by GromitSK 74 Replies latest jw friends
I would be interested to hear members' views on:
a) what they would consider to be a supernatural ability and
b) what they would consider sufficient evidence to convince them it was genuine.
(It's late here so if I don't participate for the next few hours don't think I cut and run :))
a.)
1.) Mind reading or telepathy.
2.) Remote viewing.
3.) Predicting the future.
4.) Telekinesis.
b.)
This part of the question is a bit more complicated. For all the tests, ensure there is no foul play. Make sure the psychic, spirit medium, whatever, doesn't know any information about me. Must know something only I could know.
There is also a problem here on the testability of these phenomena, if they exist. Say spirits do exist, can we guarantee they will act on command? As an example, just because I can do a triple sommersault doesn't mean I have to. If someone wanted to verify that's possible, but I do not wish to act, how can my assertion be verified that I can indeed do a sommersault?
As for part B make sure Derren Brown is on another continent.
@knowsnothing - sounds like a reasonable list to me. As an aside, I can't see anything on it which, if it turned out to be genuine, would necessarily involve the operation of 'spirits' of any kind, would you agree?
As far as 'testibility' is concerned, I agree; if it turns out that 'spirits' do in fact exist, I can't see how they could be compelled to do anything they don't want to, so such a test would require their cooperation if they were necessary for its success.
@Slidin Fast - I watched Derren Brown investigating a purported 'medium' some time ago. I can't say I disagreed with any of his questions or approach. It put me in mind of a recent discussion in 'another place'. If a person makes claims to a supernatural ability I can't see why they shouldn't be asked to demonstrate it under controlled conditions. On the other hand, I don't think they are obliged to, particularly where the motivation of the researcher is in question. If they don't of course folks may draw their own conclusions.
If people make fantastic claims, like the WT does "we are god's Channel of communication", i.e we speak for god, then there should be some fantastic evidence.
If someone makes the fantastic claim that Jesus speaks to them, then there should be some fantastic evidence.
In the absence of such evidence, all a rational human can do is conclude such claims are worthless, and the words uttered by such claimants are not worth listening to.
"Colossal claims demand colossal evidence ".
Hi Phizzy
I am not sure why it has to be fantastic evidence. What would constitute fantastic evidence for you? Simple plain non-fraudulent verifiable evidence from a reliable source, or better still, that i could see for myself would be a good start for me :)
I don't think anyone should be persuaded of paranormal or supernatural claims without evidence.
How does one provide evidence of colour and light to a blind person?
Colour and light are measurable, the same as any other wavelength in the spectrum :
Obviously though those born blind will have to take it on good trust.
@Fernando - I'm not sure what point you are making - please expand.
My best friend lives 1000 miles from me, but she knows when I'm having a bad day without any communication from me. I call that supernatural ability.
