The Paranormal is it Fake?

[psyche101]

In other words, mr. Randi can be as condescending as he likes with whatever happens there, and draw any conclusion he wants without consequences of what happens there, and tell anything he wants about that.

You can believe he may do that, but if it is a genuine claim, then Randi would lose all credibility, which would be rather costly I imagine, particularly when you consider his court case with Uri Geller. Randi is one stop, if one has the genuine item, Randi is not the sole source of verification, he is not an authority in this regard, just highly experienced, but if you can convince him, then I imagine any psychics credibility would be very high in general.

I get the impression that people who think they are in this way "special" but cannot prove it are the most vocal opponents of Randi's challenge.

[Frank Merton]

I get the impression that people who think they are in this way "special" but cannot prove it are the most vocal opponents of Randi's challenge.

I get the impression that lots of people think they are "special" in some way. Often they are lying, but its a special sort of lie that on one level the person knows is not true but on another level the person believes. For a long time I didn't believe this phenomenon exists, which I think made me somewhat more tolerant of this sort of claim, but a few cases of serious questioning until inconsistencies and other clues came out has revealed it.

It applies to experiences, to faith, to observed phenomena, and so on, and the thing is there is no answer to such a claim short of mental imbalance or lying, and the person seems reasonably stable.

When it comes to ourselves, we are almost all downright fools.

[Beckys_Mom]

There may be something in it after all. My grandmother was told by a psychic that her husband would die. She was obviously very upset.Lo and behold, twenty three years later he dropped down dead with a heart attack! Spooky or what?

Oh yes, that was spooky.. Who'd of guessed that we humans would one day die? It's amazing to see people with special skills..

I predict, that the next person who win the lottery, will either be a man OR a woman... I will add, they will likely wind up sharing the jackpot with other winners... Now I bet you anything I will have gotten at least half of that right? If not, all of it..

[Mr Walker]

I get the impression that lots of people think they are "special" in some way. Often they are lying, but its a special sort of lie that on one level the person knows is not true but on another level the person believes. For a long time I didn't believe this phenomenon exists, which I think made me somewhat more tolerant of this sort of claim, but a few cases of serious questioning until inconsistencies and other clues came out has revealed it.

It applies to experiences, to faith, to observed phenomena, and so on, and the thing is there is no answer to such a claim short of mental imbalance or lying, and the person seems reasonably stable.

When it comes to ourselves, we are almost all downright fools.

Speak for yourself Edited July 18, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Blood_Sacrifice]

Forget proving a negative, the very basic definition of paranormal is that it doesn't have any material/testable evidence behind its phenomena -- if it did have any evidence (even a tiny bit) it would, by its very definition, cease being a paranormal event.

So looking for evidences of the paranormal is a paradox. If it's a paranormal event, it has no testable evidence. If it has testable evidence, it is not paranormal. And since 'proving the paranormal' is an oxymoron, disproving that the paranormal doesn't exist is well, a no-brainer.

End of.

[scowl]

Forget proving a negative, the very basic definition of paranormal is that it doesn't have any material/testable evidence behind its phenomena -- if it did have any evidence (even a tiny bit) it would, by its very definition, cease being a paranormal event.

This has been explained to the OP at least a dozen times in this thread. His response has been that we are wrong because "someone" has claimed to have "proved" that the paranormal doesn't exist.

When we ask for more information about this, we get sent to stuff he either misread, misinterpreted or doesn't completely understand.

The OP doesn't understand why the Scientific Method requires experiments with falsifiable conclusions so don't bother explaining how science works.

[Frank Merton]

So we are all fools.

[Frank Merton]

Speak for yourself

I might have expected as much from you.

[Frank Merton]

What keeps the moon in orbit? Now to most of us that is paranormal, and especially to a chap like Einstein.

[Mr Walker]

I might have expected as much from you.

Well i put the smilie in for a purpose, but seriously, not all humans are self deluded or even capable of delusion. The human mind can understand itself and also its external environments it can integrate efficiently and effectively betwee body mind and environment. It can know and understand its nature and its drivers, and it can operate logically and rationally quite separate from its evolved nature.

I have studied formally and informally many disciplines. And in my case you are wrong (and so I must assume you are wrong for humanity in general)

I was actually taught to think both objectively and subjectively, to learn and understand the usages of language and communication and to undestand people both as individuals and as a social unit.

Intelligence and experience allow us much, but education, discipline, training and practice, allow much more.

We learn how to perceive more accurately and how to understand more logically ,as we become more skilled and practiced.

You are speaking from your own experience and hence constructed world view. Mine is very different and so i know that while you are right in part, you are wrong in part. YOu are speaking for yourself and hence for others like you. I am speaking for myself and others like me. You CANNOT logically or correctly speak for me, or interpret my life (or anyone else's) through your own..

[alibongo]

Well, have we come to a conclusion yet?

[Mikko-kun]

So we are all fools.

Compared to who?

[alibongo]

I was just looking through you tube , and saw a clip where Richard Dawkins was challenged by a Muslim scholar to prove than Mohamed did not ascend to heaven on a winged horse. Of course, poor Professor Dawkins was left with egg on his face, as he could not disprove this. Also, in another clip, he could not disprove that Jesus had turned water into wine. In both clips, he was challenged to disprove these tenets of faith, but he could not ,conclusively. So, obviously, both religions being exclusive, are exclusively correct, and both are the only true religion, so we are left with the conclusion that that which cannot be disproved must be true, however illogical, mutually exclusive, or nonsensical. Following this,it is a small step accepting the paranormal or indeed an other nonsense is worthy of study.

Edited July 24, 2013 by alibongo

[Frank Merton]

By definition the paranormal cannot exist. If something is real it is real. If it is fiction it is fiction. There is no in-between state.

The Muslim asking for proof about Mohamed ascending and so forth is of course committing gross heresy.

[scowl]

I was just looking through you tube , and saw a clip where Richard Dawkins was challenged by a Muslim scholar to prove than Mohamed did not ascend to heaven on a winged horse. Of course, poor Professor Dawkins was left with egg on his face, as he could not disprove this. Also, in another clip, he could not disprove that Jesus had turned water into wine. In both clips, he was challenged to disprove these tenets of faith, but he could not ,conclusively. So, obviously, both religions being exclusive, are exclusively correct, and both are the only true religion, so we are left with the conclusion that that which cannot be disproved must be true, however illogical, mutually exclusive, or nonsensical. Following this,it is a small step accepting the paranormal or indeed an other nonsense is worthy of study.

I thought Muslims do believe in Jesus and this would not contradict Islam being the "one true religion".

[Mikko-kun]

By definition the paranormal cannot exist. If something is real it is real. If it is fiction it is fiction. There is no in-between state.

The Muslim asking for proof about Mohamed ascending and so forth is of course committing gross heresy.

What if there's partial existence? Or temporary existence which leaves mere residue which we may either not note or which we may confuse to something else? An in-between between fact and fiction? I'm pretty sure there's such a state in our minds at least, but in the physical world though brain is a physical thing too. If there's a particle which partially exist and partially doesn't? A maybe-particle?

[kannin]

BAM OCTOPUS IN THE FACE! I AM THE PARANORMAL SHIZZAH!

[fullywired]

I was just looking through you tube , and saw a clip where Richard Dawkins was challenged by a Muslim scholar to prove than Mohamed did not ascend to heaven on a winged horse. Of course, poor Professor Dawkins was left with egg on his face, as he could not disprove this. Also, in another clip, he could not disprove that Jesus had turned water into wine. In both clips, he was challenged to disprove these tenets of faith, but he could not ,conclusively. So, obviously, both religions being exclusive, are exclusively correct, and both are the only true religion, so we are left with the conclusion that that which cannot be disproved must be true, however illogical, mutually exclusive, or nonsensical. Following this,it is a small step accepting the paranormal or indeed an other nonsense is worthy of study.

It was not Richard Dawkins job to prove anything ,We are back to the old adage "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence " It was the Muslim scholar making the claims and it is he who should provide the evidence

fullywired

[Mr Walker]

By definition the paranormal cannot exist. If something is real it is real. If it is fiction it is fiction. There is no in-between state.

The Muslim asking for proof about Mohamed ascending and so forth is of course committing gross heresy.

The paranormal can exist because it is a label for things we cannot yet classify as normal. It does not mean that something paranormal will remain paranormal once we understand it. It is a definition of the here and now.

By definition in one sense everything that exists is "normal." By another definition, paranormal means "beyond/sitting alongside, the normal" as we know and understand what is normal at this time.

As an example humans were once thought to be pure descendants of early homo sapiens but we now know that there are at least three separate species of hominids which make up the genes of modern humanity. Homo sapiens neandertal and one from central asia (denisovan). There is also a fourth known form of humans; the dwarf variety found on an Indonesian island (Floresians) So now "humanity or human being" has a very different, and more inclusive, meaning than it did before the understanding of human genetics.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

It was not Richard Dawkins job to prove anything ,We are back to the old adage "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence " It was the Muslim scholar making the claims and it is he who should provide the evidence

fullywired

I've never understod this saying. Why should any claim require any more evidence than any other? And what makes something an "extraordinary' claim any way? Once upon a time the calim tha tthe earth was a sphere rotating i space would have beenan "extraordinary claim" or that tiny organisms in the body caused ill ness and disease.

All that science requires is one consistent standard of evidentiary proof. No more and no less.

[Sakari]

I take back everything I said in this topic, and others.....

The Paranormal is real.

All of it.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Sakari

[fullywired]

I've never understod this saying. Why should any claim require any more evidence than any other? And what makes something an "extraordinary' claim any way? Once upon a time the calim tha tthe earth was a sphere rotating i space would have beenan "extraordinary claim" or that tiny organisms in the body caused ill ness and disease.

All that science requires is one consistent standard of evidentiary proof. No more and no less.

According to the OP , Richard Dawkins was challenged by a Muslim scholar to prove than Mohamed did not ascend to heaven on a winged horse.

Dawkins didn't make a claim (or if he did the OP did not mention it ) so he had no reason to produce evidence, whereas the scholar to prove that it was true ,should have produced evidence to support his claim,.which in my humble opinion is fantasy but in your case knowing how you have a propensity to fantasy ,you may have evidentiary evidence to support the claim which you could share with us

Please don't go into one of your sagas involving platypus ,dogs .walls etc

fullywired :whistle:

[Mikko-kun]

According to the OP , Richard Dawkins was challenged by a Muslim scholar to prove than Mohamed did not ascend to heaven on a winged horse.

Dawkins didn't make a claim (or if he did the OP did not mention it ) so he had no reason to produce evidence, whereas the scholar to prove that it was true ,should have produced evidence to support his claim,.which in my humble opinion is fantasy but in your case knowing how you have a propensity to fantasy ,you may have evidentiary evidence to support the claim which you could share with us

Please don't go into one of your sagas involving platypus ,dogs .walls etc

fullywired :whistle:

(this is for you but also in general, not just for you)

Why should anyone prove anything at all? I'm confused. Is it some high god above or something that will provide you for the rest of your life if you do that? Do you even get paid for it? I know, Randi and so on, yes the rewards... but apart from all that, what reason does anyone have to prove anything? What obligation? Because you say so?

The only obligation you have in life, is to live till you die. Of course there's the be good to others and yourself, and all the normal things. Tell me, if someone tells you a rumor, do you always ask them to prove it? Or tell them that you dont want to hear any rumors and will ignore them if you hear any ever again from them? I like rumors. Especially the ones which concern my working situation, the ones which tell whether or not a lot of people get fired in my workplace. I'd rather hear those rumors than not. I'd rather also hear the rumors if people thought I was a complete jack-ass clown, and especially the reason they think so. Because I dont want to be like that in other people's eyes.

To me, the world doesn't work only based on hard facts, but I take advantage of the less hard things too. Of course, we all have our preferences, and you have all rights to keep yours, we all have. But to assume everyone would have your preferences, won't work for you unless you're hell-bent on converting people to your ways.

In the end you just justify why people turn away from challenges like that, give excuses. Why dont you just say "no, I dont like doing that, doesn't fit my agenda" or "no, you're setting this up wrong" or whatever it is you really feel about it?

[fullywired]

(this is for you but also in general, not just for you)

Why should anyone prove anything at all? I'm confused. Is it some high god above or something that will provide you for the rest of your life if you do that? Do you even get paid for it? I know, Randi and so on, yes the rewards... but apart from all that, what reason does anyone have to prove anything? What obligation? Because you say so?

The only obligation you have in life, is to live till you die. Of course there's the be good to others and yourself, and all the normal things. Tell me, if someone tells you a rumor, do you always ask them to prove it? Or tell them that you dont want to hear any rumors and will ignore them if you hear any ever again from them? I like rumors. Especially the ones which concern my working situation, the ones which tell whether or not a lot of people get fired in my workplace. I'd rather hear those rumors than not. I'd rather also hear the rumors if people thought I was a complete jack-ass clown, and especially the reason they think so. Because I dont want to be like that in other people's eyes.

To me, the world doesn't work only based on hard facts, but I take advantage of the less hard things too. Of course, we all have our preferences, and you have all rights to keep yours, we all have. But to assume everyone would have your preferences, won't work for you unless you're hell-bent on converting people to your ways.

In the end you just justify why people turn away from challenges like that, give excuses. Why dont you just say "no, I dont like doing that, doesn't fit my agenda" or "no, you're setting this up wrong" or whatever it is you really feel about it?

I suggest you read my post again ,I didn't ask for proof for anything ,The OP was suggesting that Dawkins was unable to prove that Mohamed did not ascend to Heaven on a winged horse and I was pointing out where the burden of proof lay And you appear to be one of those posters who like to pick people up before they have fallen and put words in their mouth

fullywired

[Mikko-kun]

According to the OP , Richard Dawkins was challenged by a Muslim scholar to prove than Mohamed did not ascend to heaven on a winged horse.

Dawkins didn't make a claim (or if he did the OP did not mention it ) so he had no reason to produce evidence, whereas the scholar to prove that it was true ,should have produced evidence to support his claim,.which in my humble opinion is fantasy but in your case knowing how you have a propensity to fantasy ,you may have evidentiary evidence to support the claim which you could share with us

Please don't go into one of your sagas involving platypus ,dogs .walls etc

fullywired :whistle:

Okay then, sorry for misinterpreting that part.