Quote from: bl4kjaguar on November 10, 2014, 12:10:26 AM

Quote from: the joint on November 09, 2014, 11:41:05 PM

This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments. Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion. Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.

The joint, although I agree with what you say, I must take exception to your generalization.

Actually, I have asserted the position that God transcends evidence based on pure reason. These quotes are not exact but are close enough:

Quote from: http://www.constitution.org/hs/first_prin.htm

There is a mode of being as much transcending Intelligence and Will, as these transcend mechanical motion. Doubtless we are totally unable to imagine any such higher mode of being. But this is not a reason for questioning its existence; it is rather the reverse. The Ultimate Cause cannot in any respect be conceived because it is in every respect greater than can be conceived. And we may therefore rightly refrain from assigning to it any attributes whatever, on the ground that such attributes, derived as they must be from our own natures, are not elevations but degradations.

Again quoting Spencer:
"our minds are utterly unable to form even an approach to a conception of that which underlies all phenomena because of the incompetency of the Conditioned to grasp the Unconditioned".

However, I then turned around and showed this thread evidence for one of the core messages of spirituality--reincarnation:

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on November 05, 2014, 08:34:09 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on November 05, 2014, 08:30:51 PM

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on November 05, 2014, 08:12:07 PM

Quote from: tattooist on November 05, 2014, 07:29:04 PM

aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
first case....... chessplaying ghosts

Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.

Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?

Two guys played a chess game? That is all the article outlines. One of the guys claims it was not him playing chess, but a dead person. There is nothing beyond that to examine. Not only is that not proof it is not evidence either. It is a claim.

A claim backed up with impressive statistics and Salient Points that (apparently) will not be explained by the skeptics in this thread.

I showed that the survival hypothesis is the simplest explanation for these events; that is a separate conversation, but maybe it is important to have it in this thread because it could elucidate the nature of life and God.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg9491770#msg9491770

Fair enough

This is a much more appropriate context for the topic of this debate.