Merged The razor of Hitchens and the Spirits!

[JayUtah]

spirits may exist in a form or dimension that escapes current scientific methodologies.

Or, more likely, they do not exist at all as spiritism claims. If you claim they can interact with things in this dimension, then they are susceptible to scientific inquiry. Spiritism's desire to have one foot on the dock and one foot on the boat produces only a paradox, not evidence.

Since atoms existed before they were discovered, the existence of spirits may be a reality not yet measurable by traditional methods.

Irrelevant. Spiritism claims spirits have measurable effect in the macro world. Spiritism embodies pseudoscientists who literally claim to have measured the effects, but whose efforts always come up short for method. The measurability of spirits is conceded by spiritism, so falling back to the bailey argument is disingenuous.

you are an incarnate spirit.

Asked and answered.

Although there is no conclusive empirical evidence regarding the existence of spirits, several philosophical and scientific theories suggest that this absence is not enough to rule out their possible existence.

Asked and answered. You have the burden of proof. You've shown no actual science to support the need to categorically dismiss the null hypothesis, and several of your attempts reveal that you don't really know what science is.

evidence evolves over time as understanding deepens.

In the same time that spiritism has been frantically trying to provide even a shred of evidence, many remarkable discoveries have occurred in real science. The "science" of spiritism does not advance at any rate, and its arguments are simply repetitions of the same logic errors.

Now do you have anything of any substance, or are you just going to keep repeating the same few statements over and over again?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

evidence evolves over time as understanding deepens.

That's why people are hard to convince when you tell them the fairies did it. 400 years ago they might have taken your word for it but now people just don't take you seriously.

 

[steenkh]

evidence evolves over time as understanding deepens.

Your understanding doesn’t seem to deepen.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

spirits may exist in a form or dimension that escapes current scientific methodologies.

I told you already: that's cats.

My cats assure me that there are absolutely no such things as spirits (other than whisky and gin and vodka). Are you saying that my cats would lie to me? Well, Dennis might have (when she was still alive), but she was a Mackem...The others, all either Geordies or from Durham, honest as the day is long.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

spirits may exist in a form or
dimension that escapes current scientific methodologies.

That's another square marked off on my Woo Woo Bingo card.

 

[Norman Alexander]

maybe it's empirical evidence!

Quantum woo.

 

[arthwollipot]

spirits may exist in a form or dimension that escapes current scientific methodologies.

They may, yes. How do you propose to find out whether they do or not?

 

[Norman Alexander]

spirits may exist in a form or dimension that escapes current scientific methodologies.

That would be about step 5 in this list. You haven't provided any explanation of how you got through steps 2 to 4 yet.

1. I felt something brush against me while standing in a doorway.
2. Was it something I can confirm was real? Or was it just imaginary? How do I confirm this reality?
3. Have I eliminated all the other possible better explanations for this besides the supernatural?
4. Have I proven it is a spirit, and not, say, a ghost? Or a death-eater?
5. Have I proven that spirits actually exist? How do I prove this beyond doubt?
6. Have I proven that spirits can interact with the physical world? How do I prove this beyond doubt?
7. Can I confirm this was my grandma's spirit and not someone else's spirit? What are the tests for this?
8. It as my dead grandma's spirit!

 

[novaphile]

I'm fairly sure that I'm a dog having a bad dream...

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

I'm fairly sure that I'm a dog having a bad dream...

Well, since I'm a butterfly dreaming I'm a man who's dreaming your dog into existence, we can safely conclude...

Um, let's just pretend I ended that sentence profoundly.

 

[Calderaro]

They may, yes. How do you propose to find out whether they do or not?

the burden of proof should actually be on those who refute spiritual experiences, not on those who affirm them.

 

[Thermal]

the burden of proof should actually be on those who refute spiritual experiences, not on those who affirm them.

That would certainly be more convenient for your position.

But it's not. The burden is on the claimant to support their claims.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

That would certainly be more convenient for your position.

But it's not. The burden is on the claimant to support their claims.

And a more appropriate word would be "assert" not "affirm"

 

[Ron Obvious]

the burden of proof should actually be on those who refute spiritual experiences, not on those who affirm them.

Nobody here refutes spiritual experiences. We're just rejecting the affirmations as being sufficient to accept them.

 

[Calderaro]

Nobody here refutes spiritual experiences. We're just rejecting the affirmations as being sufficient to accept them.

Logical deduction can reveal truths beyond mere sensory observation

 

[Thermal]

Logical deduction can reveal truths beyond mere sensory observation

They can. Logical deduction leads to the conclusion that there are no spirits.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

the burden of proof should actually be on those who refute spiritual experiences, not on those who affirm them.

We're not refuting experiences.

Calling those experiences "spiritual", whatever you think that means, is a claim which is yours to define and to defend. Or not, as you please.

 

[Mojo]

We're not refuting experiences.

Would it surprise you to learn that he's already been told this?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

the burden of proof should actually be on those who refute spiritual experiences, not on those who affirm them.

Bollocks!

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) is a theory proposed by physicist Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff that suggests a connection between quantum mechanics and human consciousness.
The Orch OR theory also raises questions about life after death. Hameroff suggests that after physical death, the quantum information contained in microtubules is not destroyed, but rather dispersed throughout the universe. This implies that consciousness may continue to exist at some level outside the physical body, possibly in other universes or realities.This view is in line with some spiritual and philosophical beliefs about reincarnation and the continuity of the soul.

Calderaro, people on this forum have given you a lot of time & attention and had very little engagement back. How about you reassure us that you're not just another seagull poster by answering a really basic question?

Since you introduce introduced this hypothesis (it certainly isn't a theory), what do YOU understand the terms "Microtubules" and "Quantum Information" to mean and how do they relate to each other and/or interact?