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.
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."
There will always be those who seek the 'truth' as they see it. For some their truth is experiential and for others it is proof-based and has to be textbook repeatable. The problem as I see it is that scientists do not accept that we are energy beings and so need to fit everything into a hard physical world where often things which cannot be proved and repeatable are not accepted to have existed.
Mainstream religion and science cannot exists together at this stage in our evolution but when it can, much of our differences will disappear and 'science' will make leaps and bounds towards understanding the Universe.
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.
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.
Last edited by Soup Sandwich; 02-12-2013 at 11:27 PM..
Someone posted in another thread, and made a whole lot of sense concerning beliefs.
Simply stated, just because you can't see something does not mean it doesn't exist.
We can't see electricity, so does that mean it doesn't exist?
I don't know who posted that, but it is certainly true.
Bob.
Someone posted in another thread, and made a whole lot of sense concerning beliefs.
Simply stated, just because you can't see something does not mean it doesn't exist.
We can't see electricity, so does that mean it doesn't exist?
I don't know who posted that, but it is certainly true.
Bob.
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.
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.
Well I would switch electricity with consciousness. It certainly seems to exist. But where does it come from? Most scientists and skeptics would immediately reply that it comes from the brain. And they may well be right. However using the skeptics rational we need conclusive proof. There is no definite proof I've ever seen although there is plenty of theory and conjecture. There are even some preliminary studies that seem to somewhat correlate brain function and consciousness. But it is hardly proven.
And really this question is much closer to some of the things we discuss here. If consciousness does reside in the brain exclusively, then after death the rationalists are right. That is the end. Consciousness dies with the brain. However if it resides elsewhere then perhaps after death it can go out into the universe or to some afterlife realm or dimension.
I'll add a little synchronicity here. As I was writing this originally, I mentioned electricity numerous times. And then went into consciousness as a replacement for electricity. At that point my electricity suddenly went out for 30 seconds, so I had to reboot and start from scratch. I could take that as a sign that I shouldn't have posted this. However I'm going to go with a temporary brownout.
Some people just need to think that they are in control of everything and that the entire universe functions just the way they think it should or the way they perceive it. Also, "the unknown" scares some folks. It's interesting that sometime the supposed "explanation" is far more unlikely than the original paranormal explanation. Rube Goldberg would have a field day with some excuses.
Some people just need to feel "grounded." That's fine. It's not really hurting anyone. Let them think they have everything figured out.
Well I would switch electricity with consciousness. It certainly seems to exist. But where does it come from? Most scientists and skeptics would immediately reply that it comes from the brain. And they may well be right. However using the skeptics rational we need conclusive proof. There is no definite proof I've ever seen although there is plenty of theory and conjecture. There are even some preliminary studies that seem to somewhat correlate brain function and consciousness. But it is hardly proven.
Individuals employing critical thinking do not require absolute proof for everything they believe in. They do, however, tend to lend more credence to theories and ideas that have evidence pointing to it (again, not conclusively proving it), rather than in ideas with no evidence at all.
And you're right, there are neurological studies that seem to point to consciousness and the brain being inextricably linked. Is it absolute proof? No. Is it a more reasonable assumption, based on the evidence so far, than consciousness being some extra-dimensional entity? Of course it is, what with there being absolutely NO evidence of that.
I'm assuming this is easy for most people to understand, but for some reason, many people seem to think that critical analysis is making the claim that something definitely isn't true based on not having evidence. If that were the case, critical analysis would be a flawed approach because it would be breaking its own rules. Basing beliefs on critical analysis is simply operating on the assumption that the more evidentially supported theory is more likely to be true.
Quote:
And really this question is much closer to some of the things we discuss here. If consciousness does reside in the brain exclusively, then after death the rationalists are right. That is the end. Consciousness dies with the brain. However if it resides elsewhere then perhaps after death it can go out into the universe or to some afterlife realm or dimension.
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.
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.
