Does the supernatural exist?

Red:

Only the natural part of existence. It can say nothing regarding the supernatural. One must come to a decision about the supernatural through another process.

Red:

We have proof. This is the type of proof that is accepted in courtrooms. Eyewitnesses, expert testimony.

Red:

You cannot possibly require physical evidence in this matter. That's absurd. We are talking about supernatural things here. You can provide eyewitness testimony that the laws of physics were broken. Eyewitness testimony is acceptable and sufficient to reach a decision in a courtroom.

Red:

What more proof would you require than eyewitness testimony? You want the demon to appear to you? Even if the demon did, when you tell someone else they can dismiss your testimony by simply saying they don't believe it. Can you imagine what a disaster the legal system would be if this was the burden of proof for a verdict?

Red:

It would understand it to mean either the convictions were correct or incorrect. There are witches...or practicioners of Wicca, however you prefer to call it. I don't think they were flying around on brooms and turning people into newts but the practice of witchcraft does exist. Go to a bookstore and check it out. You may think the penalty for witchcraft back in the middle ages was a little harsh and I agree but, hey, that was the legal system at the time.

A legal system that was perfectly capable of convicting someone of murder based purely on eyewitness testimony by the way.

Well, I would disagree with this. No one went and locked these people up because they saw a ghost.

But this is part of the problem, this attitude that a person who experiences the supernatural must be crazy. This would mean that all the Apostles were crazy. Moses was crazy. The saints were crazy. What you are saying is that the secular world is the end all be all, judge and jury of the world and no good is allowed to come from anywhere else.

But this is not how the world is. It is not how history is.....

Mankind has profited tremendously from religious influence and doctrine. Brilliant men have believed in God. They are not kooks. George Washington, Einstein, Newton, Robert E. Lee, Martin Luther King, jr., pick whoever you like. State officials did not come by and pick these guys up for being "crazy".

gumborue:

I guess it's hard to get this through to someone but there are no pink elephants. If you see a pink elephant then either you are seeing something or you are being tricked by some preternatural power. I haven't heard of them being interested in manifest as pink elephants though. That would be new.

As far as the omni omni omni god-entity, well there is some evidence of that.

Actually incredibly good evidence. Eyewitness testimony of malicious spirit blaspheming is the one currently being discussed but there are others. Miracles that occur outside of any natural explanations. Have you never heard of Lourdes? How about Fatima?

martin:

This is completely wrong. The fact that other religions exist should be an indication that there is in fact an element of the supernatural that every culture on earth has identified and tried to describe. Some do a better job than others for various reasons.

 

What it indicates is that it is universal for primitive man to ask "Who caused it?" instead of "Why did that happen?" when confronted with phenomena he can't explain, and to construct elaborate mythologies whose purpose really is to impart order on a baffling world and to organize society. The thing that has delivered (some of) us from ignorance and superstition is the scientific method.

P.S. No time or desire to respond to the rest of your voluminous lunacy. Don't take silence to mean agreement, when actually it means :facepalm: and :insane:.

 

According to you then, this country was founded by lunatics and the psychiatrist in the case mentioned is a lunatic.

ok, rock on then...

 

How would that feed into an ego? Don't you know anything?

 

Which is why I will allow for people to believe in me and worship at my feet. If your actions please me, I will bring success to LSU and the Saints for all eternity. To die in my name will not bring you 70 virgins in the afterlife, but rather four or five slutty women.

...and Universal Healthcare.

 

Red:

This is where I think you have gone wrong. There is a supernatural element to existence. And we have eyewitness accounts of it throughout history. Your dismissal of it simply because you haven't personally experienced it is unreasonable.

And I disagree with your description of supernatural. It doensn't necessarily mean it disobeys natural laws it means the supernatural is another jurisdiction altogether. God has nothing against the laws of physics, I'm sure he likes them....He made them. He is just not subject to them. Kind of like Congress, I understand Congress is not subject to the laws it passes at some level. (Not sure about that but got that idea from somewhere....)

I agree they don't always discover truth....that can be said about a lot of things. But on the whole you have to say most of the court decisions have been sound. You can't suggest that all the justice delivered in the world is incorrect because it is not based on the scientific method.

Also, the scientific method doesn't always discover truth, either. Specifically, it is incapable of discovering a truth outside the natural world.

 

Eyewitness testimony does not require any additional evidence to be correct. In the absence of any physical evidence one would have to make a decision based on testimony. You are not legally allowed to dismiss it because there is no physical evidence. We both agreed in the case of the supernatural there can be not direct physical evidence. The only thing left is testimony. And the testimony we have in this case would be considered overwhelming in a courtroom.

If you were the defense attorney and you said to the jury that alll the witness were simply lying because what they testified to cannot happen you would lose the case. You have to provide evidence that they were lying. And we have none, the man is an expert in the field and other witness corroborate the story. You are forced to side with the witnesses and there testimony. You have no other choice. To maintain otherwise is just being obstinate.

This is a ridiculous level of burden of proof. You accept many things in your life that you haven't directly experienced. Have you ever been to Katmandu? I haven't either but it exists....you base its existence purely on the testimony of others. Have you seen pictures? Pictures could be faked, etc.

You see the point, I'm sure. You cannot reasonably expect that for something to exist you must have direct experience of it. Besides, those who have direct experience of the supernatural are labeled "crazy" in this ridiculous "adherence to only what is material" mindset the secularists are promoting. If you did experience the supernatural your testimony would be "thrown out of court" in this absurd system of thought that you subscribe to.

This is absurd to demand that you personally experience everything before you accept the possibility of its existence.

If you had never experienced love or hope or justice that would mean you have to deny it exists.....it's a ridiculous world-view and it leads to all kinds of erroneous decision making.

 

I think you're being overly skeptical of the ability of courts to administer justice. If anything I would bet the "default" error in the courts is to let the guilty go free. The idea that we have all these innocent people in prison is PC crap.

Also, Law in general has been an absolute blessing to mankind, if it were not for that society would be purely based on power.....mankind's circumstances would be much worse in that case.

Lastly, I'm no lawyer and I'm not hung up on the courtroom analogy. Again, I just couldn't think of another formal decision making process. If you got one, like Ross Perot said, I'm all ears....