How Can Skeptics Still Deny the Supernatrual?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

Everyone of those things you listed as evidence, do not fall into the catagory of evidence. None of those things. I agree with the above poster when they say that supernatural is a misnomer. Nothing can be outside of nature.

When there is an experiment that can be reproduced that shows that ghosts, para abilities, and other such junk can be demonstrated at will, then i will get on the wagon. Until then i chalk all those circumstantial claims up to delusion.

It's always amazed me that those citing the scientific method as the end all and be all of fact and truth are so incredibly closed minded. When it comes right down to it, they are modern day flat world thinkers.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2
Great post OP and a great question.


I am keenly interested in Quantum Physics, from the beginning
of it's existence has challenged what actually is "reality".
Even Einstein was dubious about the discoveries made in this
field of science when he was still alive and over the years
this particular science, probably more than any other has many
scientists dubious themselves to define what reality really is
because at the subatomic level nature is not at all what it was
expected to be or what people in general think of as "reality".

Probably the most interesting aspect of QP (and there are many
interesting aspects) is this thing they call The Observer Effect,
which apparently even QP scientists agree it seems that human
consciousness effects physical reality just by observing it, in fact
many QP scientists are not sure the physical universe would even
be here if there wasn't somebody to observe it; in QP
experiments particles when not observed have not only "misbehaved"
and then behaved again when observed, but have also "blinked out"
of existence seemingly until they were observed again.

If that's not evidence of the supernatural, than at least it opens
one's mind to the possibility of it.

EVP is a pseudoscience but it's relatively easy to do, and it definitely
convinced me I was picking up what sounded like not only human
and non-human voices but also sounds, like for example sometimes
someone would whisper something and it sounds like a train station
in the background and a public address system.

I've also heard voices cough, sneeze, etc...

The voices are usually whispers but sometimes are so clear
it's hard to deny that I have heard them.

I don't know what they are, I've tried for years to figure it out;
a lot of people think ghosts/demons/spirits. I don't know what
they are or where they are at all, but it definitely sounds like
they are somewhere else, and that it is a physical existence
of some kind.

Anyone who is naysayer about this, only need to experiment for
themselves with an open mind, and they will more than likely
become convinced something hard to explain is happening.

At least it did for me.

Rebel 5 - out.

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2

My issue was that these people still state that no supernatural activity exists, period.

But obviously no supernatural activity takes place, period.

'Supernatural' is a meaningless word. Somebody else already explained this.

I've had a few pre-cognitive dreams in my life growing up, but only for unimportant and trivial things. Only until a few years ago did my dreams start meaning very meaningful things. But those dreams are a whole nother thread.

Dreamed scary spice of the spice girls was pregnant when i was a little kid. One of the those celebrity news shows announces she is a little while later.

Dreamed of me chilling and laughing with my friend. That same friend wakes me up calling my cell phone.

Dreamed my mom was pulling up to the curb and honking the horn in her jeep. She wakes me up honking the horn in her jeep sitting at the curb outside.

Dreamed of my laptop being all destroyed. Laptop is destroyed months later when i was hit by some cars and became disabled.

Dreamed my mom was walking through the door from her morning jog. She wakes me up coming through the door from her morning jog, same clothes and everything from my dream.

I can personally speak, although lightly, of the supernatural.

Supernatural activity, by its very definition, cannot be proved scientifically, as it either works outside the laws of nature or our perception of reality. So please excuse me OP if I doubt whatever evidence you claim there is that verifies the existence of the paranormal.

BTW, I happen to believe supernatural phenomena is real (some of it at least), I just don't think it can be proven, specially by people who clearly have no grasp about science.

a reply to: SLAYER69

We as his creation have not yet reached a level of understanding or have yet developed the scientific methodology to expand our perspective and fully explore all that still lay hidden before us. I personally have none and see no conflict between Spirituality/belief in God and all that Science has revealed to us thus far.

I choose not to be confined by both Archaic 'Religious Dogma' or a strict 'Scientific rigidity" Both have been proven wrong in the past and they shall also be proven wrong in the future.

I love you man.

originally posted by: rebelv
a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2
Great post OP and a great question.


I am keenly interested in Quantum Physics, from the beginning
of it's existence has challenged what actually is "reality".
Even Einstein was dubious about the discoveries made in this
field of science when he was still alive and over the years
this particular science, probably more than any other has many
scientists dubious themselves to define what reality really is
because at the subatomic level nature is not at all what it was
expected to be or what people in general think of as "reality".

Probably the most interesting aspect of QP (and there are many
interesting aspects) is this thing they call The Observer Effect,
which apparently even QP scientists agree it seems that human
consciousness effects physical reality just by observing it, in fact
many QP scientists are not sure the physical universe would even
be here if there wasn't somebody to observe it; in QP
experiments particles when not observed have not only "misbehaved"
and then behaved again when observed, but have also "blinked out"
of existence seemingly until they were observed again.

If that's not evidence of the supernatural, than at least it opens
one's mind to the possibility of it.

If you find quantum mechanics so fascinating, why don't you try studying a bit? Then you would be able to see just how much BS you've just wrote in that post.

1. Observers don't affect the outcome of physical phenomena, that's just some pseudo scientific BS people keep repeating as a result of misinterpreting the uncertainty principle, which simply states that when observing physical phenomena, we have to chose to either focus on one observable or another (i.e. energy or momentum), and as a result we will never be able to measure with total certainty all observables simultaneously.

2. Einstein's problem with QM, history books tells us, was that he felt no God could possibly have created a universe which behavior we couldn't totally predict based on science. which means he didn't want to believe the uncertainty principle was truth, as it makes impossible the measurements of all observables of a physical event simultaneously, a principle which is actually at the very heart of QM.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: jaws1975
I disagree, just look at Eben Alexander the Harvard neurosurgeon who had a very compelling NDE.

Absolutely, his book, has drawn a huge amount of cynicism.

The scientific fundamentalists scoff and attack his book (Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife) because a spirit world clash's with their own scientific cult fundamentalism.

• The experience of the afterlife was so "real" and expansive that the experience of living as a human on Earth seemed like an artificial dream by comparison.

• The fabric of the afterlife was pure LOVE. Love dominated the afterlife to such a huge degree that the overall presence of evil was infinitesimally small.

• In the afterlife, all communication was telepathic. There was no need for spoken words, nor even any separation between the self and everything else happening around you.

• The moment you asked a question in your mind, the answers were immediately apparent in breathtaking depth and detail. There was no "unknown" and the mere asking of a question was instantly accompanied by the appearance of its answers www.divinitynow.com...

originally posted by: gavdemonologist34
I know what u mean . When my team go into a location to investigate . We go in with the intention to prove its not haunted and if we cant prove that well .. if people go into a house thinking its haunted they have planted the seed and any little noise will be a ghost to them there imagination will take over .that's just my opinion .thanks

How do you prove that some place is not haunted? It's impossible to prove a negative.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: jaws1975
I disagree, just look at Eben Alexander the Harvard neurosurgeon who had a very compelling NDE.

Absolutely, his book, has drawn a huge amount of cynicism.

The scientific fundamentalists scoff and attack his book (Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife) because a spirit world clash's with their own scientific cult fundamentalism.

• The experience of the afterlife was so "real" and expansive that the experience of living as a human on Earth seemed like an artificial dream by comparison.

• The fabric of the afterlife was pure LOVE. Love dominated the afterlife to such a huge degree that the overall presence of evil was infinitesimally small.

• In the afterlife, all communication was telepathic. There was no need for spoken words, nor even any separation between the self and everything else happening around you.

• The moment you asked a question in your mind, the answers were immediately apparent in breathtaking depth and detail. There was no "unknown" and the mere asking of a question was instantly accompanied by the appearance of its answers www.divinitynow.com...

Give his due, he comes over as being convinced at what he thinks he's seen and remembered however it's still only testimony.
Testimony is not proof.
The fact that the book has the word "Proof" in the title tells me something...

a reply to: LoneCloudHopper2
Because skepticism is the only true science. Belief, whether for or against, is entirely useless, and dangerous!

If you cannot test something, you cannot know what it was!

Think about lights in the sky. Did you just see aliens? Well, you saw lights in the sky - that is all you can conclude. You dont know if it was a ship, and even if it was a built ship, you dont even know if its piloted! Human beings infer whatever bias they have onto a situation.

a reply to: Tangerine

How do you prove that some place is not haunted? It's impossible to prove a negative.

I can prove that a glass has no water in it by holding it upside down. It isn't that kind of negative.

Maybe he has a test for the presence of ghosts. If the test comes up negative, then — no ghosts.

Of course, strictly speaking, the test may not work reliably all the time. So in philosophical terms, you're right. But for practical purposes, you can 'prove' certain negatives.

Look for my friend in the pub — he's not there.

That kind of negative.

You'll never know until you experience it yourself. Just hope it's not a negative one...

Want to discover "scientific" evidence for the supernatural (Oops! Sorry. Paranormal)? You can find it here and here.

Want to encounter hard, mathematical evidence for existence of transcendental intelligence/logic/design? Spend the next year studying it here.

But don't come back in a few days and tell everyone that it has not changed your disbelief in the possibility of paranormal phenomena because I shall know that you have not had time to read the research amassed there in thousands of web pages and are just reiterating your dogmatic views.

Malvy: "Supernatural activity, by its very definition, cannot be proved scientifically,"

Yes, it can - by eliminating all logical possibilities and conventional, alternative explanations as impossible. If one can prove scientifically that something could not have happened naturally, then one has demonstrated that it must have occurred by supernatural/paranormal means because it certainly DID happen, and this - however upsetting it is to one's narrow, materialistic outlook - is the only remaining causative possibility.

Why must everything answer to "Science"?

Scientific research is subject to change and often interpretation. We can turn to science for many answers, but when "Science" can't answer something people often believe

1) It doesn't exist/happen
2) Science will prove it to be natural eventually.

The first one is laughable and I hope for the sake of full disclosure the second options proves to be true. But I very much doubt it will turn out to be "natural" as we know natural to be. The reason people call certain evens SUPERnatural is simply because they believe the source of the event is outside of our reality - to me, that's a good enough case to call it supernatural.

I've experiences a few strange cases - They've only strengthened my belief to the fact that science may one day find these events are indeed, outside of our known reality.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: jaws1975
I disagree, just look at Eben Alexander the Harvard neurosurgeon who had a very compelling NDE.

Absolutely, his book, has drawn a huge amount of cynicism.

The scientific fundamentalists scoff and attack his book (Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife) because a spirit world clash's with their own scientific cult fundamentalism.

• The experience of the afterlife was so "real" and expansive that the experience of living as a human on Earth seemed like an artificial dream by comparison.

• The fabric of the afterlife was pure LOVE. Love dominated the afterlife to such a huge degree that the overall presence of evil was infinitesimally small.

• In the afterlife, all communication was telepathic. There was no need for spoken words, nor even any separation between the self and everything else happening around you.

• The moment you asked a question in your mind, the answers were immediately apparent in breathtaking depth and detail. There was no "unknown" and the mere asking of a question was instantly accompanied by the appearance of its answers www.divinitynow.com...

Give his due, he comes over as being convinced at what he thinks he's seen and remembered however it's still only testimony.
Testimony is not proof.
The fact that the book has the word "Proof" in the title tells me something...

I don't think you understood my question.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Tangerine

Maybe he has a test for the presence of ghosts. If the test comes up negative, then — no ghosts.

.

I'm waiting for his answer.

originally posted by: micpsi
Want to discover "scientific" evidence for the supernatural (Oops! Sorry. Paranormal)? You can find it here and here.

Want to encounter hard, mathematical evidence for existence of transcendental intelligence/logic/design? Spend the next year studying it here.

But don't come back in a few days and tell everyone that it has not changed your disbelief in the possibility of paranormal phenomena because I shall know that you have not had time to read the research amassed there in thousands of web pages and are just reiterating your dogmatic views.

Malvy: "Supernatural activity, by its very definition, cannot be proved scientifically,"

Yes, it can - by eliminating all logical possibilities and conventional, alternative explanations as impossible. If one can prove scientifically that something could not have happened naturally, then one has demonstrated that it must have occurred by supernatural/paranormal means because it certainly DID happen, and this - however upsetting it is to one's narrow, materialistic outlook - is the only remaining causative possibility.

Paranormal, which simply means out of the norm, is a better word than supernatural. I think confusion arises because people don't understand that the scientific method is based on testable evidence used to determine fact. If something can't be tested, that simply means that it doesn't meet the scientific criterion for fact. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Of course, it also doesn't mean that it does exist. None of this is a criticism of your post--just an addition.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Tangerine

How do you prove that some place is not haunted? It's impossible to prove a negative.

I can prove that a glass has no water in it by holding it upside down. It isn't that kind of negative.

Maybe he has a test for the presence of ghosts. If the test comes up negative, then — no ghosts.

Of course, strictly speaking, the test may not work reliably all the time. So in philosophical terms, you're right. But for practical purposes, you can 'prove' certain negatives.

Look for my friend in the pub — he's not there.

Technically, you're failing to prove a positive, not proving a negative. The point is moot in the cases you cited, but it's not when it comes to proving something for which we currently have no test.

That kind of negative.

The only 'spooky' stuff to have been experimentally demonstrated, as far as I'm aware, is that the human mind can affect random number generators to give number sequences not explicable by chance.

More interestingly, the human heart appears to have the ability to accurately guess if an image is going to be one of horror or not a split second before the subject actually sees it.