The Movie Paranormal Activity

I am with you. Any evidence of the paranormal or supernatural would fundamentally alter existence. We would have to question everything we thought we knew.

---

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

Or more likely not.Any evidence I can imagine in such a scenario would simply show that ghosts are not at all what we thought they were and just something very normal and natural; strange maybe, unusual very likely, but just more natural stuff.

---

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

In all situations where ghosts have been claimed and the claim has been investigated, either it was something normal or nothing at all was found. Certainly nothing paranormal.

---

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

But we're not talking about those cases in this thread.What would you require evidentially speaking to confirm the existence of a being that has the memories and personalities of a dead human, but is not made of meat? That's the question basically being asked in this thread.Edited by Modulous, : sorry cross wires on which reply was to me...ahem edited out erroneous comment

I agree. Can you think of a hypothetical scenario which would change your mind? And what evidence might you require? That makes no sense. Paranormal is just a label for an extraordinary thing that defies what we thought we knew about the world through science. There's no credence to it. I am not saying that the bumps in the night we hear ARE paranormal. I'm saying that if we had evidence of a ghost. That would be evidence in favour of at least one concept that the word 'paranormal' was originally coined to cover.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Out of interest - If you were the ghost in question would you consider that to be evidence of the supernatural/paranormal?If you found yourself in some ghost like existence (ala Patrick Swayze) would that constitute evidence of the paranormal as far as you are concerned?Or would that be "unknown"....?

Yes I agree we have been talking past each other.Yes I can conceive a hypothetical experience that would change my mind. But that does not change the fact that ghosts are not unexplained. They are fiction.

---

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

I guess I can repeat yet again the answer to that question.Maybe; after I am dead, I might be able to find a way to test whether something is paranormal or supernatural. But until then, I really have no idea.Ask me after that happens, should that happen.

---

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

I wouldn't say ghosts are all fiction. Some are artefacts of an imperfect perceptual/memory system Should actual immaterial dead humans turn up - I'd think they'd remain unexplained for a fairly long time.

Wouldn't it be better to explain this relentlessly cited answer in more detail rather than simply repeat it in mantra like fashion? Can you explain why "after I am dead" in that sentence could not be replaced with all manner of potentially equally enlightening and equally hypothetical alternatives?For example: Maybe; if I receive divine revelation, I might be able to find a way to test whether something is paranormal or supernatural. But until then, I really have no idea.What is it about being dead exactly that inclines you to elevate that particular hypothetical experience above all others when considering the question posed in this thread? Likewise the various alternatives - No? If not then why not?

And I will gladly repeat yet again the answer I've given to you related to those questions.If someone presents me with a reliable and repeatable method where I can test and distinguish something that is paranormal or supernatural then I would gladly reconsider my position.But I simply cannot imagine what such test or method might be.For example, how do I test divine revelation to determine that it really is divine revelation?

---

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

That is unlikely to help explain your answers is it? Divine revelation might hypothetically present you with a method of doing just that. In exactly the same way that your once-I-am-dead scenario might do. In this respect the two scenarios are equally unforthcoming until actually experienced. As you have already said you cannot imagine what the test might be in your own once-I-am-dead scenario either. In this respect the two scenarios are equally unimaginable. That is what divine revelation will reveal to you. Until you have had your divine revelation you won't know how. In exactly the same way that until you are dead you won't know how to test for supernaturality in your preferred hypothetical scenario.Jar - Seriously where is the difference between the two scenarios in their hypothetical ability to provide the knowledge you are insisting upon? Why does the death scenario have such an exclusive hold on your thinking here?

And I will again repeat what I have told you before.If someone or something provides me with a reliable and repeatable method to test and determine that something is supernatural or paranormal then I will gladly reconsider my position.But I cannot imagine how that could happen.

---

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

Why do you think that being dead might lead to this in a way that divine revelation (for example) cannot? Unless you can imagine how that could happen in one scenario but not the other I fail to see why you think this is important.Is what you can imagine the deciding factor here?

My friend can't imagine the evidence for evolution either, so according to him there can't be any evolution.And according to him, he and only he has all the answers to evolution, and those answers are it can't be true under any circumstances because he can't understand or imagine it.So, wouldn't this be very poor reasoning? And wouldn't this be denial?