that would all be very nice if people could walk on water or levitate. not sure why you dont understand that.
People can't do that, I agree. But eyewitnesses say that people have....so what's your explanation then? Are they lying? Really....you think they are making this up?
The burden of proof lies with the people trying to prove that the supernatural exist. So far i have never had anything happen to me to lead me to believe that ghosts and such exist. However, i think the year was 1995, maybe 96, some friends of mine and i were driving back to Pineville, from Natchitoches, it was about 3 in the morning. We pulled over on I-49 to take a leak, and we got out, did our thing, and the entire sky lit up like it was daylight outside for about 2 seconds. I looked at everyone to make sure they saw it too, they did, so we jumped in the car and hauled ass. It was on the news the next day, and it was supposedly space junk disintegrating in the atmosphere, but that sounded fishy to me, because the whole sky lit up, as far as the eye could see.
are you serious? you are pulling my chain arent you? have you never heard of liars or crazy people? they are actually quite common. cmon stop fooling around.
Lasalle: Well, you obviously wouldn't be a witness for those saying the supernatural exists. What I am saying is that there are other people who have witnessed these events and science can offer no natural explanation. The example with the possession seems sufficient to me. We have an expert in the field in addition to other eyewitness that corroborate the event. If you were on the jury you would have to accept their evidence. There is no evidence to the contrary. I don't see how you can escape that conclusion. LaSalle: The problem with this example is they can offer a natural explanation....
There is no evidence that they are lying. The quy is an expert for God's sake. Why do you refuse to accept his account of the event? On what basis?
In rhetoric and logic, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. You are using a common logical fallacy called "The Argument from ignorance"" or the "negative proof fallacy" in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. It regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true.
Am I really going to have to be the one to make the obligatory "Lasalle was high" joke? Come on guys, that should be automatic.
regarding argument from ignorance: There is psychiatrist in this case....he should be qualified. There were other eyewitnesses who confirmed the story. If you were sitting on the jury on what basis would you determine that: a) the expert was incorrect b) the people were lying
