Proof of the supernatural

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ophiolite said:
Well, I have seen ghosts on two occasions and I certainly do not believe in them as I consider eye witness testimony to be of very limited value and I have alternate explanations that are much sounder.
Click to expand...

You saw ghosts on two occasions but do not believe in them? How does that work? Either you saw them or you didn't, right?
 
Magical Realist said:
You saw ghosts on two occasions but do not believe in them? How does that work? Either you saw them or you didn't, right?
Click to expand...

I also once saw the Space Shuttle disappear before my very eyes... that doesn't mean it was actually gone.

 
Find something that says science imdefineltly rules out that ghosts or aliens are real. And then you can try and use science as your logical reasoning.
 
spidergoat said:
Any number of places, including animals, inanimate mechanical sounds, and the mother, who they only found dead, but might not have been dead at the time.
Click to expand...

"Lily’s mother, Lynn Jennifer Groesbeck, died in the crash that had landed their car on its roof in the Spanish Fork River. She was 25 years old."==http://wqad.com/2015/03/09/mother-killed-baby-found-alive-in-overturned-submerged-car-in-utah/

That rules out the mother. And no, I'm not buying the speaking animal/machine theory.
 
Magical Realist said:
"Lily’s mother, Lynn Jennifer Groesbeck, died in the crash that had landed their car on its roof in the Spanish Fork River. She was 25 years old."==http://wqad.com/2015/03/09/mother-killed-baby-found-alive-in-overturned-submerged-car-in-utah/

That rules out the mother. And no, I'm not buying the speaking animal/machine theory.
Click to expand...
That's because you reject scientific standards of evidence. Pretty much anything naturalistic is more plausible than a supernatural explanation, including a talking fish. Or the mistakenly heard cries of a baby.
 
Bells said:
Why not?

It is just as plausible as a ghost or spirit, if not more so.
Click to expand...

I think it could be aliens too, or hyper-dimensional beings. How does a speaking animal/machine work? There are a lot of eyewitness accounts of aliens and beings like ghosts, but not as much for speaking animals or machines. 5 eyewitness accounts by respected people is enough to put someone in prison for life, it should be enough to believe something is out there.
 
spidergoat said:
That's because you reject scientific standards of evidence. Pretty much anything naturalistic is more plausible than a supernatural explanation, including a talking fish. Or the mistakenly heard cries of a baby.
Click to expand...

How could 5 people mistake the cries of a baby for someone calling for help? That's really illogical reasoning for someone that claims to be an intellectual. Even for 1 person it would be stretching but plausible, not FIVE RESPECTED AND HEALTHY PEOPLE. Btw, a talking fish IS supernatural. What do you think it is?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is just as plausible as a ghost or spirit, if not more so.
Click to expand...

Right. Thousands of pics, audio recordings, and eyewitness accounts of ghosts but none of talking machines/animals. The odds say ghost.

Hey! Maybe it was a parrot in a nearby tree! lol!
 
Really? Why, exactly, do the odds say "ghost" and not "aliens implanting hallucinations in people's minds with their outer-space ray guns"?
 
spidergoat said:
That's because you reject scientific standards of evidence. Pretty much anything naturalistic is more plausible than a supernatural explanation, including a talking fish. Or the mistakenly heard cries of a baby.
Click to expand...

5 eyewitnesses is good enough for any crime, news event, or historical event. If we waited for science to confirm everything, we'd never believe in anything. Not even talking fishes or unconscious babies who cry "Help me! Help me!" lol!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top