How can i prove 'paranormal' exist?

Yeah, about that...at least 50% of us here don't believe, but we like talking about it, so we don't broach the whole "proof" thing.

If you want to prove the unprovable, stick to religion, kiddo.

>>19179207
If anybody knew the answer to that then there would be no debate. Even the strongest case of the paranormal can be explained by normal or mundane things, or they have no solid answer at all. There is no smoking gun that is gonna change minds in an instant.

>>19179207
If something is indisputably proven it is not paranormal. Paranormal phenomena are not fully explained. If it is fully explained and non-controversial, then it's not paranormal. So you're not going to find your smoking gun.

>>19179584
>>19179600
>>19179626

I am just asking what's the strongest evidence you give to yourself when your brain says "that's all bullshit" .

>>19179669
"that's a good spooky story, i think i'll tell it to my grandkids some day"

>>19179207
I think the problem is people try to find "proof" on a level that just won't happen. Like can you prove that your dad loved your mom when he impregnated her? that he wasn't thinking about someone else while ejaculating you into her uterus? Or that your mom didn't wish she had married a dude with a bigger dick every time they had intercourse? You can't know for sure but you assume it's true depending on your experience, or at least they told you it happened that one way or another and you believed them most likely.

The paranormal happens in a very personal way, I've had a few "paranormal" experiences, some more shocking than others, but if I told you what happened you wouldn't believe it. And I have no way to prove them besides this ephemeral words on an anonymous board.

We see patterns, and then try to make the best out of it, trying to make sense of this info and try to apply it to our own experience, and if we're "enlightened enough" maybe... just maybe, we'll understand a bit of what is really going on, and a lot of times we'll just be gullible and believe a hoax, but that's part of the game.

I think the closest thing to evidence is dogs barking at nothing, and kids who know shit they couldn't possibly know like names of deceased relatives and how they looked like, but even then you wouldn't believe them and think someone told them everything beforehand.

>>19179207
Paranormal proven = no more paranormal.
So no - you can't prove them, for then they are normal.

>>19179584
>If you want to prove the unprovable, stick to religion, kiddo.
How the hell are you going to prove the unprovable with religion?

The most paranormal thing is quantum mechanics, but mostly because we're not sure how it works. It seems spooky because it contradicts most of what we understand. It leads to discussions about multiple parallel universes and such.

Once we figure it all out though, it'll cease to be paranormal and simply part of the nature of things, like gravity.

As of now, it's the closest thing we have. Most everything else is bullshit.

>>19179669
"I wonder what society would be like if people actually believed this stuff?" usually does it for me. Or maybe, "What kind of mindset causes people to claim these things without believing themselves to be lying?" Not because I think it'd be great, but because I think revealed preferences show almost literally believes any of it.

>>19180607
Frag, let me try that again.

but because I think revealed preferences show almost NOBODY[fixed] literally believes any of it.

>>19179584
First-hand experience, or very, VERY convincing pictures or video. And the latest only applies to cryptoids.

>>19180009
You still can prove it though. It won't be paranormal anymore that's all.

Take the Kraken for example. It used to be a myth, until we found the Giant Squid. The Kraken still is a beast of mythology, but it became explainable at the same time.

If I had a ghost in front of me, and I knew I wasn't intoxicated or psychotic, then I would have my proof; ghosts would still be paranormal though.

talk with spirits with them with you to hear and see it and if they are still a doubter than remember there are two types of people the believers and the people who ignore it thinking that will make it go away.

>>19179669
I have half a dozen books of local ghost stories, most of them first-hand accounts from fairly reputable people. I know a few of them.

You can dismiss a single story easily enough, but hundreds? That requires a dedication exceeding reasonable skepticism, something more like a need to reject.

>>19180667
You can easily dismiss that many. A lot of people believing something doesn't make it true. They could be lying, incorrect, or any number of things.

If you're going by popularity then I hope you're Christian, because it is the largest religion. How can you dismiss so many people saying it's real? All those stories of miracles? Gotta be something there, right? And when/if that changes and Islam is more popular, I hope ya jump ship and get yourself a Quran for the same reasons.

The argument from popularity is weak. The amount of people making a claim is useless to bring up, because what matters is whether or not a claim is true.

>>19180682
No, a lot of people believing something doesn't make it true. But when your position relies on an unreasonably large conspiracy, you're the crazy one.

I have eyewitness testimony from people I trust, among them family and community, people I can personally vouch for. Your response to that is
>sheeple Christfag.

I'm not telling your to believe anything because I do. I'm telling you that dismissing the entire thing out of hand smacks of bad faith. How weak are your beliefs that you have to protect them so hard?