Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 116

Thread: Supernatural?

  1. #61
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Maybe they are all fakes and maybe some of them are real. But you can't say that there are no recordings of ghosts unless you can prove that the recordings are indeed all fakes.
    No. I can show they have to be fake because ghosts donít make sense.


    Because if fits the description of ghosts as they are commonly defined by people. It also resembles the dictionary definition of a "ghost".
    What dictionary definition?


    The statement I'm challenging is "I can easily prove there are no ghosts by asking believers what they think a ghost actually is." So I'm seeing if you can prove there are no ghosts. Are you still claiming you can prove there are no ghosts?

    Either way, I will answer your question.

    What I mean by "ghostly" is that it looks like a human but is transparent and wispy - like how ghosts are typically described.
    If itís transparent then how do you see it? What do you mean by wispy?

  2. #62
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,878
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No. I can show they have to be fake because ghosts don’t make sense.
    They objectively don't make sense or you don't understand them?



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    What dictionary definition?
    Pretty much any dictionary definition. But you if you need an example:

    the soul of a dead person believed to be an inhabitant of the unseen world or to appear to the living in bodily likeness

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ghost




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    If it’s transparent then how do you see it?
    Transparent things are not invisible. Do you not know what "transparent" means?


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    What do you mean by wispy?
    Do you not know what "wispy" means?

  3. #63
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    They objectively don't make sense or you don't understand them?
    Both.



    Pretty much any dictionary definition. But you if you need an example:

    the soul of a dead person believed to be an inhabitant of the unseen world or to appear to the living in bodily likeness

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ghost
    Whatís a soul? What is this unseen world? And what do you even mean by bodily likeness? Do they wear the same clothes somehow?

    Transparent things are not invisible. Do you not know what "transparent" means?
    See through, like glass, which is practically invisible. Iím just trying to determine the exact nature of what you are seeing


    Do you not know what "wispy" means?
    Yes, but I donít know what *you* are describing when youíre saying wispy.

    Perhaps if you have a video handy, since youíve seen this ghost so many times it might better explain things.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  4. #64
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,878
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Both.
    support or retract that it objectively does not make sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    What’s a soul? What is this unseen world? And what do you even mean by bodily likeness? Do they wear the same clothes somehow?
    I'll just cut to the chase and say that while I can answer some of the questions, I can't answer them all. For example, I don't know exactly what the unseen world is.

    So okay, I don't know everything about ghosts, like where they exactly reside or even exactly what a soul is. But considering my incomplete knowledge of what ghosts are, how does that show that they don't exist?

    Nor does the fact that I don't know everything about ghosts gives me a good reason to believe that what I see from time to time is not an actual ghost.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Yes, but I don’t know what *you* are describing when you’re saying wispy.

    Perhaps if you have a video handy, since you’ve seen this ghost so many times it might better explain things.
    But then I'm not trying to convince you that ghosts exist nor do I feel any obligation to explain everything in more and more detail until you are satisfied. So let's settle that I am only capable of describing ghosts to a certain extent and no further.

    So where do we get to the part where you've proven that ghosts don't exist? Certainly demonstrating my personal inadequacy in knowledge of ghosts and being able to describe them in great detail doesn't prove that ghosts don't exist, does it? It's not like I can't describe them at all - I just can't describe them in great detail.
    Last edited by mican333; May 13th, 2018 at 05:53 AM.

  5. #65
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    support or retract that it objectively does not make sense.
    Not clear what youíre asking here. Please explain.

    I'll just cut to the chase and say that while I can answer some of the questions, I can't answer them all. For example, I don't know exactly what the unseen world is.

    So okay, I don't know everything about ghosts, like where they exactly reside or even exactly what a soul is. But considering my incomplete knowledge of what ghosts are, how does that show that they don't exist?

    Nor does the fact that I don't know everything about ghosts gives me a good reason to believe that what I see from time to time is not an actual ghost.
    Well, claiming that something exists but you donít know where or how it works isnít just incomplete knowledge - it is barely any knowledge at all. If the two things that you ascribe to something canít be explained then you really donít have any explanation - youíre just inventing more stuff that needs to be explained.

    So you basically know that a ghost is something that consists of at least three things you donít know! And if you donít know what those things are how are you attributing them to ghosts in the first place.

    Your position makes no sense at all - youíre just throwing out nonsense to explain nonsense.


    But then I'm not trying to convince you that ghosts exist nor do I feel any obligation to explain everything in more and more detail until you are satisfied. So let's settle that I am only capable of describing ghosts to a certain extent and no further.
    Well, itís clear you donít know what youíre talking about. So why are you even talking about it!

    So where do we get to the part where you've proven that ghosts don't exist? Certainly demonstrating my personal inadequacy in knowledge of ghosts and being able to describe them in great detail doesn't prove that ghosts don't exist, does it? It's not like I can't describe them at all - I just can't describe them in great detail.
    Well, Iíve proven, or rather got you to admit that you have no idea what youíre talking about. If you donít know what youíre talking about then they donít exist.

    And since this knowledge is pretty common and just as poorly explained by everyone else then we can assume no-one knows what theyíre talking about and ghosts are just some fantasy fairy tale used to scare people or to (poorly) explain phenomena that have far better natural reasons for happening.

    I think at some point, Occamís Razor should be invoked and that ghosts do not exist and they are a fantasy much like other fantasies.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  6. #66
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,878
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Not clear what you’re asking here. Please explain.
    I am asking you to support your claim that ghosts objectively do not make sense. If you are unclear on what I'm asking, then you are unclear of what you claimed.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, claiming that something exists but you don’t know where or how it works isn’t just incomplete knowledge - it is barely any knowledge at all. If the two things that you ascribe to something can’t be explained then you really don’t have any explanation - you’re just inventing more stuff that needs to be explained.
    But I can explain what ghosts are. In fact, there is a dictionary definition that explains what ghosts are. And I've invented nothing since I am saying nothing about ghosts that hasn't been said by someone else. Inventing means making stuff up. I've made nothing up.

    What you are saying is that I can't explain EVERYTHING about ghosts. That's true. But not being able to explain everything about X is not the same as being unable to describe X or having to invent something about X.

    And as the rest of your post is based on the false premise that "not knowing everything about X" is essentially the same as "not knowing what one is talking about", the rest of your points are false and won't be responded to for that reason. I'm not going to repeat myself by pointing this out over and over again. Since you don't like me repeating myself, you're welcome.

  7. #67
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I am asking you to support your claim that ghosts objectively do not make sense. If you are unclear on what I'm asking, then you are unclear of what you claimed.
    Itís not me thatís unclear - it is you. You already failed to explain what a ghost really is by not being able to explain the basic characteristics of one.

    You chose to conclude that this is insufficient reason to disbelieve ghosts and I choose the opposite conclusion. Itís not rocket science.

    But I can explain what ghosts are. In fact, there is a dictionary definition that explains what ghosts are. And I've invented nothing since I am saying nothing about ghosts that hasn't been said by someone else. Inventing means making stuff up. I've made nothing up.
    A dictionary can also describe dragons and fairies - are you suggesting that ALL dictionary nouns can exist?

    What you are saying is that I can't explain EVERYTHING about ghosts. That's true. But not being able to explain everything about X is not the same as being unable to describe X or having to invent something about X.
    Actually, you canít explain anything about ghosts other than what youíve been able to pull from some dictionary. Quoting something that you clearly donít understand in any depth hardly constitutes as an Ďexplanationí!

    Defining a word is the start of an explanation; one that you canít conclude to any amount of detail about anything. So I think itís safe to conclude that you donít know what youíre talking about and if you donít know what youíre talking about then I have no reason to believe it exists!

    And as the rest of your post is based on the false premise that "not knowing everything about X" is essentially the same as "not knowing what one is talking about", the rest of your points are false and won't be responded to for that reason. I'm not going to repeat myself by pointing this out over and over again. Since you don't like me repeating myself, you're welcome.
    Theyíre both true:

    - your only information about ghosts is a dictionary definition, which anyone could get, so all youĎre doing is parroting something I already know. Adding nothing to the discussion.
    - your lack of detail and depth also means that you donít know what youíre talking about because you havenít been able to demonstrate any more information than what can be gleaned from a common dictionary.

    If you canít contribute more than the ability to read a dictionary, the examination of what a ghost is amounts to nothing and your lack of input. Given that you have nothing then your claims as to ghosts existing is also nothing.

    Who knows, if instead, you read a definition of a poltergeist whether youíre going to claim that was your explanation. Or a demon. Or an angel. Or an alien force?

    So I stand by the fact that you donít know what youíre talking since you canít explain the words you use.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  8. #68
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,878
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It’s not me that’s unclear - it is you. You already failed to explain what a ghost really is by not being able to explain the basic characteristics of one.
    Because you say so? I have provided characteristics of a ghost and even provided a dictionary definition. I think any reasonable person would think that is enough to provide the basic characteristics of a ghost. If you are going to argue that I need to provide more than that in order to explain what a ghost basically is, I ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that assertion.

    To avoid repeating myself, any other arguments in your post that say that I failed to provide an adequate definition of a ghost or is based on that premise will not be responded to.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    A dictionary can also describe dragons and fairies - are you suggesting that ALL dictionary nouns can exist?
    No. I'm seeing if you can prove that ghosts don't exist by asking me questions about my belief in ghosts. Indicating that I have any burden to prove that ghosts do exist is either shifting the burden or forgetting what the debate is about.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    - your only information about ghosts is a dictionary definition, which anyone could get, so all you‘re doing is parroting something I already know. Adding nothing to the discussion.
    And if I had some burden to "add to the discussion", that might be relevant. But again, I'm just telling you what I believe and I thought your were going to be able to prove that ghosts don't exist by asking me questions about what I believe.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    - your lack of detail and depth also means that you don’t know what you’re talking about because you haven’t been able to demonstrate any more information than what can be gleaned from a common dictionary.
    I don't know what planet learning what something is from a dictionary qualifies as having no idea what that something is, but it's not this planet.

    Look, you seem to be making the very flawed argument that not know EVERYTHING about something is the same as knowing nothing at all. And btw, I didn't say that my knowledge of ghosts is limited to the dictionary.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    If you can’t contribute more than the ability to read a dictionary, the examination of what a ghost is amounts to nothing and your lack of input.
    Then I guess you got nothing at all and therefore can't make any conclusion about what I experienced or whether what I saw was ghost or not. So much for proving that I didn't see a ghost.
    Last edited by mican333; May 15th, 2018 at 10:26 AM.

  9. #69
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Because you say so? I have provided characteristics of a ghost and even provided a dictionary definition. I think any reasonable person would think that is enough to provide the basic characteristics of a ghost. If you are going to argue that I need to provide more than that in order to explain what a ghost basically is, I ask that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that assertion.

    To avoid repeating myself, any other arguments in your post that say that I failed to provide an adequate definition of a ghost or is based on that premise will not be responded to.
    I'm not saying you need to provide anything. Clearly you have admitted you have no information and know little more than a dictionary definition. Then I have no need to take anything you say seriously since you could be mistaken. Not understanding the words you use makes it difficult to have any kind of further discussion.


    No. I'm seeing if you can prove that ghosts don't exist by asking me questions about my belief in ghosts. Indicating that I have any burden to prove that ghosts do exist is either shifting the burden or forgetting what the debate is about.
    Right and you have shown that you don't have any details about what you purported to experience. You could be completely mistaken as to what words you are choosing to use and that is clear since you cannot explain what those words mean. There is no reason for me to take your experience seriously. You haven't even really described what you saw in any great detail anyway so it seems that you're just plucking random words that you don't understand to explain it.

    And if I had some burden to "add to the discussion", that might be relevant. But again, I'm just telling you what I believe and I thought your were going to be able to prove that ghosts don't exist by asking me questions about what I believe.
    Sure, and I showed that you don't really know what a ghost is in any kind of detail. Therefore, if you don't understand it, there are no such thing as ghosts to even discuss!



    I don't know what planet learning what something is from a dictionary qualifies as having no idea what that something is, but it's not this planet.

    Look, you seem to be making the very flawed argument that not know EVERYTHING about something is the same as knowing nothing at all. And btw, I didn't say that my knowledge of ghosts is limited to the dictionary.
    You don't need to know everything but you should know at least words that you're using to describe the thing we're talking about. If you don't then there is really very little discussion to be had since you're knowledge is insufficient to support your claim.

    CHALLENGE: Support or retract that what you saw is a ghost

    I have not seen any reason why you would choose that definition given your description of what you purported to experience.

    Then I guess you got nothing at all and therefore can't make any conclusion about what I experienced or whether what I saw was ghost or not. So much for proving that I didn't see a ghost.
    I think I've proven that *you* don't know if you've seen a ghost! You haven't really linked the dictionary definition to your experience and you can't explain what the words even mean. Until you have done that you haven't supported you have seen a ghost.

  10. #70
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,878
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I'm not saying you need to provide anything. Clearly you have admitted you have no information and know little more than a dictionary definition. Then I have no need to take anything you say seriously since you could be mistaken.
    I don't care if you take me seriously or not. I'm just waiting to see if you can prove that ghosts don't exist, which you apparently can't. Just choosing to ignore what I say doesn't do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Not understanding the words you use makes it difficult to have any kind of further discussion.
    First off, if one's definition of the word X corresponds to the dictionary definition of X, then one understands what the words means. And again, you refusing to discuss this with me does not prove that ghosts don't exist.

    Any further arguments of your based on you not taking my statement seriously or refusing to engage in discussion will not responded to in order to avoid redundancy.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    CHALLENGE: Support or retract that what you saw is a ghost
    I'm saying that I believe that what I saw was a ghost. I never said I could prove it.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I think I've proven that *you* don't know if you've seen a ghost! You haven't really linked the dictionary definition to your experience and you can't explain what the words even mean. Until you have done that you haven't supported you have seen a ghost.
    Shifting the burden. You said you could prove that ghosts don't exist. You can't even prove that I didn't see a ghost.

  11. #71
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't care if you take me seriously or not. I'm just waiting to see if you can prove that ghosts don't exist, which you apparently can't. Just choosing to ignore what I say doesn't do that.
    Of course I can ignore you - you donít know anything about the topic weíre discussing. I donít even know if you even really saw a ghost or how you even think itís a ghost versus something else.

    First off, if one's definition of the word X corresponds to the dictionary definition of X, then one understands what the words means. And again, you refusing to discuss this with me does not prove that ghosts don't exist.
    CHALLENGE: Show this correspondence.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  12. #72
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,878
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Of course I can ignore you - you don’t know anything about the topic we’re discussing. I don’t even know if you even really saw a ghost or how you even think it’s a ghost versus something else.
    Okay. So you aren't going to prove that ghosts don't exist by asking me questions about it. I was just waiting to see if you can do it. You obviously can't (or won't) so we are done.

  13. #73
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. So you aren't going to prove that ghosts don't exist by asking me questions about it. I was just waiting to see if you can do it. You obviously can't (or won't) so we are done.
    Iíve shown that you havenít demonstrated a clear path from what you purported to experience (which you still didnít provide video evidence of) to the dictionary definition whose terms you donít understand.

    If you canít prove anything solid then what is there to disprove? Of course, weíre done - youíve just argued with your self (again)!
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 15th, 2018 at 08:42 PM.

  14. #74
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,878
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I’ve shown that you haven’t demonstrated a clear path from what you purported to experience (which you still didn’t provide video evidence of) to the dictionary definition whose terms you don’t understand.
    Okay. But you haven't shown that any of this proves that ghosts exist.

    I mean you are completely incorrect that I don't understand the dictionary definition (you are the one who asked what it means, not me) and besides that, even if you were right, it doesn't prove that ghosts don't exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    If you can’t prove anything solid then what is there to disprove? Of course, we’re done - you’ve just argued with your self (again)!
    I'm not arguing with myself. I can just see that you have absolutely no hope of showing that ghosts don't exist.

    There is no logical bridge between me supposedly not knowing what ghosts are and proving that ghosts don't exist.

  15. #75
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. But you haven't shown that any of this proves that ghosts exist.

    I mean you are completely incorrect that I don't understand the dictionary definition (you are the one who asked what it means, not me) and besides that, even if you were right, it doesn't prove that ghosts don't exist.




    I'm not arguing with myself. I can just see that you have absolutely no hope of showing that ghosts don't exist.

    There is no logical bridge between me supposedly not knowing what ghosts are and proving that ghosts don't exist.
    Iím proving to YOU that you donít know what youíre talking about. That you cannot demonstrate clearly what you experienced, that you have no additional third-party independent objective record, or how you have connected those experiences to the dictionary definition nor any further information about what those words in the definition mean; all those point to the fact that you clearly have no clue about anything to do with ghosts other than a dictionary definition that you cannot justify.

    You donít even get the right to talk about ghosts so the discussion is over by your own admission to total ignorance about your own reasons to associate the word Ďghostí to what you say you experienced.

    How can you possibly discuss the existence of something when you have no depth of knowledge of what we are discussing. To all intents and purposes, ghosts, to you, do not exist: itís just a random occurrence that youíve randomly associated with a word that youíve had to look up, yet not able to explain.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  16. #76
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,878
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Okay. First, it is established that you are NOT going to prove that ghosts don't exist in general (saying that don't exist "to you" is moving the goalpost from your original claim). So moving on to the argument you are making (which is a different one).

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I’m proving to YOU that you don’t know what you’re talking about. That you cannot demonstrate clearly what you experienced, that you have no additional third-party independent objective record, or how you have connected those experiences to the dictionary definition nor any further information about what those words in the definition mean; all those point to the fact that you clearly have no clue about anything to do with ghosts other than a dictionary definition that you cannot justify.

    Wrong. You are subjectively, using criteria that exists nowhere but in your own head and nowhere else, determining that my knowledge is not enough to qualify for "knowing what I'm talking about".

    As far as I'm concerned, having the basic layman knowledge of ghosts (dictionary definition and likewise what exists in the popular culture) is enough to "know what I'm talking about".

    If you think that's not enough, well then your opinion is noted. If you have something that is based on something other than your opinion on what level of knowledge/detail is enough to "know what one is talking about", let me know.

    Further baseless claims about my knowledge being inadequate to know what I'm talking about will be met with "Your opinion is noted". So you will need to provide me with something more than your opinion to make a case that won't get that response.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You don’t even get the right to talk about ghosts so the discussion is over by your own admission to total ignorance about your own reasons to associate the word ‘ghost’ to what you say you experienced.
    Your opinion that having the basic cultural knowledge of what ghosts are qualifies as "total ignorance" is noted. And it's almost certainly wrong as well. Some knowledge of ghosts is clearly not "total ignorance" of ghosts. "Total ignorance" of ghosts would be saying "Ghosts? What are those?".

  17. #77
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. First, it is established that you are NOT going to prove that ghosts don't exist in general (saying that don't exist "to you" is moving the goalpost from your original claim). So moving on to the argument you are making (which is a different one).
    Not at all, I can have this debate with anyone on anything that is deemed supernatural. Debunking bad ideas is done one debate at a time. Of course, people usually provide more of a challenge if they have experienced said supernatural events or have evidence they can share or have deep knowledge of the topic, particularly in religious debates.

    However, in this case, itís clear you have no data, no real experiences, a basic dictionary definition, and some supposed Ďcommon knowledgeí, which you have yet to share. Your typical lack of detail and depth means that you barely qualify as having any credibility in the matter.

    So there is little reason to discuss ghosts with you any further other than to point out that if you donít have a clear idea of what something is then you have no warrant to say they exist. And we certainly canít discuss the existence of something if you have little idea about what *it* actually is.

    Wrong. You are subjectively, using criteria that exists nowhere but in your own head and nowhere else, determining that my knowledge is not enough to qualify for "knowing what I'm talking about".

    As far as I'm concerned, having the basic layman knowledge of ghosts (dictionary definition and likewise what exists in the popular culture) is enough to "know what I'm talking about".

    If you think that's not enough, well then your opinion is noted. If you have something that is based on something other than your opinion on what level of knowledge/detail is enough to "know what one is talking about", let me know.
    Your own actions show that you donít know what youíre talking about:

    1. I asked for more details about what you experienced and despite saying you would provide it, you really havenít.
    2. I asked you what do you see as a ghost and you provided a dictionary definition. When probed about what you even mean by the words in the definition (unseen world, soul, etc.) you said you didnít know.
    3. You have also continued to fail to tie your original experience to the definition in the first place. And that lack of clarity makes me wonder why you associated the two things together in the first place: I.e. how are you sure that what you saw qualifies since you donít know what the terms in the definition even mean?
    4. Youíre appealing to some kind of popular culture, by which I take it you mean movies and TV shows. But you have yet provided any further details about that either and how fiction and fabrications apply to your case.

    So your original experience isnít clear. Your understanding of the dictionary is wanting and along with no other evidence or support, you have yet to provide any real link between that experience and what youíre purporting is evidence for ghosts.

    This shallow amount of information is clear that you have no idea what youíre talking about. Itís not arbitrary - it is expected that youíre producing evidence that comports with your experience you have to understand it in order to draw the connections.

    So itís clear you know too little to have any warrant to say ghosts exist and that you experienced one.

    Further baseless claims about my knowledge being inadequate to know what I'm talking about will be met with "Your opinion is noted". So you will need to provide me with something more than your opinion to make a case that won't get that response.
    Iíve established the specific things that you admitted you do not know and havenít provided even though you claim you know. Those are your own words of ignorance so itís hardly opinion. As I pointed out, I suspect youíre arguing against yourself on this one.

    Your opinion that having the basic cultural knowledge of what ghosts are qualifies as "total ignorance" is noted. And it's almost certainly wrong as well. Some knowledge of ghosts is clearly not "total ignorance" of ghosts. "Total ignorance" of ghosts would be saying "Ghosts? What are those?".
    You have yet to show any basic cultural knowledge. And yes, you have *practically* said ďwhat are those?Ē when you fail to provide any evidence and any explanation or any details. You could easily have just plucked a random term.

    To me, it seems you had some kind of (unproven) experience with little real detail (almost as if you forgot it or making it all up) and you associated it with some supernatural cause, whose definition you looked up and claimed that ghosts exists.

    Thatís pretty much barebones knowledge about any topic and certainly ignorant enough to disregard. And if as usual, you want to quibble over minor points, then I change my description to ďyou have demonstrated near total ignoranceĒ.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    Last edited by SharmaK; May 16th, 2018 at 03:33 AM.

  18. #78
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,878
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Not at all, I can have this debate with anyone on anything that is deemed supernatural. Debunking bad ideas is done one debate at a time. Of course, people usually provide more of a challenge if they have experienced said supernatural events or have evidence they can share or have deep knowledge of the topic, particularly in religious debates.
    But then you never even supported that I did not have actually see a ghost. Your strategy is more along the lines of "You don't know what you are talking about so I'm not taking your claim seriously" which in no way shows that what I think is a ghost is not actually a ghost.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Your own actions show that you don’t know what you’re talking about:

    1. I asked for more details about what you experienced and despite saying you would provide it, you really haven’t.
    2. I asked you what do you see as a ghost and you provided a dictionary definition. When probed about what you even mean by the words in the definition (unseen world, soul, etc.) you said you didn’t know.
    3. You have also continued to fail to tie your original experience to the definition in the first place. And that lack of clarity makes me wonder why you associated the two things together in the first place: I.e. how are you sure that what you saw qualifies since you don’t know what the terms in the definition even mean?
    4. You’re appealing to some kind of popular culture, by which I take it you mean movies and TV shows. But you have yet provided any further details about that either and how fiction and fabrications apply to your case.
    And your opinion that all of this qualifies as "not knowing what one is talking about" is noted. I, on the other hand, think that having a rudimentary knowledge of ghosts is enough to know what one is talking about to some extent.

    So we either agree to disagree on this point or you need to support it with something solid and not just forward your own OPINION on when sufficient information is needed to "know what one is talking about".

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So your original experience isn’t clear. Your understanding of the dictionary is wanting
    Your opinion is noted.

    [QUOTE=SharmaK;559830] and along with no other evidence or support, you have yet to provide any real link between that experience and what you’re purporting is evidence for ghosts.

    So here's the link.

    Rudimentary knowledge of ghosts (what is generally known in the culture) portrays ghosts as a wispy transparent human form that appears in a similar location multiple times. I have seen exactly that. So there is your link between my experience and what is popularly defined as a "ghost".


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I’ve established the specific things that you admitted you do not know and haven’t provided even though you claim you know. Those are your own words of ignorance so it’s hardly opinion.
    It's an opinion that my level of ignorance qualifies as not knowing what I'm talking about.

  19. #79
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then you never even supported that I did not have actually see a ghost. Your strategy is more along the lines of "You don't know what you are talking about so I'm not taking your claim seriously" which in no way shows that what I think is a ghost is not actually a ghost.
    Well, Iím still waiting for information from you regarding more details as to what you really experienced. Thus far it doesnít appear to me you donít have much.

    Well, since you canít even explain clearly what a ghost is I have to just reject your claim that you experienced anything at all, much less a ghost that you canít even properly explain.

    And your opinion that all of this qualifies as "not knowing what one is talking about" is noted. I, on the other hand, think that having a rudimentary knowledge of ghosts is enough to know what one is talking about to some extent.

    So we either agree to disagree on this point or you need to support it with something solid and not just forward your own OPINION on when sufficient information is needed to "know what one is talking about".
    This lack knowledge is what I am rejecting. I hardly think a data dictionary counts as rudimentary.

    If I ask you what a dog is and you say an animal with four legs. Iím sure you can explain what an animal is and what legs are and how a dog can be distinguished. I am then comfortable you gave a good basic grasp of what a dog is and I can compare that with an account of what you saw.

    However, in this case, you can not explain any further than the dictionary and you provide scan details as to what you saw and no connection between the two. So I have little confidence you have anything worth discussing.


    Your opinion is noted.
    Sure and your opinion of what you saw and what you think it is is also duly noted. Still donít believe you.

    So here's the link.

    Rudimentary knowledge of ghosts (what is generally known in the culture) portrays ghosts as a wispy transparent human form that appears in a similar location multiple times. I have seen exactly that. So there is your link between my experience and what is popularly defined as a "ghost".
    Support or retract this is how ghosts are generally known in the culture.

    It's an opinion that my level of ignorance qualifies as not knowing what I'm talking about.
    Sure itís an opinion but it is a well founded one. And given that this is how you normally debate , not a great stretch.
    Debate is about information transfer and all you offer is information avoidance and logic tricks.
    So maybe itís not ignorance but trolling. I donít know.

  20. #80
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,878
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, I’m still waiting for information from you regarding more details as to what you really experienced. Thus far it doesn’t appear to me you don’t have much.

    Well, since you can’t even explain clearly what a ghost is I have to just reject your claim that you experienced anything at all, much less a ghost that you can’t even properly explain.
    Your opinion that I can't explain clearly what a ghost is is noted. I hold a different opinion. In fact, I think the dictionary definition is pretty clear.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    This lack knowledge is what I am rejecting. I hardly think a data dictionary counts as rudimentary.
    Your opinion is noted.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    If I ask you what a dog is and you say an animal with four legs. I’m sure you can explain what an animal is and what legs are and how a dog can be distinguished. I am then comfortable you gave a good basic grasp of what a dog is and I can compare that with an account of what you saw.
    What if I said a dog is "a highly variable domestic mammal (Canis familiaris) closely related to the gray wolf." That certainly is better detailed that "an animal with four legs". And guess what? That's a dictionary definition. You can still say "that's not enough detail" but then again, you are just stating your opinion on the matter and not proving anything beyond what's in your head.

    The same with rejecting the dictionary definition of "ghost" along with the rudimentary cultural knowledge of ghosts (which I also use to define "ghosts"). If YOU DON'T THINK that that is enough, then all that means is that that's what you think. It doesn't prove anything expect that that is what you think.

    So all you are telling me is your opinion when you what I've provided isn't good enough. And as I said, your opinion is noted.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    However, in this case, you can not explain any further than the dictionary and you provide scan details as to what you saw and no connection between the two. So I have little confidence you have anything worth discussing.
    Well, I guess that's what you think then.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure and your opinion of what you saw and what you think it is is also duly noted. Still don’t believe you.
    And since it was never my burden in this debate to get you to believe that I actually saw a ghost, it doesn't matter if you believe me or not. You said you were going to prove that ghosts don't exist. You just subjectively not believing me doesn't do that at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Support or retract this is how ghosts are generally known in the culture.
    I don't have to. It is what I've come to understand as the cultural belief in ghosts. So my reasoning for thinking that I've seen a ghost is that I've seen what I've understood to be how ghosts are defined in the culture. If I am incorrect that that is how the culture defines ghosts, then of course I've made some kind of error but regardless, that is what I believe. If you want to argue that I indeed have made such an error, you will need to support that.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Sure it’s an opinion but it is a well founded one. And given that this is how you normally debate , not a great stretch.
    Debate is about information transfer and all you offer is information avoidance and logic tricks.
    So maybe it’s not ignorance but trolling. I don’t know.
    Or maybe you are completely incorrect about everything you just said. I consider that the more likely explanation. If you disagree with me on that, well, your opinion is noted.

    I could likewise lay into you about how you are debating but I think doing such a thing is rude and a waste of time so I'm not going to "fire back" nor am I going to argue against all of your wildly inaccurate assessment of my debating. It's just a waste of time.

 

 
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bias Against the Supernatural
    By Kong in forum Religion
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: August 25th, 2011, 11:32 PM
  2. Supernatural Forum?
    By Oh snap in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: August 8th, 2008, 06:13 PM
  3. Definition of the supernatural
    By chadn737 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: December 1st, 2007, 04:02 PM
  4. Do you believe in the supernatural?
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2006, 09:06 AM
  5. Why believe in the Supernatural?
    By Withnail in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: May 5th, 2004, 08:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •