RE: Which Comes First?
October 4, 2009 at 7:35 pm
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2009 at 7:40 pm by theVOID.)
(October 4, 2009 at 2:04 am)Arcanus Wrote: science investigates the natural world only.
And what reason do you have for believing that anything other than the natural world exists?
(October 4, 2009 at 2:04 am)Arcanus Wrote:(October 2, 2009 at 10:46 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: My standards for accepting either claim is different. They have to be.
In the ghost story of my scenario, your standards for accepting such a claim are entirely moot because your acceptance is entirely irrelevant. Just because you do not personally believe ghosts exist, that does not mean my experience never happened. It means you cannot accept my claim, but—as I said—what has that to do with my experience? Nothing at all. I can appreciate that you have specific standards for belief, but your belief was neither asked for nor even relevant. See the distinction?
"I'll need substantial evidence before believing," you said. But that only matters if your belief is actually called for.
And just because you experienced something and put the label 'ghost' on it does not mean ghosts exist, so in order to determine if you were correct or not in applying the 'ghost' label to your experience, you would need to provide substantial evidence for such an encounter, and until the standard of verification is reached you have failed to provide any compelling reason what so ever why people should believe you.
.
