<laughs> I have no idea. I’m an effects artist not a scientist. For ghosts, Electromagnetic readers seems to verify elevated readings in places that are reported to be haunted. Maybe some sort of device that could not oly measure the level, but also analyse the specific wavelength, intensity etc. If the same signature turned up again and again and coincides with haunting phenomena, then that might be a step towards defining what a ghost is.
This is not a return to the previous excange.
I am going to make a lot of assumptiosn here.
First assumptio: You can group the questions below as you see fit, as long as you don’t consciously run from it.
The body language of your post is focused: high intensity on getting a message accross. This is not a criticism it 's an observation. The line that stands out in the message all a glitter, as onlys a posted neon sign can be is,
“…my thought processes are apparently in question, but I’m good”
Are you threatend morally, when just your thought processes are questioned?
If so does this have anything to do with God? What?
Tt sounds defensive when there is nothing justifying an observed attack just because every body has seen your thought processesdoesn’t it, sound defensive I mean?
Does the mere exposure of an unspecified thoght process mean that you have, what is it, the thought, as a process and that it is a type guilt process?
These thought processes [ I am assuming more than one there], are they identifiable, and verifiable to you in a moral and spiritual sense, in the same sense your belly button is ientifiable to you.?
AS something real I mean. ?
Not a philosophical abstraction?
You will correct any erroneous assumptions I make as we go through this wont you?
Is there is something about functions that generate guilt feelings, in the total absence of any deed reasonably requiring the guilt feeling? What is that all about? The sentence I mean?
You have the right to remain silent. Yeah, right. Any thing you say ,. . . . .
Is there any deed that manifestly requires a guilty thought?
I mean, requiring an associated thought in a guilt mode?
Do you see youself as humble, as modest and as subserviant to God now that you have found her?
That’s a dumb question, but then look what they give you to deal with.
Are ‘God finding thought pocesses’ as efficient in ‘found God states’ as they were in 'God finding states?
Does crashing through dogmatic weeds, my words, expose any sensitivity to “guilt centers”?
You claimed your “goodness”, though morally questioned. Why did you do that?
Have you feelings and observations of knowing you are always, mostly always, the smartest one in the room?
Will you tell God to send some of her shekels of magic my way?
You are entirley welcome. The last person that talked to me that way was charging me to listen by the hour.
Don’t confine your self to a life of disgust jsut because of yopur msifortune to ahve crossed my path. I do see that your observation of the 'ol Id is one of “challenged modelsty”.
Well a week ago I found this place and jumped into the fray, with little or no preparation, like knowing where the heck I was. I had jumped into the cold water on the deep end of the pool. Check out the spatial perturbation. When I found I coul use Word as my editor, it took me ahile to integrate it. I has thios flash i has to go all th eway back, open Word, get a blank sheet f, do the thing, save it, copy and then reverse the direction and come all the way back here and put it in my post window.
I thought during one session that someone was going to, metaphorically speaking, kick the cane out from under . . .
While the modesty syndrom, (being challenged) isn’t very much, you must recognize that I do listen and learn. In fact a few days ago I discoverd that some “friends and ollleagues” were organizing to elevate my status to, “professional”; something about, “giving me the business”.
Do you know anything about this Epimetheus?
FYI, the type of equipment you describe has been in existence for many decades. If that were all that stood in the way of verifying the existence of ghosts, we’d be discussing the latest Scientific American article on the subject right now.
You did and while I have nothing to hide, I must make this answer brief. God is my only major deviation from rational thought. I make no apologies and accept the implied deficit in logic with amusement at myself and cheer. But…THE PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD IS TO DISCUSS ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE, NOT TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT I HAVE ISSUES.
I have no idea what you are saying, FTR.
Mhernan:
I see no contradiction n IWLN’s responses here. She believes in God based on personal experiences, however that doesn’t mean she is obligated to give credence to every bit of supernatural hooey that comes down the pike. I’d also point out that she isn’t trying to convince anyone else that they should believe in God based on her personal experiences and she admits that God is something which is fundamentally unproveable by any empirical standards.
I also think you misunderstood what she meant when she said “…but I’m good.” She wasn’t claiming any personal virtue but was simply using a more vernacular sense of the word as in “I’m ok.” It’s like if someone says “Do you want another beer?” and you say, “no, I’m good.” It’s just a figure of speech.
Yes! I’m bad!
Thanks DtC.
I respectfully disagree.
the notion of God that we have is as a creator. And if he/she/it created Life, the Universe and Everything, he/she/it is all powerful and ominpotent and not part of nature. Above it. Not part of it.
So how’s this for a statement? the only thing, as an Atheist, I consider to be supernatural, is the existence of a god.
If you’re saying all of the other “phenomena” is explainable, i.e. false or has a physical explanation; I would agree. G-d, if he exists, by his nature can’t be of nature.
Well I consider magick and other gods/dieties, reincarnation and other wacky things like that as being apart from nature, above it, etc. If you can’t observe it, it doesn’t interact with nature, therefore it is supernatural.
Go right ahead and “believe” what you want. Athiest is defined as a lack of belief in God. Not a lack of belief in the supernatural. The things you listed as “believing” to be natural are classically defined as being supernatural. God isn’t the only thing that is considered supernatural. Therefore your definition goes against every other definition out there. Therefore you are wrong and hold an unconventional BELIEF.
Sure, you can go right ahead and be an Atheist and believe in magic and unicorns and little fairies that take your rotton teeth, and it does not violate any rules or defintions. Yes, those things are considered supernatural, but athiest doesn’t say you can’t believe in the supernatural. Just God. Whether you want to re-define words to make it fit your perceptions (that God is the only possible supernatural agent) changes nothing. All it does is say that you cannot admit it when you are wrong.
Err, that should be rotten teeth.