Recently in a comment someone posted something particularly ignunt. Since it is my personal policy to exterminate all ignunce I spot, I shall respond with a toast. If only the commenter had been Catholic. That would have earned me quite a few points for Piss Off The Catholics Month.
Compliment for your analytical s kills.
But that does not prove that there are no paranormal phenomena. Of course there are often possibilities of other explanations, but that don’t proves anything, too.
Why don’t you read a certain time paranormal books like the books from Jane Roberts? They are very psychologic and scientific, too. Only if you accept a certain time alternative theories, than you can speak about experience, otherwise your words are nothing than prejudices.
Greets from Germany
PS: Maybe you respond me via e-mail?
I would imagine that this is a bit better than email, so I’ll use this (observe how “email” is beginning to look like a proper word, rather than a misspelling of “e-mail.” I’ll do a toast on this phenomenon soon.).
English is not his first language, so I won’t mock his spelling and grammar. What he is saying, however, is particularly ignunt.
When I do logical smackdowns, I like to go for elegant proofs over easy ones when possible. Using the burden of proof is simply too easy. It certainly does apply here, but I can’t make a 919 or 616 word post out of “Prove it”, can I?
Here’s the elegant proof: There are no paranormal phenomena because any “paranormal” phenomenon which is observed and have an effect on the universe is thus natural by definition. QED. Any philosophers reading this will likely feel obligated to respond to this using several times the word count and with half the content. I will say only that the idea of anything “paranormal” “existing” is absurd. Thus we have no reason to concern ourselves with “paranormal” phenomenon.
As to the statement that “Only if you accept a certain time alternative theories, than you can speak about experience, otherwise your words are nothing than prejudices.”, I say this: No, not really.
I should probably elaborate, though that’s certainly not necessary. Burden of proof strikes again. Nasty little thing, isn’t it? Regardless, I do not accept “alternative theories” because if they were anything more than bullshit, they would be theories, not “alternative”. “Alternative _______” is a creative way of saying “The mean Western scientists won’t believe that (insert claim here) is true despite the fact that it can’t survive logical scrutiny!”.
Homeopathy, ghosts, gods, and other “alternative theories” are all bunk. They are all based on the same premises as any other theory, but add some more, unfounded premises. Some examples of this are: “like cures like”, “spirits or souls can become trapped on Earth”, or “God created the universe”. These are added to the basic premise of science that the universe is objective and logical. Anyone trying to prove anything has to accept this premise, since logic is the way you go about proving things. If what you say is not logical, it’s wrong, simple as that.
For reasons I’ve detailed above, “paranormal” events are almost certainly nonexistent.
For some reason alien life is often grouped in with paranormal phenomena. Life on Earth is natural. Life on another planet would be just as natural. The idea of alien life visiting Earth is silly, but certainly less silly than the idea of houses being “haunted”, or god existing. If I had the capacity to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before, Earth would be the last place I’d visit.
It helps to remember that we are just a pale blue dot in a vast cosmic arena. Nothing of consequence happened today.
For anyone wondering about the recent lull in posting, a combination of recent events have kept Elles and I from the site. Posting will resume as normal now.
Unicorns are very difficult to find.