Prove it

Hahaha....I know this thread is going to turn out like this the moment I saw the title...and so here's my first(I think) paranormal post...

The fact that people can believe in stuff without evidence is proof that indoctrination, especially child indoctrination is a highly successful and powerful weapon.



Hey, at least it's easier than to convince a Muslim. They don't just assume what was it again...well, god, exists, they even thought that they're specifically chosen by it to believe in it!

That's not the point. The point is that non-belief is the default. Doesn't matter what you were raised to believe.

Muslim martyrs got a pretty nice bonus waiting for them in afterlife as well, they might not wanna take the risk losing all those virgins.

"The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim." This is true, but what is the claim, and who makes it? In this thread, it seems to be that paranormal stuff does not exist. So, wouldn't Ironytaken need to prove that it's all natural science?

But that might be nothing but semantics. Still, I've seen that said so many times with topics like these that I had to say something. It's like saying, "Prove to me that God doesn't exist."

I saw the word "gullible" while looking through this thread, and that's another thing that irks me. What is "gullible"? Believing something that is read or seen without doing actual research? If so, I know a lot of "skeptics" that are gullible. They hear about a weird phenomenon, search Google for a minute, and then give the first link that agrees with them as proof that there's nothing strange. They watch a video of someone whose thoughts they agree with and then post that as evidence for why people are dumb. Is that really scientific?

I found a really cool article a while back that I think everyone who's going to talk about the paranormal (whichever side you're on) should read:
How 'Debunkers' and 'True Believers' discourage serious paranormal research


In conclusion, I want to ask this, to just about everyone in this thread: Why argue about this stuff in a place dedicated to the paranormal? You know people who post in this section believe in the paranormal, or like to talk about it, so why intentionally stir up trouble? Are you trying to learn something, or merely trying to make yourself feel better by picking on those you view as "inferior"? Do you feel that it is your duty to change the minds of "foolish" people who believe in psychics and ghosts? If so, why? Is it any man's job to change the minds of others, if their beliefs bring no harm to him?

I am not making the claim I am asking anyone who believes in anything paranormal and has a claim that those things exist to provide evidence.

And I would encourage for people to actually look things up and study the topics they want to debate about.

But here is the thing.....

We have a process which is used to filter out fact from fiction. This process is the scientific method. It is basically one guy or a small group who have come up with a hypothesis. After they run their tests and get the results they repeat it many times to check for errors. If the evidence points towards their hypothesis they will put together all their research into a thesis and publish it in a peer review journal. That is where every other scientist is out to prove them wrong. Those scientists will run the tests over and over again and after years of rigorous testing if the hypothesis has nothing to dispute it then it becomes a theory or law.

So these scientific theories or laws that we work with are not just automatically accepted. And so far these paranormal events cannot even get the foot into the door when it comes to the scientific method. And most paranormal events go against any scientific understanding so naturally people will question them. These claims don't seem to have any evidence either.

A lot paranormal events can't even be tested because the people making the claims don't have any demonstrable measurement for the things they assert to exist.

Most religious people certainly think so.


On topic however, I'm taking Ironytaken's side on this one. I do not think he crossed any lines by creating this topic, nor in any of his posts made within it.

It's a very simply request by most standards: Proof of existence. He's not questioning peoples beliefs, just to show proof of them if they happen to have any.
If that is too much to ask, then I think there is more problems with the belief than the request....
but hey, just my opinion.

You know, the thing about the paranormal is, it doesn't exist.

Now, that's not to say ghosts or aliens or such don't exist; just that the word paranormal is a paradox in itself; it refers to something that cannot exist according to the rules of this universe. And logically, if something cannot exist, it doesn't.

However, we do not know those rules. The scientific worldview is an approximation, a set of ideas that constantly alters itself, trying to get closer to the truth. But it's unlikely we'll ever know everything about the world, and we sure don't now. In other words, there are plenty of mistakes in our current scientific worldview.

Now, if we define "normal" as the way we currently assume things work, then there are plenty of paranormal phenomena going on; astronomic bodies moving in strange ways, microscopic particles behaving differently, and everything in between. But when these are observed, the previous theories are changed or scrapped. Nobody goes around yelling about paranormal particles.

It's essentially the same with, say, ghosts. There certainly is a phenomenon that causes people to report ghost sightings, and thus there must also be an underlying phenomenon. There are many theories for this, ranging from visual hallucinations to people just wanting to get money from tabloids to souls of the dead returning in some strange form. Now, one of these fundamentally conflicts with the current scientific worldview, but it's not really impossible.

If, one day, through scientific research, we do find out that ghost sightings were indeed souls of the dead, this still won't be paranormal, though; it'll just mean our theory was wrong, and if this does happen, then there will be a real and physical explanation to the phenomenon. It simply won't be called paranormal anymore.

Now, am I going somewhere with this? My point is that it's not very fruitful to argue whether or not ghosts exist, or to demand evidence that they do. What we should do is try to define these phenomena we refer to as paranormal. That's the only way to reach any kind of consensus between the believers and the skeptics.

Actually providing evidence is the only way you will convince me or any skeptic that those things exists. I know the meaning of paranormal and the only reason I use it is to group together everything under it that some people hold as truth.

Also the idea that a ghost is a soul opens a can of worms. You now have thousands of questions to answer to cover the holes in that idea.When adding a soul to the equation you are essentially adding something not needed. We know that all emotions, consciousness, and memories are controlled by the brain and our nervous system. It is something totally unneeded and is only for people who are scared to have a real end to when they die.

This is my point exactly. What you're doing here is not science; you're simply attaching labels to something poorly defined. It's pointless to say you don't believe in ghosts without defining what the word ghost means. If we do define it as a soul, then no, I don't believe in them either. I say we should try to define it in a way that might explain why people have such strong, yet contradictory opinions on the matter.



It was not my intention to try to prove ghosts; frankly, my beliefs are rather similar to yours. But you are making a mistake there: we don't know any of those things; they're just theories with a lot of evidence to support them.

And evidence is quite interesting. Now, in math, a single piece of evidence can prove a claim, but in physics and all other aspects of science no amount of evidence can prove any claim is correct, while a single (strong) piece of evidence can prove it wrong. So while we strongly believe that the mind is located in the nervous system, we most certainly do not know it.

Again, that is no reason to believe in floating, transparent souls; that's a far more unlikely theory, with far less evidence for it. What I'd like is for both the believers and the skeptics to discuss the question "what is a ghost", trying to reach an idea that is possible from a scientific standpoint yet doesn't ignore the believer's arguments either.

Of course, there is a big roadblock here that you already pointed out:



While this is mean and somewhat arrogant, you are essentially correct. Most people arguing for paranormal phenomena start from the assumption they are real, which is fine. But they also assume they know what the phenomenon's nature is, simply because they want it to be that way. For example, if clairvoyance is real, it's very unlikely anyone knows how to use it, and most likely won't until a huge amount of scientific research has gone into how it actually works. So people who simply assume they're psychic aren't really arguing scientifically. But hey, maybe the people here are different?

*edited*

Maybe I should have added more detail to my description. When I say if anyone has a claim to prove it I meant defining what they believe in their claim. It is simply impossible to know every definition for one or more words since people can create their own definitions. I either ask the person who is addressing me their definition or if no one is addressed I use the most commonly accept definition.




Please show me any of the theories with scientific evidence to support them.



If new evidence arrives for a theory and that evidence cannot be added into the theory then they start all over. Simple as that. And yes we do not know where the mind is located we don't even know if there is a mind. We do know however that once the person is brain dead they are gone. We also know that severe head trauma or things like dementia can change someone's behavior and memories drastically. My grandmother has dementia and she always forgets who I am or perceives things to be happening that aren't really occurring. We also know that our brain creates it's own virtual reality in our head using our senses.



And again you fail to see that no one has offered their definition in this thread so I go by the most popular definition for the word. If someone was actually making a claim I would ask their definition.





Give me your definition of clairvoyance and try to use an example.

No, this isn't really going anywhere. Maybe I'll talk about this another time, but for now, I'm withdrawing from the discussion.

Figures...

Of course it won't go anywhere if all you do is make empty claims.

I could do that too.

Every time you masturbate a kitten dies.

See?

Look, we're not arguing about the same thing.

I'm saying we should consider the stories people tell about their paranormal experiences and try to find open-minded explanations for them.

You're saying all the stories are false and demand people to come out with proof for you to reject.

There's nothing wrong with either viewpoint, but they aren't contrary, either, so argument is impossible. I don't have proof of anything paranormal happening, nor do I claim to. And it would seem this is the only point that interests you. You haven't commented at all on my arguments. So basically, on the matters we've covered, we agree. There's really nothing more to discuss.

I am saying that none of the stories or claims I heard have been proven. I am asking if anyone is making a claim (which they are in separate threads in this section) to prove them. And yes if what they use as proof is false then I will show them where they are wrong and so will anyone who disagrees with them. This is called an open debate.

There is even a prize offering US $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties. No one has won it yet and I don't think people who actually have evidence would pass up one million dollars.

Also you did make a claim in a previous post which was "clairvoyance is real"

I asked for you to define clairvoyance and use it in an example.

Oh, you're right. However, that was a typo; I meant to say "If clairvoyance is real" Sorry about that, I should spellcheck better.

Ok now we have nothing to dispute.

Right. I might be back if someone makes an interesting claim here, but for now, I'm out of this thread.

No one has any evidence for paranormal claims?

If this is true then I should not see anyone on this thread ever making a claim of something paranormal existing ever again.

Although I bet I will.

My dick shoots laser beams bro.

That is nothing special. Mine shoots lasers too.