Can the paranormal be determined to be real?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Can the paranormal be determined to be real without science acting as an incomplete referee?

Real what?

Living beings of the paranormal kind.

Living beings, then. Does that mean humans and other animals? And what must they do to count as paranormal?

Jumping through paranormal hoops.

Actually your question is worthy of answering. A talking cat would be paranormal if it spoke Dutch or a levitating snake would be paranormal.I was really refering to ghosts making themselves be noticed.

I'll stick to ghost beings atm.

I'm not sure that I'm following you here. You seem to be saying:

Normal cats do not speak Dutch, but paranormal cats ( if there are any) might.
Normal snakes do not levitate, but paranormal snakes ( if there are any) might.
Normal ghosts do not make themselves noticed, but ...

If that is what you are saying, then we can gratefully forgo the paranormal ghosts. Where do we find normal ghosts to go with our normal cats and normal snakes?

[guest]

Ghosts are not normal. There's ghosts in your house,street and all around you.Ghosts can even go international to follow after their intended victim which is a form of stalking.

[grayman]

There's ghosts in your house,street and all around you.Ghosts can even go international to follow after their intended victim which is a form of stalking.

Submit your evidence.

[Tony Williams]

There's ghosts in your house,street and all around you.Ghosts can even go international to follow after their intended victim which is a form of stalking.

Submit your evidence.

Spoilsport. Don't you realise how much fun it is to believe in all these parapossible things?

[guest]

There's ghosts in your house,street and all around you.Ghosts can even go international to follow after their intended victim which is a form of stalking.

Submit your evidence.

You want me to submit my eyes? :-o

[smudge]

There's ghosts in your house,street and all around you.Ghosts can even go international to follow after their intended victim which is a form of stalking.

Submit your evidence.

You want me to submit my eyes? :-o

'Evidence' was Grayman's request.

[guest]

There's ghosts in your house,street and all around you.Ghosts can even go international to follow after their intended victim which is a form of stalking.

Submit your evidence.

You want me to submit my eyes? :-o

'Evidence' was Grayman's request.

My eyes beheld the evidence.

[Tony Williams]

My eyes beheld the evidence.

So you expect us to believe, or even take seriously, what you say you saw, despite the fact that it is unsupported by known science, and even after reading everything posted here about how notoriously unreliable eyewitness evidence is?

I give you high marks for pointless persistence, zero for everything else.

[guest]

My eyes beheld the evidence.

So you expect us to believe, or even take seriously, what you say you saw, despite the fact that it is unsupported by known science, and even after reading everything posted here about how notoriously unreliable eyewitness evidence is?

I give you high marks for pointless persistence, zero for everything else.

Why do you imply eye witnesses are always wrong? Seems you have been misinformed.

[Tony Williams]

My eyes beheld the evidence.

So you expect us to believe, or even take seriously, what you say you saw, despite the fact that it is unsupported by known science, and even after reading everything posted here about how notoriously unreliable eyewitness evidence is?

I give you high marks for pointless persistence, zero for everything else.

Why do you imply eye witnesses are always wrong? Seems you have been misinformed.

I have neither said nor implied that. I said "notoriously unreliable", which is a statement of fact.

Eyewitness evidence needs corroboration, most especially when dealing with issues outside what is known to be possible. If I said "I saw a Ford Focus today" I would expect that most people would believe me. If I said "I saw Ford Focus today; it took off, flew around for a while and then landed" I would not expect anyone to believe me unless I could produce incontrovertible evidence that what I said was true.

[polomint38]

My eyes beheld the evidence.

So you expect us to believe, or even take seriously, what you say you saw, despite the fact that it is unsupported by known science, and even after reading everything posted here about how notoriously unreliable eyewitness evidence is?

I give you high marks for pointless persistence, zero for everything else.

Why do you imply eye witnesses are always wrong? Seems you have been misinformed.

Tony is this a picture of you?

[Tony Williams]

Tony is this a picture of you?

It wish it were, but sadly I'm not as dapper and handsome...

[Croydon13013]

I believe science is not advanced enough to draw out Ghosts from their hidding places.That's why science is an incomplete referee or tool or method imho.

What you believe about science has little to do with what can be acheived through science. Science is not a "referee", it is a "tool or method". How advanced do you think science has to become before it can draw out ghosts then?

On other forums people have suggested if many people are making claims to seeing ghosts then statistically it's likely to be true beyond doubt of not being true.

Who are these idiots? What forums? Although it obviously depends on your definition of "ghosts" as I have seen a ghost.

To believe in science over my own eyes is ridiculous.

No. To believe your own "eyes" when presented with evidence that you may have been mistaken would be ridiculous.

Why would ghosts only be of people once existing?

I agree. But then we're opening "ghost" up to mean anything. Halucination?

Ghosts are not normal. There's ghosts in your house,street and all around you.Ghosts can even go international to follow after their intended victim which is a form of stalking.

Contradiction. If ghosts are all around us all then they are normal.

At one time we were unaware of oxygen, that it existed, what it did. Our ignorance did not mean that it was not normal, it was just unknown to science. Sciencve is far more advanced now and we know all about oxygen. But you think science is not advanced enough to have seen ghosts, even though you see ghosts?

Why do you imply eye witnesses are always wrong? Seems you have been misinformed.

Why do you keep using straw man arguments? It won't wash here. I can see what Tony said and how you've misrepresented him.


So... bottom line: You've seen ghosts and choose to believe in something paranormal and outside science; you like to make confused posts and distort what other people say. I've seen a ghost but choose to go with the evidence and honesty.

[guest]

I believe science is not advanced enough to draw out Ghosts from their hidding places.That's why science is an incomplete referee or tool or method imho.

What you believe about science has little to do with what can be acheived through science. Science is not a "referee", it is a "tool or method". How advanced do you think science has to become before it can draw out ghosts then?

On other forums people have suggested if many people are making claims to seeing ghosts then statistically it's likely to be true beyond doubt of not being true.

Who are these idiots? What forums? Although it obviously depends on your definition of "ghosts" as I have seen a ghost.

To believe in science over my own eyes is ridiculous.

No. To believe your own "eyes" when presented with evidence that you may have been mistaken would be ridiculous.

Why would ghosts only be of people once existing?

I agree. But then we're opening "ghost" up to mean anything. Halucination?

Ghosts are not normal. There's ghosts in your house,street and all around you.Ghosts can even go international to follow after their intended victim which is a form of stalking.

Contradiction. If ghosts are all around us all then they are normal.

At one time we were unaware of oxygen, that it existed, what it did. Our ignorance did not mean that it was not normal, it was just unknown to science. Sciencve is far more advanced now and we know all about oxygen. But you think science is not advanced enough to have seen ghosts, even though you see ghosts?

Why do you imply eye witnesses are always wrong? Seems you have been misinformed.

Why do you keep using straw man arguments? It won't wash here. I can see what Tony said and how you've misrepresented him.


So... bottom line: You've seen ghosts and choose to believe in something paranormal and outside science; you like to make confused posts and distort what other people say. I've seen a ghost but choose to go with the evidence and honesty.

You seen a ghost?

[smudge]

There's ghosts in your house,street and all around you.Ghosts can even go international to follow after their intended victim which is a form of stalking.

Well, I had a good look around my house and could not see any ghosts. I could of course be mistaken. Perhaps I have faulty eyes or the ghosts are invisible.

Miniroar; how do you know they are in my house? Should I worry if I can't see them? Do I need to wear special glasses? Where can I get a pair?

Can you tell us about "international" ghosts? Is there no border control in spirit world? Do they use passports? Can't these Ghosts organise themselves? Or are they above such petty man made boundaries?

Who are these "victims"? Are you saying that ghosts are dangerous? What harm do they intend and to whom? Are there good ghosts and bad ghosts? If so, how can one tell them apart?

It's all very well coming on here alarming folks. I feel you should clarify these matters for us so that we can sleep safely in our beds.
Or tombs. :g (not wishing to discriminate against any friendly ghosties or ghoulies)