Originally Posted by Glenn

I do believe in an "afterlife". I've been to a couple of mediums and there's no way the information I got can be false.

And have you ever watched Sally Morgan? She's bang on with information all the time. Only narrow minded people would say good mediums are a fake.

There's no such thing as a "good medium." Good mediums can't do anything that people like Derren Brown can do.

If these people would agree to proving their skills, they would be in line for nobel prizes for an entirely new scientific discipline. Not to mention the fact of the challenge below.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

[Glenn.]

Well they can talk to dead people. The evidence they can talk to them are the reactions of their family.

Not everything has to be explained by science. Just because it can't be proved, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Youtube video

Please take 10 minutes to watch the YT vid.

[Glenn.]

I've watched the video and it doesn't dispute my argument.

There's no way that 'fake' mediums can know intimate things about the spirit they are talking to. I know from readings I have had and readings members of my family have had that have been to personal for someone to guess.

I refer back to Sally Morgan. I watched an episode once where she was taking to a woman about her husband. The husband has passed and Sally was talking about a car the woman had bought. Then Sally said something about a wardrobe which is where the woman had put her husbands urn in. How would she know that?

[Kizzy]

I agree with glenn to a point, im not sold on the idea of mediums as i feel it is an area that can be exploited by those who pray on the vulnerable.
However, i stand by the fact there is a case for proving the energy or essence of a person (or dinosaur). Ancient philosophers and scientists knew that all living things held an essence, i believe that there is more to know than is known at the moment and maybe one day in the future we will...never say never.

Originally Posted by kizzy

I agree with glenn to a point, im not sold on the idea of mediums as i feel it is an area that can be exploited by those who pray on the vulnerable.
However, i stand by the fact there is a case for proving the energy or essence of a person (or dinosaur). Ancient philosophers and scientists knew that all living things held an essence, i believe that there is more to know than is known at the moment and maybe one day in the future we will...never say never.

Can you define "essence?" Of course there is more to know than we know at the moment, but you will only find things out using the scientific method, and these psychics continually keep their "powers" away from scientific testing in order to protect their fraud/income.

I'd never heard of this Sally Morgan charlatan, so I decided to put her name into google.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...n-hears-voices

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

I'd never heard of this Sally Morgan charlatan, so I decided to put her name into google.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...n-hears-voices

LOL..I already knew the ending so it spoilt the read a little

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

Can you define "essence?" Of course there is more to know than we know at the moment, but you will only find things out using the scientific method, and these psychics continually keep their "powers" away from scientific testing in order to protect their fraud/income.

I cannot simplify it anymore, essence...life force ...spirit... We are sentient beings.
Some may be so more than others, i dont have to see my nose to know its there.
Why do i get the feeling we are arguing the same point? There is more to know, and i believe science will once day be able to prove it.

Originally Posted by kizzy

I cannot simplify it anymore, essence...life force ...spirit... We are sentient beings.
Some may be so more than others, i dont have to see my nose to know its there.
Why do i get the feeling we are arguing the same point? There is more to know, and i believe science will once day be able to prove it.

Well I don't think we're arguing, at all. But knowing that your nose is on your face, is a little different from believing that when you die, a spirit/essence leaves your body, but still floats around the physical realm it just left. Sometimes, it'll slam a door, but other times, it will just peep through a window.

Sentience doesn't mean eternal access to some form of life. As a species, we are naturally scared of death, so we have created little stories like religion/ghosts/etc to provide us with comfort.

I just don't get the leap from us being sentient, to ghosts/spirits/presences/poltergeists.

[Roy Mars III]

Sally Morgan is as fake as they come.

Most good mediums are smart. They know how to read people and ask the right type of questions. Some even google your name while you are in the waiting room, so they know a little about your life. Some even have the waiting room bugged incase you come with a friends and are talking in the waiting room about dead people who want to communicate with. They know what they are doing

[Samuel.]

Shocked to see so many people believing in ghosts.

The whole concept of ghosts existing is ridiculous.

[Roy Mars III]

The great James Randi offers one million dollars to any medium who can prove they can talk to the dead, no one has won the money

Originally Posted by Roy Mars III

The great James Randi offers one million dollars to any medium who can prove they can talk to the dead, no one has won the money

I posted the link a few posts up. Any medium/psychic would get a million dollars and a nobel prize. But they prefer working up and down in provincial towns across the world, fleecing people who can't afford it.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Roy Mars III

The great James Randi offers one million dollars to any medium who can prove they can talk to the dead, no one has won the money

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

I posted the link a few posts up. Any medium/psychic would get a million dollars and a nobel prize. But they prefer working up and down in provincial towns across the world, fleecing people who can't afford it.

If you are going to use Randi as proof that mediums are fakes, therefore there are no such things as ghosts, is it ok for me to say ghosts do exist because a friend of a friend of a friend seen one on a saturday night after a night in the pub.

Its pretty much the same Wild Ass Claim that has no bearing on reality.

If you want to know why no serious psychic/medium has gone any length down the challenge at least read up on it a bit.

http://dailygrail.com/features/the-m...llar-challenge

Originally Posted by Shasown

If you are going to use Randi as proof that mediums are fakes, therefore there are no such things as ghosts, is it ok for me to say ghosts do exist because a friend of a friend of a friend seen one on a saturday night after a night in the pub.

Its pretty much the same Wild Ass Claim that has no bearing on reality.

If you want to know why no serious psychic/medium has gone any length down the challenge at least read up on it a bit.

http://dailygrail.com/features/the-m...llar-challenge

What a bizarre little post that is. No one is using James Randi as proof that mediums are fake, so therefore the premise of your whole angered post becomes irrelevant.

I clicked the link, saw "lost civilisations & ancient mysteries " across the top and knew instantly what would be contained in the information below.

If these people that use their powers to take money from vulnerable people, really had these powers, then why should it matter what kind of test is put to them?

It's like saying, I can read minds, honest, but not just now.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

What a bizarre little post that is. No one is using James Randi as proof that mediums are fake, so therefore the premise of your whole angered post becomes irrelevant.

I clicked the link, saw "lost civilisations & ancient mysteries " across the top and knew instantly what would be contained in the information below.

If these people that use their powers to take money from vulnerable people, really had these powers, then why should it matter what kind of test is put to them?

Intersting, you can put up links to "back up" your claims, but you get hacked off and try to belittle mewhen I put up links to rip your claims apart? If you want to sit in the corner with your fingers in your ears chanting I am right and you are wrong because I cant hear you, thats fine with me.

Angered? Not angered or angry old chap, merely pointing out the fact you used the Institutes challenge that mediums are obvious frauds because none have passed a non scientific challenge instigated by a publicity hungry showman.

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

It's like saying, I can read minds, honest, but not just now.

No its not, its like Randi insisting any person undertaking the challenege has to undergo one sided media interviews, sign over all rights to the tests and results, oh and accept the fact that Randi's institute can change the test requirements any time they feel the challenger is getting close to beating the challenge.

As for psychics etc might be beneficial for you to read up on the definitions mediums and psychics used to define themselves.

[swinearefine]

I don't believe in ghosts, but I'm open-minded since we still know so little about the world. Same with mediums.

[Kizzy]

The barnum effect

[Glenn.]

No one can prove the existence of an afterlife, just likewise, no one can prove there isn't one. It's up to the individual's beliefs.

Originally Posted by Glenn

No one can prove the existence of an afterlife, just likewise, no one can prove there isn't one. It's up to the individual's beliefs.

You can't prove a negative, it's the sole responsibility of people who postulate the existence of an afterlife to prove it exists.

If I say I'm playing cards with a leprechaun and a goblin, in my flat, it's not your responsibility to prove me wrong, it's mine, to prove that it's true.

You may not agree with this post, but it's the truth.

[Livia]

Or... we could just accept that other people's beliefs, however ridiculous someone else may find them, are their own affair. However, "mediums" making money from the sad and the heartbroken are not included in those described in the first sentence.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jesus.H.Christ

You can't prove a negative, it's the sole responsibility of people who postulate the existence of an afterlife to prove it exists.

If I say I'm playing cards with a leprechaun and a goblin, in my flat, it's not your responsibility to prove me wrong, it's mine, to prove that it's true.

You may not agree with this post, but it's the truth.

But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait... this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative  so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philos...eanegative.pdf

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among profes- sional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait... this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative  so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.

My head hurts....

Originally Posted by 08marsh

But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among profes- sional logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, you can prove a negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction. This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore, you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Wait... this means we’ve just proven that it is not the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you can’t prove a negative’ is a negative  so if you could prove it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.

Thank you for the link. I will have a read of it properly, although after skimming it, I saw some linguistic tricks and at least one fallacy, but I'll read the whole thing before commenting fully.



But just to highlight a glaring hole in his argument:



1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.



Not every animal that has existed we have evidence for, yet we know about their existence due to the fact that they are intermediary species, and through biology. Also, I'm fairly sure that there are, as of yet undiscovered fossils of animals that have existed in the past. Does the fact we are yet to find them, mean that they didn't exist? Of course not.


Finally, when people say " you can't either prove or disprove....." they are generally about to make a claim that is outrageous, such as heaven/religion/magic etc, so it's one thing attempting to use fossil evidence to disprove unicorns, but it's another thing entirely to make claims that can't be tested, and then say it's a draw.