The unexplainable and the explainers (light, psychic, conspiracy, phenomena)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would counter that just because you believe something exists, doesn't mean it exists.
Also, the electricity argument is fallacious to the core. We CAN see electricity working. If you've ever been in a dark room and acquired a static charge of electrons on your body, then discharged to a grounded object, that arcing is photons being emitted from that flow of electrons (electricity), which is quite literally seeing evidence of the occurrence.
But more importantly, we can readily measure electricity using meters. And we can also practically measure the presence of electricity simply by turning on electrical objects that require it to run.
This is all evidence of electricity.
I wish people would stop using the electricity argument, because it is beyond ignorant.
You can see the result of electricity by turning on a light bulb, but that is not electricity.
The bulb is the result of electricity.
Your experiment in a dark room tells you electricity is present, but the static you see is a result of electricity, not the electricity itself.
You can measure electricity with meters, but you still can not see it.
Electricity is not solid matter, there fore it can't be seen, however, the by products of it are visible.
Electricity powers many things, and we "see" these things every day, but still are unable to see the electricity itself.
Lightning is a result of electricity, and we see that, but we still do not see electricity.
Electricity is much like heat and cold.
We feel it, but it can't be seen.
Bob.
Much has been posted lately accusing individuals claiming paranormal powers or experiences as being frauds. The finger has especially been pointed at John Edward and other spiritualists whom derive a living from their practice in front of audiences as well as private readings. While I'm convinced that fraudulent manipulation may be common amongst these practitioners, I cannot say with certainty that spirits don't exist, because I have not experienced their presence.
I question the motives of those individuals who so blatantly and assuredly denounce the validity of all paranormal happenings solely because they have not had experiences of that sort. Because I have never been to Tahiti, does that give me license to state "Tahiti doesn't exist?" And why would I take spear in hand and shout at windmills,"Tahiti doesn't exist!?" Of course, I could be flown to Tahiti to prove that it does indeed exist in all its materialistic form, but the paranormal is of a non-material dimension in the realm of the unexplainable.
James Randi, perhaps the leading "debunker" of the paranormal, makes untold TV appearances amassing a fortune as he accuses "charlatans" of becoming rich by fleecing the public. In his crusade to save the public from being "duped," his appearances have granted him savings far beyond what any of his targets may earn.
As to the "debunkers" appearing on this board sneering at the "believers" with harsh accusations stemming from their own disbelief, I question what their motive may be, other than gaining a false sense of superiority that makes them protest so much.
I must confess that I was skeptical of the paranormal most of my adult life, until I experienced a precognitive event and state of consciousness explained in my post,"Before my last breath."
You are conflating points. Even the great James Randi does not say that there are no people who poses paranormal powers or that the spirit world does not exist. What he says is that in all his years he can not only explain but duplicate the paranormal powers that the supposed people who say they have them display. Second your example of some island you have never seen there are photographs and movies that clearly show the island. There is ample proof of its existence that no one disputes so there is little reason to doubt it. To make a more fair comparison you would have to use the island of Atlantis and Ghosts. Atlantis may have existed but there is no proof of it other than the writings of Plato
You can see the result of electricity by turning on a light bulb, but that is not electricity.
The bulb is the result of electricity.
Your experiment in a dark room tells you electricity is present, but the static you see is a result of electricity, not the electricity itself.
You can measure electricity with meters, but you still can not see it.
Electricity is not solid matter, there fore it can't be seen, however, the by products of it are visible.
Electricity powers many things, and we "see" these things every day, but still are unable to see the electricity itself.
Lightning is a result of electricity, and we see that, but we still do not see electricity.
Electricity is much like heat and cold.
We feel it, but it can't be seen.
Bob.
I fail to see how this means I am using faith to determine that electricity exists. In fact, you just finished typing a bunch of demonstrable evidence for the existence of electricity, none of which can be applied to the existence of paranormal forces. My point that the electricity argument is irrelevant to the discussion of paranormal still stands, as you yourself have just demonstrated.
Now please, if we are going to discuss paranormal forces, let's leave electricity out of it. It's such a bad case for the existence of paranormal forces that it's almost hilarious.
There is a fallacy happening in this portion of your post that I wish to point out, just as a way to help you understand the mentality behind most (legitimate) skepticism.
I agree that it's not correct to declare that paranormal events do not exist based on a lack of personal experience with an unexplained event. However, your analogy is also incorrect and does not accurately represent what it is you're refuting.
Not having been somewhere is not similar to not having seen a paranormal event. Many of us have not been to geographic locations. However, most of us realize that we are not the totality of human observation (which is what you obviously agree with, given your statement about denouncing validity based on personal experience), and we also realize that other people HAVE been to these locations, HAVE documented their existence, HAVE mapped these locations and have even taken photos of them. We can also go there and take back physical objects from them. There are even people quite obviously living in locations we have not been to. We don't need it to be a leap of faith to know common geographic locations exist. Nor are we making any outlandish assumptions by doing so.
On the other hand, we do need it to be a leap of faith that there is a non-material dimension of paranormal events and entities interacting with our world, because we cannot visit these supposed locations, we cannot document testable evidence of these realms, and we cannot walk away with any irrefutable evidence that these realms exist.
While I'm not making the argument that the realms don't exist based on having no experience of them, I CAN make the contrast that as a matter of knowledge versus faith, Tahiti makes a far better case for existence than a supernatural dimension. And, in the mind of a skeptic, validity is simply lent to that which can provide evidence to support its existence. But more importantly, skeptics also make leaps of faith.. however, these leaps are in line with realistic likelihoods, rather than baseless speculation and arguments from ignorance.
I'm not saying believers are automatically incorrect and making baseless assumptions. I'm simply saying that (proper) skepticism employs critical thinking that is opposed to doing so, as a default, because that's how critical thinking works.
And, as a method of arriving at the truth, critical thinking and analysis will always win over mere assumptions based on nothing but personal experience or belief.
It is in this way that the very thing you are against is also the very thing that lends credibility to unprovable things in the minds of believers.
It's simply the reverse of your position, using the same mechanics:
Something does not exist just because someone thinks it does. Especially when it cannot be measured or proven.
So then we must make the assumption that it either does or doesn't, based on our own experience. A believer is not in a more advantageous position than a non-believer. If based solely on belief, they're are on common ground. They're just facing two different directions.
Skepticism attempts to avoid this by using evidence to elevate their position.
Read "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. Pay close attention to the chapter titled "The invisible dragon in the garage".
As you, I, and the rest of us here are just that - creatures of the province of a mind(-s). And as such, what we believe to exist, exists. Your posts, very well done, are proof to it. You ardently justify your beliefs. There is nothing wrong with this. I am simply pointing at fact simple. Also, very typical for any discussion. Person A says X; person B says Y; person A counters, and person B has to keep justifying Y, as it takes great spirit and mind to admit, that X might actually be the right answer. But it did not come out of B, hence, B keeps justifying Y, no matter what.
ANd yes, electricity is not the best example. It can be easily seen. And light bulb is not product of electricity. But what we can NOT see, is electrons movement from + to -. Which, I do not even think, that they actually do move, but I'll leave that to smarter than I am. But what we can see, is results of electrical field - ionization of air molecules, accompanied with light and sound. And we say - look, there is electricity!
Read "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. Pay close attention to the chapter titled "The invisible dragon in the garage".
I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me, and I hope I don't have to read an entire book to figure it out!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
As you, I, and the rest of us here are just that - creatures of the province of a mind(-s). And as such, what we believe to exist, exists. Your posts, very well done, are proof to it. You ardently justify your beliefs. There is nothing wrong with this. I am simply pointing at fact simple. Also, very typical for any discussion. Person A says X; person B says Y; person A counters, and person B has to keep justifying Y, as it takes great spirit and mind to admit, that X might actually be the right answer. But it did not come out of B, hence, B keeps justifying Y, no matter what.
ANd yes, electricity is not the best example. It can be easily seen. And light bulb is not product of electricity. But what we can NOT see, is electrons movement from + to -. Which, I do not even think, that they actually do move, but I'll leave that to smarter than I am. But what we can see, is results of electrical field - ionization of air molecules, accompanied with light and sound. And we say - look, there is electricity!
I'm going to just focus on the actual coherent statement in your post and reply to it, which is bolded.
We can measure electrons moving from one pole to another. It's how batteries work. And unless you don't believe in batteries, then I'm going to assume you're agree that seeing this process is not the definition of being able to quantify the fact that it is indeed happening.
As far as whether you think electrons move or not, that's your opinion, but I would say it's an ignorant one. Electricity itself is the result of such a flow. If they did not move, we would not have electrical current which is powering your computer right this very second. These devices, and all other electronic devices, are built on the very knowledge that electrons move and flow. If we did not understand this principle, we would literally not have any electronic devices.
If you're not comfortable with such a description, you can then look at the principle of resistance, which is a physical property of a material that impedes the flow of these electrons in varying degrees. Incidentally, resistors are the result of knowledge of this phenomenon, and are also required for many of the electronic devices you're using now.
I'm fairly sure you won't need me to provide proof of this. It's all around you. You're enjoying the benefits of its existence right now.
Still, I fail to see how any of this relates to anything other than the fact that electricity both exists, and flows. I'm not understanding why we're all intent on extrapolating unsupported theories about what we can clearly observe, test, and benefit from regardless of personal belief. Why electricity flow has anything to do with a paranormal perspective is absolutely useless, which is why I'm wondering why people can't stop referencing it in an argument for anything else but an electronic discussion.
My strong opinion is that REAL paranormal activity is not something that can be reproduced on cue.
The effects might be random or caused by "lucky" environmental circumstances or be under the direct control of intelligent non-human entities who are not interested in doing tricks for the resident population of hairless apes. It is likely a combination of several factors!
I don't know if anyone here read "Skinwalkers" by George Knapp; in his book he explained how he felt the entites responsible for the weird activty at the Goreman ranch were "playing" with them and purposely avoiding surveilance at the same time. I think that observation is spot-on.
Becuase of that, I am almost certain that "spiritualists" and the like are frauds. The Paranormal just doesn't work that way in my experience.
I'm just wondering how people end up at the assumption that consciousness is some external thing to begin with. When was there evidence of this that was compelling enough for this to be a valid option? I certainly hope that people out there aren't just making options up because there isn't conclusive proof of an alternative. That's not productive at all. However, I do see the appeal.
It seems incredibly arrogant to suppose that we are the only conscious beings in the Universe, but I am sure you cannot mean that and I must have misunderstood it.
Evidence? well, it depends how you define evidence and what evidence is 'good enough' to be 'valid'. Is there a test for validity where evidence of the origin of consciousness is concerned or is it just an opinion of scientific peers?
External consciousness has to be defined because you are assuming that consciousness is contained within the 3D brain and then what of the "collective consciousness" which many great minds have postulated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soup Sandwich
On the other hand, we do need it to be a leap of faith that there is a non-material dimension of paranormal events and entities interacting with our world, because we cannot visit these supposed locations, we cannot document testable evidence of these realms, and we cannot walk away with any irrefutable evidence that these realms exist.
It would be wonderful to place this into a small box and forget about it, Rather like a Sound Bite.
However, we have to remember there are the stories about the military Philidelphia and Montauk Experiments, which have military personnel being embedded into the deck of the ship after the energy field was turned off.
Even if these projects are merely hearsay (although it is probably the kind of thing the US military would investigate), there are numerous Disclosure Project witnesses who attest to other-world beings working with our military as well as numerous unidentified lights and craft which seemingly pop in and out of existence. So, I dont think it does need a leap of faith to believe and if science could be bothered to investigate these claims, we probably would find out the truth.
...Becuase of that, I am almost certain that "spiritualists" and the like are frauds. The Paranormal just doesn't work that way in my experience.
The paranormal is not some X-Files (que the music) spooky kind of phenomena but probably a perfectly normal result of energy manipulation. It is just that we dont yet understand how the universe works. If we did, then we would probably understand how to continuously recreate the 'paranormal' activity we need to provide the proof. Until that time we will just have to believe or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
