Video of a ghost on a rollercoaster

As you can see, Vat, our local funner keeps up this same illogical silliness no matter how many times he is educated on it. (And he has been educated on it many times by many members).
Magical Realist said:
Nobody knows that ghosts don't exist. It's just not something we have epistemic access to. So when evidence for such shows up, as it has in many videos all over the world, it does not suffice to dismiss it merely because we assume it is too improbable.
Click to expand...
Well...

Nobody knows that angels don't exist. It's just not something we have epistemic access to. So when evidence for such shows up, as it has in many videos all over the world, it does not suffice to dismiss it merely because we assume it is too improbable.

Nobody knows that God don't exist. It's just not something we have epistemic access to. So when evidence for such shows up, as it has in many videos all over the world, it does not suffice to dismiss it merely because we assume it is too improbable.


Our local funner simply picks and chooses what he wants to be too improbable - despite the fact that ghosts, angels and God all have the exact same amount of confirmed evidnece, that being zero.

Here's snother one:

Nobody knows that roomy rollercoaster seats don't exist. It's just not something we have epistemic access to. So when evidence for such shows up, as it has in many videos all over the world, it does not suffice to dismiss it merely because we assume it is too improbable.


Looking a little closer, the paradox of this statement is pretty evident:

"So when evidence for [something we don't know doesn't exist] shows up ... it does not suffice to dismiss ..."

How can you have evidence for something we don't know doesn't exist? How do we know what it looks like? How does our funner choose between evidence for ghost, angel, god and big-seat? How do we distinguish it from an innumerable other thing we don't know don't exist - Leprechauns, sprites, demons, etc.

He chooses what suits his world view, which he has admitted is filled with Ghost Story TV shows and UFO Story TV shows, and then pretends to be so naive as to not know that these shows are written for their entertainment value, with heavily manipulative editing and lurid embellishment, for simple minds to eat up.
 
Nobody knows that angels don't exist. It's just not something we have epistemic access to. So when evidence for such shows up, as it has in many videos all over the world, it does not suffice to dismiss it merely because we assume it is too improbable.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true...so what? Except no video evidence of angels is turning up..

Nobody knows that God don't exist. It's just not something we have epistemic access to. So when evidence for such shows up, as it has in many videos all over the world, it does not suffice to dismiss it merely because we assume it is too improbable;
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true...so what? Except no video evidence of God is turning up,
"
So when evidence for [something we don't know doesn't exist] shows up ... it does not suffice to dismiss ..."
Click to expand...
Absolutely true...so what?
How can you have evidence for something we don't know doesn't exist?
We do it all the time. We don't know the sun doesn't exist, yet we have clear evidence of it. We don't know dark matter doesn't exist, yet we have substantial evidence for it. How would our not knowing something doesn't exist preclude there being evidence for it at all?

How can you have evidence for something we don't know doesn't exist? How do we know what it looks like?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
LOL By what the evidence shows us. Hence we know what ghosts look like from the evidence. We would know what angels look like from the evidence. And we would know it is God as opposed to a ghost by what the evidence shows. And so on. Are you capable of grasping this simple argument?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
He chooses what suits his world view, which he has admitted is filled with Ghost Story TV shows and UFO Story TV shows, and then pretends to be so naive as to not know that these shows are written for their entertainment value, with heavily manipulative editing and lurid embellishment, for simple minds to eat up.
Click to expand...

Nope..I go strictly by the evidence, as in the case of the present video. And I see you are repeating the lie that I am pretending somehow based on no evidence.

And I posted the whole cellphone video here from end to end ruling out any "manipulative editing." How soon we forget.




 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Nobody knows that ghosts don't exist. It's just not something we have epistemic access to. So when evidence for such shows up, as it has in many videos all over the world, it does not suffice to dismiss it merely because we assume it is too improbable. Nobody knows the probability of paranormal events. Being an anomaly, it is entirely unpredictable and so can happen at any time.
Click to expand...
Seems like some of the (what is becoming apparent as chronic) strife over your posts could be ameliorated if you could understand that an explanation that cannot be disproved is not always the best explanation. Science acknowledges that astral bungee cords tugging on us are not disprovable, but has found that General Relativity seems to explain gravitation far better and with massively better fit with our measurements and fewer ad hoc assumptions.

With ghosts, most of us go through the world and encounter people, living people, who get up to all kinds of weirdness and shenanigans, but only rarely if ever do we encounter (while fully awake and sober) a dead person walking around and exhibiting signs of animation. That is why trickery is, in our daily affairs and experiences, so much stronger a hypothesis than animated dead people. We have, based on loads of "epistemic" access, a complex web of beliefs (as the philosopher Quine called it) about the world and what are best explanations for its patterns. To suddenly discard your web of beliefs in favor of a supernatural one whenever you watch a weird video or hear a wild story is not a wise epistemological move.
 
That is why trickery is, in our daily affairs and experiences, so much stronger a hypothesis than animated dead people.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Doesn't it get old positing the same old excuse over and over again to deny the evidence for extraordinary phenomena? I mean if I was a diehard skeptic always protecting my scientific worldview by dismissing all this evidence and testimony as just pranksters and liars, I would eventually wonder if I'm really being scientific at all anymore. Real science is about investigating the phenomenon itself with no prior biases or assumptions, and certainly not trying to debunk it just so the present theories of science are preserved. Remember what happened with black body radiation and Einstein? It was a phenomenon that eventually demanded a whole new physics to explain it. Sometimes things happen that will challenge our precious worldview. And it is the job of science not to just dismiss these things without thought but to acknowledge them and study them and then form the theories that best explain them. If the worldview has to change abit as a result, if the paradigm has to shift just a little, then so be it. Science should be data-driven and not dogmatic.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist:

Please present your evidence that the guy (if it was a guy) in the roller coaster was a ghost.

You don't get to say it was a ghost just because nobody has yet shown you that it wasn't a ghost.

Tell me how you deduced that it was a ghost. Set out your reasoning, please. Step by step.
 
Magical Realist:

You have accused DaveC of lying:
Magical Realist said:
And I see you are repeating the lie that I am pretending somehow based on no evidence.
Click to expand...
In light of this, I am especially looking forward to you presenting your evidence.

If you cannot, you will, of course, offer a heartfelt apology to DaveC for falsely accusing him, won't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top