The Paranormal

I will troll the shit out of you!

[Nightwalker39]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Lack of evidence to the contrary does not prove a positive claim. If you make a claim that cannot be proven or disproven then your claim is irrelevant.

Also: Quit trolling me.

How does that Have anything to do with what i said?

[Alan]

It has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT, you idiot.

[Nightwalker39]

If you say so.

[Alan]

You gave me an infraction for that? God damn you, you fucking little pussy.

[ssj_goku]

itts okay Alan. I tuk care of it.

I am hard but fair.

Nightwanker. Stop abusing infractions. u have been warned about this...

[ape descendant]

*grabs some popcorn*

[Judas]

Originally Posted by Alan

Quoting what the law of gravity is doesn't prove that it is always true, dipshit.

Nice attempt to back-peddle. It proves that it is law, contrary to your claim that "We don't know for certain one way or another that gravity is a law."

That's a point-zero claim. If I had said "Believing Santa Claus exists is bullshit" would you have bitched back at me by saying "Prove he doesn't!" ?
Are you that much of an idiot?

Millions of people have had paranormal experiences. No one has had an experience with the "real" Santa Clause. Comparing apples to oranges doesn't somehow absolve you of the burden of proof.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Judas

Nice attempt to back-peddle. It proves that it is law, contrary to your claim that "We don't know for certain one way or another that gravity is a law."

Don't use words if you don't know what they mean. There's no backpedalling anywhere.
I could quote you the Iron Law of Wages. Just because I can quote it does not mean it's fucking true. you seriously believe just because you define something it makes it real?
The most paramount principle of science is that EVERYTHING MUST BE FALSIFIABLE, so shut the fuck up.

Millions of people have had paranormal experiences. No one has had an experience with the "real" Santa Clause.

I bet I can find you people who will say they have experienced the real santa claus.
And what about people who have felt the Christian god? what about people who have spoken with Mohammed? What about people who are the reincarnation of a Bodhisattva and millions testify it?
What about leprechauns and the loch ness monster and big foot?
Millions of so-called experiences. It still means jack shit.

[Judas]

Is this how you get out of backing up claims? By going to lengths to convolute the discussion in an attempt to bury the original claim? That's a rather pathetic tactic. Either back up your claim, or fuck off.

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by Judas

The problem with most of that evidence is that it's not independently verifiable. In other words, it's virtually unheard of that more than one person will go to a place and catch independent pictures/videos/EVPs of the same entity.

Hhhmmmm, so this "evidence" of which you speak, isn't independently verifiable.... people get inconsistent results from testing? *scratches chin*

Doesn't sound like very good evidence to me.

What I want to know, is how people "know" that ghosts are the "spirits of the dead". What is a spirit anyway?

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by Judas

Is this how you get out of backing up claims? By going to lengths to convolute the discussion in an attempt to bury the original claim? That's a rather pathetic tactic. Either back up your claim, or fuck off.

As much as I hate to double post, I must.

The burden of proof lies upon the one making the positive claim. Example: Ghosts are real and are the spirits of the dead.

If one has a negative stance on the issue, there isn't a burden of proof, even if their stance is stated in such a way to make it seem like a positive.

One cannot generate positive proof of a negative.

[Alan]

I don't think he'll ever understand that, or if he does, I don't think he'll ever admit being wrong.

[Nightwalker39]

Originally Posted by Alan

I don't think he'll ever understand that, or if he does, I don't think he'll ever admit being wrong.

I think that your just angry because you think that you always have to be right or there is no point in the discussion.

[Alan]

People that are smart enough to have a real argument with me know that's not true.
Don't blame me if you're a gullible idiot.

[Nightwalker39]

Originally Posted by Alan

People that are smart enough to have a real argument with me know that's not true.
Don't blame me if you're a gullible idiot.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Judas]

Originally Posted by ape descendant

Hhhmmmm, so this "evidence" of which you speak, isn't independently verifiable.... people get inconsistent results from testing? *scratches chin*

Doesn't sound like very good evidence to me.

What I want to know, is how people "know" that ghosts are the "spirits of the dead". What is a spirit anyway?

That's why it's merely evidence, and not proof. I also never said that the evidence is particularly strong.

[Judas]

Originally Posted by ape descendant

As much as I hate to double post, I must.

The burden of proof lies upon the one making the positive claim. Example: Ghosts are real and are the spirits of the dead.

If one has a negative stance on the issue, there isn't a burden of proof, even if their stance is stated in such a way to make it seem like a positive.

One cannot generate positive proof of a negative.

The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, period. Should an atheist walk up to a Christian and claim, "There is no god," the burden of proof lies upon the atheist for making the claim. In such a case, much like the debate in this topic, it's matter of belief. I've admitted that I have only a belief, and that I may be wrong. Alan, on the other hand, claims that he' IS correct, rather than merely believing he is. It is therefore up to him to prove it. Were he to admit that his belief that there is nothing paranormal is just that, a belief, there would be no argument.

[Alan]

Jesus, every logician in the world wants to cockslap you right now.

[ape descendant]

[Judas]

Cute image. It portrays Alans contributions to the topic quite accurately.

In any case, would you recommend a site that details the rules of debate for comparison to this little argument?

[ape descendant]

It IS cute, isn't it? Almost as cute as a silly person trolling Alan. Almost.

[Judas]

So, you can't recommend a site?

And Alan's that easily trolled?

[Nightwalker39]

You expect more from trolls themselves?