Koyaanisqatsi

You mean with WJ's inane posts?

Ok...

Technically, that wasn't my "first," but, go on...

Ok. What evidence for the supernatural existing can you demonstrate (outside of human imagination)?

Well, as the premise states, that which can be demonstrated to exist outside of human imagination. You'd have to tell me on this one, since I have no idea what supernatural actually is or could be.

I only know that no evidence of it has been demonstrated to exist outside of human imagination.

What do you consider to be supernatural (i.e., outside of what is natural) that you can demonstrate to exist outside of your own imagination?

For example, my dog can be demonstrated to exist within nature and outside of my own imagination.

Simple. That which can be demonstrated. I might also addend that which can be verified and/or confirmed, but why not start with that?

As I said, I can very easily demonstrate that my dog exists within nature and outside of my own imagination by simply showing up to your door with my dog in tow.

You may argue that you can deny what your senses are telling you, but then that would be a problem for you and your therapist .

The point is that my burden of proof is easily and readily filled. It would then be incumbent on the one making any claims of the supernatural to likewise demonstrate that such a construct exists, yes?

If not, then it would be unreasonable to base any beliefs upon the assertion of such a construct factually existing and entirely contradictory to act upon any beliefs based upon the assertion of such a construct factually existing, yes?

At the very least, it would be indicative of highly irrational cognitive processes, but then, none of that matters unless such asserted beliefs effect others, right?

So, as stated many, many, many times thus far, as long as such asserted, personal, irrational beliefs are never acted upon or forced onto others or in any way detrimental to any other being, then no one would care, agreed?

Break any of those "covenants" (if you will) and be prepared to answer to a higher standard of scrutiny, yes?

No, that conclusion was previously derived.

True. Do you see any qualitative difference between the two?

No, I am claiming that "personal experiences" are identical to "human imagination," since, by definition, they are "personal experiences;" aka, not experienced by anyone outside of the individual who is actively experiencing.

A dream or hallucination, for example. Hearsay retelling of events that happened to other people would likewise be an example of something from the human imagination on the same par as "personal experiences."

Obviously if I tell you what was told to me and it didn't actually happen to me, then I am doing nothing more relevant (there's that word again) or "demonstrable" than revealing what is stored in my own imagination.

You would have no way of verifying what I told you was true anymore than I would have anyway of verifying what I told you was true.

I'm just telling you what others told me. Clearer now?

Not at all. Just, I guess, not clear enough for you.

No, I'm afraid, I do not. Unless you know of some way that a person's dream or hallucination or a story they were told or any other kind of personal experience can be demonstrated in some fashion that I am not aware of?

No. P3 is superfluous (and invalid) due to the definition of "reasonable" I provided.

Well, since P3 is an invalid (and poorly worded) premise, I don't see how you could derive any conclusion with it, so perhaps you could demonstrate how it is valid?

No, I am not, unless you can clarify it somehow.

I'm sorry, but that is neither true nor derivative of the premise you have inserted.

You'll have to clarify both the premise and the need for it to be inserted, which you have not done adequately here.

Ok.

You have superfluously inserted the following premise:

"Beliefs" have no relevant "existence" outside of human imagination, which cannot be "established" outside of human imagination, so I fear you're committing the same mistake yet again; confusing disparate meanings of words and then basing a conclusion upon the wrong intended and/or contextual meaning of that word.

Also, as I've stated many, many, many times before, having or not having "beliefs" in general is neither reasonable nor unreasonable. The word just doesn’t apply in the manner you are here confusing. The question these syllogisms were setup to address, however, was whether or not it was reasonable to believe in the supernatural, remember?

Based on the definition of what is reasonable and the syllogisms I presented, the conclusion I derived is both valid and salient.

wild ox

Koy,

You are a fantastic debater. It’s amazing that one mind could process so much logic at the same time. I am left speechless. I can’t begin to address the complex issues you bring to the table. Well, if I had more time I might try. I have learned quite a lot though. Thanks!

I apologize, but my input into the debate must come to an abrupt end. Sorry. It was a great debate. But this fleeting life’s events call me to graze upon other pastures for a while. For this reason I pronounce you the apparent winner and respectfully resign.

I leave you with this one thought: if this is all that there is, then this is all there ever was, and all that there will ever be.

Perhaps we shall meet again on some other distant shore and listen to the ocean’s melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, retreating, to the breath of the night-wind, and stand smiling, with tears, as the sun sets.

Koyaanisqatsi

I'll bring the whiskey.