The Paranormal, the Supernatural, and the Extraterrestrial

[boedicca]

The poll choices are in adequate. To quote Sun Ra and His Intergalactic Arkestra:

"My home is out there is outer space. I must be a member of the angel race".

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I won't be the first, not by far. Which paranormal "event" or "talent" would you like me to disprove first? You pick.

That's easy. Prove that I saw my shadow when I went outside a few minutes ago.

I will not accept an argument that I could have seen it.
I will not accept an argument that it was possible that I saw it.
I don't want the fact that millions of people see their shadows presented as evidence that I saw it.
I want proof that I saw it.

Or if you want to go the more difficult proving a negative route:

Prove that I didn't see a ghost in the hallway awhile ago.

Yeah, I won't bother with the shadow thing, you've shown that you think you can make the rules and you can't. You've been shown how that argument falls flat already so I'll skip it.

As for the ghost, that's easy.

Step 1. Are you claiming that you saw a ghost in the hallway?

No. But I could have seen one. Prove that I didn't.

And I acknowledge your admission that you cannot prove that I saw my shadow earlier too.

 

[Montrovant]

That you can duplicate something is NOT proof that what I reported is what happened. Evidence and research is not always the same thing as proof. That scientists surmise the chemical makeup of stars based on light signatures and drawing informed assumptions is NOT testing the chemical makeup of those stars.

Believing everything a scientists tells us is so just because he says he has proved it is one way of acquiring knowledge, but in my opinion, that will continue to include flawed knowledge just as has been the case for all the millenia that humankind has been doing science. I doubt many days go by that some scientist doesn't discover something that what they once thought was decided wasn't so decided after all.

In a way I wish I could just trust and accept things as you do and be so secure that we already know what there is to know. I just am not made that way though. Too much natural curiosity and skepticism I guess. Too much hope that there is a future of knowledge that allows us to be better, more efficient, more effective, more constructive, more successful than what we are now. And too much evidence that there are dimensions and much phenomena that we cannot yet access and still poorly understand.

That's a rather silly way of stating things.

Scientists and those that trust in science in no way shape or form 'trust' what we know or believe that everything is just so because scientists say that is the way it is. In fact, if you truly understand science you acknowledge that everything you currently believe as fact is likely to be completely false. It just happens to be much close to the truth than we were 100 years ago.

What you are describing is how FAITH works. It is the opposite of how science works.


You must understand that the pursuit of science is rooted in the quest for grater and grater knowledge. There is no proof that the paranormal, telekinesis or God don't exist (you can't prove a negative) but there is a lack of proof for those things as well. That people don't put their faith in them existing is not close minded or 'accepting' anything. It is simply acknowledging that you are not going to believe in something that has no proof for you whatsoever. As they say, you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster now do you? I chose to believe in the things that I can prove.

Maybe it is silly to you, but not to me. Predfan, and maybe you too, seem to think that if it can't be dealt with scientifically using the science we have at our disposal right now, then it doesn't exist.

I have not opposed or pooh poohed or dismissed any scientific principle of any kind. I do believe those who accept opinion just because it is described as scientific opinion are utilizing more faith to believe that opinion than do those of us who have experienced the supernatural or seen a 'ghost' or encountered an 'angel' and speak from our personal experience.

What we have seen.
What we have experienced.
That requires much less faith to believe than does, as one example, believing that time travel exists because Einstein theoretically proved it.

And I believe that my concept that there is much more to know, to experience, to understand, to learn than what humankind has already accomplished embraces a much more realistic view of science than does a view that if science can't prove it now, then it doesn't exist.

This wasn't directed at me, but I feel compelled to comment.

It's not so much that something doesn't exist because it can't be dealt with through scientific means, as that there's no reason to decide it DOES exist. This also speaks to the idea that people assign explanations to experiences they don't understand; it's not that someone didn't see SOMETHING, it's the idea of deciding it was a ghost that is an issue.

Put another way, I don't doubt that there are some paranormal explanations for unexplained event that differ depending on the society a person comes from. What one person sees as an alien craft, another sees as an angel, another sees as the spirits of their ancestors, etc.

There are doubtless many unexplained things that happen to people. It is the haphazard method of deciding how to explain those things in paranormal terms that bothers me.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's a rather silly way of stating things.

Scientists and those that trust in science in no way shape or form 'trust' what we know or believe that everything is just so because scientists say that is the way it is. In fact, if you truly understand science you acknowledge that everything you currently believe as fact is likely to be completely false. It just happens to be much close to the truth than we were 100 years ago.

What you are describing is how FAITH works. It is the opposite of how science works.


You must understand that the pursuit of science is rooted in the quest for grater and grater knowledge. There is no proof that the paranormal, telekinesis or God don't exist (you can't prove a negative) but there is a lack of proof for those things as well. That people don't put their faith in them existing is not close minded or 'accepting' anything. It is simply acknowledging that you are not going to believe in something that has no proof for you whatsoever. As they say, you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster now do you? I chose to believe in the things that I can prove.

Maybe it is silly to you, but not to me. Predfan, and maybe you too, seem to think that if it can't be dealt with scientifically using the science we have at our disposal right now, then it doesn't exist.

I have not opposed or pooh poohed or dismissed any scientific principle of any kind. I do believe those who accept opinion just because it is described as scientific opinion are utilizing more faith to believe that opinion than do those of us who have experienced the supernatural or seen a 'ghost' or encountered an 'angel' and speak from our personal experience.

What we have seen.
What we have experienced.
That requires much less faith to believe than does, as one example, believing that time travel exists because Einstein theoretically proved it.

And I believe that my concept that there is much more to know, to experience, to understand, to learn than what humankind has already accomplished embraces a much more realistic view of science than does a view that if science can't prove it now, then it doesn't exist.

This wasn't directed at me, but I feel compelled to comment.

It's not so much that something doesn't exist because it can't be dealt with through scientific means, as that there's no reason to decide it DOES exist. This also speaks to the idea that people assign explanations to experiences they don't understand; it's not that someone didn't see SOMETHING, it's the idea of deciding it was a ghost that is an issue.

Put another way, I don't doubt that there are some paranormal explanations for unexplained event that differ depending on the society a person comes from. What one person sees as an alien craft, another sees as an angel, another sees as the spirits of their ancestors, etc.

There are doubtless many unexplained things that happen to people. It is the haphazard method of deciding how to explain those things in paranormal terms that bothers me.

We are all limited by the language we have to describe or explain anything. And sometimes there just doesn't seem to be any way to describe it exactly as we experience it. So a bit of tolerance and leeway there I think is in order.

But yes there are many unexplained things. I have never encountered anything I would describe as possibly extra terrestrial, but I am not prepared to say that nobody ever has. Not when you have so many witnesses who say they have.

I have never encountered a visible angel that I identified as an angel. But I can't say for certain what people saw who say they have.

I have never personally seen a 'ghost'. But I have heard and read enough testimony from people who are very credible to believe that such phenomena exists. What it is I don't know. But neither does anybody else. And I for one am curious about it.

I can appreciate those who are skeptical that any of this stuff is real or unexplainable in anything other than paranormal terms. An open mind allows for all manner of explanations when we don't really have any plausible ones. But the closed mind that denies that such things exist because there is no 'scientific' verification or other plausible explanation are not the ones to look to to expand our knowledge and understanding.

 

[FA_Q2]

Maybe it is silly to you, but not to me. Predfan, and maybe you too, seem to think that if it can't be dealt with scientifically using the science we have at our disposal right now, then it doesn't exist.

?
I actually said the exact opposite:

In fact, if you truly understand science you acknowledge that everything you currently believe as fact is likely to be completely false.

I don't know about predfan but I in no way shape or form believe that if we cannot currently prove it then is simply does not exist. If that is what he supports I can say that it is defiantly the opposite of science. Science does not eliminate any possibility. Those things are, however, a matter of faith.

I have not opposed or pooh poohed or dismissed any scientific principle of any kind. I do believe those who accept opinion just because it is described as scientific opinion are utilizing more faith to believe that opinion than do those of us who have experienced the supernatural or seen a 'ghost' or encountered an 'angel' and speak from our personal experience.

What we have seen.
What we have experienced.
That requires much less faith to believe than does, as one example, believing that time travel exists because Einstein theoretically proved it.

Yes, you have pooh poohed and dismissed scientific principals because you have directly stated that scientific theory is a matter of faith. This is something that really annoys me because it is a complete lack of understanding in how science works. Simply put, science is not an exercise in faith at all. It requires evidence, testing and repeatability. These things are not faith whatsoever.

Further, what you have experienced and seen are also not articles of faith. The fact that you seen something in your hall is not a matter of faith as that is a matter of experience. What you are demanding as its explanation IS FAITH. You are saying that it is a ghost. That is faith because such a thing cannot be tested, reproduced or tested in any way shape or form. Faith has already answered that question for you. I can show how it could be a thousand other things but no matter what evedense is shown to you, you are still going to claim it is a ghost because that is what you have put your faith in.


To tell you the truth: that is the closed minded approach. Science approaches the question of what was seen with an open mind, testing and experimenting until it can reproduce the given example and come up with a solution - whatever that solution may be. Should no solution present then the scientist states that they simply do not know. You, on the other hand, have started with a supernatural explanation.

Oh, and Einstein has never done any such thing

And I believe that my concept that there is much more to know, to experience, to understand, to learn than what humankind has already accomplished embraces a much more realistic view of science than does a view that if science can't prove it now, then it doesn't exist.

Again, I don't think anyone actually prescribes to that view as that is inherently unscientific.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe it is silly to you, but not to me. Predfan, and maybe you too, seem to think that if it can't be dealt with scientifically using the science we have at our disposal right now, then it doesn't exist.

?
I actually said the exact opposite:

In fact, if you truly understand science you acknowledge that everything you currently believe as fact is likely to be completely false.

I don't know about predfan but I in no way shape or form believe that if we cannot currently prove it then is simply does not exist. If that is what he supports I can say that it is defiantly the opposite of science. Science does not eliminate any possibility. Those things are, however, a matter of faith.

I have not opposed or pooh poohed or dismissed any scientific principle of any kind. I do believe those who accept opinion just because it is described as scientific opinion are utilizing more faith to believe that opinion than do those of us who have experienced the supernatural or seen a 'ghost' or encountered an 'angel' and speak from our personal experience.

What we have seen.
What we have experienced.
That requires much less faith to believe than does, as one example, believing that time travel exists because Einstein theoretically proved it.

Yes, you have pooh poohed and dismissed scientific principals because you have directly stated that scientific theory is a matter of faith. This is something that really annoys me because it is a complete lack of understanding in how science works. Simply put, science is not an exercise in faith at all. It requires evidence, testing and repeatability. These things are not faith whatsoever.

Further, what you have experienced and seen are also not articles of faith. The fact that you seen something in your hall is not a matter of faith as that is a matter of experience. What you are demanding as its explanation IS FAITH. You are saying that it is a ghost. That is faith because such a thing cannot be tested, reproduced or tested in any way shape or form. Faith has already answered that question for you. I can show how it could be a thousand other things but no matter what evedense is shown to you, you are still going to claim it is a ghost because that is what you have put your faith in.


To tell you the truth: that is the closed minded approach. Science approaches the question of what was seen with an open mind, testing and experimenting until it can reproduce the given example and come up with a solution - whatever that solution may be. Should no solution present then the scientist states that they simply do not know. You, on the other hand, have started with a supernatural explanation.

Oh, and Einstein has never done any such thing

And I believe that my concept that there is much more to know, to experience, to understand, to learn than what humankind has already accomplished embraces a much more realistic view of science than does a view that if science can't prove it now, then it doesn't exist.

Again, I don't think anyone actually prescribes to that view as that is inherently unscientific.

Okay, my intent is not to annoy you, but let me try to explain.

I understand the atomic weight of various substances because I have weighed them in chemistry class. I understand that certain chemical reactions occur or certain organisms react in certain ways because I have witnessed this in chemistry and/or biology class.

I have also had enough advanced learning in astronomy and a smattering of quantum physics to appreciate the theories and calculations that go into scientific studies of the universe and also on sub microscopic scales. But I have not personally conducted any of such studies nor done any hands on research myself. What I know I have read as opinion offered by others.

To believe their opinion as the real deal requires us to consciously accept their opinion as accurate. Just as students of ancient science read and heard scientific opinion that the Earth is flat and the sun rotates around the Earth.

Are modern scientists more accurate about their calculated conclusions than those ancient scientists were? Probably. But it requires a degree of faith to accept that they did their experiments competently and drew the right conclusions from them. It requires faith to believe what others tell us when we do not check it for ourselves.

So I usually believe my chemistry or biology or physics professor when he teaches me what is believed to be true about the universe, its origins, and how it works. I also believe my pastor when he teaches me about deeper meanings found in Biblical passages. And all require a degree of faith in order to trust that the teacher got it right.

And I believe my friend who I know to not be one to make up stories or exaggerate a reality when he tells me that he encountered a ghost and that there is absolutely no other plausible explanation for that encounter.

And is there more to every single one of all of these concepts than what my teachers know to teach me or my friend knows to tell me? I leave that possibility wide open as well as the possibility that each could be mistaken in what they know or what they believe they saw.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bud Hopkins, college graudate, renown artist/sculpter--his work is displayed in a number of world class art museums--saw a UFO in the early 1960's and from that time on until he died a couple of years ago, he devoted a great deal of his time to research dealing mostly up close and personal with the witnesses to UFOs including many who claim to have been on board one of the spacecraft.

He has received mixed reviews--labeled a nut by the skeptics and 100% disbelievers of course, but given some credibility by those who keep an open mind on the subject.

I mention this because today, March 20, is Alien Abduction Day, recognized at least in Toronto. I wonder if I member who answered the poll that he/she had been on board an alien spacecraft was just being silly? Or honest?

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

In my backyard there is a gothic cross that marks the spot where a young woman was murdered in 2000, about two years before I bought the house. A man who lived in the house told me that he would sit on the back deck and have conversations with her, that her spirit was very present.

Well, she's not here. He had a tendency to drink a bit, I think that's the explanation for his "conversations" with her. I have talked to her, but she doesn't answer. I have sat on the spot where she died and felt nothing. My dogs feel nothing. There was one of those white crosses they use to mark fatal accidents along the highway, and I replaced it with a beautiful gothic cross. One day a young man was walking by and he called out, "I see you kept the cross!" I told him that as long as I own the house there will be a cross there, that I have respect for the woman who died there. "She was my mother," He told me.

For decades I was open to the possibility of the paranormal, but as I've grown older I've realized that there is perfectly normal explanation for every supposedly "paranormal" occurrence. Some people are open to these explanations, and some prefer to believe in the ghosts and spirits and poltergeists and weird writing on the walls.

I prefer the truth.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

As for extraterrestrial beings, I think there is every reason to believe there is life elsewhere in our Universe. Whether or not they are visiting us here, I'm not so sure. My husband has an extensive library on UFOs, etc. and has read more than anyone I know on the subject. One day I asked him if he had come to any conclusions about the UFO sightings, alien abductions, etc. He said that he had. He believes "we" are doing it...meaning mankind right here on Earth. Probably government/military experiments. After all the reading he's done, that's what he thinks is happening. He doesn't believe aliens are here.

I think it is quite possible that an advanced alien civilization could accomplish travelling here to Earth. But if they do, I don't think they'll be all secretive, abducting us from our beds in the night, etc. I think we'll all know they're here, no doubt about it.

 

[LoudMcCloud]

What people don't realize is that aliens will come from within. The odd of us coming in contact with lifeforms from another is very great. We are more likely to create a new type of race before that we come in contact with other civilizations that have become type 1 civilizations. However, we are still a type 0 civilization. Watch this video of one of the most recognized theoretical scientist. He can explain it better than I can. This is the thoughts of a collection of major scientists around the world.

[ame=http://youtu.be/6GooNhOIMY0]Michio Kaku 3 types of Civilizations - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JoeB131]

Gentle reminder: This thread is in the CDZ

The human race has perhaps always had notions of the paranormal and/or supernatural. We find references in some of the earliest recorded histories in all known cultures. More recently, we have added notions of the extraterrestrial to those things we are curious about.

Adding credibility to the notions is a growing body of people, many who seem to be quite intelligent, normal, and credible, who report encounters with paranormal or extraterrestial craft and/or beings.

This could even qualify as a quasi-political thread as both the paranormal and the extraterrestrial could qualify as threats to human safety and/or national security and for various other reasons. Certainly the government has been operating radio telescopes for some time and continues to research reported UFO sightings, etc. Waste of time? Or are you happy with some of our resources being devoted to that?

So what do you think? Yes? No? Maybe?

Personal experiences, logic, reason, and credible recorded histories are appropriate here.

I'm not sure if this is still in the CDZ, but I will try to be polite.

I reject ghosts. The Spiritualist movement has been a fraud, as exposed by Harry Houdini, fo crying out loud.

For Aliens-

While I think it is possible that life evolved on other planets, the vast distances between stars make it unlikely we are being visited.

MOre to the point, since aliens seem to be what we expect them to be, I can't take them seriously.

In the 1950's, people who saw UFO's reported contact with "Space Brothers", human aliens who looked like White People who were here to warn us about the dangers of Nuclear War. And opposing them were "Men In Black" who also looked human, but were swarthier and non-white. Just like movies like "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "This Island Earth" told us they would be!

In the 1980's and beyond, aliens were big-headed and had unnecessary fixations on... well, is this still in the CDZ? Okay, I won't go there, but it seems odd that this seems right along the same lines as movies like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

 

[Dajjal]

I reject ghosts. The Spiritualist movement has been a fraud, as exposed by Harry Houdini, fo crying out loud.

I have to say that you should not rely on Houdini's experiences, and research spiritualism on your own before forming a conclusion. But it is the work of years. You cannot reject the entire movement on the basis of one or two sittings, you need to go to many different mediums.
I did that from the early 1970's and I have had many, many evidential messages of the survival of my grandparents.

For Aliens-

While I think it is possible that life evolved on other planets, the vast distances between stars make it unlikely we are being visited.

I agree.

 

[Foxfyre]

Many a skeptic on many, many things has become a believer with personal experience. To believe that something doesn't exist just because we ourselves have not experienced it or because it has not yet been 'proved' scientifically, is not, we might say, the scientific way.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

For me, it is not just that I haven't experienced the paranormal that makes me skeptical. It is that in almost every case I hear about there is a "normal" explanation within reach. Either the people who had the paranormal experience are drunk, or smoking weed, or doing some other drugs, or they are kind of wacky, suggestible people in the first place. And they tell you their stories and you're thinking, "Well, it could have been such and such." There is another explanation.

As for staring at the back of people's heads and they sense that and turn around...I don't think that's paranormal. I think that's normal. It's just extrasensory perception.

I used to be afraid to make comments like this when I was younger. I thought I would be taught a lesson by being subjected to some frightening paranormal experience. Swarmed by ghosts in my bed, or something. But now I know that's not going to happen. And I have actually hoped for signs from beyond at times, and most of my life been very receptive to such encounters.

But then I grew up.

That said, I hope there is something beyond this life (as long as it's good, that is!). But I don't think we get to find out until we actually go there. In other words, die.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

P.S. And why do you keep saying this is in the Clean Debate Zone, when it's not?

 

[Foxfyre]

P.S. And why do you keep saying this is in the Clean Debate Zone, when it's not?

If that was addressed to me, I haven't said it is in the CDZ. In fact, I requested that Admin move it from the CDZ to this forum after this forum was created. JoeB was making an assumption that it might still be in the CDZ and so he would be polite.

I would hope that we could be polite even outside the CDZ, especially on a topic like this that we could have so much fun with in addition to actually learning from each other.

Nobody is expecting anybody to believe anything that they don't. My only argument re belief is that any of us are limited to knowing only what we have a) experienced and/or b) choose to believe or not believe. A closed mind restricts knowledge to just that.

An open mind allows for the possibility that others have experienced something different and know something different than we yet know as well as keeping open the possibility that there is a whole lot of stuff out there that none of us know yet.

 

[Meister]

For me, it is not just that I haven't experienced the paranormal that makes me skeptical. It is that in almost every case I hear about there is a "normal" explanation within reach. Either the people who had the paranormal experience are drunk, or smoking weed, or doing some other drugs, or they are kind of wacky, suggestible people in the first place. And they tell you their stories and you're thinking, "Well, it could have been such and such." There is another explanation.

As for staring at the back of people's heads and they sense that and turn around...I don't think that's paranormal. I think that's normal. It's just extrasensory perception.

I used to be afraid to make comments like this when I was younger. I thought I would be taught a lesson by being subjected to some frightening paranormal experience. Swarmed by ghosts in my bed, or something. But now I know that's not going to happen. And I have actually hoped for signs from beyond at times, and most of my life been very receptive to such encounters.

But then I grew up.

That said, I hope there is something beyond this life (as long as it's good, that is!). But I don't think we get to find out until we actually go there. In other words, die.

Just because there could be a normal explanation does not mean that it is the explanation.