Proof of the supernatural

Status
Not open for further replies.
Supernatural = beyond scientific understanding.

The "unexplained" means it is beyond current scientific understanding. Not explained by science.
Supernatural doesn't mean "beyond current scientific understanding" - it means unexplainable by science, or unexplainable by natural means.
"Unexplainable" doesn't just mean currently unexplainable but absolutely/always unexplainable - i.e. zero chance of ever being explained by....

Something can be currently unexplained without being unexplainable.
 
I edited your post to fix the messed up quote tag (you had quotes around your post as well)



Yes, yes it does. In fact, there is an entire study of this phenomenon, and is a staple in several types of psychological evaluation:

http://www.education.com/science-fair/article/hear-what-they-want-to-hear/
http://www.skepdic.com/pareidol.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia






Thus, if they were expecting or hoping to hear someone cry for help, it would be almost EXPECTED that any otherwise indistinguishable noise would be heard as such.

Pareidolia is when an already extant noise is mistaken for something else. There was no noise coming from the submerged car to confuse with a woman's voice. None at all. Here's the video of the rescue at the point of trying to overturn the car. Reports say their adrenaline kicked in when they heard the voice. Makes perfect sense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ho-spent-14-hours-trapped-inside-wrecked-car/
 
And ghostly voices are not ridiculous....

More plausible than ghostly voices from the dead.

They get their 5 minutes of fame, job done.

That's called poisoning the well--attributing fame motives to honest rescue workers just doin their job. You will resort to anything to deny the obvious won't you?
 
It doesn't need to be proven to be considered a more rational explanation than "the supernatural".
A natural explanation trumps the supernatural every time with regard what should be considered a rational explanation.

Only for someone who doesn't believe in the paranormal. For those who acknowledge it, the supernatural is as plausible an explanation as any other. And in this case it happens to be the MOST plausible of all.

Furthermore, it would only take one of them to think they heard words, and then for group psychology to get to work during their conversations for them all to end up genuinely convinced they heard the same thing, for such reasons as wanting to support each other, not wanting to appear left out of the group, desire to help etc.

No..they ALL claimed to hear the same voice saying the same thing. One of them even shouted back: "We're coming for you!"
 
For those who acknowledge them, aliens are as plausible an explanation as any other.
 
Supernatural doesn't mean "beyond current scientific understanding" - it means unexplainable by science, or unexplainable by natural means.
"Unexplainable" doesn't just mean currently unexplainable but absolutely/always unexplainable - i.e. zero chance of ever being explained by....

Something can be currently unexplained without being unexplainable.

You are the one injecting the word "unexplainable". That is not the word this debate is about. It was comparing "unexplained" with "supernatural". They are both the same thing. At least in this case.

No, that's wrong.

Just because something is beyond current scientific understanding doesn't make it supernatural. It's just not been explained yet.

Exactly. Supernatural things like these just haven't been explained by science yet. I think eventually they will be. As I said in previous post, it's very hard for science to test these things. Because science hasn't been able to verify these things you cast them away. That's like not believing in a murder because the blood was too old to be tested for DNA. DNA testing is not the end all be all, and neither is scientific testing. There are other methods of reasoning and logic to believe in the murder. And yes, just like DNA is a very powerful method to verify things, the scientific method is a very powerful method to test things by, but this is simply not needed to believe in something. You go every day believing in things not tested by the scientific method. The scientific method is very strict, and for good reason. Another example would be not thinking a movie is good because it didn't win an Oscar, or not believing a medicine works because it hasn't been approved by the FDA. FDA clearance takes a long time and is very strict for good reason. There are surely medicines that work with evidence that they work, but haven't been cleared yet.
 
Pareidolia is when an already extant noise is mistaken for something else. There was no noise coming from the submerged car to confuse with a woman's voice. None at all. Here's the video of the rescue at the point of trying to overturn the car. Reports say their adrenaline kicked in when they heard the voice. Makes perfect sense.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ho-spent-14-hours-trapped-inside-wrecked-car/

So... that video is evidence that there was "no noise" around? There was plenty of ambient noise. I didn't hear anything on the video sounding like a voice though. HOWEVER:

If you watch, at the 49-51 second marks, it looks like the camera feed "cuts" for a moment... because in one frame, we see the rescue working in the beige shirt on the left side of the frame as the sole person in view (we can see that side of the car - there is nobody else there) - suddenly, there are two more officers there - they just "appear".

Something's up... either the footage has been edited to cut something out, etc...
 
That's called poisoning the well--attributing fame motives to honest rescue workers just doin their job. You will resort to anything to deny the obvious won't you?
How do you know they are honest?

What? Because they are police officers, they are automatically honest while doing their job? No one is perfect, MR. Some rescue workers even take selfies at accident scenes. Then they post them on twitter. You know, for those few seconds of fame. A paramedic in Russia took selfies with dying patients and posted them online.

So why do you think these officers are any different?

Oh, and the story of what they heard changed, by the way..

“We could see a person in the front seat and then we heard a voice saying, ‘Help me, we’re in here.’ It was clear as day,” said Officer Tyler Beddoes of the Spanish Fork Police Department, one of four men who pulled an unconscious 18-month-old from a car — which had been submerged in near-freezing water for 14 hours — as her mother lay dead in the driver’s seat.


Amazing what came out of that chat all four of them had..

And finally, the video of the whole rescue, as they stabilised the car to see who was inside, and then their panic and realisation when they realised there was someone inside, does not mention anything about anyone hearing anything. And the video is from one of the rescuers who arrived there when the car was still upside down and submerged, and then they tip the car up onto its side to check inside and then they all start screaming in panic when they realised there was a baby inside and they start calling out because there were no signs of life from the baby and it wasn't until they pulled her out that they realised she may have been alive. At no time did anyone even mention hearing anything through that whole video. But their account to the papers was quite different..

Beddoes and his fellow first responders braved the chilly waters long enough to turn the red Dodge sedan, which was upside down, and pull little Lily Groesbeck out of her car seat, in which she had been suspended since her mother Jennifer Groesbeck apparently lost control of the car the previous evening.

“We could see her eyes fluttering so there was some life but as far as movements or consciousness there was nothing that we could see,” Beddoes told the Daily News on Monday.


The video that was filmed by the first rescuers on the scene clearly shows the police and the firemen calling to each other about how there were no signs of life and then you clearly see them pull her out of the car and they realise she is alive and they start screaming up the embankment for someone to give them a blanket as they bolted for the ambulance.

Considering that those first responder's had to be treated for hypothermia afterwards, because they were standing in that water for too long getting her out, I would take what they believe they heard and then talked about before telling the media what they heard, with a large grain of salt. Actually, make it an ocean's worth of salt.

Do you want to know why?

Hypothermia can cause hallucinations and delirium.

If you still believe they heard voices from beyond..

I have a bridge if you want to buy it. :)
 
What? Because they are police officers, they are automatically honest while doing their job.

Yes..Rescue workers don't make up stories about their rescue just to get on the evening news. They have character. They have a drive to do the right thing. They're not thinking, "How can I spin this story to make myself famous." It's frankly pathetic to accuse people of such motives who are in my book heroes who should only be praised.




I see. So now they were lying AND experiencing hallucinations from hypothermia? LOL! You're really getting desperate now.4 people don't hallucinate the same words from the same voice at the same time. Try again?
 
Last edited:
Yes..Rescue workers don't make up stories about their rescue just to get on the evening news. They have character. They have a drive to do the right thing. They're not thinking, "How can I spin this story to make myself famous." It's frankly pathetic to accuse people of such motives who are in my book heroes who should only be praised.

And yet... we see it happening, sadly more and more frequently... or are you simply ignoring the evidence Bells posted? Oh, that's right... you don't do that whole "evidence" thing... too inconvenient for you to have to actually back your statements up with facts.

I see. So now they were lying AND experiencing hallucinations from hypothermia? LOL! You're really getting desperate now.4 people don't hallucinate the same words from the same voice at the same time. Try again?

The only person desperate here is you... your own video shows no evidence of any "voices" being there, yet there was plenty of background noise that could have easily been mistaken for it in a high-stress high-adrenaline situation... as usual, your claims are completely without merit or evidence...
 
And yet... we see it happening, sadly more and more frequently... or are you simply ignoring the evidence Bells posted? Oh, that's right... you don't do that whole "evidence" thing... too inconvenient for you to have to actually back your statements up with facts.

There's no evidence what they heard was a hallucination OR a made up story after the fact. None whatsoever. The testimony of those who were there stands. 4 rescue workers heard a female voice from inside the overturned car that prompted them to turn it over and rescue the baby. That's the facts.

The only person desperate here is you... your own video shows no evidence of any "voices" being there, yet there was plenty of background noise that could have easily been mistaken for it in a high-stress high-adrenaline situation... as usual, your claims are completely without merit or evidence...

The video only starts after the rescue workers are already around the car. The voice was heard before that, when they were further away from the car and rushing towards it. And no, 4 rescue workers don't mistake "background noise" for a woman's voice yelling inside an overturned car.

"Four police officers rushing to an overturned car in an icy Utah river say they all heard the same thing: a mysterious female voice calling out “Help,” from inside the vehicle."===http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/1...pushed-them-to-rescue-toddler-trapped-inside/
 
Last edited:
There's no evidence what they heard was a hallucination OR a made up story after the fact. None whatsoever. The testimony of those who were there stands. 4 rescue workers heard a female voice from inside the overturned car that prompted them to turn it over and rescue the baby. That's the facts.



The video only starts after the rescue workers are already around the car. The voice was heard before that, when they were further away from the car and rushing towards it. And no, 4 rescue workers don't mistake "background noise" for a woman's voice yelling inside an overturned car.

"Four police officers rushing to an overturned car in an icy Utah river say they all heard the same thing: a mysterious female voice calling out “Help,” from inside the vehicle."===http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/1...pushed-them-to-rescue-toddler-trapped-inside/

There's no evidence they heard voices at all...

Thus, in the face of zero evidence either way, the more plausible story makes sense.
 
No..it's not human nature to hallucinate. And certainly not 4 people hearing the same thing..
Actually it is human nature to hallucinate. No one knows what they heard. It's far more likely that they are all lying than that the entire natural order were upended as in the case of your supernatural explanation. I could name thousands of things which are more likely. But you want to believe your beliefs so you don't care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually it is human nature to hallucinate. No one knows what they heard. It's far more likely that they are all lying than that the entire natural order were upended as in the case of your supernatural explanation. I could name thousands of things which are more likely. But you want to believe your silly beliefs so you don't care.

It's far more likely that, as is evidenced in photos, videos, and paranormal investigations the world over, that they heard the same voice saying the same thing at the same time from the same location than that they all simultaneously hallucinated the same thing. And yeah..we've heard your "explanations". Still sticking to the talking dolphin? lol!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top