Question

The argument goes:

Over 50% of all statements made by all people in general are true or at least sincere.
Over 50% of observation reports are factually accurate (not reports of hallucinations).
A nonnegligible percent of observation reports involving unusual lifeforms are made sincerely and are not reports of hallucinations.
Therefore, there is a nonnegligible reason to believe in the existence of unusual lifeforms.
How strong are these kinds of reasons? If a lifeform is unusual, and this somehow undercuts naturalism, but we have independent reason to prefer naturalism, does that undermine the testimonial value of the cited reports?

Kristian berry, here is my actual argument, in the most understandable way : My argument is being misunderstood so lets try again: Most people aren't crazy, or liars, any explanation brought forth for as to why non crazy non liars claimed to see a creature that they gave an actual description of in a way that implies that they saw it in that form, these explanations are not the best way to know what happened for these reasons : Number one , these sightings have existed for a large portion of human history, meaning sightings of unusual creatures are a part of our world , categorically things reported to have bThese creatures are obviously beings, in a category, categorically unusual creatures, the fact that they are different looking doesn’t matter, as the category is unusual creatures. These creatures aren’t really extraordinary,In a way that requires doubt due to the fact that the presumption about them is that they cn’t exist, simply because I saw them in a movie or a story, but you don’t have enough knowledge to make the claim that they CAN’T possibly exist, when they are categorically consistent with BEINGS.een seen are usually real, for example, chairs, trees, walls, and, lastly, BEINGS. Which we sight everyday, most of the time, beings that are sighted are real, rejecting this and bringing up explanations is irrational since they either aren’t sufficient enough as an explanation due to the way they were derived and also don’t apply in most scenarios. Now mind you, what the person describes it as, a god, or a evil spirit, it doesn’t have to be that, however it stands to reason that something was at least seen.

"The question might be better off deleted altogether, as the original poster seems to be mentally unbalanced, but maybe the revision will calm them down... " no it didn't that's not the entire I argument

Answer 1

Evaluating reports of unusual lifeforms or supernatural encounters involves questioning their psychological and existential validity, as well as the burden of proof required to establish the existence of supernatural entities.

Step-by-step explanation:

The topic of reports concerning unusual lifeforms or supernatural experiences raises questions about the validity and rationality of such claims. Validating these encounters often involves analyzing both the psychological aspect and the probability of an actual supernatural reality.

Firstly, one must consider if an individual's religious or supernatural experience justifies the inference of a supernatural being's existence. Secondly, it's essential to evaluate if third-party observers can reasonably conclude a supernatural being's existence based on someone else's experience. Finally, we must consider whether the collection of such experiences by various individuals contributes to a stronger case for the existence of a supernatural or spiritual being.

Outcome assessment suggests that while such reports may establish the logical possibility of a supernatural realm, they fail to meet the burden of proof for establishing the existence of a deity or supernatural entity. There are often alternative, naturalistic explanations for these claims that are considered more plausible by the skeptical community.