The Paranormal, the Supernatural, and the Extraterrestrial

[PredFan]

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.

The paranormal DID have a lot to do with us getting to where we are today. It's otherwise known as religion.

 

[PredFan]

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?

Yes, I can. they are drawings designed by the people of the region in order to appease their gods. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of drafting can make them.

How about the Mayan temples that represented the solar system?

It's the same thing as seeing Jesus's face in a piece of toast.

Someone taught our ancestors those things.

Sure. It was taught to them over time by people before them who studied things. Knowledge, handed down.

 

[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).

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.

Well, if you think we have the capacity to explain everything that exists now, you have a much smaller view of the universe than I do. I think we have a teensy fraction of the science that there is to have and a teensy fraction of all the knowledge there is to know.

Who is to say that there will never be a scientific discovery that allows us to detect spirits, ghosts, the paranormal? How do you conclude that because we don't have that capability now, that we won't ever have it?

Until the 17th century humans had no idea that such a thing as bacteria existed. And even after they were able to see them through the first microscopes, it would be two more centuries before they figured out how to put that knowledge to practical use.

I simply cannot conclude that two more centuries later that we have all the science we will ever have. I think medicine is still in its primitive stages compared to what it will one day be. And I think we will be surprised at how wrong some of our even settled scientific opinion about many things will turn out to be when we are able to actually test that opinion.

And I simply cannot accept an argument that ghosts, spirits, extraterrestrials, etc. are not with us purely because we have no conclusive way to prove it yet.

 

[Meister]

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?



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.

Well, if you think we have the capacity to explain everything that exists now, you have a much smaller view of the universe than I do. I think we have a teensy fraction of the science that there is to have and a teensy fraction of all the knowledge there is to know.

Who is to say that there will never be a scientific discovery that allows us to detect spirits, ghosts, the paranormal? How do you conclude that because we don't have that capability now, that we won't ever have it?

Until the 17th century humans had no idea that such a thing as bacteria existed. And even after they were able to see them through the first microscopes, it would be two more centuries before they figured out how to put that knowledge to practical use.

I simply cannot conclude that two more centuries later that we have all the science we will ever have. I think medicine is still in its primitive stages compared to what it will one day be. And I think we will be surprised at how wrong some of our even settled scientific opinion about many things will turn out to be when we are able to actually test that opinion.

And I simply cannot accept an argument that ghosts, spirits, extraterrestrials, etc. are not with us purely because we have no conclusive way to prove it yet.

From being a non believer into a believer because of my own personal experience, I fully agree with you. What I experienced was real and was undeniable.
I haven't tried to change anyones opinion of what they believe in because of what I experienced. But, there is no way that they can change what I believe using science.

 

[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?



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.

Well, if you think we have the capacity to explain everything that exists now, you have a much smaller view of the universe than I do. I think we have a teensy fraction of the science that there is to have and a teensy fraction of all the knowledge there is to know.

easy for you to say, but far far from the truth. Can you think of something, anything observable that science cannot explain? I can think of one thing, but science is working on that right now and will probably be able to explain it in the future.

Who is to say that there will never be a scientific discovery that allows us to detect spirits, ghosts, the paranormal? How do you conclude that because we don't have that capability now, that we won't ever have it?

It isn't a matter of not having the technology to detect them, it's that science knows that they don't exist.

Until the 17th century humans had no idea that such a thing as bacteria existed. And even after they were able to see them through the first microscopes, it would be two more centuries before they figured out how to put that knowledge to practical use.

Bad example. Bacteria are observable and their behavior is observable and predictable. Anyone with a microscope can see them. Bacteria can also be the explanation for a lot of observable phenomona, everything from sickness to making beer. You cannot say the same for the paranormal.

I simply cannot conclude that two more centuries later that we have all the science we will ever have.

We don't, and I never stated that we did. I merely stated that there is very little in the universe that cannot be explained.

I think medicine is still in its primitive stages compared to what it will one day be.

Another bad example. Everything in the body can be explained. Nothing that the human body does is paranormal. The new things we usually learn are techniques and therapies, not previosly unknown body parts.

And I think we will be surprised at how wrong some of our even settled scientific opinion about many things will turn out to be when we are able to actually test that opinion.

I assure you that despite what the crackpots who gave us Global Climate Change say, NO science is settled.

The paranromal, btw, always fails when tested.

And I simply cannot accept an argument that ghosts, spirits, extraterrestrials, etc. are not with us purely because we have no conclusive way to prove it yet.

They aren't testable, aren't reproducable, and defy known laws of physics. It isn't that we can't prove yet that they exist, it's that we can prove they don't.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. I observe millions/billions of stars shining brightly in a cloudless New Mexico sky. Science can speculate what they are based on understanding of our own sun. But there is no way to be certain when we have no way to test whether all those other stars are of the same chemical makeup, consistency, or behave as our sun behaves. But we know they are there.

And again going back to my shadow analogy. I know I saw it. Or did not see it. But there is no scientific method known to humankind that can verify what I saw or did not see.

As Meister posted, he knows what he saw. He knows that it was real. He cannot prove it to anybody using any known method, scientific or otherwise. Nor can you prove that he didn't see it or that it was not real.

 

[earlycuyler]

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.

Abooutivley 1,000,000,000,000 % and getting to some of the stuff wou mentioned lets throw in the television, radio, tape recorder, video camera and their use in investigating the paranormal. I consider my self a Christian (despite my behavior here) but the bible clearly says ghosts exist. There is even the use of a "channeler" in the bible. For me though, a person has to be willing to see whats there. I have never seen spooks or specter's, but I dont doubt those out of hand that say they do.

 

[PredFan]

Yes. I observe millions/billions of stars shining brightly in a cloudless New Mexico sky. Science can speculate what they are based on understanding of our own sun. But there is no way to be certain when we have no way to test whether all those other stars are of the same chemical makeup, consistency, or behave as our sun behaves. But we know they are there.

Actually, that's wrong. We can and have tested those far away stars and shown exactly what they are made of. We can also explain their actions. we call them dwarves, giants, pulsars quasars, etc.

And again going back to my shadow analogy. I know I saw it. Or did not see it. But there is no scientific method known to humankind that can verify what I saw or did not see.

Yes there is. It's repeatable, observable, measurable, and doesn't defy the laws of physics.

As Meister posted, he knows what he saw. He knows that it was real. He cannot prove it to anybody using any known method, scientific or otherwise. Nor can you prove that he didn't see it or that it was not real.

Meister never stated what it was he saw, so therefor we cannot surmise that his observations prove anything at all.

If, for example, he stated that he saw a ghost, I can prove that he didn't, but I wouldn't try to claim he didn't see anything. I'd just prove that it wasn't what he claimed it was.

 

[Meister]

Yes. I observe millions/billions of stars shining brightly in a cloudless New Mexico sky. Science can speculate what they are based on understanding of our own sun. But there is no way to be certain when we have no way to test whether all those other stars are of the same chemical makeup, consistency, or behave as our sun behaves. But we know they are there.

Actually, that's wrong. We can and have tested those far away stars and shown exactly what they are made of. We can also explain their actions. we call them dwarves, giants, pulsars quasars, etc.

And again going back to my shadow analogy. I know I saw it. Or did not see it. But there is no scientific method known to humankind that can verify what I saw or did not see.

Yes there is. It's repeatable, observable, measurable, and doesn't defy the laws of physics.

As Meister posted, he knows what he saw. He knows that it was real. He cannot prove it to anybody using any known method, scientific or otherwise. Nor can you prove that he didn't see it or that it was not real.

Meister never stated what it was he saw, so therefor we cannot surmise that his observations prove anything at all.

If, for example, he stated that he saw a ghost, I can prove that he didn't, but I wouldn't try to claim he didn't see anything. I'd just prove that it wasn't what he claimed it was.

You would have to search what I experienced, Pred. it's in this forum. I didn't tell everything though, because of this type of response. You cannot prove what I saw isn't so...there is no way that you could. I was once in your shoes, but I'm no longer. It was real, all of it.

 

[PredFan]

Yes. I observe millions/billions of stars shining brightly in a cloudless New Mexico sky. Science can speculate what they are based on understanding of our own sun. But there is no way to be certain when we have no way to test whether all those other stars are of the same chemical makeup, consistency, or behave as our sun behaves. But we know they are there.

Actually, that's wrong. We can and have tested those far away stars and shown exactly what they are made of. We can also explain their actions. we call them dwarves, giants, pulsars quasars, etc.



Yes there is. It's repeatable, observable, measurable, and doesn't defy the laws of physics.

As Meister posted, he knows what he saw. He knows that it was real. He cannot prove it to anybody using any known method, scientific or otherwise. Nor can you prove that he didn't see it or that it was not real.

Meister never stated what it was he saw, so therefor we cannot surmise that his observations prove anything at all.

If, for example, he stated that he saw a ghost, I can prove that he didn't, but I wouldn't try to claim he didn't see anything. I'd just prove that it wasn't what he claimed it was.

You would have to search what I experienced, Pred. it's in this forum. I didn't tell everything though, because of this type of response. You cannot prove what I saw isn't so...there is no way that you could. I was once in your shoes, but I'm no longer. It was real, all of it.

If your claim was that it was supernatural, I could easily prove it wasn't so. I would never try to prove you didn't see anything, I'd just prove that it couldn't be what you claimed it to be. Assuming that you claimed it was of the paranormal nature.

 

[Meister]

Actually, that's wrong. We can and have tested those far away stars and shown exactly what they are made of. We can also explain their actions. we call them dwarves, giants, pulsars quasars, etc.



Yes there is. It's repeatable, observable, measurable, and doesn't defy the laws of physics.



Meister never stated what it was he saw, so therefor we cannot surmise that his observations prove anything at all.

If, for example, he stated that he saw a ghost, I can prove that he didn't, but I wouldn't try to claim he didn't see anything. I'd just prove that it wasn't what he claimed it was.

You would have to search what I experienced, Pred. it's in this forum. I didn't tell everything though, because of this type of response. You cannot prove what I saw isn't so...there is no way that you could. I was once in your shoes, but I'm no longer. It was real, all of it.

If your claim was that it was supernatural, I could easily prove it wasn't so. I would never try to prove you didn't see anything, I'd just prove that it couldn't be what you claimed it to be. Assuming that you claimed it was of the paranormal nature.

Like I said, I'm not here to change your mind.

 

[PredFan]

You would have to search what I experienced, Pred. it's in this forum. I didn't tell everything though, because of this type of response. You cannot prove what I saw isn't so...there is no way that you could. I was once in your shoes, but I'm no longer. It was real, all of it.

If your claim was that it was supernatural, I could easily prove it wasn't so. I would never try to prove you didn't see anything, I'd just prove that it couldn't be what you claimed it to be. Assuming that you claimed it was of the paranormal nature.

Like I said, I'm not here to change your mind.

Ok.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nor am I here to change anybody's mind. I am here to discuss a subject that I find interesting, provocative, and stimulating. But I do not believe for a minute that Predfan can prove, either easily or with great difficulty, that the supernatural or paranormal does or does not exist. If I'm wrong about that, he is invited to show his proof. And I will then personally nominate him for the Nobel Prize or other recognition to which he would be entitled given that he would be the first mortal to do so.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. I observe millions/billions of stars shining brightly in a cloudless New Mexico sky. Science can speculate what they are based on understanding of our own sun. But there is no way to be certain when we have no way to test whether all those other stars are of the same chemical makeup, consistency, or behave as our sun behaves. But we know they are there.

Actually, that's wrong. We can and have tested those far away stars and shown exactly what they are made of. We can also explain their actions. we call them dwarves, giants, pulsars quasars, etc.

And again going back to my shadow analogy. I know I saw it. Or did not see it. But there is no scientific method known to humankind that can verify what I saw or did not see.

Yes there is. It's repeatable, observable, measurable, and doesn't defy the laws of physics.

As Meister posted, he knows what he saw. He knows that it was real. He cannot prove it to anybody using any known method, scientific or otherwise. Nor can you prove that he didn't see it or that it was not real.

Meister never stated what it was he saw, so therefor we cannot surmise that his observations prove anything at all.

If, for example, he stated that he saw a ghost, I can prove that he didn't, but I wouldn't try to claim he didn't see anything. I'd just prove that it wasn't what he claimed it was.

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.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes. I observe millions/billions of stars shining brightly in a cloudless New Mexico sky. Science can speculate what they are based on understanding of our own sun. But there is no way to be certain when we have no way to test whether all those other stars are of the same chemical makeup, consistency, or behave as our sun behaves. But we know they are there.

Actually, that's wrong. We can and have tested those far away stars and shown exactly what they are made of. We can also explain their actions. we call them dwarves, giants, pulsars quasars, etc.



Yes there is. It's repeatable, observable, measurable, and doesn't defy the laws of physics.

As Meister posted, he knows what he saw. He knows that it was real. He cannot prove it to anybody using any known method, scientific or otherwise. Nor can you prove that he didn't see it or that it was not real.

Meister never stated what it was he saw, so therefor we cannot surmise that his observations prove anything at all.

If, for example, he stated that he saw a ghost, I can prove that he didn't, but I wouldn't try to claim he didn't see anything. I'd just prove that it wasn't what he claimed it was.

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.

 

[PredFan]

Nor am I here to change anybody's mind. I am here to discuss a subject that I find interesting, provocative, and stimulating. But I do not believe for a minute that Predfan can prove, either easily or with great difficulty, that the supernatural or paranormal does or does not exist. If I'm wrong about that, he is invited to show his proof. And I will then personally nominate him for the Nobel Prize or other recognition to which he would be entitled given that he would be the first mortal to do so.

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

 

[PredFan]

Yes. I observe millions/billions of stars shining brightly in a cloudless New Mexico sky. Science can speculate what they are based on understanding of our own sun. But there is no way to be certain when we have no way to test whether all those other stars are of the same chemical makeup, consistency, or behave as our sun behaves. But we know they are there.

Actually, that's wrong. We can and have tested those far away stars and shown exactly what they are made of. We can also explain their actions. we call them dwarves, giants, pulsars quasars, etc.



Yes there is. It's repeatable, observable, measurable, and doesn't defy the laws of physics.

As Meister posted, he knows what he saw. He knows that it was real. He cannot prove it to anybody using any known method, scientific or otherwise. Nor can you prove that he didn't see it or that it was not real.

Meister never stated what it was he saw, so therefor we cannot surmise that his observations prove anything at all.

If, for example, he stated that he saw a ghost, I can prove that he didn't, but I wouldn't try to claim he didn't see anything. I'd just prove that it wasn't what he claimed it was.

That you can duplicate something is NOT proof that what I reported is what happened.

If I can duplicate a claim, measure it, and explain it and it doesn't violate the laws of physics, then yes, it is proof. You can deny it all you want to, but you're wrong.

Evidence and research is not always the same thing as proof.

Then what the hell IS proof in your mind because that's proof to the rest of the world. If I had evidence, and my research showed that esp did exist, and I could observe measure and repeat the use of it, I'll bet you';d accept THAT as proof of ESP.

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.

Not it isn't, but doing that is unnecessary. You have proven that a star is made up of those things and do not have to physically go there to test it. The methods that they use to examine stars is based on the same measures we use to examine many other things right here on earth.

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.

Nobody, not even other scientists believe everything that science says is so is always true. Science is always correcting itself and reformulating theories. The difference is that the science never wavers from the solid fact that the laws of physics cannot be broken. There has never been a time when a scientist discovered something that broke the laws of physics. Other than Quantum Physics, which has slightly different rules.

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.

Again, aside from the Global Warming Hoax, no real scientists will say that "such and such" science is settled.

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.

Not anything even close to what I actually said.

Too much natural curiosity and skepticism I guess.

No offense, but you almost totally lack skepticism.

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.

It will happen. It just won't include superstition.

And too much evidence that there are dimensions and much phenomena that we cannot yet access and still poorly understand.

There isn't a shred of evidence of those things.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nor am I here to change anybody's mind. I am here to discuss a subject that I find interesting, provocative, and stimulating. But I do not believe for a minute that Predfan can prove, either easily or with great difficulty, that the supernatural or paranormal does or does not exist. If I'm wrong about that, he is invited to show his proof. And I will then personally nominate him for the Nobel Prize or other recognition to which he would be entitled given that he would be the first mortal to do so.

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually, that's wrong. We can and have tested those far away stars and shown exactly what they are made of. We can also explain their actions. we call them dwarves, giants, pulsars quasars, etc.



Yes there is. It's repeatable, observable, measurable, and doesn't defy the laws of physics.



Meister never stated what it was he saw, so therefor we cannot surmise that his observations prove anything at all.

If, for example, he stated that he saw a ghost, I can prove that he didn't, but I wouldn't try to claim he didn't see anything. I'd just prove that it wasn't what he claimed it was.

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.

 

[PredFan]

Nor am I here to change anybody's mind. I am here to discuss a subject that I find interesting, provocative, and stimulating. But I do not believe for a minute that Predfan can prove, either easily or with great difficulty, that the supernatural or paranormal does or does not exist. If I'm wrong about that, he is invited to show his proof. And I will then personally nominate him for the Nobel Prize or other recognition to which he would be entitled given that he would be the first mortal to do so.

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?