DarkyHughes wrote: » You want proof? Hows this for proof. That's right hell for everybody in this thread.
Fleawuss wrote: » No one has to credibly debunk what you claim. As you have carefully constructed your conditions for such ( a time machine no less) I suspect that you have no intention of ever allowing your beliefto be debunked. I look on your story this way ( you are a story teller): Why would an evil spirit intent on murder and capable of interference in the physical world give warning of its intention? Why give you time to intervene? You see that makes no sense. What does make sense is that you want to convince people to believe in you and your story and look there's the proof! Murder and a crying child! All we have to do is..... Believe you. Your story serves only one purpose: to convince people to believe you. I don't. Your spirit story is nonsense. If it was true we would have verifiable evidence from many sources: spirits on demand. They aren't because there's nothing there except the finality of the grave.
Titanucd wrote: » Ah the absolute certainty of youth. Oh how I miss it. You seem to be quite hung up on not believing me. I actually don't care because quite frankly I find it nearly impossible to believe myself and I lived it. You haven't asked what I think happened. You've just got on your high horse about how certain you are that what happened didn't happen the way I said. As regards the time machine? That was an attempt to demonstrate how difficult it would be for anybody to prove what happened, me included. Anyway I hope you can keep that certainty of belief in your life. It gets eroded all too quickly.
Fleawuss wrote: » I know what you want. Every aspect of your story screams it: believe me, believe me, believe me. The bad salesman's approach: my product is crap but believe me. Your story is bull****. Your child wasn't being murdered by a spirit. Any sane person knows that.
Titanucd wrote: » Wow your making stuff up now! Who said anything about anyone being murdered? Seriously wind your neck in. You've read the post in question and what you got from it was that I thought my child was being murdered?? 😂😂😂 By an evil spirit??? Maybe she sensed a presence? Maybe she was trying to warn us? Maybe she had wind?
Kev W wrote: » I voted no because something which cannot be proven (spirits, ghosts, wizards, wombles) cannot, by definition, be reasonably considered proof of something else that cannot be otherwise proven (life after death, moomins).
Kev W wrote: » That depends, have any wizards been at it? More to the point, can you prove they haven't?
Gerry Rio wrote: » There are over 3 thousand posts in that "Creepy" thread.3 thousand! So lets say half those posts are replies and not stories, that leaves 1,500 claims of encounters. They're all liars?
Bongalongherb wrote: » It's just an unknown at the moment because I tried to understand it many times in the past, but it's so vivid and real as in 100% waking life but clearer some-how, it's hard to explain it. Amazing though. The weird interesting part of this experience is that when you are 'asleep' and you then feel the suction of being removed from your physical body to an awakening state is the strange part. You go to bed and sleep, simple, but then you experience awakeness as you are being pulled out is the feeling and then when pulled out it feels like you are fully awake in real-time reality and you experience it this way as a fully awake scenario and not any kind of a dream. I have no idea how to explain it but I myself had this so-called out of body experience many times in the past but the only way I can describe it is that it all feels like I am fully awake and I can see everything going on below on the street from around 150 feet or slightly above. It's one hell of a visual that's for sure and basically you are fully awake but not in your physical body. I've no answers to it, but it is one hell of an experience to have. You know very clearly immediately that you are floating above a space whether it is in your room or high above your house, you are saying to yourself that this is crazy but you can see everything as natural as day. Whatever it is is very interesting to say the least. Oh, there is one more thing about this. When you are out of the body in this feeling of reality... you sure as hell feel a jolt when you are sucked back into your physical body and it's like a person banged you hard on the chest and then you are wide awake wondering wtf just happened. The jolt being sucked back in is very strong and can give a person quite a shock. Also lucid dreams are strange and amazing. I still have lucid dreams and control them to an extent but sometimes they themselves are difficult to control as to stay in the lucid dream. Basically you are fast asleep but you awaken in your dream of complete lucidity, I mean fully awake in the dream and you will be saying to yourself that this is too real even though you know you are asleep and dreaming. I once walked up a small cliff and there was a road there with 2 cars parked on the side of the road and a few people walking along and I immediatelly felt the heat of the sun on my face and put my hand over my forehead for a few seconds. Then I said to myself ok, I know I'm dreaming but this is just too real so I picked up some dust and small stones in my hand just to see how real this felt and I could feel them just like if I was fully awake and picking up the same in real waking life, and this made me think of reality. How could I be fully awake and aware of everything but asleep at the same time, this is what I was asking myself in the lucid dream it was as real as you can imagine in real life. The human brain is an amazing thing, I just wish we had more information as to why you can be fully awake in a lucid dream and feel everything perfectly. A mystery for the time being, but I'm sure in the future we will have the correct answers. The after-life and out of body experience's are as facinating and strange as to seriously make a person think about what reality really is, even though we think we know what it is.
mattP wrote: » Im kinda shocked at the "No proof so it isn't real" attitude that seems prevalent. Do ye not think thats a little narrow minded?
mattP wrote: » Im sorry, but just how have you proved that there is no such thing as a ghost? Or an after Life?
kneemos wrote: » So you're saying it could be supernatural.
Joe prim wrote: » I once put a pair of socks in the washer at home, with my weekly wash (it's an old house, with a tiled roof), and later, when I went to get my clean clothes, ONLY ONE SOCK WAS THERE!
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Nope. Narrow minded would be thinking that no proof means it is impossible or can never be true. That is close minded. Being open minded means being willing to accept it is true IF evidence for it arrives, but not accepting it to be true UNTIL evidence for it arrives. Narrow minded, open minded, close minded.... none of these things has anything to do with whether you believe it or not. They have everything to do with your willingness to accept the evidence for it if it arrives. But since no one, least of all on this thread, is showing a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that lends even a modicum of credence to things like ghosts, gods or after lives.... there is _nothing_ narrow minded about acknowledging that and withholding belief in such nonsense at this time. They are not required to. The Burden of proof really is philosophy 101 stuff. It is entirely and solely up to the people claiming there ARE such things to substantiate that claim. All the rest of us have to do is merely noticed they have not done this yet. I think if you actually stop to listen to most people on this subject, few of them are denying that these things "Could" be supernatural in explanation. At this time all we know is that some things have not been explained. What the explanation is is open, and of course a supernatural explanation is possible. The fact remains however that no one, least of all you, has substantiated.... even by the tiniest bit.... that the explanation for such things IS supernatural. It would behoove you to note the difference closely between people saying "It can not be a supernatural explanation" and "We have absolutely zero reason of any type to think the explanation is supernatural at this time". Discounting an explanation as unsubstantiated is not the same as discounting the possibility of that explanation. The former is merely rational and good thinking. The latter would be close minded. Of course purveyors of woo very much contrive to mix the two and accuse adherents to the former OF the latter at the drop of a hat. Which is pretty low. And transparently desperate. Actually I was lucky enough once to witness a "supernatural event" of another person. The person in question was looking for their keys. Their first port of call was their hand bag. They were not there. They started looking EVERYWHERE for them. In the end they got distracted and started clearing the table top. They lifted their hand bag, picked up the keys that were sitting UNDER the hand bag and put them IN the handbag.... all without noticing or thinking. Than a little later they went back to the task of looking for their keys. On a whim they checked the hand bag again, and of course then found the keys right there in plain sight. Now *I* had observed what happened but *they* did not. And they were convinced some ghostly or supernatural explanation was at play. They simply had no explanation how the keys could be gone one minute and there the next. As with most purveyors of supernatural explanation they demanded to know what other explanation I could possibly offer for the affair. So I told them. At which point they shut up quite quickly about it. But imagine I had NOT been there. What explanations could I have given? Very few really. The reality is I would have just had guess work to offer. And like so many purveyors of this kind of woo.... they would not have accepted any of my guess work. No explanation at all, like with Kneemos above, would have been the evidence for the supernatural. Because saying "I can not explain it" means "Therefore I can explain it!!!" in the heads of this type of person.
kneemos wrote: » Haven't read the rest of your novel,but open minded means believing in possibilities without evidence.
kneemos wrote: » Haven't read the rest of your novel,
kneemos wrote: » but open minded means believing in possibilities without evidence.
kneemos wrote: » open minded means believing in possibilities without evidence.
seamus wrote: » Open-minded means that you treat all potential evidence without prejudice and without trying to shoehorn it to fit your existing theories. Being open-minded means that you don't bend your evidence you fit your beliefs, you bend your beliefs to fit the evidence. Being open-minded doesn't mean that you give equal weight to all potential theories regardless of evidence. Because that's just stupid. That would mean that you give equal weight to the theory that gravity is caused by the farts of subatomic caterpillars. A theory which has zero evidence can be dismissed out of hand by an open-minded person because it doesn't fit any of the evidence.
kneemos wrote: » The definition of open minded is being open to new and different ideas and opinions . Nothing about having evidence.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Sure. Being open minded means being open to considering new ideas and opinions when you hear them. Believing them requires evidence. As I said above for example, I am open to the idea there is a god or an after life. No evidence has come for these things however, least of all from you, so I do not BELIEVE there is a god or an after life. The problem is, as I said, that many people conflate these two things and act like not believing things without evidence means you are close or narrow minded. I repeat I am _OPEN_ to the idea there could be a god or an after life or that ghosts exist or that reincarnation happens. I do not believe any of these things however due to the fact that despite being open to them, and open to evidence for them, no evidence is forth coming. At all. Ever.
kneemos wrote: » Who said anything about believing . Your reading a different thread.
kneemos wrote: » Who said anything about believing
Gerry Rio wrote: So lets say half those posts are replies and not stories, that leaves 1,500 claims of encounters.
seamus wrote: » You did.
