This come from a materialist he says, their is no evidence for an afterlife. This is obviously false, unless you assume all the evidence is deception, fraud. This to me is false why? because if a materialist really researched the topic they would find a lot of evidence for an afterlife. I think psychical researchers were definitely on to something, a breakthrough that was ignored. That breakthrough is their is strong empirical evidence that supports the survival hypothesis. This evidence has been ignored by the scientific community.
I am not one for conspiracy theories which by the way i am not advocating. More than anything is the current paradigm mainstream science sees things. For example this paradigm is materialism with it's assumptions that reality is all physical.
4 comments:
I wouldn't even bother with someone like that. Obviously they made absolutely no effort in seeking evidence whatsoever since it is in abundance. Either that or he thinks that everyone is off their rocker and cares not to seek.
Have you ever talked to anyone who has never had an experience to share? They exist certainly but they're tremendously rare.
I'm glad you didn't mention the materialists name. Obviously they're not worthy of the ink.
The argument I hate the most is the unscientific claim that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. This argument is paraded around like it trumps all other arguments. The problem is this argument comes from scientific minded individuals, the assertion itself is highly unscientific - there are no parameters within the empirical realm of science that state extra ordinary evidence is a requirement for something to be proven true, all that is needed is evidence, but when they redefine what is meant by evidence then they are essentially creating a narrow lens to view the world in and by default are setting aside anything that does not fit within that lens.
"The argument I hate the most is the unscientific claim that extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence. This argument is paraded around like it trumps all other arguments. The problem is this argument comes from scientific minded individuals, the assertion itself is highly unscientific - there are no parameters within the empirical realm of science that state extra ordinary evidence is a requirement for something to be proven true, all that is needed is evidence"
The problem with the above argument is that evidence gathered is evidence of what?
Strange lights or even EVP do not supply evidence for ET spacecraft or ghosts. Strange lights could be natural phenomena, likewise EVP could be caused by many non supernatural events.
To convince skeptics you'd need some pretty damned extraordinary evidence.
But then it isn't about science anymore, it becomes about personal standards that are above the standards set by science. My issue is when this requirement for evidence becomes mixed into the actual standards set by science.
Post a Comment