• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Supernatural can never be "proved" to exist (Split from Hypothetical Million...)

Maatorc: There are a great many people claiming paranormal abilities. No one has been able to demonstrate them under test conditions. So we're skeptical. We hear so many excuses here--"Randi doesn't have the money...what does paranormal mean?...how would we know it was really remote viewing...etc." We're waiting for a fair demonstration. Instead of excuses, I'd like for one of the very many people making claims to show us their talents are real.

That would be interesting, but is unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Exactly the point of my post, which was immediately prior to his and available for several hours. Perhaps it was not clear enough maatorc?

I did say in post 34:
Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Therefore, in certain instances it will be reasonable to infer, without being able to prove, the truth or falsity of a seemingly very convincing demonstration by the claimant, and the JREF may even choose to pay the $1M.
 
Last edited:
I did say in post 34:
Quote:
Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Therefore, in certain instances it will be reasonable to infer, without being able to prove, the truth or falsity of a seemingly very convincing demonstration by the claimant, and the JREF may even choose to pay the $1M.

Yes, yes you did. It would seem you agree JREF test could be successfully passed without firmly establishing a paranormal event. Objection to such imprecision is noted and valid, though dismissed by many in the context of the seeming inability of anyone to actually pass a test.
 
Yes, yes you did. It would seem you agree JREF test could be successfully passed without firmly establishing a paranormal event. Objection to such imprecision is noted and valid, though dismissed by many in the context of the seeming inability of anyone to actually pass a test.

My view as to claims is those who cannot do it may claim for the money or esteem, while those who can do it will not.
 
Last edited:
My view as to claims is those who cannot do it may claim for the money or esteem, while those who can do it will not.
So all persons who have actual paranormal abilities will not apply for the prize. Do you have some evidence for this or are you just pulling it out of your a**?

IXP
 
So all persons who have actual paranormal abilities will not apply for the prize. Do you have some evidence for this or are you just pulling it out of your a**? IXP

Does this mean you know someone with actual paranormal abilities, who, contrary to my observation that he will not apply, has actually told you that he will apply for the prize?

Or
...are you just pulling it out of your a**? IXP...
.
 
Last edited:
For the love of Bob, if someone out there has "paranormal" powers, prove it, and shut us pesky skeptics up. Otherwise, one might get the idea that these powers are a sham.
 
For the love of Bob, if someone out there has "paranormal" powers, prove it, and shut us pesky skeptics up. Otherwise, one might get the idea that these powers are a sham.

It cannot be phenomenally proved or disproved.
As known, it is not even necessary to win the challenge.
Technically, the challenge should be for demonstration of an event not presently understood or measurable by science.
Most people here already assume the so-called paranormal is a sham.
Hypothetically, why would one actually 'able' to demonstrate the truth of psychic reality be in any way interested in doing what the JREF-MDC cannot prove, disprove, measure, record or observe other than by at the very best once removed effects?
 
Perhaps there is one actually "able" to demonstrate a "paranormal" feat and chooses to do strictly privately.

Chances are s/he uses trickery, depends on a special setting and has of course no interest in being exposed. Purely statistical speaking of course.



Since you have dodged the question again maatorc: IXP, maatorc has hinted multiple times that he has seen or knows someone with "powers". He won't provide evidence though.
 
1...Perhaps there is one actually "able" to demonstrate a "paranormal" feat and chooses to do strictly privately. Chances are s/he uses trickery, depends on a special setting and has of course no interest in being exposed. Purely statistical speaking of course.
2...Since you have dodged the question again maatorc: IXP, maatorc has hinted multiple times that he has seen or knows someone with "powers". He won't provide evidence though.

1...There is. No special setting is required. Exposure cannot arise because the MDC cannot observe or measure the actual process of the event, and should one actually observe it at its own level one thereby participates in it and its truth lies in this realization.

2...I will not invade the person's privacy nor subject the operation to ridicule here. This should not concern anyone here, though, as no one here believes what I am saying anyway, which does not concern me because I am only letting people here know there is a big wide world of normal reality beyond tunnel-visioned anti-psyhicism.
 
1...There is. No special setting is required. Exposure cannot arise because the MDC cannot observe or measure the actual process of the event, and should one actually observe it at its own level one thereby participates in it and its truth lies in this realization.

That makes perfect sense; I understand completely.
 
...This should not concern anyone here, though, as no one here believes what I am saying anyway, which does not concern me because I am only letting people here know there is a big wide world of normal reality beyond tunnel-visioned anti-psyhicism.

Usually we don't take anyone's word for granted - not just yours. That's when the evidence comes in, which you steadily refuse to provide.



Really, your tactic on a so-called skeptic board is "only letting people know"? Have you counted the people who join your side in the discussion? (Rhetorical question, don't bother.)

It seems to me you thrive on the friction your blunt assertions cause.
 
Hypothetically, why would one actually 'able' to demonstrate the truth of psychic reality be in any way interested in doing what the JREF-MDC cannot prove, disprove, measure, record or observe other than by at the very best once removed effects?
This is where the sum of 1 million dollar has a role to play. Most "real" psychics have of course abilities that make a million dollars seem like nothing to them, but for some, a million dollars would be a substantial fortune, and actually being able to demonstrate the psychic powers through a simple test would be a good reason to apply.

If somebody offered a prize of million dollars to me if I could demonstrate that I can ride a bike, I would certainly accept the offer.
 
1...There is. No special setting is required. Exposure cannot arise because the MDC cannot observe or measure the actual process of the event, and should one actually observe it at its own level one thereby participates in it and its truth lies in this realization.
What utter nonsense! The MDC requires a simple demonstration of the kind that psychics perform daily without getting a million dollars for it.
 
Maatorc:

If I understand you correctly, you're saying JREF could not directly observe the paranormal phenomenon directly? And if someone did a remote viewing demonstration like I suggested, reading numbers from the next room--you're saying that demo would not prove paranormal powers, right?

So let me ask you, how do you or anyone know that paranormal abilities exist? If remote viewing is really possible, how would anyone, skeptic or not, know that? Skeptic or not, how can one discriminate between real, true abilities and fake or imagined ones? We all know most of these "paranormal" powers can be faked--for example, magicians can easily do what Uri Geller does with spoons. And we also know a lot about psychology, and that people can imagine things, or hallucinate, or they're delusional.

Tell me one "paranormal" ability you believe in, and how you know it's real.

ETA: Maatorc, here is your definition of remote viewing:
1... A straight forward description is seeing with other than normal physical eye-vision without any space-time limitation.
Do you believe this is possible (without using video cameras, or other "tricks")?

ETA2: Maatroc said:
This does not actually 'test' the process of remote viewing or psychic projection, but could infer it is true and convince many people, on the basis of which the JREF may decide to pay the prize.

Is RV or PP testable by anyone? If so, how? If not, how do we know that they're abilities that some actually really have?
 
Last edited:
Usually we don't take anyone's word for granted - not just yours. That's when the evidence comes in, which you steadily refuse to provide.
Really, your tactic on a so-called skeptic board is "only letting people know"? Have you counted the people who join your side in the discussion? (Rhetorical question, don't bother.)
It seems to me you thrive on the friction your blunt assertions cause.

There is no 'evidence' whatsoever for the reductionist orthodox scientism basis of skeptic anti-psychism.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom