The Movie Paranormal Activity

You can't even imagine a test that could be applied in either scenario. But you believe that there might be some way of knowing in one scenario but not the other anyway. And should you ever experience biblical Armageddon you might also find that there are methods of knowing and tests for supernaturality revealed to you that you cannot currently imagine and which are only available under those specific conditions.Yet you have decided this is impossible whilst embracing the same possibility in the equally hypothetical once-I-am dead scenario.A distinction based on personal belief about the possible nature of death. Nothing more.

Learn to read what I say.If I am presented with a valid way to test for the supernatural while I am still living then I will gladly reconsider my position.I have been through some Biblical Armageddon experiences in my past, but so far they have been found to be perfectly natural. I have been beset by demons, but it turned out they were but demons of my own making. I have been cast into the fiery pit, but it was just the roof collapsing under me dropping me into the attic of the burning house.If you have some test, please tell me about it and I will gladly reconsider my position.I have also not embraced anything after I am dead. i have said repeatedly that I cannot know since I have never been dead. What I have said is that MAYBE (please note the word) after I am dead I may know of some test to detect the supernatural. But you will have to ask me then.

---

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

And equally MAYBE (please note the word) some currently unimaginable method of knowing or testing will be revealed to you as part of biblical Armageddon. Well should you ever experience biblical Armageddon whilst alive some currently unimaginable method of doing this might present itself to you mightn't it? You have embraced the POSSIBILITY in one scenario and denied the POSSIBILITY in the other. A distinction made on no basis other than personal belief.

Bullshit.Sorry but I have asked repeatedly for a test but so far you have failed to produce one.I have said repeatedly that I would gladly reconsider my position if you presented such a test but so far you have failed to provide one.It really is that simple.

---

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

Well, I'm going to sum this thread up as; "there is no amount of photographic or video evidence that skeptics will accept because each and every single one of them absolutely has to be a hoax because many of them are."Thank you for your responses gentlemen.

But there never has been any photographic or video evidence, so why would we suddenly now think there might be.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I'd suspect law of averages, but that's just an instinctual response.But I'm pretty much done with this.

Law of averages? Are you freaking kidding me?There has never , ever been any photographic or video evidence of the supernatural and you think the law of averages will make it be true so me day?You do realize the law of averages isn't a real law. It isn't even correct.I will let wiki explain.

quote:

---

The law of averages is a lay term used to express a belief that outcomes of a random event will "even out" within a small sample.

​

As invoked in everyday life, the "law" usually reflects bad statistics or wishful thinking rather than any mathematical principle. While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term "balance" must occur.[1] Typical applications of the law also generally assume no bias in the underlying probability distribution, which is frequently at odds with the empirical evidence.

---

SourceIf something has never existed why would it suddenly exist?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I have no answer that'll satisfy you or that you'll accept in any way shape or form.And I'm done with this subject.

Wow, it's like you were able to convince yourself of the very proposition you held when you opened the thread! What are the odds?!

Fictional supernatural beings are supernatural only in the sense that the author has bestowed such powers to them.A unexplained, unverified ghost visitation is supernatural in the sense that it violates the laws of physics and leaves no evidence.So you see we can have both fictional and reality based concepts of what is supernatural. I did not start the "folder" thing.The latter is unexplained, the former is known to us as fiction.
Does this seem reasonable?

The hypothetical test in either of the two scenarios is both currently unimaginable and specific to the scenario in question. So I haven't produced a test for my scenario and you haven't produced one for yours. Then you must accept that no distinction can be made between the two scenarios with regard to the possibility of testing for supernaturality.Thus you have no basis for making a distinction aside from personal belief.

OK. This is only supernatural in the sense that the witness has described it as a "ghost" and in doing so bestowed such powers and violations of natural laws on it.The same person concluding that it was probably a trick of the light or a shadow would not call the same phenomenon supernatural at all. They might say the cause was unknown. But they wouldn't say supernatural. The first is known to us as fiction. The second is only known to us as "supernatural" because people wish to express the belief that they have witnessed something spooky, mysterious and inexplicable.In either case supernaturality is derived from the "author" of the description. Not the event itself.But should we ever find verifiable evidence of conscious but immaterial beings which are able to somehow interract with the material world (e.g. emit light so as to be seen) at will - Then we will have evidence of ghosts. Until that happy day we only have examples of people ascribing "spooky" qualities to unverifiable experiences.

Of course I can make a distinction, in one scenario I am dead. Trust me, that is a distinction.I have never denied a possibility, I have said I cannot imagine any possible way to test for the supernatural while I'm alive. I have also repeatedly said that if such a test was made available that I would gladly reconsider my position.So far, nothing has been present that even approaches reason to reconsider my position.

---

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

It is a distinction, but everything we presently know about being dead would suggest it would hamper your testing capacities. Could you explain what makes you think there is a possibility that it would enable you to test where it would otherwise be impossible? What about asking a number of trusted friends and family (or even former scientists!) (who are also dead) to carry out tests by proxy?I assume that being dead means you think there is some possibility that you cross some 'barrier' that while alive prevents testing? If you can cross it by dying - perhaps there is some methodology for crossing in the other direction. If this was to happen, you could move the mountain to Mohammed and avoid the death problem altogether, surely?I think simply labelling all things that are known as being 'natural' is daft. You end up just having 'natural' and 'real' being synonyms which is another way of saying 'I am a physicalist/materialist/metaphysical naturalist'. But 'you', say many supernaturalists' are also part of the supernatural world. So according to this reasoning, you should be able to imagine positive evidence for the supernatural.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.