Raf

Claim: You have a dragon in your garage. My approach: Prove it. Your response: I can't. The dragon is invisible and non-corporeal. It doesn't leave footprints and if you try to throw water on it, the water will pass right through him. Also, the fire that the dragon breathes is non-thermal. It cannot be detected by, say, a thermometer or something. It defies testing. My approach: You have described something whose existence is impossible to verify. By taking a testable claim (a real dragon) and making it untestable (invisible, non-thermal, non-corporeal), you have made your dragon, which you allege is there, and made it indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist or is not there. Unless you provide real proof that you have a dragon in your garage, I am compelled to disbelieve it. Call me when you have actual proof. *** Claim: You have a dragon in your garage. Chockfull's approach: Prove it. Your response: I can't. The dragon is invisible and non-corporeal. It doesn't leave footprints and if you try to throw water on it, the water will pass right through him. Also, the fire that the dragon breathes is non-thermal. It cannot be detected by, say, a thermometer or something. It defies testing. Chockfull's approach: Well, since I can't disprove it, and the Bible says nothing about God parking dragons in your garage, I'm going to have to assume your dragon is actually a devil spirit. *** And that's the difference. A person making a supernatural claim that, if true, is clear evidence of devil spirit power in concrete form, first has to prove that the supernatural claim is, in fact, true. Le Baron's xenoglossia fails that test. He told us what he did. He told us how he did it. He WROTE DOWN the alleged xenoglossia. He told us what languages to look for. The xenoglossia was dispassionately examined. It was not confirmed. Rather, the dispassionate research determined that, in the opinion of the researcher, there was no linguistic difference between LeBaron's output and the product of those claiming glossolalia today. Two possible conclusions to draw: Samarin must be some kind of idiot. Not only can he not tell a language when he doesn't know what to look for. He can't even tell a language when he DOES know what to look for. Why are we even dealing with this guy? What a maroon! OR LeBaron was a con man who faked a claim of xenoglossia. You decide which conclusion is more reasonable.

By the way, it did not escape my notice that we suddenly have three alleged accounts of people understanding SIT instead of two. I think this demonstrates my point that a supernatural claim only needs to be MADE in order to be accepted, considering that the third account offered exactly zero information to back it up. Not a shred of evidence. Not even a description of what happened. Just a naked claim, accompanied by a warning from the person making the claim that you'd have to be crazy to believe it, and BAM! Three accounts instead of two. But I'm wrong to suggest a bit of gullibility.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not the one demanding the other side prove its point, making it impossible for the other side to prove its point, lying about what the other side DOES say and demonstrate, then acting as if their failure to prove their point validates mine (although by the standard rules of debate, I am entitled to draw such a conclusion at SOME point, I do not believe I've reached that point). I have an opinion. I've expressed it. That's my right. Who cares? Obviously, you do, for one. Despite your protestations. People who don't care about a thread don't post on it. If you TRULY don't care, you know what to do...

Ok. You win. Congrats!

If you seriously think at this stage of the discussion I am going to bend to your sudden demand that we change the terms of the debate and expect me to believe that you will adhere to the new terms, you truly are speaking a language no one on earth can understand. I've seen how you "debate." I don't trust you. I'm not a circus monkey. You have the methodology. You have as much access to the studies as I do. Do your own damn homework. What I've said has been proven, has been proven. What I've said has been merely demonstrated, has been demonstrated.

Look, I'm not doing this with you. Appealing to the scientific method as if you're the one adhering to it is a flipping joke, and anyone following along can see it.

And that's why it's pointless to argue with you. Thanks for playing. Tell him what he's won, Johnny Gilbert!

This is getting so flipping tedious. I have stated my opinion as fact as often as you have. I have never referred to something as proved or documented that was not, and I would just as soon you STOP LYING ABOUT THAT. It's bulls hit, I've called you on it repeatedly. Enough.

I can understand qualms about the definition of xenoglossia, and based on what i can see of the definition, i will no longer say that glossolalia should produce xenoglossia. I will say that glossolalia and xenoglossolalia are redundant terms. But understanding appears to be implied in xenoglossia, where it is explicitly denied in glossolalia. Nonetheless, our ability to draw conclusions from that is limited. A glossolalist who produced a recognized language would be presumed xenoglossic and treated as such. You and I disagree on why no such cases have emerged. I believe the linguists have checked the phonemic strata of the glossas and repeatedly determined, with exceptions, that the phonemes match the native language of the speaker. The exceptions are attributable to the speaker's exposure to other languages (like me with Chanukkah). This is not merely Samarin's finding. At best, he hints at it. But it appears to account for the findings of numerous other researchers. You believe the linguists haven't detected foreign languages because they are so incompetent at identifying language they would be unable to spot one even when they're explicitly told what language to look for. I cannot concur with such a dismissal of their studies. But i will repeat what I've said before: you cannot do everything in your power to make a testable claim intestable and then draw conclusions from my inability to prove my case. It's hypocritical. I do believe i am entitled to draw conclusions based on your inability to prove your case. In my opinion, proof of your case should be the rule, not the exception. But hey, you can disagree in peace. You cannot disagree in peace with the existence of free vocalization as an innate human ability. That's just not negotiable. Unlike free mouthvoiceization, free vocalization actually describes something real, true, documentable and repeatable. The phony term you made up describes nothing real. It is not worth debating.

With respect, you don't investigate crap. Investigation by definition involves skepticism of a claim until it is proved. You assume the claim to be true and weigh the religious implications. You don't investigate a damn thing, because you corner yourself by defining everything in such a way as to make investigation impossible. All one has to do to convince you an extraordinary supernatural act has taken place is claim it, and suddenly you will demand others DISprove the claim. No. Prove the claim.

I got the impression that Samarin DID read LeBaron's xenoglossia, not hat ge merely read ABOUT them. There was a different account in which he reached a similar conclusion on shakier grounds, and said so. Had Samarin been investigating xenoglossia, I'd have expected more detail. It's enough to know that no claim of xenoglossia has ever withstood scrutiny. None. You can CALL it a lie. But that's stating your opinion as fact. Some people on this thread don't take too kindly to that sort of thing. FYI: I never said SIT is not available. I do not know. I believe if it were not available, that would explain why no one seems to be producing it. But I could be right and SIT could still be available. It would just mean we'd need to learn how. I have no idea.

Look, Samarin wrote a study on glossolalia. In writing the study, he seeks to distinguish it from xenoglossia. Xenoglossia supposedly produces a language. Samarin investigates the claim and, based on the information he has, concludes no difference in the end product of an alleged non Christian xenoglossist and an alleged Christian glossolalist. So, no, I reject your demand for proof on the grounds that I have already done so to any extent I am able to. The difference between you and I, apparently, is that when someone claims to have operated the power of God, your first question is Which God? while mine is What power? A failure to answer my question renders your question moot.

Tee hee hee. What about the Society for Psychic Research leads you to believe it has the slightest interest in DIScrediting such claims?

Did I say there is no spirit realm? Did I say there's no such thing as godly or satanic influences? No. What I said was, before I'm going to attribute a phenomenon to God or Satan, I am going to rule out any natural explanation that fits the facts. In the case of SIT, as well as alleged xenoglossia, free vocalization fits the facts. LeBaron was a con man. Had he produced a language, I would conclude he was demonically possessed. The evidence leads me to believe he was a con man.

More misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I refuse to participate in your Inquisition.

I would subject Satanic claims of xenoglossia to the same burden of proof as I subject glossolalia. Neither has ever proved to produce anything that cannot be replicated by a human being acting under no supernatural pretenses.

If LeBaron had produced a genuine language, based on the account he gave, I would have little choice but to label his story and process demonic. But he did not produce a language. Or if he did, he failed to convince a linguist who was aware not only that this was a claim of xenoglossia, but EXACTLY which language(s) were allegedly produced! I know, the linguist is incompetent to identify a language, even when he knows precisely which language he's looking for. For reals.

You have not established that anything spiritual has taken place! Establish that something spiritual has taken place, and then we can argue about its source. LeBaron's ability to produce made up garbage that is not a known human language, despite his self-serving testimony to the contrary, does not prove he was energized by devil spirits. HOW GULLIBLE ARE YOU!? LeBaron was a CON MAN!

I agree, by the way. If we are going to have a conversation, we need to define our terms. A failure to agree on fundamentals nullifies the very opportunity to have a conversation, by definition. I say free vocalization exists. You dispute that. No conversation between us on this subject is even possible until you recognize how bone-headedly wrong you are on that subject.

You're not a stupid person. But you're being stupid. You're derailing this thread with nonsense. LeBaron did not operate a devil spirit. Had he produced a language, I might have been willing to consider it a demonstration of demonic power. But he did not produce a language. But I do not go hunting for supernatural explanations where there is no evidence of any. If anything, it should frighten the bejeezus out of you to realize that experts trained in linguistics cannot distinguish what is produced in SIT from what is produced by demonic influences. My conclusion lines up with Samarin's: you're both doing the same thing. Exercising an innate human ability to bring forth something that sounds like a language to you but isn't.

It is a fiction to call your challenges logic, Chockfull. Your challenges have been anything but logical. But I suppose you are entitled to express your opinion that you are presenting a logical position as fact. I'm not gonna whine about it.

I submit, sir, that you have isolated the flaw in your logic. And lo and behold, it lies in YOUR reading comprehension skills. Somehow, this does not surprise me. You constructed a strawnan. You misinterpreted and/or misrepresented Poythress AND Samarin. You knocked down the strawman and, on that basis, declared yourself to have demonstrated that you really DO have 11 fingers. But you don't. And you'll look like an idiot if you keep insisting that you do. You. Have. Ten. Fingers. Free vocalization as an innate human ability IS real. Any logical chain that leads you to conclude otherwise is false by virtue of its having led you to a demonstrably false conclusion. The problem is yours, and you alone are the one who has been less than honest about it.

What's that? Samarin concluded it was glossolalia? The same Samarin who said glossolalua NEVER produces a natural language? Well, SHI-NOLA! Thanks for proving you were wrong about LeBaron's claim being a documented case of xenoglossia, Chockfull!

Free vocalization was just fine as a "given" in this conversation until the threat it posed on the validity of SIT was fully appreciated. Now, suddenly, humans do not have this innate ability. It's a made up term, invented by linguists who don't know the difference between the spirit of God and evil spirits. We've gone from calling my methods Satanic to calling my SIT Satanic, mind you. On the basis of one person's denial of the obvious. Bleep that. Sorry.

Old School, Sorry. My apologies to you. But this has gone on too long, and I'm calling BS, and I'm not putting up with it anymore. I'm being accused of dishonesty by someone whose every chain of logic has been demonstrated to be misrepresentations of my words and of the studies we have been reviewing. To deny the demonstrated, proven existence of an innate human ability that a linguist sympathetic to the possibility of SIT has labeled free vocalization, and then to accuse ME of being in denial, is a hypocrisy I cannot stomach. Chockfull has every right to continue posting and chipping away all he wants. I have no obligation to take his distortions, misrepresentations, incomprehensions and flat out lies seriously. If that loses the argument for me, I'm comfortable with that.