• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Supernatural can never be "proved" to exist (Split from Hypothetical Million...)

maatorc, I'm trying to have a conversation with you here. You can help in that by not thinking everything I say is a cunning trap designed to trip you up, leading to an "AH HA!" moment. The word "believe" means "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so" SOURCE. Now, unless you have some absolute proof that telepathy exists (and I'll remind you that your whole point to date has been that such proof is impossible), you believe that telepathy exists. You think it exists but have no absolute proof of it. Got that?

So, with that in mind, why do you believe telepathy exists?
 
I prefer this working definition of belief:

I BELIEVE BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW

What I know I do not believe in. So I can understand when someone says "I do not believe in anything" that's an intelligent statement.
 
LightningStrike said:
I prefer this working definition of belief:
I BELIEVE BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW
What I know I do not believe in. So I can understand when someone says "I do not believe in anything" that's an intelligent statement.
Click to expand...

Quite close to what I meant.
As an example of a belief, many accept a statement by to them an established 'authority', which may actually be false, as necessarily true.
 
Sledge said:
maatorc, I'm trying to have a conversation with you here. You can help in that by not thinking everything I say is a cunning trap designed to trip you up, leading to an "AH HA!" moment. The word "believe" means "to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so" SOURCE. Now, unless you have some absolute proof that telepathy exists (and I'll remind you that your whole point to date has been that such proof is impossible), you believe that telepathy exists. You think it exists but have no absolute proof of it. Got that?

So, with that in mind, why do you believe telepathy exists?
Click to expand...

I do not 'believe' telepathy exists.
On the basis of experience I accept it operates as a perfectly natural and normal function of human consciousness.
As stated, such an experience cannot, particularly after the fact, be proven to a third party at the material/physical/phenomenal level.
This is why the MDC will never 'prove' or 'disprove' telepathy.
 
So what experience do you have that is convincing and yet produces no verifiable results?

Oh, and yes you do believe telepathy exists. Why are you so desperate to avoid using the word "believe" that you resort to using a definition of the word instead of the word itself? Please answer both questions.
 
maatorc said:
I apologize for imposing the idea of noumena on you, as I agree that in your case there cannot be any noumenal events.
Click to expand...

Oh, I am touched to the quick by your rapier noumena. Which exist solely as a result of your physical process/phenomena. That is the point of the challenge, you can IMAGINE whatever you want, but you can't show the tranmission of information or anything other than your imagination.
 
maatorc said:
Yes to telepathy.
Click to expand...

And the evidence...drumroll...

ETA: I should have known "It is in my pocket but I won't tell you."

Bye now, you give ritual magic a bad name and are not fit to polish Regardies spitoon. Just like the Golden Yawn at the end, a bunch of wannabes who can't handle the truth. You can and should use the methods of science, but then you might have to challenge your self.
 
Last edited:
Sledge said:
1... So what experience do you have that is convincing and yet produces no verifiable results?
2... Oh, and yes you do believe telepathy exists. Why are you so desperate to avoid using the word "believe" that you resort to using a definition of the word instead of the word itself? Please answer both questions.
Click to expand...

1... Can you prove you held a certain thought?
2... The impression was you did not know exactly what constitutes a 'belief'
 
maatorc said:
1... Can you prove you held a certain thought?
Click to expand...
Yes. Now, please answer the question: what experience do you have that is convincing and yet produces no verifiable results?
2... The impression was you did not know exactly what constitutes a 'belief'
Click to expand...
No, that was you. As demonstrated by me citing a dictionary definition of the term, I have a clear and accurate grasp on the term. You either do not, or are unwilling to apply it to yourself. So again: why are you so desperate to avoid using the word "believe" that you resort to using a definition of the word instead of the word itself?

Please ANSWER both questions. If you feel the need to add commentary on them, by all means do so seperately, but please answer the questions. They're not tricks, there's no "when did you stop beating your wife" word play going on. I'm attempting to understand your point of view rather than going round in the circles this thread has been for the last few years.
 
Sledge, I think you are on a productive approach here, keep it up.
 
Paul2 said:
Sledge, I think you are on a productive approach here, keep it up.
Click to expand...
I'd like to "believe" (geddit?) that. But suspect that as soon as the line of questioning gets to a concise point that maatorc can no longer find an easy out from, he'll just ignore him. Much as he appears to have done with Kevin_Lowes.
 
Reposted questions for maatorc:

1. Do you believe that there are any strictly noumenal thingies (with absolutely no phenomenal component) at all? Why do you believe this?

2. Do you believe that strictly noumenal thingies can transmit information? If so, why do you believe this?

3. If you believe that strictly noumenal thingies can transmit information, then why can nobody ever act on this information in a way distinguishable from chance?

4. If you do not believe strictly noumenal thingies can transmit information, is there any reason at all to care whether they exist or not?

5. Do you dispute that the word "paranormal" as used by laypeople refers to a reasonably well-defined set of claimed phenomena?

6. Do you dispute that the JREF Challenge is aimed at people who make paranormal claims in that layperson's sense?

7. Do you dispute that if a person really had paranormal powers (in the layperson's sense) that they could win the JREF Challenge?

9. Do you dispute that it would constitute evidence of a paranormal power (in the layperson's sense) if a person could display claimed paranormal power under conditions that prevented fraud, guesswork and so on from operating?
 
maatorc said:
So by definition you have not read the post or cannot understand very simple English, right?
Click to expand...
I didn't notice that you altered your definition and slipped in "experience" the second time.

In this case I don't understand the definition. In the normal sense "phenomenon" and "experience" are more or less synonymous.

Maybe it would help if you gave some examples. Pain, for example - is that a strictly mental experience/realisation? Or is it a "material physical sense experience/realization"?

What about if I dream of a blue dragon - which is that?

What method is available to tell that an experience is one and not the other?

Also, presumably the answer is "yes you can experience a noumenon", right?
 
Last edited:
maatorc said:
False assertion: All science is and cannot but be phenomenally based.
Click to expand...
But this statement is only true using the usual definition of "phenomenon", not the one you just invented a few posts ago.

A phenomenon is something that is experienced - science can study anything that can be experienced by us.

So, by your definition, science can study noumenal events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom