|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4704 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Movie Paranormal Activity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Straggler writes: jar writes: If I found myself in the Patrick Swaze type ghost situation it would be "Unknown", not paranormal or supernatural, unless there was so specific reliable repeatable test I could use to distinguish paranormal and supernatural. Can you explain what you mean by 'paranormal' in this context? Because I think by most common definitions of the term a dead person whose immaterial conscious will can interract with the material world would defibnitely constitute evidence of the paranormal. And you know, it just MIGHT. Ask me after it happens and I MIGHT be able to tell you. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Why do you need to die to tell me what you mean by 'paranormal'...? You are taking your bizzarre reliance on the death scenario to unprecedented heights.
jar writes: If I found myself in the Patrick Swaze type ghost situation it would be "Unknown", not paranormal or supernatural, unless there was so specific reliable repeatable test I could use to distinguish paranormal and supernatural. Can you explain what you mean by 'paranormal' in this context? Because I think by most common definitions of the term a dead person whose immaterial conscious will can interract with the material world would defibnitely constitute evidence of the paranormal.
jar writes: Ask me after it happens and I MIGHT be able to tell you. Likewise if you were possessed by a demon, exorcised and in the process acquired knowledge of how to definitively distinguish between supernaturality and naturalness. The hypothetical "Ask me after it happens and I MIGHT be able to tell you" scenarios are near infinte aren't they?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, hypotheticals are just plain silly, in this case useless.
As I said, I cannot imagine any way that while I am alive I could identify anything as paranormal or supernatural. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: If I found myself in the Patrick Swaze type ghost situation it would be "Unknown", not paranormal or supernatural, unless there was so specific reliable repeatable test I could use to distinguish paranormal and supernatural. Can you explain what you mean by 'paranormal' in this context? Because I think by most common definitions of the term a dead person whose immaterial conscious will can interract with the material world would defibnitely constitute evidence of the paranormal.
jar writes: Yes, hypotheticals are just plain silly, in this case useless. Your once-I-am-dead scenario is just as hypothetical (and just as silly) as any other isn't it?
jar writes: As I said, I cannot imagine any way that while I am alive I could identify anything as paranormal or supernatural. Nor can you imagine how you would do this once dead. Do you agree that the whole idea of a once-I-am-dead version of "you" that is separate from your brain and the chemicals that affect it flies in the face of all the evidence? What would "you" be like in the absence of things like seratonin, testosterone etc...? Would you still be "you".....? Your much cited once-I-am-dead scenario falls foul of the mind body problem however you look at it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, I have said I cannot imagine ANY way to test to identify something as paranormal or supernatural as long as I am alive.
I have no problem with your definition of what would be paranormal, only with the idea that such a thing could even exist or that it is a label that has any use or real meaning other than as an example showing that folk feel better when they can use some label instead of admitting the incident is just unknown. If I ran into something like your Patrick Swaze scenario while I was alive, say as Whoopi, I would not call it paranormal, but rather as unknown. If I was the Patrick Swaze character, then I would be dead and MIGHT have a way to test. But even then, the label I'd use is Unknown UNTIL I could find a reliable and repeatable way to determine if something is paranormal, supernatural or some other label. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I have said I cannot imagine ANY way to test to identify something as paranormal or supernatural as long as I am alive. According to the Monster Manual:
quote: I mean, since we're talking about make-believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Again, I have said I cannot imagine ANY way to test to identify something as paranormal or supernatural as long as I am alive. But I still have no idea what you mean by 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' Can you explain what you mean by these terms?
jar writes: I have no problem with your definition of what would be paranormal, only with the idea that such a thing could even exist or that it is a label that has any use or real meaning other than as an example showing that folk feel better when they can use some label instead of admitting the incident is just unknown. Yet both your description of GOD and this once-I-am-dead state of existence you keep referring to are supernatural/paranormal by common usage of these terms aren't they? Are you describing the objects of your own beliefs as necessarily meaningless and unreal?
jar writes: No, GOD cannot be scientifically investigated or understood. Because (if he exists) he is supernatural? Or for some other reason?
jar writes: Ask me after I am dead and then I may know. Do you think the idea that "you" can go round knowing things or testing them once you are dead is any less hypothetical or evidence-defying than any of the other scenarios you have been confronted with in this thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Straggler writes: Are you describing the objects of your own beliefs as necessarily meaningless and unreal? No I am saying that I cannot test to see if they are real.
Straggler writes: Do you think the idea that "you" can go round knowing things or testing them once you are dead is any less hypothetical or evidence-defying than any of the other scenarios you have been confronted with in this thread? Again, please read what I have said. I have NOT said that I can test things after I am dead, I have said that MAYBE I might be able to test them after I am dead. I have no experience with what being dead is like and so cannot say what I will be able to do then, if anything. I do have experience though with being alive, and so I can address what I can do there. It really is that simple. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Straggler writes: Do you think the idea that "you" can go round knowing things or testing them once you are dead is any less hypothetical or evidence-defying than any of the other scenarios you have been confronted with in this thread? Again, please read what I have said. I have NOT said that I can test things after I am dead, I have said that MAYBE I might be able to test them after I am dead. I would have thought that the MAYBE part was implicit in the description as "hypothetical". But if you are going to be that pedantic I'll rephrase the question accordingly: Do you think the idea that "you" can MAYBE go round knowing things or testing them once you are dead is any less hypothetical or evidence-defying than any of the other scenarios mentioned in this thread that MAYBE will lead to a similar ability to know or test such things? (divine revelation etc.)
Straggler writes: Yet both your description of GOD and this once-I-am-dead state of existence you keep referring to are supernatural/paranormal by common usage of these terms aren't they? Are you describing the objects of your own beliefs as necessarily meaningless and unreal? jar writes: No I am saying that I cannot test to see if they are real But as you keep telling me - MAYBE once you are dead you will be able to. And if these things are real they can meaningfully be called "supernatural" by any common usage of the term can't they?
jar writes: Again, I have said I cannot imagine ANY way to test to identify something as paranormal or supernatural as long as I am alive. Could you actually explain what you mean by 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' in this context?
jar writes: No, GOD cannot be scientifically investigated or understood. Because (if he exists) he is supernatural? Or for some other reason?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, I repeat, I cannot imagine any tests I could perform while I am alive that would allow me to designate something as supernatural or paranormal.
IF (I repeat) someone provides a test that is reliable and repeatable and identifies things that are paranormal or supernatural, I am perfectly willing to reconsider my position. I have no idea what it will be like or what I may or may not be able to do after I am dead. However if you can figure out a way to ask me that question after I am dead, I MIGHT be able to give you an answer. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Could you actually explain what you mean by 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' in this context? I'd have thought by now the answer to this is, 'no'. It seems to me jar is thinking of some metaphysical attribute a thing has and that since he doesn't know what this attribute actually consists of, he cannot think of any tests to determine whether something has it. He postulates that if he is dead, he would have more direct contact with this metaphysical quality something has and can then possibly determine it. I think he is conflating the supernatural with the paranormal in the direction of metaphysics rather than natural language. But Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster, if real, would be paranormal and natural. Jar hasn't even explained how someone can determine if something is natural while he is alive. Underlying all of this, there seems to be a undercurrent of thought that supernatural means inherently unverifiable and that anything that is verified is inherently not supernatural. But we have a word for unverifiable, unverifiable
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I just don't see a need to label something that is unknown as anything but unknown.
You are correct, I cannot define either paranormal or supernatural in a way that could be verified. How does one distinguish between paranormal and supernatural? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: However if you can figure out a way to ask me that question after I am dead, I MIGHT be able to give you an answer. It is proving hard enough to get answers out of you whilst you are alive.
jar writes: Again, I repeat, I cannot imagine any tests I could perform while I am alive that would allow me to designate something as supernatural or paranormal. So do you consider it more likely that being dead might provide you with a method of testing for supernaturality than divine revelation whilst alive (for example) might provide you with a method of testing for supernaturality?
jar writes: Yes, hypotheticals are just plain silly, in this case useless. I agree but am bewildered as to why you think your once-I-am-dead state of being is any less hypothetical than any of the other hypotheticals being bandied around in this thread.
Straggler writes: Yet both your description of GOD and this once-I-am-dead state of existence you keep referring to are supernatural/paranormal by common usage of these terms aren't they? Are you describing the objects of your own beliefs as necessarily meaningless and unreal? jar writes: No I am saying that I cannot test to see if they are real If this GOD of yours is real (as you believe) then it is "supernatural" by any common usage of the term isn't it?
jar writes: No, GOD cannot be scientifically investigated or understood. Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yet again, although it really does seem quite simple.
I cannot test for GOD because I know of and can not imagine any way to test either the paranormal or the supernatural. I have never been dead and so I cannot say what I might be able to do when I am dead. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I am not asking you to test for the existence of GOD while you are alive. I am asking you to consider the possibility that this GOD of yours is real (as you believe to be the case) and asking you if this GOD as you have described it to be ("the creator of all that is seen and unseen") qualifies as supernatural by common usage of that term as used by myself, Slevesque and Mod in this thread.
jar writes: No, GOD cannot be scientifically investigated or understood. Why?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024