I Want To Believe

[onlookerofmayhem]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I fully consider the value and imperfections with anecdotal evidence.

No you don't. In any way, shape or form. 

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

A sufficient quantity, quality and consistency of anecdotal evidence can have me believing something beyond reasonable doubt.

Quantity. 

If one million people claim they can fly by flapping their arms, that in no way provides any evidence to the contrary that it is scientifically impossible to such a thing.

Quality. 

That's exactly what has been refuted in the previous posts to you. There is no quality evidence when all you have is a story.

Consistency. 

The most absurd of your claims. You are cherry picking the similarities and disregarding the discrepancies. All because of your presuppositions to the fact that paranormal/supernatural events do occur.

This is all based on your conformation bias. 

Taken on an individual basis, like every single claim or event should be taken, these cases would fail in court every single time. 

When was the last time a murder got pinned on a poltergeist or a ghost or a demon?

When was the last time an alternate dimension was determined to be the repository for stolen goods?

The op asks why they have never experienced the paranormal. The most obvious, rational and logical explanation is because it doesn't exist.

Your inability to provide a strong case for it is your failure.

When asked for your best example, you gave us an anecdote about a tour guide that told you a story. Pretty much the lamest and useless example possible. 

[psyche101]

8 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

So there is such a thing as 'anecdotal evidence': I am sure that won't stop some thick minds here from saying anecdotes are not evidence in the next thread again.

Goodness me. Could you mind be any thicker?

No, there's not such a thing. Read the link. 

No, they are not evidence. You did not read the information provided.

Do you have problems with reading? It might explain a great deal.

[papageorge1]

20 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

No you don't. In any way, shape or form. 

Quantity. 

If one million people claim they can fly by flapping their arms, that in no way provides any evidence to the contrary that it is scientifically impossible to such a thing.

Quality. 

That's exactly what has been refuted in the previous posts to you. There is no quality evidence when all you have is a story.

Consistency. 

The most absurd of your claims. You are cherry picking the similarities and disregarding the discrepancies. All because of your presuppositions to the fact that paranormal/supernatural events do occur.

This is all based on your conformation bias. 

Taken on an individual basis, like every single claim or event should be taken, these cases would fail in court every single time. 

When was the last time a murder got pinned on a poltergeist or a ghost or a demon?

When was the last time an alternate dimension was determined to be the repository for stolen goods?

The op asks why they have never experienced the paranormal. The most obvious, rational and logical explanation is because it doesn't exist.

Your inability to provide a strong case for it is your failure.

When asked for your best example, you gave us an anecdote about a tour guide that told you a story. Pretty much the lamest and useless example possible. 

Judgments in the end are opinions hopefully objectively and carefully reached. I am comfortable saying there are things I believe beyond reasonable doubt.

Anyway, as we are repeating ourselves, let me try asking you a question. Do you think that for all the millions of alleged paranormal events that if all facts could be known that they can be understood without any major additions to a materialist's understanding of reality?

[papageorge1]

9 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Goodness me. Could you mind be any thicker?

No, there's not such a thing. Read the link. 

No, they are not evidence. You did not read the information provided.

Do you have problems with reading? It might explain a great deal.

Did YOU read your own post? It talks about anecdotal evidence its weaknesses and where it may be useful for crying out loud.

According to psyche101 there IS such thing/ I'll use his post as my authority

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Did YOU read your own post? It talks about anecdotal evidence its weaknesses and where it may be useful for crying out loud.

So you do have difficulties with reading?

It days anecdotal evidence is cherry picking and had no value. 

Show me where the description says it is accurate information.

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

According to psyche101 there IS such thing/ I'll use his post as my authority

Well that would be stupid because I don't advocate it.

But then again you welch on bets, so no behaviour is below you.

[onlookerofmayhem]

17 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Do you think that for all the millions of alleged paranormal events that if all facts could be known that they can be understood without any major additions to a materialist's understanding of reality?

For the most part yes. Yet I'm open to any scientific evidence that may support unknown phenomena. 

It would depend on what one would consider "major additions" to a materialist's understanding. 

Anything material that interacts with known material can be measured in some way.

Take muon imaging for example.

Muons can travel through most material unimpeded. 

Yet with the right detectors, they can be observed and used to compile information related to their interactions with other materials.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon_tomography

Claims that ghosts or poltergeists or whatever can interact, i.e. be seen, heard, felt or directly interact with physical objects yet not be detected in any controlled type of manner is highly suspicious. 

 

[GlitterRose]

4 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

For the most part yes. Yet I'm open to any scientific evidence that may support unknown phenomena. 

It would depend on what one would consider "major additions" to a materialist's understanding. 

Anything material that interacts with known material can be measured in some way.

Take muon imaging for example.

Muons can travel through most material unimpeded. 

Yet with the right detectors, they can be observed and used to compile information related to their interactions with other materials.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon_tomography

Claims that ghosts or poltergeists or whatever can interact, i.e. be seen, heard, felt or directly interact with physical objects yet not be detected in any controlled type of manner is highly suspicious. 

 

I think it could be detected. I just see possible issues with replication.

[papageorge1]

2 minutes ago, GlitterRose said:

I think it could be detected. I just see possible issues with replication.

Right, I think a ghost can be detected for a few second burst but try replicating that!

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

I think it could be detected. I just see possible issues with replication.

I doubt it. If the incredibly unlikely was to happen, and ghosts were actually suspected to exist, then quite clearly certain people or certain factors would initiate that interaction. Claims of after life encounters tend to have some correlation, family, friends, some sort of bond.

That's where detection would work. A certain amount of prediction should be feasible. 

[onlookerofmayhem]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Right, I think a ghost can be detected for a few second burst but try replicating that!

Well, shouldn't that be relatively easy to do?

How many places claim to be consistently haunted? By something? Thousands of purported haunted site all around the globe. Why aren't all the battlefields filled with ghosts all the times? Why isn't pretty much all of Europe and the middle east and Asia haunted all day every day? The whole world for that matter?

Roughly 108 billion people have ever lived. Roughly 8 billion people are alive now. Obviously leaving us with approximately 100 billion dead people. Let alone the hundreds of billions of other animals, that having an extremely close physiology to us and could possibly have a soul if it's some sort of physical essence, have died also.

Since there is no way to determine how an individual can become a ghost, there is no way to calculate approximately how many ghosts could possibly exist. 

But shouldn't places that have massive amounts of death compared to places with low amounts see a statistical increase in ghosts?

There is no scientific evidence to show that any piece of one's consciousness goes anywhere after they die.

So, for me, the absolute lack of repeatability in places that have been supposedly haunted for hundreds, if not thousands of years, is a big problem in accepting such claims.

How committed to proving the paranormal are some of these researchers?

I've watched nature documentaries that catalog photographers camping out in harsh nature conditions for months upon months. Every day trying to get a few seconds of footage of an elusive creature. It may take them months and even years for them to get their footage, but they usually do persist until they di.

Why is there not the same type of commitment in the paranormal world?

Surely staking out Gettysburg or Auschwitz or places as such should eventually lead to something.

That one of the issues with paranormal proponents. They have no idea about the rules. They claim there are no rules. Why would some people turn into a ghost and not another? Is a poltergeist different than a ghost? Is a demon different than a poltergeist? Is bigfoot a ghost, a demon, an alien or a creature from another dimension?

And are they all similar in the way that they physically invade our "plane of existence."

Without being able to properly observe and record any kinds of findings or data related to such cases, a definitive answer is impossible for all these questions.

As such, I find all anecdotal support of it lacking in any type of evidence that supports a conclusion that something supernatural is going on.

The conclusion, "It's all in their head." is the most logical and rational conclusion to come to until the day when overwhelming scientific evidence supports any of these cases.

Telling anybody that future science will be able to detect such things is just a fantasy until the day they can.

[papageorge1]

9 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Well, shouldn't that be relatively easy to do?

How many places claim to be consistently haunted? By something? Thousands of purported haunted site all around the globe. Why aren't all the battlefields filled with ghosts all the times? 

I don't understand your point. Aren't these the type of places where investigators often do their investigations? Don't they go to alleged hotspots. And they often collect findings they believe anomalous.

12 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

Roughly 108 billion people have ever lived. Roughly 8 billion people are alive now. Obviously leaving us with approximately 100 billion dead people. Let alone the hundreds of billions of other animals, that having an extremely close physiology to us and could possibly have a soul if it's some sort of physical essence, have died also.

Since there is no way to determine how an individual can become a ghost, there is no way to calculate approximately how many ghosts could possibly exist. 

But shouldn't places that have massive amounts of death compared to places with low amounts see a statistical increase in ghosts?

There is no scientific evidence to show that any piece of one's consciousness goes anywhere after they die.

So, for me, the absolute lack of repeatability in places that have been supposedly haunted for hundreds, if not thousands of years, is a big problem in accepting such claims.

How committed to proving the paranormal are some of these researchers?

I've watched nature documentaries that catalog photographers camping out in harsh nature conditions for months upon months. Every day trying to get a few seconds of footage of an elusive creature. It may take them months and even years for them to get their footage, but they usually do persist until they di.

Why is there not the same type of commitment in the paranormal world?

Surely staking out Gettysburg or Auschwitz or places as such should eventually lead to something.

That one of the issues with paranormal proponents. They have no idea about the rules. They claim there are no rules. Why would some people turn into a ghost and not another? Is a poltergeist different than a ghost? Is a demon different than a poltergeist? Is bigfoot a ghost, a demon, an alien or a creature from another dimension?

And are they all similar in the way that they physically invade our "plane of existence."

Without being able to properly observe and record any kinds of findings or data related to such cases, a definitive answer is impossible for all these questions.

As such, I find all anecdotal support of it lacking in any type of evidence that supports a conclusion that something supernatural is going on.

The conclusion, "It's all in their head." is the most logical and rational conclusion to come to until the day when overwhelming scientific evidence supports any of these cases.

Telling anybody that future science will be able to detect such things is just a fantasy until the day they can.

Well I would say mainstream ghost theory is that all people live on after death and reside on higher spiritual planes. It is not customary for all these astral forms to still be interacting with the physical plane. Ghosts are the exception when one is still too attached to the physical plane and gets into an earthbound state. Ghosts are the exception not the rule of the afterlife. 

 

 

[onlookerofmayhem]

12 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well I would say mainstream ghost theory is that all people live on after death and reside on higher spiritual planes. It is not customary for all these astral forms to still be interacting with the physical plane. Ghosts are the exception when one is still too attached to the physical plane and gets into an earthbound state. Ghosts are the exception not the rule of the afterlife. 

That theory is based on absolutely no empirical evidence. It's a blind shot in the dark. It's not customary? Says who? Some ghost stories detail apparitions dressed like they lived hundreds or thousands of years ago. Why would some stick around and others only appear once and never again?

Ah then a special pleading fallacy. Ghosts are an exception to the rule? So demons and poltergeists can stick around forever or intermediately depending on what? Bigfoot's interdimensional travels take him all over the world or are there obviously thousands of interdimensional bigfeet?

See what I mean about making up arbitrary rules that have no basis in reality? They are only guesses on a subject that there are no evidences for.

11 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I don't understand your point. Aren't these the type of places where investigators often do their investigations? Don't they go to alleged hotspots. And they often collect findings they believe anomalous.

My point is why wouldn't hundreds of examinations of these places lead to any consistent data.

Are they all different ghosts? Is it always the same ghost or are ghosts in the same spots? Are the encounters at any specific times or days? There are thousands of questions that can be asked about any given situation, yet the stories almost always come down to, "Well, something weird that we can't explain happened."

Any kind of scientific investigation would result in thousands of times more data.

There is no consistency to the events in these so called haunted places.

 

[onlookerofmayhem]

5 hours ago, GlitterRose said:

I think it could be detected. I just see possible issues with replication.

Detected with what method? What type of instrumentation?

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

That theory is based on absolutely no empirical evidence. It's a blind shot in the dark. It's not customary? Says who? Some ghost stories detail apparitions dressed like they lived hundreds or thousands of years ago. Why would some stick around and others only appear once and never again?

Ah then a special pleading fallacy. Ghosts are an exception to the rule? So demons and poltergeists can stick around forever or intermediately depending on what? Bigfoot's interdimensional travels take him all over the world or are there obviously thousands of interdimensional bigfeet?

See what I mean about making up arbitrary rules that have no basis in reality? They are only guesses on a subject that there are no evidences for.

 

It's based on millions of alleged observations of the paranormal and the insight of many claiming psychic/clairvoyant direct observation of what is beyond the physical senses. (don't I keep saying that). If you want to ask about any one of those subjects above I'll give you my best understanding.

5 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

My point is why wouldn't hundreds of examinations of these places lead to any consistent data.

Are they all different ghosts? Is it always the same ghost or are ghosts in the same spots? Are the encounters at any specific times or days? There are thousands of questions that can be asked about any given situation, yet the stories almost always come down to, "Well, something weird that we can't explain happened."

Any kind of scientific investigation would result in thousands of times more data.

There is no consistency to the events in these so called haunted places.

 

Ghost investigations turn up stuff and theories are constructed that you would call having no empirical support or some other dismissal. The restricted success is that spirit's native state and plane are not physical so we must rely on rare physical phenomena and the impression of those with alleged psychic sensing during investigations of hotspots.

[onlookerofmayhem]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

It's based on millions of alleged observations of the paranormal and the insight of many claiming psychic/clairvoyant direct observation of what is beyond the physical senses.

Let's do some math. You keep claiming "millions" of cases.

I will use the least amount to make the math easy. One million.

If somebody studied paranormal/supernatural events every day of every year, how long would it take them to do one million?

Well,

1,000,000 ÷ 365 = ~2740

2,740 ÷ 100 = 27.4

So an individual would have to study more than 27 events, every single day for one hundred years to eclipse just one million. So I am calling you out on your blatantly flippant claim of the number of events you have looked at with any possible integrity. 

As to your psychic/clairvoyant claim, I say they are adopting an unfalsifiable stance on what concerns the paranormal/supernatural. They can literally say whatever they want and there is no way to examine the claim.

I've never seen a reliable claim that has been proven to be true by any psychic or clairvoyant person.

[psyche101]

17 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

It's based on millions of alleged observations of the paranormal and the insight of many claiming psychic/clairvoyant direct observation of what is beyond the physical senses. (don't I keep saying that). If you want to ask about any one of those subjects above I'll give you my best understanding.

Millions of what?

More zealous people like you making extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, and then sinking into fiction to make stuff up?

Quantity did not factor into your equations in the big foot threads. I'd say that indicates an agenda, not corroboration.

Quote

Ghost investigations turn up stuff and theories are constructed that you would call having no empirical support or some other dismissal. The restricted success is that spirit's native state and plane are not physical so we must rely on rare physical phenomena and the impression of those with alleged psychic sensing during investigations of hotspots.

Stuff and theories.

Well then. That's different isn't it.

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by psyche101

[onlookerofmayhem]

16 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Ghost investigations turn up stuff and theories are constructed that you would call having no empirical support or some other dismissal.

Yes, I would dismiss them if they fail to match the burden of proof which comes along with the claims they are making.

Not one piece of evidence or theory has ever been shown to have any merit. Zero.

18 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The restricted success is that spirit's native state and plane are not physical so we must rely on rare physical phenomena and the impression of those with alleged psychic sensing during investigations of hotspots.

There's a major issue with the claim that ghosts are non-physical yet interact with the physical world. What are they made of then? There is no explanation as to how something so random and unexaminable can actually affect the physical. 

And if psychics/clairvoyants have access to these non-physical realms then why can't they explain to scientists how to experience or experiment with them?

If a psychic/clairvoyant is experiencing anything in the physical world then wouldn't whatever they were sensing have to be a physical phenomenon? Our eyes see light. Our eardrums pick up vibrations. Our nervous system detects temperature changes and exposure to oxygen. What undiscovered organ in the human body is responsible for detecting non-physical events?

As it stands, the claim that ghosts and whatnot occupy non-physical areas of our reality are baseless conjecture.

[papageorge1]

9 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Let's do some math. You keep claiming "millions" of cases.

I will use the least amount to make the math easy. One million.

If somebody studied paranormal/supernatural events every day of every year, how long would it take them to do one million?

Well,

1,000,000 ÷ 365 = ~2740

2,740 ÷ 100 = 27.4

So an individual would have to study more than 27 events, every single day for one hundred years to eclipse just one million. So I am calling you out on your blatantly flippant claim of the number of events you have looked at with any possible integrity. 

 

When I say millions and I'll even go billions I am extrapolating over the human race. I think it is certain that only some microscopic percentage of cases in the world will ever get to one person's attention. If your looking at math you can multiply the average number of  events per person times the number of people that have lived. 

I know no one person can live long enough to study a million cases, LOL.

9 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

As to your psychic/clairvoyant claim, I say they are adopting an unfalsifiable stance on what concerns the paranormal/supernatural. They can literally say whatever they want and there is no way to examine the claim.

By definition psychic/clairvoyant claims can not be physically verified. I look at the overlap between many and wisdom traditions like Theosophical that are the combined works of many, many seers/clairvoyants. I also look at their theories' explanatory power with paranormal phenomena which if any one case were true would baffle physical science. I believe the evidence is that science of today is missing majorly important things.

[papageorge1]

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Millions of what?

More zealous people like you making extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence, and then sinking into fiction to make stuff up?

I was thinking more like honest and serious people honestly trying to understand a deep complex universe.

[papageorge1]

9 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

There's a major issue with the claim that ghosts are non-physical yet interact with the physical world. What are they made of then? There is no explanation as to how something so random and unexaminable can actually affect the physical. 

 

IMO, Non-physical entities are made of matter of the higher planes of nature. These planes are in dimensions and at vibratory rates not directly detectable by cruder physical senses and instruments. Their rare effects on the the physical world happen in a top-down manner. Their intention occurs at a physically unseen level and through movement of energy from higher to progressively denser realms the denser realms can be affected. The etheric realm is the realm most closest to our familiar physical realm and that realm is manipulated in paranormal phenomena and can affect the physical. 

[+Desertrat56]

On 7/14/2020 at 3:47 PM, onlookerofmayhem said:

Join the club. They don't like me either. I've never experienced anything remotely paranormal. 

I've been in dozens of "haunted" places, slept in cemeteries and never experienced so much as a glimpse of anything. Not a chill, a shadow, a whisper or an uneasy feeling.

 

I never seen a "ghost" but I have experienced a lot of paranormal things.  Including poltergeist activity that I think was linked to my dad.  It really depends on what input you pay attention to.  If you don't think something is possible, how can you notice it?  We are bombarded with information 24 hours a day and we were taught what is acceptable to pay attention to and what is not. 

[onlookerofmayhem]

3 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I never seen a "ghost" but I have experienced a lot of paranormal things.  Including poltergeist activity that I think was linked to my dad.  It really depends on what input you pay attention to.  If you don't think something is possible, how can you notice it?  We are bombarded with information 24 hours a day and we were taught what is acceptable to pay attention to and what is not. 

First off, let me say that I enjoy and respect a lot of your posts.

I can't denigrate or deny your personal experiences. I can only say that without anything but a story I can't accept that the events were paranormal/supernatural. But I wasn't there and I have no way of confirming any aspect of whatever your stories may be. The whole extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence deal.

If I don't think something is possible, how could I notice it?

Well, I'd like to think I would notice a ghost appearing to me. I think I would notice poltergeist activity. Objects floating around or being thrown violently across the room by an unseen force. Things of that nature. Just because I don't believe such things could happen, I don't think it would hamper my ability to notice them if they did actually ever occur in my presence.

As to your last point I disagree.

I've never been taught to not pay attention to certain things. Whatever my senses pick up is what I pay attention to. Sight. Smell. Hearing. Tasting. Feeling. All the physical senses I have provide the information I am able to go off of.

[onlookerofmayhem]

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

IMO, Non-physical entities are made of matter of the higher planes of nature. These planes are in dimensions and at vibratory rates not directly detectable by cruder physical senses and instruments. Their rare effects on the the physical world happen in a top-down manner. Their intention occurs at a physically unseen level and through movement of energy from higher to progressively denser realms the denser realms can be affected. The etheric realm is the realm most closest to our familiar physical realm and that realm is manipulated in paranormal phenomena and can affect the physical. 

Absolute gobbledygook.

None of that makes any sense.

Completely unfalsifiable and unconfirmed assertions.

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

First off, let me say that I enjoy and respect a lot of your posts.

I can't denigrate or deny your personal experiences. I can only say that without anything but a story I can't accept that the events were paranormal/supernatural. But I wasn't there and I have no way of confirming any aspect of whatever your stories may be. The whole extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence deal.

If I don't think something is possible, how could I notice it?

Well, I'd like to think I would notice a ghost appearing to me. I think I would notice poltergeist activity. Objects floating around or being thrown violently across the room by an unseen force. Things of that nature. Just because I don't believe such things could happen, I don't think it would hamper my ability to notice them if they did actually ever occur in my presence.

As to your last point I disagree.

I've never been taught to not pay attention to certain things. Whatever my senses pick up is what I pay attention to. Sight. Smell. Hearing. Tasting. Feeling. All the physical senses I have provide the information I am able to go off of.

Any time a child perceives something subtle that adults can't or won't perceive, they are told "that is not real, it is just your imagination".  That is the teaching I am talking about, and we do have the ability to sense subtle input, but if we don't pay attention to it we don't perceive it.   Do you know anyone who has "hunches" that tend to be correct?  Hunches that seemingly have no basis in physical reality?

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Absolute gobbledygook.

None of that makes any sense.

Completely unfalsifiable and unconfirmed assertions.

Well, then continue in denial that any paranormal encounters experienced by normal sane people ever happen. 'It's all in their heads" as I believe you put it earlier.