Sign In

Post #1196859

Parent topic
Date created
16-Apr-2018, 10:48 AM

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:
Assuming there are no ghosts just because you can’t recreate your experiences in a lab doesn’t make it fact that there are no ghosts.

I’m going to need some explanation here because this sentence is confusing me.

You say you have experiences with ghosts. You say it may not have been ghosts. To say it was not ghosts, is not “fact” just because you can’t prove in a lab that it was ghosts. Science is content with saying “I don’t know”. Science doesn’t say “No, because you can’t prove yes.”

It would be much closer to fact and reality to blame my ghost sightings on paranoia or mental illness than it would be to assume or even consider the possibility that they were real ghosts that were harassing me.

You don’t know that. You can’t verify that.

No, but it is obviously the healthy and sensical conclusion to draw. Wouldn’t you say?

It is not a fact that there is no God. The “fact” is you don’t know.

And also that there is no evidence for God. Not counting personal experiences of divine intervention.

There is evidence. What evidence you accept is your choice. It doesn’t make testimony not evidence.

I guess so, but eyewitness testimony is the weakest evidence of all.

You believe there is not. I believe that there is. Neither is fact.

No, but the rationale behind those beliefs are not equivalent.

It doesn’t have to be equivalent. And your rationale is not closer to objectivity by default of me not proving mine.

It’s a little closer at least.