Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
First post. I hadn't decided if I wanted to jump on this board yet, but this story got my interest. I would totes spend a night in this house.
First post. I hadn't decided if I wanted to jump on this board yet, but this story got my interest. I would totes spend a night in this house.
:werd:DEACFREAK07 OFY.
Greatest WFU fan evar
Well it has to be some kind of natural chemical intoxicating the residents. I'd like to check this place out sometime. I personally wouldn't believe in spirits or ghosts or paranormal activity if one appeared right in front of me and slapped me in the face, but I find it very interesting. I'd always believe I had become chemically altered in my perception of reality before I believed that I had evidence of the supernatural.
Philosophical question for you.
Compare the degree of closed-mindedness of the following situations:
(1) Insisting that there must be a chemical, scientific, or rational explanation for an experience even if none is proven; or
(2) Believing the same experience to be supernatural or spiritually based even if it cannot be proven.
As a naturalist, I don't believe in anything. I work within a framework that accepts the few basic fundamental assumptions of science and determine the empirical truth, in that framework, of every situation. It could be the case that this is an actual supernatural phenomenon. However, the only way that could be determined is to one by one rule out every possible natural explanation. Since in the current state of human knowledge the set of all possible natural explanations is not complete, this is currently impossible. Therefore one cannot rationally accept this case as supernatural even though the possibility, however small, exists. Just like it is possible that the tooth fairy exists, but one cannot rationally believe in the tooth fairy.
So when skeptics claim that someone is being ridiculous when they explain their beliefs as based on "faith", defined generally as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence", they are being hypocritical? Seems to me that the way you just explained naturalism's ultimate belief in natural explanation even without empirical proof is exactly the same.
Please note that I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I'm not referring to you specifically when I say "skeptics claim that someone is being ridiculous." I merely address these questions to you because you seem to be the one most willing to explain your beliefs in this vein.
I think my post was misleading. I shouldn't say I believe that the events described are either natural or supernatural until we have definitive proof. What I mean to say is that definitive proof of supernatural activity is impossible unless you can rule out every possible natural explanation. Until there is an adequate explanation, the only rational position is haunted-house agnostics per this specific issue.
1. Grab a Vid Camera
2. Visit the house tonight around midnight
3. Start talking about all the changes you want to make to the house for the next renters
4. Record.
5. ????
6. PROFIT