Posted: Oct 12, 2014 12:55 pm
John Platko wrote:hackenslash wrote:Observable by whom? If they're observable, they're testable, thus not supernatural. Well done, you just killed your own idiotic position by failing to understand it.
In any event, supernaturalist assertions always have the same deep flaw, namely that they fail the test of the shaving implement of the late, lamented cleric of Surrey. There are many explanations far more parsimonious than ghosts to explain what observations have been asserted, namely delusion, hallucination, inculcation into fuckwitted belief systems, drugs and indeed all manner of idiocy, all of which constitute better explanations and, moreover, we have evidence in support of them.
The status of the supernatural is, in my working hypothesis, the empty set. This is an easily falsifiable hypothesis. Yours isn't. It's worthless and stupid.
Well, that's one way to weigh the evidence. Obviously others, in this case, those that see Shiva in the cows third eye, weigh the evidence differently. However, how we weigh evidence should not be conflated with what is evidence.
Nor is evidence IMAGINED.