by finallysomepride 151 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
You cannot totally disregard everyone who claims to have seen a ghost, seen something move by itself, etc. Whoever you choose to believe, or disbelieve, is up to you. After all, you were not there when it happened.
I can fly. I can jump off the roof of my house and flap my arms and fly around and land gently on the ground unhurt.
Believe me? You can't disregard my claim because you weren't there when it happened.
All right, dp, let me LOL with you.
Anyway, I have found that people are very reluctant to share their "paranormal" experiences, because they are afraid of being ridiculed.
Aww, too bad.
Should you believe my personal testimony? Should you believe any posters on this site who claim to have had this type of experience? Should you believe Loretta Lynn? Should you believe your co-worker? Your neighbor? How the hell should I know?
My question was whether personal testimony should be enough for me to believe in ghosts, or whether its reasonable for me to withhold believing in ghosts simply because other people say they've had paranormal experiences. And once again, you refuse to answer.
What I DO know is this: You cannot totally disregard everyone who claims to have seen a ghost, seen something move by itself, etc. Whoever you choose to believe, or disbelieve, is up to you. After all, you were not there when it happened.
Judge Dread
You're qualifying your ridiculous and illogical statements. I'm not "totally disregarding everyone who claims to have seen a ghost," just asking for objective, verifiable evidence. In your world, that's too much to ask, and amounts to ridicule to those who've had supernatural experiences.
I'm not "totally disregarding everyone who claims to have seen a ghost," just asking for objective, verifiable evidence.So if someone tells you 'I saw this, I got this on video, and I recorded this' is that good enough, or did they have to be in a laboratory under "controlled conditions"?
Judge Dread
I'm not "totally disregarding everyone who claims to have seen a ghost," just asking for objective, verifiable evidence.So if someone tells you 'I saw this, I got this on video, and I recorded this' is that good enough, or did they have to be in a laboratory under "controlled conditions"?
Judge Dread
From wikipedia: The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.
I won't go into the JW detail of how some of these were resolved but I will say that merely calling on the name "Jehovah" didn't work. I actually think the demons were amused by that, if they left off their "attack" it may have been because they were annoyed with it not charmed away by using a name.
I agree.
The bible agrees.
The WT advise that demons are subject to the name of "Jehovah" is totally false like everthing else they teach.
The practical evidence from this thread demonstrates the fact.
There is one name only to which everyone in heaven and earth are subject to
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth
Jesus' name has not lost any power
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues
17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, "Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name."
13 Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, "In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out."
All the best,
Stephen
So if someone tells you 'I saw this, I got this on video, and I recorded this' is that good enough, or did they have to be in a laboratory under "controlled conditions"?
I use video editing and compositing software as well as 3d modeling, rendering, and animation software. I'm not a pro, but I've seen some amazing work done by people who haven't been at it for very long. Anyone with mediocre Adobe After Effects skills could produce better footage than any of the Ghosthunter episodes I've seen. They are a joke. The only evidence I would accept would have to come from tests in controlled conditions.
W
Are you guys sure you are inactive, or out of the Org?
I ask because I don't think what I'm saying is registering with you.
It's like trying to make a point with a group of active JW's. They shake their heads like they hear you, but they don't "HEAR" you.
What I'm saying is very easy to understand, but you seem to be having problems with comprehension.
Judge Dread
Undercover,
"But can you prove they exist besides the claim that you "experienced" their "presence"?"
I don't care about proving anything. I just enjoy it. It's personal. Like Sirona said, "We make our own realities."
I did learn this from my field service experience: "Some will; some won't; SO WHAT?" I don't care one way or the other. It's fun to feel a presence as well as it's calming, soothing.
What I'm saying is very easy to understand, but you seem to be having problems with comprehension.
Don't talk to me about an inability to comprehend. You asked:
So if someone tells you 'I saw this, I got this on video, and I recorded this' is that good enough, or did they have to be in a laboratory under "controlled conditions"?
I answered that such video is too easy to fake and would require controlled conditions to convince me.
So which part of my simple statement are you too stupid to comprehend?
We're hearing you judge dread, you're just not saying anything. Sorry pal, but I'm not going to start believing in ghosts just because you say so. I require evidence from a reputable source. That's not you.
W
