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

Posted (edited)

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 :devil: Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are all fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speak for yourself :devil:

I might have expected as much from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, have we come to a conclusion yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are all fools.

Compared to who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 by alibongo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

The Paranormal is real.

All of it.

Edited by Sakari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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: :whistle:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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: :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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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: :whistle:

Okay then, sorry for misinterpreting that part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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: :whistle:

Tha tdoesnt real adress my question why extraordinary proofs?

Surely ordinary proofs whould be enough to prove or disprove the point.

Oh i agree with you in this case It concerns a belief statement and is thus unprovable either way. The scholar can't prove he is right and dawkins cannot prove he is wrong. That is WHY the concept remains amenable to human belief. Now a nice live video feed accompanied by a dozen witness statements would help, but in the modern era would not constitute proof. But if I was there and saw it happen, i would know one way or the other. There is a problem with winged horses. The wing and musculature development required to fly is problematic in a creature with a horse's, biology/physiology. But of course belief is not bound by reality. I do wonder if a human could have ridden one of the large pterosaurs, or if the extra weight would have prevented the animal from flying

When i was a kid i did a number of experiments trying to fly, with helium filled ballons and large albatrosses, but couldnt make any definitive progress. I had a lot more success with modified parachutes, hang gliders, and rockets. Had my first hanglider flight about 13, and before that some parachute jumps and also paragliding behind a ski boat.

The rockets were a success in shooting beetles quite a distance and taking aerial photos from a couple of hundred metres up in the air, but the bigger we made them, the less effective they became, until a two meter model failed to take off, and burned a large circular hole in the centre of the town oval ,as it whizzed around on the ground like a giant catherine wheel.

See. Nothing about platypi, dogs or walls.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tha tdoesnt real adress my question why extraordinary proofs?

Surely ordinary proofs whould be enough to prove or disprove the point.

.

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

— Marcello Truzzi,
On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

— Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

Interesting. It doesnt realy seem they are asking for extraordinary standards of proof, just stating a fairly self evident fact, that an extraordinary claim will, in its nature, require proofs which must also be extraordinary .

Eg. if i claim i can fly, and do so before witnesses cameras etc, my proof is not of an extraordinary standard, but the "fact of my flying" is an extraordinary proof, because a human flying IS extraordinary.

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.