There's really no need for me to reply after that ^ post. But still . . .
Poltergeists, in all likelihood, are not ghosts at all. There is a theory that the alleged activity is manifest in the anxiety, fear or mental state of the person linked to the phenomena - that they are causing it, and not some other external force. And that's what I mean: you need to define what a "ghost" is before talking about them.
You also claim everything in the "material world" can be tested. What about "dark matter" - is that part of the material world, and if so, why can't we "test" it?
We haven't encountered dark matter yet. It's a theoretical principle that explains why matter and energy behave in certain ways in the universe. If dark matter exists, and we can access it in the future it will be testable.
There is so much you - and I and others - don't know. So please, don't try to pretend everything can be quantified by our "medieval science and understanding", to paraphrase another member . . .
Using the term 'medieval science' is poisoning the well. That medieval science' has given us the gretest breakthoughs humanity has every experienced, please don't unjustly denigrate it.
What is a "natural law"? A law defined by man.
But I'll use Mr Dictionary's example above: unexplainable by natural law or phenomena
How about let's use the definition in its entirety, instead of selecting part of it that suits your argument?
1.of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
Basically, something is "supernatural" if it is "unexplainable" in the context of contemporary science and understanding. That is all. There will be many things that are today thought of as "supernatural" that may well be explained when we have furether knowledge and understanding of our surroundings.
If something is supernatural, yes it is unexplainable because it is beyond the natural world. How can you possibly know what the future will hold for scientific discovery? Going even further, how can you possibly know that things we hold as supernatural today will be explained in the future? Maybe what we view as supernatural today really is supernatural.... who knows, but until we have a good reason to believe something exists, we should at the very least suspend judgement.
You seem to have a tiresome habit of insisting that if someone doesn't discount a possibility, then they must somehow have a default position of aquiesence.
I know things are black and white in your world, but not in mine. Sorry.
When it comes to belief in things, it is black and white, considering that belief is itself a dichotomy. There is either justification to believe something or there isn't. There is no 'kind-of-believe'.
Why is that "lol"? The Australian Aborigines have been around a lot longer than the Greeks. Did they think of atoms?
I fail to see how your quip is relevant what what I said.
You said;
Who on earth ever imagained the sub-atomic world thousands of years ago? Who knew of chemistry and physics and all that "supernatural" shit like lightening and thunder?
I said;
The ancient Greeks first thought of atoms... lol
Meaning;
I am answering your question about who could have thought of the sub-atomic world thousands of years ago with;
The Greeks. They thought of indivisible, smallest units of matter. "Atom' actually means
indivisible in ancient Greek...
Nor should we entirely discount things until they have been utterly refuted - if that is at all possible.
I have never once stated that anyone should 'entirely discount' anything. There you go with your straw man arguments again. Don't you ever tire of this? It's tiring to me, that's for sure. Correcting you is becoming a full-time job on here.
The only thing I stated was that there are good and bad reasons for believing in something, and the bigger the claim the larger the body of evidence required to formulate a belief about that claim. For every belief there is an independant requirement for a certain level of fulfillment of a burden of proof. Big claims = big burden of proof, little claims = little burden of proof.
You seem content with holding unjustified beliefs, I don't. We're never going to come to terms on this. Things have to be proven to
not exist in order for you to reject a belief. It's the opposite of what logic and rationality dictate, and would be an absolute disaster if you, or anyone, actually behaved like that in the real world. If you want to
claim to actually hold a belief system like that, I'm going to pretty much call you a liar. You don't just believe shit because people can't
disprove claims in the 'real world', it might be nice to claim that's the way you behave for the sake of this argument, but you do not, in reality, behave like that or you (and your family/friends) would most likely be dead by now.
Can you imagine if the FDA operated like that?
"Oh, well we're just going to put this drug on the market until it's proven that it doesn't work. Fuck testing and evidence gathering, we'll just believe it works until it's demonstrated that it doesn't."
Insanity.
There you go with your "cameras" again. And your Edgar Allan Poe definition of ghosts.
Next, you'll be saying it's not possible for ghosts to exist in your house because your wife hasn't done the laundry and washed all the white sheets yet . .
"Ghosts' are the spirits of dead people manifesting themselves in our world. That is the definition I am using. If you want to play this silly game again of redefining words to suit your argument, you can mentally-masturbate by yourself.
Cameras detect movement, changes in light intensity, changes in colours, audio signals, etc., etc., etc. In other words, one of the best tools for capturing the happenings in the real world
ever created. They're also basically
everywhere. Cell phones, CCTV, security cameras, just to name a few.
What is your problem with cameras?
What is this silly non-sequitur about sheets? Were you attempting to be smug or funny?
