doing. You should be testing yourself daily, over and over again. If you find that you are right more often than you are wrong then take the challenge - but I somehow don't think you will.

And there you go. Apparently if I can't do that one specific thing of your choosing, you've proven that I cannot do anything at all.

Well if you can't do that particular thing there are many other things you could tell me about myself that are not blatantly obvious.

[mican333]

It is entirely justified because nobody knows what the supernatural is either.

Since there is a dictionary definition, we do know what it is. We just don't know if it exists.

Nor can it be explained, detected or described in a manner that makes sense. All I am doing is pointing out the sum total of what we know about it: i.e. nothing.

I wish you would admit that you know nothing. But instead you claim, without evidence, that you know that it doesn't exist. If that were PROVEN it would be absolutely one of the biggest moments in human history. Imagine the ramifications if we actually proved that God, who qualifies as supernatural, does not exist. So if you can support that you can answer one of the biggest questions to ever face mankind, please do,

But you have to do it with EVIDENCE. Not with Nothing.

There are no solid claims to challenge, nothing to experiment with. And competing claims regarding what is true or possible come from all angles, each equally as plausible as the next because there is literally no basis for establishing any kind of truth statement.

And yet you offer a truth statement. You say it's the truth that each and every claim that has, is, and will be made is false. And you have NOTHING to support your truth statement. And that's what the argument from ignorance fallacy is based on - NOTHING.

I justify all my statements not as appeal to ignorance but as a summary of what we know about the supernatural. The lack of plausibility, reliable stories, repeatable actions and an enterprise fraught with fraudsters, pseudo-science and self-serving practitioners, points 100% towards a totally fabricated system with no basis for self-consistency never mind actual truth.

It only points to 100% when you can prove that 100% of practitioners are frauds. So far I think you've exposes about 10 of them, probably less than 1% of the total.

You don't get to throw out ideas and expect them to stick - it isn't my point to prove it is not true. It is my point that there isn't even enough plausible or reliable material to even think about the supernatural to even think about it logically or consistently.

Fine. Then don't think about it. But if you do think about it and then make a positive claim, you have the burden to support it with evidence, not with nothing.

As I pointed out earlier, you are proof there is no such thing as psychic abilities - you have a paucity of stories; whereas if it were true, you would have daily examples of your own successes.

I might have daily successes with psychometry if I tried to do it daily. But I only tried it once - in that class.

So no, the fact that I don't do it daily does not prove that I didn't actually do it the one time that I tried to do it. Just like the fact that I don't rock-climb daily doesn't mean that I didn't succeed the one time I did try it.

Like other believers of the supernatural, you shove the burden on proof on disbelievers

Like a proper ODN debater, I shove the burden of supporting one's arguments on the one who is making the argument.

Like some non-believers, you seem to think taking the "does not exist" position absolves you from supporting your argument. You aren't the first who thinks they don't have the burden to support their arguments just because their argument seeks to prove something does not exist.

and you try to mask the fact that there is no evidence for you claims inside of logical sophistry such as 'argument from ignorance'.

BS. For one, I never denied that there was no evidence for the positive claim of the supernatural. And I accuse you of using the argument from ignorance fallacy because you are actually using the fallacy. I showed how you used it five times in your last post.

The fact is that there is no convincing proof of the supernatural or psychic powers so at best, you can only argue for a neutral position - but you can only do so by ignoring ALL the counter evidence.

I have not ignored a single piece of counter-evidence that you provided in this thread.

And yes, the best position is the neutral one if we are going by the evidence.

I don't need to definitively prove that the supernatural doesn't exist - it is sufficient to know that the weight of evidence is away from any of these claims have any merit.

Then I will consider the claim that it's proven that the supernatural does not exist to be retracted.

If you are personally convinced that it doesn't exist, that's fine. I do not argue that you should not hold your opinions on the matter.

But if you are going to make the positive claim that it's a fact that it does not exist, then you do indeed need to provide some kind of proof.

Hope that makes sense! There is just nothing in any of the claims to even begin a logical discussion - only personal testimonies from unreliable sources. And if there is nothing, then that's not an appeal to ignorance - it is a statement of fact; it is NOT an arguing from a point of ignorance - I'm not saying I don't know the claims - I am saying, I know the claims, the people, the evidence and theories and find them wanting.

Arguing that we can't even begin to discuss something because we have no evidence to start the discussion is not an appeal to ignorance.

Saying lack of evidence personally gives you reason to doubt is likewise not an appeal to ignorance.

BUT saying that lack of evidence of something's existence is evidence that it does not exist (and you made that argument five times in your last post) IS an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

So if you are going to say that an experience like Joe's cannot happen to someone, you need to provide evidence that it cannot happen. Again, if you just doubt it, that's fine. But your doubts are not evidence. And lack of evidence that people can have such an experience is not evidence that they cannot.

[eye4magic]

That said, even if they do believe in their own powers, i.e. not technically lying about their abilities, it is still not a real 'power' that works.

You’re right, its probably not a power, but a state of knowing.

I've spent a lot of my childhood reading about all these crazy things that people were purported to do - none seem remotely possible

Well, now that you’re an adult and an objective thinker? perhaps you might consider critically examining what scientists, doctors and academics who scientifically research and study telepathy write about with regards to the plausibility of telepathy and to which they do not find crazy nor deem is not impossible.

Should I assume these technical papers and research might interest you? If so, would you like links to about 50+ peer review articles on the subject of telepathy and related topics that would challenge your childhood readings and assumptions which I assume were not rigorously or scientifically examined.


No worries JJ, I will refrain from telling you what you wore today, what you ate and the amount of your last grocery food bill.

[mican333]

Why would I not want it to be true?

I can think of two reasons.

1. Because then your current beliefs would be proven to be wrong and it sucks to have to admit that you were so wrong about something you believed so strongly. Wouldn't it be a pisser if those religious people that you mock were right? "In your face, atheist!"
2. Because you probably have some comfort in having knowledge in how the universe works. It would be uncomfortable to find out you don't really know.

I mean it's VERY common for scientists to have a very strong negative reaction to having the theories that they accepted as valid being destroyed.

If there is no verifiable evidence that it is true then the default position should be that it is not true.

No it's not. That is CLEARLY forwarding the argument from ignorance fallacy.

If you have no evidence that X is true and you have no evidence that X is not true, then the default is we don't know if X is true or not.

Strangely enough, you do that thousands of times every day. I'm sure that you don't believe that leprechauns exist - and the only reason you don't believe that leprechauns exist is because you see no evidence for leprechauns.

No. I believe they don't exist because all of the things I know about leprechauns contradicts my understanding of reality. My disbelief is based on what I know, not what I don't know.

Again, do you believe that X exists or do you believe that X does not exist? And keep in mind that X could be anything. It could be you, it could be Darth Vader, it could be your car, it could be a square circle. The fact is until you know something about X, you have no basis to say that it does or does not exist and to say that it does not exist just because I did not provide any evidence that is does exist is a logical fallacy.

OK. So tell me how many kids I have.

Psychometry is object-reading so I would need an object of yours before I could even attempt it. And I don't guarantee success either. I just know that the results that I got the one time I did were strong enough to make me think I probably succeeded.

...but that's what JJ said you should be doing. You should be testing yourself daily, over and over again. If you find that you are right more often than you are wrong then take the challenge - but I somehow don't think you will

I won't because I think that even if I got fairly good at it, the challenge will find a way to not pay out. I do not trust an organization that is dedicated to disproving psychic abilities to take an unbiased approach to testing people's psychic abilities.

Well if you can't do that particular thing there are many other things you could tell me about myself that are not blatantly obvious.

Again, if I have an object of yours I could try again. But then it's been 20+ years since my prior attempt and I'm not nearly as interested in that kind of stuff as I was back then so who knows if I would succeed again. I'm not that interested in it nowadays and only forwarded it for discussion because it was relevant to the topic.

[JimJones8934]

Since there is a dictionary definition, we do know what it is. We just don't know if it exists.

The dictionary definition also describes precisely nothing of substance. Um, sure you know it exists - you're making lots of claims about it. You know exactly how to invoke its powers and that your personal experience is showing it is a very real thing. What you don't know is perhaps how it works but it does appear that you know it exists, right?

I wish you would admit that you know nothing. But instead you claim, without evidence, that you know that it doesn't exist. If that were PROVEN it would be absolutely one of the biggest moments in human history. Imagine the ramifications if we actually proved that God, who qualifies as supernatural, does not exist. So if you can support that you can answer one of the biggest questions to ever face mankind, please do,

But you have to do it with EVIDENCE. Not with Nothing.

I fully admit I know nothing, what are you talking about? It was my first sentence! I don't need evidence because the concept makes no sense to begin with and there's nothing to prove it exists other than people's claims it does. That should be the first clue that we're not talking about something real. Besides, the voices saying God does not exist are becoming louder and more prominent and in some countries is also normal. I don't think it's going to be news to anyone that people believe in strange things.

And yet you offer a truth statement. You say it's the truth that each and every claim that has, is, and will be made is false. And you have NOTHING to support your truth statement. And that's what the argument from ignorance fallacy is based on - NOTHING.

Nope. I am saying that every claim is false because their underlying basis has no evidence - the term 'supernatural' is completely meaningless. It covers Gods to magic to ghosts to unicorns and crystal healing and homeopathy and witchcraft and psychic abilities, walking on water, flying, coming back to life, seeing the after life, meeting angels, speaking to animals and the competing claims of every religion. It's a term that describes precisely anything that anyone wants.

That is my truth statement. There is nothing further to do other than to point out the concept is devoid of anything substantive. You don't know how it works, how it interacts with our minds or our universe. Pseudo science about magnetic fields and auras abound without any rigor or experimental proof. What you are describing is a mess. It's just a word that means the same thing as "I don't know".

It only points to 100% when you can prove that 100% of practitioners are frauds. So far I think you've exposes about 10 of them, probably less than 1% of the total.

They are by definition frauds for claiming they have such powers to begin with.

Fine. Then don't think about it. But if you do think about it and then make a positive claim, you have the burden to support it with evidence, not with nothing.

Sure, I've done so.

I might have daily successes with psychometry if I tried to do it daily. But I only tried it once - in that class.So no, the fact that I don't do it daily does not prove that I didn't actually do it the one time that I tried to do it. Just like the fact that I don't rock-climb daily doesn't mean that I didn't succeed the one time I did try it.

And how does one success not make you curious enough to keep trying it? That makes absolutely no sense!

Like some non-believers, you seem to think taking the "does not exist" position absolves you from supporting your argument. You aren't the first who thinks they don't have the burden to support their arguments just because their argument seeks to prove something does not exist.

I'm not just saying it doesn't exist. I am saying it is meaningless and contradictory and doesn't support itself. Psychometry makes no sense because the item is being touched by the very person making the reading. Using it in a police case where likely dozens of people have been near the object is just contradictory. And if people have such powers, how is it that common objects are being lost or forgotten all the time? How is it people can grab someone else's coat?

BS. For one, I never denied that there was no evidence for the positive claim of the supernatural. And I accuse you of using the argument from ignorance fallacy because you are actually using the fallacy. I showed how you used it five times in your last post.

And I showed you that literally everything about the term supernatural is contradictory, meaningless and unsupported.

I have not ignored a single piece of counter-evidence that you provided in this thread.

You have ignored a very important one - that the term 'supernatural' means nothing. It describes nothing, proposes no new ideas, has no consistent universe of discourse around it, and is largely a term to mean whatever people want it to mean. Once you recognize that the word is devoid of substance, then you will realize everything that claims to be supernatural is equally devoid of substance.

And yes, the best position is the neutral one if we are going by the evidence.

What evidence? Your two events and my 200 counter examples? The fact the term largely means nothing and it describes nothing and has no explanatory power. This is evidence that there is nothing by definition. Another set of evidence are the number of frauds and competing claims and credible witnesses who remain credible even after frauds are exposed. Another set of evidence is the lack of rigor and language to describe the supernatural world, its claims, or its interactions in with the physical universe and the human mind. This is all actual evidence against the existence of the supernatural world.

Then I will consider the claim that it's proven that the supernatural does not exist to be retracted.

It isn't retracted at all - I have shown it to be meaningless. If the term is meaningless then of course it doesn't exist.

If you are personally convinced that it doesn't exist, that's fine. I do not argue that you should not hold your opinions on the matter.

But if you are going to make the positive claim that it's a fact that it does not exist, then you do indeed need to provide some kind of proof.

And the proof is that the term is meaningless jumble of poor ideas as evidence by the dozens of competing claims it supports.

Arguing that we can't even begin to discuss something because we have no evidence to start the discussion is not an appeal to ignorance.

Saying lack of evidence personally gives you reason to doubt is likewise not an appeal to ignorance.

BUT saying that lack of evidence of something's existence is evidence that it does not exist (and you made that argument five times in your last post) IS an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

I agree but the I haven't just said there is a lack of evidence. I have said there is plenty of evidence against it: namely the word is meaningless, there are competing claims so the entire notion of the supernatural is contradictory and therefore logically invalid, and there are all the fraudsters and claims proven to be false. There is plenty of evidence AGAINST the supernatural and psychic powers.

So if you are going to say that an experience like Joe's cannot happen to someone, you need to provide evidence that it cannot happen. Again, if you just doubt it, that's fine. But your doubts are not evidence. And lack of evidence that people can have such an experience is not evidence that they cannot.

I'm sure lots of people have had Joe's experience - there are many thousands of testimonies from people that experience something they cannot explain. How that links them to their religion, I don't quite get but people experience odd things every day. It doesn't mean they aren't mistaken.

[pladecalvo]

No. I believe they don't exist because all of the things I know about leprechauns contradicts my understanding of reality. My disbelief is based on what I know, not what I don't know.

BINGO! Now you're getting it!

[gansao]

Religion is delusion supported by tradition. If you support the Christian religion one has to justify why you support that particular religion over others. Why support Christianity over Buddhism? Why support Buddhism over old archaic religions ? If you take religion as a whole it is a bunch of contradictory doctrines supported by nothing but intuition, perceived epiphany and tradition/brainwashing.
When you ask a religion apologist to prove their delusion is true and point out the zero evidence to support it they ask you to prove that it is wrong.
Well if they base the root of reality on a 'truth' that is based on an assertion with no discernible evidence to support it good luck to them.
However the more rational of us should ensure that their delusions must not effect progress ( scientific or political) of secular society.

[mican333]

BINGO! Now you're getting it!

I always got it. I have consistently maintained that evifence against something existing is a valid basis for arguing that it does not exist.

Now do you get that a lack if evidence of something existing is not a valid basis to argue that it does not exist?

[pladecalvo]

I always got it. I have consistently maintained that evifence against something existing is a valid basis for arguing that it does not exist.

Now do you get that a lack if evidence of something existing is not a valid basis to argue that it does not exist?

I'm referring to this:

"No. I believe they don't exist because all of the things I know about leprechauns contradicts my understanding of reality. My disbelief is based on what I know, not what I don't know."

Just replace 'leprechauns' with 'psychic abilities' and you'll understand where we stand.

[mican333]

Note - you've made the same argument several times throughout the thread. So to avoid redundancy, I'm only going to post one response to that particular argument and ignore all other instances of the argument.

The dictionary definition also describes precisely nothing of substance.

PLEASE provide the dictionary definition when you tell me what the definition says and highlight the portion that says what you claim it says. I don't recall "nothing of substance" being included in the definition.

Um, sure you know it exists - you're making lots of claims about it.

I've shared my experiences. I've not made any positive claims about them. Find one if you disagree.

You know exactly how to invoke its powers and that your personal experience is showing it is a very real thing. What you don't know is perhaps how it works but it does appear that you know it exists, right?

I don't know for a fact that it works and I don't know how it works - you are the one who forwarded the magnetic field theory, not me. I just analyzed my experience based on my understanding of reality and my best guess based on what I remember is that I PROBABLY somehow learned something about the person from holding holding the object. I do not discount the possibility that it was just a lucky guess or that my memory failed me. So I make no positive claim about it. I'm just telling you my opinion on the subject.

I fully admit I know nothing, what are you talking about?

If you truly know nothing about the supernatural then you likewise do not know that it doesn't exist. So are admitting that you don't whether it exists or not? If not, then you claim to know something about it.

I don't need evidence because the concept makes no sense to begin with and there's nothing to prove it exists other than people's claims it does. That should be the first clue that we're not talking about something real.

ONCE AGAIN, you are invoking the argument from ignorance fallacy. Failure to prove that it exists is not evidence that it doesn't exist.

Besides, the voices saying God does not exist are becoming louder and more prominent and in some countries is also normal.

Which in no way supports that those voices are right.

Nope. I am saying that every claim is false because their underlying basis has no evidence

Argument from ignorance fallacy. Rejected.

the term 'supernatural' is completely meaningless. It covers Gods to magic to ghosts to unicorns and crystal healing and homeopathy and witchcraft and psychic abilities, walking on water, flying, coming back to life, seeing the after life, meeting angels, speaking to animals and the competing claims of every religion. It's a term that describes precisely anything that anyone wants.

You are contradicting yourself. "meaningless" means that is has no meaning. And you just described what it means, except or the part about is describing anything that anyone wants which is not supported by the dictionary definition.

That is my truth statement. There is nothing further to do other than to point out the concept is devoid of anything substantive. You don't know how it works, how it interacts with our minds or our universe. Pseudo science about magnetic fields and auras abound without any rigor or experimental proof. What you are describing is a mess. It's just a word that means the same thing as "I don't know".

Which in no way supports that any specific claim regarding the supernatural is false.

To focus the debate, the issue is whether the scenario regarding Joe could actually happen. If it could not happen (and to argue that it could not requires support) then there's no way that faith in that particular event is rational. If it's possible that it could happen, then perhaps faith is rational. So if you are going to argue that such an event could not possibly happen, you need to make the positive argument that it cannot possibly happen.

They are by definition frauds for claiming they have such powers to begin with.

Only if none of them have such powers. You have not supported that this is the case.

And psychic ability, if it exists, is not necessarily supernatural. One the primarily beliefs about psychic ability is that it's a natural human ability that some are more talented at than others. Of course you can question such a belief but the point is that the belief does not fall under the definition of supernatural. No God or Demons or unseen realms are involved.

And how does one success not make you curious enough to keep trying it? That makes absolutely no sense!

Because doing it again would not teach me anything that I didn't already learn from doing it the first time.

And it's not a particularly useful skill. I mean if I took an object of yours and then told you something about you that I couldn't have known otherwise, you'd probably say "lucky guess" (sound familiar?). And even if you were impressed, so what? Impressing people in that fashion is not something that I'm particularly interested in and doing so has no significant tangible benefits.

So yeah, I thought it was interesting when I got what appeared to be actual results but it wasn't something that I felt would really improve my life. If I was going to spend time pursuing something, learning the guitar would probably be more beneficial.

I'm not just saying it doesn't exist. I am saying it is meaningless and contradictory and doesn't support itself. Psychometry makes no sense because the item is being touched by the very person making the reading.

I already addressed this. Theoretically, it takes a long time for the object to be "magnetized", just like it takes a long time for a worn shirt to start smelling like its wearer. And likewise it takes long-term contact for the shirt to smell like a different person so just touching it does not change its smell/magnetism.

And if people have such powers, how is it that common objects are being lost or forgotten all the time? How is it people can grab someone else's coat?

I don't see how this contradicts the notion that it's possible for some people to learn things about others by holding personal objects.

And I showed you that literally everything about the term supernatural is contradictory, meaningless and unsupported.

Addressed below -

You have ignored a very important one - that the term 'supernatural' means nothing.

That is CLEARLY contradicted by the reality that the term has a definition.

Support:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature


So the term "Supernatural" means "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil". That is quite different than "nothing". So I consider that notion to be resoundingly defeated.

Likewise there is nothing contradictory in the term itself. It does not contradict itself. If you are saying that it contradicts reality, you will need to support that.

As far as unsupported goes, I assume you mean that it's unsupported that any of those things exist. I won't challenge that. But lack of support for something's existence is not support that it does not exist. To argue otherwise is to engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

It describes nothing, proposes no new ideas, has no consistent universe of discourse around it, and is largely a term to mean whatever people want it to mean.

Once you provide support for this statement is when I will address it. Until then, it's rejected as unsupported.

What evidence? Your two events and my 200 counter examples?

You have provided NO evidence that all supernatural claims are false.

and there are all the fraudsters and claims proven to be false. There is plenty of evidence AGAINST the supernatural and psychic powers.

Then let's see the evidence.

I'm sure lots of people have had Joe's experience - there are many thousands of testimonies from people that experience something they cannot explain. How that links them to their religion, I don't quite get but people experience odd things every day. It doesn't mean they aren't mistaken.

I agree. But you have not rebutted my statement so I will repeat it.

"So if you are going to say that an experience like Joe's cannot happen to someone, you need to provide evidence that it cannot happen. Again, if you just doubt it, that's fine. But your doubts are not evidence. And lack of evidence that people can have such an experience is not evidence that they cannot."

So do you agree with the above statement and concede that it's true. If so, it stands as "true". If not, then rebut whatever you disagree with.

---------- Post added at 03:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:35 PM ----------

I'm referring to this:

"No. I believe they don't exist because all of the things I know about leprechauns contradicts my understanding of reality. My disbelief is based on what I know, not what I don't know."

Just replace 'leprechauns' with 'psychic abilities' and you'll understand where we stand.

I know where you stand. I'm asking you to support your position with evidence.

And again, lack of evidence is not evidence.

[JimJones8934]

Note - you've made the same argument several times throughout the thread. So to avoid redundancy, I'm only going to post one response to that particular argument and ignore all other instances of the argument.



PLEASE provide the dictionary definition when you tell me what the definition says and highlight the portion that says what you claim it says. I don't recall "nothing of substance" being included in the definition.

We can go off your definition here.

JJ: You have ignored a very important one - that the term 'supernatural' means nothing.

Support:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature


So the term "Supernatural" means "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil". That is quite different than "nothing". So I consider that notion to be resoundingly defeated.

Likewise there is nothing contradictory in the term itself. It does not contradict itself. If you are saying that it contradicts reality, you will need to support that.

As far as unsupported goes, I assume you mean that it's unsupported that any of those things exist. I won't challenge that. But lack of support for something's existence is not support that it does not exist. To argue otherwise is to engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

That is CLEARLY contradicted by the reality that the term has a definition.

Being 'beyond the visible observable universe' means that it does not have substance - it is nothing that can be 'observed'. If it can't be observed then to all intents and purposes it doesn't exist other than in minds.

Also, it is a contradiction because there are observations claimed of the supernatural: your own psychic examples, people praying and getting results from them, claims of miracles, claims of magical creatures, alternate planes of existence, and all sorts of physical impacts on the humans throughout history. So are supernatural claims observable or not?

If so then the definition is wrong. If not, then the definition is contradictory. Do you see why the term is completely meaningless?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JJ: Um, sure you know it exists - you're making lots of claims about it.
I've shared my experiences. I've not made any positive claims about them. Find one if you disagree.

Wait, so you're not claiming your object-reading is a psychic power then? You agree that there could be a natural explanation?

I don't know for a fact that it works and I don't know how it works - you are the one who forwarded the magnetic field theory, not me. I just analyzed my experience based on my understanding of reality and my best guess based on what I remember is that I PROBABLY somehow learned something about the person from holding holding the object. I do not discount the possibility that it was just a lucky guess or that my memory failed me. So I make no positive claim about it. I'm just telling you my opinion on the subject.

You're the one that took the trouble to go to a class - are you telling me the class didn't describe how it worked? Do you not think that it odd that you needed to be in front of the person in order to read the object? Did it not strike you as strange that objects weren't just put in a box and randomly pulled out - that you need to be physically in front of the person, picking up cues and clues about themselves?

What is your opinion on the subject if it weren't in the context of describing something supernatural?

If you truly know nothing about the supernatural then you likewise do not know that it doesn't exist. So are admitting that you don't whether it exists or not? If not, then you claim to know something about it.

I know it doesn't exist because there is nothing in the definition that provides any support of it existing. It is as useful a term as 'magic' or 'joiuiu' - they are words which describe our lack of knowledge of something. In other words, instead of saying "I don't know", people point to magic, a deity or supernatural or some other mysterious force.

ONCE AGAIN, you are invoking the argument from ignorance fallacy. Failure to prove that it exists is not evidence that it doesn't exist.

You misunderstand my point: I'm not saying there is no evidence, I am saying there is nothing of substance in the word that gives it any meaning other than "I don't know ..."

You are contradicting yourself. "meaningless" means that is has no meaning. And you just described what it means, except or the part about is describing anything that anyone wants which is not supported by the dictionary definition.

Yes, I agree there is a 'dictionary' definition but there is nothing there to grasp other than more speculation (see the thread discussing this very point going practically nowhere for a few weeks).

Because doing it again would not teach me anything that I didn't already learn from doing it the first time.

And it's not a particularly useful skill. I mean if I took an object of yours and then told you something about you that I couldn't have known otherwise, you'd probably say "lucky guess" (sound familiar?). And even if you were impressed, so what? Impressing people in that fashion is not something that I'm particularly interested in and doing so has no significant tangible benefits.

So yeah, I thought it was interesting when I got what appeared to be actual results but it wasn't something that I felt would really improve my life. If I was going to spend time pursuing something, learning the guitar would probably be more beneficial.

Nevertheless, even within the class, you didn't do readings of the other people? You weren't curious ever again about picking up any of the millions of objects since then and doing a similar reading to see what you might pick up? I'm pursuing this line because it appears, just like the psychic story, you appear to be claiming the existence of some power or something that can cause these things to happen whilst ignoring that these are more likely to be huskers.


-- Out of time -- can't respond to the rest. Please raise any other points you feel are important but my main point is that you can't say the supernatural exists because the term is devoid of any substance.

[mican333]

Also, it is a contradiction because there are observations claimed of the supernatural: your own psychic examples, people praying and getting results from them, claims of miracles, claims of magical creatures, alternate planes of existence, and all sorts of physical impacts on the humans throughout history. So are supernatural claims observable or not?

If so then the definition is wrong. If not, then the definition is contradictory. Do you see why the term is completely meaningless?

So would it be safe to say that if ANY of those things are actually observed, then they are part of the observable universe and therefore not supernatural?

So getting back to my original scenario, if Joe did indeed see Christ, then Christ is not supernatural since Christ is observable (since Joe did observe him).

I will address the rest of your post. I just want to clear this up before I proceed.

[JimJones8934]

So would it be safe to say that if ANY of those things are actually observed, then they are part of the observable universe and therefore not supernatural?

Yes, that's the contradiction part of your definition. You can't claim that deities are supernatural yet cannot be observed; then claim that they can be observed via their miracles. That's what makes the definition pretty much mean nothing.

So getting back to my original scenario, if Joe did indeed see Christ, then Christ is not supernatural since Christ is observable (since Joe did observe him).

Sure - that's why the notion of Christ (the magical one) doesn't make sense either.

[mican333]

Yes, that's the contradiction part of your definition. You can't claim that deities are supernatural yet cannot be observed; then claim that they can be observed via their miracles. That's what makes the definition pretty much mean nothing.

If someone claims that God is observable and yet supernatural is just misusing the word "supernatural" when they apply it to God. Someone misusing a word doesn't render the word meaningless.

If I call a feline a "dog" I'm just misusing the word "dog", not rendering the word "dog" meaningless.

I should say that I don't agree with how you are using the word "supernatural" but I'd rather just settle on a definition than debate the definition. So again, if you want to define "supernatural" as that which can never be observed, that's fine. I'll go along and respond to your following points using that definition.

Sure - that's why the notion of Christ (the magical one) doesn't make sense either.

No, it just shows that someone would be using the term "supernatural" incorrectly when describing Joe's experience.

IF Christ exists, he exists in another realm. If the realm is unobservable (either because it doesn't exist or because it's not observable even though it does exist) then the realm and all of its inhabitants can be called "supernatural". If it's possible to see the realm and/or its inhabitants then it's not "supernatural".

Agree? If so, I will respond to the points of your previous post with that definition settled.

[JimJones8934]

If someone claims that God is observable and yet supernatural is just misusing the word "supernatural" when they apply it to God. Someone misusing a word doesn't render the word meaningless.

If I call a feline a "dog" I'm just misusing the word "dog", not rendering the word "dog" meaningless.

Agreed but it is the definition you chose. That said, it is no better than any other definition or discussion of the term - they pretty much boil down to a class of things that happen that we don't want to explain. It isn't 'meaningless' in the sense that the term doesn't have a concept behind it - it is meaningless because the concept behind it is largely "I don't know". It would be more honest to say "I don't know" than appealing to another term that pretty much means the same thing. To hide behind the word 'supernatural' is to paint a veneer of mystery and authenticity that doesn't belong.

I should say that I don't agree with how you are using the word "supernatural" but I'd rather just settle on a definition than debate the definition. So again, if you want to define "supernatural" as that which can never be observed, that's fine. I'll go along and respond to your following points using that definition.

OK.

No, it just shows that someone would be using the term "supernatural" incorrectly when describing Joe's experience.

Well, you'll find that Christians like to paint Jesus Christ as supernatural as possible in order for there to be no actual natural proof possible. Even to the point that making it a debate restriction is frowned upon. Shocking, I know.

IF Christ exists, he exists in another realm. If the realm is unobservable (either because it doesn't exist or because it's not observable even though it does exist) then the realm and all of its inhabitants can be called "supernatural". If it's possible to see the realm and/or its inhabitants then it's not "supernatural".

Yeah, well, since you're not a Christian, you're not really qualified to say anything about Christ since you haven't gone through the mental steps. Atheists and agnostics don't really understand Christians well enough to provide a rebuttal to be honest. You should have chosen unicorns in your example.

Agree? If so, I will respond to the points of your previous post with that definition settled.

Sure.

[mican333]

Agreed but it is the definition you chose. That said, it is no better than any other definition or discussion of the term - they pretty much boil down to a class of things that happen that we don't want to explain. It isn't 'meaningless' in the sense that the term doesn't have a concept behind it - it is meaningless because the concept behind it is largely "I don't know". It would be more honest to say "I don't know" than appealing to another term that pretty much means the same thing. To hide behind the word 'supernatural' is to paint a veneer of mystery and authenticity that doesn't belong.

But I, and I should say many others, do not agree with your definition of "supernatural". People generally consider "supernatural" to be about things that usually are not observable, not can't be observed. So even if one sees a ghost, they would still admit that usually one can't see ghosts so ghosts are still "supernatural" even if one is observed on occasion.

But I don't want to get into a semantics debate so I'm agreeing, for the sake of debate, if one actually does see something then it no longer qualifies as supernatural.

Well, you'll find that Christians like to paint Jesus Christ as supernatural as possible in order for there to be no actual natural proof possible. Even to the point that making it a debate restriction is frowned upon. Shocking, I know.

You are making an assumption about the motivations of others. Unless you want to take the debate there, this point will be ignored.

Yeah, well, since you're not a Christian, you're not really qualified to say anything about Christ since you haven't gone through the mental steps. Atheists and agnostics don't really understand Christians well enough to provide a rebuttal to be honest. You should have chosen unicorns in your example.

I'm picking Christ for my "Joe" example because Christ is the most popular subject of "faith" in Western culture.

---------- Post added January 29th, 2015 at 12:26 AM ---------- Previous post was January 28th, 2015 at 11:35 PM ----------

Wait, so you're not claiming your object-reading is a psychic power then? You agree that there could be a natural explanation?

Again, there's a difference between "I believe" and "I claim". And if I genuinely read that object, then it's not a supernatural occurrence since it's observable. And I would that EVERYTHING that actually exists has a natural explanation. In other words, IF there is a realm where Christ exists, then there is a natural explanation for its existence - it's just an explanation that we are unaware of.

And I would approach object reading the same way. IF it can be done, there's a natural explanation, perhaps the magnetic theory you mentioned earlier. Be aware that if that theory is correct then object reading is not at all a supernatural ability but a natural one.

I have my opinion on the matter but I make no claim regarding whether it can actually be done or not.

You're the one that took the trouble to go to a class - are you telling me the class didn't describe how it worked?

Maybe they did. It was decades ago so they may have and I don't remember now.

Do you not think that it odd that you needed to be in front of the person in order to read the object?

That question sneaks in the premise that I HAD TO be in front of the person to do. I know I was next to the person but I don't know that I had to be next to them to do it and I don't recall being informed of such a thing.

But at the same time, it probably helps if you know who the subject is. I assume that ultimately you focus on the person to learn what you learn so having them in the proximity probably helps one focus.

Did it not strike you as strange that objects weren't just put in a box and randomly pulled out - that you need to be physically in front of the person, picking up cues and clues about themselves?

No. And I have to say that your "hyper-aware reading of subliminal clues which are turned into accurate readings via the subconscious" theory sounds about as wild as the magnetic coding theory. Either way, if my guess was accurate due to anything other than random good luck then my mind can do more than what people generally assume a mind can do. And either way, the explanation is natural as the magnetic reading theory, if true, is something natural that we just can't explain at this time, much the same as your theory.

What is your opinion on the subject if it weren't in the context of describing something supernatural?

As I believe I actually read the object, regardless of how I performed the feat (magnetic coding, hyper-awareness), I do not consider it to be supernatural.

Even going by the more common definition of "supernatural", psychic ability is considered to be natural as in it's something that humans minds can naturally do.

I know it doesn't exist because there is nothing in the definition that provides any support of it existing. It is as useful a term as 'magic' or 'joiuiu' - they are words which describe our lack of knowledge of something. In other words, instead of saying "I don't know", people point to magic, a deity or supernatural or some other mysterious force.

But that doesn't mean that the supernatural does not exist. IF a realm exists and we can't observe it, it qualifies as supernatural even though it exist.

And in the Joe scenario, he's not saying "I don't know". He actually knows that Christ exists.

And in the real world, it's possible that this happened to someone so it's possible that at least one believer in Christ KNOWS that Christ exists and is not saying "I don't know" but sincerely and accurately saying "I know that Christ exists". Again, it's possible.

Nevertheless, even within the class, you didn't do readings of the other people?

No. The class ended before there was time.

You weren't curious ever again about picking up any of the millions of objects since then and doing a similar reading to see what you might pick up?

Not curious enough to take the time to do it. BTW, it's not a quick process as in one grabs something and gets something in a second or two. You have to quiet your mind for a while. And you can only do it with strangers as you definitely cannot trust results you would get if you read an object of someone you know as you would think you're just using information you already have. So I would have to find a stranger, ask for an object that I would keep on me for a few minutes, and then sit silently with few distractions. So I would have to be quite interested in doing it more often to arrange a situation where I can do it. And I wasn't interested enough to arrange such a situation after that. Again, there isn't much tangible benefit to doing it.

I'm pursuing this line because it appears, just like the psychic story, you appear to be claiming the existence of some power or something that can cause these things to happen whilst ignoring that these are more likely to be huskers.

What do you mean by "huskers"? I'm not familiar with the term.

But my best guess is that you are saying that psychics are more likely to be frauds than not but that position has not been supported at all. As far as I can tell, you've only provided support that around ten of them are frauds and ten is certainly not most of them.