The Movie Paranormal Activity

Tram law writes:

quote:

---

Or, I'll ask it another way. You show someone a video of the supernatural, but it looks fake. What other evidence would be necessary to conclude the video isn't fake? That's the answer to your original question.

---

For me, before coming to a conclusion, I'd take it to an expert, or several, and get it analyzed first before coming to a conclusion. If they found any kind of glitches that could be an indication that it's a fake, then it's a fake. If they can't find anything that could be an indication of fakery, then it's not a fake. Or if there is no consensus then I'd simply call it inconclusive either way.

slevesque writes:This statement can only be true if you use a very circular definition of paranormal, which we have seen implicitly defined in this thread already. The definition is usually somewhere around the followingA paranormal (or supernatural) phenomenon is defined as a natural phenomenon that hasn't been identified as such yet.The begging-the-question in such a definition is obvious.

slevesque writes:Why can't it be identified as a supernatural phenomenon ? Once again, yo usee no way that it could be confidently put into the paranormal folder ?What if you were pulled down the stairs by 'something' dragging you by your feet, and then puled down into the basement while you hear 'demonic' voices in your head (sorry, I only watched paranormal activity 2) ? Plus it was filmed (so no possibility of hallucinations) ?

slevesque writes:But that's not what your saying. You aren't saying that up until now nothing has warranted being put into such a folder. You are saying that by definition nothing whatsoever can ever be put into such a folder, whatever that could be.

slevesque writes:If we take the above example, I would think the honest thing to do would be to put the phenomenon into the paranormal folder (by Occam's razor)

slevesque writes: Some people, such as Jar it seems, say never, because he uses a twisted and self-serving (in my opinion) definition of supernatural/paranormal: Something that is natural but that we don't understand yet. I say it is self-serving because he then turns around and makes claims such as ''there is absolutely no evidence that there are demons'', when in fact such evidence can never exist no matter what we ever could observe, given his definition.

slevesque writes: I am entitled to have a 'supernatural folder' and use the word supernatural as it is defined in an english dictionary.

Straggler writes:It is believed by some that this coming May biblical Armageddon will occur. Surely in the bewildering unlikely event that this occurs it would qualify as evidence in favour of the supernatural? Imagine the scenario..... The second coming of Christ 'God the son' and ensuing Armageddon is in full swing. Christians are being exhalted into raptuous heavenly paradise, the dead coming bodily back to life, giant scorpions drag people into a great fiery abyss, Angels start decreeing various plagues on the unfaithful and the fornicators. Those who have not repented their sins are cast into the fiery abyss to be tormented for all eternity by demons.Now by your reckoning these events and beings fail to be evidence of anything supernatural simply by virtue of being "identified".So according to you even as unsaved non-believers such as myself are flung into the fiery abyss to be tortured by demons for all eternity we can congratulate ourselved on our rational rejection of all things supernatural because there remains absolutely no evidence of supernatural beings actually existing. All is natural in the world. Right up to and including the end of times occurring as biblically foretold. Hurrah for the supernatural skeptics say you even as you too are handed judgement of your eternal fate from Christ himself. Surely the above scenario would qualify as evidence of the supetnatural?

Straggler writes: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?

Straggler writes: 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"?

Straggler writes: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?

Straggler writes:So what are these definitional differences?

Straggler writes:What does being dead have to do with your ability to know enough to move things from the "unknown folder" to a "supernatural folder" as per your argument throughout this thread? If the end of times as invoked by the divine will of an omnipotent being fails to qualify as supernatural and necessarily goes in the "known" or "unknown" folder why does your post-death experience not also necessarily do the same?Can you at least see why this seems like an inconsistent application of your folder criteria? Can you clear up this apparent inconsistency?