Guardian angel saves baby

[Fidel_Castronaut]

We sure got a lot of "Maybe..."Maybe....this.... maybe that.
Sure is a long way around the hem isn't it.
Why all the maybees?
Couldn't be any bias involved?

Maybe.

[Nope]

We sure got a lot of "Maybe..."Maybe....this.... maybe that.
Sure is a long way around the hem isn't it.
Why all the maybees?
Couldn't be any bias involved?

I agree. People should just accept without any questioning that this was the act of one of the Naiads. Obviously, a greek water spirit has made her way to the USA and taken up residence in Utah. I am shocked that everyone wouldn't automatically see this as fact but people are limited by their own silly biases. For once, I am glad that you and I agree, Prof. Should we travel there and make offerings of thanks to her?

[Mudhammam]

We sure got a lot of "Maybe..."Maybe....this.... maybe that.
Sure is a long way around the hem isn't it.
Why all the maybees?
Couldn't be any bias involved?

You're absolutely right. Can I get you to positively state that the voice was, without any possible doubt, one of the twelve Olympian gods and moreover, that she did take the form of a bird that said what sounded like "Hello" in order to rescue a young Mormon family's unconscious baby because Jesus was too preoccupied snorting coke off a nun's ass in a golden cathedral?

[Esquilax]

We sure got a lot of "Maybe..."Maybe....this.... maybe that.
Sure is a long way around the hem isn't it.
Why all the maybees?
Couldn't be any bias involved?

So you're saying if this had been a voice saying "help me... and also Allah is the one true god," you still would accept it as a heavenly source, and convert to Islam? Or, once again, would you suddenly be able to find another option apart from "accept claim instantly/just biased against claim," the moment the claim isn't from the religion you already believe in?

[robvalue]

I don't care how many people make a supernatural claim, no one is qualified to do so, and so their "testimony" is irrelevant in this regard. Supernatural causation is impossible to demonstrate. I couldn't care less what these people think they heard.

[KevinM1]

People can be easily convinced they were involved in crimes that never happened: http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/p...committed/

There's a reason why eyewitness accounts are considered the weakest form of evidence. People's memories are faulty and our minds play tricks on us. Add in the stress of the situation, peer pressure, and now pressure from the media to retell the story, and it's far more likely that one or two of them heard an indistinct something, anthropomorphised it (as we instinctively do with everything), and through the process of retelling it amongst themselves convinced the others.

And that's all assuming that they simply aren't trying to add to the 'miraculous' angle of the story.

It's far easier to believe in psychology than spirits.

[professor]

The subterfuge spree continues.
For people who consider themselves on the pinnacle of logic, why can you not admit something out of the realm of normal life occurred?
Rob (the Chainsaw of logic) even goes so far as to make an absolute determination of impossibility of anything supernatural.
How do you know that Rob?
It would undermine your entire world view wouldn't it....

[FatAndFaithless]

why can you not admit something out of the realm of normal life occurred?

Because there is no evidence that something out of the realm of normal life occurred.

Why can't you admit that "we don't know what happened" is not free license to crowbar in a supernatural claim?

[robvalue]

With the realm of the supernatural, the closest you can ever get is an event yet unexplained by natural means. That's it. Brick wall fella.

There may be a supernatural explanation, but there is absolutely no way to confirm any particular supernatural causation, or distinguish one possible explanation from another. It's all complete speculation. It's also time wasted when you could be looking for a natural explanation which may actually exist but hasn't been found.

Any supernatural claim is automatically an argument from ignorance fallacy.

[Esquilax]

The subterfuge spree continues.
For people who consider themselves on the pinnacle of logic, why can you not admit something out of the realm of normal life occurred?

Because hearing a voice is not a supernatural event. That you're attributing supernatural causation to something that is entirely natural and, in, fact, commonplace doesn't mean anything more than that you're desperately reaching for things that confirm your belief in magic. But you're going to have to do better than "they heard a voice, therefore that voice must be magic," dude.

Now, are you going to answer my question, or just continue to evade?