How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

First topic message reminder :

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.
I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics.
No miracles allowed in my theology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

If you do not follow your religion because of culture and tradition, when did you begin to be a believer?

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Were you an adult at that time or a child?

If a child, could this real phenomena be what caused you to believe?

http://academia.edu/503195/_Princess_Alice_is_watching_you_Childrens_belief_in_an_invisible_person_inhibits_cheating

Regards
DL

First topic message reminder :

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Fairly easily by the look of it, in some cases anyway.

by polyglide Yesterday at 4:38 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
The only problem is that you do not believe in Satan and I do.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 The only problem is that you do not believe in Satan and I do. 

Is that a typo? Do you mean Santa?

Dr, Sheldon,
No, thought it was only you that had the typo problem as the past has proven.

A little facetious but there is no more evidence for Satan than there is for Santa.

Dr, Sheldon,
There are numerous life Santas, just go to any large supermarket prior to Christmas and you will physically meet hundreds.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                There are numerous life Santas, just go to any large supermarket prior to Christmas and you will physically meet hundreds.

Yet I've never seen a LIVE Satan, food for thought. As I said, there is no more evidence for Satan than there is for Santa, though you now appear to be claiming that Santa's existence is the more likely? Personally I'm disinclined to believe claims that have no real evidence, especially when they are wildly implausible, logically contradictory, and irrational, and those making the claims appear to have a very strong motive to presuppose them to be true. When those claims are based on bronze age beliefs that make claims we now know to be disproved by scientific facts, then my credulity diminishes accordingly.

Dr, Sheldon,
I can follow your train of thought even though it is beyond me how you arrive at certain conclusions that have nothing to do with what I believe or have intimated.

My belief is based on the Bible and what I have actually experienced. you base your opinions on what scientists have found out regarding what God created.

I am well aware of all the disputable aspects regarding the Bible details, however, it is obvious to anyone that the contents are put in a manner that requires the seeking of the meanings in relationship to the whole, the last book in the Bible should indicate to anyone that you have to seek the meaning and not take things literally.

The idea that a being with limitless knowledge and power would deal in vague erroneous and contradictory allegory, which just happens to reflect the ignorance superstitions and prejudices of the era the texts originate strikes me as an absurdity.

What's benevolent about tricking people into an eternity of torture?

Come to that where was your god for the 145000 years when men women and children lived and died in complete ignorance of its existence?

Why show up in ancient Palestine in an era rife with ignorance and superstition doing magic tricks?

The bible can't be taken literally as it's demonstrably wrong again and again. This doesn't mean an omniscient intended it to be interpreted, it might more plausibly be wrong because it is entirely man made.

If you're unable to even contemplate any other point of view then you'll never uncover anything except your presupposed beliefs.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 I can follow your train of thought even though it is beyond me how you arrive at certain conclusions that have nothing to do with what I believe or have intimated.

It would be helpful for you to give an example, as making these kind of claims without evidence or context make it all but impossible to respond. What's more it makes it seem like a broad swipe at the poster, rather than a comment on what is posted, if you take my meaning. What conclusions are you saying I have reached that "have nothing to do with what you believe or have intimated?"

Dr, Sheldon,
For one thing I do not believe in Santa as put forward to children, However, if you call a live person Santa and he/she is accepterd as such, then as with all other things there are Santas.

I do not believe in Mermaids nor any other mythical creature I base my belief in what I can confirm, the world at large and all it's contents.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, For one thing I do not believe in Santa as put forward to children, However, if you call a live person Santa and he/she is accepterd as such, then as with all other things there are Santas. I do not believe in Mermaids nor any other mythical creature I base my belief in what I can confirm, the world at large and all it's contents.  

I never said you believed in Santa, I merely made an analogous comparison between Santa and Satan as they are both unevidenced myths. I'm not sure what point you're making in your second sentence, or what bearing it has on my point, but it is a demonstrable fact that no empirical evidence exists for Satan any more than for Santa Clause.

As for not believing in mythical creatures, a more accurate assertion would be that you don't consider your deity and Satan to be mythical creatures, but I would certainly argue they are since they are based on ancient myths and superstitions. However a useful exercise here might be for you to consider if you would be convinced by someone who claimed they did not believe in mythical creatures, but believed in mermaids and base this belief "in what they can confirm, the world at large and all it's contents."

How would their claim be any more or less valid than yours? I'm honestly not seeing any significant difference beyond sheer numbers.

As I have said simply reasserting your faith and beliefs doesn't really represent evidence, just your belief that evidence exists. What evidence are you claiming exists that I must have missed in my 50 years of existence? Or better still what evidence are you claiming exists for your deity, and Satan that doesn't exist for Allah, or Judaism, or Zeus, Baal or Apollo come to that? Even if I found your arguments for the existence of a deity at all compelling, which I'm afraid I don't thus far, how does it get you any closer to Jesus than Zeus, for example?

You also never addressed my questions in my previous posts?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:45 pm
1. What's benevolent about tricking people into an eternity of torture with a confusing message of allegory, that is demonstrably wrong in places?
2. Come to that where was your god for the 145000 years when men women and children lived and died in complete ignorance of its existence?
3. Why show up in ancient Palestine in an era rife with ignorance and superstition doing magic tricks?

Dr, Sheldon,
I agree that there are more things to explain than those that are obvious.

I am sure that somewhere along the line the missing link is there, the time factor and what was first and when and where is also a mistery.

I also agree that on face value you could disagree with many things regarding the Bible in particular the dates when considering that which went before etc;

The main fact is what did the Bible mean by the Beginning.

It is obvious that prior to the Biblical account of Adam etc; that there had been life on earth in many forms.

We know not under what circumstances that those life forms lived nor what their existance involved regarding the creator.

Sorry I have to go, will try to explain my thoughts later.

regards.

That doesn't really explain why a benevolent deity with limitless power and knowledge would communicate or even allow to be communicated a message that is obviously false.

When you factor in the fact that these errors, superstitions and myths almost exactly reflect human opinions and prejudices of the era it was written it makes it fairly obvious that it's origins are entirely human.

You also haven't responded to my questions?

Dr, Sheldon,
I thought I had answered your questions.

I do not agree about false messages etc;

My feelings about the Bible are:-

If the Bible was written to deceive, not forgetting that people of the age were not unintelligent, they would not have written that which could be later denied

So there is a reason and an explanation for everything in the Bible if you seek to find the answers.

I have not got all the answers as I have said previously
but they will be there.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, I thought I had answered your questions.

Nope, take another look.   

Polyglide wrote:I do not agree about false messages etc;

How can you claim that a narrative that claims that the earth was formed before the sun is not false?

Polyglide wrote:there is a reason and an explanation for everything in the Bible if you seek to find the answers. I have not got all the answers as I have said previously but they will be there.

Again these are precisely the same claims that all religions make for their religious texts, and it is self evident that if you subjectively look for what you want in a text that is at best ambiguous and at worst vague, erroneous and contradictory, by using allegory then of course you'll find what you want in there. Especially if you presuppose it to be a true narrative. You may want to consider a claim to know that answers exist in a book, but that you have failed to find in there, how could you possibly know this?

Dr, Sheldon,
There is reasonable explanations available regarding the formation of the Sun and the earth.

Just log on to The Earth or the Sun and you will have many explanations for this point.

As I said Seek and Ye Shall Find.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, There is reasonable explanations available regarding the formation of the Sun and the earth. Just log on to The Earth or the Sun and you will have many explanations for this point. As I said Seek and Ye Shall Find.

You still haven't responded to my questions?

What has this rather bizarre claim to do with the bible getting the chronology of the formation of our solar system hopelessly wrong? The sun was formed before the earth, you're claiming an omniscient being communicated a message that claims the opposite, and this error reflects the ignorance of the peoples in which the narrative originated.

The obvious answer is that the myth is entirely human in origin.

As I said, to claim an omnipotent omniscient would communicate or allow to be communicated such an obviously erroneous story is absurd.

Dr, Sheldon,
As I have explained previously, I agree God would not put forward an event that at first glance appeared erronious but did not have an explanation if the explanation was sought.

If you are interested, as I am, you would seek the explanation as I have done.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                As I have explained previously, I agree God would not put forward an event that at first glance appeared erronious but did not have an explanation if the explanation was sought.

It is erroneous, and since it's in your bible's account of creation then either your deity has communicated or allowed to be communicated an obviously erroneous message, or the message is erroneous because it's origins are entirety human. Any unevidenced claims that it's been distorted of course which simply mean that the whole lot is entirely unsafe and nothing can be learned from it.

Polyglide wrote:If you are interested, as I am, you would seek the explanation as I have done.

Subjective interpretations that presuppose your beliefs are 100% true doesn't indicate someone interested in seeking explanations that are factually correct, you simply ignore what you don't like, that won't explain anything with any accuracy, and the simple fact is that whoever wrote that didn't know that the sun was older than the earth and therefore came first, now does that sound like a mistake an omniscient omnipotent being would make? Of course not. So as I say it's either such a being that is malevolently misleading us, or the whole thing is a human creation, and since humans have created many such myths and deities and this account isn't even unique but borrows from earlier ones then it's pretty obvious the latter is the case.

Still no answer to any of these?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Jun 24, 2015 12:45 pm
1. What's benevolent about tricking people into an eternity of torture with a confusing message of allegory, that is demonstrably wrong in places?
2. Come to that where was your god for the 145000 years when men women and children lived and died in complete ignorance of its existence?
3. Why show up in ancient Palestine in an era rife with ignorance and superstition doing magic tricks?

When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?

Or will you seek a moral religion to replace the immoral one you now follow, if you happen to be Christian or Muslim?

Or will you let your faith hide the truth of the immorality of your God?

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

Regards
DL

Should religions be classified as Fake News? The bible seems to say yes.

Fake News is what many are calling lies or distortions of the truth these days.

No organizations distort the truth and outright lie about Gods than the organized religions.

Should religions be classified as Fake News?

The bible seems to say yes.

Isaiah 56:11) "They are shepherds who have no understanding; They have all turned to their own way, each on to his unjust gain, to the last one" But do not despair, for the day of judgment is at hand, for the day of judgment and the day of the LORD occupy the same time frame. All the dross will be burned away. (Zech 13:9) & (Malachi 3:3). In that day, "you will distinguish between the righteous and the wicked" (Malachi 3:18)

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Regards
DL

Religion IS fake news. It's not true, it's not real, it has no evidence to support it. It is the superstitious experiences of gullible people who cannot accept their own mortality.

snowyflake wrote:Religion IS fake news. It's not true, it's not real, it has no evidence to support it. It is the superstitious experiences of gullible people who cannot accept their own mortality.

It's claims offend reason, defy logic and deny scientific facts, how can anyone champion that and expect rational discourse? Usually just before they have called atheists closed minded and just after they have claimed to be 100% certain of their own beliefs. Most theists are irony impaired when it comes to their own religious beliefs. They seem to think open minded means suggestible to the point of gullibility, and closed minded means critical thinking and possessing the ability to doubt.

Actually, No.  Have you ever had a woman come up to you in the street and tell you what you dreamed the night before. 3 dreams in a row? A person tell you you are going to visit a hall - one they could not have known about - and describe the hall interior.  I didn't recognise the description but later visited the Church of my early years, went into the hall. The hall had been completely renovated since I last visited. It was the almost exact description given to me. Benches replaced by chairs, dais gone and other details changed. Co-incidence?

I was an 'erk' for 5 years in the late 50' early 60's. On returning to camp one night I 'got off' the bus and immediately felt sick and stumbled over. In my mind I saw an aircraft crash. Later that night a cadet was killed on night flying training. Just 2 examples I don't understand. Predictions shared with others before events.  
I'm just an ordinary person who has experienced things beyond my understanding. And I know others who have. I'm not saying these things are necessarily'supernatural'
There are a lot of things that we don't understand yet. And a lot more for humans to learn.  Unfortunately at the age of 78 I may not be around to see these things.

I know the ancient traditions about natural events.

trevorw2539 wrote:Actually, No.  Have you ever had a woman come up to you in the street and tell you what you dreamed the night before. 3 dreams in a row?.

No, and if I did I'd have to accept I had no explanation, and leave it at that.

A person tell you you are going to visit a hall - one they could not have known about - and describe the hall interior.  I didn't recognise the description but later visited the Church of my early years, went into the hall. The hall had been completely renovated since I last visited. It was the almost exact description given to me. Benches replaced by chairs, dais gone and other details changed. Co-incidence?

Possibly, who knows, again not having an explanation is just that, and nothing more.

I was an 'erk' for 5 years in the late 50' early 60's. On returning to camp one night I 'got off' the bus and immediately felt sick and stumbled over. In my mind I saw an aircraft crash. Later that night a cadet was killed on night flying training. Just 2 examples I don't understand.

Again I sense you're inferring something, even though you have stated you have no explanation? I certainly see nothing there that represents evidence of anything supernatural, or any 'special powers'. It just seems like coincidence followed by fallacious post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning to me to be honest.

Predictions shared with others before events.

Or lucky guesses, or confidence cons, or sheer coincidence, again who knows. Though such 'powers' are easily testable if they were anything more than just coincidence, the problem is people make these claims the world over, but they never stand up to proper scrutiny. Ever heard of Derren Brown? He is very good at exposing these kind of confidence tricks. I saw him convert a room full of atheist once in less than 10 minutes. He then even convinced several prominent high profile evangelical preachers that he had 'the gift' until he exposed it all as a sham.No offence, but humans can be very suggestible, even when they think they're completely objective. Ever seen a hypnosis show? It's always surprising when the performer manages to hypnotise people you'd never have imagined would succumb.

I'm just an ordinary person who has experienced things beyond my understanding. And I know others who have. I'm not saying these things are necessarily'supernatural'

They're not at all supernatural though, as not having an explanation doesn't make anything supernatural, else everything is supernatural until scientific rigour explains it. Which is pretty much what has happened throughout human history, some people still prefer the supernatural "explanation" to scientific facts like evolution for instance.

There are a lot of things that we don't understand yet. And a lot more for humans to learn.

Indeed, but nothing we have learned evidences anything supernatural.

 Unfortunately at the age of 78 I may not be around to see these things.

Well take heart, we live an era that has eradicated diseases, and put humans on the moon. An era of unprecedented peace for most people, even after the calamity of two world wars are taken into account, on the whole we're living longer and safer lives now that at any time in human history, we're less likely to fall victim to a violent death now than at any point in our history. So it's not all bad. Try this book, it might cheer you up...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

I know the ancient traditions about natural events

Sorry I'm not sure what this means, I think we know more now about natural events than ever before though.

Your reply was just as I expected. These things happened to me. There was no Darren Brown around to show me an aircraft crashing.

Again I sense you're inferring something, even though you have stated you have no explanation? I certainly see nothing there that represents evidence of anything supernatural, or any 'special powers'. It just seems like coincidence followed by fallacious post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning to me to be honest

.

My'vision' of seeing an aircraft crash caused the aircraft to crash?

My experience of the lady with the dream confirmation set me on a course which turned out well, whereas I had been dithering over it.

As to Pinker's book, I thought it a bit optimistic. I don't believe violence has decreased to any great extent, though, in some cases, it has taken a different form by means of modern media. Whether you consider the mis-use of that for various acts/threats to be 'non-violent' is another matter.

Anyway, thanks for your erudite reply.

Sorry Trevor, but we all dream and 'see' things but humans associate even the most tenuous things to each other because that's how the human brain works. It likes 'cause and effect'. Your 'vision' and the event coincided and you've made a connection. In all likelihood, the 'vision' grew and connected more to the event as time went on. That's how innocuous events become religious miracles. Jesus went to visit a very sick man and a few days later the man got up and was well. Before you know it, the man was dead and when jesus went to him, Lazarus immediately rose from the dead. Look at your own family around the Christmas table telling stories from childhood. You all have a different perspective on what happened and the story grows over time to make it more entertaining and engaging. We're storytellers. We love a good story. Jesus is just a good story. The character of jesus is likely an amalgamation of many wandering Jews and it was as popular a story, full of magic and wisdom, as Harry Potter is today.

trevorw2539 wrote:Your reply was just as I expected. These things happened to me. There was no Darren Brown around to show me an aircraft crashing.

Well with respect imagining something that then happens is not a supernatural prediction. If I imagine someone winning the lottery then I could claim every week I possess such 'powers'. As I said this kind of selection bias is defined as the common logical fallacy 'post hoc ergo propter hoc', and we all succumb to these logical fallacies, that's why they are COMMON logical fallacies. Also our senses can misinterpret and imagine things that are not real? This is why objectively verifiable empirical evidence is the most effective method of testing what is true, when it is rigorously scrutinised by the modern scientific method. Precisely because this eradicates fallacious and subjective reasoning.

My'vision' of seeing an aircraft crash caused the aircraft to crash?

No, it wasn't a visions unless you can evidence the connection, otherwise it is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You imagines something, it happened,, you assumed it was a vision, based on what evidence? See my lottery example above, NB if I imagined myself winning and then won it is still not a vision just because the odds make the outcome less likely. If you imagined the names and addresses and winning numbers of every lottery winner for a year, then it might be worth time and money using proper clinical trials to test this.

My experience of the lady with the dream confirmation set me on a course which turned out well, whereas I had been dithering over it.

I'm happy things turned out well for you, but again sense you're implying more?

As to Pinker's book, I thought it a bit optimistic.  I don't believe violence has decreased to any great extent,

Well of course you're free to believe what you wish, but what evidence and facts in his book do you dispute, and why?

though, in some cases,  it has taken a different form by means of modern media. Whether you consider the mis-use of that for various acts/threats to be 'non-violent' is another matter.

Sorry but I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Modern media can be very subjective, and focuses our attention on violence (as an example) that is disproportionate to the risk. Take the blanket media coverage a jihadist suicide attack gets in the western media compared directly to the number of people killed in such attacks, which is of course infinitesimally small compared to deaths from road traffic collisions, or tobacco (just two examples). I seriously doubt most people perceive cars or tobacco as a worrying trend that makes them fear for their safety and the safety of those they care for.

Anyway, thanks for your erudite reply.

Well I'm not sure how erudite it was, but thank you for the generous reply. If we don't examine ideas critically we can't test their validity, IMHO.

snowyflake wrote:humans associate even the most tenuous things to each other because that's how the human brain works. It likes 'cause and effect'. Your 'vision' and the event coincided and you've made a connection.

Precisely correct.

Dr. Sheldon/Snowflake. I respect your views.  I'm not naive enough to believe that there are not coincidences, but my own experiences lead me to believe there are times that these are not explanations. That a woman could tell me what I had dreamed, after the dreams,  without any knowledge of the subject of the dream - 3 times?
Co-incidence cannot be the explanation, as the woman could have had no knowledge of my past - or the subject.

I get off a bus, I see an aircraft, I feel sick. I wonder how to tell anyone in charge what I had seen, and risk being laughed at. And yet it happens. What evidence do you want to connect the 2 incidents. The trainee pilot made a mistake and paid for it with his life. Had the crash been 3 weeks later - who knows - as circumstances would have been completely different. I used the bus regularly when returning in the evening to camp but, by co-incidence the event occurred that very night. My mind wasn't even on flying at the time. I believe I had just been giving a talk in a church in the local town.

Compare that to the times when people have come and told me what they intended doing, and I have advised them against it. And have been right. Simply a matter of thinking things through to a conclusion, which a lot of people do not do. No co-incidence.

You're walking down the street and your friend calls you - long before mobile phones. You turn to greet them, but there's no one there. Yet you 'know' they need you, and so it turns out when you quickly go out of your way to see them.

Anyone can prophecy that someone will win the lottery. No problem. But if you can supply the name and address of next weeks lottery winner - is that co-incidence?

Cause and effect - the concept that concept that an action or event will produce a certain response to the action in the form of another event; also written cause-effect, cause/effect.

So the 'vision' - which came first - caused the crash.

Still, I suppose we all have different views. 'Supernatural' - in my view - is something beyond that which we know AT THE MOMENT. For instance, people given a few days to live, yet their bodies recover beyond doctors belief, and they live for many years. Most 'miracles' today are by means of scientific and medical knowledge - but not all. The body is a miraculous thing.
Forget the Biblical miracles as stories to enhance the life of the Jewish preacher.

Without knowing the exact circumstances of your experience, it is difficult to comment. Who was this woman? Why would she come up to you in the street to tell you something? Do you know her? What were her exact words? Did you write them down? What were your dreams? Is the one getting off the bus and feeling sick a dream or did that actually happen and then a plane crashed? Or did you dream this whole scenario and then the plane crashed. What makes you think what you dreamt had anything to do with the plane crash other than a coincidence?

Your vision did not cause the crash. You've associated your dream to that particular crash. How many other planes crashed that day and why did you pick that crash to associate your dream with?

Did you predict next weeks lottery winner with name and address?

You may just be a very empathic person, Trevor. Your friends mean a lot to you.

Sorry, but without all the details I can only respond sceptically to these coincidences. They are not supernatural occurrences since the supernatural doesn't exist. There are many, much more plausible psychological explanations for your experience than the supernatural.

trevorw2539 wrote:I'm not naive enough to believe that there are not coincidences, but my own experiences lead me to believe there are times that these are not explanations.

The problem is that this is again a use of the common logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam, not having an explanation does not validate any claim. Firstly you must realise that when you can't explain something it's illogical to limit the possibilities to just two causes, you can't know what is and is not possible if you have no explanation, though you can disbelieve those explanations that have never been evidenced as they are far less likely than explanations we evidence all the time. Secondly you say you came to believe one explanation was not valid, but offer no evidence as to how you tested this? Lastly you then got from having no explanation to leaping to a supernatural one without any evidence again. Yet we know that such claims are always revealed to be fallacious when properly tested.

That a woman could tell me what I had dreamed, after the dreams,  without any knowledge of the subject of the dream - 3 times?

Well this is a claim that is falsifiable, so did you and she test it? A simple double blind clinical trial using a number of test subjects and we could easily test whether she can predict dreams or not. Now forgive me but two solid facts we do know is that no one has ever been shown to possess such abilities when the claim has been rigorously tested in such a manner, and that people who make such claims have been exposed as frauds or it is just a coincidence again and again, often after people have accepted there can be no other explanation for their 'knowledge' than they possess supernatural powers.

Co-incidence cannot be the explanation, as the woman could have had no knowledge of my past - or the subject.

Again how did you evidence these claims? As I said her claim to such powers is easily falsifiable, and I see no way to rule out coincidence beyond a subjective assertion, and it's a fact that people who claim such powers often do have prior knowledge gained in the most underhand way. The fact is if anyone possessed such powers it would be easy to test.

I get off a bus, I see an aircraft, I feel sick. I wonder how to tell anyone in charge what I had seen, and risk being laughed at. And yet it happens. What evidence do you want to connect the 2 incidents. The trainee pilot made a mistake and paid for it with his life.

No evidence connects them, that's the point, no evidence means we can base no conclusions on them that there is causation. I dream someone will win the lottery, and it happens several times a week, do i have supernatural powers that predict the future? Now imagine I dream that I will win it, and I do, just because the odds make this a greater coincidence doesn't validate the idea my dream was a supernatural premonition. People are often very reluctant to accept that massive coincidences occur, but we know they do, whereas we have no such evidence that anything supernatural occurs.

You're walking down the street and your friend calls you - long before mobile phones. You turn to greet them, but there's no one there. Yet you 'know' they need you, and so it turns out when you quickly go out of your way to see them.

Again a remarkable coincidence if it happened, unless of course you demonstrate evidence for anything else? You also seem to be ignoring the fact that our minds deceive us, often after the fact we are convinced of our memories of events and don't realise we have embellished or mis-remembered them. In clinical trials people were asked questions with multiple choice answers, easy questions that most people would know the answers to, what the test subjects didn't know was that they alone were subjects in each group, and the rest were there to deliberately offer increasingly wrong answers, and in every case the subject eventually started to change their answers to reflect the groups, when it was obvious they had known the correct answer. The test started with everyone giving the correct answer and so it showed how we are predisposed to modify our behaviour to match group behaviour. the subjects denied this of course and would not believe their memory of the tests were incorrect.

Anyone can prophecy that someone will win the lottery. No problem. But if you can supply the name and address of next weeks lottery winner - is that co-incidence?

Another appeal to ignorance, you have asked a question for which you offer no explanation and are challenging everyone to explain it or insisting a claim you are predisposed to prefer is the ONLY alternative. If they did this every week it'd still be more probable they were cheating or even the most incredible coincidence had occurred, because we know for a fact those explanations are possible. Do the people who predict 6 numbers exactly correct several times a week have the supernatural power of prophecy?

Did this happen by the way? If so the claim is again easily testable against sheer coincidence or a sham con, by using double blind clinical trials like medical research clinical trials. Yet no one has ever been demonstrated to possess such ability beyond claims made from hearsay.

Cause and effect - the concept that concept that an action or event will produce a certain response to the action in the form of another event; also written cause-effect, cause/effect.

So the 'vision' - which came first - caused the crash.

Evidence? This is no more than the common logical fallacy 'post hoc ergo propter hoc'.

Still, I suppose we all have different views. 'Supernatural' - in my view - is something beyond that which we know AT THE MOMENT.

Well yes, but we also have evidence, and logic. Logical fallacies help us determine when our reasoning is flawed and therefore far more likely that our premises conclusions and arguments are untrue. You have no evidence for what you claim to believe here, but have more than once based your reasoning on two common logical fallacies, argumentum ad ignorantiam and post hoc ergo propter hoc. Were you aware of these common logical fallacies before you used them? Ask yourself how you determine the difference between something you have no knowledge / evidence for, and something that simply isn't real?

For instance, people given a few days to live, yet their bodies recover beyond doctors belief, and they live for many years. Most 'miracles' today are by means of scientific and medical knowledge

You have used argumentum ad ignorantiam again, just because our current medical knowledge doesn't explain something doesn't mean we can use this ignorance to leap to unevidenced supernatural claims. Ask yourself does our medical knowledge make us omniscient, of course not, so why does a gap in it require an unevidenced supernatural claim rather than the obvious fact that our knowledge is incomplete? It's also possible and often true in these circumstances that people have misunderstood or misinterpreted what they have been told in the first place, people believing they are being told they don't have long to live are seldom in a position that is conducive to sound reasoning and clear thinking and memory storage.

The body is a miraculous thing.  Forget the Biblical miracles as stories to enhance the life of the Jewish preacher.

Yes it is, and everything we know about has a natural explanation. I am aware of no miracles int he bible, only fantastic claims that come nowhere near achieving their burden of proof.

snowyflake wrote:Without knowing the exact circumstances of your experience, it is difficult to comment. Who was this woman? Why would she come up to you in the street to tell you something? Do you know her?  What were her exact words? Did you write them down? What were your dreams? Is the one getting off the bus and feeling sick a dream or did that actually happen and then a plane crashed? Or did you dream this whole scenario and then the plane crashed. What makes you think what you dreamt had anything to do with the plane crash other than a coincidence?

Your vision did not cause the crash. You've associated your dream to that particular crash. How many other planes crashed that day and why did you pick that crash to associate your dream with?

Did you predict next weeks lottery winner with name and address?

You may just be a very empathic person, Trevor. Your friends mean a lot to you.

Sorry, but without all the details I can only respond sceptically to these coincidences. They are not supernatural occurrences since the supernatural doesn't exist. There are many, much more plausible psychological explanations for your experience than the supernatural.

Scepticism is a very useful attitude. I, myself, am always sceptical of what seem tall stories until I know more about the person. So it's no problem that you are sceptical.

I knew the woman to talk to. There is no way that she, or anyone else at that time, knew anything about the subject - a young woman - of the dreams as it concerned things from my past, and in a very different part of the country. At the time of the incidents I had married, and the past was the past.
I've never gone into details with anyone before, but here goes.
One night I dreamt that the young woman was trying to contact me. I thought nothing of it - just one of those things. Until I met this woman in the street and she told me that she had dreamt of a young woman trying to contact me by writing a letter. The young woman - from the North - had visited my home in Kent years before. When I moved from her area - where I was stationed in the RAF - we lost contact. I had forgotten all about her as I was involved in Church work at the time. The second dream was that the girl needed help. Confirmed by my friend's relay of her dream to me.
A few days after the dreams and conversations I received a letter, via my home address, from this girl. This confirmed the dreams. Being now married I wrote without telling anyone and told her I could not have further contact with her.
At the same time I wrote to the minister of the Church in her area, explained the situation, and asked if he could let me know the situation - and my situation.
It turned out that the young girl had had a child by a West Indian boyfriend, and had been left 'holding the baby'.
The third dream I have already explained.

There is NO WAY the woman could have had any knowledge of the girl.

As regards the aircraft. When I returned to camp it was still daylight and night flying had not yet started. Yet I had this sick feeling and 'saw' a plane crash. As I say, during the night a cadet crashed and died. Co-incidence? No other aircraft crashed locally or anywhere else that I was aware.

Dr Sheldon.

Well this is a claim that is falsifiable, so did you and she test it? A simple double blind clinical trial using a number of test subjects and we could easily test whether she can predict dreams or not. Now forgive me but two solid facts we do know is that no one has ever been shown to possess such abilities when the claim has been rigorously tested in such a manner, and that people who make such claims have been exposed as frauds or it is just a coincidence again and again, often after people have accepted there can be no other explanation for their 'knowledge' than they possess supernatural powers.

She didn't predict my dreams, she had dreams that confirmed mine. As far as I am aware she never made predictions