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 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 218

Thread: Supernatural?

  1. #161
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    664
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    If we consider the context of Jesus’ mission which included repeatable demonstration of his mastery to manipulate matter, i.e., changing water to wine, raising Lazarus from the dead, healing the sick, removing demons from people, resurrecting, walking through walls – this would reasonably show that he could probably enlighten us today regarding the laws (principles) he used to accomplish these acts.
    God is said to do these things with a thought. All that means is "he" is capable of such things. It does not in any way speak to "his" understanding of how a thought could actually accomplish such things.
    You know how to send an email on your computer, do you have any idea of what your computer has to do to make that happen? If you don't I am convinced you would be amazed at what has to happen for it to get to my inbox!

    ---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I think he would be more then gracious to enlighten us on the matter.
    Anytime soon would be AWESOME

    ---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    It also points out “With science shedding light on the possible truths of ancient mysticism, it’s not implausible to think that, at one time, these abilities were more common knowledge….
    Yes, but it was still discussing "stories of the past" or "folklore" and it would be much more common knowledge if these "events" were still as common as in folklore.
    Also, "shedding light on possible truths" is pretty vague and the article doesn't go into anymore detail on any supporting science of any of the claims such as levitation or clairvoyance.

    ---------- Post added at 05:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What would that prove? That one person is able to levitate at will; that this is possible using a rigorous ancient type of meditation practice? And if most people find that they can’t easily duplicate the results, does that make the observation any less real?
    [B][B][B]It would prove you are incorrect that proof of any person that could levitate, by mind power alone, wouldn't take the whole world by storm. You would not be able to get away form it.


    ---------- Post added at 05:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I would think the scientific study and observation referenced above about Iceman and his super human abilities and the monks would have more immediate and practical social interest since it involves the ability of people to have more control over their health in a society where autoimmune diseases are effecting millions of people today. The ability to control our body temperature and other systems with our mind…. the implications of this are massive.
    What natural law is being broken by these people?
    That people can access consciously some functions of the brain that are normally automatic and happen without conscious thought?
    This is not a good definition for supernatural (with respect to Dio who hates ALL definitions of the word).

    ---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Why would you assume everyone could levitate if we observed and verified someone levitating?
    From YOU!
    You said all one needs do is become a Buddhist Monk to be capable of this. I assume most anyone can do that if they so chose???

    ---------- Post added at 05:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Also, if we observed one supernatural event that we can’t easily duplicate, does that make the observation any less real?
    That's kinda how science works.
    If an event is not repeatable, you have not duplicated the event, or you were incorrect in the first place.
    This is how every single technological advance has happened.

    But I would love to discuss this further
    Do you have an example of a supernatural event we can explore. Maybe one in the more present day if possible.

    ---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Perhaps, more Buddhist monks in the East will opt to work with researchers to study their practices. Meanwhile, there are some mind-bending studies out there that challenge our notion of natural and supernature and could revolutionzie our approach to health.
    Or since they allow outsider's to visit, maybe some one could go there to observe and study them levitating???

    Don't you realize the implications??? People in wheel chairs would be freed at the very least!
    This is HUGE stuff if it were true. This would indeed be the greatest accomplishment to date for humans to have learned how to overcome gravity by thought alone!

    It is not possible to overstate how profoundly this would affect humanity, forever....
    Last edited by Belthazor; June 1st, 2018 at 05:37 PM.

  2. #162
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But the coin MIGHT land tails so I don't have evidence that it WILL land heads instead of tails.
    But your claim isn't that a fair coin flipped in a random way will land 'heads' everytime it is flipped. Your claim is that it will land 'heads' about half the times that it is flipped. So yes you do have evidence to support your assertion. In fact, not only do you have evidence to support your claim, but conclusive evidence.

    In no way is this analgous to a situation in which you have no evidence whatsoever to support a claim that a coin will land 'heads' half the times it is flipped.

    Rodriguez: Or is it your contention that a coin which either may or may not have a heads on one side is nonetheless 0.5 probable to land showing heads?

    mican: I do.
    That's about as crazy as it gets.

    OTOH, I have lots of evidence that you are about as far from crazy as it gets and in fact are a reasonable person so the rational thing for me to do here is to assume that either I misunderstood your answer or that you misunderstood my question.

    It occurs to me that I didn't explicitly state the alternative to "landing heads" and you assumed that the alternative was "not landing heads". But of course when a coin is typical flipped, the alternative to "landing heads" is "landing tails" so that's what I mean.
    Agreed. By 'tails' we mean only 'not heads.'

    Unless there is evidence showing that the coin is more likely to land heads than tails or vice versa, the odds of landing heads instead of tails is 50%.
    If there's no evidence to support a claim that a flipped coin -- a flipped coin about which absolutely nothing is known as far as its balance or its weight or what is or is not imprinted on either side or the randomness of the flipping process, etc. -- will land heads 90% of the time and there's no evidence that it will land 'heads' 50% of the time, on what basis do you make the seemingly arbitrary decision that it will land 'heads' 50% of the time?

    While it's possible that there is no heads on the coin, it is no less possible that there is no tails on the coin either so this variable makes no difference in regards to the likelihood that it will land heads instead of tails or vice versa.

    And really, the option of the coin not having heads or tails should not be factored in for the coin toss is analogous to the ghost issue where there are only two possible options - ghosts do exist or ghosts don't exist. So allowing for the coin to have something other than heads on one side and tails on the other side means it no longer analogous to the ghost debate.
    Just the opposite. By stipulating that the coin is A) balanced, B) has a 'heads' on one of its two sides, C) will be flipped in a more or less random way, you are introducing factors into this situation that makes it a virtual certainty that the coin will land 'heads' approximately 50% of the times it is flipped.

    Take away any of that 'evidence' (much less ALL of it) and it is no longer rational to believe that the coin will land 'heads' 50% of the time rather than 90% of the time or 40% of the time or anything else.

    Only evidence makes one outcome more probable than some other outcome(s). Without evidence to support the occurrence of one possible outcome over some other(s), probability cannot be meaningfully assigned.

  3. #163
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    But your claim isn't that a fair coin flipped in a random way will land 'heads' everytime it is flipped. Your claim is that it will land 'heads' about half the times that it is flipped. So yes you do have evidence to support your assertion. In fact, not only do you have evidence to support your claim, but conclusive evidence.

    In no way is this analgous to a situation in which you have no evidence whatsoever to support a claim that a coin will land 'heads' half the times it is flipped.
    My claim is that I have no evidence that it will land heads instead of tails. Or maybe to put more succinctly, I have no reason to think that is it more likely to land on heads than it is to land on tails.

    And likewise if I have no evidence either way regarding the existence of ghosts, I have no reason to think that it's more likely that ghosts don't exist than do exist or vice versa.

    It really seems like we are just playing games with words and terms.

    The gist of this portion of the debate is that unless there is more evidence showing that X is true than not true or vice versa, there is no valid reason to think that it's more likely that X is true than not or vice versa.

    And therefore, per your letter choice, I would pick C.

    If you want to argue that a complete lack of evidence either way means that I should pick a different letter, then please present such an argument. But I feel that I have fully justified my reasoning in picking C.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    If there's no evidence to support a claim that a flipped coin -- a flipped coin about which absolutely nothing is known as far as its balance or its weight or what is or is not imprinted on either side or the randomness of the flipping process, etc. -- will land heads 90% of the time and there's no evidence that it will land 'heads' 50% of the time, on what basis do you make the seemingly arbitrary decision that it will land 'heads' 50% of the time?
    Well, let me demonstrate my reasoning here.

    First I'll forward different hypothetical coin flip of a typical quarter (one that I pulled from my pocket so I know it's equally likely to land heads as tails) and I'm told that if I bet five dollars that it will land heads instead of tails, I will six dollars if I'm right. Since in that situation, evidence strongly shows that the odds of it landing heads are 50/50 and I stand to gain more than I'm risking, I would be wise to take the bet.

    And now getting back to your coin scenario, we remove all information about the coin and I'm offered the same bet. I bet 5 give dollars that it will land heads instead of tails and if it lands heads instead of tails, I will win six dollars. I see no reason to not take the bet and you have not given me a reason to not take the bet. So that is my support that I am justified in thinking that it's still 50/50. There is nothing that my lack of information regarding coin that leads to think I shouldn't take the bet. I realize that I don't know, for example, that the coin isn't a two-headed coin but even if it is, from all information that I have (which is none) it is just as likely to be heads on both sides as it is to be tails. So given the 6 to 5 betting odds, it's still wise for me to take the bet.

    The only reason I would decide to not take the bet is if I learned something to make me think that it's more likely to land tails than heads and obviously if I know nothing, then I have no reason to think that it's more likely to land tails than heads.

    If you disagree, then explain why I shouldn't take the bet even when I know nothing about the coin.
    Last edited by mican333; June 2nd, 2018 at 06:39 PM.

  4. #164
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    My claim is that I have no evidence that it will land heads instead of tails. Or maybe to put more succinctly, I have no reason to think that is it more likely to land on heads than it is to land on tails.
    On the contrary. It is not the evidence that you lack that guides your belief about how the coin will land, it's the evidence that you have (or at least that you believe you have) that does. And you have tons of evidence that the coin is just as likely to land 'heads' as 'tails' (or at least are operating under that assumption).

    The statement "The coin will land 'heads' or not" is not a claim about a state of affairs in our world. It is a tautology that is absolutely true. It cannot be false. It is absolutely, beyond any doubt true.

    This statement, however, as absolutely true as it is, does not justify ANY belief about what has or does or will happen in our world. It is not evidence for anything.

    OTOH . . .

    the claim "I think it's 0.5 probable that this coin will land 'heads' if I flip it" IS a claim about a state of affairs in our world and one that can be either true or false. We rationally believe that this kind of claim is true (or not) depending upon the evidence that we have for it. If the evidence seems to indicate that the coin has a 0.5 probability of landing 'heads' then we are justified to say, "I think it's 0.5 probable that this coin will land 'heads' if I flip it.

    OTOH, if the evidence indicates that the coin has a 0.9 probability of landing 'tails' then we are not justified to believe that it is just as likely to land 'heads' as 'tails.'

    Finally, if there is no evidence of any kind whatsoever about how the coin will land then we are not justified in any belief we may hold about how the coin will land. Any speculation we have about the probability of how the coin will land will be just that -- pure, ungrounded speculation, just a shot in the dark.

    In the absence of any and all evidence to support our belief, we are no more justified to believe that a coin will land heads 50% of the times it is flipped than we are to believe that it will do so 90%.

    If you want to argue that a complete lack of evidence either way means that I should pick a different letter, then please present such an argument. But I feel that I have fully justified my reasoning in picking C.
    I'm not saying you should pick a different letter. I'm merely pointing out that you're not justified to pick ANY letter including C. You are no more justified in picking C than you would be in picking A or B or D or E.

    There is no justification available for your belief that C is the best choice because justification depends upon evidence and there is, as we both agree, no evidence available in our scenario.


    And by "not heads", we mean "tails". In other words if one flipped a blank coin and it lands on neither heads nor tails then it does not count as landing "not heads" because the ONLY valid alternative for the analogy is "tails".

    Just like the ONLY valid alternative to "ghosts exist" is "ghosts don't exist".
    To make the two examples analogous, the only alternative to "heads" is not literally "tails" (unless by "tails" you mean "not heads"). The only alternative would be "not heads."

    Only contradictory statements exhaust the realm of possibilities inherent in a state of affairs. "ghosts or not ghosts" "god or not god" "heads or not heads."

    Saying something like "heads or tails" doesn't allow, for example, for the admittedly slim but nonetheless real possibility that the coin will land on its edge. Saying "heads or not heads" exhausts even that slim possibility since a coin landing on its edge is a coin landing "not heads."



    Well, let me demonstrate my reasoning here.

    First I'll forward different hypothetical coin flip of a typical quarter (one that I pulled from my pocket so I know it's equally likely to land heads as tails) and I'm told that if I bet five dollars that it will land heads instead of tails, I will six dollars if I'm right. Since in that situation, evidence strongly shows that the odds of it landing heads are 50/50 and I stand to gain more than I'm risking, I would be wise to take the bet.
    Absolutely.

    And now getting back to your coin scenario, we remove all information about the coin and I'm offered the same bet. I bet 5 give dollars that it will land heads instead of tails and if it lands heads instead of tails, I will win six dollars. I see no reason to not take the bet and you have not given me a reason to not take the bet. So that is my support that I am justified in thinking that it's still 50/50.
    If someone, say, in a bar offers to bet me $50 and gives me 6 to 5 odds that a coin he pulls out of his pocket will come up 'heads' after a random flip, I have to conclude that the coin is not a fair coin or that the person is running some other kind of scam or whatever. I almost certainly don't take that bet unless he allows me to test the coin by flipping it a few times myself and agrees to a few other stipulations. I wasn't born yesterday.

    In any case, no, you're not justified to think that the coin (the coin about which you know nothing) will land heads 50% of the time. How could you be if you know nothing about the coin?

    Look, if being justified in holding a belief that p is true means that one has more reason than not to believe that p is true, then it's a contradiction to say, "I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that this coin is a fair coin, yet I am justified in having a belief that it's a fair coin!"

    How is it possible for you to justifiably believe that a coin is a fair coin if you have no evidence at all about the situation when evidence is the only thing that provides justification for belief?

    By agreement, the coin which we know nothing about is just as likely to be balanced in such a way to turn up 90% of the time on one side rather than the other as it is to turn up 50% of the time on each side, right? So what reason do you have to believe a priori that a coin will turn up heads 50% of the time rather than 90% of the time or 10% of the time?
    ============================================



    So, anyway, do this. Write "99% heads" on a small slip of paper and put it into a hat. Write "98% heads" on a slip of paper and put that slip into the same hat. Continue on writing 97% heads, 96% . . . down to "1% heads."

    So now you've got 99 slips of paper in a hat. Shake the hat, close your eyes, and pick out 1 slip of paper.

    You're arguing here that the slip of paper you randomly select from the hat, somehow, has better odds of being the "50% heads" slip than it has of being any of the other possible 98 slips that you could have selected. But how do you justify such a belief?

  5. #165
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    the claim "I think it's 0.5 probable that this coin will land 'heads' if I flip it" IS a claim about a state of affairs in our world and one that can be either true or false.
    We rationally believe that this kind of claim is true (or not) depending upon the evidence that we have for it. If the evidence seems to indicate that the coin has a 0.5 probability of landing 'heads' then we are justified to say, "I think it's 0.5 probable that this coin will land 'heads' if I flip it.
    Actually, my statement is "I believe it is just as likely to land heads as it is to land tails". So 0.5 probably it lands heads and 0.5 probable that it lands tails.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    OTOH, if the evidence indicates that the coin has a 0.9 probability of landing 'tails' then we are not justified to believe that it is just as likely to land 'heads' as 'tails.'
    Right. But then with no evidence at all, the evidence will not show a 0.9 probability.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    Finally, if there is no evidence of any kind whatsoever about how the coin will land then we are not justified in any belief we may hold about how the coin will land. Any speculation we have about the probability of how the coin will land will be just that -- pure, ungrounded speculation, just a shot in the dark.
    But if we guess, the best guess is still it's just as likely to land heads as tails. You have not rebutted this at all. Your rebuttal just seems to be saying that we can't guess. First off, I can guess if I want (it's a free country) and IF I guess, the best guess IS that it's just as likely to land heads as tails.



    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    In the absence of any and all evidence to support our belief, we are no more justified to believe that a coin will land heads 50% of the times it is flipped than we are to believe that it will do so 90%.
    Because you say so? I see no logical support for this conclusion.





    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    To make the two examples analogous, the only alternative to "heads" is not literally "tails" (unless by "tails" you mean "not heads"). The only alternative would be "not heads."

    Only contradictory statements exhaust the realm of possibilities inherent in a state of affairs. "ghosts or not ghosts" "god or not god" "heads or not heads."

    Saying something like "heads or tails" doesn't allow, for example, for the admittedly slim but nonetheless real possibility that the coin will land on its edge. Saying "heads or not heads" exhausts even that slim possibility since a coin landing on its edge is a coin landing "not heads."
    Actually, that's why we have to use "heads" or "tails" because this is an analogy about TWO options that have no innate advantage over each other. If "not heads" has a greater chance than "heads (which it would if the coin landing on its side were possible), then it's no longer a valid analogy.

    And it IS your analogy to introduce the notion that we have no information on the coin. If this ruins the analogy to the point where it no longer represents two directly opposing claims (ghosts exist vs ghost don't exist), then we can discard your analogy.



    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    If someone, say, in a bar offers to bet me $50 and gives me 6 to 5 odds that a coin he pulls out of his pocket will come up 'heads' after a random flip, I have to conclude that the coin is not a fair coin or that the person is running some other kind of scam or whatever. I almost certainly don't take that bet unless he allows me to test the coin by flipping it a few times myself and agrees to a few other stipulations. I wasn't born yesterday.

    In any case, no, you're not justified to think that the coin (the coin about which you know nothing) will land heads 50% of the time. How could you be if you know nothing about the coin?

    Look, if being justified in holding a belief that p is true means that one has more reason than not to believe that p is true, then it's a contradiction to say, "I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that this coin is a fair coin, yet I am justified in having a belief that it's a fair coin!"

    How is it possible for you to justifiably believe that a coin is a fair coin if you have no evidence at all about the situation when evidence is the only thing that provides justification for belief?
    You are changing the analogy. I'm referring just to the coin flip. You are introducing a person who might try to cheat me and that is not part of the analogy (and also provides evidence for me to think that I shouldn't call "heads" which also violates the analogy of "no evidence").

    So to be clear, there is no agent who is aware that I intend to call "heads" when the coin is flipped nor can take measures to alter the coin or the flip against me once I've made it clear that I'm calling heads. The coin is created prior to the bet taking place and is not altered after the bet has taken place. This is JUST about the coin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    By agreement, the coin which we know nothing about is just as likely to be balanced in such a way to turn up 90% of the time on one side rather than the other as it is to turn up 50% of the time on each side, right? So what reason do you have to believe a priori that a coin will turn up heads 50% of the time rather than 90% of the time or 10% of the time?
    Because even if the coin is weighted 90% for one of the sides, there is no reason to think that that it's more likely to be weighted for tails instead of heads. So by all evidence, a weighed coin is just as likely to work for me as it will work against me.

    So you have not explained why I should not take the 6 to 5 bet on "heads".

    Please explain how I have a greater than 50% chance of losing the bet. If you can't, then obviously I am making the right call and have supported that I am justified in thinking that the odds of it landing heads is about 50%




    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    So, anyway, do this. Write "99% heads" on a small slip of paper and put it into a hat. Write "98% heads" on a slip of paper and put that slip into the same hat. Continue on writing 97% heads, 96% . . . down to "1% heads."

    So now you've got 99 slips of paper in a hat. Shake the hat, close your eyes, and pick out 1 slip of paper.

    You're arguing here that the slip of paper you randomly select from the hat, somehow, has better odds of being the "50% heads" slip than it has of being any of the other possible 98 slips that you could have selected.
    When I actually make that argument, then I will defend it. I consider it a straw man and not a reasonable interpretation of my argument and therefore have no response.


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

    And btw, if "no evidence" means that we can't pick A,B,C,D, or E and no evidence for or against ghosts has been introduced in this debate, then doesn't it stand that neither of us should have picked one of those letters in regards to the probability that ghosts exist?

  6. #166
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    When I actually make that argument, then I will defend it. I consider it a straw man and not a reasonable interpretation of my argument and therefore have no response.
    I never said you made that argument. It is MY argument to which you apparently have no response . . . which is . . . OK.

    The argument again (in a condensed version) is:

    If it's just as likely that a coin will turn up heads 90% of the time or 80% of the time or 70% of the time . . . or 10% of the time as it is that it will turn up heads 50%, then it is clearly unjustifiable to believe that it is more likely to turn up heads 50% of the time than any other randomly selected %.

    Since you say you do believe this, your belief is unjustified.

  7. #167
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,382
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    God is said to do these things with a thought. All that means is "he" is capable of such things. It does not in any way speak to "his" understanding of how a thought could actually accomplish such things.
    What God are you talking about? Are you talking about the God, the main character in the Bible that describes his nature throughout the text, or are you talking about something else? Are you talking about the Creator of the heavens and earth; the eternal Spirit, the God is Love, the God is a consuming fire; the God where all things came into being through Him; the God who knows and understands all things. We’re not debating belief here, we’re discussing, on this point, someone you brought into this thread, Jesus Christ, unless you are taking about another Jesus.

    You know how to send an email on your computer, do you have any idea of what your computer has to do to make that happen?
    Are you equating the sender of the email to Jesus Christ when you state: ”if Jesus were available for testing on his ability to walk on water, at least we would know the phenomena exists.” Are we talking about Jesus the Christ, as in Jesus “Christ”, Christos, the Anointed One, the Messiah. the Son of God or are you referring to some other Jesus? Again, we’re not debating what you believe or don’t believe. We’re discussing Jesus Christ and what you think he understands and does not understand about the nature of the miracles, specifically about walking on water, he performed during his mission on earth within the context of Biblical literature.

    Anytime soon would be AWESOME
    Does that response imply that:

    1. You asked Jesus, as I suggested, and you are waiting for his response?
    2. You are waiting for him to join ODN and reply to you question?
    3. You assume I am Jesus’ press secretary and I can speak on his behalf?
    4. You're asking my personal opinion?

    Yes, but it was still discussing "stories of the past" or "folklore" and it would be much more common knowledge if these "events" were still as common as in folklore.
    Well, this issue is a work-in-process. You might be interested to know that the current Dali Lama loves science. He’s opened up, to a certain degree, the Tibetan mystic monk culture to the West and science.

    It would prove you are incorrect that proof of any person that could levitate, by mind power alone, wouldn't take the whole world by storm. You would not be able to get away form it.
    I’m not arguing that such an event would not take the world by strom. I am asking you: what would it prove scientifically, other then what the observation shows, a Himalayan adept can levitate? And if the scientific observation of the levitation could not be duplicated-- but clearly oberved, does that make the scientific observation of the one Himalayan adept any less real?

    What natural law is being broken by these people?
    Unless we regard consciousness and its mysterious ways as supernatural, none. But that’s the point. Fifty years ago if you told my brother-in-law, a long standing doctor, and many other doctors that the mind can influence and/or control human body temperature, the human immune system, nervous system and heart rate --- doctors would have called you a wacko nut and suggested you take some meds—and that they don’t believe in supernatural powers.

    As far as supernatural, I like the astronaut Edgar Mitchell’s perspective: “There are no unnatural or supernatural phenomena, only very large gaps in our knowledge of what is natural, particularly regarding relatively rare occurrences.

    How do you define supernatural?

    You said all one needs do is become a Buddhist Monk to be capable of this. I assume most anyone can do that if they so chose???
    I said “if some Eastern adept came down from the Himalayas, subjected himself to scientific testing for a few days, and he walked on water repeatedly, levitated, showed that he was clearly clairvoyant, demonstrated super human strength,”

    Why would you assume anyone could levitate after observing a controlled study of an adept levitating if they simply chose?

    Consider Michael who observes a mathematical genius, solve the most complicated types of equations that hardly anyone can solve. Michael chooses to have the same ability, but he knows very little math. His choice to want to have that knowledge and replicate the results he is observing, does not give him the ability to replicate what he is observing. Yes, he can chose to embark on a long, rigorous journey to learn and study math. But even that may not guarantee that he will replicate the genius level of math to solve the types of problems he observed.

    Now, I’m not stating that human levitation can’t be replicated after it is observed. In fact, there’s a long history of recorded levitations. Granted, the history of these obervations were not under controlled settings, but it is a reference point and context to consider.

    But I am attempting to make the point if an event can be scientificallly observed but not consistently replicated, is that supernatural?

    That's kinda how science works.
    If an event is not repeatable, you have not duplicated the event, or you were incorrect in the first place.
    So for our levitation experiment by the Himalayan adept, that will take the world by storm, is the scientific observation real if it’s not consistenly repeatable?

    Does our current science dictate what is real verses what is not real?

    Or since they allow outsider's to visit, maybe some one could go there to observe and study them levitating?
    I addressed this in the comment above regarding the current Dali Lama working with scientists.
    Last edited by eye4magic; June 5th, 2018 at 09:05 PM.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  8. #168
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    I never said you made that argument. It is MY argument to which you apparently have no response . . . which is . . . OK.

    The argument again (in a condensed version) is:

    If it's just as likely that a coin will turn up heads 90% of the time or 80% of the time or 70% of the time . . . or 10% of the time as it is that it will turn up heads 50%, then it is clearly unjustifiable to believe that it is more likely to turn up heads 50% of the time than any other randomly selected %.
    Let me take this step by step.

    The slips of paper in the hat represent variables regarding the coin. So the "90% heads" represents alterations in the coin (such as being weighted) that will make the coin land heads 9 times out of 10. And conversely the "10% heads" slip represents a coin that will land heads 1 time out of ten. And likewise the remaining 99 slips of paper (since the range is 0 to 100, there are 101 total slips) represent varying odds of how the coin could be weighted with just one slip portraying the coin as equally weighted ("50% heads").

    I'm going to stop right here to make sure that this point is settled. So if you agree, say as much and I will move forward. If you disagree, then let me know why.
    Last edited by mican333; June 3rd, 2018 at 10:02 AM.

  9. #169
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Since we have no evidence about the coin or the flipping process, we can't know whether the coin is evenly balanced toward either outcome or if it's tilted slightly or significantly toward a specific outcome. If the coin does turn out to be unbalanced (for whatever reason -- maybe someone altered the coin, maybe it was a mistake in the minting process, maybe it's a memorial coin that was minted in that way, maybe it's a ancient coin -- we can't know that it is unbalanced at least until after the coin flip has taken place.

    Each slip of paper represents a possible way that this specific coin is balanced. It may be balanced so that heads is 90% probable (or 80% probable or 20% probable or 5% probable) to turn up if the flipping process is such that it ought to produce a random outcome (which we do not know will be the case).

    OK, since I tried to answer your question (and if you need further clarification, I'll try my best to provide it), may I ask a question now?

    If you believe that something besides or alongside evidence justifies a belief, then what is that other thing?

  10. #170
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    Each slip of paper represents a possible way that this specific coin is balanced. It may be balanced so that heads is 90% probable (or 80% probable or 20% probable or 5% probable) to turn up if the flipping process is such that it ought to produce a random outcome (which we do not know will be the case).
    Okay. There's a 0% probable slip, 1% probable slip, 2% probable slip and so on all the way up to 100% probable. And of course I don't know in advance which coin will be drawn and therefore how the coin will effect my chances at landing heads is unknown.

    But what I do know is that half of them are below 50% and half are above 50% so that means that if "50% probable" is not drawn, the one that is drawn has as much chance of helping me win the bet as working against me.

    So unless I have evidence that the coin will be working against me, I would still be justified in taking the six dollar payout to a five dollar bet even if I don't know what kind of coin will be used. So in short, COMPLETELY unknown variables do not give me a reason to not take the best since they have an equal chance of helping me or hurting me and therefore I have as much reason to the "5 gets you 6" bet as I do when I know the coin is indeed a 50/50 coin.

    So you have not shown me a reason to not take the bet even if I don't know what kind of coin will be used.

    Until you do make an argument about why I should not take the bet, my position remains supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    If you believe that something besides or alongside evidence justifies a belief, then what is that other thing?
    I don't posit such a thing. I'm basing the odds only on the evidence presented.
    Last edited by mican333; June 4th, 2018 at 07:35 AM.

  11. #171
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    664
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    What God are you talking about? Are you talking about the God, the main character in the Bible...
    Again, just because "he" can change matter with a "thought" does not mean "he" HAS to know how that thought manifests itself into actually changing the matter, only that He" is capable of such an act.

    I am certainly not saying that "he" could not know, just that it isn't necessarily so.

    ---------- Post added at 09:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Are you equating the sender of the email to Jesus Christ
    I was only suggesting the capability to do something doesn't mean the do'er understands the "mechanics" of how it is actually done.

    ---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Does that response imply that:

    1. You asked Jesus, as I suggested, and you are waiting for his response?
    2. You are waiting for him to join ODN and reply to you question?
    3. You assume I am Jesus’ press secretary and I can speak on his behalf?
    4. You're asking my personal opinion?
    You said:
    "I think he would be more then gracious to enlighten us on the matter."

    I hoped it would be soon.

    Since you asked
    It would be fun to debate "him/her" at good ole ODN
    IF Jesus did debate me I would probably lose, but think what I could learn !!!!!!!!!!
    Oh what an opportunity that would be indeed!!

    ---------- Post added at 09:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    You might be interested to know that the current Dali Lama loves science. He’s opened up, to a certain degree, the Tibetan mystic monk culture to the West and science.
    This I knew, but it is still definitely worth repeating for those that did not know.

    ---------- Post added at 09:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I’m not arguing that such an event would not take the world by strom.
    And my point was, if such an event happens/happened where you say it does, it would be news right now. That it is not, lends itself to the contrary.

    ---------- Post added at 09:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I am asking you: what would it prove scientifically, other then what the observation shows, a Himalayan adept can levitate? And if the scientific observation of the levitation could not be duplicated-- but clearly oberved, does that make the scientific observation of the one Himalayan adept any less real?
    Again, it would prove the mind alone can override gravity!
    No small feat!
    This fact would change the course of human evolution at the very least!
    The significance of this can absolutely NOT be overstated!

    ---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    How do you define supernatural?
    I only see it with meaning in a theistic way.
    This term means something that can not happen in this universe without some power form outside of this universe.
    The natural laws that keep our universe intact are suspended in some particular way, place, and time, with a particular intent.

    If a monk could levitate just by the power of "his" own mind, I don't think it would be supernatural. A game changer, but a natural game changer.

    ---------- Post added at 10:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I said “if some Eastern adept came down from the Himalayas, subjected himself to scientific testing for a few days, and he walked on water repeatedly, levitated, showed that he was clearly clairvoyant, demonstrated super human strength,”

    Why would you assume anyone could levitate after observing a controlled study of an adept levitating if they simply chose?
    So only certain "Eastern adepts" are capable of such acts?
    Are there any of these people alive today and still able to levitate?

    ---------- Post added at 10:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    So for our levitation experiment by the Himalayan adept, that will take the world by storm, is the scientific observation real if it’s not consistenly repeatable?
    Hmmm.
    Let us see it observed once and see where that takes us

    IOW, are you saying the "adept" can only do it once or can't reliable repeat the event, or the "scientific community" can't "repeat" the event?
    Last edited by Belthazor; June 4th, 2018 at 08:55 PM.

  12. #172
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. There's a 0% probable slip, 1% probable slip, 2% probable slip and so on all the way up to 100% probable. And of course I don't know in advance which coin will be drawn and therefore how the coin will effect my chances at landing heads is unknown.

    But what I do know is that half of them are below 50% and half are above 50% so that means that if "50% probable" is not drawn, the one that is drawn has as much chance of helping me win the bet as working against me.
    How do you "know" that 50% of the values lie above the coin's propensity to produce "heads" (assuming a random coin flip, which btw, we really can't assume) and that 50% of the values lie below it if you know nothing about the coin? All you know is that the coin has some unknown propensity to produce a "heads" when if it is randomly flipped (and actually you don't even know that). You have no reason to assume that half of those propensities lie south of the coin's actual tendency to produce a "heads" and that the other half lie north of there.



    Rodriguez: if you believe that something besides or alongside evidence justifies a belief, then what is that other thing?

    mican: I don't posit such a thing. I'm basing the odds only on the evidence presented.
    Wait a minute. You say you're basing the odds on the EVIDENCE presented??? We've already stipulated that there is NO evidence available in this case. Remember? You don't even know whether or not there's a "heads" on the coin! That's what this entire exercise has been about, ie, the inability to formulate probability in a case where there is no evidence.

    So what precisely is it that you are calling the "evidence" that you believe has been presented here in our hypothetical?

  13. #173
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    How do you "know" that 50% of the values lie above the coin's propensity to produce "heads" (assuming a random coin flip, which btw, we really can't assume) and that 50% of the values lie below it if you know nothing about the coin?
    Because that is the logical conclusion of your "slips of paper in the hat" analogy.

    YOUR analogy has 101 slips of paper ranging from 0 to 100 with just one slip saying "50%". The rest are evenly split amongst the remaining options (1 to 100). So that means that 50 of them will range from 0 to 49 and the other 50 will range from 51 t0 100. So that means that 50 will be below 50% and 50 will be above 50%.

    So simple math shows that a slip of paper is just as likely to advantage me as disadvantage me.

    So either the hat analogy backs up my position (which I would say is clearly the case) or it's an invalid analogy and must be discarded. But either way, the hat analogy does not reveal a flaw in my position.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    Wait a minute. You say you're basing the odds on the EVIDENCE presented???
    Yes. And I'm included the option of "no evidence" as part of the evidence presented. I mean if a coin is to be flipped and there's no evidence presented that the coin is weighted or altered in some way to effect how it lands, you would include that in your assessment of whether it lands heads or tails.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    We've already stipulated that there is NO evidence available in this case. Remember? You don't even know whether or not there's a "heads" on the coin! That's what this entire exercise has been about, ie, the inability to formulate probability in a case where there is no evidence.
    What you are referring to "unknown variables". For example, if it's possible that coin is weighted and I don't know that it is or is not weighted, then whether it's weighted is an unknown variable. And that's what your hat analogy is about. It's possible that the coin is weighted to land heads 9 times out of ten or weighted to land heads 1 time out of 10 and I don't know which it is or if it's happened at all.

    And if I know absolutely nothing about the coin, then EVERY variable is unknown, including whether it even has a "heads" on it.

    But the notion that I can't take a guess is clearly false. I mean if someone offered me the 6 to 5 bet, even if I know absolutely nothing about the coin, I can still take the bet as long as I have five dollars in my pocket. The question is whether it's a wise bet. If, based on my best guess, I am as likely to win six dollar as lose five dollars, I should take the bet (which would support that the odds of winning the bet are even).

    So let's go back to the unknown variables and ask the question "Does the existence of unknown variables give me reason to think that the odds of winning are worse than 50%". And the answer is clearly "no". There are no unknown variables that give me reason to think that the odds of winning the best is less than 50%. Sure, I don't know that the coin isn't a double-sided tail coin but then I also don't know that the coin isn't a double-sided heads coin either so the possibility that the coin is double-sided does not give me a reason to not take the bet. Likewise if the coin is weighted, I have no reason to think the coin is weighted against me instead of for me. Before I have any reason to not take the bet, I must be given a reason to think that I'm more likely to lose than win. And lack of evidence either way does not give me that.

    So what's above is support that a complete lack of evidence regarding the coin does not give me reason to not take the bet and therefore does not give me reason to think that the odds of the coin landing heads is not 50/50.

    So until you do give me a reason to think that lack of evidence regarding the coin gives me a reason to refuse the 6 to 5 bet, I have supported that I am justified in estimating the odds are 50/50.

    So to be clear, I have supported my position that I can guesstimate the odds of an unknown coin landing heads 0.5 and now the burden is yours to show that that is not the case.

  14. #174
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So either the hat analogy backs up my position (which I would say is clearly the case) or it's an invalid analogy and must be discarded. But either way, the hat analogy does not reveal a flaw in my position.
    False dilemma. It's also possible that you've misused the analogy, which I believe to be the case.

    Regardless of the above, if you go back and read the thread you'll find that you believed that the probability that the coin would produce "heads" was 0.5 WELL BEFORE the "slips of paper" analogy was introduced. So on what evidence did you base that belief?



    Rodriguez: Wait a minute. You say you're basing the odds on the EVIDENCE presented???

    mican: Yes.
    If that is so then as precisely as possible please cite the evidence on which you are relying to support your belief that this coin tossed in an unknown manner will as likely as not result in a "heads" turning up.

    And I'm included the option of "no evidence" as part of the evidence presented. I mean if a coin is to be flipped and there's no evidence presented that the coin is weighted or altered in some way to effect how it lands, you would include that in your assessment of whether it lands heads or tails.
    That's a puzzling remark. At least it's puzzling from my perspective. Maybe there's something I'm not getting about what you intend to say here. How can the fact that there is "no evidence available whatsoever" about a situation be used as evidence on which to ground a positive belief with respect to anything about that situation except for, perhaps, the belief that there is no evidence to support any belief about it?

    But the notion that I can't take a guess is clearly false.
    Who said you couldn't take a guess??? Not me!

    In fact, the further we go on here it seems to me to becoming increasingly apparent that "guessing" is exactly what you are doing.

    I never said that someone can't "guess" at a result. I've never said that guesses can't sometimes be correct. What I have said or strongly implied at any rate is that to guess at an outcome is not a rational way to form a belief about that outcome. Sure, you can guess that the coin may be as likely as not to produce a "heads" and you might even be correct. But in the absence of sufficient evidence to support your guess, your guess does not equate to rational belief, and that's the point of this discussion.


    So what's above is support that a complete lack of evidence regarding the coin does not give me reason to not take the bet and therefore does not give me reason to think that the odds of the coin landing heads is not 50/50.
    I'm not attempting here to give you a reason not to take the bet. Whether you ever take such a bet or don't is entirely up to you. What I'm attempting to demonstrate is that the belief that a completely unknown coin (which may or may not even have a "heads" side!) flipped in a completely unknown manner is as likely as not to turn up "heads" is an irrational belief.

    Your evidence seems to me to amount to this:

    "After the coin is flipped and lands, the coin will either show 'heads' or it will not. Since I don't know anything more about the situation (including whether the coin even has a 'heads' side!) I believe that one outcome is as likely as the other."

    If this is not a fair summation of your case, please add any missing evidence.

  15. #175
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    False dilemma. It's also possible that you've misused the analogy, which I believe to be the case.
    I doubt that I have misused it. But I will consider your analogy to be discarded unless you want to discuss it further.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    Regardless of the above, if you go back and read the thread you'll find that you believed that the probability that the coin would produce "heads" was 0.5 WELL BEFORE the "slips of paper" analogy was introduced. So on what evidence did you base that belief?
    Logic.

    I'll introduce a logic chain to back up my position.

    1. If the amount of evidence for or against X being true is equal, then the most logical conclusion regarding the probability of X being true is 50/50
    2. If there is no evidence that X is true and there is no evidence that X is not true, then the amount of evidence for or against X being true is equal.
    3. Therefore if there is no evidence that X is true and there is no evidence that X is not true, then the most logical conclusion regarding the probability of X being true is 50/50.

    What's above is support for my position and therefore my position is supported until you either show a flaw in the the logic chain or provide a counter-argument that supports the opposite conclusion.

  16. #176
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,382
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I was only suggesting the capability to do something doesn't mean the do'er understands the "mechanics" of how it is actually done.
    OK
    IF Jesus did debate me I would probably lose, but think what I could learn
    I’m not sure such a conversation would be about winning verses losing.

    And my point was, if such an event happens/happened where you say it does, it would be news right now.
    I don’t disagree. Historically, when such events occurred they were big attention getters.


    Again, it would prove the mind alone can override gravity!
    No small feat!
    This fact would change the course of human evolution at the very least!
    The significance of this can absolutely NOT be overstated!
    We’ve had three scientific revolutions. I think the significance of the next science revolution, when it happens, cannot be overstated.

    If a monk could levitate just by the power of "his" own mind, I don't think it would be supernatural. A game changer, but a natural game changer.
    I agree. But mind over matter currently continues to be a taboo area for science, though there is progress in this field as it (consciousness) is now an area of research, investigation and experiments.

    So only certain "Eastern adepts" are capable of such acts?
    Not necessarily, but because Eastern culture embraces the science of yoga as a rigours spiritual practice, some people can reach natural altered states of consciousness after many years of practice. Such natural states of awareness removes all sense of separation to the outer world. This would include gravity.


    Are there any of these people alive today and still able to levitate?
    I’m going to take a guess and say there are probably other current-day spiritual esoteric orders where this occurs. However, it’s important to note that from a spiritual perspective most esoteric practices strongly warn against demonstrating these types of skills in public.

    IOW, are you saying the "adept" can only do it once or can't reliable repeat the event, or the "scientific community" can't "repeat" the event?
    Well, observing a yogi meditating while in levitation, even with our fancy brain-scanning instruments, is not going to inform the white coats in the lab too much about what method is being used to achieve the result so we can repeat it. Nor will the observation of someone floating in the air tell us much about the actual experience.

    Science, at this stage, can't do much with subjective states, though, in fact, the adept may not actually be having a subjective experience, though that’s another issue altogether.

    That being said, doesn’t mean such altered states that result in levitation can’t be repeated. But I think it does imply that we’ve got to move up the ladder of progress in understanding the nature of consciousness.
    Last edited by eye4magic; June 5th, 2018 at 10:44 PM.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  17. #177
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    2. If there is no evidence that X is true and there is no evidence that X is not true, then the AMOUNT of evidence for or against X being true is equal. [Emphasis on 'amount' mine]
    Sorry but "no evidence" is not an "amount of evidence." No evidence is zero evidence. It's zilch, nada, none. Probability in the complete absence of evidence is like dividing by zero -- it's undefined.


    1. If the amount of evidence for or against X being true is equal, then the most logical conclusion regarding the probability of X being true is 50/50.

    2. If there is no evidence that X is true and there is no evidence that X is not true, then the amount of evidence for or against X being true is equal.
    See, this is a problem. You've gone from having evidence (even if scant) in premise 1 to having no evidence whatsoever in premise 2.

    This the same type of categorical error near death experience proponents make. "Near death" is "to be alive." "Near death" is not "to be dead." Similarly, "having little evidence" is "to have evidence." It is not "to have no evidence."

    For probability to even be applicable, evidence must be present. If there is no evidence that something existed, exists, or will exist then there is no probability that it existed, exists, or will exist. There's only the mere possibility that it did, does, or will.

  18. #178
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,070
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    Sorry but "no evidence" is not an "amount of evidence.
    Wrong. Two cups with no water in them have the same amount of water in them. So it is perfectly fine to posit that two things with nothing in them, be it no water, no sand, or no evidence, have equal amounts of water, sand, evidence in them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    See, this is a problem. You've gone from having evidence (even if scant) in premise 1 to having no evidence whatsoever in premise 2.
    I don't see why that's a problem. They are independent statements and you have not shown that either of them are false.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    This the same type of categorical error near death experience proponents make. "Near death" is "to be alive." "Near death" is not "to be dead." Similarly, "having little evidence" is "to have evidence." It is not "to have no evidence."
    I didn't argue otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    For probability to even be applicable, evidence must be present. If there is no evidence that something existed, exists, or will exist then there is no probability that it existed, exists, or will exist. There's only the mere possibility that it did, does, or will.
    Acknowledging that something is possible means that it MAY exist. Positing that something MAY exist means that there is a probability that it exists. You just don't know what the probability is but there is a probability.

    And if one is going to estimate the probability of X existing, equal evidence that it exists and doesn't exist means the best guess is 50/50. To say otherwise means that:

    1. The best guess is something other than 50/50
    2. One cannot make a guess.

    2 is not true. You said so yourself

    Rodriguez: Who said you couldn't take a guess??? Not me!

    So that leaves option 1. If you aren't going to say that there's something I should guess instead of 50/50, then tell me what it is.



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

    And you have not shown any error in my logic chain so I will repeat it.

    1. If the amount of evidence for or against X being true is equal, then the most logical conclusion regarding the probability of X being true is 50/50
    2. If there is no evidence that X is true and there is no evidence that X is not true, then the amount of evidence for or against X being true is equal.
    3. Therefore if there is no evidence that X is true and there is no evidence that X is not true, then the most logical conclusion regarding the probability of X being true is 50/50.

    So the conclusion remains supported until you do show that either 1 or 2 are incorrect or that 3 (the conclusion) does not logically follow 1 & 2

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

    And a question.

    If there is no evidence that ghosts exist and there is no evidence that ghosts don't exist and we are to accept your argument that lack of evidence means that one cannot make an estimation, is it your position that we can't make an estimation on the probability that ghosts exist until we see evidence for and/or against their existence?
    Last edited by mican333; June 6th, 2018 at 09:36 PM.

  19. #179
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    664
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I’m not sure such a conversation would be about winning verses losing.
    No, but we did say we were going to debate here on ODN, so we would take opposing sides of some subject.
    Obviously, to me, it would be much more than just a debate to me

    ---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I don’t disagree. Historically, when such events occurred they were big attention getters.
    Funny how we can find a man getting gas after an amber alert or pick your "event". There are clear pictures. Somehow the paranormal picture is always fuzzy at best....

    ---------- Post added at 06:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    I agree. But mind over matter currently continues to be a taboo area for science, though there is progress in this field as it (consciousness) is now an area of research, investigation and experiments.
    I totally disagree. Universities and many other prestigious scientific groups would line up for a chance to study such a phenomena.

    ---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    This would include gravity.
    Gravity seems to pervade all of our universe???

    ---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Well, observing a yogi meditating while in levitation, even with our fancy brain-scanning instruments, is not going to inform the white coats in the lab too much about what method is being used to achieve the result so we can repeat it.
    Two points.
    1. You sell fMRI scanners a bit short here, among other possible technology. I think we would learn a great deal in one scan.
    2. I'm not sure that is the ultimate goal but, if any person can repeat this, other people can repeat this. And if people can do it, a machine can be made that will be able to do it. After all, our minds/bodies are rally just a machine of sorts. We have already implanted electronics in peoples brains for instance.
    2a. The human "mind" will be directly linked to the web with no cell phone/lap top/computer interface, in the very near future (I actually assume some gov't somewhere, has already "hooked people up as we speak").

    All that aside, it would be incredible to be shown the human mind could override gravity.
    However, it still seems unlikely as evidence of such is sorely lacking at the moment.

    ---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    But I think it does imply that we’ve got to move up the ladder of progress in understanding the nature of consciousness.
    Here I agree. Cause, what is consciousness anyway?? It's like time. We all live with both daily, but what are they really?
    When it's time to put these ideas into words, it is a difficult job indeed.

  20. #180
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,053
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supernatural?

    I'll answer your question first:
    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    If there is no evidence that ghosts exist and there is no evidence that ghosts don't exist and we are to accept your argument that lack of evidence means that one cannot make an estimation, is it your position that we can't make an estimation on the probability that ghosts exist until we see evidence for and/or against their existence?
    Since I answered a similar question in the thread earlier, I'll just cut'n'paste my answer from there: "I never said that someone can't 'guess' at a result. I've never said that guesses can't sometimes be correct. What I have said or strongly implied at any rate is that to guess at an outcome is not a rational way to form a belief about that outcome. Sure, you can guess that the coin may be as likely as not to produce a "heads" and you might even be correct. But in the absence of sufficient evidence to support your guess, your guess does not equate to rational belief, and that's the point of this discussion."

    Rodriguez: Sorry but "no evidence" is not an "amount of evidence.

    mican: Wrong. Two cups with no water in them have the same amount of water in them.
    No. They have no amount of water in them.

    Two empty cups don't have the same amount of water or wine or tea or milk or coffee or anything else in them. Two empty cups have nothing in them.

    Who looks at two empty cups and says, "Oh look! Equal amounts of water in each!"? That would be crazy.

    Don't be crazy.

    Rodriguez: See, this is a problem. You've gone from having evidence (even if scant) in premise 1 to having no evidence whatsoever in premise 2.

    mican: I don't see why that's a problem. They are independent statements and you have not shown that either of them are false.
    Those are not independent statements. They are each a part of your logic chain. If one of the statements isn't dependent on one of the other two, then so much for your chain.

    And, BTW, not only have I shown that your 2nd premise is false but you believe it is false, as well. You believe this since you agree with me that it is only evidence that can make a possibility probable to any degree.

    If you've changed your mind and now believe that something else besides evidence can make a proposition probable, then what is that other thing?

    Acknowledging that something is possible means that it MAY exist. Positing that something MAY exist means that there is a probability that it exists. You just don't know what the probability is but there is a probability.
    A proposed entity's being possible means only that its description isn't self-contradictory (e.g., a square circle). It doesn't mean that the proposed entity has any probability of existence whatsoever beyond its trivial possibility of existence.

    Only evidence makes some proposed, possible entity's existence probable to any degree.

    And if one is going to estimate the probability of X existing, equal evidence that it exists and doesn't exist means the best guess is 50/50.
    I don't consider that to be a guess. If there is just as much evidence for a proposed entity's existence as there is against it, then it seems pretty rational to believe that its probable existence is about a 50/50 proposition.

    OTOH, if there is NO evidence that it exists and NO evidence that it doesn't exist, then, rationally, no probability of existence can be assigned to it.

    If for personal or psychological reasons someone wants to guess that something for which there is no shred of evidence, has a decent chance of existing then he will most likely do just that -- but he shouldn't for a second think that his guess is a rational act, because it's not.


    To say otherwise means that:

    1. The best guess is something other than 50/50
    2. One cannot make a guess.
    But I haven't said otherwise. I believe like you that if the evidence is pretty well split down the middle then the odds that something exists/doesn't exist are likewise pretty well split down the middle.

    The difference we have is that I believe when there is no evidence then there is no evidence that split down the middle.

    To me, "no evidence" means "no evidence." To you, "no evidence" seems to mean some sort of mysterious amount of "evidence."

    And you have not shown any error in my logic chain so I will repeat it.

    1. If the amount of evidence for or against X being true is equal, then the most logical conclusion regarding the probability of X being true is 50/50
    2. If there is no evidence that X is true and there is no evidence that X is not true, then the amount of evidence for or against X being true is equal.
    3. Therefore if there is no evidence that X is true and there is no evidence that X is not true, then the most logical conclusion regarding the probability of X being true is 50/50.

    So the conclusion remains supported until you do show that either 1 or 2 are incorrect or that 3 (the conclusion) does not logically follow 1 & 2.
    I've shown that premise 2 is false. "No evidence" does not equal an "amount of evidence."

    "No water in the glass" doesn't mean that there is "an amount of water in the glass." It means that there is NO water in the glass.

 

 
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bias Against the Supernatural
    By Kong in forum Religion
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: August 26th, 2011, 12:32 AM
  2. Supernatural Forum?
    By Oh snap in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: August 8th, 2008, 07:13 PM
  3. Definition of the supernatural
    By chadn737 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: December 1st, 2007, 05:02 PM
  4. Do you believe in the supernatural?
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2006, 10:06 AM
  5. Why believe in the Supernatural?
    By Withnail in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: May 5th, 2004, 09:59 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
  •