The Paranormal, the Supernatural, and the Extraterrestrial

[PredFan]

Really, Predfan? To pull one example from your post, you have conducted your own experiments, dug out your own ice cores, tested the temperatures, content, acidity, and all other variables of the air, soil, and oceans, and done the exhaustive statistical analysis using all the available data around the world to form a scientific conclusion re global warming? I'm really impressed.

I don't need to do all that. I only need to read both sides of the issue and use some logic. this I have done with the paranormal and found it to be bunk.

Or have you read what the AGW advocates have written and read the rationale of those who question their conclusions, and picked a side based on who you deemed the most believable? Or, in the case of some, the one you WANTED to believe?

The former.

Do you believe those stars twinkling in the night sky are distant suns similar to our own? Why? Nobody has ever been able to test or evaluate what they are even using our most powerful telescopes. Our conclusions about them are based on scientific REASON only without a single shred of proof being available to us.

Actually very few statistically are like ours. But anyway you are wrong. It is very easy to prove that they in fact are stars.

Nor is there any test in the universe that can positively confirm that I saw my shadow when I went outside earlier. You believe that I did because you have seen shadows.

Yes there is. It is proven by determining the amount of cloud cover, the time of day you saw your shadow, the easily proven fact that light casts shadows and VOILA! Your claim is proven. Also, the claim that you saw your shadow doesn't violate the laws of physics.

And I am guessing that if you ever saw or dealt with a phenomenon that you had absolutely no explanation for other than it was a ghost, you would believe that there is a strong possibility that ghosts exists. And you wouldn't be able to prove it to a soul.

No I wouldn't. I know that there are no ghosts so I'd look for another more plausable explanation, including the explanation that I was being hoaxed by some of my smart ass family.

 

[Montrovant]

Yes, it is easier--perhaps because it is more socially acceptable?--to accept a peer reviewed scientific study printed in a magazine than to accept a 'wierd' experience related by an 'unscientific' person. And yet how many 'scientific studies' have been falsified just so somebody would have something to publish in those journals? Peer review is not consensus or agreement. It is generally simply an agreement that the reported method utilized in the study is a valid scientific method.

And yet I know people whom I deem credible--including myself--who have served as scientific research assistants who admitted that the research being done and the published scientific study was at best flawed. At worst, entirely bogus. In the 'publish or perish' world of religion/academia/science, the tempation to get creative is immense.

Who would have thought a thousand years ago that the speed of sound or light would be scientifically measurable? That great vessels would be able to travel beneath the waves and ice caps or fly through the air or journey to the moon? And certainly those who first conceived of such a thing or a thousand other scientific principles that we now take for granted must have been the wierdos and looney tunes people of their time. Galileo was excommunicated by the Church for supporting the heliocentric model of the solar system as first proposed by Copernicus. Kepler was excommunicated when he put forth a scientific concept that the moon was a solid body. Nobody knew how to prove that scientifically at the time of course.

So the fact that there is no known way to scientifically test or prove the existence of telepathy or the supernatural or the paranormal or extraterrestrial beings is not a good reason to dismiss as bogus all the reported experience with such phenomena.

Perhaps not, but it IS a good reason to dismiss anyone who claims to be able to prove such things, at least until they actually do so. The methods of science just have more credibility as a general rule. Especially when you consider the inconsistent nature of memory and how relying on someone's interpretation of an inexplicable event may color their description.

Of course there is nothing preventing scientists from using or creating bad data, of lying about results, etc. The important difference isn't the people involved but the method of discovery. 'I conducted experiments to support my conclusions' is more reasonable than 'I saw a light I couldn't explain, it must have been a ghost'. It's just the nature of the events.

Not more reasonable. Just more socially acceptable. It is no more unreasonable for me to report that I saw my shadow earlier than for me to report that I conducted a scientific experiment with the following result. Both events are just as valid. And, depending upon my credentials, the shadow story might be the more believable. And yet there is absolutely no way in heaven or earth that I can prove what I saw.

So when somebody tells me that they saw what, for want of a better explantion, a 'ghost', then yes, I think there is room for an open mind about what was actually seen. But to dismiss it as 'impossible' just because there is yet no consistent scientific proof for the existence of ghosts, is in my opinion to be close minded, narrow minded, and devoid of openness to possibilities.

I notice that you use a non-supernatural event for your example.

It IS more unreasonable for you to say you saw a ghost than to say you saw your shadow. Shadows are something we all see, we all experience, we can all go create a shadow if we want to. Seeing a ghost is, at best, speculation regarding an unexplained event.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I am not denying that people experience unexplained things. I am saying that I don't accept their supernatural explanations for those events. If someone sees a light moving oddly in the sky and claims they saw an alien craft, I'm not going to believe that is the case, whether I find them trustworthy or not. I'll believe they saw something, but I won't accept the UFO explanation they have assigned to what they saw.

There are often non-supernatural explanations for things which, on first glance, may appear to be supernatural in origin. I think it is entirely reasonable to find it easier to believe something based on observable, repeatable events than something another person tells you which you cannot observe yourself.

When it comes to science which one either doesn't understand or cannot observe any aspects of, it's a different story.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps not, but it IS a good reason to dismiss anyone who claims to be able to prove such things, at least until they actually do so. The methods of science just have more credibility as a general rule. Especially when you consider the inconsistent nature of memory and how relying on someone's interpretation of an inexplicable event may color their description.

Of course there is nothing preventing scientists from using or creating bad data, of lying about results, etc. The important difference isn't the people involved but the method of discovery. 'I conducted experiments to support my conclusions' is more reasonable than 'I saw a light I couldn't explain, it must have been a ghost'. It's just the nature of the events.

Not more reasonable. Just more socially acceptable. It is no more unreasonable for me to report that I saw my shadow earlier than for me to report that I conducted a scientific experiment with the following result. Both events are just as valid. And, depending upon my credentials, the shadow story might be the more believable. And yet there is absolutely no way in heaven or earth that I can prove what I saw.

So when somebody tells me that they saw what, for want of a better explantion, a 'ghost', then yes, I think there is room for an open mind about what was actually seen. But to dismiss it as 'impossible' just because there is yet no consistent scientific proof for the existence of ghosts, is in my opinion to be close minded, narrow minded, and devoid of openness to possibilities.

I notice that you use a non-supernatural event for your example.

It IS more unreasonable for you to say you saw a ghost than to say you saw your shadow. Shadows are something we all see, we all experience, we can all go create a shadow if we want to. Seeing a ghost is, at best, speculation regarding an unexplained event.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I am not denying that people experience unexplained things. I am saying that I don't accept their supernatural explanations for those events. If someone sees a light moving oddly in the sky and claims they saw an alien craft, I'm not going to believe that is the case, whether I find them trustworthy or not. I'll believe they saw something, but I won't accept the UFO explanation they have assigned to what they saw.

There are often non-supernatural explanations for things which, on first glance, may appear to be supernatural in origin. I think it is entirely reasonable to find it easier to believe something based on observable, repeatable events than something another person tells you which you cannot observe yourself.

When it comes to science which one either doesn't understand or cannot observe any aspects of, it's a different story.

Yes, those of us who have read much history at all KNOW that there were many supernatural explanations for poorly understood natural phenomenon of a particular era. But I used the shadow example because it IS something that is entirely common and that most people have experienced. But now, what if I came in and told you I just saw my shadow. And you look out and see that it is heavily overcast and beginning to rain. Now what would you think? Would you still believe I had seen my shadow? And, if I in fact had seen it, how would I prove that to you. Or would you assume that I had seen something else? Or misunderstood what I saw?

The point being that there are or can be components of our existence that we cannot explain with science and cannot prove to anybody. How do I prove to you that I dreamed last night? Or what I dreamed? And if I dreamed something that coincidentally then did happen, is it coincidence? Or some kind of paranormal event? How would we know?

You can keep an open mind to all possibilities without having to accept anybody's explanation for anything. It is rejecting the possibilities that slows the progress of our learning; not the embracing of them.

 

[Brawd]

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 don't believe in them.

If they existed we would have concrete evidence by now.

 

[Montrovant]

Not more reasonable. Just more socially acceptable. It is no more unreasonable for me to report that I saw my shadow earlier than for me to report that I conducted a scientific experiment with the following result. Both events are just as valid. And, depending upon my credentials, the shadow story might be the more believable. And yet there is absolutely no way in heaven or earth that I can prove what I saw.

So when somebody tells me that they saw what, for want of a better explantion, a 'ghost', then yes, I think there is room for an open mind about what was actually seen. But to dismiss it as 'impossible' just because there is yet no consistent scientific proof for the existence of ghosts, is in my opinion to be close minded, narrow minded, and devoid of openness to possibilities.

I notice that you use a non-supernatural event for your example.

It IS more unreasonable for you to say you saw a ghost than to say you saw your shadow. Shadows are something we all see, we all experience, we can all go create a shadow if we want to. Seeing a ghost is, at best, speculation regarding an unexplained event.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I am not denying that people experience unexplained things. I am saying that I don't accept their supernatural explanations for those events. If someone sees a light moving oddly in the sky and claims they saw an alien craft, I'm not going to believe that is the case, whether I find them trustworthy or not. I'll believe they saw something, but I won't accept the UFO explanation they have assigned to what they saw.

There are often non-supernatural explanations for things which, on first glance, may appear to be supernatural in origin. I think it is entirely reasonable to find it easier to believe something based on observable, repeatable events than something another person tells you which you cannot observe yourself.

When it comes to science which one either doesn't understand or cannot observe any aspects of, it's a different story.

Yes, those of us who have read much history at all KNOW that there were many supernatural explanations for poorly understood natural phenomenon of a particular era. But I used the shadow example because it IS something that is entirely common and that most people have experienced. But now, what if I came in and told you I just saw my shadow. And you look out and see that it is heavily overcast and beginning to rain. Now what would you think? Would you still believe I had seen my shadow? And, if I in fact had seen it, how would I prove that to you. Or would you assume that I had seen something else? Or misunderstood what I saw?

The point being that there are or can be components of our existence that we cannot explain with science and cannot prove to anybody. How do I prove to you that I dreamed last night? Or what I dreamed? And if I dreamed something that coincidentally then did happen, is it coincidence? Or some kind of paranormal event? How would we know?

You can keep an open mind to all possibilities without having to accept anybody's explanation for anything. It is rejecting the possibilities that slows the progress of our learning; not the embracing of them.

Again, using the example of a shadow just doesn't make sense. It would be better for you to say you DIDN'T see your shadow when you should; that would mesh more closely with supernatural claims. If you tell me you stood in front of a light but didn't cast a shadow it would be something that didn't make sense and I would find it hard to believe. Further, since I can easily repeat the process and see that standing in front of a light causes a shadow, I have good reason to dismiss your claims, especially if you then make some unsubstantiated claim like your lack of a shadow was caused by ghostly intervention.

While rejecting possibilities may be bad, accepting possibilities without any evidence is just as bad. Skepticism is perfectly healthy.

 

[Foxfyre]

I notice that you use a non-supernatural event for your example.

It IS more unreasonable for you to say you saw a ghost than to say you saw your shadow. Shadows are something we all see, we all experience, we can all go create a shadow if we want to. Seeing a ghost is, at best, speculation regarding an unexplained event.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I am not denying that people experience unexplained things. I am saying that I don't accept their supernatural explanations for those events. If someone sees a light moving oddly in the sky and claims they saw an alien craft, I'm not going to believe that is the case, whether I find them trustworthy or not. I'll believe they saw something, but I won't accept the UFO explanation they have assigned to what they saw.

There are often non-supernatural explanations for things which, on first glance, may appear to be supernatural in origin. I think it is entirely reasonable to find it easier to believe something based on observable, repeatable events than something another person tells you which you cannot observe yourself.

When it comes to science which one either doesn't understand or cannot observe any aspects of, it's a different story.

Yes, those of us who have read much history at all KNOW that there were many supernatural explanations for poorly understood natural phenomenon of a particular era. But I used the shadow example because it IS something that is entirely common and that most people have experienced. But now, what if I came in and told you I just saw my shadow. And you look out and see that it is heavily overcast and beginning to rain. Now what would you think? Would you still believe I had seen my shadow? And, if I in fact had seen it, how would I prove that to you. Or would you assume that I had seen something else? Or misunderstood what I saw?

The point being that there are or can be components of our existence that we cannot explain with science and cannot prove to anybody. How do I prove to you that I dreamed last night? Or what I dreamed? And if I dreamed something that coincidentally then did happen, is it coincidence? Or some kind of paranormal event? How would we know?

You can keep an open mind to all possibilities without having to accept anybody's explanation for anything. It is rejecting the possibilities that slows the progress of our learning; not the embracing of them.

Again, using the example of a shadow just doesn't make sense. It would be better for you to say you DIDN'T see your shadow when you should; that would mesh more closely with supernatural claims. If you tell me you stood in front of a light but didn't cast a shadow it would be something that didn't make sense and I would find it hard to believe. Further, since I can easily repeat the process and see that standing in front of a light causes a shadow, I have good reason to dismiss your claims, especially if you then make some unsubstantiated claim like your lack of a shadow was caused by ghostly intervention.

While rejecting possibilities may be bad, accepting possibilities without any evidence is just as bad. Skepticism is perfectly healthy.

Skepticism is a resistance to belief based on reason, experience, or prejudice. It is a difference animal than disbelief or denial, but not the same thing as embracing a concept in hopes that it is true.

Perhaps it is reasonable to be skeptical of something based on one or two accounts of something happening when the vast reservoir of experience contradicts those one or two accounts.

But using an example I used earlier:

You do not believe that pink elephants exist.

But if one, then another, then another, then dozens of people came into the place where you are, and each one reported that he or she had seen a pink elephant outside, would you continue to believe that pink elephants do not exist?

. . . or. . . .

would you more likely think that
a) this was an organized practical joke?. . .or
b) they were seeing something that they interpreted as a pink elephant. . .or
c) they saw a pink elephant?

And sooner or later, would you be sufficiently curious to go see for yourself?

So you look outside. No pink elephant. But the people inside are absolutely convinced that they saw one and you are persuaded that it was no practical joke or organized effort and these people did not even know each other and had not communicated in any way with each other.

Now what do you believe?

If it was only one or two 'nuts' reporting paranormal experiences, it is reasonable to be skeptical or even a non believer. But when you have hundreds or thousands of people, none who know each other or have communicated with each other in any way, reporting paranormal experiences, and many of these are absolutely normal people with no motive or stimulus to encourage any unusual behavior or reactions, now what is it more normal to believe?

If scientists had shrugged their shoulders and said this or that didn't exist or wasn't true purely because nobody had ever 'proved it' or verified its existance, we wouldn't have a fraction of the scientific knowledge that we now have.

Bacteria and viruses existed for a very long time before anybody was able to verify their existance.

In my opinion, to assume that something isn't so because it has not yet been conclusively verified is to shut oneself off from 99+% of all that there is to know.

 

[ABikerSailor]

On 60 Minutes on Sunday, they were showing how people were being helped by thought guided artificial limbs. Just a few years back, many people said something like that was impossible because telepathy doesn't exist (it does).

But.............then again...............go back in time to the 1700's and pull out a Bic lighter, and most people would call you a witch. I personally believe that eventually science will show us many things that we consider "supernatural" today, which will be logically explained in the future.

 

[Foxfyre]

On 60 Minutes on Sunday, they were showing how people were being helped by thought guided artificial limbs. Just a few years back, many people said something like that was impossible because telepathy doesn't exist (it does).

But.............then again...............go back in time to the 1700's and pull out a Bic lighter, and most people would call you a witch. I personally believe that eventually science will show us many things that we consider "supernatural" today, which will be logically explained in the future.

Which reinforces the point I've been trying to make. We tend to believe what we have seen or heard or tasted or experienced whether or not anybody believes us. And everything else we choose to believe or not.

So will science eventually show us logical explanations for everything that it cannot now logically explain? I don't know. My gut feeling is that an eternity is not long enough for us to learn everything there is to know. Those who WANT to believe in the paranormal are more likely to interpret unusual experiences that way. Those who do NOT want to believe will dismiss reports as delusion or hoaxes or misinterpretations.

But I suspect those who have encountered a 'ghost', most especially on more than one occasion, are far more likely to be believers than those who do not whether or not science has any conclusive information about it. And I personally know people with advanced educations, including one scientist, and who give every appearance of being of sound mind and fully possessing common sense who report they have seen things they cannot explain in any other terms than 'ghost' or disembodied spirit. And I for one do not feel qualified to tell them they didn't experience what they say they did.

 

[Montrovant]

On 60 Minutes on Sunday, they were showing how people were being helped by thought guided artificial limbs. Just a few years back, many people said something like that was impossible because telepathy doesn't exist (it does).

But.............then again...............go back in time to the 1700's and pull out a Bic lighter, and most people would call you a witch. I personally believe that eventually science will show us many things that we consider "supernatural" today, which will be logically explained in the future.

An artificial limb which can run off the electrical impulses of your nerves is NOT telepathy. Telepathy is two people communicating through thoughts alone.

Your example would be like saying people can fly unaided just because they can fly through the use of machines.

Certainly many things which seem supernatural now may be explained through science later. My issue is the possibility, perhaps even probability, that those explanations will not be the same as what so many assign to those things now.

 

[Montrovant]

On 60 Minutes on Sunday, they were showing how people were being helped by thought guided artificial limbs. Just a few years back, many people said something like that was impossible because telepathy doesn't exist (it does).

But.............then again...............go back in time to the 1700's and pull out a Bic lighter, and most people would call you a witch. I personally believe that eventually science will show us many things that we consider "supernatural" today, which will be logically explained in the future.

Which reinforces the point I've been trying to make. We tend to believe what we have seen or heard or tasted or experienced whether or not anybody believes us. And everything else we choose to believe or not.

So will science eventually show us logical explanations for everything that it cannot now logically explain? I don't know. My gut feeling is that an eternity is not long enough for us to learn everything there is to know. Those who WANT to believe in the paranormal are more likely to interpret unusual experiences that way. Those who do NOT want to believe will dismiss reports as delusion or hoaxes or misinterpretations.

But I suspect those who have encountered a 'ghost', most especially on more than one occasion, are far more likely to be believers than those who do not whether or not science has any conclusive information about it. And I personally know people with advanced educations, including one scientist, and who give every appearance of being of sound mind and fully possessing common sense who report they have seen things they cannot explain in any other terms than 'ghost' or disembodied spirit. And I for one do not feel qualified to tell them they didn't experience what they say they did.

I wonder if, had they not already known about the concepts of ghosts, if those people would have viewed their experiences in the same way. We all too easily assign an explanation such as ghosts to something we can't otherwise explain, but that's just putting an unexplained label on an unexplained event.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Did anyone ever think that the paranormal is what has guided us to this point in history?

I mean................really.................you've gotta have something in your head telling you to invent stuff like the telephone, parachute, airplane, etc.

 

[FA_Q2]

Did anyone ever think that the paranormal is what has guided us to this point in history?

I mean................really.................you've gotta have something in your head telling you to invent stuff like the telephone, parachute, airplane, etc.

?

I personally believe that the thing between our ears generally called a brain is what 'told' intellegent people to invent those things...

Whether you believe in the supernatural or not there is no reason to think that we, as an intellegent people, are not capable of independent and original thought.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Did anyone ever think that the paranormal is what has guided us to this point in history?

I mean................really.................you've gotta have something in your head telling you to invent stuff like the telephone, parachute, airplane, etc.

?

I personally believe that the thing between our ears generally called a brain is what 'told' intellegent people to invent those things...

Whether you believe in the supernatural or not there is no reason to think that we, as an intellegent people, are not capable of independent and original thought.

Really?

Can you explain the Nazca Lines?

How about the Mayan temples that represented the solar system?

Someone taught our ancestors those things.

 

[Againsheila]

The Paranormal, the Supernatural, and the Extraterrestrial walked into a bar....for some reason I keep waiting for a punch line.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Paranormal, the Supernatural, and the Extraterrestrial walked into a bar....for some reason I keep waiting for a punch line.

LOL. Okay, somebody use that brain between his/her ears and come up with one.

Seriously, I don't KNOW the explanation for unusual knowledge and phenomena in the ancient records. I am not going to embrace Von Daniken's theory that it was extraterrestrials who gave the ancients their knowledge, but I have no basis to dismiss that as impossible either. I am a firm believer that God, via the Holy Spirit and/or angel spirit guides, gives us insight and understanding and inspiration and I believe I have experienced that. Is there room for the skeptics to challenge what I believe I have experienced? Of course there is. Are there other explanations for 'ghost sightings' as reported by well educated and fully competent and reliable people? Of course there are. But I leave open the possibility that there are such things as ghosts too.

The arguments that "if God is. . . ." then "why didn't God do" or "why did God allow". . .etc. etc. are the strongest in the Atheists' arsenal, but 'if that is so, then how do you explain. . ." arguments fit almost any controversial topic one wants to address. The fact that something is mostly so does not have to reject any variables or departure from the norm. (I have always considered it rather foolish to think that mere mortal man has the ability to comprehend even a tiny fraction of all the God is.)

The arguments that it doesn't exist because it hasn't been authenticated or proved is to dismiss the entire history of scientific discovery and knowledge and suggests that we have all the science there is to know now. What educated, intelligent person believes that?

The argument that extraterrestrials have never been here because we don't know how to go there is pretty short sighted in my view of the world.

And to refuse to believe or at least hold open the door of possibility is the very definition of a closed mind.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Paranormal, the Supernatural, and the Extraterrestrial walked into a bar....for some reason I keep waiting for a punch line.

LOL. Okay, somebody use that brain between his/her ears and come up with one.

Seriously, I don't KNOW the explanation for unusual knowledge and phenomena in the ancient records. I am not going to embrace Von Daniken's theory that it was extraterrestrials who gave the ancients their knowledge, but I have no basis to dismiss that as impossible either. I am a firm believer that God, via the Holy Spirit and/or angel spirit guides, gives us insight and understanding and inspiration and I believe I have experienced that. Is there room for the skeptics to challenge what I believe I have experienced? Of course there is. Are there other explanations for 'ghost sightings' as reported by well educated and fully competent and reliable people? Of course there are. But I leave open the possibility that there are such things as ghosts too.

The arguments that "if God is. . . ." then "why didn't God do" or "why did God allow". . .etc. etc. are the strongest in the Atheists' arsenal, but 'if that is so, then how do you explain. . ." arguments fit almost any controversial topic one wants to address. The fact that something is mostly so does not have to reject any variables or departure from the norm. (I have always considered it rather foolish to think that mere mortal man has the ability to comprehend even a tiny fraction of all the God is.)

The arguments that it doesn't exist because it hasn't been authenticated or proved is to dismiss the entire history of scientific discovery and knowledge and suggests that we have all the science there is to know now. What educated, intelligent person believes that?

The argument that extraterrestrials have never been here because we don't know how to go there is pretty short sighted in my view of the world.

And to refuse to believe or at least hold open the door of possibility is the very definition of a closed mind.

God doesn't do any of the evil in the world, man does. Why? Because God loves us enough to endow us with free will. We are free to choose to follow Him or not.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Paranormal, the Supernatural, and the Extraterrestrial walked into a bar....for some reason I keep waiting for a punch line.

LOL. Okay, somebody use that brain between his/her ears and come up with one.

Seriously, I don't KNOW the explanation for unusual knowledge and phenomena in the ancient records. I am not going to embrace Von Daniken's theory that it was extraterrestrials who gave the ancients their knowledge, but I have no basis to dismiss that as impossible either. I am a firm believer that God, via the Holy Spirit and/or angel spirit guides, gives us insight and understanding and inspiration and I believe I have experienced that. Is there room for the skeptics to challenge what I believe I have experienced? Of course there is. Are there other explanations for 'ghost sightings' as reported by well educated and fully competent and reliable people? Of course there are. But I leave open the possibility that there are such things as ghosts too.

The arguments that "if God is. . . ." then "why didn't God do" or "why did God allow". . .etc. etc. are the strongest in the Atheists' arsenal, but 'if that is so, then how do you explain. . ." arguments fit almost any controversial topic one wants to address. The fact that something is mostly so does not have to reject any variables or departure from the norm. (I have always considered it rather foolish to think that mere mortal man has the ability to comprehend even a tiny fraction of all the God is.)

The arguments that it doesn't exist because it hasn't been authenticated or proved is to dismiss the entire history of scientific discovery and knowledge and suggests that we have all the science there is to know now. What educated, intelligent person believes that?

The argument that extraterrestrials have never been here because we don't know how to go there is pretty short sighted in my view of the world.

And to refuse to believe or at least hold open the door of possibility is the very definition of a closed mind.

God doesn't do any of the evil in the world, man does. Why? Because God loves us enough to endow us with free will. We are free to choose to follow Him or not.

That is also my belief and is heartfelt. But. . . . I can also appreciate the agnositc or Atheist who cannot intellectually or emotionally embrace a concept of a Divine or Supreme Being is perfectly justified in questioning how a loving God can allow evil, pain, suffering, loss, etc. etc. etc. I don't fault those who ask that question. I do fault those who say there can be no God unless it is an evil God BECAUSE there is evil, pain, suffering, loss etc. etc. etc. Such an argument takes a leap that simply can't be supported within the whole concept.

It is the same that those who have never seen a ghost and reject those who claim to have seen or detected the presence of ghosts saying that because they haven't experienced it, it doesn't exist. Such is short sighted at best and really faulty thinking at worst.

It is the same with those who are convinced we are alone in the universe or that extraterrestrials have no visited us purely based on the fact that we can't visit them. The thoughtful and open minded person accepts that technology and science that would allow them to be able to get here would be so far advanced from the science we have that nobody has yet conceived of it yet. But no doubt most would have pooh poohed the concept of humans traveling to the moon as utter fantasy even a century or two ago.

 

[PredFan]

On 60 Minutes on Sunday, they were showing how people were being helped by thought guided artificial limbs. Just a few years back, many people said something like that was impossible because telepathy doesn't exist (it does).

Can science explain why these thought-guided limbs work?

But.............then again...............go back in time to the 1700's and pull out a Bic lighter, and most people would call you a witch.

Sure, but creating fire is scientific. It can be explained, it could even be explained to people of the 1700s given a chance.

I personally believe that eventually science will show us many things that we consider "supernatural" today, which will be logically explained in the future.

It depends. They won't show that ghosts exist, nor will they show that telepathy exists or withcraft. Right now, there pretty much isn't much happening in the universe that can't be explained by science. those things that are unexplainable, are probably unobservable as well.

 

[PredFan]

On 60 Minutes on Sunday, they were showing how people were being helped by thought guided artificial limbs. Just a few years back, many people said something like that was impossible because telepathy doesn't exist (it does).

But.............then again...............go back in time to the 1700's and pull out a Bic lighter, and most people would call you a witch. I personally believe that eventually science will show us many things that we consider "supernatural" today, which will be logically explained in the future.

Which reinforces the point I've been trying to make. We tend to believe what we have seen or heard or tasted or experienced whether or not anybody believes us. And everything else we choose to believe or not.

So will science eventually show us logical explanations for everything that it cannot now logically explain? I don't know. My gut feeling is that an eternity is not long enough for us to learn everything there is to know. Those who WANT to believe in the paranormal are more likely to interpret unusual experiences that way. Those who do NOT want to believe will dismiss reports as delusion or hoaxes or misinterpretations.

But I suspect those who have encountered a 'ghost', most especially on more than one occasion, are far more likely to be believers than those who do not whether or not science has any conclusive information about it. And I personally know people with advanced educations, including one scientist, and who give every appearance of being of sound mind and fully possessing common sense who report they have seen things they cannot explain in any other terms than 'ghost' or disembodied spirit. And I for one do not feel qualified to tell them they didn't experience what they say they did.

Science has already explained ghosts, alien abductions, telepathy, and the like. You just won't accept their explanations because they won't tell you that they are real.

 

[PredFan]

On 60 Minutes on Sunday, they were showing how people were being helped by thought guided artificial limbs. Just a few years back, many people said something like that was impossible because telepathy doesn't exist (it does).

But.............then again...............go back in time to the 1700's and pull out a Bic lighter, and most people would call you a witch. I personally believe that eventually science will show us many things that we consider "supernatural" today, which will be logically explained in the future.

Which reinforces the point I've been trying to make. We tend to believe what we have seen or heard or tasted or experienced whether or not anybody believes us. And everything else we choose to believe or not.

So will science eventually show us logical explanations for everything that it cannot now logically explain? I don't know. My gut feeling is that an eternity is not long enough for us to learn everything there is to know. Those who WANT to believe in the paranormal are more likely to interpret unusual experiences that way. Those who do NOT want to believe will dismiss reports as delusion or hoaxes or misinterpretations.

But I suspect those who have encountered a 'ghost', most especially on more than one occasion, are far more likely to be believers than those who do not whether or not science has any conclusive information about it. And I personally know people with advanced educations, including one scientist, and who give every appearance of being of sound mind and fully possessing common sense who report they have seen things they cannot explain in any other terms than 'ghost' or disembodied spirit. And I for one do not feel qualified to tell them they didn't experience what they say they did.

I wonder if, had they not already known about the concepts of ghosts, if those people would have viewed their experiences in the same way. We all too easily assign an explanation such as ghosts to something we can't otherwise explain, but that's just putting an unexplained label on an unexplained event.

Precisely. One of the things that I like to do to believers is to tell them that I believe in UFOs. If they know me they know something is up and they give me a loook like they are waiting for the other shoe to drop. If they don't know me, then they usually start going on as if I'm one of them. That's when I lay the bomb that while I believe in UFOs, I don't believe in aliens. That usually throws them for a loop. Fun times.