• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Logic and the Paranormal

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
So your "argument" works as long as you have really big numbers, but fails when it comes down to specifics?

So you do not have a single specific to support your "argument" because your "argument" only works with really big numbers?

And you claim that your "logic" isn't being grasped?

:facepalm:

Thanks for proving my logic isn't being grasped. :D
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
But that's just the point, Quintessence. Why question anyone's beliefs? Why nitpick their inconsistencies? Why express the hope they learn anything of anyone else's point of view?

Do you feel your existence is somehow justified by doing so?

Sounds a little harsh. Well we all willingly joined a debate didn't we? Just saying.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
The point is moot. :shrug:

It does not seem moot to me.

My argument was never intended to make any great philosophical point. It was an argument to show that the hard-core materialist position (that all phenomena 'colloquially referred to as paranormal' ultimately has an explanation in phenomenon currently accepted by science) does not seem reasonable.

The type of hard-core materialist position I was criticizing is very strong here on RF and in the scientific community. So a criticism of that position is not moot but pertinent.
 
Last edited:

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
It does not seem moot to me.

My argument was never intended to make any great philosophical point. It was an argument to show that the hard-core materialist position (that all phenomena 'colloquially referred to as paranormal' ultimately has an explanation in phenomenon currently accepted by science) does not seem reasonable.

The type of hard-core materialist position I was criticizing is very strong here on RF and in the scientific community. So a criticism of that position is not moot but pertinent.

The default position is to dismiss all claims that do not meet the burden of proof that they carry. Your argument seems to be "so many claims could be attributed to the paranormal, that it is unreasonable to dismiss the existence of the paranormal". This is an extremely weak argument when you consider that all it would take a single demonstration of paranormal causation to make it reasonable to conclude the paranormal exists, but no such demonstration which can be repeatedly verified has ever been made in the entire history of paranormal claims.

The point of materialism isn't to dismiss the possibility of the paranormal, but to dismiss all claims until those claims are sufficiently demonstrated to be true. It is not enough that lots of people ascribe paranormal causation to events, it must be demonstrated that the paranormal is the most reasonable probable cause of these events. Unexplained events are merely unexplained events until we can explain them, and to posit an unexplained event as the result of the paranormal is merely an argument from ignorance - regardless of how many people make similar assumptions.

Your argument, therefore, is not one against "hardcore materialism" but against rational inquiry itself. You are essentially asking us to forgo the standard method of rationality for this particular subject purely because you think the sheer quantity of these claims matters more than the actual veracity of them. It does not, and your logic is extremely poor.
 

vtunie

Member
your "logic", much like your pixies and soul, there is nothing to grasp...

Just because you will be a few pounds of rotten flesh, quite happily and deservedly forgotten by the world, does not mean everyone is like you -- or wants to be.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
It does not seem moot to me.

My argument was never intended to make any great philosophical point. It was an argument to show that the hard-core materialist position (that all phenomena 'colloquially referred to as paranormal' ultimately has an explanation in phenomenon currently accepted by science) does not seem reasonable.

The type of hard-core materialist position I was criticizing is very strong here on RF and in the scientific community. So a criticism of that position is not moot but pertinent.
The hard-core materialist position has not been viable since the 18th Century, so a large number of philosophers are on your side anyway. :)
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
The hard-core materialist position has not been viable since the 18th Century, so a large number of philosophers are on your side anyway. :)
Really the hard-core materialist is just advocating monism. The spiritualist would be going with dualism saying there is a separate substance to account for things like consciousness, memory, immaterial stuff. It hasn't been proven or disproven, certainly not since the 18th century.
 

vtunie

Member
I am not at all certain that the hard-core materialists are all wrong.

They say they don't have a soul. Who knows? Maybe they are absolutely correct. Perhaps some of them are just meat-machines out to do whatever it is meat-machines do under whatever physical laws they pretend constrain them to do it. Nothing good in any case -- for all meat eventually rots.

What I object to is the claim of some of these meat machines that all moving bodies around them are nothing but meat-machines as well.

I confess I don't know whether that is in fact the case. Who knows, I too may be a meat machine. But I rather hope and trust I am not. And if some professed meat machine were to surprise me by saying suddenly it was not one, I would welcome it, and even grant it an animate pronoun, calling it him or her as the case may be.

But by their own words, what claim do meat-machines have to humanity? None. Because humanity as we define ourselves want to have a soul.

That is why I am convinced hardcore materials have, altogether voluntarily, opted out of all human rights.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Really the hard-core materialist is just advocating monism. The spiritualist would be going with dualism saying there is a separate substance to account for things like consciousness, memory, immaterial stuff. It hasn't been proven or disproven, certainly not since the 18th century.

It wasn't disproven until this OP by George-ananda :D
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
The default position is to dismiss all claims that do not meet the burden of proof that they carry.

In the court of common sense, if something can’t be proved it should not be dismissed but considered possibly true/possibly false.

Your argument seems to be "so many claims could be attributed to the paranormal, that it is unreasonable to dismiss the existence of the paranormal". This is an extremely weak argument when you consider that all it would take a single demonstration of paranormal causation to make it reasonable to conclude the paranormal exists, but no such demonstration which can be repeatedly verified has ever been made in the entire history of paranormal claims.

First of all, as most paranormal experiences are fleeting unpredictable events then repeatable verification of these types of phenomena should not be expected (unfortunately for us truth seekers). The position to then just dismiss them all does not fly in the court of my common sense.

However for a small segment of paranormal phenomena some repeatable studies under controlled conditions can be done. I believe parapsychologists have shown repeatedly that something is going on that can’t be explained by any known phenomena. The dogmatic and vocal materialists (the so-called ‘Skeptic’ community would have you believe every experiment is fatally flawed and no scientific evidence for the paranormal exists. Many people (who want to believe this) accept the Skeptic position as their mantra. Allow me to provide a quote from a respected parapsychologist Dr. Dean Radin:

“After a century of increasingly sophisticated investigations and more than a thousand controlled studies with combined odds against chance of 10 to the 104th power to 1, there is now strong evidence that psi phenomena exist. While this is an impressive statistic, all it means is that the outcomes of these experiments are definitely not due to coincidence. We’ve considered other common explanations like selective reporting and variations in experimental quality, and while those factors do moderate the overall results, there can be no little doubt that overall something interesting is going on. ”

The point of materialism isn't to dismiss the possibility of the paranormal, but to dismiss all claims until those claims are sufficiently demonstrated to be true. It is not enough that lots of people ascribe paranormal causation to events, it must be demonstrated that the paranormal is the most reasonable probable cause of these events. Unexplained events are merely unexplained events until we can explain them, and to posit an unexplained event as the result of the paranormal is merely an argument from ignorance - regardless of how many people make similar assumptions.

Step 1 (which is all I was intending with this OP) is to make the point that phenomena (‘colloquially called paranormal’) happen that cannot be explained by known phenomena. The hard-core materialist does not accept this first step.

Also there is a semantic confusion here. I use the term paranormal sometimes in the colloquial sense (ghosts, spirit communications, etc.). But ultimately there really is no such thing as the paranormal; materialism just has an incomplete understanding of all that is ‘normal’. Even things like souls can be a part of materialism someday.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
In the court of common sense, if something can’t be proved it should not be dismissed but considered possibly true/possibly false.
No, disbelief is the default position. A burden of proof has to be met before something can be considered reasonably believable. "Possibly true/possibly false" is a completely meaningless position as all potential claims can be considered such - what matters is whether or not we believe the claim, and with that regard it is "common sense" to disbelieve a claim until it is sufficiently demonstrated.

First of all, as most paranormal experiences are fleeting unpredictable events then repeatable verification of these types of phenomena should not be expected (unfortunately for us truth seekers).
Which is exactly why reports of supposed paranormal events almost universally are not worth believing.

The position to then just dismiss them all does not fly in the court of my common sense.
You seem to have made up this imaginary "court of common sense". To me, it is "common sense" to believe things which you have a good reason to believe. It is common sense to dismiss them all until you give me good reason to accept them all - or even a small number of them - as being paranormal in nature.

However for a small segment of paranormal phenomena some repeatable studies under controlled conditions can be done. I believe parapsychologists have shown repeatedly that something is going on that can’t be explained by any known phenomena.
Sources, please.

The dogmatic and vocal materialists (the so-called ‘Skeptic’ community would have you believe every experiment is fatally flawed and no scientific evidence for the paranormal exists.
Then please present some non-flawed scientific evidence.

Many people (who want to believe this) accept the Skeptic position as their mantra.
Skepticism means not believing something until you have sufficient reason. If you are not skeptical of most claims by default, you are gullible.

Allow me to provide a quote from a respected parapsychologist Dr. Dean Radin:

“After a century of increasingly sophisticated investigations and more than a thousand controlled studies with combined odds against chance of 10 to the 104th power to 1, there is now strong evidence that psi phenomena exist. While this is an impressive statistic, all it means is that the outcomes of these experiments are definitely not due to coincidence. We’ve considered other common explanations like selective reporting and variations in experimental quality, and while those factors do moderate the overall results, there can be no little doubt that overall something interesting is going on. ”
I see the words of a possible quack. Can you please present some actual hard facts?

Step 1 (which is all I was intending with this OP) is to make the point that phenomena (‘colloquially called paranormal’) happen that cannot be explained by known phenomena. The hard-core materialist does not accept this first step.
You are clearly straw-manning. The existence of unexplained phenomena is undeniable. The issue comes with attributing unexplained phenomena with paranormal causation. Something that is unexplained is merely unexplained until an explanation is found, and to date no supernatural or paranormal explanation has ever been sufficiently demonstrated to explain anything adequately and with full recourse to all the facts. If you can, clearly and concisely, demonstrate the paranormal, please do so.

Also there is a semantic confusion here. I use the term paranormal sometimes in the colloquial sense (ghosts, spirit communications, etc.). But ultimately there really is no such thing as the paranormal; materialism just has an incomplete understanding of all that is ‘normal’. Even things like souls can be a part of materialism someday.
If that's the case, then it should be easy to demonstrate that these things exist materially. I await your evidence.
 
Last edited:

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Just because you will be a few pounds of rotten flesh, quite happily and deservedly forgotten by the world, does not mean everyone is like you -- or wants to be.

There is a difference between wanting to be and actually being...
 

Orias

Left Hand Path
I was thinking how almost everyone I know can tell one or two or more stories from their life that are seemingly paranormal sounding. But it seems like at least half of the people on RF don’t believe in anything paranormal.

Events happen spontaneously and we can debate each event forever as to whether it involved the supernatural or not. But the position of the non-believer of the paranormal must be that ALL alleged seemingly paranormal events are non-supernatural. When there’s been untold thousands/millions reported and unreported stories in the course of the existence of the human species; the chance that all are false becomes astronomically slim when I consider the quality of so many I’ve heard (the proverbial drop in the ocean I’ve heard).

Logic tells me the paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt.

Does this make sense or do you disagree?

Edit: For this discussion: Paranormal/Supernatural = things that cannot be explained by phenomena known to modern science.

Materialist (I don't know if the perfect word exists)= Those that think alleged paranormal events can ultimately be explained away by known phenomena.

2nd Edit:In the bigger picture here's what I believe.

There is ultimately no such thing as the paranormal or supernatural. It's just that science has an incomplete understanding of all that is natural. Even things, like souls, astral planes may someday be part of science. I just use the terms supernatural/paranormal in the OP to describe phenomena that can't be explained by anything currently accepted by mainstream science.

I agree. Nature violating nature is nature. Of course, all of the opposites are consequential as well.
 
Top