John, there is no forensically, academically, scientifically valid evidence to support claims of the existence of the paranormal, period. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Ain't any. Now, the absence of evidence of a thing or condition does not entail the absence of that thing or condition, of course. It means merely there is no supportive evidense for the proposition. As to anecdotal accounts of people who claim to have experienced paranormal phenomena, no forensically, academically, scientifically valid evidence to support their claims exists. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Ain't any. Again.
Conversely, for many such claims (though certainly by no means all), there exist plausible, even compelling, naturalistic explanations.
"I don't know" - "Insufficient data" - is a valid, concrete, if to some unsatisfying, answer. Hysteria and delusion are part-and-parcel of the religionist argument. Hallucinations well may be experienced (I've had a few myself
), but they are not real. That too, is a very credible answer to purported phenomena of paranormal occurances; all else being equal, it is far more logical and reasonable to suspect the respondent reporting the experience dreamed it than to assume a suspension of known natural laws and conditions. That of course does not mean that all reports of paranormal occurances are bogus, it means merely that while there is no forensically, academically, scientifically valid evidence to support such claims, credible alternate explanations abound, and entails the understanding that given current knowledge, some things are unexplained
Unexplained doesn't mean divine any more than it means magic, it means unexplained. As in "We don't know, the data is insufficient."
I remind you that faith, conviction, and zeal are not evidence, they are emotional conditions.
