|
|
#32
08-10-2005, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Little Evidence =Evidence?
Here is the point. There is no known mechanisms that would create levitations. Many magician types have been able to fake levitation in ways that scientists have been fooled. Houdini, The amazing Randi, and others have faked levitations that fooled scintists. But when they themselves visit other practitioners they have NEVER FAILED (to my knowledge) to discover the "trick".
If what I have just written is the truth, would you agree that it would be unwise to bet even money that Nina actually did levitate? 
|
|
#33
08-10-2005, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Little Evidence =Evidence?
The point is this: Levitations by supernatural force from an innate being does not exist. Period. "To satisfy Russian, American, etc." scientists doesn't cut it - I want the names of the scientists and their contact information to verify that they indeed believe this is real, plus the authenticity of the claim that they are indeed scientists.
If you believe that levitation is indeed real, the burden of proof is on you. There has been no satisfactorial proof submitted to the scientific community that it does exist. Period.
|
|
#34
08-10-2005, 07:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Little Evidence =Evidence?
ignorance is bliss i guess, i'm sure if you really are interested in this subject you can find these scientists and the study involved. Im guessing you will continue with your narrowminded ways though and will brush it off as nonsense without ever doing any searching into the mysteries of your life. I have done enough research and shown enough valid points to my argument for a valid strong argument and you try to argue in circles much like the christians of today when something of validity is shown them. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
Have a great life. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]
|
|
#37
08-10-2005, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Little Evidence =Evidence?
[ QUOTE ]
"think that the discussion you create is a good one, but the condescending way in which you say, how are others so stupid to not agree, does not help your argument AGAINST close-minded religous folk that differ from your opinion." Believe it or not I am not trying to be condescending. Nor do I think I have much chance to persuade those who you speak of. However I think it is important to state my position that this subject is not in the category of one where both sides of the issue are somewhat reasonable. It is completely UNREASONABLE for any specific religion to believe that the details they say are true make sense to an objective observer. By "make sense" I mean that it is more likely to be true than not based on the facts we know. And if it is completely unreasonable to think that, what can we say about those who do? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it is unreasonable to believe that, for example, The Resurrection is true. With your caveat, though, of “By "make sense" I mean that it is more likely to be true than not based on the facts we know.” I say in answering your question “…what can we say about those who do?", that we can say nothing about them. When you are willing to make the statement "because miracles are nonsense and because we have no proof of god, that it is foolish to believe God exists", and then ask the question what can we say of such people?; I would answer that such people should be called fools by you.
|
|
#38
08-10-2005, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Little Evidence =Evidence?
Your wording is confusing. In any case I didn't say they were necessarily "fools". The other possibilities are ignorance of physics and/or statistical inference, or an illness caused by God instilling into the human brain an incredible defense mechanism to avoid psychic pain.
|
|
#39
08-10-2005, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Little Evidence =Evidence?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] your next "argument" will probably that they weren't "credible" scientists. LOL [/ QUOTE ] HAHAHAHAHA I WAS 100% RIGHT ON THAT ONE [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] he never did say they werent credible. he said he would like to actualy know who they were, what claims they verified, and what their credentials are in order to determine if they are credible. u say that u have researced this alot....one would assume then that u have answered these questions as your reasoning seems rock solid and i cant imagine that yur rigorous intellect would allow you to just accept a credible scientist claim without evaluating it on your own. we would just like you to share your supporting evidence of who these credible scientists are.
|
|
#40
08-10-2005, 08:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Little Evidence =Evidence?
Sorry for the wording, I had a hard time writing what I was trying to say.(I also missed an ending quotation mark. Corrected it.) But, you seemed to understand what I was saying.
I know you did not say they are fools. I, also, know (think) you would not make a statement like my hypothetical one. I read your rhetorical question as implying such people are fools. I retract my sentiments if that was not the insinuation.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
