evidence for the supernatural

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, Atwater Vitki said:

...but...but...Casper was friendly...Jason, Steve and Tango seem like credible sorts and the other guys over at G.A., Zak, Aaron, Billy and in the past Nick did a bang up job of providing some great video evidence!

It's all very interesting to say the least and like our good buddy Fox Moulder over at the FBI says: "I want to believe". Is there 100%, absolutely indisputable evidence of the afterlife? In a word, "No!" A lot of compelling, dramatic and enticing video coverage that seems to make the case but then again one could almost lay in the grass on Pandora with the excellent 3D effects in Avatar™.

I think perhaps that knowing, 100%, for sure, without any doubt, there is in fact an afterlife is one of the things humanity just might not be ready to know. We know already how purposeful, well intention, good things get corrupted when mankind gets a hold of it.

And besides, if we knew for certain there was an afterlife...wouldn't that blow the whole concept of "salvation" out the window?

Blessings Be,

Maybe.  Maybe not.  Knowing with evidence that there is an afterlife would be a good start.  Only a start.  This is how knowledge increases.  Incrementally.

 

[akman2495]

On January 29, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Maybe.  Maybe not.  Knowing with evidence that there is an afterlife would be a good start.  Only a start.  This is how knowledge increases.  Incrementally.

 

True..But if it turns out to be great, perhaps a "no suicide clause" would be needed. Otherwise, it could be a wholesale run to get out of here....

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, akman2495 said:

True..But if it turns out to be great, perhaps a "no suicide clause" would be needed. Otherwise, it could be a wholesale run to get out of here....

That has always been a problem with death cults.  It is why Islamist suicide bombers are a problem now.

[ChaplainMike]

I prefer the term paranormal, meaning outside of what we know as "normal" . Spirits, ghosts (I feel that there is a distinction of the two terms) demons, djinn, fae, etc, would fall into my idea of paranormal. The temr supernatural, in my opinion would be reserved for things like Deity (and if this is what was what the op was referring to, then I stand corrected.)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 10/25/2016 at 11:07 AM, ArchbishopMike134 said:

I prefer the term paranormal, meaning outside of what we know as "normal" . Spirits, ghosts (I feel that there is a distinction of the two terms) demons, djinn, fae, etc, would fall into my idea of paranormal. The temr supernatural, in my opinion would be reserved for things like Deity (and if this is what was what the op was referring to, then I stand corrected.)

In my opinion, for what it's worth, everything that exists is, by definition, part of the natural order.  That means that if fairies or gods exist, they are part of the natural order as well..  We don't need a supernatural classification at all, if everything is natural.

 

[Thumper]

On 1/14/2016 at 9:08 AM, cuchulain said:

In reexamining my beliefs, I realize that this is ultimately what it boils down to.  Is there any reasonable evidence for supernatural events happening?  If there is no evidence for the supernatural, then clearly there is no evidence for any sort of deity.  Supernatural is defined as some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.  Deity is defined as a god or goddess, divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme being.  Reasonable is defined as having sound judgement, fair and sensible, capable of reasoning, rational.

So, I pose the question:  Does anyone here have any reasonable evidence for supernatural happenings?  I would consider a preponderance of anecdotal stories from reliable sources as evidence, meaning stories from people who haven't been diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder, or who don't clearly promote a specific agenda, and in numerous amounts.  I personally have that "one" story from my own experience, and having had three friends with me as witnesses that it actually occurred, but whether or not the event was supernatural is undetermined by those of us with a sound mental background.  The other person who was convinced it was supernatural later ended up in an institution, with the firm belief he was a werewolf, so for obvious reasons I disbelieve his accounting.

Reasonable evidence?  If by that we mean evidence that withstand scientific scrutiny? No, nothing I have seen fits that bill, but I have seen a lot.  I'm not a professional ghost hunter by any means, but in my youth I was certainly interested in paranormal activities.  It stemmed from an attempt to prove that my father still existed on some level after his death, but it grew to be an obsession that occupied much of my time.  I temper my experiences during that period of my life with the understanding that I "wanted" to have an experience.  My partner was a skeptic and he didn't experience the same things I did even though we were always right next to each other.  Until one day he had an experience that sent him running out of the building we were in and running from paranormal investigation forever.  Unfortunately I didn't feel or see what he did, but I know it was a very real and raw experience.  We have no reasonable evidence, but we know that paranormal activities exist. 

[Youch]

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 9:43 AM, mererdog said:

I think your definition is flawed because, based on it, lightning was once supernatural. 

No, it just used to be something unexplained. It was always natural.

I believe religion was born from our early naivete as a means to explain the world around us.

[cuchulain]

I relate religion and logic like this:  Say you have no working understanding of higher mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry...say you walk into a class room for physics and there is a complex equation on the board.  Being a physics equation, it has notations in higher mathematics, which you don't understand.  Now, religion takes what is on the board and uses it as evidence for the existence of God having created everything.  Logic takes what is on the board and says I cannot explain that at present.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 1/14/2016 at 11:08 AM, cuchulain said:

In reexamining my beliefs, I realize that this is ultimately what it boils down to.  Is there any reasonable evidence for supernatural events happening?  If there is no evidence for the supernatural, then clearly there is no evidence for any sort of deity.  Supernatural is defined as some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.  Deity is defined as a god or goddess, divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme being.  Reasonable is defined as having sound judgement, fair and sensible, capable of reasoning, rational.

So, I pose the question:  Does anyone here have any reasonable evidence for supernatural happenings?  I would consider a preponderance of anecdotal stories from reliable sources as evidence, meaning stories from people who haven't been diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder, or who don't clearly promote a specific agenda, and in numerous amounts.  I personally have that "one" story from my own experience, and having had three friends with me as witnesses that it actually occurred, but whether or not the event was supernatural is undetermined by those of us with a sound mental background.  The other person who was convinced it was supernatural later ended up in an institution, with the firm belief he was a werewolf, so for obvious reasons I disbelieve his accounting.

We may be stumbling over semantics.  I think it would help if you give a few examples of what you mean by supernatural; instead of a broad definition.

For instance, the gods.  What do we mean by a god?  For that matter, an angel? Or a fairy?  When we see these words, it is easy to get sucked into a vortex of invisible assumptions.  Perhaps we don't mean the same things at all.  If any of these things can be said to exist, they would be part of Nature.  It follows that limiting the question to the Supernatural, could be highly misleading.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 12/2/2016 at 5:53 PM, Thumper said:

Reasonable evidence?  If by that we mean evidence that C? No, nothing I have seen fits that bill, but I have seen a lot.  I'm not a professional ghost hunter by any means, but in my youth I was certainly interested in paranormal activities.  It stemmed from an attempt to prove that my father still existed on some level after his death, but it grew to be an obsession that occupied much of my time.  I temper my experiences during that period of my life with the understanding that I "wanted" to have an experience.  My partner was a skeptic and he didn't experience the same things I did even though we were always right next to each other.  Until one day he had an experience that sent him running out of the building we were in and running from paranormal investigation forever.  Unfortunately I didn't feel or see what he did, but I know it was a very real and raw experience.  We have no reasonable evidence, but we know that paranormal activities exist. 

There is reasonable and there is reasonable.  Not everything has to "stand up to scientific scrutiny."  Sometimes, it is enough to indicate that further investigation might be interesting.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 12/3/2016 at 3:51 PM, cuchulain said:

I relate religion and logic like this:  Say you have no working understanding of higher mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry...say you walk into a class room for physics and there is a complex equation on the board.  Being a physics equation, it has notations in higher mathematics, which you don't understand.  Now, religion takes what is on the board and uses it as evidence for the existence of God having created everything.  Logic takes what is on the board and says I cannot explain that at present.

This is a case in point about invisible assumptions.  To my understanding, religion is largely about making magic -- Not logic.

[Youch]

On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 at 10:15 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

religion is largely about making magic -- Not logic.

Isn't it more about belief? 

I've not ever heard religiosity being about logic or magic. To me, such descriptors are meant to dismiss.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

44 minutes ago, Youch said:

Isn't it more about belief? 

I've not ever heard religiosity being about logic or magic. To me, such descriptors are meant to dismiss.  

Now, religion is about piety.  To my understanding, religion has its origins in making magic.

What are the gods but personifications?  When an aspect of nature, like chaos, is personified -- the priesthood then has a means of speaking to chaos.  Possibly bribing chaos or forcing it to obey our will.  To day, we call it prayer.  I didn't say that the magic would actually work.  Just my thoughts on where magic and religion have common roots.  Yes, I do regard prayer as a form of magic, even now.

Of course, in today's modern world, we are above such things.  Then again, look at the Statue of Liberty.  We need only install a priesthood and an altar -- and we can literally worship at Liberty's feet.   It is still popular to talk about the "blessings of Liberty."  How is that for the personification of an abstraction?  Magic and devotion combined.  And we thought that Monotheism had won out.  No.  The old gods are with us still.  Their forms change and their names change, but they never quite leave.

[Shinebright23]

The soul that each one of us has,  is made of pure energy.  It basically powers up our entire body as we live but when the soul leaves the body it dies.  

Any time u come in contact with a spirit,  do ur best to guide it home. They're still here on earth because they don't know that they're dead or the have some serious unfinished business or they're lost & last maybe  they were too attached to worldly objects. 

 

[Brother Kaman]

What evidence do you have, Shinebright23, that man has a soul?

[Shinebright23]

It's not something that can be seen because unfortunately, energy cannot be seen. It's more of a feeling & the feeling will come from your solar plexus. If you don't know where the solar plexus is, google it. 

The brain can power a light bulb with its energy,  where do you think that energy comes from? 

It's the energy from our soul that powers our entire being.  When the soul leaves the body or shell dies.  

Our soul goes on to the next mission. 

There is a book called "psychic energy by Joseph J Weed." That book can shed some insight on that realm & hopefully answer any questions you may have. 

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, Shinebright23 said:

It's not something that can be seen because unfortunately, energy cannot be seen.

Actually, light is the only thing that can be seen, and light is energy. When you are looking at a dog, for example, what you actually see is light reflecting off the dog. If someone redirects that energy with a mirror or lens before it reaches you, the dog will seem to vanish, even if it never moved. That is probably a good metaphor for something....

[Shinebright23]

I have a good connection with animals & just like us,  each animal has a beautiful soul inside.  

Mirrors & disappearing acts aren't something I'm into.  I just go with my gut instinct! 

You are much more powerful than u even know.  The human brain is amazing! Exercise that muscle & use it,  that's why it's in your head! Open your mind & u will be amazed.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 5:11 PM, Shinebright23 said:

I have a good connection with animals & just like us,  each animal has a beautiful soul inside.  

Mirrors & disappearing acts aren't something I'm into.  I just go with my gut instinct! 

You are much more powerful than u even know.  The human brain is amazing! Exercise that muscle & use it,  that's why it's in your head! Open your mind & u will be amazed.

It is good to be open to evidence.  Past a point, there must be evidence, if we are not going to be stuck on belief.  I do not find that belief, by itself, is adequate.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 1/12/2017 at 1:06 PM, mererdog said:

Actually, light is the only thing that can be seen, and light is energy. When you are looking at a dog, for example, what you actually see is light reflecting off the dog. If someone redirects that energy with a mirror or lens before it reaches you, the dog will seem to vanish, even if it never moved. That is probably a good metaphor for something....

This thread was just starting to dip into the nature of illusion.  I hope people have more to say about this.