I Believe In Werewolves

Why Werewolves Can Exist... The majority of people don't believe in werewolves. However, after multiple years of research, I've come up with two simple concepts that prove one cannot say werewolves don't exist, at least not if they want to be taken seriously. It may not prove werewolves exist, but it makes any evidence to the contrary invalid.

First, The Debunking Paradox:

"There are those who wish to try and prove that certain things (creatures, ob<x>jects or concepts) are or are not possible. In the case of creatures and ob<x>jects, one would be trying to prove that it does or does not exist. While, because of the Universe Example, trying to prove something impossible or nonexistent would be incredibly difficult, there are still those who may try to prove their beliefs. However, there is a brick wall that cannot be passed while trying to do so. The paradox of trying to prove something impossible or nonexistent is that the only way you could know what to disprove is if the creature, ob<x>ject, or concept existed. Were this the case, the entire argument that it is impossible or nonexistent would become pointless. For example, in the case of werewolves, one could try to prove whether or not the full moon can cause any being to physically transform into another shape. The modern belief is that the full moon causes werewolves to transform. Therefore, this person makes the assumption that, if they can prove the moon cannot cause such a transformation, then werewolves cannot exist. However, this is assuming that, if werewolves existed, the full moon is the actual cause of their ability to shift. The key phrase in the past sentence is “if werewolves existed”. What if the full moon has nothing to do with the transformation? This is a possibility and, if there is more than one possibility, then we cannot say one is right over the other. The only way we could know whether or not the full moon has anything to do with werewolves transforming is if they existed. If they existed, as said before, it would be pointless to try and state that they didn’t. In the end, the only thing the person would prove is whether or not the full moon can cause a being to transform. And even if they prove that it can, there’s still no guarantee that it applies to werewolves. Every story before Hollywood came into the picture says nothing about the full moon causing the transformation. Therefore, again, we cannot know whether or not the full moon has any sway on a werewolf unless werewolves existed. In summary, it is pointless to try and prove something impossible or nonexistent because of this paradox."

Second, the "Universe Example", which basically states that, because we cannot prove that something existing on this planet doesn't exist on others (yes, it sounds weird), we cannot say that the thing doesn't exist until we search every planet in the universe. Essentially, we can't say something is impossible or nonexistent until we've searched the entire universe and found no evidence of that thing's existence.

It's difficult to describe these concepts, but they are all that's necessary to debunk all claims that werewolves don't exist.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

lordvolkhark

Your using because the name of god exists he must exist theory?

Drachona · 31-35, M

No. I am using the because a concept exists, it is possible until proven otherwise theory. Any true scientist recognizes the logic of this position. I do not, personally, believe in a god or gods. However, that is my belief. I make no scientific argument against the existence of gods because I do not know how I would back up that claim. That does not make gods real. It does, however, make the possibility real. There is nothing more humble and indicative of a scientist than admitting that you might be wrong. This is my argument and, so far, it is much better than any argument against the existence of werewolves. Logically then, if it explains more of the subject more effectively, it must be the most-likely explanation.

lordvolkhark

An again same idea you just used the word concept.

lordvolkhark

In science this is unproven fact subject to constantly change hence Einstein was found to be wrong.

Drachona · 31-35, M

I am not sure what you are saying. Your phrasing is not understandable. The most important thing to understand is that science cannot say something is impossible just because no one has bothered to find evidence for it. No good scientist assumes something to be nonexistent or impossible because science is a history of such foolish statements, inevitably ending with the realization that what was once "impossible" now is a part of science.

lordvolkhark

Because it's unproven its proven...what about it historical existence provides much to be upheld sound's firmer.

Drachona · 31-35, M

No. What is it with people and dichotomies? If it's not one thing, it must be the exact opposite. When I say that we cannot prove something is impossible, that does not mean I am saying it must automatically exist. There is the easily said, and yet constantly ignored, phrase "I don't know". It is rather simple. It is completely illogical to say that something is impossible just because it has not yet been proven possible. All you need to do is admit to your ignorance; accept the fact that we do not know everything. If you know anything about history, that should be obvious.

lordvolkhark

Problem being a discussion between those that do know.
If we knew name of god would that make real, can't remember who said that to me but it applies well to a lot of thing's.
Ignorance being bliss is good idea because the reality of most things are completely dark to most that we wish was a part of the light.
My suggestions you needn't prove anything cause it's already know(its why so many write about it) in more ways then one accepting its another.

lordvolkhark

Or you could not use the same logic of "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence of evidence" as a wonderful former president did to provide false positives to reason warfare in the wrong nation.
Basically leave those who don't believe to those whom choose not to because no one loses out correct?

Drachona · 31-35, M

I am not sure what your last statement means. And the absence of evidence statement is irrelevant. There is evidence, so any claims otherwise are pointless. Also, what do you mean by saying there is nothing prove because it is already known? People know about werewolves, but they don't know about them. Just because I am aware of Sikhism does not mean I am an expert on the subject or even somewhat knowledgeable. Having seen many books and shows/documentaries on the subject of werewolves, I know that the bulk of information is either misconception or exaggeration. Clearly then, there are many things left to prove if incorrect information is taken as relative fact.

lordvolkhark

To which would be reasonable way of existence because outside wolf kind we don't teach with such tools It makes ooutsiders stand out.
Good you see it as irrelevant because so is your reference its absence without but with denial without proof.

Drachona · 31-35, M

Could you please rephrase your entire comment. I have trouble understanding your, forgive the fact, poor grammar and phrasing.

lordvolkhark

Your saying without proof you'll always have possibility.
But that's everyone's proof for parnora.

Drachona · 31-35, M

I never said that possibility is proof. Possibility is possibility. Most people simply ignore possibility and say it is impossible, usually because they are too afraid to even consider it. I am not saying that possibility automatically makes something real, just that it makes it worthy of consideration by science. The problem is that most scientists do not even consider it.