NationStates Jolt Archive

After watching the Ghost Hunters marathon on the SciFi channel, the show raised my curiosity. Do you believe in things like EVP, hauntings, etc?

Also what do you guys think about these supposed EVPs?
http://www.putfile.com/ghostconnection

Not at all.

Tis a touchy subject. I do and I don't, I'm to lazy to go into details at the moment.

I do, and I love reasearching about the history behind the haunted spots! People think it's weird, but who gives a rats ass?

Unequivocally no.

Nah. If there is anything paranormal out there, it's quiet enough, insignificant enough, and rare enough that it hasn't come to light. If anything practical or significant was out there, these people's (http://www.randi.org) prize would already be won.

I'm agnostic in all things. Which means that as far as I'm concerned, paranormal things could be happening. Then again, as far as I'm concerned I could be the love child of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spagetti Monster (He touched Her with His Noodley Appendege!:fluffle: )sent to earth to bring everyone to the land of cupcakes and star trek, but only after debating with them on web forums and determining that they actually have a brain!

It may or may not be out there, but until I see a ghost, I really am not going to care.

Although I do know a girl (as far as I can tell, completely nondelusional) who swears she's seen a unicorn. *shrug*

It may or may not be out there, but until I see a ghost, I really am not going to care.

Although I do know a girl (as far as I can tell, completely nondelusional) who swears she's seen a unicorn. *shrug*

Tell her to stop smoking weed, either that or give you some!

Egon and I are good pals, and I was blasting Sigourney Weaver 'before' I found out she was Gozer.

Most paranormal activies are likely natural in the universe and the ones that are not natural are faked. So yes and no.

Most paranormal activies are likely natural in the universe and the ones that are not natural are faked. So yes and no.

Ummm k, explain some more and give us examples please.

I think TAPS is a pretty reliable source of paranormal information, as it stands. Y'know - as far as paranormal information goes.

I'm pretty sure ghosts exist. What I never got around to thinking about is how, if ghosts existing was proven, would that affect religion? I'm not aware of anyplace in the bible that mentions being stuck on earth for a while with the vague ability to knock things over.

Ummm k, explain some more and give us examples please.

For example: ESP could be a natural ablity of humans( and animals too)
Ghosts, if they exist, may be residual energy imprinted at a certain location....hmm...I think i need some sleep. The point is all phanomon in the universe must be government by the laws of physics.

For example: ESP could be a natural ablity of humans( and animals too)
Ghosts, if they exist, may be residual energy imprinted at a certain location....hmm...I think i need some sleep. The point is all phanomon in the universe must be government by the laws of physics.

Yea, but what if there's some knowledge of the universe that we do not understand yet, or haven't unlocked that would explain the Paranormal?

Yea, but what if there's some knowledge of the universe that we do not understand yet, or haven't unlocked that would explain the Paranormal?
If you explain it, it isn't paranormal anymore.

And no, I don't believe in the paranormal.

Most paranormal activies are likely natural in the universe and the ones that are not natural are faked. So yes and no.
Seconded

Paranormal phenomena does not by definition exist. Anything which occurs within the universe must occur in accordance with natural law.


That said do I believe unexplained phenomena occurs? Duh! There is more about this universe that we don't know than we do know, so that is a big yes.


Do I believe in phenomena which is unexplained which we describe as "paranormal?" That I answer in the affirmative, but I don't believe it to be what others believe it to be.


Ghosts as souls of the departed is non-sense. What I don't think is non-sensical is extra-dimensional beings watching us from where-ever they are and human beings accidentally (or perhaps purposefully, I mean who can scrutinize the motives of extra-terrestrial beings) seeing small tidbits of evidence of their existence.

With the amount of time and space this universe (including all its various dimensions) I find it hard to believe that there are not VASTLY superior, at the very least technologically speaking anway, races in the universe. And thus there can and should be "aliens" inhabiting just about every last corner of the universe. The fact that we "can't detect them" is easy. The window of detectability is so small its virtually impossible to find evidence of these beings if they don't want us to find them.


Case in point: Take a modern stealth bomber and fly it over the US of the 1950's at night. It's almost certain that no one will notice a bloody thing. It would go virtually if not entirely undetected, and if it were found it would be a one in a million accident of a kid with a telescope observing some kind of miniscule distortion in the upper atmosphere.

Long story short if 50 years of technological difference is enough to make something nigh on impossible to find, then what do you all think 500 or 10,000, or a million years of difference would do?

NT

Paranormal phenomena does not by definition exist. Anything which occurs within the universe must occur in accordance with natural law.


That said do I believe unexplained phenomena occurs? Duh! There is more about this universe that we don't know than we do know, so that is a big yes.

NT
That's what I was saying just I think you put it better.

No I don't.

After watching the Ghost Hunters marathon on the SciFi channel, the show raised my curiosity. Do you believe in things like EVP, hauntings, etc?

Also what do you guys think about these supposed EVPs?
http://www.putfile.com/ghostconnection

No. So much bulldust.

I don't believe in anything, so far as I can tell. Things either exist or they don't. Belief is irrelevant.
If they exist you can examine them and understand them.
If you wish to know if something exists you can investigate it to attempt to find out.

Lots of things are going on between heaven and earth - while I'm not really convinced I certainly wouldn't rule it out, either. (Besides, you can't really when you're religious...)

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/ghostbuster.gif

After watching the Ghost Hunters marathon on the SciFi channel, the show raised my curiosity. Do you believe in things like EVP, hauntings, etc?
Since i have personal experience with matters peculiar enough to be deemed "paranormal", i would say that i don't necessarily believe in them, but they certainly believe in me.

Also what do you guys think about these supposed EVPs?
http://www.putfile.com/ghostconnectionAFAIK, never happened to me.
I suspect there's still time though.

Yes, I do think they exist, at least in some form.

However, a group of so-called "psychics" in a dark and scary place can convince themselves they "experienced" anything.

The TV shows are all bullshit.

That's the word I couldn't remember... paranormal. Thank you.

No, I don't believe in it.

EDIT: I suppose I should say why. The supernatural is the big unknown/unknowable. The thing about it is that we cannot know it directly. It does not intrude into the physical world (as then it would be natural, not supernatual) and we have no ability to directly examine things that are immaterial, because our perception only perceives things physically. So, by default, whatever people see when they observe something paranormal, it is not 'spirit', it is not god, it IS something natural, and therefore explainable.

That's not to say these things don't happen, just that I don't believe that they happen the way people claim that they happen.

Yes, I do think they exist, at least in some form.

However, a group of so-called "psychics" in a dark and scary place can convince themselves they "experienced" anything.

The TV shows are all bullshit.

TAPS, the guys on Ghost Hunters, aren't psychics. They "go into a house seeking to disprove the haunting", and use a mixture of theory and scientific evidence to record and detect what they consider to be paranormal activity. Watch the show some time, they're pretty good.

That there are things we don't know about is a given, that such a thing as a ghosts exists is also a given, why we call this paranormal, or supernatural, i ndon't rightly know, nor an I explain what a ghost is, but do i belive? Yep of course I do.

Well, we can't say paranormal anymore, because the masses now understand it. So we're going to relabel it the quasinormal.

Incidentally, yes, I believe in the quasinormal. And it's name is NSG.

After watching the Ghost Hunters marathon on the SciFi channel, the show raised my curiosity. Do you believe in things like EVP, hauntings, etc?

Also what do you guys think about these supposed EVPs?
http://www.putfile.com/ghostconnection
Laughable. "Paranormal phenomena" are Dark Ages concepts that have been repackaged with scientific-sounding words.

TAPS, the guys on Ghost Hunters, aren't psychics. They "go into a house seeking to disprove the haunting", and use a mixture of theory and scientific evidence to record and detect what they consider to be paranormal activity. Watch the show some time, they're pretty good.


Yah, theyre all the same.

They use handhelp emp detectors, or video cameras, and attempt to get "real" evidence.
However, they rarely use the most logical explainations.

For instance, I saw one wherein the readings were off the chart, and the "scientists" were convinced it was a sure sign of paranormal activity.
However, the house was simply built in a location that intersected between some power station towers, and such readings could be taken all over within a half-mile radius.

Using technology to prove, or disprove the existance of the supernatural is always pointless.
The user will assign his own conclusion, not always the one his equipment gives him.

I despise television pyschics, btw.

Laughable. "Paranormal phenomena" are Dark Ages concepts that have been repackaged with scientific-sounding words.

Not really. Watch the show, seriously. They actually try to disprove the haunting and use equipment to measure various effects of paranormal activity (heat, cold, EVP, EMF, etc) - they're pretty reluctant to come out and say a place is definitively haunted, but when they do it's only after they have enough evidence to say it.

I'm sure after watching the whole series you probably did believe. (I wish I knew there was a marathon, I love that show). The thing about TAPS is that they actually go to a site to DISPROVE a haunting, unlike other researchers who go to prove it. So yeah, TAPS gets good stuff that isn't tampered to try and prove a haunting. It's all very convincing, and there probably are ghosts and the like, however I'd like to see one myself (at least in the daylight if any care enough to be polite). So, I don't not believe, I'd just like some hard evidence that isn't on tape or a recording or a picture of the like.

Yah, theyre all the same.

They use handhelp emp detectors, or video cameras, and attempt to get "real" evidence.
However, they rarely use the most logical explainations.

For instance, I saw one wherein the readings were off the chart, and the "scientists" were convinced it was a sure sign of paranormal activity.
However, the house was simply built in a location that intersected between some power station towers, and such readings could be taken all over within a half-mile radius.

Using technology to prove, or disprove the existance of the supernatural is always pointless.
The user will assign his own conclusion, not always the one his equipment gives him.

I despise television pyschics, btw.

It happened to them once - they found insane EMF readings all over this guy's house, and didn't jump to conclusions. Found out the electric box was open and the wiring was fucked and running through the copper plumbing. They're not impulsive people - at least, the two founders aren't, and they have the last say in regards to the opinion of paranormal activity in a house.


They're not psychics, btw. They'll say they have "weird feelings" in a place, but they specifically say they don't use that as evidence because it can't be objective.

Not really. Watch the show, seriously. They actually try to disprove the haunting and use equipment to measure various effects of paranormal activity (heat, cold, EVP, EMF, etc) - they're pretty reluctant to come out and say a place is definitively haunted, but when they do it's only after they have enough evidence to say it.
Seen it all before. They are recycling time-honored practices that have been employed by con artists for centuries.

It's TELEVISION, people. It's a show. A television show. You honestly are telling me that you believe in spooks because you saw some guys play with gizmos on the teevee?

Not really. Watch the show, seriously. They actually try to disprove the haunting and use equipment to measure various effects of paranormal activity (heat, cold, EVP, EMF, etc) - they're pretty reluctant to come out and say a place is definitively haunted, but when they do it's only after they have enough evidence to say it.
But finding a natural explanation does not disprove the supernatural.

Seen it all before. They are recycling time-honored practices that have been employed by con artists for centuries.

It's TELEVISION, people. It's a show. A television show. You honestly are telling me that you believe in spooks because you saw some guys play with gizmos on the teevee?

*shrugs* I'm not jaded enough to believe that everything on television is a lie. Enjoy your world of darkness and misery.

But finding a natural explanation does not disprove the supernatural.
Pretty much, yeah. You cannot use natural means to prove or disprove the supernatural. It's dishonest to claim otherwise, in either direction, so these "ghost hunters" and such are liars before the show even starts.

But finding a natural explanation does not disprove the supernatural.

Never said that. I'm just saying they're not one of those uppity "OMG I can sense the ghosties" retarded paranormal investigators.

*shrugs* I'm not jaded enough to believe that everything on television is a lie. Enjoy your world of darkness and misery.
Oh, I get it. Critical thinking skills = world of darkness and misery.

Funny, that. There was a time when belief in the supernatural ruled supreme, and critical examination of fact was often regarded as wicked and heretical. We call that time "The Dark Ages."

Personally, I'll take "darkness and misery" over "believing any two-bit huckster with a teevee show" any day of the week.

But finding a natural explanation does not disprove the supernatural.


Wrong approach.

The sensible approach when dealing with the supernatural is to eliminate any other possibility, and THEN start assuming its supernatural.

Often times, the "ghost" has a perfectly mundane explanation.

However, not all the time.

Pretty much, yeah. You cannot use natural means to prove or disprove the supernatural. It's dishonest to claim otherwise, in either direction, so these "ghost hunters" and such are liars before the show even starts.
...unless they only claim to find an alternative explanation.

I've never actually seen the show.

Pretty much, yeah. You cannot use natural means to prove or disprove the supernatural. It's dishonest to claim otherwise, in either direction, so these "ghost hunters" and such are liars before the show even starts.

Obviously that's not true. If it interacts with the natural world, then it has to at least somewhat abide by their laws. EMF spikes, cold/hotspots, EVP recordings, sometimes even full body apparitions - all of these things have been found and recorded by TAPS, and not always have been blamed on paranormal means, only when it was obvious.

Wrong approach.

The sensible approach when dealing with the supernatural is to eliminate any other possibility, and THEN start assuming its supernatural.

Often times, the "ghost" has a perfectly mundane explanation.

However, not all the time.
The thing about the supernatural is that it is an alternative explanation that can never be eliminated --which is why it is not scientific.

Oh, I get it. Critical thinking skills = world of darkness and misery.

Funny, that. There was a time when belief in the supernatural ruled supreme, and critical examination of fact was often regarded as wicked and heretical. We call that time "The Dark Ages."

Personally, I'll take "darkness and misery" over "believing any two-bit huckster with a teevee show" any day of the week.


Bottle...

We live in a country dominated by the Christian-Right-Wing-Jesusthumpingcrazies....

The supernatural STILL rules the world.

Wrong approach.

The sensible approach when dealing with the supernatural is to eliminate any other possibility, and THEN start assuming its supernatural.

Often times, the "ghost" has a perfectly mundane explanation.

However, not all the time.

That's what they do! They get reports of a door opening and closing by itself, they test the door to see how heavy it is, how much force is needed to push it open, is it possible for a certain amount of force to unlatch the door in the first place. If it's a solid door that would need an actual amount of force, no amount of draft wind, then they chalk it up to the "We can't explain it" list and move on - if, later, they find more evidence of the paranormal, then they feel it's safe enough to attribute the door to the paranormal activity in the house. Especially since, sometimes, they actually get the door on video, and you clearly see there's nobody there to open or close it.

The thing about the supernatural is that it is an alternative explanation that can never be eliminated --which is why it is not scientific.


Thats the thing..

It CAN be eliminated.

The cold spot on the floor?
Poor insulation...

The lights flickering on and off....shoddy, or worn electrical wiring.

The mundane wins, again, and again.....but not everytime.

Oh, I get it. Critical thinking skills = world of darkness and misery.

Funny, that. There was a time when belief in the supernatural ruled supreme, and critical examination of fact was often regarded as wicked and heretical. We call that time "The Dark Ages."

Personally, I'll take "darkness and misery" over "believing any two-bit huckster with a teevee show" any day of the week.

Critical thinking skills are good. Guess what I've been saying this whole time: They USE critical thinking skills. Just because they're on TV doesn't mean it's any less credible, especially when they're recording it and have seemingly solid proof of something happening. If anything you're not using critical thinking, just kneejerking yourself into not accepting anything that comes from the evil box of lies and pictures.

Obviously that's not true. If it interacts with the natural world, then it has to at least somewhat abide by their laws. EMF spikes, cold/hotspots, EVP recordings, sometimes even full body apparitions - all of these things have been found and recorded by TAPS, and not always have been blamed on paranormal means, only when it was obvious.
Not at all. Supernatural beings and forces are, by definition, not bound by the laws of the natural world. There is no reason whatsoever to assume they will follow any of the natural rules we know. The scientific method simply will not work on supernatural beings or forces, because it cannot.

Thats the thing..

It CAN be eliminated.

The cold spot on the floor?
Poor insulation...

The lights flickering on and off....shoddy, or worn electrical wiring.

The mundane wins, again, and again.....but not everytime.

Exactly. They found, in their thermal camera recording, the figure of a guy with a hat standing right next to them. They ran tests to make sure it wasn't the camera glitching out or reacting to some kind of reflection they may have had on the surface of the wall or anything else. In the end, it was dubbed a full body apparition.

Thats the thing..

It CAN be eliminated.

The cold spot on the floor?
Poor insulation...

The lights flickering on and off....shoddy, or worn electrical wiring.

The mundane wins, again, and again.....but not everytime.
No. All you are doing is finding the best natural explanation. You have not eliminated the supernatural explanation, nor affected it at all.

Look, a BETTER natural explanation can replace another natural explanation, because both are testable, both are eliminatable, both are comparable. The supernatural explanation cannot be touched --it is not replaced by a BETTER natural explanation (better than what, in that case?) or any natural explanation at all.

It's like looking at an orange and saying it disproves apples.

Not at all. Supernatural beings and forces are, by definition, not bound by the laws of the natural world. There is no reason whatsoever to assume they will follow any of the natural rules we know. The scientific method simply will not work on supernatural beings or forces, because it cannot.

You assume to know a lot for someone who doesn't believe in it. How do you know what supernatural beings are capable of and not capable of? Have you ever sat down and talked to one? No? Kay then.

Thats the thing..

It CAN be eliminated.

The cold spot on the floor?
Poor insulation...

The lights flickering on and off....shoddy, or worn electrical wiring.

The mundane wins, again, and again.....but not everytime.
Hardly. The shoddy or worn electrical lighting could be the result of the spooks' activity! The poor insulation could be the direct result of the presence of a ghost in the floorboards. You can make up any answer you want. You can justify any theory at all, because the supernatural is not bound by the laws of natural reality.

No. All you are doing is finding the best natural explanation. You have not eliminated the supernatural explanation, nor affected it at all.

Look, a BETTER natural explanation can replace another natural explanation, because both are testable, both are eliminatable, both are comparable. The supernatural explanation cannot be touched --it is not replaced by a BETTER natural explanation (better than what, in that case?) or any natural explanation at all.

It's like looking at an orange and saying it disproves apples.

It's more like looking at an orange with a glowing red dot on it and saying they really can't find out any natural explanation to why there's a glowing red dot on this orange.

Hardly. The shoddy or worn electrical lighting could be the result of the spooks' activity! The poor insulation could be the direct result of the presence of a ghost in the floorboards. You can make up any answer you want. You can justify any theory at all, because the supernatural is not bound by the laws of natural reality.

How do you know that!? God -_- You're not a ghost! They might be bound to the houses and the laws, they might just be fucking with us - we're not sure, but we're using what little science we can apply to figure it out. It's cynical thinking like yours that keeps it from ever really helping.

Hardly. The shoddy or worn electrical lighting could be the result of the spooks' activity! The poor insulation could be the direct result of the presence of a ghost in the floorboards. You can make up any answer you want. You can justify any theory at all, because the supernatural is not bound by the laws of natural reality.


You know, when you take the opposition like that, you almost sound like one of 'em.

Scary, huh?

It's more like looking at an orange with a glowing red dot on it and saying they really can't find out any natural explanation to why there's a glowing red dot on this orange.
Ah-ha! But if it's an observable phenomena, there is ALWAYS a natural explanation.

Of course, to claim to have to work so hard to find it is better television.

How do you know that!? God -_- You're not a ghost! They might be bound to the houses and the laws, they might just be fucking with us - we're not sure, but we're using what little science we can apply to figure it out. It's cynical thinking like yours that keeps it from ever really helping.
Because a 'ghost' is claimed to be supernatural.

Now if the claim is changed to say it's natural, then it can affect things.

Ah-ha! But if it's an observable phenomena, there is ALWAYS a natural explanation.

Of course, to claim to have to work so hard to find it is better television.

Why if it's observable does it have to have a natural explanation? Where is that law written? Watch the show, see some of the shit they catch on film, tell me there's a natural explanation they somehow overlooked, then I'll believe you.

Because a 'ghost' is claimed to be supernatural.

Now if the claim is changed to say it's natural, then it can affect things.

The definition of supernatural is skewed, then. Ghosts are, technically, natural. They occur in nature, because people are part of nature.

You assume to know a lot for someone who doesn't believe in it. How do you know what supernatural beings are capable of and not capable of? Have you ever sat down and talked to one? No? Kay then.
Because the supernatural is unknown/unknowable. If it ever becomes known it becomes knowable, and therefore has changed the nature of its existence (i.e. it is no longer supernatural, and therefore cannot be claimed to be supernatural anymore).

Why if it's observable does it have to have a natural explanation? Where is that law written? Watch the show, see some of the shit they catch on film, tell me there's a natural explanation they somehow overlooked, then I'll believe you.
Because of how our physical body perceives things physically.

The definition of supernatural is skewed, then. Ghosts are, technically, natural. They occur in nature, because people are part of nature.
Okay; if the claim is not made that they are spirit or immaterial beings, then I'm fine with that.

People, people, I have a number of points.

First, not only is it quasinormal instead of paranormal, we're going to use paranatural now. Just to confuse people. ;)

Second, paranatural phenomenom or not, I'd like to remind you, that this show is on Sci-Fi. That's Science Fiction

Third, if the trolls you find here in NSG aren't quasinormal and paranatural, what is?

No. All you are doing is finding the best natural explanation.

So the easiest, most likely, most intensely probable answer isnt the best choice?

Why would you assume the most unlikely answer?

"Yeah, I suppose it COULD have been martians, but since we dont have any on hand to referrence, we'll just chalk it up to Sasquatches?"

Remember what we are talking about.

The supernatural, in particular, hauntings and ghosts and such.

If for instance you had a cold spot on your floor somewhere, and you remember hearing someone say that long ago, someone had died there....

Would it be logical to automatically assume that the cold spot was the work of some sort of supernatural entity?
Or if you had discovered crappy insulation, inside an old house, assume that there might be a draft coming through the wall?

Hey Scooby, I think we've solved the mystery, and Jesus would have gotten away with it, if it werent for you meddling kids!



Look, a BETTER natural explanation can replace another natural explanation, because both are testable, both are eliminatable, both are comparable. The supernatural explanation cannot be touched --it is not replaced by a BETTER natural explanation (better than what, in that case?) or any natural explanation at all.

It's like looking at an orange and saying it disproves apples.

Woah, slow down..

Your looking at too grand a picture here.

We arent talking about the existance of a certain supernatural entity who shall remain nameless, less this thread be consumed by "yes he does/No he doesnt" quaqmire.

Were talking about the existance of ghosts and hauntings and whatnot.

What we are discussing, are events, who's origins, are questionable.
Wether or not said events have a rational, logical, and NORMAL explanation.
If they do not, they are then SUPERnatural.
Agreed?

So then, when witnessing such an event, it is foolhardy to assume the most unlikely reason for its occurance, even if, you do not dismiss it entirely.

So the easiest, most likely, most intensely probable answer isnt the best choice?

Why would you assume the most unlikely answer?

"Yeah, I suppose it COULD have been martians, but since we dont have any on hand to referrence, we'll just chalk it up to Sasquatches?"

Remember what we are talking about.

The supernatural, in particular, hauntings and ghosts and such.

If for instance you had a cold spot on your floor somewhere, and you remember hearing someone say that long ago, someone had died there....

Would it be logical to automatically assume that the cold spot was the work of some sort of supernatural entity?
Or if you had discovered crappy insulation, inside an old house, assume that there might be a draft coming through the wall?

Hey Scooby, I think we've solved the mystery, and Jesus would have gotten away with it, if it werent for you meddling kids!




Woah, slow down..

Your looking at too grand a picture here.

We arent talking about the existance of a certain supernatural entity who shall remain nameless, less this thread be consumed by "yes he does/No he doesnt" quaqmire.

Were talking about the existance of ghosts and hauntings and whatnot.

What we are discussing, are events, who's origins, are questionable.
Wether or not said events have a rational, logical, and NORMAL explanation.
If they do not, they are then SUPERnatural.
Agreed?

So then, when witnessing such an event, it is foolhardy to assume the most unlikely reason for its occurance, even if, you do not dismiss it entirely.

Paranatural!

I'm neutral on the issue.

So the easiest, most likely, most intensely probable answer isnt the best choice?

Why would you assume the most unlikely answer?

"Yeah, I suppose it COULD have been martians, but since we dont have any on hand to referrence, we'll just chalk it up to Sasquatches?"
The best explanation IS the natural one, and because we're natural it supercedes the supernatural explanation, but it doesn't eliminate it. The supernatural explanation always says basically, "some unknown supernatural thing is in there causing things to happen." Finding a natural explanation doesn't eliminate that possibility --if the unseen supernatural thing manipulates the natural things and all you measure is the interaction of natural things, it says nothing about the supernatural thing. We can't measure the supernatural thing.

Would it be logical to automatically assume that the cold spot was the work of some sort of supernatural entity?
Not logical, no, because we are rational beings and the natural explanation is sufficient to explain it.

What it doesn't explain is the supernatural being, and if that is not included in the explanation then we have not accounted for it, and therefore we cannot rule it out.

Woah, slow down..

Your looking at too grand a picture here.

We arent talking about the existance of a certain supernatural entity who shall remain nameless, less this thread be consumed by "yes he does/No he doesnt" quaqmire.

Were talking about the existance of ghosts and hauntings and whatnot.

What we are discussing, are events, who's origins, are questionable.
Wether or not said events have a rational, logical, and NORMAL explanation.
If they do not, they are then SUPERnatural.
Agreed?

So then, when witnessing such an event, it is foolhardy to assume the most unlikely reason for its occurance, even if, you do not dismiss it entirely.
Ghosts are the 'spirit' of humans. God is 'spirit'. The 'spirit' is supernatural. With the supernatural explanation, the existence of the supernatural is not in question, it is assumed. It is already there, and the natural phenomena is what is being experienced, being explained.

Paranormal is another thing, granted. Paranormal looks at it from another angle, as "an unexplained phenomena", and then brings in a supernatural being as the explanation. There, the supernatural is not assumed, it is appended as an explanation. If that conclusion is reached, it is the worse abuse of science.

After watching the Ghost Hunters marathon on the SciFi channel, the show raised my curiosity. Do you believe in things like EVP, hauntings, etc?



Nope

You know, I really want TAPS to do the Amityville House in Long Island NY. I think that would be their best show ever! Now to get Brian Wilson (the current owner of the house) to let them do it.

Yes.

I don't, however, believe in the normal.

After watching the Ghost Hunters marathon on the SciFi channel, the show raised my curiosity. Do you believe in things like EVP, hauntings, etc?

Also what do you guys think about these supposed EVPs?
http://www.putfile.com/ghostconnection

not during the day i don't (although don't ask me why ghosts would only come out at night :p) and luckily i work at night so i don't even think about it then. so, on balance, no. oh, and what's EVP?

For example: ESP could be a natural ablity of humans( and animals too)
Ghosts, if they exist, may be residual energy imprinted at a certain location....hmm...I think i need some sleep. The point is all phanomon in the universe must be government by the laws of physics.
Every time rigorous double blind tests of ESP are tried ESP fails. That tells me it's fake.

You assume to know a lot for someone who doesn't believe in it. How do you know what supernatural beings are capable of and not capable of? Have you ever sat down and talked to one? No? Kay then.
She just happens to know the definition of the word supernatural. The supernatural is by definition above or outside nature. Since the scientific method is designed to study the natural world, it's a poor choice for testing the supernatural. That's like studying Japanese in order to understand American sign language. They're simply not connected.

No

Actually I believe in the paranormal, just not in the way that most people think of it. I don't really believe in all the ghouls and goblins. However, I think that when a person dies violently or whatever, they leave behind a negative fingerprint of sorts, and when the human mind comes in contact with that, they perhaps see images of these dead people walking around, or whatever.

Over the past 8 hours I was at work - sorry.

Back to debating.

If what you think to be "supernatural" cannot possibly be percieved, then I simply must say that ghosts are not supernatural. They are spiritual, but they don't fit -your- frame of thought, in that they must be physical and traceable to be percievable. So yeah, they're paranatural. Happy?

I've seen ghosts myself, so I know they can be percieved - Also, I've seen what's on Ghost Hunters and they actually catch very compelling film evidence of paranatural hauntings.

Seriously, if you haven't seen the show and haven't seen what evidence they have, you can't debunk what evidence you don't know about.

Yeah, the channel is called "Sci-Fi", because the genre of "Sci-Fi" is fiction that may possibly happen in the scientific future - since the creation of the genre it's grown past that into its own existence, spreading out from just proposing what might happen to the world in the year 20XX to actual investigation of paranatural events.

Look, I fuckin' hate the Sci-Fi channel and all it's "original" movies as much as the next person, but just because it's ON the Sci-Fi channel does not make it automatically bullshit. It leans there, and I gotta say the first few times I watched the show I wasn't convinced they weren't bullshitters, but eventually you learn that they're actual investigations.

Strongest evidence to them having good credability? They don't always find something. In fact, they RARELY find anything that the founders can't dismiss with some other explanation. The rare event when they -do- find something, though, is just that much better because it's been scrutinized over and over, given every possibility they could think of, tried to be recreated, and in the end they couldn't explain it with anything other than a paranatural occurance.

To sum up: WATCH THE SHOW. You don't have to believe all of it, just watch it for the sake of watching it, at least then you'll know what you're arguing against.

Paranatural is a good word. "Para-" means something "to the side of" or "beside" something else, and implies that there is more than meets the eye.

Unfortunately, I don't get the Sci-Fi channel.

I did not say that ghosts are not real, or do not exist. I just disputed that the supernatural was disproved.

Paranatural is a good word. "Para-" means something "to the side of" or "beside" something else, and implies that there is more than meets the eye.

Unfortunately, I don't get the Sci-Fi channel.

I did not say that ghosts are not real, or do not exist. I just disputed that the supernatural was disproved.

Agreed. Supernatural, by definition, has defeated itself.

Agreed. Supernatural, by definition, has defeated itself.
Well, that's nothing that I said, but okay.

Well, that's nothing that I said, but okay.

By your definition of supernaturality not being able to exist on a percievable plane, you've effectively destroyed it with, essentially, its own definition.

So it's simply a case of paranaturality being mistermed.

There is nothing but sketchy anecdotal evidence supporting any sort of activity one would dub to be 'paranormal' and overwhelming mountains of evidence supporting the very well established natural laws of the universe which we call 'physics' and which any one of the supposed 'paranormal activities' would contradict. In light of that evidence, I hold the view that nothing that you might call a paranormal activity exists. I don't "believe" anything, I look at what evidence there is supporting an idea and I make a conclusion from there. I urge you all to do the same instead of blindly holding beliefs.

You should also check out James Randi's website, and his million dollar paranormal challenge:
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

There is nothing but sketchy anecdotal evidence supporting any sort of activity one would dub to be 'paranormal' and overwhelming mountains of evidence supporting the very well established natural laws of the universe which we call 'physics' and which any one of the supposed 'paranormal activities' would contradict. In light of that evidence, I hold the view that nothing that you might call a paranormal activity exists. I don't "believe" anything, I look at what evidence there is supporting an idea and I make a conclusion from there. I urge you all to do the same instead of blindly holding beliefs.

You should also check out James Randi's website, and his million dollar paranormal challenge:
http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

If you think all evidence if anecdotal, you've obviously ignored the entire thread and have not seen the show. They catch fairly decent evidence, I'd say, once out of every five or so investigations. They've only had about three really really good discoveries out of the whole series, but three is enough. Still, it's probably not enough for Randi - they try to have it so others can believe what they see, even if they're staunch skeptics. Sometimes they succeed, but some skeptics won't ever see it and will always accept that there's some way it could've been faked and would rather try to stain their credibility than accept their evidence.

By your definition of supernaturality not being able to exist on a percievable plane, you've effectively destroyed it with, essentially, its own definition.

So it's simply a case of paranaturality being mistermed.
So you are saying we can perceive everything that exists? What about that thing behind you! --no, behind you now!.. No, behind you now!...