Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 11 votes

The Paranormal is it Fake?


  • Please log in to reply
852 replies to this topic

#481    alibongo

alibongo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 349 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:wessex uk

  • Never knowingly understood

Posted 25 June 2013 - 04:43 AM

This is an excerpt from Wikipedia on Russell's teapot which I think is relevant to this discussion:

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.


Russell's argument

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1]

In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy as a reason for his own atheism:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.[2]"

Edited by alibongo, 25 June 2013 - 04:45 AM.


#482    Q-C

Q-C

    BugWhisperer

  • Member
  • 5,533 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tejas

Posted 25 June 2013 - 07:29 AM

Very good thread! Only up to post #74 so far. :tu:

Bigfoot is in the eye of the beholder

Scottish Scientists Only!

#483    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:56 AM

View Postalibongo, on 25 June 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:

This is an excerpt from Wikipedia on Russell's teapot which I think is relevant to this discussion:

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.


Russell's argument

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.[1]

In 1958, Russell elaborated on the analogy as a reason for his own atheism:

I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.[2]"

See how I put some of your text in bold?
When someone says that "God" does not exist, they are making an unfalsifiable claim.


See how he did not say not possible, instead he said not probable, and not likely? That's him making a claim in a factual nature of which would require him to support his claim, since he knows he can't disprove "God", he doesn't say that "God" doesn't exist.. Just that he does not think his existence as any more probable than any other deity. His clever use of words is fascinating, he makes his claim using words of which define his statements as his opinion, but he makes those statements in a factual way. He seems so convincing because he presents an opinionated unfalsifiable claim, but makes it seem as a logical factual claim.

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#484    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,522 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:01 PM

View PostxFelix, on 25 June 2013 - 02:50 AM, said:

A claim is a claim, the subject of the claim is irrelevant so long as it is made in a factual nature, it must be proven.

I think you are being way too pedantic with what people are saying.  If I say, "the paranormal does not exist", you do not know, but like to assume because you've been harping on it for weeks now, that that statement is not an opinion.  If you really want to hew so closely to insisting things be taken literally, then you should never use the words 'know' or 'truth' again, you can't really 'know' anything for sure and thus you never know what the truth is.  And unless you are talking about math or logic, you shouldn't use the word 'prove' again either.

Quote

If you choose to make a claim of a negative, that is not my concern, but yours, you still have to support your claim. If you make a claim in a factual form, you must support that claim, regardless of what it is you are claiming. This is why the real scientists will not speak out of turn and make claims of "God" not existing, or the paranormal not existing, without evidence to support their claims.

I haven't heard any 'real scientists' saying that, Dawkins doesn't even say that he knows for sure that God doesn't exist.  

Quote

PS- No Sakari, that wasn't about you. It was about Alibongo saying Dawkins claims "God" to not exist thus, a book called "The God Delusion"(Which he wrote just to get readers and make himself some money).

Yea, how dare he write a book to get readers and make money... why do you think people even write books?!  Is there some author who is exempt from your empty charge here?  Hint:  the motivations of why you write something has nothing to do with the correctness of it.


Quote

The paranormal is not possible vs The paranormal is not verifiable

Have never heard anyone say the paranormal is not possible.

Quote

In other words: You cannot make a claim and then say you don't need to support that claim just because you cannot support it. If you can't support something, then don't claim it to be so.

I don't think the paranormal exists, and the reasons for thinking it exists are poor, because there is no evidence that it actually exists.  Is that okay?  Are you really so hung up on people who in the interest of non-verbose posts don't qualify everything they say?  Assume the words 'in my opinion' are in front of every sentence I write from now on, does that solve your issue? I can support something without having to meet the level of 'proof'.

Quote

Therefore, any material you present claiming that the paranormal absolutely does not exist, must either support that claim or it will just be disregarded because they are making claims they can't support.

Don't read in the word 'absolutely' into anyone's statements, including Sakari's.  Unless you know for sure he meant 'absolutely', otherwise it's a strawman.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#485    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 25 June 2013 - 02:56 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 25 June 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

I think you are being way too pedantic with what people are saying.  If I say, "the paranormal does not exist", you do not know, but like to assume because you've been harping on it for weeks now, that that statement is not an opinion.  If you really want to hew so closely to insisting things be taken literally, then you should never use the words 'know' or 'truth' again, you can't really 'know' anything for sure and thus you never know what the truth is.  And unless you are talking about math or logic, you shouldn't use the word 'prove' again either.



I haven't heard any 'real scientists' saying that, Dawkins doesn't even say that he knows for sure that God doesn't exist.  



Yea, how dare he write a book to get readers and make money... why do you think people even write books?!  Is there some author who is exempt from your empty charge here?  Hint:  the motivations of why you write something has nothing to do with the correctness of it.




Have never heard anyone say the paranormal is not possible.



I don't think the paranormal exists, and the reasons for thinking it exists are poor, because there is no evidence that it actually exists.  Is that okay?  Are you really so hung up on people who in the interest of non-verbose posts don't qualify everything they say?  Assume the words 'in my opinion' are in front of every sentence I write from now on, does that solve your issue? I can support something without having to meet the level of 'proof'.



Don't read in the word 'absolutely' into anyone's statements, including Sakari's.  Unless you know for sure he meant 'absolutely', otherwise it's a strawman.

Common language, if someone says "the paranormal does not exist" or "the paranormal does exist" the statements are being made in a factual nature, of which there resolve is absolute. If someone says "I don't think the paranormal exists" or "I don't believe in the paranormal", then they are making the satements in an opinionated nature, of which they acknowledge that these are there thoughts/beliefs/opinions.

While Dawkins did not use the exact words "God does not exist" he did title his book "The God Delusion". When you call a belief in something a delusion, you inadvertantly label it as? A belief in something non-existant. Did he make the statement in an absolute fashion? Of course he did.

Did he call it "Possible God Delusion", or anything of that sort? Not in the least. His resolve was absolute and it was presented as a fact when he named the book "The God Delusion". He made the claim that God does not exist, and he made the claim in a factual nature.. Yet here he is on youtube saying he can't be sure God does not exist... The book was just his way of stirring up controversy in order to make himself wealthier. The book itself is named in an irrational way, and so I will not consider it any authority in anything just on the merit of it's author.

Edited by xFelix, 25 June 2013 - 02:57 PM.

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#486    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Starman

  • Member
  • 2,522 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:10 PM

View PostxFelix, on 25 June 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

Common language, if someone says "the paranormal does not exist" or "the paranormal does exist" the statements are being made in a factual nature, of which there resolve is absolute. If someone says "I don't think the paranormal exists" or "I don't believe in the paranormal", then they are making the satements in an opinionated nature, of which they acknowledge that these are there thoughts/beliefs/opinions.

There is no way you can know what their 'resolve' is without reading their mind.  "The Detroit Tigers will win the World Series"; did I just state an proven fact with absolute resolve, or an opinion?  You don't know, so stop pretending you do; your interpretation doesn't apply to anyone but yourself, and when you have to add words to make statements say what you want it to, then you are attacking a strawman.  The amount of clarification that you want in normal communication is absurd and would burden conversations that work fine for the majority of people.

Quote

While Dawkins did not use the exact words "God does not exist" he did title his book "The God Delusion". When you call a belief in something a delusion, you inadvertantly label it as? A belief in something non-existant. Did he make the statement in an absolute fashion? Of course he did.

No, he didn't, you're just making assumptions. And clearly you have not actually read the book you are criticizing, otherwise you'd know that he flat out states that he does not know for sure that God doesn't exist; most people would get a clue that based on that, it clarifies the specifics about what he means by 'The God Delusion'.

Quote

Did he call it "Possible God Delusion", or anything of that sort? Not in the least. His resolve was absolute and it was presented as a fact when he named the book "The God Delusion". He made the claim that God does not exist, and he made the claim in a factual nature.. Yet here he is on youtube saying he can't be sure God does not exist... The book was just his way of stirring up controversy in order to make himself wealthier. The book itself is named in an irrational way, and so I will not consider it any authority in anything just on the merit of it's author.

Did he call it, "The Indisputable Proven Truth that God is a Delusion"?  Have you noticed the words that you are adding to the statements you read so that you can try and support your 'point'?  Anybody can make your strange complaint, 'he just wanted to make himself wealthier'; I noticed that you declined to specify what author does not do what you accuse Dawkins of doing, which is entirely normal for authors.  You can have the last word man, this is just repetitive irrelevant nonsense at this point, if you don't get it I can't help you.

"Talking about art is like dancing about architecture"
"The truth is of course is that there is no journey. We are arriving and departing all at the same time"
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return"
- Ziggy played guitar

#487    AbyssWalker

AbyssWalker

    I'm not a Mutant.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,732 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Address Unknown

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:36 PM

So, this whole thread was about Richard Dawkins' book title. Obviously Richard Dawkins is the leader of all skeptics, just like Bill Cosby is the president of black people.

All this about a book title. "Possible God Delusion" does not make a good book title. Just like (See Below)

"Possible Heaven and Earth - Possibly making the psychic connection" - Heaven and Earth : Making the psychic connection (Actual Title of the book).

or how about

"I like to believe there is Ghosts Among Us : And I think I can possibly uncover the truth about the other side" - Ghosts Among Us : Uncovering the Truth about the other side (Actual Title of the book).

It's simple.


#488    scowl

scowl

    Government Agent

  • Closed
  • 4,111 posts
  • Joined:17 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 June 2013 - 03:56 PM

View PostxFelix, on 25 June 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

While Dawkins did not use the exact words "God does not exist" he did title his book "The God Delusion". When you call a belief in something a delusion, you inadvertantly [sic] label it as? A belief in something non-existant.[sic]

He did not use those exact words because the book does not say that God doesn't exist. If Dawkins really wanted to say that God doesn't exist, he wouldn't pussyfoot around it.

I was once under the delusion that I could survive a whole marathon. I had no reason to believe it was possible since I had never run 26.3 miles before. I didn't do great but I did walk/run through it. Some delusions can turn out to be true.

If you don't understand this, read the book.


#489    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 25 June 2013 - 05:20 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 25 June 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

There is no way you can know what their 'resolve' is without reading their mind.  "The Detroit Tigers will win the World Series"; did I just state an proven fact with absolute resolve, or an opinion?  You don't know, so stop pretending you do; your interpretation doesn't apply to anyone but yourself, and when you have to add words to make statements say what you want it to, then you are attacking a strawman.  The amount of clarification that you want in normal communication is absurd and would burden conversations that work fine for the majority of people.



No, he didn't, you're just making assumptions. And clearly you have not actually read the book you are criticizing, otherwise you'd know that he flat out states that he does not know for sure that God doesn't exist; most people would get a clue that based on that, it clarifies the specifics about what he means by 'The God Delusion'.



Did he call it, "The Indisputable Proven Truth that God is a Delusion"?  Have you noticed the words that you are adding to the statements you read so that you can try and support your 'point'?  Anybody can make your strange complaint, 'he just wanted to make himself wealthier'; I noticed that you declined to specify what author does not do what you accuse Dawkins of doing, which is entirely normal for authors.  You can have the last word man, this is just repetitive irrelevant nonsense at this point, if you don't get it I can't help you.
On this example: "The Detroit Tigers will win the World Series"
You clearly made that statement in a factual nature. How is it that you don't see the difference between someone stating something as a fact or an opinion? One does not need to say "It is a fact, The Detroit Tigers will win the World Series" for it to be stated in a factual manner. Whether it is or is not a fact is a whole other discussion, but it is being presented as a fact. Now when you say "I think the Detroit Tigers will win the World Series", it is being presented as an opinion.

I agree with Space_Jockey, he did name the book the way he did because it gets more readers.

scowl some delusions can turn out to be true, but having them refered to as delusions implies they are lies, fallacies, hallucinations... Things that just plain don't exist. Just because some things have been called delusions, and then have been proven to not be delusions, doesn't mean that calling something a delusion makes it any less of a claim of it not existing.

The book in itself is basically titled "The God Lie" and then within it's contents it basically says "God is not a lie, we just can't figure it out"
Stellar book, really informative.. Bravo! This should be the source of all our discussions here on UM. Books that are titled in complete contradiction to what their contents provide in order to grab the attention of readers and stir arguments.

Edited by xFelix, 25 June 2013 - 05:22 PM.

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#490    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 25 June 2013 - 08:41 PM

View PostMr Walker, on 23 June 2013 - 02:27 AM, said:

Keeping records and making comparisons and evalutions IS just a part of the experience from which we learn. The records can be kept in ones head, if ones memory is good enough, or written down.

Ghosts exist in the same way a table exists or love exists. Ghost is just a name humans give to "them" to be able to catalogue them, establish their parameters, and communicate about them with others. We must not get trapped by the terrminology/word used, or allow it to create a mental image, any more than when we talk about a table, but when we see a table or a ghost we can compare it with our mental data bank of knowledge and recognise /categorise it and add in additional knowledge about that category of object and its use or behaviours..


Your assertion that 'ghosts exist' shows me that your mind is already biased to believe that ghost exist.


So, does my assertion that tables exist show to you that my mind is biased to believe that tables exist?

It is not a bias, if one knows something exists. One doesn't have to believe that either tables or ghosts exist if they are  a part of one's experience.

I can't believe tables exist, because I know they do. I can't believe ghosts exist because I know they do. Similarly I cannot believe they do not exist either. A logical/rational mind cannot hold a belief position in the face of knowledge.

I could say, based on my own experiences and in accordance with what you stated above, say that ghosts do not exist as I have experienced absolutely nothing to convince me that they exist. The difference between ghosts and tables is obvious. A table exists, you or I can sit on it, touch it, measure it, etc. If a ghost existed in the same way that a table exists we would not be having this discussion about ghosts, because they would universally be recognized to exist (like tables).


#491    alibongo

alibongo

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 349 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:wessex uk

  • Never knowingly understood

Posted 25 June 2013 - 11:35 PM

View PostxFelix, on 30 May 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

Let's keep the thread simple, show me proof the Paranormal doesn't exist. Use verifiable sources, and if you're not an actual doctor don't make diagnostic theories you are not qualified to make.
it is interesting how this thread has developed so much, when of course the original post could have been dismissed immediately. I really don't want to sound rude, but to continue to ask for proof of non-existence after all the arguments put forward leaves me to believe that some of us are just suckers for punishment- or just suckers.


#492    Sakari

Sakari

    Rob Lester

  • Member
  • 14,454 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 26 June 2013 - 12:40 AM

View Postalibongo, on 25 June 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

it is interesting how this thread has developed so much, when of course the original post could have been dismissed immediately. I really don't want to sound rude, but to continue to ask for proof of non-existence after all the arguments put forward leaves me to believe that some of us are just suckers for punishment- or just suckers.


:nw:




Posted Image

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#493    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 26 June 2013 - 01:05 AM

View Postalibongo, on 25 June 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

it is interesting how this thread has developed so much, when of course the original post could have been dismissed immediately. I really don't want to sound rude, but to continue to ask for proof of non-existence after all the arguments put forward leaves me to believe that some of us are just suckers for punishment- or just suckers.

Yeah let me guess, you are going to be the person that outsmarts 30 some odd pages of people debating a point.. You will come in and "easily" trump the whole thread.. Well let's hear it... What is your trump card?

Btw: The only arguments put forward are either people claiming opinions as facts and not properly supporting those "facts", or people saying there are possibilities it does not exist(Which have been acknowledged, but have you acknowledged that there is a possibility it can exist?). So yeah, all the arguments put forward, and none of them has shown any reasonable proof that the paranormal does not exist.. Only  a mutual agreement that it has possibility to go either way.. Oh but people say it does not exist and wont show proof? Oh what's that the little birdy said? Because it's not possible? Then why bother asserting your claims as fact if you cant prove them?

Edited by xFelix, 26 June 2013 - 01:11 AM.

My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.


#494    Sakari

Sakari

    Rob Lester

  • Member
  • 14,454 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona...My heart and soul are still on the Oregon Coast.

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 26 June 2013 - 01:19 AM

View PostxFelix, on 26 June 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

Yeah let me guess, you are going to be the person that outsmarts 30 some odd pages of people debating a point.. You will come in and "easily" trump the whole thread.. Well let's hear it... What is your trump card?

Btw: The only arguments put forward are either people claiming opinions as facts and not properly supporting those "facts", or people saying there are possibilities it does not exist(Which have been acknowledged, but have you acknowledged that there is a possibility it can exist?). So yeah, all the arguments put forward, and none of them has shown any reasonable proof that the paranormal does not exist.. Only  a mutual agreement that it has possibility to go either way.. Oh but people say it does not exist and wont show proof? Oh what's that the little birdy said? Because it's not possible? Then why bother asserting your claims as fact if you cant prove them?



For the 47th time......


No one ever claimed that!!!!!!!!!



Why do you keep saying this, you are the only one who ever said that.....And you even admitted no one said that, yet, you keep going, and going, and going.....



Posted Image



My head is going to explode.


Also, I believe everyone has said " you can not prove a negative " in about a hundred different ways, all in black and white.

So why do you keep asking people to do that?

I am curious why you want this so bad.



Can someone tell me what this thread is about now?

The paranormal does not exist = It has been established that no one has said this, so, mute thread.

Went to : Dawkins Book.....

And = Prove God does not exist....


And, back to : Prove the paranormal does not exist

I feel like I am at a AA meeting when reading this thread.

Edited by Sakari, 26 June 2013 - 01:35 AM.

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#495    xFelix

xFelix

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 654 posts
  • Joined:30 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Yea I'm Pagan, oh no!

Posted 26 June 2013 - 02:46 AM

Here Sakari, i'll clean your lenses up a bit.

Quote

The Paranormal is it Fake?

Calling all skeptics for proof that it doesn't exist.


View Postalibongo, on 25 June 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

it is interesting how this thread has developed so much, when of course the original post could have been dismissed immediately. I really don't want to sound rude, but to continue to ask for proof of non-existence after all the arguments put forward leaves me to believe that some of us are just suckers for punishment- or just suckers.


View PostxFelix, on 26 June 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

All the arguments put forward, and none of them has shown any reasonable proof that the paranormal does not exist.. Only  a mutual agreement that it has possibility to go either way.. Oh but people say it does not exist and wont show proof? Oh what's that the little birdy said? Because it's not possible? Then why bother asserting your claims as fact if you cant prove them?


My posts consist of my opinions, beliefs, and experiences, feel free to disagree in a respectful manner.

I have a right to my beleifs, just as you have a right to not agree with them.

So long as we respect each other's beliefs, we won't have a single problem.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users