The Movie Paranormal Activity

I think what he's asking is that the video looks fake from what you see in the video, not from the video itself. Meaning a video that seemed to have been genuinely filmed (no glitches, no evidence of editing etc.), and that not evidence from what you see in it indicates it is fake (no seeable hidden ropes, etc.)In this context, showing a video to someone who does not believe the paranormal exist, what would lead him to conclude that it is a hoax (if we are honest with ourselves here, this would be the conclusion of most atheist here), while someone who believes that the paranormal is at least a possibility will come to the more straightforward conclusion about it; maybe it is genuine.In other words, to the atheist (for example), it looks fake only because he is seeing 'evidence' of the paranormal (a floating chair), which he thinks is impossible.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This statement can only be true if you use a very circular definition of paranormal, which we have seen implicitly defined in this thread already. The definition is usually somewhere around the followingA paranormal (or supernatural) phenomenon is defined as a natural phenomenon that hasn't been identified as such yet.The begging-the-question in such a definition is obvious.

Why can't it be identified as a supernatural phenomenon ? Once again, yo usee no way that it could be confidently put into the paranormal folder ?What if you were pulled down the stairs by 'something' dragging you by your feet, and then puled down into the basement while you hear 'demonic' voices in your head (sorry, I only watched paranormal activity 2) ? Plus it was filmed (so no possibility of hallucinations) ? But that's not what your saying. You aren't saying that up until now nothing has warranted being put into such a folder. You are saying that by definition nothing whatsoever can ever be put into such a folder, whatever that could be. If we take the above example, I would think the honest thing to do would be to put the phenomenon into the paranormal folder (by Occam's razor)Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I'm not saying necessarily that it should be. However, the question Tram Law wants an answer for is: ''At what point do you think you should put it into a paranormal folder''.Some people, such as Jar it seems, say never, because he uses a twisted and self-serving (in my opinion) definition of supernatural/paranormal: Something that is natural but that we don't understand yet. I say it is self-serving because he then turns around and makes claims such as ''there is absolutely no evidence that there are demons'', when in fact such evidence can never exist no matter what we ever could observe, given his definition.Personnally, I define supernatural as something that is ''outside of nature, and/or not subject to the laws of nature''. This definition does not exclude that the paranormal can interact inside nature, but they nonetheless would not seemed constrained by it.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I'm sorry, but I did get your opinion right. If it has changed now, you simply changed the goalpost midway.The very first thing you said coming into this thread was: What I said about your position in the message you responded to was: This is entirely consistent to the position of yours that I was referring to.I understand your concepts of know and unknown folders, but you have to realize that this is a personal view on this. There is nothing wrong in that, but you can't start giving new definitions to words so as to have them fit with your mental constructions. I am entitled to have a 'supernatural folder' and use the word supernatural as it is defined in an english dictionary.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Hi Rahvin, This is a very broad assertion, and I can point out the twist you are missing in all this.I agree that history has shown us time and again that phenomenons that were thought to be supernatural ended up having a natural explanation. But there is also another common denominator between all of them: they were repeatable phenomenons. Lightning, disease, rain, floods, growing crops, etc. All repeatable. And this is of course to be expected if they are to turn out to be the result of constant, unchanging natural laws.Because of this, there seems to ba a qualitative difference between that, and a supernatural interaction, because if a supernatural thing isn't constrained by natural laws, then it can just as well be a one time event, unrepeatable, untestable, and unscientifically searchable. In other words, even if you recreated the exact same conditions in which it took place, you won't reproduce the event. wWhich would be evidence that either you don't fully have the exact same conditions and that this difference in condition is crucial, or that the event was supernatural in nature.Hypothetical examples of this would be turning water into wine, and a person dead for 3 days rising from the dead. No, I'm simply pointing out that words have definition, and that if we start playing humpty-dumpty around here it's gonna get ugly.Supernatual means: Supernatural - definition of supernatural by The Free Dictionary Nature - definition of nature by The Free Dictionary First, I have not yet made any specific claims about any specific phenomenon being supernatural in nature. The only question being asked right now is: At what point can it be considered reasonable to consider a phenomenon as supernatural in nature ?Second, as I explained above, there seems to be a qualitative difference between what lord Kelvin said here and any event I would personnally consider having a supernatural cause. And that is why we're aren't even to the point of identifying anything as natural or supernatural yet, but simply trying to get people to use the right definitions with the words.

Hi Phat, I agree that that definition, it is no different from ''unexplained''.The thing is, it is a self-serving definition and not at all how it is defined by dictionaries etc.AbE Grats straggler with the line of discussion you have taken. I find that your insight is very clear in all this but unfortunately, I doubt you will get anything from Jar other then the blatant inconsistency that is here for all to see (which comes, IMO, from the basic fact that he has redefined words to fit his personal worldview)Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I think straggler has done a pretty good job in showing this.In short, you answered that things may be clear ''after you die'' (if there is an 'after'). Straggler asked what made you make such a comment, what would be different 'after you died'. You replied that we should ask you again 'after you die'. This, at the very least, is an escape from reason, in my opinion. If you think 'after you die' you will have more insight into these matters, then you should know why right now, not only then. This is what straggler is asking, and this is what you fail to address. I have presented a definition of supernatural, that is different. However, I concede that such a definition makes the supernatural outside of scientific testing, however, because by definition, science can only conclude on what is repeatable (amongst other criterias), and therefore only what follows the laws of nature.Supernatural, as defined, is not constrained by natural laws. I think you should agree with this; almost everybody agrees that science cannot claim to study God because of this simple fact: he isn't a repeatable, constaintly testable ''thing''. He falls outside the realm of science.However, this does not mean there isn't a point where a phenomenon could be identified as being supernatural in nature (the phenomenon of ghost-like appearances, for example). This is the question we are trying to answer here: does such a point exist, and if so, where is it ?Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Hi jar, (emphasis added)I emphasised the word supernatural here, to show that you yourself used it with the common dictionnary definition.Now if you are consistent and honest, you should right now consider that you were wrong in trying to redefine terms in order to make them fit your double-folder view.Now don't get me wrong, I am not really arguing your folders. You can seperate things the way you like, even if some ways are better then others (and even if I think your way isn't particularly helpful for anything). I am just saying that you can't redefine ''supernatural'' to mean ''unknown'', just because you personnally just put the supernatural claims into the unknown folder.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

I think the first part you said here is the crux of the matter: can things be evidenced, even without having a scientific explanation ?You apparently say no, but I think this is a misstep because there comes a point where you do have evidence that something happened, but still without scientific explanation.Now I am not talking here about observed, repeatable phenomenons. The sun rising, or the universe apparently demanding some sort of dark matter. I agree that such things are to be put into the unknown folder.However, I think this is a qualitative difference from what we see in the movie paranormal activity: these are evidenced (let's suppose that the video is genuine, ie not a hoax) yet are one time, unrepeatable events, and so still fall outside the realm of science.

The I have no problem with you doing that.I only had a problem with you saying that, by definition, the supernatural most go into the unknown folder. Now we may finally be getting somewhere.If the phenomenon is repeatably observable (dark matter), then I would also put it into the unknown folder. This is not done by definition, but rather by inductive reasoning that throughout history such phenomenons have been found to be natural in nature.However, if it is unrepeatable, and falls outside scientific investigation, and if it comes in direct contradiction with known laws of nature, for example someone raising someone from the dead after the corpse has been rotting for 3 days.You could probably ask if such events do really fall outside of scientific investigation, and I would find no other to show that it is so then by pointing out that scientists never try to find a scientific explanation for how such a thing could happen (for example. ressurection after three days), rather, they simply say that the event never happened in the first place.

I do not think that evidence automatically has to be scientific evidence. I can't see why it should be so either.In court, evidence isn't always scientific. It can be testimonial evidence, video evidence, etc. (and of course scientific evidence. through DNa testing etc.) I don't see why the word evidence would imply ''scientific evidence'', while other things would simply be 'reasons'.When I want to talk about scientific evidence, I simply say scientific evidence. And when I want to talk about testimonial evidence, I say testimonial evidence. Seems to me it makes discussions a whole lot easier.

I can't speak for Tram Law, but I think that is how it should be taken. Or else all this discussion makes little sense.Direct scientific evidence of the paranormal is, by definition, impossible. As I have said all throughout this thread.However, I have also said that this same definition does not make evidence of the paranormal impossible. It is just that other types of evidence must be considered. These 'other types' are not some strange inventions of mine, I am referring to all the types of evidence that we do take into account in court, or in studying historical claims. This tells us that it has nothing to do specifically about supernatural claims, it has more to do with claims of one-time events. Either it be a murder, or the conquest of a city in ancient times, or the ressurection of someone after three days.