Do you believe in God ?

[TX-Beau]

^ That proves my point that nothing can be fully understood/appreciated until personally experienced. Unfortunately, it is beyond my control to instruct 'anyone' "on the other side" to contact you. It is also outside my power to grant you the abilities to be attuned to such communications if they may ever be directed your way. Your lack of experience is not my, nor anyone else's, responsibility.

The only thing I can do is share what I have experienced, as best I can. Whether, and or how, you choose to accept that is entirely up to you. It is no more incumbent upon me to prove anything to you than it is for you to believe me.

ESP, or whatever you which to label it, is not the same as religion. One is not necessarily related to the other.

This is just, and yet again the tautology the religious always run to when confronted with the basic fact of it - that you have no witness at all beyond your personal feelings, perhaps you might consider that you've explained it just fine but other people aren't convinced. "You know because you know...." isn't how your taste buds operate.

 

[TX-Beau]

Because you aren't applying that standard to other situations. If a lady got mugged, would you insist that at least half the people on the block where it happened agree what happened?

The way the religious use the term "witness" is completely divorced from how other people use it. How many people actually saw Christ his-self last month? None.

How many people witnessed the love of the Jeebus in their hearts and lives, in the same period? Bunches! YET, nobody has ever seen the chosen one down at the Starbucks gettin' a cup of joe. Ever. Nobody has seen a 3 day old corpse get up and fly into heaven either.

 

[Kulindahr]

The way the religious use the term "witness" is completely divorced from how other people use it. How many people actually saw Christ his-self last month? None.

How many people witnessed the love of the Jeebus in their hearts and lives, in the same period? Bunches! YET, nobody has ever seen the chosen one down at the Starbucks gettin' a cup of joe. Ever. Nobody has seen a 3 day old corpse get up and fly into heaven either.

Stop changing the subject -- Telstra wasn't talking about religion.

 

[TX-Beau]

Stop changing the subject -- Telstra wasn't talking about religion.

You are both being disingenuous - faith isn't ever about anything tangible and can't be compared to that, and "witnessing" religiously is not being a witness to some supernatural event.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are both being disingenuous - faith isn't ever about anything tangible and can't be compared to that, and "witnessing" religiously is not being a witness to some supernatural event.

Still insisting on changing the subject. Which fallacy is that -- moving the goalposts?

I'll try again:

Telstra wasn't talking about religion!

 

[TX-Beau]

Still insisting on changing the subject. Which fallacy is that -- moving the goalposts?

I'll try again:

Telstra wasn't talking about religion!

Not that I'm all that interested in debating the opinions of a third party.....

Honestly - you brought stats up, he said that's not correct. you said it was, he ran with your premise, and now you are putting words in his mouth. Obviously for him it was about religion, and your use of statistics in an attempt to bolster it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not that I'm all that interested in debating the opinions of a third party.....

Honestly - you brought stats up, he said that's not correct. you said it was, he ran with your premise, and now you are putting words in his mouth. Obviously for him it was about religion, and your use of statistics in an attempt to bolster it.

Good grief -- go back and read what was said!

It started with this:

I stated in this forum a couple of years ago that a relative occasionally saw people who could walk through closed doors and then found out that person had died at about that time of the day. Another relative felt the presence of someone or otherwise realized that a dead person was present. In addition there are thousands of stories of ghosts and of people who had out of body experiences, perhaps during an operation. Even if some of the stories aren't true, that still leaves thousands which are true. With thousands of witnesses over thousands of years I believe that is sufficient proof of life after death.

That's what Telstra responded to and what has been being discussed.

As for the stats, I was pointing out that he was being inconsistent, applying a double standard.

 

[opinterph]

May 12th

Rickrock: The people who saw dead people moving about and walk through closed doors, it wasn't in their heads but in plain eyesight.

Telstra: How many % of people experienced this?
50% must experience this to have a fair and balance outcome.


May 14th

Kulindahr: LOL

That's like saying half the people in a city have to witness a murder in order to find the perpetrator guilty.


May 15th

Telstra: No, ghosts or god is not like saying ''witness a murder'' LOL

Kulindahr: Witnessing something is witnessing.


May 16th

Telstra: then, why not at least 50% of the people witnessing it? why not?


May 17th

Kulindahr: Because you aren't applying that standard to other situations. If a lady got mugged, would you insist that at least half the people on the block where it happened agree what happened?

TX-Beau: The way the religious use the term "witness" is completely divorced from how other people use it. How many people actually saw Christ his-self last month? None.

How many people witnessed the love of the Jeebus in their hearts and lives, in the same period? Bunches! YET, nobody has ever seen the chosen one down at the Starbucks gettin' a cup of joe. Ever. Nobody has seen a 3 day old corpse get up and fly into heaven either.

Kulindahr: Stop changing the subject -- Telstra wasn't talking about religion.

TX-Beau: You are both being disingenuous - faith isn't ever about anything tangible and can't be compared to that, and "witnessing" religiously is not being a witness to some supernatural event.

Kulindahr: Still insisting on changing the subject. Which fallacy is that -- moving the goalposts?

I'll try again:

Telstra wasn't talking about religion!

TX-Beau: Not that I'm all that interested in debating the opinions of a third party.....

Honestly - you brought stats up, he said that's not correct. you said it was, he ran with your premise, and now you are putting words in his mouth. Obviously for him it was about religion, and your use of statistics in an attempt to bolster it.

Kulindahr: Good grief -- go back and read what was said!

It started with … what Telstra responded to and what has been being discussed.

As for the stats, I was pointing out that he was being inconsistent, applying a double standard.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
You have an abundance of patience.

Which I, having just gotten Bammer back after he was gone for two weeks, am presently lacking in.

 

[Telstra]

Because you aren't applying that standard to other situations. If a lady got mugged, would you insist that at least half the people on the block where it happened agree what happened?

''a lady'' is 1 person.
Ghosts lets say if total up including history, ghosts are 1000 plus times more people than the total population of the living
Therefore 100% of the living should be able to see it.

 

[Kyanimal]

''a lady'' is 1 person.
Ghosts lets say if total up including history, ghosts are 1000 plus times more people than the total population of the living
Therefore 100% of the living should be able to see it.

The range of human senses is actually quite limited. Within those boundaries, there are some that are more sensitive to various things than others are. Some people have better eyesight, for instance. Some are more attuned to the supernatural.

Senses can also be obstructed. If something happens out of your sight, or beyond your abilities to see it, does that mean it doesn't exist? Or, if I describe something to you, that you've never seen, does that mean I'm somehow wrong, and what I'm telling you should be dismissed?

Yes. The more often something happens the odds of it being detected go up. However, if the number of those being able to detect it go down, so do those odds, no matter how often it happens.

 

[Telstra]

The range of human senses is actually quite limited. Within those boundaries, there are some that are more sensitive to various things than others are. Some people have better eyesight, for instance. Some are more attuned to the supernatural.

Senses can also be obstructed. If something happens out of your sight, or beyond your abilities to see it, does that mean it doesn't exist? Or, if I describe something to you, that you've never seen, does that mean I'm somehow wrong, and what I'm telling you should be dismissed?

Yes. The more often something happens the odds of it being detected go up. However, if the number of those being able to detect it go down, so do those odds, no matter how often it happens.

That make sense
However, devices or instruments are more sensitive than human senses, why can't these devices detect them ?

 

[Jacquemar]

I think it's because "the supernatural" is internal, not external, really just a dream. And those that are more "sensitive to various things than other are" are experiencing something akin to dissociative states. Never underestimate the awesome power of the human brain to trick itself.

 

[Telstra]

I think it's because "the supernatural" is internal, not external, really just a dream. And those that are more "sensitive to various things than other are" are experiencing something akin to dissociative states. Never underestimate the awesome power of the human brain to trick itself.

This make more sense.
As no device is detecting the brain internal ''supernatural''.

 

[Kulindahr]

''a lady'' is 1 person.
Ghosts lets say if total up including history, ghosts are 1000 plus times more people than the total population of the living
Therefore 100% of the living should be able to see it.

There's nothing in this world that 100% of the living can see! In fact, arguably the most important things in our lives are based on things most of the living can't see (electricity and air, for example).

 

[Kulindahr]

That make sense
However, devices or instruments are more sensitive than human senses, why can't these devices detect them ?

Devices four hundred years ago couldn't detect changes in air pressure, but air pressure changes were real.
Devices three hundred years ago couldn't detect electrical current, but electrical current was real.
Devices two hundred years ago couldn't detect radio waves, but radio waves were real.
Devices one hundred years ago couldn't detect gravity waves, but gravity waves were real.
Devices twenty years ago couldn't detect the Higgs boson, but the Higgs boson was real.

The only thing we learn from having no devices capable of detecting something is that we haven't figured out how to make such devices; it tells us nothing about the reality of any phenomenon.

 

[Kulindahr]

I think it's because "the supernatural" is internal, not external, really just a dream. And those that are more "sensitive to various things than other are" are experiencing something akin to dissociative states. Never underestimate the awesome power of the human brain to trick itself.

That's what scientists said about rocks falling from the sky until 1795 -- https://lostinscience.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/rocks-from-the-sky/

 

[Jacquemar]

This make more sense.
As no device is detecting the brain internal ''supernatural''.

Thank you very much, Telstra.

 

[Telstra]

There's nothing in this world that 100% of the living can see! In fact, arguably the most important things in our lives are based on things most of the living can't see (electricity and air, for example).

electricity can be detected. Air can be detected.
Ghosts or god cannot !!

 

[Telstra]

Devices four hundred years ago couldn't detect changes in air pressure, but air pressure changes were real.
Devices three hundred years ago couldn't detect electrical current, but electrical current was real.
Devices two hundred years ago couldn't detect radio waves, but radio waves were real.
Devices one hundred years ago couldn't detect gravity waves, but gravity waves were real.
Devices twenty years ago couldn't detect the Higgs boson, but the Higgs boson was real.

The only thing we learn from having no devices capable of detecting something is that we haven't figured out how to make such devices; it tells us nothing about the reality of any phenomenon.

Devices three hundred years ago couldn't detect electrical current, but electrical current was real.
Now they can
Devices two hundred years ago couldn't detect radio waves, but radio waves were real.
Now they can
Devices one hundred years ago couldn't detect gravity waves, but gravity waves were real.
Now they can
Devices twenty years ago couldn't detect the Higgs boson, but the Higgs boson was real.
Now they can

Thousands of years of ghosts or god, but cannot be detected !!!