Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
It only speaks volumes about the probability that there exists credible evidence of the existence of ghosts.
|
...which, in turns, speaks about the likelihood that it exists at all. That you would try to isolate phenomena from their evidence as if there were no relationship is rather... dare I say
disingenuous? I'm beginning to wonder what it is with you and people who try to understand the world in which we live. It's almost as if you're offended at the notion that the Universe can be understood. This is just a guess and you're free to clarify...
It's perfectly reasonable to discard theories for which there can be no evidence. In other words, untestable theories are worthless. If there can be no evidence for ghosts then how do their existence affect us at all? ...and if they can never affect us then how is it useful to think they exist in the first place? It's about as useful as holding on to the
luminiferous ether. Are you going to get angry at this link too?
---------- Post added at 02:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:32 AM ----------
Actually, I've thought about my last response a little bit and I think I can better articulate what's bothering me about
filtherton's last post.
It seems to me that he's not even trying to argue the points reasonably anymore. He's just trying to say anything that sounds convincing in the hopes that no one will be able to pinpoint exactly how he's not making any sense in order to create the appearance of winning a debate. This is what I pin with the label of "disingenuous;" a word I've been using far too much in this thread but I'm failing to find a suitable synonym...
This angers me because I'm here to discuss issues honestly in an attempt to reach a mutual understanding and I see this as an attempt to subvert that...