• About TWIM


    The Warfare Is Mental (TWIM) reflects the mental warfare of an author, screenwriter, publisher and member of the Writer's Guild of America. Family, friends, health, humor, art, music, science, faith, fun and knowledge are some of the things that are important to me.



    TWIM is the first and only theist blog listed on the Atheist Blogroll, which currently contains over 1,000 blogs. It goes without saying that I don't endorse hardly any of the views of any of them. Contact Mojoey for more information.



    Ironically, TWIM won an award for "Best Atheist / Skeptic Site" from this site. Much obliged.



  • TWIM updates via email.

    Join 12 other subscribers
  • Feedback

    
    
    You and your commenters are a feast of thinking — great stuff.

    -C.L. Dyck
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I have no need to engage with racists, so will ignore cl’s further diatribes.

    -faithlessgod,
     CommonSenseAtheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    cl resists following through on a thought even to provide a solid opposing position, and thus stifles many conversations. It’s a shame since it seems like cl has some brain power that could be applied to the topics at hand.

    -Hermes,
     CommonSenseAtheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    [faithlessgod and Hermes] fit my definition of trolling. I didn’t take any of those attacks against you seriously, and quickly categorized them as trolls.

    -JS Allen,
     CommonSenseAtheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    [cl] is, as many have noticed, a master of this warfare. I’ve been following him for quite some time and he’s one of the most effective Christian trolls out there. No one can completely destroy a conversation as effectively as he does, and with such masterful grace and subtly that he rarely gets banned. This isn’t a blunt-force “U R Hitler!” troll, this is the Yoda of trolling.

    -Eneasz,
     CommonSenseAtheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    This seems to imply that cl is, at least in part, disingenuous in terms of how he responds/what he claims. Is this most likely true, supported by evidence, or merely a subjective claim?

    -al friedlander,
     CommonSenseAtheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ...I wanted to get a message to you outside of the context of specific discussions on CSA. You make good, insightful contributions to that site, and since I often agree with you I'm glad there is someone else there defending my positions better than I sometimes can. However I don't think anything of value would be lost if you stopped engaging in personal combat with juvenile snipers.

    -Zeb,
     CommonSenseAtheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Thank you for your wonderful response - so reasoned in the race of [Waldvogel's] blustering.

    -Annie Laurie Gaylor
     Freedom From Religion Foundation
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Thanks for a great Op-Ed.

    -Marianne Ratcliff
     VC Star
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ...as atheists we need to make sure that someone like cl and any Christian readers of [An Apostate's Chapel] don’t come away with the perception that the atheists caved in or were incapable of responding. I’m sure that a lot of Christians who find cl incomprehensible at times and don’t even bother reading him themselves will come away with an assumption that cl is that sort of rare intellectual theist who can prove that gods exist. And that’s how those inane rumors about the feared xian intellectuals start…

    -bbk
     An Apostate's Chapel
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    You are in so over your head here, you are embarrassing yourself...
    I am well versed in many aspects of evolution biology, through my academic background, and my professional life. Unless your academic degrees and background match mine, cease and desist. Return to philosophy and rhetoric, or whatever it is you perceive your strengths to be. They are definitely not science, even at the high school level.

    -R.C. Moore
     Evangelical Realism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    You're doing a fine job.

    -Prof. Larry Moran
     Dept. of Biochemistry
     University of Toronto
     re: R.C. Moore & others
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Phyletic change and vicariance (or, drift and selection versus population isolation), as cl points out, are much better ways of describing what are unfortunately more commonly known as micro- and macro- evolution, respectively.

    -Dan
     Biology postdoc
     Univ. of Cyprus
     re: R.C. Moore & others
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    cl says, “The minute you call yourself a Christian or an Atheist or whatever the heck else, you automatically get painted by other people’s interpretations of those words, which are almost always different and almost always distorted.” cl’s point couldn’t be more on. As cl points out there is an important reason for not claiming any real religious (or lack thereof) belief. It puts logical constraints on one's arguments due directly to the bias of the individual that is translating the English to mind ideas of what it means to be religious.

    -Bobaloo
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Just who in the bloody hell do you think you are, you Christian piece of garbage, to come here barking out orders? You're an arrogant, condescending piece of shit. You seem to think you're an intellectual of sorts, when all you are is a Christian who's read a few books. John, everyone, this really is the limit. BR, I'm more than a little annoyed that you continue to engage him. I'm out of here. I have better things to do than to waste my time with these cretins.

    -Cipher
     Debunking Christianity
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    How old are you CL? I'd guess you have not yet experienced much life. I'd say you were under the age of 21, too young to be here. I don't give a damn what you think of me or my deconversion at all. You're too stupid to realize that regardless of it you must deal with the arguments in the book. They are leading people away from you [sic] faith. I'm seriously considering banning you cl, as I've heard you were banned on other sites. You are much too ignorant for us to have a reasonable discussion.

    -John Loftus
     Debunking Christianity
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I admired the way you handled yourself in the discussion on John's blog. I'm not patient enough to keep my sarcasm in check with some of them blokes, but appreciate those who are.

    -David Marshall
     re: Debunking Christianity
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    cl, I have to say, while I fundamentally disagree with you, you are an individual which I highly respect. I think your responses are always well thought out and your insights always well thought out and pertinently derived.
    [Y]ou have made me a stronger atheist in my regards to critical thinking and debating. I really can’t wait to hear more from you. Hell, I’d even buy you a drink, good sir. Cheers!

    -Parker
     Evangelical Realism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Bottom line? Sometimes I think he's right about certain arguments, and I don't have a problem admitting that. Other times, however, I think he's wrong, and I've called him on that. But I have found he can be pretty reasonable if you (1) don't overstate your case, (2) make concessions when you have, and (3) insist he do the same.

    -Lifeguard
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I like it when [cl] makes me stop, think and question if I am making unfounded assertions or if I am being sloppy. What has been annoying me about cl of late is that he is being excruciatingly anal...

    -seantheblogonaut
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I really can't thank you enough for catching me on my error in rhetoric. I always love a good debate! And I always enjoy your posts, as well! Keep up the great writing and the excellent eye for detail!

    -BZ
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    You make me smarter...

    -Mike G.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ..thank you, cl. I discovered your blog on a random web search and saw it as an oasis amidst a vast desert of seemingly intractable theist-atheist debate.

    -Sung Jun
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    It's good to be able to discuss with people who are open and respectful, and know that disagreement does not mean disrespect... You are to be congratulated, not only for your patience, but also your ability to hold an ever-growing debate together with an impressive degree of structure.

    -Ritchie
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    My tone is derogatory... [cl is] ignorant and credulous and deserves to be mocked... In the time he's been here, he's shown a consistent pattern of antagonizing everyone he comes in contact with, monopolizing threads, derailing discussions with perpetual complaints, quibbles and demands for attention, and generally making arguments that display a lack of good faith and responsiveness... it's become intolerable. I'm not banning him, but I'm putting in place some restrictions on how often he can comment.

    -Ebonmuse
     Daylight Atheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    This is no defense of the annoying cl, but what a self-righteous, prissy atheist you turned out to be, Ebonmuse. I'm disappointed in you, stealing a strategem from the theists.

    -The Exterminator
     to Ebonmuse
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I certainly didn't get any bad impression about cl, and I can't relate his comments with any of the things (Ebonmuse) said above. I actually thought it was quite interesting to have him around.

    -Juan Felipe
     Daylight Atheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Please continue to allow
    cl to post his views and make it clear that he is still welcome. And let me be clear, cl is not a lunatic.

    -Curtis
     Daylight Atheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    With one exception, you are the most coherent and intelligent theist I've seen on this site...

    -Steve Bowen
     Daylight Atheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I'm rooting for cl. I hope he perpetually manages to skirt the rules enough to do his damage, forcing rule revision after rule revision, ad nauseum. Awesome! Let's watch as Ebon, ever more frustrated, continues to struggle to figure out how to keep his precious private blog neat and tidy as cl keeps messing up his papers while one by one, readers leave due to an every increasing administrative presence. Outstanding! Well I won't go. The thought of this sounds like the most entertaining thing that probably would have ever happened on Daylight Atheism. Hot damn!

    -PhillyChief
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Your visit has been something of a reality check to me. It seems that when you present rational arguments and criticisms, many commenters feel territory slipping and then work up vaporous or leaky responses. I also want to remark that your presence here has considerably moved me to try being a more careful and understanding debater...

    -Brad
     Daylight Atheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I do have a lot of respect for you too. You seem to be a very intelligent and thoughtful individual with a knack for getting to the bottom of a problem, cutting through all the bullshit rhetoric on the way down. The fact that many other atheists seem to unreasonably despise you bothers me a lot, because I think that maybe they aren’t acting in good faith.

    -Peter Hurford
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I am not going to waste any more time parsing your comments to decide if they've crossed the line or not... So I banned you.

    -Greta Christina
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Be rude... cl invites rudeness. Would you want an incontinent little puppy coming into your house?

    -(((Billy))) the Atheist
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Note to all my regular readers: Since An Apostate’s Chapel is a free-speech zone, I don’t censor conversations.
    As it appears that cl is a troll, please note that I will not be responding to him any longer. I ask that you refrain from doing so, as well. Please don’t feed the troll!

    -The Chaplain
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    …I can’t reconcile being a "freethinker" with banning speech. [cl's] comments are not offensive in the normal understanding of that term, and he poses absolutely no threat except perhaps to some imagined decorum. Why can’t atheists lighten up, for no-Christ’s sake?

    -The Exterminator
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Is it going to distract from my meal when crazy uncle cl starts blathering out nonsense, pick his ears with a carrot or start taking his pants off? No. In fact, it might actually heighten the experience in some amusing way. So no, I don't see cl's work as damage.

    -PhillyChief
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I am beginning to suspect that you are a troll cl. Albeit an evolved troll, but a troll nonetheless. Perhaps we should all stop feeding the troll?

    -GaySolomon
     Evangelical Realism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    [cl is] is either a sophist or an incompetent when it comes to the english language... (sic)

    -ThatOtherGuy
     Evangelical Realism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I’d say cl is pretty sharp... it may be tempting at times to think that “the other guy” is arguing out of some personal character flaw rather than a sincere desire to acknowledge the truth, I still think it’s better to debate respectfully... It is disrespectful to make unsupported accusations against people, e.g. by suggesting that their views are caused by an intrinsically corrupt and immoral nature.

    -Deacon Duncan, 3-9-09
     Evangelical Realism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    [cl] cannot refute my facts, so he needs must find (sic) some scapegoat in order to claim that he has confronted the enemy and proven them wrong... cl, sadly, has proven himself to be the sort of guest who comes into your living room and sneaks behind your couch to take a crap on the floor, just so he can tell all your neighbors how bad your house smells and what an unsanitary housekeeper you are... an interesting case study in the negative effects a Christian worldview has on a reasonably intellectual mind.

    -Deacon Duncan, 6-17-09
     Evangelical Realism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I strongly discourage discussion of the character, abilities, motives, or personal ancestry of individual commenters, as tempting as such comments may be at times. I discourage the posting of comments that make frequent use of the pronoun “you,” as in “you always…” or “you never…” or “you are just so…”, when directed at a specific individual.

    -Deacon Duncan, 4-9-09
     Evangelical Realism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I won’t be publishing your most recent comment because it’s a return to the same sort of schtick you’ve pulled here before: re-writing other people’s arguments to make yourself look misunderstood and/or unfairly accused, taking “polyvalent” positions so that when people address your points you can claim to have said something else, distorting other people’s arguments, trolling for negative reactions, and so on.

    -Deacon Duncan, 10-8-09
     Evangelical Realism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    [E]gomaniacal troll.
    You win... You’re a disingenuous sophist through and through, cl. And a friggin’ narcissist to boot! Since I’ve thoroughly and purposefully broken the Deacon’s rules of engagement, I shall consider my right to post henceforth annulled, and move on - dramatic pause, lights out.

    -jim
     Evangelical Realism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    He either thinks in a very weird way or he's quite the con artist.

    -mikespeir
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I will gladly admit that I have a boner for cl. Maybe some day I’ll even earn a place of honor on cl’s Blog of Infamy.

    -Eneasz
     Evangelical Realism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Long time reader first time poster... I like reading what you
    have to say over at Daylight Atheism so I figured I'd pop in here.

    -Pine
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    He's just a jerk
    that likes to argue.

    -KShep
     Daylight Atheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    You’re not a reasonable thinker in my book. You’re simply an arguer, for better or worse. I’m Michael Palin, you’re John Cleese. You’re just a disputation-ist, bringing everything into question...

    -jim
     Reason vs. Apologetics
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Motherfucker, this is an interesting blog... Quite the group of commenters.

    -John Evo
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    You are very articulate, and I can only assume that it's a result of high intelligence; an intelligence that's interested in, and can understand, healthy debate. However, at every turn, that's not what I or others seem to get.

    -ex machina
     Daylight Atheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    You are a troll, a liar, and a useless sack of shit. Not only that, but you're still wrong even after moving the goal posts and trying to re-write history. So, you can stop cyber stalking me now and trying to provoke me. I know what you are doing, and you are doing it so that you can whine about how I'm being irrational and mean to you and stroke your pathetic martyr complex. You're a pathetic attention whore and I've already given you too much attention. So, back the fuck off, stop following me around the intarwebs and trying to provoke me, and fuck off.

    -OMGF
     Daylight Atheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I would just like to say that, OMGF, having read the debate as a neutral observer, some of the things cl says about your style of argument are true, IMO. It is quite hasty, which means you occasionally haven't got the central point cl is trying to make...

    -John D.
     Daylight Atheism
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    ...this is a difficult question that deserves more than a kneejerk reaction, not to imply that you're kneejerking. You're the least kneejerking person I've met.

    -Quixote
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    If you’re here playing devil’s advocate, then, hey, you do a great job at it, it’s a service, keep us sharp... You’re a smart guy, but those are exactly the ones who give the worst headaches!

    -Lifeguard
     An Apostate's Chapel
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    You are a waste of time, cl. A big fat black hole of bullshit sucking in everyone who comes into contact with you.

    -Spanish Inquisitor
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    As for all that harsh invective that's come your way, umm... I gotta say, I've seen some of the invective, but I haven't seen the behavior on your part that called for it. Maybe I've just not seen enough? I don't know... from what I've read, I can tell that you're a smart person, and whether you deserved any of that treatment or not is quite frankly immaterial to me; I just want to deal with the smart person at the eye of that storm.

    -D
     She Who Chatters
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I now think that you’re an atheist, just having fun at other atheists’ expense. If that’s the case, kudos.

    -The Exterminator
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

The Video Game Incident

It so happens that a single claim forms the entire foundation upon which nearly all varieties of theism must inevitably be built: the claim that consciousness can exist outside of a material body. Although the claim is a necessary component of nearly all religions, we should note that it is not necessarily theist, as there are atheists who accept the existence of metaphysical entities.

As far as traditional monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam or any derivative thereof) are concerned, we can safely say that if no spirits exist and consciousness cannot exist outside of a body, then their key claims are either false or severely distorted (Ephesians 6:12, Luke 3:22 & John 4:24, as examples).

Most skeptics and rationalists are familiar with the difficulty (note: not impossibility) of proving a negative. While it’s certainly difficult to prove the materialist’s claim that there is not a ghost in the machine, what’s less difficult and also theoretically possible is proving or at least supporting the claim that consciousness can and does exist outside physical bodies. Let’s refer to this claim as the immaterial consciousness hypothesis, or ICH for short [NOTE: the TMC introduced here envelopes the ICH. In other words, the ICH represents a deprecated term that has since been modified. I explain the reason for the change here, and I apologize for any confusion].

I recently had an experience that I think constitutes strong anecdotal evidence for the ICH, fortunately in the presence of two able-minded witnesses. I was at a friend’s house doing the usual Playstation 3 after dinner thing with him and his girlfriend, who we’ll refer to as A and L, respectively. In the northwest corner of their living room sits a large, big-screen television, about 5′ tall, which had a stack of four or five video games on top of it (I lean towards five). We had been playing for about an hour or so, and by that time of the night we’d had a few beers each, but were nowhere near hallucinatory drunk, which typically requires something like Tequila.

As it often does, our conversation had turned to things metaphysical, specifically A’s long-standing belief that some spiritual presence inhabits their home, when all of a sudden, the stack of video games literally flew from the top of the television to within a foot of the coffee table, roughly centered in the middle of the room. By flew I mean something like zapped from point A to point B, with no apparent impetus. If that weren’t odd enough, although they slid slightly resulting in a staggered position, the games remained stacked when they landed.

The distance from the games’ original position (see ‘A’ below) and it’s post-event position (see ‘B’ below) was about 4 or 5 feet, and the games traveled at roughly a 45-degree trajectory. The following diagram should put things into fuller perspective:

Honestly, what is a reasonable person to do with this data? To simply dismiss it is to skirt one’s obligation to reason.

We can’t call ourselves skeptics if we don’t think critically and examine all the options, so I quickly took to searching for a naturalistic or at least non-conscious explanation for what happened. The ICH needs a competing hypothesis, so consider the perpendicular hypothesis or PH, which states that unless propelled by lateral force, objects fall perpendicular to the ground. Is there a plausible non-conscious explanation for the strange trajectory at which the games fell? Thinking back, we were listening to music; is it possible that audio vibrations slowly rattled the stack of games closer and closer towards the edge of the TV until they finally fell?

We find a problem with this hypothesis almost immediately: if the games fell according to the established laws of physics, per the PH they would have followed a perpendicular trajectory, landing in the area marked C in the diagram, and they would have scattered upon impact, but this is not what happened. Even if we account for a significant “teetering” effect, stacked video games don’t fall at 45-degree angles across a room, then land still stacked. It’s no limb regeneration, but it directly contradicts known laws of science which clearly define the paths of falling objects.

Now, by no means could anyone claim this single data point conclusive, but what seems more reasonable here? The PH? Or something like the ICH? More importantly, why? If we say the event catalyst was non-conscious, what sort of strange phenomena must we posit instead, and is it arguably more complex than the ICH?

Whatever moved the games had the ability to move mass, presumably without detectable mass of its own. Masslessness is a feature philosophers, pyschologists and scientists commonly attribute to consciousness, as is the ability to understand verbal communication, and we should also note the context under which this event transpired: amidst sustained discussion about A’s longstanding belief his house was inhabited by some sort of spirit(s). Though certainly not proof that the event catalyst heard and responded to our conversation, the event sequence is concurrent with what we might reasonably expect if A’s belief – and the ICH – were correct.

This suggests that either consciousness can exist outside the body in the form of something like a spirit, or some hitherto undiscovered but seriously strange non-conscious phenomena is at work, or there’s some other option I’m overlooking, and I need your help in identifying it.


Related Posts:

My Response To ‘A Ghost In The Machine’ – Part III

False Argument #8: Science Has Proven The Soul

13 Responses

  1. If I may be so bold, could we not also posit that at least one person in the room (likely ‘A’) possesses some sort of psychic/telekinetic ability, and thus the belief in the supernatural (and likely the additional boost of alcohol) is the subconscious trigger which initiates spooky supernatural occurrences, which then reinforces the belief, creating a positive feedback loop.
    Now, I may be being a bit facetious here, but not entirely. I have no problem in believing in ‘action at a distance’ phenomenon, given that two of the fundamental forces of the universe happen to be such phenomenon (gravity and electromagnetism). I see no reason why those two should be the only ones.
    Check out:
    http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/currentresearch/index.htm

  2. The fact that the video games remained stacked is understandable. There’s friction between the games that tend to prevent separation. If the surfaces are smooth, there’s a suction force that would also tend to prevent separation.
    With regard to context, you state that the conversation often revolves around metaphysics and spiritual presences. This was just the first time that something unusual happened during one of those frequent conversations.
    The actual movement of the games is more difficult to explain. Perhaps the case, containing the game on the bottom of the stack, heated by the TV, changed it shape suddenly. (I have a cookie sheet that when place in the oven warps suddenly with a loud thunk. Another loud thunk happens when the sheet cools and returns to its original shape.) A sudden warping of the bottom case, pushing against the TV, might provide the force necessary to move the games.

  3. Dominic,

    If I may be so bold, could we not also posit that at least one person in the room (likely ‘A’) possesses some sort of psychic/telekinetic ability,

    Sure, but although it directly confronts modern scientific explanations of physics and neurology, most of the atheists I deal with would simply dismiss or deny that idea, too. For example, John Morales‘ attitude towards things “parapsychological” is that they’re “putative, thus accountable for as imaginary.”
    Still, at some point reasonable individuals would have to ask: how might we reliably test the difference between A’s hitherto undiscovered psychic abilities, and the ICH?
    nal,

    The fact that the video games remained stacked is understandable.

    To a certain extent, maybe, but in the context of what actually happened that night, I disagree. Replication of the event with PS3 and X-Box games might soften that disagreement, however.

    This was just the first time that something unusual happened during one of those frequent conversations.

    There are other incidents, of course, but even if it were the first time, do you think such would challenge the ICH? If so, how?

    A sudden warping of the bottom case, pushing against the TV, might provide the force necessary to move the games.

    Cookie sheets that warp are made of flimsy metal. PS3 and X-Box games are housed in plastic casing that would melt, not warp. Wouldn’t that seem to challenge the warping hypothesis?

  4. cl:
    PS3 and X-Box games are housed in plastic casing that would melt, not warp. Wouldn’t that seem to challenge the warping hypothesis?
    I guess it would depend on the properties of the plastic and the temperature of the heat. The game box warping hypothesis is weak, I agree. Maybe the top of the TV warped and caused the incident when it popped back.
    There are other incidents, of course, but even if it were the first time, do you think such would challenge the ICH? If so, how?
    If this were the first time, it would call into question that “the event catalyst heard and responded to our conversation.” Why this particular time and not all of the other times?

  5. If its a choice between psychic powers and a haunted universe, I’m sure the atheists you know would lean to the psychic phenomenon as the lesser of two implausibilities.

  6. nal,

    Maybe the top of the TV warped and caused the incident when it popped back.

    Maybe, but what happens when we run that against Occam’s? Wouldn’t we hear it? Wouldn’t the engineers have thought of that sort of thing? I’ve never heard of TV warping at all much less to the degree required to perform this event; if that sort of thing were possible, wouldn’t we have heard of it by now, at least as much as warping cookie sheets in convection ovens? Another thing I though of was the games were not sitting directly atop the TV, but atop another component that was itself atop the TV – which was also metallic and theoretically retains the same possibility, of course – but so far, non-conscious explanations just don’t cut it, IMO. Per Occam’s,

    Why this particular time and not all of the other times?

    I don’t know. Perhaps the subject matter was different. Perhaps this time, A’s sentiments were too spot-on to ignore. Perhaps the other times, whatever caused the event wasn’t there, or wasn’t interested. There could be many reasons why this time but not others, but is the fact that it occurred this time and not others constitute evidence against the “heard and responded” idea?
    Dominic,
    Let’s called the “undiscovered psychic abilities” hypothesis UPA. One piece of evidence that seems to support the UPA is that the games aligned with A, not myself or L. Still, we need a wringer to run this through: do you have any ideas how we might reasonably test for the ICH vs. the UPA?

    If its a choice between psychic powers and a haunted universe, I’m sure the atheists you know would lean to the psychic phenomenon as the lesser of two implausibilities.

    I agree, but why is that so? Each case and each atheist are unique. Some would lean towards the UPA for the simple reason that we begin with a “real” subject – the person purported to have the abilities. So be it. Yet, others would lean towards the UPA because it is the only acceptable conclusion besides the ICH, and entails the least amount of cognitive dissonance. I think the latter attitude compromises the search for truth.

  7. nal,

    Maybe the top of the TV warped and caused the incident when it popped back.

    Maybe, but what happens when we run that against Occam’s? Wouldn’t we hear it? Wouldn’t the engineers have thought of that sort of thing? I’ve never heard of TV warping at all much less to the degree required to perform this event; if that sort of thing were possible, wouldn’t we have heard of it by now, at least as much as warping cookie sheets in convection ovens? Another thing I though of was the games were not sitting directly atop the TV, but atop another component that was itself atop the TV – which was also metallic and theoretically retains the same possibility, of course – but so far, non-conscious explanations just don’t cut it, IMO. Per Occam’s,

    Why this particular time and not all of the other times?

    I don’t know. Perhaps the subject matter was different. Perhaps this time, A’s sentiments were too spot-on to ignore. Perhaps the other times, whatever caused the event wasn’t there, or wasn’t interested. There could be many reasons why this time but not others, but is the fact that it occurred this time and not others constitute evidence against the “heard and responded” idea?
    Dominic,
    Let’s called the “undiscovered psychic abilities” hypothesis UPA. One piece of evidence that seems to support the UPA is that the games aligned with A, not myself or L. Still, we need a wringer to run this through: do you have any ideas how we might reasonably test for the ICH vs. the UPA?

    If its a choice between psychic powers and a haunted universe, I’m sure the atheists you know would lean to the psychic phenomenon as the lesser of two implausibilities.

    I agree, but why is that so? Each case and each atheist are unique. Some would lean towards the UPA for the simple reason that we begin with a “real” subject – the person purported to have the abilities. So be it. Yet, others would lean towards the UPA because it is the only acceptable conclusion besides the ICH, and entails the least amount of cognitive dissonance. I think the latter attitude compromises the search for truth.

  8. Well, if the place is haunted by an intelligence that reacts to conversations on the metaphysical, then ‘A’ could leave the house, and unexplained phenomenon may still happen when the circumstances are reproduced with different people in the room. ‘A’ may feel a bit left out, but he can rest assured that he’ll be staying sober for science! Cycle the members in the room, but still manage to attract the attention of an intelligent agent who flings video games, and you can then reasonably rule out its a detectable person in the room who is exerting the force (I say reasonably, because there’s still the possibility that there’s something unique about the house itself that confers psychic abilities to individuals residing within it…and don’t forget about the alcohol catalyst, but this is a whole ‘nother hypothesis, and its getting a bit silly, especially given how far out I’m going with this little UPA/ICH mental exercise).
    On the other hand, if the phenomenon is reproducible only when ‘A’ (or any one specific individual) is around and talking about ghosts (and drinking), then I’d go with UPA.
    Unfortunately, there simply is no perfectly (or even substantially) rigorous test than can be done, because you can’t test the intent of a ghost if that is the actual source of the phenomenon. This also happens to be the most damning aspect of theology (discerning the existence and intent of invisible creatures that you can’t interact with). Because what would qualify as UPA under all circumstances could just be a ghost who has a thing for following ‘A’ around. It’d be impossible to tell the difference.
    Pardon the tangent here, but this really does cut to the heart (for me, at least), of what the real problem with religion is. It purports to be a different kind, or way, of knowing, that can discern the existence and intent of supernatural agents, something that science cannot do.
    But given the problems one runs into given the scenario you’ve described above, this soundly exposes claim that religion is a different way of knowing as fraudulent.
    I’ve seen it described by another with a boiling kettle analogy (I forget the man’s name…). If you go into a room and find a kettle of boiling water, science can tell you the composition of the water, its temperature, the exact placement of the kettle, etc, but it can’t tell you why the kettle was put there, and by whom. That’s where religion steps in. The problem with this being, though, there is absolutely no way to answer those questions (as illustrated above, when one is trying to discern between personal psychic powers or if one is simply being hounded by a ghost). Theologians who try and tell you that a man put the kettle to boil because he’s a swell chap who’s about to make you some tea are simply liars, plain and simple.
    Ok, end tangent.

  9. cl:

    Wouldn’t we hear it?

    I don’t know, you provide so little information about the incident, it’s impossible to draw a reasonable conclusion, based solely on the information you provided. And then that information changes. First the boxes were on the TV, then they’re on some component that is not described. It is certainly not reasonable for the reader to accept the ICH hypothesis based on the information herein.
    /Used blockquote. Will try “Preview.” “Preview” looks OK.

  10. Dominic,

    Unfortunately, there simply is no perfectly (or even substantially) rigorous test than can be done, because you can’t test the intent of a ghost if that is the actual source of the phenomenon.

    I pretty much agree with you as far as the impossibility of scientifically reproducible tests for spirits, but that doesn’t mean we can’t build strong cases for them, based on solid evidence, often times empirical evidence. This event must be accounted for, but that doesn’t mean we just get to make up whatever definitive explanation we choose. The way I see it, we now have four choices: my ‘music vibrations’ hypothesis, nal’s ‘warping’ hypothesis, your upa and my ich. While I can’t get my head around the music vibrations or warping hypothesis, that doesn’t mean one of the others wins by default. Whatever we choose to attribute the event to must certainly be justified by the evidence if our belief is to be justified. Problem is, as we’ve noted, the impossibility to tell the difference.
    And if I might go on a tangent of my own, guess what? That turns out to be a perfect example of something DD berated me for considering in our discussion over there. When I asked him what we’re to do when the evidence reasonably supports more than one hypothesis, he implied I brought it up just so I could skirt my rational responsibilities. Hmph.[/tangent]
    I think in this case, and literally thousands upon thousands of others even more bizarre than it, it is more rational to posit something like this upa or ich than that which traditional materialists are often committed to. Excluding A from the testing may not produce results if the spirit is familial; perhaps some relative of A’s that for whatever reason only connects with A. I hate to say it, but I think the naturalistic hypothesis requires the most faith of all.
    I don’t think the problems demonstrate religion’s “different way of knowing” angle as fraudulent. Don’t get me wrong. I know people peddle snake oil by the boatload, but I don’t think the theologians are necessarily liars. After all, they sincerely believe what they’re offering, but even with all that aside, I think a person can investigate whether a man put the kettle to boil for his own self, with no need to take risks on charlatans.
    nal,

    ..you provide so little information about the incident, it’s impossible to draw a reasonable conclusion, based solely on the information you provided. And then that information changes.

    Well, I don’t really think that’s the case. I provided a diagram, gave precise distances and locations and angles, considered an alternative hypothesis… I did a half-decent job, I thought. It’s not that I changed anything, it’s that your comment brought further details to mind. You know how lots of people keep the cable box atop their TV? That sort of thing. If I changed the information, I would have said something like, “Oh no, the games actually weren’t stacked when they landed,” right? You just made me recall a finer detail I probably never would have remembered were you not being a thorough cross-examiner. That’s a good thing.

    It is certainly not reasonable for the reader to accept the ICH hypothesis based on the information herein.

    While I’m not calling this event proof of anything, that’s what I think about the naturalistic hypothesis – that it’s not reasonable to accept in this case. So far, neither my original naturalistic hypothesis (the vibrations from the music) or your warping hypothesis seemed very promising.

  11. I didn’t have time to read through all of the comments, but any Christian worth his/her salt cannot dismiss the possibility that there is a supernatural influence on society.
    I, myself, have seen and experienced things that defy ‘rational’ explanation, and though I wasn’t there with you, your description seems to verify some form of supernatural presence.
    It is possible to draw these entities to yourself, which is why scripture warns us not to dwell on them and/or their power. Admittedly, there is a certain ‘thrill’ associated with talking about the supernatural, but it’s still not recommended. The deception is often tailored to the target, i.e. what might not work on me might work on you. Things like seances, Ouija boards, Tarot cards, attempts to contact the dead… any form of divination is a pipeline to fallen beings, and they use these things as a way to gain entrance into your mind.
    Alcohol does heighten one’s susceptibility to suggestion, even in small amounts, and even the presence of alcohol is an attractor. They don’t call it the “demon brew” for nothing! What kind of entertainment were you watching? Was it violent? Sexually explicit? All of the above? These are magnets for demons. Maybe there are other activities going on in your life or your friend’s like that is attracting these entities.
    Inanimate objects don’t fly around the room on their own. Barring any other cause, and given the setting and conversation, you probably had a visitation. And, any display is meant as an attention-getter, they’re not clumsy. What you need to do, now, is ascertain why you had that visitation and take steps to eradicate any other possible cause for it to occur again.
    You do NOT want these beings hanging around you, and WHATEVER you do, don’t try and converse with them! That is their primary “in”, and once in, they’re very difficult to get rid of.

  12. I didn’t have time to read through all of the comments, but any Christian worth his/her salt cannot dismiss the possibility that there is a supernatural influence on society.
    I, myself, have seen and experienced things that defy ‘rational’ explanation, and though I wasn’t there with you, your description seems to verify some form of supernatural presence.
    It is possible to draw these entities to yourself, which is why scripture warns us not to dwell on them and/or their power. Admittedly, there is a certain ‘thrill’ associated with talking about the supernatural, but it’s still not recommended. The deception is often tailored to the target, i.e. what might not work on me might work on you. Things like seances, Ouija boards, Tarot cards, attempts to contact the dead… any form of divination is a pipeline to fallen beings, and they use these things as a way to gain entrance into your mind.
    Alcohol does heighten one’s susceptibility to suggestion, even in small amounts, and even the presence of alcohol is an attractor. They don’t call it the “demon brew” for nothing! What kind of entertainment were you watching? Was it violent? Sexually explicit? All of the above? These are magnets for demons. Maybe there are other activities going on in your life or your friend’s like that is attracting these entities.
    Inanimate objects don’t fly around the room on their own. Barring any other cause, and given the setting and conversation, you probably had a visitation. And, any display is meant as an attention-getter, they’re not clumsy. What you need to do, now, is ascertain why you had that visitation and take steps to eradicate any other possible cause for it to occur again.
    You do NOT want these beings hanging around you, and WHATEVER you do, don’t try and converse with them! That is their primary “in”, and once in, they’re very difficult to get rid of.

  13. Hey Gideon! I’d like to pursue our “eternal hell” conversation if you’re ever interested. I’ve responded to your response.

    I didn’t have time to read through all of the comments, but any Christian worth his/her salt cannot dismiss the possibility that there is a supernatural influence on society.

    I agree. Did you get the impression that I was denying a possible supernatural influence in my friend’s house? If so, I wasn’t. The only thing I can say with certainty is that gravity *falls flat on its face as a proffered explanation (no pun intended).

    Inanimate objects don’t fly around the room on their own.

    I know, but don’t tell jim, SI, Evo or Philly. Stay tuned. I’m about to shift gears into, “Let’s share some anecdotes from cl’s involvement with the occult” years.

Leave a comment