It's not a rational observation, which is defined as "Systematic, step by step method in which 'hard' (quantitative) data obtained through observation or mathematical (statistical) analysis or modeling is used for making long-term decisions." It is an erroneous conclusion based on a logical fallacy. Indeed. Beliefs are like that. Existence, however, requires actual evidence which is not present concerning the supernatural. I fully accept your belief in the supernatural. I cannot accept your insistence that it is rational conclusion that the supernatural must somehow exist. Now you confuse science with law! There is little scientific about law, although the rules of logic apply. Law is here to sort out matters in which no agreement exists and the reasonable is not obvious. It is reasonable to conclude that the belief in the supernatural exists. This in no way suggests that supernatural events exist. This is pretzel logic based on an erroneous initial assumption then compounded by denying the antecedent and finally summarized by an irrelevant conclusion
The expert was imprecise. He was incorrect in one aspect. Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. But he was correct in another aspect. Certain specific phenomenon ("in some circumstances") always produce evidence, so lack of evidence would be an indication that that specific phenomenon did not occur.
What the hell is "The New Oxford Review", anyway, the official journal of demonic possession? They also published Gov. Piyush Jindal's exorcism story back in 1994.
"New Oxford Review provides Catholic news, analysis and opinion from an independent but orthodox Catholic perspective." New Oxford Review Todays headlines: Papal aide linked to Vatican gay prostitution ring Sinead O'Connor: Christ would burn down Vatican Exorcist: Satanic sects exist in the Vatican New study suggests Catholic girls have 'gone wild'
Red: I thought we agreed science had nothing to offer regarding the supernatural. That's why I was using the courtroom analogy. I don't really know of any other formal process for coming to a decision. If you have another process for coming to conclusion that is more appropriate, please suggest it. What would you do if you were presented with this evidence as a jury member? Say you weren't there so you can't decide? I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to sit on the jury if you were there. I said it was a rational explanation, not observation. There is nothing irrational about theorizing that the supernatural exists. On what basis do you reject the idea of the supernatural? Because of science? We already agreed science is incapable of commenting on it.... What do you mean, evidence is not present? We have a documented event with eyewitnesses that agree on what took place. The event is outside the natural explanation. Or do you think there is a natural explanation for women levitating, speaking Latin, with knowledge of events they couldn't possibly be aware of through natural causes. There is no other evidence to the contrary of what the psychiatrist determined. None. The fact that you have no personal experience with the supernatural cannot possibly mean that they don't exist. We have a documented case of it, with eyewitnesses. Do you expect to be personally present for all the events that are real in the world? This is an absurdly high burden of proof and again, I'm no lawyer but I think you would be laughed out of the courtroom if you expressed that idea.
Its not just crazies and attention whores who report this stuff. My father-in-law died several years ago, and my wife, his wife, and one of my sisters-in-law believe they have seen his ghost. I have a friend with a Bachelor of Science degree who the house she bought several years ago came with a ghost. Another friend believes with utter conviction that her dead sister visited her in her bedroom one night, sat down and had a conversation. These are all quite rational people in every way I can imagine (or every other way, if you think believing in ghosts is irrational).
there is actually an enormous amount of evidence that people cannot levitate or walk on water. try to to do those things, you will see. the evidence is agaisnt them. so if someone claims they can walk on water, the evidence is basically infinite agasint them. i personally have tried to walk on water and levitate, cant do it. my evidence shows that it isnt possible. what does your evidence show? again, if you are over about 2 years old you should be able to comprehend the evidence against him. if you still dont understand, go try to walk and water and think about why you failed. examine the evidence. you will be wet and probably cold. think about why that is. then see if you have the brains to apply that evidence to why i dont trust your expert. good luck.
there is no doubt about that. i should also note that the folks i know that believe in ghosts (and all 5 people in your example) or have seen them are women. odd, that.
