Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
xFelix

The Paranormal is it Fake?

853 posts in this topic

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.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Show me the proof that there is not an invisible dragon in my garage; you are not assigning the burden of proof correctly. I think it'd be fascinating if we had verifiable sources that show the paranormal exists, so far no such luck.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 doesn't work that way. That would be like me saying "show me proof that Unicorns don't breed with Wookies".

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The question i want to ask his How can you prove something that does not exist?

You can't just present something as fact without some sort of proof backing it..

Show me the proof that there is not an invisible dragon in my garage; you are not assigning the burden of proof correctly. I think it'd be fascinating if we had verifiable sources that show the paranormal exists, so far no such luck.

So you're saying that someone coming to the conclusion that the paranormal does not exist is an opinion which does not need verifiable facts?

At the same time you're saying that someone who comes to the conclusion that the paranormal does exist, does need verifiable facts...

This thread is not about bias opinions, it is about verifying the validity of a conclusion that many seem to share.

In the Scientific Method, everything is either Proven or Disproven. If it cannot be proven or disproven, it is deemed Inconclusive.

The conclusion of the Paranormal being fake is still a conclusion, and all conclusions need be based on either facts or opinion.

I am merely asking for the facts that are used to make this conclusion because those who make this conclusion state that there are facts to be seen and evaluated.

Edited by xFelix
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your question is a bit off or poorly stated.

The current "scientific" consensus is that there is no evidence to support "paranormal" things and events. Testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence.

Science is a method and doesn't "prove" anything.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe

Nibs

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Xfelix,

You are approaching the problem from the wrong direction. You cannot l disprove anything. You can only proove things. If you find no evidence of something you are considering then there is no reason to say that it exists. Of course with the 'paranormal' there is evidence just not of the sort that satisfies a material based ideology.

Instead of asking to disapprove something as broad as the paranormal, you should ask about a specific event or circumstance then ask what are the evidences that this is not what it appears to be. In science you cannot say disprove that there is a spirit wold instead you can ask for evidence of why something like an NDE is not exactly what it appears to be. The other side then offers up evidence and you can make your case by scrutinizing the evidence. Once the evidences have been logically shot to peices the what is left is the phenomenon itself becoming more and more likely to be exactly what it appears to be.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're saying that someone coming to the conclusion that the paranormal does not exist is an opinion which does not need verifiable facts?

At the same time you're saying that someone who comes to the conclusion that the paranormal does exist, does need verifiable facts...

So think about what the verifiable facts are that you would use to disprove that there is an invisible dragon in my garage. As Nixon said above, how do you propose to prove that something doesn't exist? The verifiable facts that I'm working from that leads to my disbelief in the paranormal are that there are no verifiable facts supporting the paranormal's existence, which works very well for defeating my invisible dragon example also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Xfelix,

You are approaching the problem from the wrong direction. You cannot l disprove anything. You can only proove things. If you find no evidence of something you are considering then there is no reason to say that it exists. Of course with the 'paranormal' there is evidence just not of the sort that satisfies a material based ideology.

Instead of asking to disapprove something as broad as the paranormal, you should ask about a specific event or circumstance then ask what are the evidences that this is not what it appears to be. In science you cannot say disprove that there is a spirit wold instead you can ask for evidence of why something like an NDE is not exactly what it appears to be. The other side then offers up evidence and you can make your case by scrutinizing the evidence. Once the evidences have been logically shot to peices the what is left is the phenomenon itself becoming more and more likely to be exactly what it appears to be.

One can say that there is no proof or evidence to support the "paranormal" and arrive at the conclusion that it does not exist.. But that would be arriving at a conclusion without any verifiable facts, which means that it is solely someone's opinion or "theory".

In order to come to a factual conclusion that something does not exist, one must disprove the possibility of it existing..

^ That bit of evidence, or proof is what I am waiting for. Someone to show me that they have proven that there absolutely is no paranormal because there is no possibility for the paranormal to exist.

So think about what the verifiable facts are that you would use to disprove that there is an invisible dragon in my garage. As Nixon said above, how do you propose to prove that something doesn't exist? The verifiable facts that I'm working from that leads to my disbelief in the paranormal are that there are no verifiable facts supporting the paranormal's existence, which works very well for defeating my invisible dragon example also.

You know what else didn't have verifiable facts to support that it existed? Black holes.

There were also no verifiable facts that there was no possibility of a Black hole.

Now we have well-known Scientists finding proof that Black holes are not only possible, but probable.

What does this all mean? Unless someone proves that there is no possibility of something existing, coming to the conclusion that it does not exist is not a fact but an opinion.

I wasn't asking for opinions, I was asking for facts...

Edited by xFelix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can say that there is no proof or evidence to support the "paranormal" and arrive at the conclusion that it does not exist.. But that would be arriving at a conclusion without any verifiable facts, which means that it is solely someone's opinion or "theory".

You're being highly selective on which facts that you are willing to accept; it is a verifiable fact that there is no verifiable evidence in support of the paranormal existing, so my tentative conclusion concerning the paranormal is not 'solely' based on my opinion.

In order to come to a factual conclusion that something does not exist, one must disprove the possibility of it existing..

Name one thing that the possibility of existing has been disproven.

^ That bit of evidence, or proof is what I am waiting for. Someone to show me that they have proven that there absolutely is no paranormal because there is no possibility for the paranormal to exist.

Almost anything is possible. Show me the factual disproof, using your methodology, that there is no invisible dragon in my garage, or is that solely your opinion?

You know what else didn't have verifiable facts to support that it existed? Black holes.

And fairies, and leprechauns, and centaurs...

What does this all mean? Unless someone proves that there is no possibility of something existing, coming to the conclusion that it does not exist is not a fact but an opinion.

This is just a semantic game, everything is ultimately an opinion. It is not a fact that the paranormal does not exist, however the position that the paranormal does not exist is based on facts, it is not 'solely' opinion. Science does not 'prove' things.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One can say that there is no proof or evidence to support the "paranormal" and arrive at the conclusion that it does not exist.. But that would be arriving at a conclusion without any verifiable facts, which means that it is solely someone's opinion or "theory".

In order to come to a factual conclusion that something does not exist, one must disprove the possibility of it existing..

^ That bit of evidence, or proof is what I am waiting for. Someone to show me that they have proven that there absolutely is no paranormal because there is no possibility for the paranormal to exist.

You know what else didn't have verifiable facts to support that it existed? Black holes.

There were also no verifiable facts that there was no possibility of a Black hole.

Now we have well-known Scientists finding proof that Black holes are not only possible, but probable.

What does this all mean? Unless someone proves that there is no possibility of something existing, coming to the conclusion that it does not exist is not a fact but an opinion.

I wasn't asking for opinions, I was asking for facts...

I hear you Felix, but black holes were not considered facts until there was sufficient evidence. There was evidence that black holes existed, it was just mathematical evidence which is really a form of circumstantial evidence not physical fact.

You are falling into a trap felix. I'm trying to steer you away from it. You are asking for physical facts about a nophysical world. The non physical world is only going to have non physical evidence. It's apples and oranges. Materialists are philosophically incapable of accepting any of the actual evidence of the spirit world because they where a certain set of goggles that cannot be taken off. They define reality based on barionic reactions., therefore other things not associated with barionic matter cannot exist despit evidences that fundamental reality has nothing to do with matter and evidences that there probably is another type of reality.

The elephant of an assumption, that you mentioned, is that things exist wether they fit the materialist criteria for proof or not. Reality does not bend with our methodologies we must follow the clues In front of us. Even if they take us to places that are counter to our bias.

Yes it is more than an opinion that there is no 'paranormall' it's a philosophical assumption built on fundamental materialism, which has already been prooven to be false. ( that word is useless by the way in fact there is no 'paranormal' what ever the 'paranormal' is is actually quit normal)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll be hard pressed to prove to me the paranormal doesn't exist since I have seen a ghost. I couldn't prove that it does either. Its one of those things you have to see to really believe.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I hear you Felix, but black holes were not considered facts until there was sufficient evidence. There was evidence that black holes existed, it was just mathematical evidence which is really a form of circumstantial evidence not physical fact.

You are falling into a trap felix. I'm trying to steer you away from it. You are asking for physical facts about a nophysical world. The non physical world is only going to have non physical evidence. It's apples and oranges. Materialists are philosophically incapable of accepting any of the actual evidence of the spirit world because they where a certain set of goggles that cannot be taken off. They define reality based on barionic reactions., therefore other things not associated with barionic matter cannot exist despit evidences that fundamental reality has nothing to do with matter and evidences that there probably is another type of reality.

The elephant of an assumption, that you mentioned, is that things exist wether they fit the materialist criteria for proof or not. Reality does not bend with our methodologies we must follow the clues In front of us. Even if they take us to places that are counter to our bias.

Yes it is more than an opinion that there is no 'paranormall' it's a philosophical assumption built on fundamental materialism, which has already been prooven to be false. ( that word is useless by the way in fact there is no 'paranormal' what ever the 'paranormal' is is actually quit normal)

I understand what you're saying, I am just making a point that Skeptics continue to claim that this or that is not true and they have the facts... Well I want the facts they claim to have.

You're being highly selective on which facts that you are willing to accept; it is a verifiable fact that there is no verifiable evidence in support of the paranormal existing, so my tentative conclusion concerning the paranormal is not 'solely' based on my opinion.

This is just a semantic game, everything is ultimately an opinion. It is not a fact that the paranormal does not exist, however the position that the paranormal does not exist is based on facts, it is not 'solely' opinion. Science does not 'prove' things.

So your verifiable evidence is that of not having evidence? Do you see the problem with that?

I'll make it simple for you, you cannot NOT have a conclusion and use that as a conclusive true or false.

If you do not have a conclusion, the results are Inconclusive.

So the belief that the paranormal does not exist is based on the fact that you can't prove that it either exists or not? WHAT????

Edited by xFelix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The elephant of an assumption, that you mentioned, is that things exist wether they fit the materialist criteria for proof or not. Reality does not bend with our methodologies we must follow the clues In front of us. Even if they take us to places that are counter to our bias.

What is the non-materialist criteria for proof? I always find the sidestepping of the facts concerning the lack of evidence by resorting to accusations of 'bias' to be pretty unconvincing. You really don't understand how people come to the conclusion that there is no good reason to believe the immaterial exists, that makes no logical/empirical/rational sense to you? It would be the most ground-breaking discovery in history, but everyone who disagrees is just doing so because of pre-existing bias? Because non-materialists of course do not suffer from this bias?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your verifiable evidence is that of not having evidence? Do you see the problem with that?

So the belief that the paranormal does not exist is based on the fact that you can't prove that it either exists or not? WHAT????

You're being very selective again about what you are replying to. What position should you take when there is no evidence of something existing yet someone claims it does? Do you just gullibly believe that since someone said it that that is verifiable evidence of it existing, or are do you disbelieve what people claim exists solely based on opinion. Yes or no, is it solely your opinion that leads you to believe, I assume since you keep editing it out, that there is not an invisible dragon living in my garage? Can you prove that fairies and leprechauns do not exist using verifiable facts? Is your disbelief in leprechauns 'based on the fact that you can't prove that it either exists or not (WHAT???)'? What has been proven not to exist, why can't you name one thing? I think it's because of your misplacement of the burden of proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You're being very selective again about what you are replying to. What position should you take when there is no evidence of something existing yet someone claims it does? Do you just gullibly believe that since someone said it that that is verifiable evidence of it existing, or are do you disbelieve what people claim exists solely based on opinion. Yes or no, is it solely your opinion that leads you to believe, I assume since you keep editing it out, that there is not an invisible dragon living in my garage? Can you prove that fairies and leprechauns do not exist using verifiable facts? Is your disbelief in leprechauns 'based on the fact that you can't prove that it either exists or not (WHAT???)'? What has been proven not to exist, why can't you name one thing? I think it's because of your misplacement of the burden of proof.

So you're saying that you have no evidence, instead you're going to argue semantics and burden of proof?

Ok let's do it!

Burden of proof lies within whoever makes a claim, when someone lays claims as fact, they have to prove their claims to be so.

(This is why Science involves theory, because some things just cannot be proven but they also cannot be disproven so there is in theory a possibility of them existing or not existing)

The dragon in your garage can very well be real, I cannot prove it is real or prove it not to be real so why would I make a claim that it is in fact not real?

What I can offer is my opinion or theory, that the dragon is not real. But you won't catch me saying that there are facts that prove this dragon to be fake.

The claims we are discussing are "The Paranormal is Fake". Now again, burden of proof lies on the person laying claim.

So in order for anyone claim that as fact, they would have to effectively verify evidence and come to the conclusion that the Paranormal is not real.

Not having evidence, is not a true or false conclusion. It is a marker that something along the Scientific Method applied is either inaccurate or missing.

Now when you are performing your experiment in hopes that the paranormal does not exist, what tools would you use?

You wouldn't because there are no known tools to verify these things, so the possibility of them existing is in fact there.. While the fact that you cannot prove that that they are is also there... So your experiment's conclusion has to in fact be Inconclusive.

That means that your facts proving the paranormal does not exist are based on Inconclusive Scientific findings.

Now can someone please stop arguing semantics with me and actually show me verifiable evidence that support the factual claim that the paranormal does not exist?

Edited by xFelix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the non-materialist criteria for proof? I always find the sidestepping of the facts concerning the lack of evidence by resorting to accusations of 'bias' to be pretty unconvincing. You really don't understand how people come to the conclusion that there is no good reason to believe the immaterial exists, that makes no logical/empirical/rational sense to you? It would be the most ground-breaking discovery in history, but everyone who disagrees is just doing so because of pre-existing bias? Because non-materialists of course do not suffer from this bias?

The same proof there is for anything else..... An irrefutable experience. If you introduce yourself and I shake your hand... You are going to have an irrefutable experience that I exist weather everyone else says I do not it not. You could be personally dishonest and accept the drivel that you imagined me or I am the product of your delusion, but you would know that it's not true. I accept black holes exist because I have had an irrefutable experience with the evidences laid before me by scientists. I accept that gravity exists because I have skinned my knee. I accet that the spirit works exists because I have been there seen it and interacted with its inhabitants.

I understand it completely actually and I don't really fault people for it, but there is quit a bit of lazyness to their bias. once they are convinced they stop thinking critically and stop looking deeper and cling to their bias with a strong case of cognitive dissonance much like religious fundamentalism actually. There is empirical evidence that materialistic philosophy is completely false, but yet again cognitive dissonance has its way with people.

Logical and rational!!!!! This is funny when I hear people assume that their world view has monopolized rationality or what is logical. Logic has very specific set of rules. There is nothing illogical about a non physical reality or believing in spirits, gods, or other things, nor is it irational. Not even in the slightest. Materialists are under another assumption that their world view is more logical and more rational than other premisies, this is an assuming tge conclusion fallacy. Indeed some materialist positions are indeed over certain beliefs, but that not the end of logic or rationality. orbs in pictures are a great case. Obviously their is an easy to tell material explanation. But this is not true for deeper phenomenon and other things even if the materialist wants to explaine away everything with their brand brand of philosophy.

It would not be the most ground breaking discovery in history. It's already been discovered ages ago. Well over 80-90% of the world already accepts that a non physical reality exists albeit not necessarily through critical thinking much like many materialists. ( note: I'm not using band wagon logic I'm only pointing out that materialists right or wrong are in the minority)

Some non-materialists do, quite obviously, suffer from much cognitive dissonance aswell no doubt. But offering up an apeal to hypocracy fallacy while speaking of logic is a bit contradictory dont you think? ;)

So I think that covers it.

1) Empirical evidence has prooven that SOME type of non physical ( by definition of physical) reality exists as a more fundamental reality thereby eliminating materialism.

2) Rationality is quit subjective and really a mute point.

3) claiming what is logical in these matters.... Is well... Illogical when you are not actually following logical rules. In fact logic has nothing to say about it what so ever. It only provides us rules by which to have a discussion.

It is not irrational to believe in a spirit world especially if you have had an NDE or OBE, or have personal contacts in the spirit world, it is not illogical, and the counter view of materialism has been prooven to be false. ( note: this does not mean that the spirit world exists, it's only the process of elimination).

:D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burden of proof lies within whoever makes a claim, when someone lays claims as fact, they have to prove their claims to be so.

Correct, and 'there is no reason to believe the paranormal exists' is a response to the initial claim that the paranormal does exist, and that's where the burden of proof lies.

The dragon in your garage can very well be real, I cannot prove it is real or prove it not to be real so why would I make a claim that it is in fact not real?

No one is saying anything about 'facts', you just keep interjecting that and the word 'proof' into your statements in response to no one as far as I can tell. I've never said the paranormal is not real, I've said there is no good evidence supporting the idea that the paranormal does exist, and that statement is not based solely on opinion.

What I can offer is my opinion or theory, that the dragon is not real. But you won't catch me saying that there are facts that prove this dragon to be fake.

I have no issue then, I'm entirely content to say that the idea that the paranormal exists is on par from an evidence standpoint as an invisible dragon living in my garage. Who specifically has said that facts prove that the paranormal is fake?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So you're saying that you have no evidence, instead you're going to argue semantics and burden of proof?

Ok let's do it!

Burden of proof lies within whoever makes a claim, when someone lays claims as fact, they have to prove their claims to be so.

(This is why Science involves theory, because some things just cannot be proven but they also cannot be disproven so there is in theory a possibility of them existing or not existing)

The dragon in your garage can very well be real, I cannot prove it is real or prove it not to be real so why would I make a claim that it is in fact not real?

What I can offer is my opinion or theory, that the dragon is not real. But you won't catch me saying that there are facts that prove this dragon to be fake.

The claims we are discussing are "The Paranormal is Fake". Now again, burden of proof lies on the person laying claim.

So in order for anyone claim that as fact, they would have to effectively verify evidence and come to the conclusion that the Paranormal is not real.

Not having evidence, is not a true or false conclusion. It is a marker that something along the Scientific Method applied is either inaccurate or missing.

Now when you are performing your experiment in hopes that the paranormal does not exist, what tools would you use?

You wouldn't because there are no known tools to verify these things, so the possibility of them existing is in fact there.. While the fact that you cannot prove that that they are is also there... So your experiment's conclusion has to in fact be Inconclusive.

That means that your facts proving the paranormal does not exist are based on Inconclusive Scientific findings.

Now can someone please stop arguing semantics with me and actually show me verifiable evidence that support the factual claim that the paranormal does not exist?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

- Hamlet (1.5.166-7), Hamlet to Horatio, Shakespeare.

Ok now I'm quote mineing :D

Edited by Seeker79
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've said there is no good evidence supporting the idea that the paranormal does exist...

This is because you are basing what you consider "good evidence" on a particular philosophy. You are assuming the conclusion again.

When the premise fails, all arguments from that permis become highly suspect.

Edited by Seeker79
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dragon in your garage can very well be real, I cannot prove it is real or prove it not to be real so why would I make a claim that it is in fact not real?

What I can offer is my opinion or theory, that the dragon is not real. But you won't catch me saying that there are facts that prove this dragon to be fake.

You are saying that dragons may exist. Soon we'll have you saying that fairies, elves and the boogie man may also exist. Do you still not see the flaw in trying to prove a negative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You are saying that dragons may exist. Soon we'll have you saying that fairies, elves and the boogie man may also exist. Do you still not see the flaw in trying to prove a negative?

Are you claiming that fairies, elves and the boogeymen don't exist? I will wait while you try to prove such a claim...

The only flaw I see, is that of making an unsupported claim of something not existing and presenting it as fact in a condescending manner.

Edited by xFelix
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"Paranormal" covers a lot, Felix; ghosts, demons, aliens, psychic powers etc. but a thread like this is overdue. Since I got here, we can't have a thread without somebody derailing it into a debate. I often see claims that science doesn't bother researching life after death because it's a medieval concept but...

http://www.psycholog...idence-says-yes

Ah....evidence suggests the soul exists.

Edited by Heaven Is A Halfpipe
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Paranormal" covers a lot, Felix; ghosts, demons, aliens, psychic powers etc. but a thread like this is overdue. Since I got here, we can't have a thread without somebody derailing it into a debate. I often see claims that science doesn't bother researching life after death because it's a medieval concept but...

http://www.psycholog...idence-says-yes

Ah....evidence suggests the soul exists.

I know the word is a bit broad, but I use the broad word as a blanket term because the same blanket term is used when people make claims that none of it exists and they have facts to prove it..I'm just waiting for the facts lol

Thanks for the post, by the way...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the word is a bit broad, but I use the broad word as a blanket term because the same blanket term is used when people make claims that none of it exists and they have facts to prove it..I'm just waiting for the facts lol

Thanks for the post, by the way...

No problem, I got your back (on some subject anyway..) :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.