which brings us back to: you have no tangible evidence. every religion has people reporting broadly similar experiences.
For example, the Prince Philip Movement in Vanuatu. They report Prince Phillip appearing to them in dreams. Do you really think that Philip spoke to them in their dreams?
First off, a witness saying “i saw that man do that crime” is entirely different. the claims being made by the witness can be falsified. For example, by showing that the witness wasn’t in place to see the crime being committed, or that the accused wasn’t actually there. or maybe there’s security recordings showing the witness is reporting events leading up to and after the crime inaccurately.
Alternatively, the defense could demonstrate that the witness was tripping balls on shrooms; or is schizophrenic or otherwise experiencing hallucinations. Or the Defense could demonstrate that the witness in questions is lying about some aspect of the testimony being given.
It should be telling to you, that ‘divine revelation’ or mediums conveying messages from the dead, or any other witnesses reporting knowledge gained by supernatural means are basically never accepted as evidence to a US court. Historic examples of supernatural testimony being accepted have pretty much universally been demonstrated as a travesty against justice. The Salem Witch Trials, for example.
As for the topic at hand. We are not in a court of law.
before you can convince me that spirits came and talked to you… you first have to convince me that spirits actually exist. Saying, 'well, I know they exist because they talk to me"… raises the questions I’ve been trying to get you to consider for some time now.
Let me ask you this: have you considered the alternative explanations I suggested? that you are misunderstanding the nature of your experiences; and that the nature of your experiences stemmed from your subconscious extemporizing while you were in an altered state of consciousness, following your established cultural and spiritual beliefs?
For example, as demonstrated by Coren and Perschinger, who stimulated regions in the brain and replicated religious experiences; or in the same way that the cultural framework and spiritual beliefs guide trips while on psychedelic drugs?
your testimony is not testable. I cannot falsify it, and therefore it cannot be evidence. that is how science works. it requires tangible, observable evidence; and one would imagine that with all the people that believe in spirits, if there genuinely was tangible, observable evidence, it would have been found.
But without that evidence, I only have your word it’s true… and frankly, I don’t trust you.
Okay, since you’re unwilling to engage with reality and insist we’re in a courtroom…
I. Have a friend. He’s a big flying dildo. He says you fell into a state of self-hypnosis and that your experiences only felt real.
Prove my big flying dildo is not real.
Prove that your claim of supernatural entities is more real than mine, the BFD. Until you do, you have to accept my big flying dildo knows what he’s talking about.
Or you can just admit that science doesn’t accept claims that cannot be tested, and neither do courts for that matter.
But there is evidence, my testimony.
Which is not really evidence at all.
which brings us back to: you have no tangible evidence. every religion has people reporting broadly similar experiences.
For example, the Prince Philip Movement in Vanuatu. They report Prince Phillip appearing to them in dreams. Do you really think that Philip spoke to them in their dreams?
Actually, in a court of law, we ask for the testimony of witnesses all the time. So you got that wrong.
Maybe you mean that it isn’t the kind of evidence that you want.
Nope. I didn’t.
First off, a witness saying “i saw that man do that crime” is entirely different. the claims being made by the witness can be falsified. For example, by showing that the witness wasn’t in place to see the crime being committed, or that the accused wasn’t actually there. or maybe there’s security recordings showing the witness is reporting events leading up to and after the crime inaccurately.
Alternatively, the defense could demonstrate that the witness was tripping balls on shrooms; or is schizophrenic or otherwise experiencing hallucinations. Or the Defense could demonstrate that the witness in questions is lying about some aspect of the testimony being given.
It should be telling to you, that ‘divine revelation’ or mediums conveying messages from the dead, or any other witnesses reporting knowledge gained by supernatural means are basically never accepted as evidence to a US court. Historic examples of supernatural testimony being accepted have pretty much universally been demonstrated as a travesty against justice. The Salem Witch Trials, for example.
As for the topic at hand. We are not in a court of law.
before you can convince me that spirits came and talked to you… you first have to convince me that spirits actually exist. Saying, 'well, I know they exist because they talk to me"… raises the questions I’ve been trying to get you to consider for some time now.
Let me ask you this: have you considered the alternative explanations I suggested? that you are misunderstanding the nature of your experiences; and that the nature of your experiences stemmed from your subconscious extemporizing while you were in an altered state of consciousness, following your established cultural and spiritual beliefs?
For example, as demonstrated by Coren and Perschinger, who stimulated regions in the brain and replicated religious experiences; or in the same way that the cultural framework and spiritual beliefs guide trips while on psychedelic drugs?
your testimony is not testable. I cannot falsify it, and therefore it cannot be evidence. that is how science works. it requires tangible, observable evidence; and one would imagine that with all the people that believe in spirits, if there genuinely was tangible, observable evidence, it would have been found.
But without that evidence, I only have your word it’s true… and frankly, I don’t trust you.
Yes wrong. You haven’t even examined the witness.
And then you compound that wrong by misrepresenting his opening statement.
Wrong upon wrong.
Okay, since you’re unwilling to engage with reality and insist we’re in a courtroom…
I. Have a friend. He’s a big flying dildo. He says you fell into a state of self-hypnosis and that your experiences only felt real.
Prove my big flying dildo is not real.
Prove that your claim of supernatural entities is more real than mine, the BFD. Until you do, you have to accept my big flying dildo knows what he’s talking about.
Or you can just admit that science doesn’t accept claims that cannot be tested, and neither do courts for that matter.
Lol. No thanks. I’ve put enough effort into this already.