The Movie Paranormal Activity

Yes. Absolutely. I don't think anybody is disputing this. I don't think he is saying that. At least not here.What Slevesque is doing is objecting to the idea that evidence of the supernatural is by definition impossible. He is pointing out that such definitions are self-serving and not very helpful when considering genuinely supernatural events such as omnipotent beings using their divine will to violate the laws of nature (e.g. miraculous conception and suchlike).Do I believe such acts have taken place? No. Do I think every shred of available evidence indicates humans inventing "unknowable" causes for wholly natural phenomenon? Yes. But that doesn't mean that we can simply define the term "supernatural" out of possible evidenced existence in the way that jar and others are suggesting. It is this I believe that Slev is objecting to. Usually. Yes. But let's consider an extreme example for the sake of making a point.Let's say a baby boy is born to a virgin. Tests are conducted. He has the same DNA as his mother. Scientists scratch their heads but cannot explain or replicate this phenomenon no matter what tests are undertaken. It seems to defy all the biology that applies to every other living thing. The boy grows up. He seems to be able to do some remarkable things. He can raise the dead and does so regularly. One sunny afternoon he transforms the water in the river Thames to fine Sauvignon Blanc and feeds the entire population of London on a pilchard and a bagel. Chris (that's his name) starts preaching love, peace and devotion to an omnipotent being that he refers to as "father".......Now I am not saying that science should just give up on a natural explanation for the above at all. But under these circumstances it would be difficult to continue to justify the claim that there exists no positive evidence in favour of the supernatural at all wouldn't it?

No, it would remain in the Unknown Category until all the evidence, model and method was understood at which time it would almost certainly be found to be Natural.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi Slevesque, So do you believe such a thing as this exist? Something that can violate the laws of physics and still interact with nature and leave no physical evidence?

The problem here is that you are assigning characteristics to the supernatural without even being able to show that the supernatural exists. Why can't the supernatural have predictable and testable interactions with the natural world? From what I have seen, the only reason that you are making this argument is that no one has found evidence for the supernatural. Therefore, the only way to defend the existence of the supernatural is to claim that evidence shouldn't exist if the supernatural is real. That doesn't sound like a good way to do things, at least to me.In reading this thread I can't help but think of Harry Houdini. He spent a portion of his career debunking the psychics, mediums, and shucksters of his day. In fact, he greatly inspired Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller fame. This is why they demonstrate how magic tricks are done in the same way that Houdini demystified magic in his era. Each year Penn Jillette and a cadre of skeptics and Houdini family members get together for a seance. Before Houdini died he passed on three words to his wife so that she would know if it was really him speaking from the afterlife. These three words have been passed on through the family and are tightly held secrets. Every year the family invites people over to try to make contact with Houdini. So far, no luck even though mediums claim they have access to such information.In the words of Penn Jillette, "Bullshit".

This is one of my favorite Steven Weinberg quotes:

quote:

---

Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree. Even
as late as the nineteenth century the design of plants and animals was regarded as visible evidence of a
creator. There are still countless things in nature that we cannot explain, but we think we know the principles
that govern the way they work. Today for real mystery one has to look to cosmology and elementary
particle physics. For those who see no conflict between science and religion, the retreat of religion from the
ground occupied by science is nearly complete." (Weinberg, S., "Dreams of a Final Theory," Pantheon: New
York NY, 1992, pp.249-250)

---

He hits it dead on. For millenia we lived in a world where the supernatural was all around us causing repeatable and demonstrable changes in our everyday lives. With the advent of science the supernatural disappeared as we found that these magical happenings were not supernatural afterall. For those who want to push the supernatural into the indiscernable and inscrutable it might be worth pointing out how far of a retreat this really is from where the supernatural used to be.

Are there some paranormal subjects which would take less proof to convince you? I’m not sure if you’re exempting some paranormal subjects from your list.For myself, if the question is highly improbable events, then improbable event could explain another. If one is going to posit ghosts, then why not inter-dimensional beings who seem like ghosts, psychic time-travel, ghostly astral projection, aliens pretending to be ghosts, mimics taking ghostly form, etc.Film evidence is problematic, not only because it is so easily faked, but also as its presentation of any event is quite limited.

Or a huge hoax perpetrated by an advanced alien invasion force, getting their larfs on us at an unprecedented rate.....I was wondering if you might have had something to say here....Sorry to be late to the table. Is there any good single malt scotch left?

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This is another log on the fire of scientific investigation removing the "supernatural". That is what it does, you could say, by definition. The possibility of "it's magic" is NOT a permissible scientific observation, as has been referred to above over the entire recorded evidence of homo sapiens.In other words, the very same strength of the lengthy and consistent pattern of scientific investigation showing that the only known source of the supernatural is imagination is the same strength of the argument that the investigation will inexorably determine that there is only a natural explanation and thus bluegenes' theory cannot be falsified.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

As might the whole of reality as we currently know it.Do you include such possibilities when considering all aspects of perceived reality? At what point do you invoke such explanations?

By what definition? Be specific. It was believed to be supernatural. That is very different. There is nothing inherently materially inexplicable about the Earth going round the Sun.

So the actuality of the second coming of Christ and ensuing biblical Armageddon wouldn't be evidence in favour of anything supernatural at all. This completely contradicts the entire basis of your "stores as evidence" position taken in previous threads. So "stories, tales and mythos" qualify as evidence. But the actuality of these stories really occurring in reality does not. So what could constitute such evidence?

You still seem to not understand what I have been saying for almost a decade here; that god, God and GOD are three different things. God(s) and god(s) are human constructs and so of course the stories and myths are evidence of their existence.As to your story about Armageddon, ask me after it is over and I may be able to tell you. But if it actually effects this universe then it will either be able to be explained through natural events or it goes in the Unknown folder.And I cannot imagine any evidence that might prove a God or god real beyond existing as human constructs.After I die I might find out that GOD is real though.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I understand what you are making a distinction but have never seen you give an evidential reason for making one. Of course human constructs of gods exist. But on what basis do you conclude that GOD is not equally a human construct? Can you explain why the demonstrable actuality exactly matching human constructions of supernatural concepts is not evidence in favour of those supernatural beings actually existing? Incredulity aside...... Nor can you prove that any given naturalistic explanation is correct when compared to a baseless supernatural alternative. Evidence based conclusions are not about proof. Why? What happens after you die that makes the supernatural somehow more able to be evidenced than when you lived? Why don't you just classify the afterlife as "natural" in the same way that you are classifying biblical Armageddon as "natural"?

I don't know. Perhaps after I die I will know. That is also totally irrelevant to the issue of your fictional Armageddon. I answered that. If it happens then I will either be able to place it into the Known folder, or if I cannot understand it, the Unknown folder. I see no need of a Supernatural folder.And the distinctions between god, God and GODS is definitional; asking for evidential reasoning is just silly.Edited by jar, : hit wrong button

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Perhaps when you dream you know? What is the difference as far as you are concerned How does experiencing what could be called an "afterlife" change that for you? There is overwhelming evidence that humans are deeply able and deeply prone to inventing gods for various purposes. Explanation, comfort, companionship, meaning etc. etc. All of which suggests that such beliefs will exist regardless of any gods actually existing.This same evidence applies to god, God, GOD. Your distinction is a false one isn't it? If not why not?