|
Post by bernard on May 2, 2018 16:43:55 GMT -6
If someone else told you that they had had a conversation with someone after they had been declared dead, would you regard that as providing some evidence that there is life after death? It sounds to me like you might have some kind of an electrical disturbance going on underneath your yarmulke, son. Hmm. I am trying to figure out what you would take as evidence of an afterlife. It seems you would dismiss other people's experiences of talking to the dead as an electrical disturbance going on underneath their yarmulkes. And I bet that, if you yourself started hearing voices, you would suspect you had an electrical disturbance going on underneath your yarmulke. But doesn't that mean that you've rigged the game in advance? You can't possibly be convinced that there's life after death because you're determined, in advance of all inquiry, to deny all possible evidence. You've closed your ears.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on May 2, 2018 17:02:40 GMT -6
I am trying to figure out what you would take as evidence of an afterlife. It seems you would dismiss other people's experiences of talking to the dead as an electrical disturbance going on underneath their yarmulkes. And I bet that, if you yourself started hearing voices, you would suspect you had an electrical disturbance going on underneath your yarmulke. But doesn't that mean that you've rigged the game in advance? You can't possibly be convinced that there's life after death because you're determined, in advance of all inquiry, to deny all possible evidence. You've closed your ears. It wouldn't be enough to convince me, as it would not withstand scientific scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 2, 2018 17:05:30 GMT -6
I am trying to figure out what you would take as evidence of an afterlife. It seems you would dismiss other people's experiences of talking to the dead as an electrical disturbance going on underneath their yarmulkes. And I bet that, if you yourself started hearing voices, you would suspect you had an electrical disturbance going on underneath your yarmulke. But doesn't that mean that you've rigged the game in advance? You can't possibly be convinced that there's life after death because you're determined, in advance of all inquiry, to deny all possible evidence. You've closed your ears. It wouldn't be enough to convince me, as it would not withstand scientific scrutiny. What evidence would count for you Joe? Is there anything?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 2, 2018 22:01:22 GMT -6
I am trying to figure out what you would take as evidence of an afterlife. Scientific evidence that would standup in a court of law. It seems you would dismiss other people's experiences of talking to the dead as an electrical disturbance going on underneath their yarmulkes. Probably, but there might be exceptions depending on the credibility of the individual. And I bet that, if you yourself started hearing voices, you would suspect you had an electrical disturbance going on underneath your yarmulke. Actually, I wear a beanie with a propeller. But to answer your question, No, I would suspect if I started hearing voices that I might have prowlers on my property.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on May 3, 2018 8:15:33 GMT -6
What evidence would count for you Joe? Is there anything? Anything measurable, observable and repeatable would do.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 3, 2018 9:25:15 GMT -6
When my dad passed away in the VA hospital, I won't get into details. Something strange happened.
Bottom line, when I was taken back by it, they told me your not imagining it, things like that do happen here.
Not something that needs a court to verify.. Beyond a courts purpose & ability.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 3, 2018 11:35:33 GMT -6
Not something that needs a court to verify.. Beyond a courts purpose & ability.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 3, 2018 12:08:44 GMT -6
Not something that needs a court to verify.. Beyond a courts purpose & ability. LOL, The Twilight Zone. That's an actual term. Used by the U.S Air Force when crossing day & night above the world.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 3, 2018 12:30:09 GMT -6
You're still very confused. You do NOT know as a certainty that there is more; you believe as a certainty that there is. Hence, there is a difference. It remains you who is confused. You do not know that I'm confused. You believe I am. There is indeed a difference. I don't question for a second your afterlife belief or communication. I DO question why you would believe an october 2017 new york times article about the IRS scandal, or any new York Times article about anything.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 3, 2018 16:02:16 GMT -6
What evidence would count for you Joe? Is there anything? Anything measurable, observable and repeatable would do. Like what?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 3, 2018 16:03:29 GMT -6
I am trying to figure out what you would take as evidence of an afterlife. Scientific evidence that would standup in a court of law. Like what?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 3, 2018 16:52:42 GMT -6
Scientific evidence that would standup in a court of law. Like what? I read a story once about a guy who was killed, put in some kind of tomb and came back three days later. I can't attest to what the the science of the day said about it or the court of law, but you know, I read about it. and since it wasn't in the new york times maybe it was actually true
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 3, 2018 23:24:18 GMT -6
Like whatever the court accepts as scientific proof of life after death.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 4, 2018 0:46:28 GMT -6
Like whatever the court accepts as scientific proof of life after death. Give me some specific examples of the kinds of evidence you have in mind.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 4, 2018 7:02:58 GMT -6
Actually, I would not want to have this proven in a court to be factual there is an afterlife.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 4, 2018 11:18:19 GMT -6
Like whatever the court accepts as scientific proof of life after death. courts do not "prove" anything. their highest standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 4, 2018 11:43:49 GMT -6
Give me some specific examples of the kinds of evidence you have in mind. Scientific evidence that is acceptable to scientists.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 4, 2018 11:49:09 GMT -6
courts do not "prove" anything. Where did I state otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 4, 2018 11:52:56 GMT -6
Give me some specific examples of the kinds of evidence you have in mind. Scientific evidence that is acceptable to scientists. There will never be any evidence to prove or disprove anyhow. Not mean't to be, most likely for very good reasons. BY science or law.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 4, 2018 12:03:19 GMT -6
There will never be any evidence to prove or disprove anyhow. Not mean't to be, most likely for very good reasons. Aah, yes, you're right! Why didn't I think of that? Remind me to buy you some Juju beads for Christmas.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 4, 2018 12:20:01 GMT -6
There will never be any evidence to prove or disprove anyhow. Not mean't to be, most likely for very good reasons. Aah, yes, you're right! Why didn't I think of that? Remind me to buy you some Juju beads for Christmas. I love juju beans
|
|
|
Post by hawg on May 4, 2018 13:58:45 GMT -6
courts do not "prove" anything. Where did I state otherwise? technically you didn't, but you wanted courts to weigh in on what scientists consider "proof". why? either it's true or proof or not. what do courts then have to do with it? however in retrospect, I misspoke. criminal courts, with a distinct codified law/charge and elements are the ones who deal with beyond a reasonable doubt. "this" issue would be before a civil court and therefore simply a preponderance of evidence, so while it still none of their business and their ruling of no particular value, it would be interesting to see how a preponderance of evidence would shake out on this matter. jury or judge? who would you pick?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 4, 2018 23:26:00 GMT -6
Give me some specific examples of the kinds of evidence you have in mind. Scientific evidence that is acceptable to scientists. You mean like a big ball of generic evidence that's really good?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 5, 2018 3:39:57 GMT -6
You mean like a big ball of generic evidence that's really good? Nope, not even close. Keep guessing, this is fun.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 5, 2018 12:50:39 GMT -6
You mean like a big ball of generic evidence that's really good? Nope, not even close. Keep guessing, this is fun. It wasn't a guess. I was laughing at you. I think that you wouldn't accept someone saying they'd heard voices of the dead. You'd dismiss that as lies, or insanity. And you wouldn't accept voices if you heard them yourself, you'd take anti-psychotics until they went away. And you wouldn't accept a tape of the dead person's voice. You'd say it was recorded before his death. Or that it was an impersonation. So I think that nothing would count as evidence for you. You've declared ex cathedra that the dead don't talk, and no evidence may be permitted to overrule Pope Oscar's bull. Nothing is allowed to count. For all your warbling about "scientific evidence", your view is unfalsifiable and immune to the evidence. It's the paradigm of the anti-scientific.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 5, 2018 21:00:36 GMT -6
It wasn't a guess. I was laughing at you. Good! I'm glad to see you lighten up a wee bit. I think that you wouldn't accept someone saying they'd heard voices of the dead. You'd dismiss that as lies, or insanity. Most likely. And you wouldn't accept voices if you heard them yourself, you'd take anti-psychotics until they went away. False! I'm not a big fan of taking drugs. And I know as a fact that I would not take them if I heard voices myself. And you wouldn't accept a tape of the dead person's voice. You'd say it was recorded before his death. Or that it was an impersonation. Probably true. So I think that nothing would count as evidence for you. You've declared ex cathedra that the dead don't talk, and no evidence may be permitted to overrule Pope Oscar's bull. Nothing is allowed to count. For all your warbling about "scientific evidence", your view is unfalsifiable and immune to the evidence. It's the paradigm of the anti-scientific. Why...why....how profound! I'm in a state of shock. Yawn....z-z-z-z-z--z-z-z-z-z-z-z
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 6, 2018 2:04:42 GMT -6
It wasn't a guess. I was laughing at you. Good! I'm glad to see you lighten up a wee bit. Well you got me good with that "Oskar the scientist" schtick. "Mr Science SMASH modern pharmaceuticals!!! Meds in water turn frogs GAY!!!" Just basic scientific method. For your view to be scientifically kosher, you have to say what would count as evidence against it. You didn't. Maybe because you can't.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 6, 2018 14:47:06 GMT -6
you have to say what would count as evidence against it. According to whose personal frame of reference?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on May 6, 2018 16:56:28 GMT -6
you have to say what would count as evidence against it. According to whose personal frame of reference? It would be ideal if the evidence is reproducible on demand and intersubjectively sharable. But even if you can't manage that, you ought to be able to specify what you would take as evidence, for you, relative to your own "personal frame of reference".
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on May 6, 2018 17:27:37 GMT -6
you ought to be able to specify what you would take as evidence, for you, relative to your own "personal frame of reference" I already did; you just wouldn't accept it.
|
|