guest_of_logic wrote: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.
For you the therm "knowledge" seems to be not much more than a set of experiences and hearsay, shared or not. This means that to you knowledge equals opinion
(to talk with Spinoza
). But if so much is known
about it then tell me: what is its nature?
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.
What's the difference between personal experience and things coming up in ones mind then? Honestly, it's hard for me to understand apart from the obvious difference you make in one being a "cheap" way of saying it and the other a more satisfying way for you to frame it?
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.
No, I replied the same thing each and every time that the question seems seriously flawed and it would be ignorant to ask as well as to answer it. That's not a failure to respond, that's just you not agreeing with my response. Big difference.
In the light of the above it certainly
should be clear by now that I cannot tell you how the supernatural (harmful spirits or whatever) could be accepted as "real". Since there's no clear uniform description of the nature
of these entities, there can be no path towards any determination or falsification made available. I did make a reference to the work of Jacques Vallée earlier for an example of the difficulties of such material (supernatural encounters). Perhaps another answer would be then: first present more clearly which experiences are classified as encounters with spirits and how to interpret the exchange (harm/beneficial). This research is not even started to the level it needs to be before
research on its nature could be done systematically. Although you might think there's research because you've read two books, I've read 400 books on it and experienced (to me) way crazier things and I
still don't know what it is what people think they are talking about. And generally they just don't.
This is why I asked you "convince me of what
?", not because I didn't remember the question but because the question revolves around a topic with no nature, no specifics that as such could be answered specifically or factually. The correct question should be "do you believe"... and answers offered like "I believe, "I do not" and "I'm not sure". Mine is an informed "I'm not sure and you shouldn't be that much either". If sanity is the goal.