The Movie Paranormal Activity

Without a scientific explanation for it, its not going to count as being evidenced. If its evidenced, with a scientific explanation, then its not going to count as being supernatural.From Message 46:

quote:

---

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?

---

If that does count, then so should the experiences of ghost-like things. Or the prophesies of Jim Jones to his followers. Those believers would have just as much positive evidence. And thus, we'd have a source outside of their imagination.But that doesn't count as a "known" source, because it lacks scientific explanation. If the scientists were not scratching their heads and unable to explain or replicate it, but instead they had an explanation and could replicate it, then it wouldn't be called supernatural anymore. But them scratching their heads, and unable to explain it, doesn't mean that it should be called supernatural. Why not leave it as unknown? What evidence is there that it is supernatural?

Show me the important disctinction and exemplify it. What does "demonstrated to exist" mean? His prophesies were the demonstration. Jonestown, Guyana, 1978. Depends on what you mean by "demonstrate"...

See Message 402 for my response.

That depends on what you mean by "Evidenced"...Typically, people mean that its scientifically explained. But I agree that you don't have to define it that way. Here, you'd have a reason to believe something happened, but not actual "evidence" that it did happen. Typically, people would not count that as actual evidence then. But yes, it would be a good reason for you to accept them.

I don't disagree, I'm just saying that's not what people are typically talking about when they ask about evidence. Take the OP:

quote:

---

And would footage like that actually be objectively considered to be evidence of real paranormal activity?

---

Do you think they're just asking if it would hold up in court or not? Sometimes people do use the word 'evidence' more loosely in the sense of it just being a reason for belief. But usually when people are discussing whether something is evidence or not, they are talking about in the scientific sense. To each his own, I guess.