I think there is more to reality than what science has (or can) describe. However, if such proof of paranormal occurrences is so pervasive, as they seem to be by your accounts, why are there still skeptics? Surely some sort of data can be shown to the world that conclusively shows there is something going on. What do you think?
It may not feel good, like when someone is lying to you, and you know it. Or perhaps a dream you had was so strong and real to you that you wanted to follow its message. It might even be inconvenient – here you had all these plans so nicely drawn up, and something within you is telling you to change them, and that something is hard to ignore.
Maybe your gut instincts have been broadcasting something to you. Do you have permission to tune in and listen? Or are you still trying to prove to yourself that your intuition is real?
Many successful people talk about ‘following their instincts’, or ‘listening to their gut’, and how doing so helped them to create their dreams and make them real. They are paying attention to what their spiritual abilities are trying to tell them. Being psychic is a natural normal human ability, contained in the spirit.
Psychic abilities are meant to be a helpful tool you can use to create your own life, everyday. Do you recall a time you strongly knew something, or saw it, and ignored your own information because you gave up space to an outside authority? Do you remember other times when you did listen, and were validated as a result?
Maybe it’s a good time to make your own ability to see, know, sense, intuit, your authority. Rather than seek your answers from others, or look outside of yourself for the “correct” answer,it might be time to look within. If you want to destroy this valuable ally, go ahead and explain it away or try to prove it’s real to someone else.
Trying to prove your abilities is as useless as trying to prove how you feel about something.
The only person you can prove anything to about how you feel and what your intuition tells you, is yourself. Why not have some fun with it by keeping it to yourself and learning to listen? The amazing thing about having your own psychic abilities for yourself is that they will work better as you listen to them. If you continue to invalidate the messages and information you receive, it won’t be able to get through to you anymore.
You are a spiritual being in a physical body. You have intuition and other abilities in every part of your being and body. You may have hidden powers you aren’t using yet. Can you imagine yourself having all of your senses up and running? If you can, perhaps it’s time to find out what that means for you.
There is no one correct way to do anything, another reason it’s simply pointless to play the ‘prove it’ game. Twenty psychics sitting in a room looking at the same thing may have 20 different viewpoints. This is why it’s helpful to you to learn to look for yourself. Because you are unique among all beings, you have a viewpoint that no other being will ever have exactly the same as you.
You have valuable gifts to bring, and they begin with you learning about who you are and what you have.
This article raises interesting points about intuition and psychic abilities, but it fails to address the need for empirical evidence. Without measurable data, it’s difficult to distinguish genuine intuition from cognitive biases.
The argument that psychic abilities are natural yet unprovable by science is intriguing. Nevertheless, it would be worthwhile to explore how science could potentially adapt to study these phenomena more rigorously.
I appreciate the emphasis on personal experience and self-validation. However, it’s also important to consider how we can balance this with external validation to avoid falling into the trap of self-delusion.
The notion that each person has a unique viewpoint and psychic abilities is compelling. Yet, the article could benefit from discussing how such subjective experiences can be integrated into a broader understanding of reality.
While the article encourages self-reliance on intuition, it overlooks the potential dangers of ignoring scientific skepticism entirely. A balanced approach that considers both intuition and empirical evidence would be more effective.