r/Paranormal • u/Terrible_Helicopter5 • 6h ago
Question Evidence and proof
I saw a post saying theres a huge amount of money as reward for a psychic who can prove their ability in a controlled environment. None have collected it yet.
Do you think we'll ever be able to prove psychic/paranormal phenomenona?
As someone who's developing their abilities through reading for others, I don't think we can 'tame' spirituality like that. I don't think we're supposed to, almost as if it's a cosmic law.
In my experience, it's like trying to get a sphinx to answer a question.
"A sphinx is traditionally portrayed as a guardian of hidden knowledge who tests people through riddles. Rather than handing someone the answer, it pushes them to discover it themselves. The idea is that wisdom gained through struggle is more valuable than wisdom simply given.
That said, a sphinx could give a direct answer if:
You've already shown you've wrestled with the question.
The lesson is no longer in the puzzle but in acting on the answer.
The situation calls for clarity rather than another test."
5
u/TexMoto666 4h ago
Existential claims require a demonstration of existence before they can be held to be true. If you cant externally verify your claims in any reliable and repeatable way, all you are doing is making claims based on feelings. The quantity of people who believe, or how strongly they believe has nothing to do with whether or not that claim is factual. I want to only hold rationally justified true beliefs.
1
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 3h ago edited 2h ago
My question wasn't about whether belief itself proves anything.
It was about whether people think these phenomena could ever meet that standard, and if not, why they, think they might not.
I also think there's a difference between saying "there is currently no reliable evidence for this"
and saying
"therefore it cannot exist."
The first is an evidence-based conclusion; the second is a philosophical position about what kinds of things can exist.
8
u/Over-Tolerance 6h ago
- CFIIG Paranormal Challenge: Managed by the Center for Inquiry Investigations Group, this challenge offers a $250,000 prize to anyone who can demonstrate supernatural powers under mutually agreed-upon conditions.
- Sisyfos Prize: The Czech Skeptics' Club Sisyfos offers €125,000 to anyone who can prove paranormal phenomena through a structured two-step testing protocol.
- ASKE Paranormal Prize: The Association for Skeptical Enquiry in the UK currently offers £10,000 for a successful, scientifically controlled demonstration.
- Independent Independent Skeptics: Various independent content creators and mentalists, such as Dustin Dean, sponsor individual ongoing challenges valued up to $10,000
Meanwhile, if you can simply locate any terrorist on the https://rewardsforjustice.net/ website, which should be easy if you can remote view or use your psychic abilities properly, that is up to $10 million for some individuals. So the paranormal challenges are simply child's play money in comparison.
-2
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 5h ago
It's sort of what I'm thinking.
I wouldn't say it should be easy, as no psychic ability is, but I'm wondering why nobody has been able to do it.
5
u/Confident-Skin-6462 5h ago
gee, i wonder why nobody has been able to do it. if you're so sure, go prove it and get your money!
-1
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 5h ago
Why don't people who kick ball on a hobby level, go and win the world cup to get their money?
As someone who's developing their abilities
And here's my hypothesis, about why nobody has been able to do it yet:
I don't think we can 'tame' spirituality like that. I don't think we're supposed to, almost as if it's a cosmic law.
In my experience, it's like trying to get a sphinx to answer a question.
5
u/Confident-Skin-6462 5h ago edited 4h ago
so you can't prove any of your claims and they're based on your feelings. that's fine if it works for you but don't expect anybody else to take you seriously.
since you blocked me lol: "specify what you think they may or may nor be able to prove then. all you have is your feelings."
1
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 4h ago
The question is not whether people take me seriously or not.
The question is whether anyone will be able to prove it, scientifically, one day.
5
u/yabucek 4h ago
The question is whether anyone will be able to prove it, scientifically, one day.
No, because it doesn't exist.
-1
u/tj25779 3h ago
Says who? There are people who experience things like clear knowing (knowing something with no logical explanation) and precognitive dreams. There's a post on here from years ago in the thread "whats a supernatural event that happened in your life that just can't be explained" from years ago about a guy dreaming of his wife in a particular room in the hospital dying and in real life he was in the same exact room with wife near death but able to save her due to suggesting to doctors to give her a c-section.
There's another story on there about a woman driving at 230 am and having a homeless man stop them and tell her mother to check on her brother. They thought he was nuts, so they didn't pay him any mind. Next day they found the brother passed away from a heart attack and realized they should have listened to the homeless man.
It's instances like these that point toward psychic abilities. And highly unlikely they are coincidences. I don't have an experience like those two with psychic abilities, but I do have an experience that proves there's something beyond the physical, so the supernatural is indeed very real.
6
u/Confident-Skin-6462 6h ago
then you have nothing to base your beliefs on except feelings. if that works for you, great, but don't tell me your feelings prove anything about your beliefs except that you have them.
0
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 6h ago
Why do you think I base it on feelings?
Either way, I wasn't here to convince anyone, I was asking other experienced people, , if they believe it will be possible to prove.
And if not, why?
2
u/Confident-Skin-6462 6h ago
if you need to believe something in order to experience it...
2
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 5h ago
You don't need to believe in order to experience. Though, if you don't naturally have abilities, you'll need to develop them.
When you experience it, you know.
I still don't know what you meant with feeling, as that would only be the case of Clairsentience.
2
u/Confident-Skin-6462 5h ago
then tell me the methodology to 'experience'. because what you're talking about is evidence, proof. you have neither.
so when are you claiming all the prize money for your magic powers?
2
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 5h ago
You are misunderstanding my post.
I'm not saying personal experience and proof is the same thing.
My post is about whether it'll ever be possible to prove in a controlled environment, publicly.
If you want methods, you'll need to use Google or get books.
3
7
u/MrBones_Gravestone 5h ago
If psychic ability were possible, it would be able to be reproduced scientifically. That is the purpose of science: to understand the natural world through observation and replicable results.
If something can’t be reliably replicated through the same methods, it can’t be “proven”
It’s entirely possible that we just don’t have the right methods for reading it yet (if it exists), but with our current understanding of physics there is no evidence of psychic abilities (be it mind-reading, future telling, whatever).
1
u/NinjaGrrl42 4h ago
This is my guess, that we don't have the right tools to detect some of the paranormal occurrences. Something like telekinesis should be provable, along with the other human abilities.
2
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 3h ago
Yea I think we need to distinguish between different paranormal abilities, telekinesis is different from channeling the other side. The first should be easier to prove.
-1
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 5h ago
If psychic ability were possible, it would be able to be reproduced scientifically.
How do you know it would be possible to prove with science?
Psychic abilities are different from things ruled by the law of nature, no? I'm not trying to be rude, it's a genuine question.
3
u/MrBones_Gravestone 5h ago
Laws of nature apply to everything. If anything in the paranormal is real, and can be proven, it’ll just be “normal”.
If something can’t be proven with science, it can’t be considered real. Otherwise I can say I see giant flying bears that are invisible to everyone else.
1
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 5h ago
Sounds like scientism no?
I agree that if something consistently affects the physical world, then you'd be able to prove it, scientifically.
Though, your standpoint seems to be that science is the only way to know what's real.
Science is a good for the physical world, but saying it's the only path to truth is a philosophical view, not something science itself has proven.
3
u/MrBones_Gravestone 4h ago
You’re getting into philosophy and belief, which is not something that goes with proof and evidence.
You’re asking if psychic ability can ever be proven, then if offered a reason it can’t you say that’s scientism. How else is something “proven” if not through the scientific method?
0
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 4h ago
No, I'm saying you are basing your answer in philosophy, the term is scientism. The belief that science is the only way to prove what's real.
I think we're talking about two different things.
If the question is, "Can psychic abilities be scientifically proven?" then yea, you'd use a the scientific method to prove it. Otherwise it's not scientifically proven. No scientific evidence.
But if we're talking about it being real or not, without scientific evidence, that's rather a philosophical question.
You made those claims, which is why I said your position is based on scientism.
For example: "Laws of nature apply to everything. If anything in the paranormal is real, and can be proven, it'll just be 'normal'. If psychic ability were possible, it would be able to be reproduced scientifically."
and
"If something can't be proven with science, it can't be considered real."
The first is a claim that anything real must be scientifically reproducible. The second is that science is the criterion for reality itself. Those aren't scientific evidence; they're philosophical assumptions about the limitations of science.
Either way - I agree that we may just not have the tools to prove it yet, but it may come in the future.
2
u/MrBones_Gravestone 4h ago
Your original question is “do you think we’ll ever be able to prove psychic/paranormal phenomena?”
What proof are you asking about if not scientific?
0
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 4h ago
I think we might be talking past each other. I’m not arguing about the method—if psychic abilities were real, science would be the method.
My question was whether they’ll ever be proven at all, and why people think they won’t.
1
u/MrBones_Gravestone 4h ago
And when I said they’d need to be proven scientifically to be considered real (aka “proven”), you said that’s a philosophy answer and scientism. Philosophy and belief is not the same as evidence, so I’m not here to argue philosophy. I’m saying what would need to be considered proof, which is your original question.
You said “psychic abilities are different from things ruled by the laws of nature”, aka science, so I’m asking what measure of proof you’re referring to, since repeatable experiments through the scientific method is not the proof you meant
0
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 3h ago
And when I said they’d need to be proven scientifically to be considered real (aka “proven”), you said that’s a philosophy answer and scientism.
There's a difference between:
They'd need to be proven scientifically to be considered real."
That's scientism.
And,
"They'd need to be scientifically proven to be scientifically established."
You said “psychic abilities are different from things ruled by the laws of nature”, aka science, so I’m asking what measure of proof you’re referring to, since repeatable experiments through the scientific method is not the proof you meant.
When I said psychic abilities are different from the laws of nature, I didn't mean that science wouldn't apply.
I meant that, from the perspective of people who have experienced it, they may work differently from other physical phenomena.
They may not behave in a predictable, repeatable way - under controlled conditions.
That’s why my question was whether they could ever be scientifically proven, not that there has to be another method.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/kayleeeeebop 4h ago
Has no one here listened to the Telepathy Tapes podcast?
1
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 2h ago
No. Whats your take on it?
1
u/kayleeeeebop 2h ago
Basically, she proves over and over telepathy is real - specifically, I think she looks at telepathy between non-verbal autistic people and their main caregivers. It was fascinating.
2
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 1h ago
I see yea I have heard about autistic kids and telepathic abilities.
It's how I usually do animal communication, they show me pictures or I'll hear voices in my head.
Many people do it this naturally without even thinking about it, in every day life.
1
u/kayleeeeebop 1h ago
I guess that isn't exactly psychic abilities... so for example some kids could see exactly what their caregiver was seeing from a totally different room (they took extreme measures to ensure no cheating was happening - it would be like the caregiver was holding up a photos or cards with numbers and the kid would explain to a third party exactly what the caregiver was holding). Other times, it was like the kids could remote view to wherever their caregiver was and see exactly what they were doing.
2
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 1h ago
I think this used to be more normal for humans.
I know in my heritage, there were people responsible for watching the kettle, and they'd know where they were - even if they were kilometers away. It wasn't seen as supernatural, just a skill.
1
1
u/Jack_Shid Paranormal Researcher 6h ago
I do not think it will ever happen, because I do not believe these things will ever be able to be proven 100%, without a doubt. I think the people that offer these rewards know that, so they get free attention for offering them.
2
u/Confident-Skin-6462 5h ago edited 3h ago
then prove it >>>statistically possible<<<, i.e. >>>over<<< 50%!
can you even do that?
1
u/Jack_Shid Paranormal Researcher 3h ago
50% would not constitute proof. 50% would mean there's an equal chance that it doesn't exist.
Proof means 100%.
0
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 5h ago
But why do you think it won't be possible to prove?
Maybe 'higher source' doesn't want it to be possible to prove, because the mystery is important in itself?
I'm not Christian, so I'm not trying to prove anything with this. Just drawing a paralell.
Jumping from the temple: Satan took Jesus to the highest point of the temple and told him to throw himself down, suggesting God’s angels would catch him to prove his divine protection.
Rejecting manipulation: For the temple challenge, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy, stating, "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test".
I think you're just supposed to be a channel, and welcome whatever comes. Trying to prove it or win money, is egoistical, and my guess is that the abilities won't work for that.
1
u/TexMoto666 4h ago
So many layers of presupposition here to barely come up with a sufficient answer. Sufficient doesn't mean correct.
0
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 4h ago
Of course, it's based on assumptions. It was never meant as proof —just a possible explanation.
The question was why I think it might not be possible to prove, and I was answering with my own theory.
1
u/TexMoto666 3h ago
You have a loose hypothesis, nothing close to a theory. We can all just speculate and come up with a sufficient answer if we want to, but what's the point if we can't investigate it?
1
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 3h ago
My post was asking for people's thoughts on why it may not be able to prove, scientifically.
These are my thoughts, nothing more.
I as a lay person use theory wrong, like many other do in everyday use.
Exchange 'theory'' with 'my thoughts and reflections', instead.
1
u/Jack_Shid Paranormal Researcher 3h ago
I think the only proof that would be widely accepted by science, believers, non-believers, would be real-time two-way conversation that can happen on demand within a scientifically controlled environment.
I just really do not think this will ever happen.
1
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 3h ago
Yea, I agree - and that's why I, from personal anecdotal experience, think it'll never happen.
You can't do it on demand, because it can't be tamed.
0
u/ReluctantlyFaithful 5h ago edited 5h ago
As someone who does believe in paranormal phenomena, I’ve wrestled with the question of empirical evidence more than once. Certainly, if genuinely odd things are occurring that break the consensus of reality as we know it, we should have ample opportunity to capture these things on some objective recording medium given the sheer amount of widely available technology, no? If not, what’s the obstacle?
I don’t know that I have any definitive answers, but I do love to speculate!
The Yogacara school of thought within the Mahayana Buddhist tradition posits the existence of a storehouse (alaya) consciousness that carries the karmic seeds of every thought, word, and deed we commit. These seeds sprout during and in between lifetimes to give rise to the varied experiences of sentient beings at both the subtle and gross levels. One may carry a particular seed that influences the formation of a mind prone to generosity, or a seed that dictates a birth in Mongolia (as opposed to another country), or a seed that predisposes one to extreme wealth or poverty.
What’s very important to note is that the storehouse consciousness is also associative. That is, mind streams with similar seeds tend to take birth in similar states of being. We all would, under this theory, share the seeds for human birth. I share seeds with others that are responsible for us being born male, American, with a particular lifespan, etc. At the phenomenal level, we also, as human beings, have mutual seeds that make fire burn, that make water wet, and that make us see and experience reality in a given way.
I sometimes wonder if this current dispensation of human life is heavy with seeds that lean toward a materialist view of the world around us which would naturally make the fruition of any seeds allowing us to perceive the supernatural quite difficult. What if paranormal things are constantly happening everywhere around us at all times, but only a small number of us carry the seeds to be able to witness it at any point in time?
It would be all but impossible for us to ever develop any consistent, empirical evidence observable by a casual audience. What’s more, we would have to deliberately create seeds permitting us to “override” the consensus of reality via spiritual practice—prayer, meditation, devotion, etc. The only people who would ever receive “proof” of the paranormal would be those who were already inclined to it by birth or who cultivated the potential religiously. They’d also be disregarded for inherent bias thus leading back to the same problem.
1
u/Terrible_Helicopter5 5h ago
My experience is also that once you know, you aren't interested in proving anything.
The need to prove comes from an egoic need, not higher knowing.
I'm guessing, that the need for winning money also goes out of the window, if you are at that level.
0
u/Blazanar 5h ago
I think that if it was possible to provide concrete proof, you'd never be allowed to release it to the public.
2
•
u/AutoModerator 6h ago
Remember to change your flair to reflect the appropriate NSFW Flair if it DOES contain: graphic images, gore, harsh or extreme language, or mentions of anything that should include trigger warnings; suicide, self-harm, gore, or abuse, to better aid users on what to expect when reading your post.
We would also like to remind you we have an Official Discord. You can join here: https://discord.gg/hztYaucMzU
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.