₦airaland Forum

Pastor AIO:
To make my point, let me turn things around.  I say that there is no such thing as the Natural, only supernatural.  Everything is supernatural.  thundder, lightning, leprosy, boiling a cup of water, everything.  A supernatural agent is making everything happen as it happens.  Nature is a fallacy.

Yes, we have seen this before and it is pretty damn difficult to refute, although it is generally agreed that it is an absurd  proposition.  Can think of all the absurdities related with it now.

Pastor AIO:
It is not the state of mind that is supernatural, but rather the manner of perception.  Natural vision sees events via light waves that travel across space and time.  Any sort of visual perception of reality that doesn't depend on lightwaves travelling across space/time would, according to my definition of Natural, be considered non-natural. 


Something can either be considered natural via aspects of nature that we are as yet unfamiliar with or it can be supernatural.  Yes.  But there is a school of thought that says that the easiest explanation is the best and most elegant. 

According to a definition of nature that says influence has to traverse space and time (in a futureward direction), precognitive visions has to be supernatural.

Or can you think of how a future event can naturally make an impression on a mind without destroying the definition of nature.

Is this definition restricted to entities capable of perception?  Like I said ealier, was there a natural world 10 billions years ago?   How would you answer that in the light  (pun intended   ) of your definition?

Pastor AIO:
No I don't agree! Not in the least!! There are rules and laws in Nature. IF my pot of water suddenly got to boiling in 2 minutes that means there's got to be an appreciably intense source of heat in the vicinity. A star in a remote galaxy is not going to boil my water.

Agreed, but does it really happened. That is why I said, "maybe" but NO to the pragmatic question. This is the equivalent of seeing an object falling freely against gravity. From what we know of gravity, this CANNOT happen. But if it should happen, then we have two recourses;

1) Declare that our knowledge of gravity is inadequate.

2) Declare it supernatural

The main question is an epistemological one - How would you know when you have ruled out all natural explanation? This is what I what you to address.

Pastor AIO:
I have offered a definition of Natural that said that influence had to pass from one body to another via the medium of Space and Time. That is just one working definition that I am working with.
If I imagine a vision of my sister winning the lottery and dancing for joy which prove to be true despite the fact that there is no way that light waves could have travelled from where she is across space to my field of vision then that would be a supernatural event.
If I see an event that will happen tomorrow despite the fact that lightwaves from that event cannot travel across time backwards then that is a supernatural event.

If Science then discovers that it is possible for influence to travel across another medium other than space and time, like say some extradimensional reality, a hyper space, that will not make it natural. That would mean that science has found a way to explore the non-natural.
Things don't change willy nilly when you have proper definitions and you know what you are talking about.

Proper definitions do not rely on the as yet unknown.

Are you now suggesting that things like "visions", dreams, transes, hypnotisms, etc, etc are supernatural? These are states of minds that you think are static in the spaciotemporal domain, althought I disagree. I disagree because your definition suggest that natural could not have existed until there were minds in nature.

Did nature exist 4 billion years ago?

Pastor AIO:
I do not really make a distinction between natural and supernatural. What is just is, as far as I'm concerned.

I however recognise that we have different ways of organising our experience of existence. And one of those ways is to organise experience as events connected in a spacio-temporal network. The functioning within that spacio-temporal backdrop is what some would call Nature.

Thank you and welcome to the club. You are an existentialist, OR better still a naturalist.

Pastor AIO:
Sorry I didn't see the last bit, that's why I didn't address it.  

First we need to make a distinction between natural and naturalism.  Naturalism is the ideology that says that everything that exists is Natural and all processes are Natural processes.  This is an -ism.

I can't think of any definition of Natural that fulfills all the needs of naturalism.  ie that includes all phenomena.

However I would say that in Nature all agents of change are bodies that exist in Spacetime and extend their influence via the medium of space and time onto other bodies.  Influence can only travel in a futureward direction in time but can extend in all directions in space.  
In this instance my pot of water is getting hot because there is a stove beneath it which is giving off energy in the form of heat that is travelling across the space between the stove and the pot to heat up the pot.  

[size=18pt]If my pot of water got hot without a source of heat in the nearby vicinity (space or time) then something non natural has happened.  
[/size]

In principle, maybe, but in practice NO. How would you know that there is no heat source in the vicinity. To know this, you will require full knowledge of the enitre sample space of heat sources. And you will also need to define what vicinity is. Is 5 light-years considered vicinity? Is 1000 LY, is 100000000 LY vicinity. Remember that heat source from pulsar, millions of LY away can still reach us here.

And there may be yet other undiscover forms of heat. Remember before radioactivity was discover, nobody could adequately explain why the core of the earth was so hot. When radioactivity was discover, it all became "natural".

So your definition for the supernatural amounts to the following:

Anything that cannot yet be adequately explained using naturalistic scientific means is supernatural.

Do you agree?

Pastor AIO:
What you're trying to do is define Nature as everything that exists. You might as well just come out and say it: Nature is everything that exists so by definition there is not Supernatural. When you say Nature is composed of Experience. Well absolutely everything we are aware of is an experience. How do we experience supernatural?

You need a more rigorous definition of your terms. Something that was actually descriptive would help.

Secondly, are you talking about stuff or are you talking about the Processes that Stuff undergoes. Saying that Nature is composed of matter blah and blah suggest that Nature is a body not the processes that a body undergoes.

Good points, Pastor. There was an omission on my defintion of nature. I should have added "events" or processes, as some people prefer the term. Process or events are the "stuff" encapsulating the interaction of one stuff with another, usually in a causal link.

Yes, my definition is basically a defintion that leaves no room for the supernatural, ie, all of existence is nature.

At least, I have tried with my defintion. What is yours? How do you define natural and supernatural?

pilgrim.1:
I'm going to answer your initial reply; but there's a need to clear up these few bits from yours:

1. What exactly do you mean by "our senses"?

2. How do you know that there is nonstuff outside your own known field of stuff?

Pilgrim, I don't know if your problem is with honesty or comprehension or both. Please, how could you ask question 2 above? Did my comment suggest that we knew that there was nonstuff? Look at it again;

Now,, using the same sense, we have not being able to consistently and reliable to demonstrate that there is nonstuff outside this know field of stuff.

What does this statement say?


PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, Pastor, could you adjudicate on this? What do you understand by this statement and do you think Pilgrim's statement is a fair one. I am relying on your time-honoured sense of fairness here?

Pastor AIO:
You see Huxley, it seems that you are quite confused.  Pretty much everything that you've mentioned above it stuff.  When you talk about naturalism or supernaturalism are you talking about stuff or are you talking about PROCESSES.

Stuff is stuff.  It can undergo natural processes or it can undergo supernatural processes.  WAter is water.  If it runs down hill you might say that is natural.  If it runs uphill you might say that is un natural or supernatural. 

For example, Crop circles exist.  That's a fact.  The How they came to exist is what might rely on naturalistic or supernatural explanation.

That is why it is important to know what you are talking about when you talk about naturalism.  Are you referring to substances or processes? 

The terms are usually used to refer to processes and Causality.  So you have natural causes and you have supernatural causes. 

Is this what you mean when you talk about natural?  Is so then you will still have to define what makes a process natural as opposed to supernatural?  Perhaps by saying for example that Natural causes occur prior to an event in time.  That way we know that an event that occurs tomorrow cannot influence what happens today, if it did that would be supernatural.  That's just an hint.

Like I said in the other thread, nature, in the commonsense view, is the stuff and processes that interact with stuff.  Stuff is matter, energy, time, experience, events(or process), and experience (or consciousness).  So far,, this is what WE know is nature, and using our senses we have consistently manipulated, interacted, harness, poked, this stuff of nature.

Now,, using the same sense, we have not being able to consistently and reliable to demonstrate that there is nonstuff outside this know field of stuff.  If we had been able to, then you would have two options;

1)  Bring that into the field of stuff

2)  Declare it non-stuff (or supernatural)

Now, that is my attempt at defining the natural.  Can I have you attempt of the natural and the supernatural to see if there is some common ground?

pilgrim.1:
I'll answer this one quickly.

Who's now operating on fallacious logicum?   I thought as much that sooner than later you'd be talking fantasy like Stanley Krippner!!

Huxley2, how do you know for certain that IN ACTUALITY people were being let into the room from an adjacent room? How do you know that for certain? This is the kind of logic that cheapens typical atheist skepticism - you ignore what has been stated, go round and round in circles . . . until you finally demonstrate the very same 10 points about typical atheist arguments, even after I'd simplified matters for you!

Funny, you ask this question. Let me turn it round to you.  How do you know for certain that the claims of Z&T are true and that the things they report really happened.  If you believe them, why should I not believe the others?

Lady, your thinking is so screwed and lopsided it is just not worth continuing?  You are obsessed with personalities, your methodology is wrong and there is really no point continuing until you sort out your methodology.

pilgrim.1:
And your point is. . .? How does that discredit the open challenge that Zammit gave? I just posted you an incredible fantansy of the typical atheist/skeptic (Dr.  Stanley Krippner) who went to great lengths to dream up just about anything just to preserve his naturalism. "She had a small torch, . . . blah-blah-blah" - and he called that a more plausible explanation - vacantly asserted like the typical armchair atheist. Dr. Charles Tart who at least followed some conventional simple testing methods was disfavoured - and yet none of the atheists or skeptics could fault his findings.

The logic behind posting excerpts from the Psychic Mafia is at best another attempt to dance away from the gist of the discussion here. When the New York lawyer brought up such kind of an objection, this was precisely what Zammit noted:

[list][/list]

What the Psychic Mafia does for you is beggar the discussion, not objectively appraise the research of every investigator.

Absolutely NOT.  It shows what night-vison equipment can reveal.  These people were being fooled into believing that ghost were appearing in the room, when in actuality people were being let into the room from an adjacent room.  

Does this speak well for this particular medium?


Two things

1)  I still await the terms of the Randi tests.  Are we gonna ever get this,  my personality-obsessed debater?

2)  What claims and evidence did you video show?  Can you summerise their methods and results, please.

Have a look at what these mediums so:

In July 1960, the spiritualist world was rocked by an explosion that sent shock waves through every seance room in the country and shivers up every medium's spine.
It has become known as the Great Camp Chesterfield Expose. What happened was so crazy, so zany, that apart from a Peter Sellers movie it could only happen in the weird and wacky world of the psychic.
The sympathetic researchers, Tom O'Neill and Dr. Andrija Puharich, had tried to get the first motion pictures ever of the materialization of a spirit. O'Neill was a believer spiritualist, editor of the monthly newspaper Psychic Observer, and ordained minister of the Indiana Association of Spiritualists (the legal entity which owns and runs Chesterfield), and a close friend of Marble Riffle and other stalwarts at the camp. Puharich was a physician and psychical researcher whom O'Neil had recruited to give the project scientific credibility.
With the enthusiastic support of the Camp Chesterfield authorities, O'Neill and Puharich went into a dark seance room equipped with infrared lights and film (and a snooperscope, a device developed by the United States Army for making night vision possible on the battlefield) and shot the materialization of a ghost.


The researchers were not underhanded in the least (after all, they believed in psychic phenomena, especially O'Neill, and both Edith Stillwell and Mable Riffle were told exactly what the infrared film would do -- make any figures in the totally dark room stand out as clearly as in the light of day -- and were allowed to take a peek for themselves through the snooperscope. The should have alerted them, but unaccountably they went ahead with the project.)
The experiment was a disaster for the spiritualists. Peering through the snooperscope in the dark, Puharich saw that what were supposed to be spirit forms of shimmering ectoplasm materializing out of thin air, were actually figures wrapped in chiffon entering the seance room through a hidden door from and adjacent apartment.
The infrared motion picture confirmed Puharich's observations. There, etched unmistakably on the film, were the familiar faces of camp mediums, dressed up in gauze, impersonating departed spirits. Tom O'Neill, the devout spiritualist, was devasted by the revelations.

The Psychic Mafia, pages 39 and 40.

pilgrim.1:
I would say you're not being objective, because you expect that if certain criteria do not assume your ideas, then it is not "science". That's not being objective. The 'restrictions' were for control measures - the very thing that scientific enquiry allows. If such restrictions and controls are unfair, the atheist who places such restrictions to open enquiry is also not doing science.

What conditions did you assume about Randi before you thought anyone should submit to him? Quoting you: "I would submit myself to Randi for absolutely nothing" - on what criteria?

I haven't swivelled the discussion on personalities, but rather kept it on its own merits.

Just ask yourself the question - why would Z&T put restriction on the type of equipment that could be used?  Science demands that all its process be fair, open and repeatable. Hiding some parts of the experiments to the scrutiny of observer does not smack of openness and objective.   Compare this with the methods of Sheldrake whose experiments (at least the ones I have seen and read about) are open for all to see.

What did you mean by the following statement.

pilgrim.1:
Possibly. If otherwise, could you please answer why Randi et al are not open to consider any such evidence unless on their own terms? Why so? Is that objectivity in enquiry?

I asked you what these terms are and you are unable to show them.  So how could we judge if the terms are fair or unfair?

PLEASE, PLEASE show me the terms.  How do you expect me to answer if you do not show me the terms.  You seem to be fixated on personalities rather than the method.  To assume the terms are unfair just because they are from Randi is called Personality Fixation or Personality Bias.  Let us look at the terms and let the terms speak for themselves. ( I suspect this is one of those things you are going to evade, as is your wont)

pilgrim.1:
I'm aware of Dr. Sheldrake's experiments - and I would have used them if they were germane to my discussions so far. I wonder that this is deviating from the specific examples I offered to now about whether one particular experiment from Sheldrake fills the cloud. The example I proffered is from Zimmat - can we focus on that and cut the distractions?

Possibly. If otherwise, could you please answer why Randi et al are not open to consider any such evidence unless on their own terms? Why so? Is that objectivity in enquiry?

Well, from what I have seen of Z&T so far, am afraid, I am no longer interested as their methods are unscientiffic (ie putting restrictions on what tools could be used by investigators. That is simply not science). When they have opened up to unrestricted scrutiny, then we can talk.

As per you question about Randi, can you show me any elements of their conditions (and I mean material aspects to the test, not financial or contractual or personal) which you think are not objective, then I may be able to respond.

Remember, I look for methodology and not personalities.

pilgrim.1:
I simply want to burst out laughing, Is it that you are just wishing Zammit and Thompson are not open? I wonder what you make of this:

Do these sound like people who are not open? I wonder also that Dr. Rupert Sheldrake would be identifying with people who are having something to hide - for such unconventional attitudes are not in his books.

Why would that make you laugh? When something appears fair and unbiased, I say it. What I saw in the RS experiments appeared open and objective. Alas for him, it did not prove his point, but it was scientific. Check this out on RS site http://www.sheldrake.org/experiments/pigeons/

Does openness entail putting restrictions on the types of equipements that may be allowed in the "test"?

I remember being impress by some of the research by Rubert Sheldrake about 16 years ago, when he was promoting the idea of morphic resonance.  From what I saw and have read about his methods, he was quite rigorous and that was why I was impressed. Although all the test came out not to favour his theory, the methodology seem scientific and excellent.  Of course, that does not mean that morphic resonance does not exist - it simply means that there is no evidence for it using current scientific tools.

Recently, about 3 years ago, another of Sheldrakes experiments was performed on UK TV (I think the BBC).  This time he theory was aimed at explaining how it is that some bird like pigeon could navigate vast distances, finding their way home from distant lands.  This hypothesis was that these birds navigate some sort of morphic field.  Again, he openly invited scientists to look at his methods and they were put to the test.  The experiments were not able to prove the existence of these field navigated by these birds.

Yet again, I have respect for his approach.  If only Z&T could be as open as RS.

pilgrim.1:
Would you like the other 11 public challenges to James Randi et al? Would he be pretending that he has never seen ANY ONE of these? What has been his response (as some of us are not aware he has at any time attempted to credibly apply himself to face up to those challenges)? What is James Randi really dawdling about for?

@huxley2,
If I were you, I would not even try to shlepp on about Randi. I promised you the guy's not worth the publicity credited to him from his theatricals. I hope these few would help you come round to some objective appraisal.

Perhaps, after you've satisfied your curiosity, I'd have the happy occasion to move on to more engaging examples that atheists rarely talk about. Cheers.

You are getting me wrong again and we have discussed this before. I am not a disciple of anybody. I look at the material they produce and see if that matches some objective standards. So although I have tended to agree with the standard of Randi's test, if I find any evidence of inadequacy I would be the first to shout out.

I just cannot read the voluminous cut & paste job you are doing about Randi. If you could summarise tha salient points, all 13 of them and post links to the main text, then I shall take a look. Since you have read all of them, I would expect you to know the main points enough to post a concise summary of them all.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley2,

Lol, you seem to be making things even more difficult for yourself. But I'll oblige and then seek to contextualize this for you us so that we can move on beyond this stage - I'm receiving indications that the Zammit case is being dragged on longer than necessary.

On the contrary, Randi owes much to his fawning crowd - for that his is boasted credential: a 'paranormal-debunker'. He has tried to "replicate" some of the claimed paranormal occurences or operations of some 'paranormalists'; why then is he shying away from this particular challenge? I don't think making excuses for him will do a nice pat on his back. He thinks he has the birthright to set at nought the pain-staking research of people well-versed in their fields; and yet when called upon (even publicly challenged), he has dawdled forever on this case.

What do you think Zammit is hiding from the public after publishing his findings in a book for the public to read? What do you think other scientists were doing when they rose to the challenge of participating in the séance sessions to see things for themselves? What names were included in Zammit's list? Here again -

          Senior scientists and investigators who participated in the Scole materialization experiments:

                  Professor David Fontana

                  Professor Arthur Ellison

                  Montague Keen

                  Dr Hans Schaer [a lawyer]

                  Dr Ernst Senkowski

                  Piers Eggett

                  Keith Mcquin Roberts

                  Dr Rupert Sheldrake

                  Professor Ivor Grattan-Guiness

                 - all with scientific or other relevant background and a host of other highly credible
                 witnesses who have had years of experience in dealing with the paranormal. In the
                 United States sessions were also attended by a number of scientists. There were a
                 number of senior scientists from the space agency NASA and others from the Institute
                 of Noetic Sciences . .[          ] near San Francisco as well as representatives from
                 Stanford University.

If people like James Randi are serious, would he claim that anyone prevented him from also attending the séance sessions as these respected names above? Is Randi a science institution all by himself that researchers owe anything to him for verification? The guy is cheap, drop him. It was specifically people like him I had in mind in references to 'dunce' (my apologies, as I don't mean this personally against you). Randi hasn't discharged himself credibly in Zammit's challenge - so who owes Randi any submissions?

And who might that be, precisely - James Randi? Puhleease! I'm not aware of any of the listed names above discrediting Zammit; and if they actually attended the sessions to see things for thmeselves, could other enquirers not do the same?

I'm sorry to say, but that is a huge minus on his part. He ought not to be deceiving the public as if he meant what he was stating in that challenge. This is even more reason why no one owes him anything and should roundly ignore him.

Don't kid yourself, huxley2. I'll take it for granted that you don't know James Randi. Could I remind you again of what I highlighted? here:
[list][/list]
Submit however one may, and comply with or act according to the instructions on his offer, he would still not respond credibly. Is that the sort of "scientist" who discharges himself as seeking to establish 'truth' free from bias?

Yes, people are doing that in one way or another - some for a fee that does not reap them net profits. However, let me quickly say here that such is not the raison d'être of my Christian worldview. We have a legitimate claim of the existence of supernatural entities such as ghosts, spirits, etc - and it is not just about this world that such knowledge could be useful. The bigger question is this: what is the implication for a naturalist who only discovers such a reality when it's too late? If we left this enquiry to the likes of James Randi et al, are we not flirting with a dangerous gamble?

Please consider these matters carefully, and much regards.

When you say these scientists "participated" in these seances, do you know what role they play?  Or were they just sitters.  I suspect they were just sitters and had no way of influencing or controlling the conduct of the seance.  I have just read a report of one of these seances here . The scientist present are not reported as influencing or control the event. On the contrary, if sounded as though some of their request were turned down.

It was a source of considerable anxiety and regret that we were unable to get them to accept the introduction of infrared video cameras at this stage. Page 169

If I was a scientist who was prevented from using my tools to investigate an event, I personally would not give it any endorsements

BTW,  I have been familiar with Randi for about 20 years and I had one of his books (Faith Healers), the one in which he investigates Christian Faith Healers.  I have sent it to my brother in Cameroon.  So, I am familiar with his work and I also subscribe to his channel on YouTube.


Now, what do you make about his claims that Uri Geller's suppose gifts were simply magic tricks?  Randi has been saying this for nearly 30 years, only for Geller himself to only recently admit it.  Did you ever think Geller had supernatural powers?

pilgrim.1:
What exactly are you suggesting about those scientists? Has anyone denied Randi himself participating in such séance to verify things for himself?

The one that amazes me is this:

[list][/list]
[list][/list]

For several years now after Zammit threw out the challenge to Randi et al, why have they not take him on that challenge and cleared all doubts? What is Randi scared of that he has not responded to the correspondence of Michael Roll, Chris Robinson and others? If Randi is credible, why has he been dawdling on this matter and yet not braved Zammit's challenge?

Well, strictly speaking, the onus is NOT on Randi to replicate the results of Zammit & Thompson. There is an infinite number of ways in which Z&T are able to produce the result there get. To expect a challenger to pick the right one out of a sample space of infinity is unreasonable.

Take for instance, the scientists that first discover a new phenomenon or process or entity. Does he/she challenge all other scientist to replicate or reproduce his/her result? NO. On the other hand, they present their methods in professional journal/media for the scientific world to review. That is how objectivity is gained. Any scientist who claims a result but does not expose his method to this level of scrutiny is treated as a crank.

So to follow standard procedure, Z&T ought to submit their methods to scientific scrutineers. The money thing offer by Randi is just an inducement. If I was truly capable of "supernatural" powers, I would submit myself to Randi for absolutely nothing. After all, wouldn't such knowledge be useful to mankind. If I knew of a reliable way of contacting my father who is in the "spirit world" for advice useful to me in this world, I would be all too happy to share that knowledge with the rest of the world FOR FREE.

Why do you think Zammit would invite these scientist to participate in these seances but when asked to perform under the scrutiny of Randi refuses?

pilgrim.1:
Before I continue, let me make one thing absoultely clear: I'm not Mr Zammit's amanuensis or standing to defend his work. It's obvious that he is well able to defend his work against any skeptic.

That said, let me review your latest concerns.

I understand that.

Mainstream scientific investigators of the sort that you may be referring to are intellectually lazy dunces. Lol, that is not an indictment at you; but I find this convenient clap-trap quite amusing and just too irrestible to throw out whenever it crops up.

Let's be objective: you seem to assume that there is "only one way and one way only" to emprical research; so that if it does not turn out in a certain way as you had anticipated, it could then be null and void! That is quite cultish and very revealing of a closed mindset to enquiry. Let's mirror this against what you've stated:

That is self-explanatory, as it is not on that basis that the whole research falls. Let's review his answers:

[list][/list]

If it was about detecting motion or movements that might otherwise reveal that there were movements within the room or enclosure (in the case of footsteps), re-read this one I posted earlier:

[list][/list]

Were there no other ways to detect the sort of 'motion' that you were enquiring about?

I think he's very well answered that objection.

He answered that as well. I also asked you a simple question in that regard - what sayest thou?

Is it possible that you're mixing issues up for yourself? He did not describe the spirit as essential composed of physical material for it to be "solid". That it manifested in such ways does not make a 'spirit' something you could collect in a crucible.

You have not shown how his methodology is flawed but only reacting from your mental bias. Thank goodness you were the one to rush to his website and reproduce his well-articulated answers to the sort of objections you raised. Just because his methodology may be "flawed" (without your showing how), what conclusions have you derived therefrom?

From what you know of the Zammit experience, supposing the same write-up were submitted as a thesis in a university for say a Masters or PhD, would you recommend a pass, fail, referral for more work? Let me tell you where I stand. I would recommend referral. Why? Because I would like to see

1) samples of ectoplasm and the results of a DNA analysis

2) The use of motion detector or talcum power

3) Night-vision equipement

4) Sample from the "spirit"

5) Some justification that spirit and ectoplasm are sensitive to "scientific equipments"

6) I would get another independent outside body (just like external PhD examiners) to review the process and outcome.

I do not deny that Mr Zammit has not investigated Mr Thompson, but he falls short of an unbiased objective investigator. I realised that you would make the same accusation about science, but this position of tentative skeptism is what makes science such a powerful tool.

Now, you sit here and comfortably enjoy the fruits of science and the scientific method and yet you have the gall to describe the hard-working scientist and lazy dunces. Can you name one useful fruit of supernaturalism? Mr Zammit claims to be a thorough investigator, yet he did not put in place some of the most basic of things to ensure that his investigation was thorough and unbiased. Does that smack you as hard-working and dilligent?


Just name one useful fruit of supernaturalism that is enjoyed the world over and recognised as having brought mankind wholesome benefits, and I shall rest my case.

pilgrim.1:
If this is true, that is ectoplasm could not be obtained for fear of killing Mr Thompson, this does not bode well for this "scientific objective methodology", does it?

Lol, huxley, do not dwell much on these matters in such a manner as to push it towards your naturalistic mindset. I'm not being accusative (and I hope you don't read me so); but the "scientific objective methodology" you're referring to assumes that, one should be able to collect samples of a 'spirit' or other such entitles in a physical crucible. That idea only blurs the line between what is 'natural' and 'supernatural'.

Have you thought about the fact that scientific objective methodology may very the existence of a phenomena by direct observation, even though the observer (scientist) may not be able to offer a scientific explanation for what he observes? The basic point here is whether or not such things exist - which is at the foundation of other considerations of how to explain them. The "scientific objective methodology" you posit does not attempt to deny the existence of such phenomena as 'spirits', but rather at the basic level may observe the reality of such things. Only after that fundamental level does the investigator seek to explain those observations within the framework of a working hypothesis.

He did not conduct the research alone - and if others are not satisfied with his methodology, nothing stops them from embarking on the same investigations.

I already noted that there are numerous websites that are very critical of Mr Zammit and David Thompson. However, let me comment on the following:

For the second, I'd just like to know if you've read that book yourself - and if so, was that a response to Zammit and Thompson? I'm taking for granted that you've read the book yourself and not relying on the comments of reviewers at Amazon.com.

However, for someone who has been quite skeptical of Thompson, I'll repost excerpts of some of the reports he got that helped him to change his mind about Thompson's seances:

[list][/list]

I've deliberately left the quote without highlighting anything so as not to influence the reader's mind one way or another. For me, I only present these issues from an objective point of reference such as that a skeptic may not be right in just arguing for the sake of it. Have such skeptics attempted to conduct independent researches of their own in an objective manner? Have they convincingly proven that in all possible worlds, such phenomena as 'ghosts' and 'spirits' do not exists?

Okay, I remember: deal with this atheist huxley2 here - and not plaster him with the presumptions of other atheists. Aiight. Could I therefore ask you if you have your own independent "scientific objective methodology" for investigating phenomena and interractions between the natural and supernatural?

Well, this is not an indictment on you but on Mr Zammit. He claims to be an empericist who has used objective means to investigate the claims of Mr Thompson. But when one begins to investigate his methods, one finds it falls short of what mainstream scientific investigators would use;

1) He never used any motion detectors

2) The seances were conducted in darkness and he did not use any night vision devices

3) He has no sample of the outcome of the seances

4) He claimed he shoke hands with a spirit and called it "solid", but he has no sample of material from the "spirit". How could it have been "solid" to the extend that he shoke hand with him?

Simply put, his methodology is flawed and even a 16 year old fresherman/woman would see just would unscientific his methods are.

I have found out who the correspondent with Mr Zammit is and this is one of their exchange taken from Zammits website. Why don't you read through it and tell me if you think Zammit is really being objective in the scientific sense. You are better off reading the site rather than this post as it is well formated on his site.

---

VICTOR J ZAMMIT: A New York Lawyer Challenges David Thompson’s Materializations

Lawyer Victor Zammit’s replies to a New York lawyer’s Mr J's cross examination of what Victor stated in his report about the successful materializations of David Thompson.

(For full text of the N.Y. lawyer see end of this page under ANNEXURE 'A')

Victor: Absolutely, I can answer all the issues/objections and negative imputations and nuances raised by the New York lawyer. It is good that another lawyer communicates and tries to cross-examine me on one of the most important critical and sensational phenomena of our time - David Thompson's materializations.

A) Mr D, the New York lawyer states, “I was very disappointed to read your rather positive review of a séance you attended with David Thompson this June. As a lawyer myself, I looked forward to more critical and creative thinking than you displayed”.

Victor: Close ‘content analysis’ of your overall statements and questions reveal that you are operating with at least three unfair and unfounded ‘presumptions’:

i) the presumption that the paranormal does not exist and therefore whatever I report cannot be right,
ii) the presumption that fraud is taking place in these materializations,
iii) the presumption that you have a monopoly on truth and anything inconsistent with your truth just cannot be valid.

Further content analysis of what you stated reveals:

iv) your own deeply entrenched negative partiality against materializations,
v) that you are a ‘hard line skeptic’.

A more impartial analyst would not have stated, “…I was very disappointed to read your rather positive review of a séance…” but would have demanded more information to confirm what exactly occurred during the materializations of David Thompson in June 06 in order to come to the right conclusions. You came to your negative conclusions without having the full information and your conclusions are not consistent with the evidence stated in my report (stated in my original first report about David’s materializations).

B) Essentially, you bound a man to a chair and sat in darkness while experiencing various phenomena. You then turned on the lights and a man was still bound in a chair.

Victor:That would be an oversimplistic description of what actually happened and tends to reduce the fundamental changes which took place during the materialization experiment. You left out many critical procedures. For example, we bound to a chair a special man - a ‘materialization medium’, not just a ‘man’.

This medium is a gifted materialization medium. He emitted ectoplasm. Ectoplasm mediums are extremely rare in this world. I only know of one in Australia. Two in the UK and none in the U.S. that I know of. This ectoplasm was the ‘medium’ which reduced the afterlife vibrations of the etherians to physical vibrations for materializations - for the etherians to become solid. Those with scientific background have scientifically explained materialization process in my chapter 6 of my book, Einstein’s ‘E=mc2 and materialization’ (A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife www.victorzammit.com ).

The critical importance of ectoplasm: ectoplasm, a whitish gaseous substance, can only function in total darkness and sometimes in low red light. When police raided the British materialization medium Helen Duncan 1956 in Nottingham, England (see chapter 11) and put the light on during a materialization experiment, the ectoplasm was quickly drawn back into the medium with great force, eventually killing her.

Ectoplasm was scientifically studied, Professor Richet, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physiology and by Professor W D Crawford from Queen’s University, Belfast. Both admitted its existence and wrote scientific reports about ectoplasm. Baron Von Schrenck-Notzing, a Munich physician, showed that ectoplasm is composed of leucocytes – white or colorless blood cells – and epithelial cells – those from the various protective tissues of the body.

C) Your inability to see during the performance would seem to make you a very questionable witness.

Victor: If by ‘questionable’ you mean unreliable, then I reject that completely. If by ‘questionable’ you mean needing further questions, yes, I accept that. It all goes to credit. It is not dissimilar to a situation when you close your eyes in a room sitting down and someone comes up to you very close – up to twelve inches away from you, talking to you in an intelligent way. You know that someone is holding a conversation with you; you know that the conversation is being taped, you know a voice is produced with its peculiar rhythm, pace, pitch, intonation; you know that someone actually shakes hands with you; you feel the materialized hand, it is solid as yours; that someone asks you intelligent questions. You ask the voice questions and obtain intelligent answers.

Now I submit that when this situation occurs it does not mean that it is impossible or impractical that someone is actually there in a materialized form, performing, doing the talking, the conversing and the answering of questions. Besides, there have been other prominent people with the highest credibility in this world who reported similar incidents to what I reported – including the abovementioned Nobel Laureate Professor Richet and Professor W D Crawford.

D) Your professed belief in the supernatural would also make you a biased observer - preferring to see confirmation of your beliefs than all of the ways you may have been deceived.

Victor: I NEVER professed any belief in the supernatural. That is an assumption which I reject, totally. Unlike you with your skeptical beliefs, I do NOT have the luxury of ‘beliefs’. As a matter of fact since I started investigating the paranormal and the afterlife I have never stated at any time that I believe in anything. I am on record for accepting the evidence for the afterlife. Objective evidence has nothing to do with beliefs. One is objective the other is subjective.

Notwithstanding that I am a university trained lawyer (now retired) I am also an empiricist. I am also formally qualified with a Major in Psychology with three years full time of Scientific Method. For the last sixteen years I have investigated the paranormal using empirical methodology. I have technical knowledge about what variables I have to control when conducting experiments. That technically and inevitably excludes subjectivity, personal beliefs and assumptions. The endeavor is always for strict empirical objectivity and accordingly, that would not and could not make me a biased observer. If I am biased, then I am biased towards objectivity. I do not investigate to prove anything. I investigate and report what I find.

1. Are you aware that magicians have been replicating the performance you described for over a hundred years?

Victor: Not only am I aware that a couple of magicians have been putting on shows claiming they are replicating the paranormal – but without scientific scrutiny - I am also aware there have been, and there are, genuine empirically based materializations experiments taking place. I am also aware that there are quacks, charlatans and other tricksters of every kind in every profession, in science, in medicine and in the paranormal.

To my knowledge, there has never ever been a magician who was able to duplicate the performance of a gifted materialization medium producing phenomena under strict empirical scrutiny. Never. It just could not be done. There has never been an instant where strict empirical methodology was applied and where a magician was able to produce materializations, produce materialized phenomena and produced materialized voices. Never. And to the claim that a trained actor can come up with seven different voices, with a gag firmly around his mouth, I guarantee it can never be done.

I would be most interested if you could name me just one instant where empiricists reported that magicians were able to produce speaking materialized beings. I am also aware that magicians, including James Webster (who is also a member of the British Circle of Magicians) from the United Kingdom, have investigated the paranormal and have unqualifiedly stated that no magician can do what a genuine medium can do.

2. Are you aware that many magicians and their accomplices have confessed to putting on convincing performances like the one you described using nothing but trickery? http://www.prairieghosts.com/seance2.html

Victor: That website would be irrelevant and inadmissible because it states itself ‘TRICKS OF FRAUDULENT MEDIUMS.’ I am not involved with ‘tricks of fraudulent mediums’. There was never an empirically conducted materialization experiment where the mediums used tricks or fraud or deceit. The website given is a narrative, hearsay account of some of the séances and is inadmissible. The narrative, third party writer there does not identify just one specific materialization experiment, let alone just one séance conducted by a scientist.

The article also concedes that whereas there have been many fraudulent séances, there must have been genuine séances as well. Relating to fraud, the writer of the same article concedes, “… this was not the case with every medium …’ meaning that cheating and fraud did not happen with genuine mediums. My research is strictly empirical. I would be more interested if you cited an example where empiricists, who were able to perceive the paranormal with empirical equanimity, were in control and where they had a gifted materialization medium - and to see what the results were. That you conveniently chose not to report. (See end of article for relevant links on empirical materializations).

A repeated fundamental objection by the hard core skeptics is that there is no ectoplasm – that in fact the medium uses ‘cheesecloth.’ Two things I say to that: first, Professor Donald West (Society for Psychical Research U.K.) is on record for seriously suggesting that materialization medium Helen Duncan hid the ‘cheesecloth’ in her anus to fool the sitters. This he stated when he was severely criticizing Helen Duncan’s materialization mediumship chapter 11 of my book www.victorzammit.com (see http://www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter11.html . “It’s possible” Professor West boasted defiantly, for that to be done. So I challenged this good Professor to demonstrate himself that to me. I would accordingly challenge Randi or any hard core skeptic who claims that - to show how they can stick long piece of white cheesecloth - the size of a long scarf – then make it appear in form of a human being – e.g. like Louis Armstrong, then to make it sing “Hello Dolly” in the raspish, deep, resonant voice of Louis Armstrong.

3. Do you know that many magicians take great care to secure themselves to a chair (or in a locked trunk or something) specifically for the purpose of misdirection because their tricks do not depend on them being free?

Victor: Be that as it may, you are obviously implying that the medium has accomplices. I stated and will re-state, that it physically impossible for the genuine materialization mediums such as David Thompson to have had accomplices. With extreme care, I (and others) checked the security for fraud myself and guarantee, with absolute certainty, that it was physically impossible for accomplices to have participated in the materialization experiment.

We would be confident to take the medium to anyplace – of your choice - where trapdoors – floors, walls and ceilings do not exist. That the room, floor, walls and ceilings are solid concrete with no windows and only one door which would be secured, sealed and guarded all the time by any independent party. But then, a magician of your choice would have to duplicate the experiment under identical conditions – and when that magician fails, he’s got to hand over half a million dollars to the medium David Thompson (see below).

4. Are you aware that, for over a century, magicians have been using accomplices?

Victor: Magicians use accomplices. Genuine materialization mediums do not. Magicians are professionally trained to ‘cheat’, to ‘lie’, to fool the audiences, to misdirect, misinform, to deceive. Gifted, genuine materialization mediums who are spiritually advanced, do not lie, do not cheat, do not fool or deceive anyone. For over a century, there were magicians who used accomplices- that’s how they give the impression of magic. But a definitive distinction has to be made between a cheating magician and an genuine materialization medium and no expression should be used to expressly state or impute the two are or can ever be the same.

5. Did you take any precautions against Mr. Thompson's use of accomplices?

Victor: Absolutely. I know all the sitters. I can absolutely guarantee that there were no accomplices. It would be a physical impossibility for anyone to sneak into the experimenting room. All walls, floors, ceilings were very carefully checked. Windows were locked from the inside. The only door to the experimental room was sealed, locked from the inside and a chair put under the lock from the inside. Obstacles were put between the door and where chair of the sitter was, so that it would be physically impossible to open the door. All seven sitters were at one time or another conversing with the materialized etherians. When any entity materializes all sitters have to join hands. It is very easy to account for every sitter by the physical position, by holding the hands. Further, when materializations take place, all sitters converse with the materialized etherians and each sitter is accounted for by his/her vocalizing and from identifying the position from where they are verbalizing – sitting in their respective chairs.

6. Did you mark the other attendees with glow tape?

Victor: No that was not done when I attended the first materialization experiment. There were luminous strips put on the medium himself in other sessions. But do understand these are very early days. We are improving and refining the methodology all the time. In all fairness, there was a time, where the medium’s chair was translocated one foot away from me. With very low red light on, I was told to hold the medium’s hand and check the seals – which were intact. I also checked his gag and left my hand on the gag – but the voice from the materialized entity was still being heard.

7. Did you secure the other attendees to their chairs?

Victor: The only security, at the moment, is by way of accountability of holding hands. In one experiment the sitters during materialization were told to identify themselves by name when the voices were coming from the opposite direction. When the voice was heard, each sitter was accounted for and the voice came from the area they were sitting. Briefly, the medium David Thompson sits in the corner – he does NOT use a cabinet. Then the sitters sit in a semi-circle facing the medium. The only door to the experimental room, facing the medium would be on the extreme right hand side – opposite the sitter on the right hand side.

8. Did you bar all entrances to keep out any accomplices unknown to you?

Victor: (**** see answer to your question 5, above.) Yes, absolutely. As I stated, it is physically impossible for accomplices to enter the room because there are obstacles to open the door. There was only one entrance/exit door. All windows were locked from the inside. There were no trap doors in the ceiling, walls or floor.

9. Did you place bubble wrap on the floor or employ motion detectors?

Victor: No we did not. As abovestated, we only had three brief sittings. There is still so much to consider. I am hoping that the experiments will go on for the next six months where other method will be used to assist in the empirical procedure. We will be employing different methods to continue to show what is really happening. In one experiment in England the experimenters among other things put talcum powder on the floor.

10. Would you repeat this experiment while wearing night-vision goggles (such goggles merely collect ambient light and do not give off any light or energy of their own)?

Victor: That was my first question in the very first experiment to the materialized etherian who calls himself ‘William’ who is the ‘control’ of the medium. I wanted infra red video, night vision goggles. The reply was that we have to understand that we are dealing with very highly volatile and extra sensitive afterlife energies. We just cannot superimpose our conditions (what we think is reasonable) onto the afterlife conditions. Patience, this etherian stated, patience. In the future, the afterlife will bring its own light. In England there are materialization experiments going on where sitters are using infra red filming. We would need a few months of investigations on these materializations. Accordingly, answering your question, yes, one day in the future, we will be wearing night-vision goggles, we will be taking still photographs.

11.Would you like $1 million US dollars? If you can repeat the events that you described, James Rand will pay you one million dollars. Go to www.randi.org for more information.

Victor: Let me say this first, I have been advising leading psychics in the U.S. and elsewhere not to fall for Randi’s trap. My research into the offer is that it is propaganda, not a genuine offer. I do not consider the $1million dollar challenge to be genuine. First, he is on record for stating to one of the founders of CSICOP, “I will always have a way out (of paying the $1million)”. That speaks volumes; that reveals intention and that is not denied by Randi. That expressly stated intention shows that he is not genuine and will find someway of not paying the $1m. We are on notice Randi is going to do that.

I had complaints from psychics and investigators – Michael Roll, Chris Robinson and others, who had great problems communicating with Randi, notwithstanding they acted according to the instructions on his offer. He just does not respond to their correspondence.

However, David Thompson would take him on but not on the unilateral conditions set by Randi. Among other things, the $1million would have to be deposited with a truly independent stakeholder and on proving the paranormal has taken place, the $1m would have to be handed over to the medium forthwith – no subsequent if’s, but’s, or maybe’s or “let me think about it”.

Randi fails to beat my own challenge

For the record, Randi has not applied to beat my own $1million challenge. He implied he would when my offer first came out on the internet – some eight years ago. I am still waiting for him and any of those highly qualified empiricists closed minded skeptics on the East Coast to take me on.

By countering Randi’s offer, we are too making another offer for any magician – for anyone to duplicate our materializations experiments under strict scientific conditions. At least one debunking skeptic ex-magician claimed he could duplicate any psychic experiment and gets the same results. Let him try. If he fails, he has to hand over the medium David Thompson, half a million dollars. As to one of the fundamental conditions, there will be only one minute notice where the experiments or the duplication of the experiments will be taking place. Also, payment has to be made immediately on results.

12. I predict that, like most biased witnesses I have examined, you will not express the least doubt in your story. However, as an attorney, I wish you would honestly evaluate whether you could withstand a real cross-examination.

Victor: Again, you are making erroneous assumptions by your ‘predictions’ when you do not have all the information to make any prediction. Further, you yourself show that you are a negatively biased witness by your own sustained and consistent anti-paranormal negativity. I reiterate, I am an empiricist and do not have the luxury of beliefs or partiality in any way.

Was Newton biased in his observation of gravity? Was Einstein biased in his mathematical findings? Was Galileo biased in his heliocentric view of the solar system?

David Thompson’s materialization experiments are empirical – they are duplicated over time and space, variables are held constant and they yield the same results – therefore they are repeatable. That is a being empirical. That is being objective.

By contrast, content analysis shows you are a skeptic, even a debunker, with your own personal, subjective beliefs. That is your prerogative. But you are arguing from a position of extreme weakness because you do not have science to support your ‘beliefs’ that the paranormal does not exist, that materializations do not take place. Again, you cannot independently substantiate your personal, subjective, personal beliefs. And as you know, anything subjective is itself subject to error, to complete invalidation. There is no empirical basis for skeptical beliefs.

We have expressly stated WHAT the evidence is. As you know, the onus shifts on to the opposition to show that the evidence cannot be admitted as admissible objective evidence. No one - no scientist, no lawyer, no debunker, no theologian, no closed minded skeptic in the eight years has been able to rebut my evidence and findings for the afterlife. And my own definitive prediction is, with the professional knowledge and experience that I have, no one, no one will ever be able to rebut or duplicate the materializations of David Thompson. And as we all know, anything expressly stated and not rebutted stays valid.

For the record, I guarantee that paranormal activity is taking place in these below- mentioned materialization experiments. I also state that I shook hands with an entity claiming to be a materialized Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930) and state that his hand was solid, and that his voice was inches away from where I was. His answers to my questions were taped. At this stage, we are empirically studying the materialized voices to see if there can be an correlation between the voices of those who materialized and their voices when they were alive on earth. At this stage we only have a prima facie case made out that these materialized etherians are who they claim to be. We will be announcing all empirical results on my website in the future.

The above information is very likely to upset the conservatives because it is questioning entrenched traditional cherished beliefs and values. It is challenging scientific orthodoxy and materialism. It is evidence that consciousness survives physical death.

EXTERNAL CREDIBILITY OF MATERIALIZATION

The SCOLE EXPERIMENT http://www.victorzammit.com/book/chapter05.html which is well documented confirms everything David Thompson is doing. The investigators are highly credible scientists, psychologists, lawyer, and other professionals. See below.

Senior scientists and investigators who participated in the Scole materialization experiments included Professors David Fontana, Professor Arthur Ellison and Montague Keen. Of course, over the four years and five hundred sittings there were many others who attended as senior scientists and guests in the actual experiments: Dr Hans Schaer a lawyer, Dr Ernst Senkowski, Piers Eggett, Keith Mcquin Roberts, Dr Rupert Sheldrake, Professor Ivor Grattan-Guiness - all with scientific or other relevant background and a host of other highly credible witnesses who have had years of experience in dealing with the paranormal. In the United States sessions were also attended by a number of scientists. There were a number of senior scientists from the space agency NASA and others from the Institute of Noetic Sciences http://www.noetic.org/ near San Francisco as well as representatives from Stanford University.

Some of the most famous materialization mediums of the last two centuries include Daniel Dunglas Home, who was investigated in a laboratory by Sir William Crookes, Franek Kluski, the Warsaw medium who was notable for materializing large numbers of animals and mediumship was verified by Dr Gustave Geley, who participated in Kluski's seances at the Paris Institut Metapsychique International and by Prof. F. W. Pawlowski.

When you investigate the sheer number of testimonies of highly credible witnesses of the phenomena of materialization you cannot help but be struck by highly credibility of the witnesses and the similarities in the phenomena. For example see the online accounts of the following materialization mediums:

Elizabeth S and May E Bangs (known as the Bang Sisters) of Chicago, Illinois,
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~bretty/articles_bangs1.html

Arnold Clare http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/seance/78/aclare.htm

Florence Cook, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/cookflorence.htm

Margery Crandon, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/crandon.htm

Stella Cranshaw, better known as 'Stella C.', http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/stella.htm

Frank Decker, http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/seance/78/deckerg.htm

Elizabeth Hope who worked under the pseudonym of Mme. D'Esperance, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/desperance.htm

The Eddy Brothers, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/eddy.htm

William Eglinton, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/eglinton.htm

Rita Goold http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/mediums/crossley/crossley_pn83-en.html
http://survivalebooks.org/russell/russbyrne.htm

Alec Harris whose wife documented his mediumship in They Walked Among Us.
http://website.lineone.net/~enlightenment/alec_harris.htm

Minnie Harrison, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/harrison/index.html

Cecil Husk, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/barrett/years.htm

Stainton Moses, an Anglican clergyman, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/moses.htm

Eusapia Palladino, http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/palladino.htm

Estelle Roberts, http://www.harvestfields.ca/ebook/02/033/10.htm

Rudi and Willy Schneider, http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/seance/78/schneidr.htm
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/mediums/schneider.htm

Hunter Selkirk, http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/seance/78/selkirk.htm

Jack Webber http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/seance/78/webr.htm

-----------------------------------------

ANNEXURE 'A' - full text of New York lawyer

Mr. Zammit:

I was very disappointed to read your rather positive review of a seance you attended with David Thompson this June. As a lawyer myself, I looked forward to more critical and creative thinking than you displayed. Essentially, you bound a man to a chair and sat in darkness while experiencing various phenomena. You then turned on the lights and a man was still bound in a chair. Your inability to see during the performance would seem to make you a very questionable witness. Your professed belief in the supernatural would also make you a biased observer - preferring to see confirmation of your beliefs than all of the ways you may have been deceived. Were this a court case and were I to have you on the stand, I might ask some of the following questions:

1. Are you aware that magicians have been replicating the performance you described for over a hundred years?
2. Are you aware that many magicians and their accomplices have confessed to putting on convincing performances like the one you described using nothing but trickery? http://www.prairieghosts.com/seance2.html
3. Do you know that many magicians take great care to secure themselves to a chair (or in a locked trunk or something) specifically for the purpose of misdirection because their tricks do not depend on them being free?
4. Are you aware that, for over a century, magicians have been using accomplices?
5. Did you take any precautions against Mr. Thompson's use of accomplices?
6. Did you mark the other attendees with glow tape?
7. Did you secure the other attendees to their chairs?
8. Did you bar all entrances ro keep out any accomplices unknown to you?
9. Did you place bubble wrap on the floor or employ motion detectors?
10. Would you repeat this experiment while wearing night-vision goggles (such goggles merely collect ambient light and do not give off any light or energy of their own)?
And, last,
11. Would you like $1 million US dollars? If you can repeat the events that you described, James Rand will pay you one million dollars. Go to www.randi.org for more information.

I predict that, like most biased witnesses I have examined, you will not express the least doubt in your story. However, as an attorney, I wish you would honestly evaluate whether you could withstand a real cross-examination.

Mr D, New York.

Here is a comment from someone who is in communication with Mr Zammit, taken from this discussion forum . Here, he is asking Mr Zammit about a sample of the ectoplasm from David Thompson. This is Mr Zammit's response:

Well, for example, Victor says the medium exudes ectoplasm. I ask for a sample and he says that he can't get a sample because, as everyone knows, if you interupt the medium during the seance the ectoplasm will "snap back" and kill him. You have to believe in ectoplasm in order to see proof of ectoplasm. Does that make it less unclear?

If this is true, that is ectoplasm could not be obtained for fear of killing Mr Thompson, this does not bode well for this "scientific objective methodology", does it?

If he truly wished to pass his investigations off as repectable and scientific, he should have the ectoplasm subjected to analysis, say a DNA analysis.

In fact, reading the post for the poster who is in communication with Mr Zammit does not speak kindly of Mr Zammits objectivity. Of course, I am assuming that this poster is honest in what he has reported so far.

Found a discussion about the act of Mr Zammit and David Thompson here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59453.

This book might be very helpful in understand these guys (Zammit and Thompson)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1573921610/103-4758777-4472616?v=glance&n=283155

pilgrim.1:
@huxley2,

It does not appear you're making any sense, and using large font does not make you any clearer. I've explained my premise and offered some assumptions to bear in mind, as recycled and retired lullabies will be thrown out for their empty repetitions. I'm tempted to do that just now, but I'd rather oblige you once more.


Possibly. Possibly. Possibly. Possibly. . . to an infinite recurrent decimal: Possibly.

Now, just what do I mean by "possibly"? I've explained that, using an example, haven't I?

Just try and help yourself: what do you mean by the "non-natural"? Help yourself here, huxley2. What exactly do you take to be "non-natural" within your working hypothesis? At least, in my own approach I drew from a typical atheist website (Rapid Response Squad) concerning what some atheists may regard as non-natural, using the preferred term: "supernatural". To quote them once again:

       Atheism by strict definition is the lack of a belief in gods, but it's generally
       extended to the lack of a belief in any supernatural entity or substance.
       That includes ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, demons, vampires, elves,
       boogeymen, unicorns, phoenixes and the energies of karma, chi, the Holy Spirit,
       life-force or The Force. [here].

Please understand: I've gone to the atheist to understand what he includes in the term 'supernatural' - and having listed them as he did, I proceeded to contain my discussions along such lines.  

Now when you come to understand your own use of the term 'non-natural' (including any set of entities as best describe them for you), then think carefully through your own question again before repeating the same thing breezily. Failing to first understand and define for yourself the very terms you're reposting over and over again, is basically confirming my observation #9 about atheistic arguments:

    "9. most atheists do not have a good grasp about the issues they tend to argue."



I believe the point in my posting that as an example has been clearly stated. This is not an argument about someone's epistemology; but rather showing that as an example of someone who, at the very least, would be willing to go out and investigate such phenomena instead of being an armchair debater. The question I'm tempted to ask you is: where is your own epistemology, huxley2? You cannot be sitting down and producing zilch but cheap talk with nothing to show for your own assumed superiority. If Mr. Zammit was wrong about:

             -  objectivity

             -  repeatability

             -  scientific method

. . . then you make your own attempt to investigate such phenomena by your own epistemology. That is what thinkers do, and not just sit down repeating questions that hardly inspires confidence in your position. My observation #10 comes to mind:

        "10. fallacious logicum is at the root of many atheistic arguments."


Does he even know anything about such phenomena, huxley2? Again, the point in posting that link was simply this: such a person attempted to investigate such phenomena by some methodology. His methodology may be flawed or applaued; but, at least, the atheist naturalist should go one step and do his own research and come up with answers. Where are your own answers from your own epistemology?

I've carefully done my homework and waiting for you guys. . . just knock on my door and I'll answer pronto.  I'm very aware that both Mr Zammit and David Thompson are controversial - and there are various websites so bitter criticisms against their works. One such blogger changed his mind after receiving reports from a first-hand witness of Thompson's seances; yet another commented that there has never been any such realities anywhere. Whatever the case, how do we sort out such arguements? Whatever Mr Zammit may argue is not the point: the real issue is this - do such entities (ghosts, spirits, etc) exist? One way of finding out is to go and investigate them by direct observation.

Why do we find that the only thing skeptics and atheists know how to do so well is sit behind some keyboard and shout in large fonts?

You seem too hang too much store on what other atheists say.   You are dealing right now with this atheist, huxley.  Atheism is NOT a dogma by which all atheists are required to subscribed to a given doctrinal line.

Like I say earlier, atheism address the issue of god, or dieties primarily.  The existence or non-existence of the supernatural is only a secondary and implied position in the atheist argument (So my earlier statement about atheism being "neutral" on this was rather sloppy).

So to continue what I think is a very interesting debate, engage with my arguments, and pay little store on the arguments of other atheists.  I, for one, rarely visits these "atheists" sites.  

BTW, if my highlighting and enlarged fonts irritate you, I am sorry.  I did it because you seem to evade the simple and direct questions I have been asking.


Now, to the substance.  I know you have said scientific tools could "possibly" investigate the supernatural.  That is a reasonable response.  But why should I (or we) stop there.  We are inquisitive minds and we are constantly seeking for answers to the puzzles that is reality.

If you agree that science could possibly be used to investigate the supernatural, the next thing I would expect a good scientist to do is to try and find  answers to the following questions:

a)  It appears that the natural and the supernatural do indeed interact with one another given that natural tools can detect supernatural phenomenon. What is the mechanism behind this?


Do you agree that this is a fair question?

Pastor AIO:
Answer:  When we know what exactly is Natural as opposed to supernatural.

OK, let me give you an idea.  Can you say natural or supernatural to each of the following according to what is commonly and standardly accepted ?

1)  An apple

2)  A rump of steak

3)  A ghost

4) A gorilla

5) crop circles

6) Angels

7) Jinn

8.)  Fairies

9)  UFO

10)  Light

11)  Stigmata

12)  ESP

13) Ectoplasm

14)  Thunder and lightening

15)  Mami water

pilgrim.1:
. . . cont.

Possibly. The basic point is: do you take the view that every phenomena in all posiible worlds must of necessity be narrowed to naturalism? Either way (yes or no), why?

To give an example:

Take the question of the possibility of life after death - such that "something" survives the death of a person. Could it be a 'ghost, spirit, soul', etc - expressions which the atheist naturalist is not inclined to. Is it possible to determine by some way or the other that our humanity is not all merely 'material' that lies within the physical plane? I believe so - and the necessary question arises: HOW could we investigate such phenomena?

The naturalist would put this question in another way: "Is there an objective epistemic methodology for this kind of investigation and falsifiablity?"

My answer is "Possibly". So what do I have in mind. Here's an example that lays out this approach:

            Victor Zammit:   Materializations of David Thompson
            (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=6nPe7vK8kCg)

Please observe: I referred to the example above only for the sake of how to conduct such research - not to "prove" theism. Mr Zammit (a retired Autrlian lawyer) notes that he is not into religion, but tries to investigate and present the "evidence for the after life". How does he go about this? There are certain elements in his methodology:

              -  objectivity

              -  repeatability

              -  scientific method

What were they after? Ectoplasm - (spiritualism) a substance supposed to emanate from the body of the medium during a trance. He notes that results obtained from David Thompson's materializations are "real". But you should at least see the vid clip for yourself (Mr Zammit only recounts his findings, no scenes of actual ectoplasmic activity).

The point in all this is simple: when some atheists are presented with such "evidence" of what is beyond their naturalism, what would they do with such evidences? Deny them? Excuse them? Dismiss them? Of do the sane thing any objective 'scientist'  would do - investigate them and see if indeed such realities exists: spirits emanating from physical bodies! It's lazy intellectualism to speak all the grammar of naturalism as an armchair atheist and never take the step to investigate these phenomena.

It's not that these realities are "non-existent" - no one who objectively looks at the evidence would be brash to deny or dismiss them. The basic assumption is that "spirits" actually do exist, attested by the fact that they can emanate from physical bodies as in the supposed experiements in David Thompson's materializations. It is not a question of denying them simply because some naturalists feel threatened that their devotion to naturalism is threatened thereby. Such investigations only seek to provide answers to the following questions, if nothing else:

                --  Is there a reality that survives death?

                --  Do spirits exist?

                --  What are the implications for the atheist naturalist?

Now, if spirits survive death and thus can be proven that such phenomena exist, does that not answer the question of 'Why I Am Not An Atheist'? The atheist who denies such entities cannot plead "neutrality" here - because he's been gambling with a reality that will be a rude awakening for people who discover only too late! Such atheists are flirting with a dangerous dogmaticism in naturalism that is illogical and only limp in the face of these realities. Sorry folks, I do not have the faith to be an atheist! QED.

This is going back to one of my earlier questions:

1) Can we use scientific methods to investigate the non-natural?

2) Is Mr Zammits methodology justified in using the scientific method?

3) When will he know that what he has got is NOT natural but the Supernatural?

pilgrim.1:
@huxley2,

It appears without question that you were inferring atheism in your approach, which is why I'd keep throwing that ideology out until you come to common terms. I asked you pointedly: 'How do you know for certain that in all possible worlds[/b], these phenomena are "natural"?' Does it not appear that you've already drawn a conclusive bias and then hope to lead the discussion back to your own worldview? Lol, I'm not that gullible, you know.

1) How could my questions have implied atheism, when we are agreed that atheism is NOT a commitment to the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. Atheism is neutral about this. There are millions of atheists around the world who are also supernaturalist. So how does my asking questions about the supernatural realm implied that I am advocating atheism?

2) "How do you know for certain that in all possible worlds, these phenomena are "natural"? Where have I said or implied this? I submit to you that I have NOT.

If these questions are too hard for you, allow me to summarise them in one all-embracing question;

Is there an objective epistemic methodology for distinguishing the natural from the supernatural?

So far, from what I have read from you, it is the following:

1) Anything that cannot be explained using currently available scientific knowledge or tools is supernatural.

Now, is this true or not?

pilgrim.1:
You have posited the existence of a supernatural realm.  Don't you think you owe it to your discussants and yourself to justfy this position first?

@huxley2,

Indeed, I've posited the existence of a supernatural realm (or reality); and yes, I think it's contigent upon me to justify that position - which is what I'm doing. The only difference here is my approach, which is --

     ● to start first by examining the framework of atheism as it works out for
        most atheists; such a supposition sees atheism as -
        'generally extended to the lack of a belief in any supernatural entity
        or substance' (including ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, demons, etc).

     ● following that, I proceeded to exemply the case of those ATHEISTS who
        are convinced that such entities actually exist, even though their reality
        does not change them from being atheists. The point is that these folks
        are not denying or rejecting that such things exist; rather, they are also
        asking questions and seeking answers:
        "how can this be explained? i really don't know, and its sad that a
        television show can bring evidence forth that questions my "faith" in atheism."

     ● as a consequence, I'm seeking intelligent answers as well from atheists -
        those who are convinced that everything must be "narrowed" down to
        naturalism. These fellows who be able to proffer intelligent answers that
        would explain the fact of these other atheists that have experienced the
        phenomena they affirm. Rather than being reactive, if nothing of substance
        is forthcoming to explicate them, such exculpations cannot serve as
        rational "evidence" that those phenomena do not exist.

     ● going on from there, I hope to look in more detail at even more engaging
       experiences from atheists themselves that answer to such requests as in
       William_C's appeal: '
       the evidence that shows the existence of something beyond your world view'
       as well those experiences from people who are not self-identified as either
       theists or atheists.

In following this approach, it becomes clear that no one is making any denial about these things having occured except those whose comments thus far have been reactive without adducing any substance that explicate why or how those experiences among such atheists are misled. It is not enough or even sensible to just react and excuse them; we'd like to see more cogent empirical evidence that satisfactorily explain that in all possible worlds, there is no such thing as a realm beyond the worldview of naturalism. This is the terrible mistake that you assume when you say:

The bias here is that you have already reached a conclusion even before embarking on any empirical investigation or falsifiability. How do you know for certain that in all possible worlds, these phenomena are "natural"? If they are, as you assume, why has it been so difficult or even elusive to the atheist naturalist to replicate them and achieve the same results within the matrix of his own naturalism? This is why again I've only proffered the examples of these atheists and wait to see how you may prove their non-existence in contrast to the fact that no one has denied their existence?

This is no way to argue a point as you have NOT engaged any of the questions I asked, but you keep harping on about the beliefs of some atheists.  Look at my questions again.  Does the word "atheists" or "atheism" appear anywhere in my questions?   These are the questions again;

huxley2:
If there is a supernatural realms, then the important questions we should be attempting to address are:

1)  How do we come to know about it?

2)  Does the supernatural interact with the natural?  Does the supernatural force influence, control and modify the natural?  If it does, by what mechanism?

3)  Can the natural, in turn control, influence and modify the supernatural realm?

4) How do you distinguish the supernatural from the not-understood-yet-but-natural?

Am I asking about atheism or the beliefs of some atheist here ? And, PLEASE, if you are going to respond to this, do everyone a favour and avoid using the words "atheists"/"atheism" just for once, although I appreciate just how hard this concept is for you.

Pastor AIO:
This is a very excellent line of enquiry. What is the Supernatural? intimately bound to this is obviously the question what is the natural. Without a clear definition of what natural is how can we say what is super-natural, super meaning 'over' or above. To know what is above the natural it is necessary to first know what the natural is.

Note, even if we do not know every natural phenomenon that exists we can still say what features it will have to have in order to be considered a natural event.

To answer you questions for the moment I would say

1) As we know natural events (whatever those are) via our faculties of perception tuned to the natural, if there is a supernatural world then we must have faculties capable of perceiving it.

2) That depends entirely on what you consider to be natural and what you would consider to be supernatural.

3) Again would depend on what definitions you were using for these terms.

4) When you have a proper definition of the natural and you witness an event that is not yet understood yet exhibits the features associated with natural phenomena then you can say that it is a natural event. If it has features associated with supernatural events then it is supernatural.

One definition of Naturalism says that every event has a cause that is based on the material world. All causal agents are material. But that has difficulties. What is Matter? etc.

Perhaps if you gave us a definition of Nature and Natural cause then implicit in that definition will be the definition of Supernaturalism.

Some good points. Let me attempt a definition for NATURE. In fact, it is very difficult to define nature properly without incurring some form of circularity because we have to use elements of nature to define nature. Nevertheless, I shall give a commonsense definition:



Nature is the spaciotemporal entity that can be percieved with the senses (including instrumented senses). In other words, nature is what we can see, touch, smell, hear or taste. Or percieve with our advance instruments. Nature is composed of matter, time, energy and experience (or consciousness).

What does it mean for god to get tired? Is tireness applied to god exactly the same as when applied to non-god animals?

Christianity preaches this bankrupt and immoral doctrine that the world has to get worse and that the dire state of the world is a harbinger to the 2nd coming of Jesus. Amongst other passages, this is one of those that inspire such apocalyptic hope in Christians:

Matthew 24

1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3[b]And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world[/b]?

4And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

5For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

6[b]And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.[/b]

7[b][size=18pt]For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.[/size][/b]

8All these are the beginning of sorrows.

9Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

10And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

12And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

14[b]And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.[/b]

15When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

16Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

17Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

18Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

19And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

20But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

21For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

22And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

25Behold, I have told you before.

26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

28For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

29Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

32Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33[size=18pt]So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.[/size]

34[size=18pt]Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.[/size]


This is one of the most corrupt and mentally deranged pronoucements from the ignoramus that is Jesus. On the one hand, he claims that all these things was going to happen to the generation that was listening to him. On the other hand, he says that the end will come when the message has been preached to ALL nations. Did he expect the message to be preached to all nations in his generation?

As if that is not bad enough, there is a massive sense of irony and contradiction in this doctrine. Christianity claims that the message of Jesus has a positive transformative effect on the world and all people who abide by it. Well, it that is the case and if all nations are converted to Christianity (which is the main goal of Christianity and Jesus), then is Jesus predicting that Christian nations and going to be warring against other Christian nations? Where are the nations that are going to be fighting againts other nations?


The world is definitely becoming a better place, much to the chagrin of the Christian. In fact, in the few occasions when there is trouble between nations and tribes, these have been fueled by religion.

The formation of unions of states, the likes of the European Union, African Union, South East Asian Union, etc, etc, bodes well for peace in the world. The United Nations is particularly is force for good in the world, delivery many humanitarian projects like water supply and food and enivormental protection, fight againts diseases with WHO, international court of justice, etc, etc.

Many of the diseases that used to ravage humans are being tamed through science and technology, the products of rationalism.

There is better transport and communication links between various parts of the world.

Traditional hostilities amongst different groups of people is melting away due to travel and education.

There is improved supply of good quality water and food.


So if you think, the world is getting worse, can you point to a time in the past when the world was much better than it is today?