• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Supernatural

FreedomFromAll said:
Its a TV show dude its called editing. It isnt amazing or anything its simplistic and not even a hoax its fictionalized television.
Click to expand...

Ya, I know a thing or two about editing, like how the clip I linked together was spliced from the movie that the group made (not even a to DVD movie, but a low budget documentary), and the news clip was from about a year and a half later, still before the travel channel got involved.

I chose that clip because it included all facets...

How come you can't even keep to your own goal posts and defend the point you made just a post earlier?

Oh and just show me a soul and we will be done.
Click to expand...

Oh so you go from not being satisfied by a paper published in a medical journal to wanting a picture?? Ya, sure... Even if you weren't asking for what would be virtually impossible, you are asking for something that you could very simply deny with no real thought...

All I've asked from you is just an ounce of critical thought, but instead you've taken the simple route (to the point where the simplicity prevents you from addressing any of the points), and then start demanding evidence that is weaker than what you had previously thoughtlessly tossed aside...

If this was a more serious topic you'd be a candidate for the ignore list, but since here you have demonstrated an inability to make honest points, don't expect much more responses.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I have no problem with my existence or any regrets or doubts. I dont need to find myself or a purpose for my life. Their is nothing that I need to find nothing that I am seeking. Each day my satisfaction grows. I am not your student looking for guidance. You are not my superior. I am in no need of the wares in which you are pedaling. I can make my own decisions.

I have loved ones die recently and not too long ago I had cancer and was close to death. Your talk of a very powerful lens and illumination is a marketing ploy for the weak. SO your gift isnt a gift it is just a ploy that has no meaning. I am actually despite the set backs in life that I have face and face now I am extremely happy.

Personal feelings about reality will not change reality. Every conception that is in your mind wont mean a damn thing on your death bed and after you died. The only real advice that can be given is that which the elderly share the most, live while you can dont waste a moment. So dont count on the supernatural or anything like a afterlife those concepts are meaningless comparatively with life.
Click to expand...

Ah well, we all have things we have to learn the hard way.

People didn't want to believe that the world went around the sun the stars were other suns or that there were other galaxies either. The idea of existing in ever larger frameworks just frightens some folks.

Carry on.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Ya, I know a thing or two about editing, like how the clip I linked together was spliced from the movie that the group made (not even a to DVD movie, but a low budget documentary), and the news clip was from about a year and a half later, still before the travel channel got involved.

I chose that clip because it included all facets...

How come you can't even keep to your own goal posts and defend the point you made just a post earlier?



Oh so you go from not being satisfied by a paper published in a medical journal to wanting a picture?? Ya, sure... Even if you weren't asking for what would be virtually impossible, you are asking for something that you could very simply deny with no real thought...

All I've asked from you is just an ounce of critical thought, but instead you've taken the simple route (to the point where the simplicity prevents you from addressing any of the points), and then start demanding evidence that is weaker than what you had previously thoughtlessly tossed aside...

If this was a more serious topic you'd be a candidate for the ignore list, but since here you have demonstrated an inability to make honest points, don't expect much more responses.
Click to expand...

Lol You are right this isnt a serious topic. Its about the supernatural which is just silliness. But by all means if I annoy you put me on your ignore list.

List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of prizes promised to be given to the first person who can prove their claims the paranormal. No one has been able to make a claim to any of those prizes offered.





Refuting supernatural - Genericguy - RichardDawkins.net

Refuting supernatural claims.

Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is the sum of everything in existence.

Nothing that exists can defy the laws of nature. The subjects existence is proof that the laws of nature do not work in such a way that would prevent it from existing. The subjects existence is proof that it complies with the laws of nature.

Any assertion of truth in regards to the subjects existence is a claim for its natural existence.

The title of supernatural is given to the subject if it is beyond current scientific understanding and the known laws of nature, provided the available evidence was demonstrated to be unreliable or inaccurate.

The title of natural is given upon the subjects proven existence. Our understanding of the laws of nature must change to comply with the subjects proven existence. The laws of nature themselves continue to remain in harmony with the subject.

Either modification of the known laws of nature or a rewritten definition of the supernatural subject being discussed is required for the subject to exist.
 
Oftencold said:
Ah well, we all have things we have to learn the hard way.

People didn't want to believe that the world went around the sun the stars were other suns or that there were other galaxies either. The idea of existing in ever larger frameworks just frightens some folks.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
Lets look at your argument here. If A is true then B is true Are all instances of A true? Logically no since people have made assumption and theories that turn out to be bogus. Next you are implying that I have a closed mind unwilling to accept anything but what I have lived with through out my life. Which is a common argument from the side arguing for the existence of the supernatural. The problem though is that it is just a simplistic psychological trick that assumes that I wont want to be accused of being closed minded. Its the same as saying its smart to be A but you are B so you are not smart.

But mostly you are wanting me to join your bandwagon for no other reason than you think that I should. Personally I dont really care what you believe. But if you are going to make such claims you should do more than make wild assumptions and then try to use lame tactics to get me to follow your lead.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Lol You are right this isnt a serious topic. Its about the supernatural which is just silliness. But by all means if I annoy you put me on your ignore list.
Click to expand...

No, because where there is a back and forth with evidence and constructive dialogue you don't tend to be so closed minded in your approach...

List of prizes for evidence of the paranormal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a list of prizes promised to be given to the first person who can prove their claims the paranormal. No one has been able to make a claim to any of those prizes offered.





Refuting supernatural - Genericguy - RichardDawkins.net

Refuting supernatural claims.
Click to expand...


Well, I am familiar with James Randi and his million dollar challenge, but it's very possible to frame the challenge in such a way that there is no way that the challenge can reasonably be met. That said...

Nothing can both exist and be outside of nature, as nature is the sum of everything in existence.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and I'm not disputing that, I am using "supernatural" / "paranormal" in the sense that these are "natural", and "normal" phenomena, it's just we don't have a scientific explanation because these are considered matters of religion, not science.

Nothing that exists can defy the laws of nature. The subjects existence is proof that the laws of nature do not work in such a way that would prevent it from existing. The subjects existence is proof that it complies with the laws of nature.

Any assertion of truth in regards to the subjects existence is a claim for its natural existence.
Click to expand...

Well, the difference between life and death is the energy powering the body, we know that energy is not created or destroyed.

Then, there is the faction of quantum physics that feels that it is the "conscious observation", and not simply the tools registering, but whether or not the results are recorded and checked influences the results.

I can see the hesitation in this route since this is where the roads of science and spirituality will begin to intersect.

The title of supernatural is given to the subject if it is beyond current scientific understanding and the known laws of nature, provided the available evidence was demonstrated to be unreliable or inaccurate.

The title of natural is given upon the subjects proven existence. Our understanding of the laws of nature must change to comply with the subjects proven existence. The laws of nature themselves continue to remain in harmony with the subject.

Either modification of the known laws of nature or a rewritten definition of the supernatural subject being discussed is required for the subject to exist.
Click to expand...

Change that final exist to "be accepted by science" and I can pretty much agree.

But I think it's much simpler; science merely has to explain consciousness, once science adopts the quantum theory of consciousness (which the math is being worked on as we speak, as collaboration between quantum physics and neurosciences)... Then we can understand what is physically happening where some people's consciousness becomes tied to a location while most people will never really encounter a "ghost"... Then when you understand that consciousness is entangled with the brain, not produced by the brain, then some things start making more sense.

I tried to find the test that was done, but during brain surgery a doctor stimulated the neuron for the tip of the finger. While he stimulated the finger the neuron fired immediately as he touched the finger, then he stimulated the same neuron and found that there was a lag time from when the brain produced the signal.

What that basically means is that when there is a signal in your brain there is a lag time to the body, but the response does not lag when the thing is touched. Meaning that if you are about to be hit by something your brain sends the signals back in time to be generated at the point where the thing hits you, but does not do the same of its a near miss...

I wish I could find that one again, but there are so many doctors with so many crazy experiments....
 
BmanMcfly said:
No, because where there is a back and forth with evidence and constructive dialogue you don't tend to be so closed minded in your approach...



Well, I am familiar with James Randi and his million dollar challenge, but it's very possible to frame the challenge in such a way that there is no way that the challenge can reasonably be met. That said...



Exactly, and I'm not disputing that, I am using "supernatural" / "paranormal" in the sense that these are "natural", and "normal" phenomena, it's just we don't have a scientific explanation because these are considered matters of religion, not science.



Well, the difference between life and death is the energy powering the body, we know that energy is not created or destroyed.

Then, there is the faction of quantum physics that feels that it is the "conscious observation", and not simply the tools registering, but whether or not the results are recorded and checked influences the results.

I can see the hesitation in this route since this is where the roads of science and spirituality will begin to intersect.



Change that final exist to "be accepted by science" and I can pretty much agree.

But I think it's much simpler; science merely has to explain consciousness, once science adopts the quantum theory of consciousness (which the math is being worked on as we speak, as collaboration between quantum physics and neurosciences)... Then we can understand what is physically happening where some people's consciousness becomes tied to a location while most people will never really encounter a "ghost"... Then when you understand that consciousness is entangled with the brain, not produced by the brain, then some things start making more sense.

I tried to find the test that was done, but during brain surgery a doctor stimulated the neuron for the tip of the finger. While he stimulated the finger the neuron fired immediately as he touched the finger, then he stimulated the same neuron and found that there was a lag time from when the brain produced the signal.

What that basically means is that when there is a signal in your brain there is a lag time to the body, but the response does not lag when the thing is touched. Meaning that if you are about to be hit by something your brain sends the signals back in time to be generated at the point where the thing hits you, but does not do the same of its a near miss...

I wish I could find that one again, but there are so many doctors with so many crazy experiments....
Click to expand...

lol you wish that you could find your source? I dont believe you. Nor do I buy into any of the rest of your argument. You failed to make a believable case to me, so I respectfully reject it. In other words I only debate when its actually debating, but you refuse to debate and only push your dogma. Please understand that despite prior failures to engage in civil honest debate with you, that I again tried but it didnt turn out any better. Thank you for your opinion but I have my own opinions that mean more to me than yours.

Have a good day sir
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom