arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
It's not evidence. At best, it's hearsay.You must refute this evidence!
It's not evidence. At best, it's hearsay.You must refute this evidence!
That, to me, is the key word. "The spirits!" has no more existence than as an empty attribution to them of effects that are not immediately or completely understood by people who need to believe that they do understand. "Why is that volcano erupting? The spirits must be angry with us!" "Why did that plane with my husband on it crash? God must be angry with me!" Millenia apart, but still ignorance masquerading as knowledge, with the only real difference being that the ignorance today must be more willful.So far you have only anecdotes that attribute various happenings to the purported activities of spirits, and various pseudoscientific attempts to dress that up. That's not any kind of evidence, even anecdotal. It's just circular reasoning and question begging—in your case followed by name-calling when people don't fall for it.
For the same reason we gave you every other time you've asked this question.
If you cannot provide testable evidence for your claims, you must accept that you will never be able to convince people who justifiably want that kind of evidence for things they're asked to believe in.
I only remember the number because of an intense thread back in the days of Usenet.Don't recall exactly as it was a laughable footnote in science done by not quite notable researchers.
I do recall it was a tiny quantity however. It may have been done more than once.
It was like reading the Shroud of Turin researchers stuff after they declared it totally legít and irrefutable. Praise god, he has given us a definte answer stuff.
Evidence of what?Maybe Allan Kardec's books are evidence!
Allan Kardec's books are evidence that suckers born every minute still exist.Evidence of what?
We had two souls the other night, lemon souls with a herb and lemon butter dressing. Absolutely delicious.I don't have a soul.
However, I do have a whole heap of music by the likes of Aretha Franklin, Otis Redding, Curtis Mayfield, Marvin Gaye...
of the existence of spirits!Evidence of what?
anecdotal evidence in certain cases can be considered?It's not evidence. At best, it's hearsay.
Why do you keep repeating the same questions, which have already been answered?anecdotal evidence in certain cases can be considered?
They're just pretend.of the existence of spirits!
It's like we are talking to an AI-generated troll poster!Why do you keep repeating the same questions, which have already been answered?
Also, when people have already given you answers to a question, why do you later ask that same question again?
While we're on the subject, had you noticed that this is a question you already asked before?
It's also stuff that Penrose didn't understand, given that he was a mathematician with no training in physics.I'd suggest you don't know what these things are, yes they make a sentence sound very clever, but literally a minutes research would tell you it makes no sense.
Sam Parnia's AWARE studies were so devoid of any evidence of his claims that he had to change protocols and variables being tested on multiple occasions during his study and in the end the only "evidence" he presented for NDEs was the single anecdotal recollection of a participant from over a year after his surgery which read more like an episode of Casualty or Holby City than any actual medical procedure in a real hospital.Sam Parnia's contributionsSam Parnia is a central figure in NDE and resuscitation research, seeking to better understand what happens to consciousness during clinical death. His work challenges traditional perceptions of death and raises important questions about the nature of human consciousness.
It's well established that a) Crookes was never sceptical of mediums and 2) because of his bad eyesight, and refusal to wear glasses, he was duped by a number of well known scam artists.Crookes began his investigations with the aim of exposing fraud among mediums, but ended up becoming convinced of the authenticity of some of the experiences. He conducted experiments with famous mediums, such as Florence Cook, and documented his experiences with the materialization of the spirit of Katie King, which caused a great impact on the scientific community at the time.
It's also stuff that Penrose didn't understand, given that he was a mathematician with no training in physics.
What did I tell you the last time you asked this question?anecdotal evidence in certain cases can be considered?
Similar. I hear the ...other... posts in Alvin the Chipmunk's voice.Any time he posts something that is clearly not his own, I picture it being read in Morgan Freeman's voice. I don't know why.
Any time he posts something that is clearly not his own, I picture it being read in Morgan Freeman's voice. I don't know why.
Skeptics you need to consider the value of non-empirical knowledge and the dynamic nature of knowledgeThe debate is over!
We do. It's been mentioned several times.Skeptics you need to consider the value of non-empirical knowledge and the dynamic nature of knowledge
We have. What did we tell you the last time you raised this issue?Skeptics you need to consider the value of non-empirical knowledge and the dynamic nature of knowledge
I want to start the debate from scratch! Is it possible?We have. What did we tell you the last time you raised this issue?
I want to start the debate from scratch! Is it possible?We do. It's been mentioned several times.
Only spirits are allowed to start debates over. Can you present one for us?I want to start the debate from scratch! Is it possible?
No. Just pick up where you left off. There's no point in going back to the beginning and repeating stuff.I want to start the debate from scratch! Is it possible?
No! You are very demanding with evidence!Only spirits are allowed to start debates over. Can you present one for us?
why ?No. Just pick up where you left off. There's no point in going back to the beginning and repeating stuff.
Exactly why?why ?
Roundy, roundy, roundy we go on our way to nowhere.I want to start the debate from scratch! Is it possible?
Why? Can you tell us?No! You are very demanding with evidence!
No, because everyone remembers what you have already posted, and the rebuttals of it, even if you can't.I want to start the debate from scratch! Is it possible?
No, he's too busy reading the whole thread again from the start.Now in your own words and thoughts....
You got time.