Debate Believers or skeptics

[SensitiveAbility]

Ok now as a person with abilities and dealing with the paranormal for 35 yrs, I have found it funny how people who call out believers to show proof ect. Well my attitude is this please show proof it ain't real.

Scientists wanna say this or that but please prove to me it ain't real and don't say it is

1. Sleep paralysis

2. Mass hysteria

3 brain playing tricks on you

4 eyes playing tricks on you.
Now nothing wrong with being a skeptic, heck I go into info being a skeptic, and I have abilities! Because people have been known to lie CGI videos ect.....
So what about the things you can't explain??????
All religions from Catholic's, Christian's , Jewish, Muslim all talk about demons ghost's so for millions on people who experience the paranormal are all crazy, lier's?
So instead of telling believers to prove it is real, po it you money were your mouth is and prove It is not.

So any Skeptics how would you prove all the religions wrong and millions of people who went threw it and or still are, or people like me with abilities?????

 

[Harte]

"Show proof it ain't real????"
That's really ignorant.

So I can say my toenail told me it isn't real. Prove that's not true.

Harte

 

[SensitiveAbility]

"Show proof it ain't real????"
That's really ignorant.

So I can say my toenail told me it isn't real. Prove that's not true.

Harte

Wow so ignorant huh? So how are people who are believers ignorant that we want non-believers to show proof, but Skeptics want us to show proof of something they don't believe in but you're going to call me ignorant?
But I guess a lot of people confuse confidence with arrogance and this is exactly why half the time I stay out of forms because of people like you you always have to downgrade or try to or try and I mean try to belittle people because you think you're so smart

 

[Harte]

There is no such thing as "proof of absence" of a thing.
The idea that other people have to prove a thing is NOT true is ridiculous.

Or, can you prove my toenail didn't say that?

Harte

 

[Kairos]

It is also true to state that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because nobody has sufficiently proved to you that these things happen does not mean they never happen.

Additionally, the inverse is true. Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. Trying to make future predictions based upon prior probabilities is a fool's game.

The weirdest thing about this type of experience is that you can go a really long time ignoring it and it doesn't affect your skepticism. I mean.. I was living a nightmare and still thinking of myself as a skeptic, for years. Doors opening and closing, covers ripped off my bed in the middle of the night, shadow figures, the works. I would convince myself that I had some sleep disorder or I would just make myself ignore the fact that something kept slamming the garage door shut while I was napping alone in the house. I was in graduate school at the time and would go to campus later to work in the lab or lectures, and I would be the model grad student in theoretical computer science.

I don't really know what to tell you, Harte, but I'd suggest you consider the possibility that our assumed knowledge of the universe is a bit overstated.

 

[Harte]

It is also true to state that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because nobody has sufficiently proved to you that these things happen does not mean they never happen.

You are mixing "evidence" with "proof" here.
Evidence that a thing happened doesn't mean that thing actually happened. That would require proof.

You are also incorrect when you quote Sagan's sarcastic "absence of evidence" statement.
Unless you believe that there can be no such thing as absence of evidence.

That is, if absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence, then what exactly would constitute evidence of absence?

I don't really know what to tell you, Harte, but I'd suggest you consider the possibility that our assumed knowledge of the universe is a bit overstated.

I certainly believe this concerning members of online internet forums. These are the only people I've seen use the idea that "Scientist think we know everything" as a straw man to prop up their arguments.

Any thinking person already knows that we don't know everything.
As a trivial example, if everything was known there would be no more scientists, just engineers.

Harte

 

[Kairos]

You are mixing "evidence" with "proof" here.
Evidence that a thing happened doesn't mean that thing actually happened. That would require proof.

You are also incorrect when you quote Sagan's sarcastic "absence of evidence" statement.
Unless you believe that there can be no such thing as absence of evidence.

That is, if absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence, then what exactly would constitute evidence of absence?


I certainly believe this concerning members of online internet forums. These are the only people I've seen use the idea that "Scientist think we know everything" as a straw man to prop up their arguments.

Any thinking person already knows that we don't know everything.
As a trivial example, if everything was known there would be no more scientists, just engineers.

Harte

Carl Sagan's dumbass quote was literally a fallacy. Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence at all. Every discovery of some new phenomena or event shows you this is a fallacy. Did black swans not exist until we discovered them? Of course they did. Don't be silly.

The idea only works when you exhaust all possible events. For instance, if I have a bucket of blue marbles, and suspect you placed a red marble in the bucket, then after having examined all the marbles and finding no red marbles, I can conclude the original hypothesis to be false because I exhaustively searched the bucket and found no red marbles. But if for some reason I could not access all the marbles; for instance, only being able to sample 10% of the marbles in the bucket; the fact that I found no red marbles does not disprove the hypothesis that you placed a red marble in the bucket.


At one time, there were marine biologists who said there were no such thing as giant squid because none of them ever observed any. Until somebody did and recorded it. At one time astronomers declared that rocks could not possibly fall from space, contradicting what rural folk had been telling them all along. Then they observed rocks falling from space.

The fallacy lies in your assumption that you exhausted your observations. You don't know that because you can't make assumptions about what you have not observed. You especially cannot make assumptions about the breadth and depth of phenomena you have not observed.

 

[Harte]

You are maintaining there is no way to eliminate the idea that the Inuit vacationed in South Florida.

Harte

 

[Kairos]

You are maintaining there is no way to eliminate the idea that the Inuit vacationed in South Florida.

Harte

No, and the fact that you resort to a straw man fallacy instead of address the earlier fallacy indicates you damned well know you got boxed in.

A fool makes conclusions based on what he does not know.

 

[Harte]

There is no straw man in the above.
In fact, for your edification, my post is called a reductio ad absurdum. That's an argument that shows that your statements about absence of evidence lead to an absurd conclusion.

There is an absence of evidence for the Inuit in South Florida, so there is an absence of evidence that they vacationed there.
You are saying we cannot say that the absence of evidence for the Inuit in South Florida is evidence that the Inuit were never in South Florida.

And fools have to have their own ignorant statements explained to them.

Harte