Existence of the supernatural? Essay wrote on watching "The exorcism of Emily Rose"

Few days back I was watching the movie -" The exorcism of Emily Rose" and at the same time I was having a discussion with my fellow EF Contributor -Ana.... she was telling me that the supernaturals dont exist while i believe that they do... so lets c y i think so....

Terms like "supernatural", "paranormal", "spirits", infact even the word "god" is questionable in today's modern-scientifically proved world. Some people believe that they don't exist while some assert that they do. As far as my own opinion is concerned, I am a strong believer in God and also the existence of supernatural entities.

In life many people experience the supernatural incidents, some ignore it while some acknowledge it. Scientifically anything which can't be proved by the very laws of nature and which doesn't have any natural properties (like mass, physical energies, spatio-temporal dimensions etc.) are called as "supernatural". However, in the universe there are many things, incidents and phenomenon which can't be really explained by the laws of nature. For example, the Big Bang theory has never been explained completely. Scientific and cosmological knowledge of Big Bang is still in infancy. The complexity of the living beings and their origin, evolution, etc are not completely based on scientific laws. Science explains it as a result of some complex natural actions. But what is a "natural phenomenon" or "nature"?

Collins Cobuild dictionary defines nature as: "Nature is all the animals, plants, and other things in the world that are not made by people, and all the events and processes that are not caused by people". However, man has never been able to completely explain the force which controls the whole nature or which created it. If nature is something which isn't created by man, then who created it?? Scientists say that universe was created as a result of the Big Bang and its just a random accident with unexplained laws.Science, by its definition, is incapable of explaining, observing or proving the existence and origin of things that have no physical properties because all scientific facts are needed to be proved based on physical effects and be true again and again. Scientists have not been able to explain the cause of the Big Bang, neither they have been able to prove that whether "time" originated with the universe, before it or after it. When man's knowledge about this universe is still limited, then how can it deny or ignore the existence of some other force or entity, superior than himself, which created all these things?

Real life shows, like "A Haunting" on Discovery Channel, are re-enactments of people's real life experiences. When people all over the world have experienced existence of certain unexplained phenomenon, then how can we neglect the existence of the "supernatural " or "paranormal". However James Randi, a well known investigator, offers a 1 million dollar prize for anyone who can explain the existence of paranormals, under test conditions acceptable to both parties. So either he is true in saying that the paranormal things dont exist and the people sharing their incidents on Discovery channel are not truthful/ disillusioned or the paranormal do exist but it is our knowledge that is unable to recognise them and prove their existence. When Big Bang has already proved that our science is incapable of explainig it, then how can our limited knowledge deny the existence of the paranormal?

Thus, we can say that as long as our knowledge is limited, we can't deny the existence of the supernaturals. Some people might not have similar opinion but it is also sure that they can't explain everything on the basis of science. Research institutes all over the world are set-up to explain these phenomenon and I hope they come out with a solid proof whether the supernatural things exist or do not, whether there are "spirits", "god", etc. or not. As long as science is incapable of explaining the "unexplained", we can't have a biased thinking that "supernatural" doesnt exist.

I would like all of u to give your views.

hello ajit rai;
I like the way you treat the topic. yet, in terms of ides you didn't mention the fact that people all over the world and through history stress the existance of spirits.

"God", yes almost every one believe in the existance of god( under many names ( Allah is one of them) and God himself, in all religions, says there are other creatures (spirits) who are different from human beings.

One more thing: Phenomenon= singular. Phenomena = plaural.

I like your style. please be kind to read and correct my two essays under (STAR 208)

Thanks Ismail, for telling me the phenomenon-phenomena thing. I actually never paid any attention to that,but thanks.

As a matter of fact, people in earlier times have believed in spirits. but has anyone ever proved the existence of any spirit infront of the world??? thats the main question. if they were successful then someone shud hav won the challenges of Mr. Randi n Houdini.--which has not been yet established... n thats y their is a question on this topic...If this was a fact then there would be no atheist in this world..? i hope u get my point..n thats y i havent laid stress on what historians have said on this topic coz there is still no clear proof.

Here is something I noticed right away.
2 words: In fact

Also, you listed several things, so use ARE instead of IS in that first sentence.


This is a run on sentence unless you use a conjunction.

Some people might not have similar opinions, but it is also sure that they can't explain everything on the basis of science.---my favorite part of the essay.

Great ideas, here. I agree with you. Some people have realized that their religions were based on wishful thinking. Then, they became skeptical. Now, they should come full circle and realize that this very existence is a ghostly, supernatural event! :-)

Just like the dream you had last night, this life you are having might turn very weird all of a sudden.

Well, time is a measure unit. It is a scale we, humans, came up with to determine evolution/deterioration. As long as there's movement or energy there is either evolution or deterioration.

Scientists have not fully explained how the universe was born, however they hope to come closer to understanding the Big Bang with the particle accelerator. As far as I know, they have managed to recreate the primordial particle, a primitive particle that was revolving around the universe before the Big Bang. Also, well-known Stephen Hawking had another pretty neat hypothesis: as well as water bubbles appear when boiling water, there were perhaps some energy fluctuations in that space that may have intensified to the point of exploding. Yes, this isn't an explanation, but to me refuting the work these intelligent people do trying to elucidate the mysteries of our world by just saying: "It is god that made this happen." ... it is just wrong.


Superior by what scale? It is absurd to classify god or spirits as superior because, whether you like it or not, the biggest part of the world around you is not spirits. You need this material world more than you need a parallel spiritual world. However, this can lead to a long debate. Anyone could say that we are emotional, not rational beings, hence the perception of our world is not always the same, and I am not here to quarrel.


Ha ha, knowledge is a human's drug, ajit. If we are satisfied with the world around us, if we stop questioning what we see, what we hear, what we believe in, if we wouldn't struggle to improve, then we wouldn't be human.

If there is a deity out there that created the world and us, then perhaps that god was aware that it is in our nature to turn away from him and to chose the hard way. We, humans, are nature too. How can the extent of our mind suddenly not be then?

Another thing about the paranormal: If spirits and gods are indeed superior (by nature) then ... why don't they try to better life on earth? Not for me, I have everything I need, but I suppose children dying of cancer would be loving to be able to live. Is everything paranormal hating humans? Do they even have some sort of power to change our world or punish us? If they do punish us, then that means they are not so different from us, so they are actually what we should be afraid of? And if we are afraid, that means we have to live entangled by not existing rules?

A quote for you, I know you like quotes :P

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?" - Epicurus

Great essay :D ... I agree with you on some level, but not fully. I wish I could, as I already told you, but ... pif.

Well Ana if u believe that calling God as superior than us is absurd then i feel that most of the people in this world are absurd and thats y there r shrines,church,temple etc all over the world...

-time is just not a scale to measure duration my frnd... if u look in relativistic mechanics there r four parameters in which any point maybe defined , which r -x,y,z,t--- where t is the time. time is also most useful in explaining distance as we know-light years.

-- n as far as i know Stephen Hawkings or any other super intelligent human has still not clearly explained the origin of the universe or multiverse with substantial proofs... a hypothesis is not a fact, it is just a view of a particular personor group which isnt universally accepted , else it wud b a fact.

- lemme giv u an example- the vedas of the hindu religion had explained numerous postures of yoga even before newton or einstein even came into existence--n there is proof of the yogic science in religious scriptures n engravings on ancient monuments... now if there were so intelligent people in the world before science came into being than y cant b there any god??

Even when Einstein Was asked point blank if he believed in God or not---he replied-"i am not an atheist".

-when the super intelligent Einstein never denied existence of a God then how can we?

- moreover , when a person dies, y cant our scientists ignite the spark of life back into him again?? after all there is no one superior than us... in addition, y hasnt man been able to create a parallel being as intelligent as human n as durable as a human?? was it all complex reaction that millions of living beings came into existence on this earth and adapted to the climatic changes themselves??? if there is no omnipotent god then y do v have a church n temple?

It is absurd to call any god superior. Mostly because shrines and churches and temples are nothing but profane. You cannot infuse objects with spiritual power. Rituals also are nothing but formalities without necessarily reflecting the purity or the seriousness of the believer.

And I think it is important to notice this because no person today, I believe, will love a god more than he/she will love his/her own family. The theory of agape in Christianity and ahave in Judaism underline the fact that loving the creator of the world should be the first on a human beings priority list. Allah translates to "the loving one" leading us to believe that he is the one to hold the pure shape of love.

Eastern religions do have a more human approach to love. Bhakti (Hindu) more clearly explains what it wants from the believer: worship and love and engaging into your own enlightenment. It puts what is happening in you, your manifest of belief in your soul above orthopraxy. In Buddhism, the right love is the one who reconstructs your self and also helps other beings around you.

What most of these religions (excluding Hinduism) have in common, is they ask you to put the higher purpose of your existence on the top of your list, the afterlife being clearly highly important. Not believing in a religion does not necessarily make one ignorant, but perhaps more honest about himself/ herself.

Can anyone say they are believers? To be a believer you have to venerate, to love, to put before all others the god(s) of that specific religion. If not, you aren't a ... veritable jewel, so to say.

You might be right about the time thing. I only said what my personal view on it is. For me time does not represent distance even though they are obviously related. For me time is my scale of measuring some aspects of my existence. When you say you are 10 years old, you most definitely do not mean distance :P Regarding the "light years": "A light-year [...] is a unit of length, equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres (1016 metres, 10 petametres or about 6 trillion miles). As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year." A light year is employing time indirectly to calculate distance; that's why I don't believe you can put a big equal sign between time and distance. If you take it this way, you could say "The store is 1 km away." as well as "The store is 10 minutes away." Instead of saying: "The galaxy X is 10 trillion km away, you say "It's 1 ly away."

I have no idea what relativistic mechanics are ... so mya ...

To me yoga is science. It is actually one of the most advanced workouts ever. The theory of manipulating energy is also pretty darn amazing. :D Really tones the ass and legs.


On a book on my desk there is a quote by Albert Einstein: "Dostoevsky gives me more than any scientist." Albert Einstein was fascinated by the human mind and ... he also lived a time where most Jews strongly turned to their religion. I would avoid taking him as a strong example.

But here some statistics: 60-93% of scientist unions are made of atheists. [A lot of sites out there with varied numbers.]
Stephen fucking Hawkins is an atheist. He writes: "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second." He adds, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Why don't scientists try to bring people back to life? Because there is no reason to do that. The planet is overpopulated and there are far greater problems than resurrecting the dead (like cancer or hunger).

There is also no interest in creating a creature as smart as we are. It is much better to use the money we would invest into such an research and actually train other humans to cultivate their intelligence.


Yes, more precisely, this reaction first occurs in the nerve cells (or sensors when we're talking about lesser creatures) where it generates a different signal that what every specific cell was expecting. Every organism will try to adapt itself to current factors of the surroundings in order to survive. The brain is the center of processing data. The information received from the nerve cells will be then sent to the organs and the muscles to adapt accordingly. Upon more intense impulses of the surroundings the adaptation might lead to a different protein synthesis in the organism, modifying the DNA structure. Hence a species of tigers many many years ago evolved into a dolphin. [Dolphins are cute :3]


The fact that there are churches and temples is the proof to why the superior god isn't omnipotent. If he were omnipotent he would have at least managed to keep the same religion all over the world.

I m not naming any particular god to be superior.I am supporting the one ultimate god. if considering god as superior is absurd then i think that neglecting him without proving the unexplained shud b term as IDIOCY.

Discovery channel show-How universe works- says that the universe originatd frm a small explosion n the universe expanded faster than speed of light -which by any scientific knowledge isnt possible for a particulate matter.

-Michio Kaku says that accordng 2 big bang- universe was created from a void -zero-> but he contradicts that zero cant create anything.

-He adds that the first physical law which came into existence was Gravitational law-n he says that we all were lucky that the gravitational pull was of optimum magnitude to create universe-SCIENCE IS ITSELF HERE EXPLAINING ITSELF ON LUCK.

-Prof. Lawrence Krauss says that energy created particulate matter when universe's explosion started- but as v know energy cant b created or destroyed- then from where was that input of energy.-science hasnt explained that.

-black holes-very best example to screw all laws of science or known to the incompetent humans who disregard any divine power.

Btw do tell me 4m whr u got those atheist statistics coz whatever i m finding- the range is so varying tht it seems completely false-

mst imp look around urslf- whatever nature hs created is perfect n balanced->life n death, atmosphere,human mind, ozone layer... n nw think what man created which is always imperfect n always destroys the balance->global warming,warheads, pollution etc.----- if the human is so capable n all the natural things occurred thru reactns then y cnt v create a similar reactn n patch up the ozone layer hole? y r v worried abt global warming? its coz whn science becomes incompetent -n it cant explain any phenomenon-it uses terms like "exception".

-btw who said that man isnt trying to re-ignite the spark of life or increase human age- google it my frnd that a group of scientists r already claiming that they r making a drug which will increase the avg human age to 150 yrs..

- yogic science has proved that the word "om" has divine effects on human body-- n this word "om" is the basic word of all religious books of hindus frm ancient times.

- buddhism has not originated frm god- it was King Sidhhartha-later named as Lord Buddha -who preached it.

- i dnt favour totally believing in god or luck n nt doing the effort-- but there is luck-- else if everything is hardwork-then y is there only one Bill Gates/Warren Buffet/Mark Zuckerberg etc-- with due respect to all these people-there might b many much intelligent people working under them - but u r they the best? coz they did the hard work n was graced by good luck n opportunities.

- pls explain to me y 2 students in same circumstances hav different IQ-one is smart n one is foolish-y cant the so called nerve signal be initiated by artificial means to make all of then intelligent?

y cant all people get their vocal chords operated and sing like Bryan Adams or Taylor Swift (well i love these two artists :D) ??? y cant all pregnant women given some medical treatment so that all their kids are as smart/beautiful as -Tom Cruise/Scarlett Johansson???? and as intelligent as our lovely Newton/Einstein???? lol.. it isnt that their brain signal are of varying voltage/Hz...hahahahhaa...

- TEMPLES-MOSQUE-CHURCH-N OTHER SHRINES- they dont mean that God isn't omnipotent...they mean the we all are so narrow minded -incompetent creatures that we fight over land,air,n god when it was never divided when the world was created...

-It is not true that Religion tell u to stop working n believe on god....in the Hindu religious book Bhagwad Gita there is a famous line :

"Karmanye Vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana,
Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani" <----- this quote is for u Ana

(You have a right to perform your prescribed action, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results your activities, and never be associated to not doing your duty)...so my friend don't think i am advocating that God or Spirituality asks us to be complacent and dont do our duty...the Bhagwad Gita also says that it is the effort which is only in our hands and the result is in the hands of god.

--- Ugh, now who wants more explanation as how incompetent our science or our intelligence still is??? science is still in infancy...its still debatable that whether there is a universe or multi-verse... Nostradamus gave so many right predictions in this very world...wasnt that supernatural to foretell the future??? Stephen Hawking believes that in the competition SCIENCE VS Religion ---science will win...however he has lived more than half of his life( 69 yrs old is i think more than half , unless he takes tht invented drug), but still he has not proved the fact due to which blackholes violate physical laws, neither he has been able to explain the evolution of mankind from apes to humans...

According to Reinhold F. Glei, it is settled that the argument of theodicy is from an academic source which is not only not epicurean, but even anti-epicurean. The earliest extant version of this trilemma appears in the writings of the skeptic Sextus Empiricus.( from wikipedia)

Epicurus didn't deny the existence of gods. Instead, he stated that what gods there may be do not concern themselves with us, and thus would not seek to punish us either in this or any other life

-n please I request that this is a healthy debate so I wont welcome any abusive words on my thread at least. n also excuse my wrong spellings or sms language as i m writing all this via cell.

Oh, you're getting aggressive :P ... I am sorry if i was offensive, but just like you believe in a godly presence, so do I think differently. We could debate over this a lot, but know that I'm not not trying to prove anything. I respect people who believe in a god or who say that there is too much beauty in this world to explain it all by mere reactions or physical phenomena. An if you choose to ignore what I said, that's fine too. But just because I choose to search for an explanation among the sciences does not make me a bad person or an idiot.


That is wrong. Before the Big Bang there was most definitely matter in the universe. Actually, 90% of it was dark matter with the important characteristic of dark matter is to generate a very great gravitational force which lead some to believe that, alongside the dark energy, have produced that explosion.

And why shouldn't there have been energy in our universe all along? Perhaps "god" is exactly that; a metaphor for energy.

Ok ... so that teacher said that we were lucky the universe got created. Yes, well it was a probability. You think when you bet that there is a god to decide what will happen? No, there's always a probability. And you know what is still depending on probability? Miracles, unexpected healing. They rely on probability as well. And if after several heart attacks you get to live, well then you were lucky too. The fact that it is unbelievable is just another thing.

Black holes are awesome. They are the ones who created the universe if you ask me and the ones to destroy it all in billions of years. The Big Bang as essentially very hot and dense energy exploding and spreading in all directions.

The make the universe contract and, perhaps after some more billions of years, that whole energy will exploe again into a new big bang. Yes, yes, my theories are not reliable, but whatever.

My sweetest frnd, I rarely get offensive/aggressive ever--i wasn't getting aggressive, but i just found Idiocy a cute word...m certainly not calling u an Idiot...u very well know how intelligent i consider u to be...n if Michio Kaku n Discovery Channel is saying wrong, then we kids can't ever do anything... or maybe we dont even know who is saying right or who is saying wrong. As far as things before universe is considered, universe was created from a small explosion ,,,,as small as millionth part of a cm...(again discovery channel source)... n i being an engineer , n wishing to be a researcher, i shud be believing in science, but i consider that wen science fails, God is the one who needs to be sent the SOS.

n dont get annoyed, i dont call names to smart an intelligent people like u...coz i believe that me -u- n we all can learn from each other...btw i can teach u relativistic mechanics (if u wish to) n u cn tell me how to write a novel :D..hahahaha

:D