Iacchus

It may in fact be able to predict that it exists (i.e., and discover it later) if it were to attempt to understand. Of course it might have to settle for the mere postulation in the meantime ... contingent upon it being a reasonable working argument, that is.

GenesisNemesis

If we have nothing to go on other than mere postulation, it's unreasonable to believe in such a thing.

Iacchus

And, just as there are people who believe in ghosts (myself included), I have reason enough to believe that such a thing exists. But, if it suits you to believe that it is mere postulation, then it is enitirely up to you. This, I have no control over and, is why I can only present it as such.

GenesisNemesis

M'kay.

Iacchus

... as the door slams shut squarely in my face.

So, why waste your time trying to explain the rest of it? I only got as far as the "bogus" part, and noticed the rest of the thread was scatttered with a bunch of "IF's" -- in a deriding sort of way, that is -- and decided it wasn't worth reading. I'm not here to "justify" the existence of anything, if that's what you think. So, maybe the problem is not "mine" after all? :huh:

Hey, did you read the part I wrote about "free will" directly below your post?

JGL53

Oh, well then, it’s ye olde argument from incredulity – a long-time favorite of creationists, among others.

In your own little private world you are free to believe whatever you “wish” to believe about the nature of reality. However, what you “think” has not been established as the “go to” explanation for the rest of humanity. If and when the rest of us elect you GOD, you will be alerted by the Nobel Prize committee.

If objective scientific research says X, and the personal experience of Iacchus say, no, it is instead Y, then I say anyone would be a fool to accept YOU, Iacchus, as the authority concerning which ontological theory is most plausible, based on FACT established by repeatable experiment – i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt PROOF.

If you are ignorant of the findings of recent scientific brain research, or lack the capacity to cognitively appreciate it, then that does not place some burden on the rest of humanity. Contrary to your view, this is not just dueling opinions, with all thoughts on the subject being relative equals, in the land of never not knowing, where each is entitled to create his or her own personal reality, and have his or her unverified pet notions be taken just as seriously as those of the next man Jack or woman Jill in line, or - more importantly - just as SERIOUSLY as the findings of thousands of smarty-pants working scientists who actually engage in experimental verification of theory.

But thanks for your input. I and others will give your thoughtful opinions regarding ontological questions the EXACT amount of serious consideration it so obviously deserves.

RAFH

You're working the wrong way on that one way street. Yes, it was the church conceding to the science of Galileo, not science conceding to theology. That's how its been ever since science started being done in a scientific method.

RAFH

You are assuming the spiritual realm is a reality, perhaps you should demonstrate that before you define a 'barrier' between reality and any such realm.

RAFH

In that case, Iacchus, you study your ghosts and your spiritual realms all you want to and when you reach a conclusion, present your findings. But that's not what you want to do, you want to argue these notions into acceptance.

As I've said before, come up with a coherent model based on your spiritual concepts, one which accurately and reliable describes reality, which provides testable predictions of what reality will do in given situations, then we can talk.

Its your 'theory', you investigate it, you do the research, you do the experiments and you do the analysis and write the reports and submit it for peer review. Then you defend your work against any and all attacks. That's how its done. So, have at. Enough "IFs", start doing the work.

GoodLittleAtheist

That makes no sense. Everyone knows that things happen in threes.