• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Paranormal

S

Sar

Guest
I`m an animist, so I believe in the supernatural. Paranormal is not a word I like to use.

That said, I don`t believe in the full range of supernatural things, but I do think there`s more to the world and the universe than what we can observe.

I also believe that supernatural beings exist in a way beyond imagination.
 

iTails

Certified Asshole
Sup guys. I herd you liek aliens. So me and this alien are watching porn.

p.s. not shooped, real shitz.
(sfw btw)

supdawg.jpg
 
S

Sar

Guest
I believe that the term 'supernatural' is a contradiction and 'a way beyond imagination' is a fallacy.
Yet supernatural is still a theme asscociated with paranormal ideas.
The fallacy is a figure of speech. If it wasnt a figure of speech, the whole sentence is a paradox.

This thread needs some scientific POVs.


I know this is not paranormal, but you guys ever do lucid dreaming? It's like your trippin' on drugs x3

Sup guys. I herd you liek aliens. So me and this alien are watching porn.

p.s. not shooped, real shitz.
(sfw btw)

supdawg.jpg

No. Just no.
 

anero

houndini logic
skeleton popped out etc

i'm quite partial to SCP-096, a creature that's docile until you look at its face, after which it will try (and inevitably succeed in) killing you and eliminating all traces, and yes, pixels count, so you could mistakenly see it in a tiny 7x7 spot that you don't even notice and then the next thing you see is
 

BRN

WTB Forum Mod Powers
Yet supernatural is still a theme asscociated with paranormal ideas.
The fallacy is a figure of speech. If it wasnt a figure of speech, the whole sentence is a paradox.

A figure of speech meaning what? A meaningless phrase can't really be used to say "ghosts exist", and the phrase "ghosts exist but only in ways I can't imagine" seems silly.
 
S

Sar

Guest
A figure of speech meaning what? A meaningless phrase can't really be used to say "ghosts exist", and the phrase "ghosts exist but only in ways I can't imagine" seems silly.
TL;DR If they exist, they would be nothing like how they are portrayed in popular culture.
 

moonchylde

He's like, this guy, you know?
I don't care for the term "supernatural", as it would literally mean "outside of nature", and that would presume that we know everything there is to know about nature and the universe. Paranormal fits better, because it means "outside of the norm" and humans have a very limited view of what is normal.

As for ghosts and the like, I'm an amateur ghost hunter/urban spelunker in my spare time, and honestly 99.9% of the time, there's a logical, non-paranormal explanation for the "hauntings." It's that .1%, though, that helps me keep an open mind. Everything else, well, I'm a half-gypsy shaman, so I guess it goes without saying that I'm a spiritual person, and I've seen a lot of things over the years that defy rational explanation. So, yeah, I believe in the paranormal, I just don't believe most people about the paranormal.

BTW, I know this is beating a dead horse, but to everyone who says "I've never seen it, so I don't believe in it," I've never seen the Pacific Ocean. Obviously this means it doesn't exist, all the pictures of it are hoaxes, and everyone who claims to have seen it are lying or insane. That makes sense, right? :V
 
S

Sar

Guest
but to everyone who says "I've never seen it, so I don't believe in it," I've never seen the Pacific Ocean. Obviously this means it doesn't exist, all the pictures of it are hoaxes, and everyone who claims to have seen it are lying or insane. That makes sense, right? :V

You sir, make sense. *shakes hand*
 

BRN

WTB Forum Mod Powers
TL;DR If they exist, they would be nothing like how they are portrayed in popular culture.

I could make an 'if' statement about anything on the condition that they existed. That doesn't say anything about their actual ability to exist.¯\(°_o)/¯
 
L

LizardKing

Guest
BTW, I know this is beating a dead horse, but to everyone who says "I've never seen it, so I don't believe in it," I've never seen the Pacific Ocean. Obviously this means it doesn't exist, all the pictures of it are hoaxes, and everyone who claims to have seen it are lying or insane. That makes sense, right? :V

I'm really hoping that ":V" at the end means, "This is a ridiculous argument and I know it". I wish people would stop abusing the poor guy as an excuse to post rubbish :c
 

BRN

WTB Forum Mod Powers
BTW, I know this is beating a dead horse, but to everyone who says "I've never seen it, so I don't believe in it," I've never seen the Pacific Ocean. Obviously this means it doesn't exist, all the pictures of it are hoaxes, and everyone who claims to have seen it are lying or insane. That makes sense, right? :V

The problem here is that you're analogizing "I've never seen the Pacific Ocean, so I don't believe in it" to "Nobody anywhere has ever seen anything paranormal, yet I still believe in it."
 

moonchylde

He's like, this guy, you know?
One, the statement was an analogy of "I've never seen it, so it doesn't exist." On one hand, I can understand where people come from on this, although your blanket statement of "Nobody anywhere" smacks of extreme arrogance, in that you believe you speak for everyone who has ever existed. I believe in the paranormal because I, personally, have experiences that defy all rational explanation. Other people haven't. That's fine and dandy, but you don't hear me questioning their sanity because they don't believe in the paranormal (however, I do believe that there are some people out there that could have a ghost pop up right in front of them and they'd still try to rationalize it away, because it wouldn't fit in their own view of what's real... "A bit of undigested sausage," in the words of Scrooge). A bit of the same respect would be nice, is all I'm saying.

It's funny how a lot of skeptics will not even entertain the notion that there may be more to the universe then they can see, yet they accept without hesitation the thought of quarks and string theory, which NO ONE has ever seen with their own eyes.

You can pick apart my analogies all you wish, and mock my sanity without ever actually knowing me, but I know what I have seen. I'd be more then happy to accept a scientific explanation, as soon as science stops giving the knee-jerk "They're crazy, lying, or both" response every time the subject comes up.
 

BRN

WTB Forum Mod Powers
One, the statement was an analogy of "I've never seen it, so it doesn't exist."On one hand, I can understand where people come from on this, although your blanket statement of "Nobody anywhere" smacks of extreme arrogance, in that you believe you speak for everyone who has ever existed.
So... who has actually seen something paranormal, then?


I believe in the paranormal because I, personally, have experiences that defy all rational explanation.
Share them. You can't just say stuff and expect it to be taken as fact.

It's funny how a lot of skeptics will not even entertain the notion that there may be more to the universe then they can see,
Thus the nature of skepticism?
yet they accept without hesitation the thought of quarks and string theory, which NO ONE has ever seen with their own eyes.
-Quarks are accepted because while they cannot be seen, that is simply because they are too small to be seen with the naked eye, while their presence and the resulting effects of their presence are very much extremely visible.
-String Theory is a 'theory' and as such is a hypothetical and has not yet been accepted universally. However, insofar as it appears to be the only scientific theory that can rescue thermodynamics [on which most of our physical science is based and is a requirement of the universe] from the entropy-devouring nature of black holes the logical law of necessity dictates that the theory be given credence.
-Ghosts and the paranormal have no empirical evidence, do not comply with physical law, are an arbitrary, stand-alone idea that have no meritable influence on anything else that can be measured, require death to be something less than death, and are as scientifically creditable as the idea of God.

You can pick apart my analogies all you wish, and mock my sanity without ever actually knowing me, but I know what I have seen. I'd be more then happy to accept a scientific explanation, as soon as science stops giving the knee-jerk "They're crazy, lying, or both" response every time the subject comes up.
I picked apart your analogy because it was a broken analogy. Even you knew that, because you put a :V at the end of it. I don't know what you have seen, because for some reason you'll only vaguely reference the fact that you've seen something. I have not once attacked your sanity, only the sanity of people suffering from hallucinations. And, lastly, scientific response is never knee-jerk. It's logical. It's reasoned. That's why it's scientific.
 
Last edited:

Elric

Active Member
I would think that it would be hard to go to a "haunted" area and not see hullucinations of ghosts. Especially when you expect to see one.
 
Last edited:

Smart_Cookie

I baked y'all an apple pie!
A lot of people seem to mistake "Grossly Mistaken" for crazy, and thus take it personally whenever their views are questioned. People can jump to false conclusions, be misguided, misremember, mishear, or even have brief hallucinations without neccissarily being completely insane.

The craziness comes AFTER the fact, when they fervently, stridently, even violently protect these false beliefs despite all evidence pointing elsewhere. :V
 

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
BTW, I know this is beating a dead horse, but to everyone who says "I've never seen it, so I don't believe in it," I've never seen the Pacific Ocean. Obviously this means it doesn't exist, all the pictures of it are hoaxes, and everyone who claims to have seen it are lying or insane. That makes sense, right? :V

Parsimony. The conspiracy it would take to convince the world an ocean that isn't there exists is far more improbable than the ocean itself. The same does not hold true for ghosts.
 

FlynnCoyote

Takin it slow.
There seems to be some misconception about the meaning of supernatural.

It does not mean existing outside of nature, the intended meaning is that it does exist naturally but is not yet understood by science.


Ergo, there could be a scientific explanation for the existence of ghosts and an afterlife, but due to our limited perceptions and observation ability, we simply cannot comprehend or understand them. Therefore we apply the term supernatural to them. Demonic entities and such can also fall into this category.
 

Unsilenced

Mentlegen
If something is "supernatural" because it's not fully understood then pretty much everything falls in that category.
 

BRN

WTB Forum Mod Powers
There seems to be some misconception about the meaning of supernatural.

It does not mean existing outside of nature, the intended meaning is that it does exist naturally but is not yet understood by science.


Ergo, there could be a scientific explanation for the existence of ghosts and an afterlife, but due to our limited perceptions and observation ability, we simply cannot comprehend or understand them. Therefore we apply the term supernatural to them. Demonic entities and such can also fall into this category.

I contend that you misunderstand the meaning of science. What you're attempting to claim here is:

-we cannot comprehend or understand a scientifically sound theory that supports ghosts
-this is because science fails to comprehend or understand ghosts
-ghosts exist, and it is science that fails to support them

What you're contending starts from the supposition that ghosts exist and works from that assumption to lead into the argument that science fails.

The fallacy here is that the logic you're attempting to use has no method of falsification. By claiming that "x exists because, although science doesn't support it, x doesn't require science", you allow "x" to be anything.

Ideas can only be scientifically sound if you can comprehend a way to disprove the idea. For example, String Theory is sound because, should someone discover that reality is different to what the theory would expect us to see, then we would be able to prove String Theory false. However, by placing ghosts outside the limitations of science, you attempt to claim that ghosts exist regardless of sensible comprehension. Because of that, there exists no possible way to find out whether or not ghosts exist.

Thus your argument says nothing about whether or not the supernatural exists - and only, in fact, renders the idea of the 'supernatural' utterly abitrary.
 

Onnes

Member
It does not mean existing outside of nature, the intended meaning is that it does exist naturally but is not yet understood by science.

As any dictionary will tell you, "supernatural" is defined to mean something unexplainable by science. The word literally translates as "above nature," meaning phenomena outside of natural law.

Six said:
For example, String Theory is sound because, should someone discover that reality is different to what the theory would expect us to see, then we would be able to prove String Theory false.

String Theory is not a good example here. The term "String Theory" actually refers to a gigantic class of theories. and it is not necessarily possible to falsify all of them.
 
Last edited:

M. LeRenard

Is not French
What SIX said. Getting proof of the existence of ghosts probably wouldn't be that hard, given the current definition, but what you get is a lot is people who, upon seeing that their original hypothesis is proven false, arbitrarily change the definition and hence the required proof. Well, I don't need to tell you that kind of thing can go on forever.
Not to mention, the reason so many people are skeptical (and why so many people just deny it outright) is because there's currently no possible physical explanation to account for spirits or the soul (if it's energy, what force is keeping it localized enough to form a shape, and why don't we see that force anywhere else in nature [i.e., why confine it to certain types of animals and not others? You don't hear too many stories about ghost-spiders, or ghost frogs, etc.]? If it's particles, where are they, what are they, and how do they interact with regular matter? And why don't we see strange interactions all the time in particle physics experiments? Are all the 'ghost particles' localized somewhere else, like in haunted buildings? If so, why no strays [again, what force interacts only with ghost particles and nothing else]? Etc.), and all the evidence anyone has ever come up with has either been a hoax (admitted as such or proven as such) or just plain ambiguous. And people have been looking into this stuff forever, and that's all we can come up with apparently.
Watch those ghost-hunter shows. See how arbitrary their definitions and methods are, and realize that this kind of method is where most 'proof' of paranormal activity comes from. When people do actual investigations of the stuff, they always find a reasonable alternative explanation. We'll have proof when you can do a good experiment that concludes that the only possible explanation is something resembling a ghost. Otherwise you're just making shit up to fill in the gaps. And anyone can do that.
 

Bliss

Member
Watch those ghost-hunter shows. See how arbitrary their definitions and methods are, and realize that this kind of method is where most 'proof' of paranormal activity comes from. When people do actual investigations of the stuff, they always find a reasonable alternative explanation. We'll have proof when you can do a good experiment that concludes that the only possible explanation is something resembling a ghost. Otherwise you're just making shit up to fill in the gaps. And anyone can do that.
They're good entertainment, nonetheless. I like spooky. :3
 

M. LeRenard

Is not French
They are fun. It's a kind of 'turn your brain off and enjoy' television. The problem is that a lot of people take them seriously.
Although they tend to get really boring when they do it live (which they've done a few times), because then they don't have the power of editing to make it more interesting. On that British one, they were in the Winchester mansion, and the female lead basically just walked into a room with the lights off, stumbled around in the dark for about five minutes calling out someone's name, and then left when nothing happened. Wow, that was exciting. That's the kind of thing they would cut for the regular show.
 
Top