It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Paranormal events and Natural explanations

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 05:33 PM
I'm tired of hearing people like the skeptic Michael Shermer or James Randi talk about natural explanations for supernatural events. I believe that supernatural events are natural events that we are not advanced enough to explain. These events are true and we can deduce there truthfulness through reason. There's mountains of evidence for things like ufology, psychic ability and ghost. We can examine this evidence and conclude that these things exist beyond a reasonable doubt. There's both circumstantial and direct evidence to support these things. We send people to jail or sentence them to death based on the reason of 12 individuals. So we can know that these things are true beyond any reasonable doubt.

If we were to go back 2,000 years ago and clone a sheep, it would be considered a supernatural event by many of the people from that time period. A natural explanation to a skeptic is an explanation that agree's with their belief system. This is not seeking the truth, this is seeking answers that you have already decided to be the case before you even ask the questions. To most skeptic, U.F.O.'s can't be the answer, psychics can't be the answer, ghosts can't be the answer, so they start out with a priori that these things can't exist so a natural explanation to them is anything that doesn't include these things. Again, this is not seeking the truth.

Why can't life after death be a natural explanation? Why can't psychic abilitity be something that happens naturally? See I believe these things are part of the natural order of things. We just don't fully understand them like the people from 2,000 years ago wouldn't fully understand cloning. There's more evidence for these things then there is for black holes but black holes are easier to accept because they don't threaten the skeptics belief system. We naturally survive death and the only supernatural thing about it is we don't fully understand it yet.

When psychics talk about communicating with the deceased, they often talk about connecting to their energy. This lets us know that we survive death and we are in a natural/material state still.

I just think it's very silly to deny these things because they threaten your belief system. Many skeptics come up with some of the craziest conclusions. Everybody is hallucinating, or nuts or they didn't see what they thought they saw. This only makes sense in the context of a skeptics belief system, this is not exploring for the truth. A natural explanation just means an explanation that agrees with my preconceived notions. U.F.O.'s are a natural explanation, psychic ability is a natural explanation. A natural explanation doesn't mean that these things don't exists even though a skeptic wants you to believe that's the case. So the natural explanation for psychic ability can be that psychic ability occurs naturally and we survive death naturally. This will not work with many skeptics because naturally to them has to be something that doesn't include life after death because life after death clashes with their belief system.

Here's an example of psychic ability. The police had a composite drawing made of the suspect in a murder that the psychic saw. The police also found an eyewitness to the crime and they used his drawing to put on the local news. They put the psychics drawing and all the information she gave them away in a file. Years later a cold case detective pulled out the file and began to re-examine the case. He found out the original witness was drunk and his composite drawing was no good. The police officer contacted the psychic and got more information about the crime and then he asked his Chief could he put the drawing on the local news show. The Chief said yes and they got a few hits and one of the hits matched the information the psychic gave about the killer. When the suspect came in they knew they had the killer because he matched the composite drawing of the psychic.

posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 05:40 PM

The psychic also said he killed her because she threatened to spill the beans about their secret. When the killer confessed he said he killed her because she threatened to tell his wife about their affair. So a sketch from a psychic years earlier helped the police find the killer. The police officer, the Chief and others involved with the case all vouch for the psychic.

I can tell you stories about psychics all day, but skeptics will have you believe that ecerybody is lying or mistaken. This grandma spent her whole life planning to fool Police veterans. This is what many skeptics want you to believe. I don't think that makes sense. I think it's easier to accept these things and explore them, rather than deny them at all costs no matter how silly the denial is.

posted on May, 1 2007 @ 12:24 AM
HI Polomontana !

I can understand your frustration. Your post is similar to many I've written in forums and echoes my point of view during many discussions.

Like you, I compared witness statements re: paranormal experiences to witness-testimony in court and/or jury decisions.

In the end, you sort of burn out. Repeating the same thing tends to dull it. It's been happening to people for centuries. Some of them bequeath their experiences and research to future generations in the form of books. Most depart this planet still wondering what, if anything, lies ahead, despite their numerous paranormal experiences and belief in an afterlife.

The Randis of the world don't bother me, never did. There's a place and need for scepticism, as you've no doubt discovered as the result of reading forums. A lot of people lie about their alleged paranormal experiences. Who knows why: maybe they seek attention or maybe they really want to believe something so desperately that they invent it in the hope this will encourage the real thing.

The danger is that someone will read those imaginary experiences and believe them and repeat them as 'true'. I'm sure you'll agree that lies can only detract from genuine experiences. So it's good there are those who question sceptically and debunk. It helps keep the pool clean.

Many paranormal experiences beggar belief: they sound crazy, impossible, invented, illogical, nonsensical. I've had some of those myself. And to be honest, I doubt I'd believe them if someone else reported them. I don't expect others to believe them. Only those who've had a similar or identical experience could believe them -- or those who know me well enough and who realise that I'm too lazy and proud to sink to lies (and there are very few people in life who know us that well).

So, when I recount an experience, it's similar to setting a balloon free. I'm aware when I post such experiences that there will be many who think I'm a raving, attention-seeking, possibly psychotic loony and who, ever after, will grant absolutely NO credibility to anything I post afterwards, regardless of topic.

It's a decision we all have to make, being aware beforehand of the consequences. I'm prepared to do so, because I remember the years when I had no-one in whom to confide, re: my 'unusual' experiences. There was no internet, few books I could afford dedicated to the paranormal and most people simply didn't accept or were unwilling to accept that ordinary people could have such experiences. Those who did have paranormal experiences were widely regarded as 'weird' and 'freaky' and were avoided or made the butt of jokes and sarcasm. Even my spouse spat at me scathingly on more than one occasion: 'Anyway, everyone knows you're a freak. People think you're crazy -- did you know that? You just make a fool of yourself when you talk about things like that. Why don't you just shut-up. '

So, on the occasions I post my experiences, they're intended for those who are now as I was then: for those who seek confirmation of their own experience/s; who'll be comforted and reassured to learn that out there somewhere, someone else has experienced the same or similar thing. That's all it takes, sometimes, to restore equilibrium and confidence.

Those who've already endured a spontaneous, often frightening paranormal experience (usually when they're alone and vulnerable) really need and appreciate confirmation and reassurance, despite that it's provided by a complete stranger online in a forum somewhere.

If they'd been subjected to such emotional, spiritual and mental stress in the workplace, they'd receive sympathy, counselling, hugs and lots of tender care. When their trauma is inflicted via paranormal means however, they're ridiculed, ostracised, treated with contempt and often revulsion. And that's if they're brave or naive enough to tell anyone about it.

Yes, those who've had a paranormal experience are certainly entitled to whatever confidence boost and restoration of their equilibrium as we're able to provide. Which is why, I suspect, many (including myself) make the effort to do so, regardless of cost to our own credibility.

But sceptics are necessary too and are to be appreciated. They serve a valuable purpose, even if at times those who falsely pose as genuine-sceptics stoop to sarcasm, ridicule and accusations of 'lies' and/or 'imagination'.

To be acknowledged also is that *IF* paranormal phenomena were *SO* indisputable and proven, then there'd be no debate, would there? I mean there's no dispute about the fact the sky and sea appear blue, is there? That's because EVERYone has experience of blue skies and seas. Everyone knows what bread is. No dispute. No ridiculing those taken for granted 'facts'.

So clearly, not everyone experiences paranormal phenomena and as such, there is no onus upon them to accept as true the paranormal claims of others. And those of us who *have* experienced the paranormal are compelled to accept that.

In time, it may come about that the paranormal is as taken for granted as the sky and sea. At which point, no doubt, it will cease to be of particular interest.

At the moment, we're all mostly prepared to accept that humans 'die'. Not much dispute about that. Who knows if sometime in the future, most will be prepared to accept that after physical-death, we experience an after-life. The debate and dispute then may well focus on the 'types' of after-life and what steps people can take to ensure they 'go somewhere nice'.

Hope this doesn't sound unsympathetic, because it's not intended to be. At the moment, re: the paranormal, it's basically a case of being able to lead the horse to water but being unable to force it to drink.

There are those who are certain of the reality of the paranormal (ghosts, entities, etc) and those who are not ---- with a large number remaining undecided but nevertheless interested. Which is a fairly healthy state of affairs as I'm sure you'll agree. And it's as much as anyone could hope for, really, considering that neither you nor I can 'prove' the reality of many paranormal phenomena, just as Randi is unable to 'disprove' them.

It'll all work out in the end --- if it's intended to.

posted on May, 1 2007 @ 04:17 AM
I like your post Dock6 but I disagree with your conclusion. I think paranormal events can be proven. I think you first have to change the standard of proof. Supernatural events by definition can't be soley probed by just using the scientific method. There supernatural events because we are not advanced enough to fully understand these things. I truly think this is because a lack of spiritual development. These things are not looked into as vigorously as they should be because of bias and belief systems of skeptics and critics. Theoretical physicist Dr. Kaku said you shouldn't talk about these things until you make tenure. This is the bias that's built in the system.

These things should be tested scientifically and should be weighed using reason. There's plenty of evidence that clearly points to the existence of these phenomenoms. See, the skeptic wants to lump all these things together. There's a difference between someone saying a flying pink monkey was in the backyard and ufology. There's no evidence for the flying monkey but there's plenty of evidence that supports ufology. These things have to be weighed differently and if you use reason where is the doubt that U.F.O. exists? Remember no reasonable doubt, not without a shadow of a doubt. We use reason everyday to convict criminals across America.

There's more evidence for these things than there is for black holes or dark matter but these things can be explored but the supernatural is greeted with ridicule. There's over a thousand peer reviewed papers on psychic ability and near death experiences. These papers get overlooked because there's many skeptics, athiest, secularist in the system and these things clash with their belief systems.

So again, a natural explanation seems to be one that excludes psychic ability and life after death. How is this seeking the truth? This means you make these things seperate from the natural order of things.

I could give you hundreds of examples but the skeptic will say there has to be another explanation even though one doesn't exists. Instead of saying yes these things are true and we need to explore them vigorously because we could find future advancments for mankind, they say these things don't exist and we have to find another explanation that satisfies our belief system.

I recently went to another message board and posted these things. It was a skeptic message board and the thread was locked in like 15 minutes. The skeptical moderators there couldn't debate the point and they were frustrated. I'm convinced this is belief not reason.

[edit on 1-5-2007 by polomontana]

new topics

top topics

log in