(August 13, 2019 at 7:05 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Usually, when people deploy a circular argument they try to conceal the circularity.

But "I believe because I believe" is not merely circular, it is proudly circular.

And hurling in the ghosts red herring? It is to laugh.

If you're referring to me, I simply stated why I believe.  I think it's because God put it in me.  Secondly, it seems logical to me.  Those are just  facts.  As for ghosts, yeah, I think they are an argument for the existence of supernatural phenomena.  Calling it a red herring is a way to brush the issue aside.  These are people and families close to me who have experienced them and related it to me.  And they're not people who are subject to seeing illusions.  Why don't you remove the mental boundaries that are keeping you in your naturalistic box?

All human beings are “subject to seeing illusions”.

That’s how illusions work in the first place.

At work.

(August 13, 2019 at 12:25 pm)Lek Wrote: If you're referring to me, I simply stated why I believe.  I think it's because God put it in me.  Secondly, it seems logical to me.  Those are just  facts.  As for ghosts, yeah, I think they are an argument for the existence of supernatural phenomena.  Calling it a red herring is a way to brush the issue aside.  These are people and families close to me who have experienced them and related it to me.  And they're not people who are subject to seeing illusions.  Why don't you remove the mental boundaries that are keeping you in your naturalistic box?

Hello Lek!

So, how do you think 'Ghosts' work? What might be some of their properties or mechanisms?

Also, where are the boundaries of your supernature?

Ghosts are evidently in there. What about pixies? Demons? Djinn? Dragons? Oni?

Just curious.

Cheers.

(August 13, 2019 at 1:59 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

(August 13, 2019 at 12:25 pm)Lek Wrote: If you're referring to me, I simply stated why I believe.  I think it's because God put it in me.  Secondly, it seems logical to me.  Those are just  facts.  As for ghosts, yeah, I think they are an argument for the existence of supernatural phenomena.  Calling it a red herring is a way to brush the issue aside.  These are people and families close to me who have experienced them and related it to me.  And they're not people who are subject to seeing illusions.  Why don't you remove the mental boundaries that are keeping you in your naturalistic box?

Hello Lek!

So, how do you think 'Ghosts' work? What might be some of their properties or mechanisms?

Also, where are the boundaries of your supernature?

Ghosts are evidently in there. What about pixies? Demons? Djinn? Dragons? Oni?

Just curious.

Cheers.

Hello.  I don't know how ghosts work except they seem to float and appear and disappear  I believe in their existence because of first-hand testimony.  Same with demons.  Pixies?  Dragons, etc?  I don't know.  Never had anyone I knew and trusted testify to seeing them.  I also believe in mystical experiences.

(August 13, 2019 at 4:48 pm)Lek Wrote:

(August 13, 2019 at 1:59 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.


Hello Lek!

So, how do you think 'Ghosts' work? What might be some of their properties or mechanisms?

Also, where are the boundaries of your supernature?

Ghosts are evidently in there. What about pixies? Demons? Djinn? Dragons? Oni?

Just curious.

Cheers.

Hello.  I don't know how ghosts work except they seem to float and appear and disappear  I believe in their existence because of first-hand testimony.  Same with demons.  Pixies?  Dragons, etc?  I don't know.  Never had anyone I knew and trusted testify to seeing them.  I also believe in mystical experiences.

How do you know that this first hand testimony was not a misidentification of some other, wholly natural event? How do you know that this first hand testimony was not a misinterpretation of some wholly natural, nonstandard brains state?

There are 1000's of people that claim to have been abducted by aliens. Some of these experiences are shared. Others have been observed by multiple bystanders.

Do you believe these events occurred as the people reported them?

If someone that you knew and trusted, reported to see a dragon, would that provide any more credibility to their claim?

(August 13, 2019 at 5:00 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: How do you know that this first hand testimony was not a misidentification of some other, wholly natural event? How do you know that this first hand testimony was not a misinterpretation of some wholly natural, nonstandard brains state?

There are 1000's of people that claim to have been abducted by aliens. Some of these experiences are shared. Others have been observed by multiple bystanders.

Do you believe these events occurred as the people reported them?  

If someone that you knew and trusted, reported to see a dragon, would that provide any more credibility to their claim?

One thing that makes the ghost claims more believable to me is the huge number of claims throughout history.

I doubt that you apply that criteria with anything even remotely resembling uniformity -or- that this criteria is actually why it’s more believable, to you.

Personally, I never got why people get hung up on whether or not there are or could be ghosts, such that sightings could be more or less believable.

I’ve always wondered what part of the eye is supposed to see them. We could be swimming in ghosts, but how would we know?

Deleted.

---

(August 13, 2019 at 5:09 pm)Lek Wrote:

(August 13, 2019 at 5:00 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: How do you know that this first hand testimony was not a misidentification of some other, wholly natural event? How do you know that this first hand testimony was not a misinterpretation of some wholly natural, nonstandard brains state?

There are 1000's of people that claim to have been abducted by aliens. Some of these experiences are shared. Others have been observed by multiple bystanders.

Do you believe these events occurred as the people reported them?  

If someone that you knew and trusted, reported to see a dragon, would that provide any more credibility to their claim?

One thing that makes the ghost claims more believable to me is the huge number of claims throughout history.

First of all, that is a fallacy.

But, people have been reporting dragons all over the world for 1000's of years. Chinese, Aztec, Inca, Northern Europe, and I'm sure other cultures have dragon mythologies. And yes, there are people today that believe dragons still exist.

Yeti have been reported by pre-Buddhist religions since before the 1st century BCE, until the present.
Jinn have been reported by pre-Islamic cultures since before 500 CE, until the present.

Do these claims become any more credible to you because they are so old?

But you are still discounting the fact, that humans have had the same brains for hundreds of thousands of years, with the same errors in perceptions, errors in memories, susceptibility to visual and auditory illusions, etc. So, the same types of entirely natural events, that would have caused our ancestors to mistakenly 'detect' ghosts, would still be present in our brains, and cause humans today to mistakenly see ghosts.

There have been many experiments done to show just how easy it is to fool our senses and memories. And there have been zero tests to show that ghosts exist.

Multiplying bad evidence, does not somehow become good evidence.

How about my in-laws, three of whom encountered the ghost in their house on different occasions.

(August 13, 2019 at 7:00 pm)Lek Wrote: How about my in-laws, three of whom encountered the ghost in their  house on different occasions.

Why must it be a ghost? Why can't it be something perhaps more naturalistic? Maybe there's something/someone (animal/human) in the house that you have yet to realize has been there the whole time without you knowing? Extreme, yes, but so is a ghost ...

Actually, what do you mean by "encounter"?