God is the great spirit friend

[Mystic]

Perhaps the cruel and sarcastic response to your question Mystic, is that medication stopped these experiences because your "god" was an illness....lol.

I use to think medications were a form of "uncleanness". As it causes uncleanness and helps Jinn block my heart vision, I cannot see the spiritual world anymore.

There is a hadith that went along the lines "Were it not for the devils blocking the hearts of humanity, everyone would have seen the the kingdom from earth to the throne"

And there was even a lecture by a scholar that if we ask forgiveness, we would be able to clean the uncleanness of our hearts to see the malakut (spiritual kingdom).

I thought medications were created by sorcerers (top freemasons).

[jstrodel]

Billions of people can corroborate jstrodel's experience.

I reiterate: The Argumentum ad populum theory will not cut it either. It is not so, just because many people believe it.

A testimony is not ad populum. If you have 10 witnesses to a murder to appeal to the quantity would not be ad populum. That is ridiculous.

---

You are a sincere person Jstrodel. The thing is - sometimes - I miss the hallucinations and the feeling I got with them. But I figured if God wants to communicate to me or make me see the unseen world or Imam Mahdi wants to guide me, or whatever, he can do it while I take medications. But I take medications and there is no more mystical experiences. Actually, if it does start to come back, I talk to the doctor and increase the dose, and it stops. So then, if it's spiritual and God powered, how come medications can stop them?

If the medication stops it, it probably didn't come from God unless the medication was so powerful it blocked out all your feelings.

[Foxaèr]

If you have 10 witnesses to a murder to appeal to the quantity would not be ad populum. That is ridiculous.

In most murder cases, there is a body and evidence to be discovered. How can you reasonably even attempt to associate the unseen and unverifiable supernatural to the corporeal world?

[The Grand Nudger]

A testimony is not ad populum. If you have 10 witnesses to a murder to appeal to the quantity would not be ad populum. That is ridiculous.

If you had ten witnesses to a murder but no other evidence...you'd have a hard time convicting. If you appeal to the number of people who believe in something that they then present personal testimony of (or you simply assert that they do) as though this were indicative of the accuracy of the testimony..yes, it is an ad pop - a textbook example, in fact.

[Mystic]

This is a tricky subject.

I don't know if anyone has watched Bleach. But there is an example of how you can know spiritual world is correct. To me, if a bunch people saw the SAME demon/jinn or Angel or heard the voice of God all together...that would be something.

But everyone having their own experience with their own jinn etc.. that doesn't seem strong evidence at all, it seems strong evidence of the opposite...that Jinn are not being experienced here.

[Lion IRC]

Billions of people can corroborate jstrodel's experience.

I reiterate: The Argumentum ad populum theory will not cut it either. It is not so, just because many people believe it.

Hang on! YOU are the one who appealed to ''ad pop'' when you said everyone would believe without question if everyone agreed with the testimony.
Does it matter how many people agree that the testimony is valid or doesnt it?

*The testimony being presented to the ''courtroom'' is corroborated.

*The atheists are not called as witnesses because they have no evidence to present - they werent there, they didnt see what the other witnesses DID.

*The jury has no evidence to suggest that jstrodel is a known liar.

*The jury has no evidence of a motive for jstrodel to make stuff up.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Mystic -It's not uncommon for multiple people to recount an event in a similar fashion even though the event can be shown to have been wildly different from the testimony of all involved (nor is it uncommon for large numbers of people to miss a gorilla in a frame.......). The majority of respondents say there was no gorilla, they all agree on this - their testimony matches, unfortunately there is and was a gorilla.

Strodel has made a (variety of) claim (s) that he has failed to substantiate, there really isn't anything else to be said Lion.

[jstrodel]

A testimony is not ad populum. If you have 10 witnesses to a murder to appeal to the quantity would not be ad populum. That is ridiculous.

If you had ten witnesses to a murder but no other evidence...you'd have a hard time convicting. If you appeal to the number of people who believe in something that they then present personal testimony of (or you simply assert that they do) as though this were indicative of the accuracy of the testimony..yes, it is an ad pop - a textbook example, in fact.

You think they would hear the 10 people and then the defense would say "that is an argument ad populum"?

[Foxaèr]

Hang on! YOU are the one who appealed to ''ad pop'' when you said everyone would believe without question if everyone agreed with the testimony.

You clearly misconstrued and misunderstood what I stated. If there was real evidence to support that multiple religious testimony was an accurate portrayal of a real deity, then everyone would believe in that deity without question. Since that is not the case, the testimony is unreliable and does not prove the existence of a deity.

[The Grand Nudger]

One would imagine that the jurors would not have to be told that simply because ten people believed in something that wouldn't make it true. Laying aside ad pops, testimony is definitively and demonstrably unreliable as evidence.