DvR,
In this sense, the unnatural or supernatural both have no existence simply by definition.
This sense and definition are different to that which I am using - try not to sow confusion by pointing with your finger to a different moon than mine is! The specific aspect of the supernatural that I am talking about both exists and can be known, and when known, is still "supernatural", at least by my definition.
So your primary evidence is whatever comes up in your mind then?
This is a cheap manipulation of what I've written, Diebert, and you ought to know it. My primary evidence is my personal experience.
guest_of_logic:
Moreover, I have twice asked you explicitly what it would take in the way of evidence to convince you, and you have failed to respond on both occasions.
DvR:
The question is wrong. Convince me of what?
You can remind yourself by looking up the question in
the post in which it was posed in specifics.
It's to me one example of how the love for death and non-existence could cause death and non-existence.
You do have a good imagination, Diebert, it's just that you're using it to take yourself away from the truth instead of towards it.
I think I'm done here, but if you do respond and if something seems like it's particularly worth addressing I might respond again.
cousinbasil,
But what sort of mischievous spirits would communicate via a child's toy?
Is it really justifiable to label as "a child's toy" something that has caused serious misery to adult people? Aren't you playing the QRS game of assigning a label of diminishment to that which you don't accept as true here?
Here's an idea - get a group of Asians who do not speak English and have them touch the glass - then have an English- speaking person query the spirits. Or have the group touching the glass be deaf-mutes who do not hear the questions being asked.
I would say that that's a great idea except that I don't believe Ouija boards should be used by anyone who doesn't know exactly what they're doing, just like I don't think that psychoactive drugs should be used for recreational purposes - both have too much potential for harm. If the experiments were conducted with professional mediums, though, then sure, they could be very interesting.
If these so called "paranormal" phenomena are real - that is to say, have been documented beyond reasonable doubt - some sort of explanation is in order, yes? Of what nature are these spirits? If they are separate entities with individual intelligences, are they persons in any normal sense? Are we claiming they are spirits of the departed? Have they ever been incarnate? Can they make contact without relying on a child's toy?
What I've read suggests that there are different types of spirits, some being the Earth-bound spirits of dead people, and some being spirits in the "native" sense and of different dispositions ranging from beneficent through neutral to malevolent - you just never know which you're going to get. As for making contact without Ouija boards, I know through personal experience that they can do just that. Also, as I understand it, that's essentially how many psychics get their information - through direct spirit communication. I'm not an expert though by any means.
As for your boss's story, wouldn't you think given your high esteem for her that you owe her the presumption of truth? Perhaps some things are not quite as they seem at first glance, such as her husband being the reincarnation of a famous person, but they might be explicable in different ways: one of the books I've cited in a past post suggests that it's possible to recall
other people's past lives as if they were one's own if one is spiritually close to that person's energy. That would explain the unlikelihood of your boss's husband literally being the reincarnation of Sir Isaac Newton, which is not to say that the unlikely scenario is itself false - perhaps, even though unlikely, it really is true.
I'm not sure why you write off the rest so readily. You are a believer in God and His plan - isn't that such a fantastic (and I use that word in the sense of "beyond the ordinary") thing as to make the believability of things like this a cinch in comparison?
Cathy,
1. You experienced something and you have no explanation for it, so you go about the important task of pinning it down.
2. Your responses imply that you know what exactly is normally happening, except your responses reveal that you don't.
3. The world is enthralling isn't it.
1. Right.
2. I see. So, what exactly is it that's happening normally that (in your estimation) I don't know?
3. Without a doubt.
Tomas (Toe-mass),
Thanks for the birthday wishes, I never would have expected them on this forum of all places!
