Ha, Alien abduction is impossible because the demon wouldn't allow it. (kappa)

I think an "I can't see how our minds can break the known laws of physics (assuming by "law" we mean descriptive patterns, not prescriptive rules), given what we already know" is a much better argument than an "I can't fathom why aliens would do X" argument.

I suppose both demon possession and alien abduction are true, but their reference points are not completely. Both refer to a matter of health and illness of a person in the position of the possessed or the abducted, though in a manner which distracts from referring to that person/people as the explicit reference is associated with supernatural and science fiction.

Some of the smart kids tell me aliens coming here is pretty iffy under the known laws of physics too...and im still not sure how esp or telepathy would break them. Which is what i was thinking about in my first post.

Couldn't we tap into whatever it is the hypothetical aliens are able to do? If they can do it without breaking the laws we should get a pass too. Less the aliens arent doing it with their minds but instead with technology i supposes.



Alright either which way. Still taking powers of the human mind breaking the known laws over aliens liking latin or demons. Makes more sense to me.

This seems to boil down to "I can't explain this, therefore Possession". (I wonder if he had been doing this in a completely different context, e.g. secret Soviet era brain washing experiments, his conclusion would have been "I can't explain this, therefore secret brain washing".

"rationally inexplicable" does not equal "possession". It simply means that a rational explanation has not yet been found. The thinking here is almost theistic. I can't explain this, therefore proof of god.

Not very scientific. In fact, by definition, since he's touting an supernatural explanation, it's not scientific.

I don't know if I've ever heard that. I think it would depend on what the smart kids mean by "iffy." If they mean "really unlikely" I'm not bothered too much (really unlikely things happen all the time). If they mean "not possible" that obviously kills the aliens idea. I don't know what kinds of fractions of c are viable, but even something like a generational starship from a relatively close star seems plausible, but maybe I've read too many sci-fi novels.

My line of thinking here was that we already know the laws of physics underlying everyday life (starts at 13:40). So if we're going to suppose that esp can work, we need to explain it using the existing laws, fields, particles, etc.

However unlikely, if we can justify aliens getting here, using what we know about physics, but we can't justify ESP, then aliens win in my book. Then again, maybe I'm mis-applying Carroll's point; maybe ESP is enough outside "everyday life" that it's improper to restrict it the way I am.

Booked! GL sir.

I was talking about alien kidnappings not alien mind possessions.

Im dumb and read bad. I thought the aliens were doing the possessing in place of demons...

For sure i would take alien abduction over our minds using esp or telepathy. Well not sure sure but yeah...

A sentence you never imagined you'd say?

Atheist here, I don't believe in demons or possessions. Clearly cases of this are bulls***. Any case someone can point to can be explained by a logical/scientific explanation (like mental illness). Even if it can't be explained that certainly doesn't prove the existence of demons or gods.

There has never been a single instance of levitation being scientifically proven / documented.

I have no idea what this person witnessed, but I can almost guarantee it wasn't a person levitating.

Which obviously calls into question the rest of his claims as well.

As an atheist, I would suggest there's a myriad of (scientific) explanations for 'demonic possession'. It would range from deliberate fraud, to severe mental illness and I'd imagine with some of the more freaky ****, probably some weird, unique traits of the brain to (like those savants that can perform freaky memory tricks and whatnot).

At any rate, I'd definitely not chalk it up to demonic possession. That is ridiculous.

Also - there's organisations out there that will offer good money to prove anything supernatural. The reality is, there's not a single documented case of the supernatural using the scientific method.

"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science."

In answer to the title question:

The same thing we think of voodoo dolls and tarot cards.

The principle at play, (which I suspect has a name but I don't know what it is) is this:

When there are hundreds of claims of unexplainable things being due to something outside of science and almost all of those claims are refuted when put under a microscope, then it is fair to assume that the few that haven't been explained have an explanation as well.

It should be noted that that principle would fall apart if there were known cases of events that were unquestionably impossible to explain via any other reasonable explanation. But I know of no such event.

Demonic possession does not happen and exorcisms are an attempt to affect a phenomenon that is not happening.

I guess you could call the principle" the science of the gaps". To restate it: any event that is currently unexplainable by science can't be supernatural because it will eventually be explained by science.


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Aliens being present on our planet would have to have violated our 'laws of physics', unless they've been travelling for a very very long time....

They'd also have to have beaten the not inconsiderable odds against them even existing at the same time that we're here asking the question 'are we alone'...

I think that the word you're looking for is 'inexplicable', and the 'principle' might simply be Confirmation Bias.

As a psychologist I know very well that it is not hard to make people see things that are not there. Our brain is very well equipped to fill in gaps in both observations, narratives and (most importantly of all) memories. Especially in dramatic settings, memory can be surprisingly malleable.

So I don't think much of them. It's usually eyewitness testimony, and very often from settings that promote the phenomena.

If there is levitation, show me objective (instrument readings) measurements and video. If there is dead languages, show me tapes, recordings and conclusive evidence the patient couldn't have picked it up somewhere else etc.

And no, these are not hard or unfair standards of evidence. They are common, accepted and they work. If we let it slide, there are thousands of various claims (UFOs, Yetis, occult magic, illuminati theories, lizardmen, the existence of vampires and countless others) we'd have to accept at face value.

Obviously levitation is real, I saw David Blaine do it.

Well, you jest to a degree. But it does prove the point, illusions can easily happen. Both by manipulation (as in Blaine's case) or by being in a situation of belief (where you might unwittingly manipulate yourself). These "flaws" in our mind's reasoning / perception / observation are very real things.

This is why instrumental readings and more objective (not perfectly objective, nothing is) date are desirable.

The trick to see through a magician's illusion is often to merely look for what is hidden. That unbelievable card trick is often easy to see through when you do this, "the card never was in the basketball" - and then the trick suddenly is easily explainable. This same technique is helpful when analyzing stories like the one OP posted, but for some reason employing such skepticism often draws criticism instead of praise. You get accused of "not wanting to see the truth", when exactly the opposite is true. Only by employing skepticism can you truly be said to look for truth.

No, this is wrong. The theory of general relativity allows for bridges through space and time and modern theorizing in physics does not deny the possibility of such phenomena being used for travel. It's conjectural of course, but it does not violate "laws of physics".

We know of no way to actually travel through what I assume are worm holes that you're referring to (if they even exist), that would be in accordance with what we currently understand the laws of physics to be. So, any species capable of doing so would surely be doing something that violates those laws.

I'm not certain you can take something about laws that is understood, add some conjecture to it, and then claim such a thing is now possible under those laws. Wouldn't that be like me saying that we have a law of gravity, and that I can imagine that because we have gravity that we could have anti-gravity, and then claim such a thing is now possible without violating the law of gravity?

The General theory of Relativity allows for the existence of wormholes, Einstein himself conjectured their existence and the theory is even based on the very principle that the laws of physics are equal for all observers. The folding of space and time as predicted by the theory is even observed now (the gravity probe B project).

So no, not in any way, shape or form does conjecture about wormholes "violate the laws of physics". In fact, the very opposite is true - this conjecture is based on the laws of physics.

This is a very interesting thread.

Tell me, Bigdad, what do you think is the contribution good or bad if any to mankind or to you and me, from this phenomenon of demonic possession.

I like very much to engage in a sustained exchange of thoughts with you.


Happy thinking and writing?

Dear Bigdad, and everyone else reading this thread, there must be some usefulness in the phenomenon of demonic possession, at least for the poor person plagued by the condition of demonic possession.

Think about it with your brain grounded on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.


Happy thinking and writing!