Now, I’d like to address your statement…

However as logical as your argument is, this world is not always a logical place.

Logic, as a branch of philosophy, is only concerned with how we arrive at conclusions. It does not deal with the truth-value of claims. Given 2 propositions, logic merely deals with the conclusion one reaches using those 2 propositions. Is it a “logical” conclusion? Is it legitimate to conclude X when considering propositions A & B?

Now, if you’re saying that the world is not a place governed by specific laws, or that we don’t understand those law sufficiently, I would have to largely disagree.

The old adage “What goes up must come down” no longer holds true, especially if an object or man escapes the gravitational pull of earth into space.

This is correct. But, I think your extrapolation goes a little too far. What goes up still does always come down on the Earth – where gravity takes hold, and which, we’ve known for a long time. We haven’t “proven different.” We’ve only refined the knowledge we had. Gravity wasn’t “proven wrong.”

This is similar to what happened to Newton’s mechanics when Einstein came about. Newton’s mechanics weren’t “proven wrong.” We can still get to the moon with Newtonian mechanics. Einstein only refined and expanded on Newton’s Laws.

So, to say that our scientific knowledge would possibly some day be proven to be “archaic” is hardly plausible. I think you are stepping into “argument from ignorance” territory. Since we don’t know everything, we must know nothing. Or, more specifically to our issue at hand, because some things in this world aren’t explained, they are therefore “supernatural” in nature.

Again, most scientific Theories (capital T, e.g. Gravity, Thermodynamics, Evolution, etc.) aren’t “proven wrong.” They are merely improved upon over time. It would take mountains of evidence to overturn established Theory. More specifically, there would need to be more evidence against it than for it.

It is the same of science today which may be proved archaic a century from now and thus the possibility of some of these paranormal events may be proved to be true, not?

This would be quite similar to the argument from antiquity. Truth value is not dependent upon age. The “ancient Chinese” didn’t know more about medicine than we do today. “Ancient cures” aren’t more advanced than today’s medicine. If something is true, it doesn’t “become untrue” after a certain period of time. I would say, with a great deal of certainty, that Gravitational Theory will be just as true 1,000 years from now as it is today.

We still use fire, and that was invented by cavemen tens of thousands of years ago.

I have to give you credit, you put up a very solid rebuttal, one that is difficult to counter and yes, hope will often lead to a misguided conclusion.

However as logical as your argument is, this world is not always a logical place.

The one thing I have discovered is there are no absolutes in this world. There are always exceptions to everything and even though they may not be apparent, it is because they aren’t known.

The old adage “What goes up must come down” no longer holds true, especially if an object or man escapes the gravitational pull of earth into space.

This was unknown a few centuries ago and science at that time would have proved the adage correct, now we can prove different.

It is the same of science today which may be proved archaic a century from now and thus the possibility of some of these paranormal events may be proved to be true, not? :)

We don’t use that standard for anything else in this world. It all boils down to a standard of proof.

A lot of times I feel that people lower their standards of proof when the claim is something that they hope is true. And, honestly, I think that is intellectually dishonest. To let some bad evidence slide through because it aligns with our worldview.

While stories are very interesting, and can lead to some intriguing questions, they do not offer proof of anything. Only a direction for investigation to be conducted.

However there are some things in history, since 1900, that would leave one wondering as it were.

I remember reading a story one time about a allied soldier in Italy whose intimate knowledge of the town they were attacking not only helped them win but saved the lives of his comrades. The funny part about this story is that the man was never there before and had no knowledge of the town, this being the first journey across the Atlantic.

There are some anecdotal stories that defy explanation by any scientific method, but in seeing the people who have confirmed these things and looking at the diverse backgrounds of these people one has to conclude they were all fooled, liars or the event occurred as they remember it.