Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00509)

Some excellent comments Daniel. You should write in a hurry more often.
Now accepting that "anything is possible," you surely must acknowledge that
it is possible that Olcott was under the enfluence of some powerful drugs
when he saw what he claims to have seen. I acknowledge that it is possible
that Olcott was witness to a "paranormal" event. Our disagreement is over
which possibility is probable _in this particular case_.

Very specific language and historical context has been offered as evidence
that leads me to my current conclusions. My basic assumption is that if it
looks like shit, smells like shit, and tastes like shit, it _probably_ is
shit. What is your evidence to the contrary? Would you agree that the
vast majority of "paranormal" events are hoaxes? Is it best then to start
with the premise of the skeptic and have to be persuaded by the
preponderance of the evidence away from it? What about the Olcott case is
different? Is it the specific man in question that gives the event
credibility to the point of probability over possibility?
If a similar event from history were recounted to you about another man
what would your initial assumption be? Would the paranormal event have to
be proven or disproven to change your mind?

I appreciate your relentless efforts to clarify things for me. I am
responding as best I can. I too am not trying to be difficult. The
question does occur to me:

"Would the lifetime of a man suffice to satisfy the whole world of 
True Believers?"

Bill