Do you think ghosts are real?

[steve25805 126,021]

57 minutes ago, spywareonya said:

How can you PROVE that something doesn't exist?

Indeed.

If something exists it is theoretically possible that at some point it will be proven to exist, if not already. The fact that it has not necessarily been proven to exist yet does not mean that it doesn't.

It is also possible sometimes to prove that something is not what we think it is, hence sometimes apparently supernatural phenomena can be proven to have a "rational" explanation of a kind any sceptic might believe in. Eg that tapping on the wall might be revealed to be a window shutter blowing in the wind rather than a ghost.

But it is just not possible to prove a negative. We can never definitively prove that anything doesn't exist. There are merely balances of probabilities. It is for example my best guess that Father Christmas does not exist. But I cannot actually prove that.

What any of us can do in the face of any particular phenomenon is to try to discover or rationalise reasons for it. If we come up with something convincing we are likely to persuade others, especially if we have evidence. But we cannot prove that anything is not real. We can merely posite alternative explanations and offer convincing evidence for those in individual cases. 

Certainly some seemingly paranormal phenomenon might be revealed to have non-paranormal, highly rational reasons. This does not prove that all paranormal phenomenon does, or that ghosts or anything else does not exist.

[spywareonya 37,961]

@steve25805

Did not know what to quote because I meant exactly this ahahahah

 

 

I agree with the Whole reasoning

The core is this:

11 minutes ago, steve25805 said:

Certainly some seemingly paranormal phenomenon might be revealed to have non-paranormal, highly rational reasons. This does not prove that all paranormal phenomenon does, or that ghosts or anything else does not exist.

 

[2prnot2p 1,066]

@steve25805

Three main points:

1-As far as proving something does not exist, you're correct.  But, when someone says something DOES exist, the burden of proof is on THEM, not on the skeptic.  This is the rule of debate in all things.  And, there is no proof when it comes to the paranormal.  Having said that, it seems foolish to me, and many others, to believe in something in the absence of tangible evidence.  You might disagree, but that's my philosophy and always has been.

2-As for James Randi, he started out as a magician and illusionist.  This is why he is skeptical.  He saw many people claiming super powers when they were simply using tricks that he knew all about.  Knowing this, it makes sense.  Perhaps you were not aware of his background.  He has made fools of so many illusionists that you can't count them.  Uri Geller was one of his victims.  He claimed he could bend forks, etc., with mental power.  Randi did it and showed how it was done.  Geller got rich by being a fraud.  He was on TV often in the 1970's here in the states.  I've been aware of Randi for over 40 years and I've seen him expose frauds on TV many times.  He has never come across a paranormal claim that he couldn't explain or figure out. 

3-Lastly, you did not comment on the other videos.  If you don't accept Randi's position, fine.  What say you about the other videos?  I think those have stronger arguments against the paranormal than anything I've ever seen or read from the believers in such things.

I can do this for months, but I've made my point(s) and have no interest in belaboring it any further.  🙂

[WantonLee 861]

On 4/4/2019 at 11:27 AM, steve25805 said:

Do you think ghosts are real?

While that would depend rather on the definition of "ghost", I personally think they are not. At least not as separate entities.

Do I think that people have encountered (something that the interpreted as) ghosts? Yes.a

 

I find the idea that we have an eternal soul (that is even capable to reincarnate)... interesting. Yes, I have to admit I - to some extend - want this to be true, since.. well... how likable is the idea that you are gone when you die?

However, the idea of reincarnation I find rather problematic, since we today have far more people walking the earth at the same time then we had ever before. So there either had to be a number of souls "standing by" for along time, waiting in queue, or new souls would have needed to appear.

And then: what is with all the animals? If they have a soul, too, where are all the animal-ghosts? That is, in case of the reasons for a soul to stick around could be the same for animals as well as humans.

That being said: concidering how a lot of lifes went, how much some people have to suffer, I actually hope for them that life does not end after our (body's) death, and the can have some form of compensation for all the suffering. Unlike religious people, I would not live my life build on that idea, though; it is just a hope, since I hate injustice.

 

All in all, as always in science - if you claim something, you are the one that needs to provide the evidence. Not vica versa. I do not have to prove that ghosts do not exist, you have to prove they exist. Same as with gods... .😉

I do not doubt people have seen what they interprete as ghosts - the videos linked by 2pornot2p where new to me, the information in them not, however - but I am also aware how good the brain is at presenting us with some perception based on very little input.

This is a necessary trait, essential for survival - better to see things that can kill you and AREN'T there, then to not see some thing that can kill you that IS there - so the number of false alarms need to be higher then the real alarms.

Plus the blind spot, which might be responsible for some things you see to pop into and out of your vision. I have no idea to what extend this contributed to ghost sightings, if at all.

 

All that being said, I am rather susceptible when it comes to ghost, in that I feel rather uncomfortable in most cellars or basements, but also various rooms above ground of abandoned houses, even those that are definitely not "haunted" - which is not really helpfull when you urban explore on your own. This effect vanishes instantly, however, as soon as I am with another person. I will become rather inquisitive then, doing all the kind of things that usually are a death-sentence, would I be in a horror movie. I think my uncomfortableness (is that even a word?) comes from me having watched to many horror or spooky movies in my childhood, as those trigger me all the time, still to this day. I know it's rediculous, but it's just the way it is.

Apart from this negative feelings I get I still do not think - nor do I believe - that ghosts are real (outside of our heads, that is).

 

However, I would not mind them to be real, as long as they are not harmfull to anyone.

Should at some point in the future someone be able to actually scientifically prove the existence of ghosts, I would not be shocked, however - only curious.

[WantonLee 861]

20 minutes ago, 2prnot2p said:

@steve25805

Three main points:

1-As far as proving something does not exist, you're correct.  But, when someone says something DOES exist, the burden of proof is on THEM, not on the skeptic.  This is the rule of debate in all things.  And, there is no proof when it comes to the paranormal.  Having said that, it seems foolish to me, and many others, to believe in something in the absence of tangible evidence.  You might disagree, but that's my philosophy and always has been.

2-As for James Randi, he started out as a magician and illusionist.  This is why he is skeptical.  He saw many people claiming super powers when they were simply using tricks that he knew all about.  Knowing this, it makes sense.  Perhaps you were not aware of his background.  He has made fools of so many illusionists that you can't count them.  Uri Geller was one of his victims.  He claimed he could bend forks, etc., with mental power.  Randi did it and showed how it was done.  Geller got rich by being a fraud.  He was on TV often in the 1970's here in the states.  I've been aware of Randi for over 40 years and I've seen him expose frauds on TV many times.  He has never come across a paranormal claim that he couldn't explain or figure out. 

3-Lastly, you did not comment on the other videos.  If you don't accept Randi's position, fine.  What say you about the other videos?  I think those have stronger arguments against the paranormal than anything I've ever seen or read from the believers in such things.

I can do this for months, but I've made my point(s) and have no interest in belaboring it any further.  🙂

About point 3: as nancy wrote, they explain a lot, but there might be phenomens that can not be explained that way. But in that case, you point 1 comes into play: who ever claims something has to prove it. Or rather: who claims something EXTRAORDINARY has to prove it. (I am highlighting the "EXTRAORDINARY because I can claim something like "All the little stars in the sky are actually suns, like our own sun.", without being able to actually proving it myself*, as this is something we all agree on (save the flat earthers, of cause).

*not with my expertise or rather the lack of it, as well as without the necessary tools.

 

Anyways, I'd like to thank both you and steve to bring up such topics (this one as well as the one about conspiracy theories, just to name two recent ones), as they make for quite interesting discussions - what ever your point might be.

If you can keep it civil, keep it up!

I am looking forward to new topics from both of you! 👍

[spywareonya 37,961]

30 minutes ago, WantonLee said:

However, the idea of reincarnation I find rather problematic, since we today have far more people walking the earth at the same time then we had ever before. So there either had to be a number of souls "standing by" for along time, waiting in queue, or new souls would have needed to appear.

 

Occult lore describe a number of souls taking turns

The precise number I won't disclose but is bigger than the Earth would ever house

Even upon colonizing ten different planets, we will never be that many, unconscious programming in our DNA will push us to reproduce less (or to engender wars if we chose the hard way) before reaching that number

30 minutes ago, WantonLee said:

And then: what is with all the animals? If they have a soul, too, where are all the animal-ghosts? That is, in case of the reasons for a soul to stick around could be the same for animals as well as humans.

Ghosts as I previously wrote are born from feeling offended about death

Only humans have that EGO

Animals ghosts can happen if a strong willed animal dies in a place filled with spiritual energy but this is pure theory: I never ever heard of one

 

[spywareonya 37,961]

2 hours ago, steve25805 said:

It is for example my best guess that Father Christmas does not exist

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It was burrowed from an occult entity, but believe me... the original one is not exactly a fat happy man riding in the sky HAHAHAHAHHAHA

[2prnot2p 1,066]

@WantonLee

Very good point!   You're absolutely right.  Science cannot explain everything, not even close.  In fact, you could even say that they've merely scratched the surface in most areas.  But, I'd rather put my faith in science than in superstition anytime. 

[spywareonya 37,961]

7 minutes ago, 2prnot2p said:

@WantonLee

Very good point!   You're absolutely right.  Science cannot explain everything, not even close.  In fact, you could even say that they've merely scratched the surface in most areas.  But, I'd rather put my faith in science than in superstition anytime. 

But when science offers possible explainations about something millions of people have described for centuries, then maybe it's not that absurd

Careful: I don't say they proved the soul exists, I say the explained how it would work if it existed

 

THEN, I personally had actual infos from "under the surface" but I am not interested of pushing them here, I am adding this line only to avoid sounding hypocrite when I say I actually am sure the soul exists

 

I just like to focus on explainations of how it would work if it existed: and quantum physics offers inherently coherent explanations

Then, nobody says that a coherent explaination implies the fact that it existed: if you imagine a strange creature for a videogame and you imagine it with all the organs it needs to be alive (in theory) this doesn't make this creature real

Just not impossible

So I am saying quantum physics explains the soul

It doesn't automatically mean it is real

But not impossible

 

It is a milder starting point than wall against wall between believers and ultra-rationalists

 

And anyway I want to state, I am not a "believer", it's not my attitude, I just had infos

This is why I never got angry at you, not even when you when becoming a bit aggressive

[steve25805 126,021]

9 hours ago, 2prnot2p said:

@steve25805

Three main points:

1-As far as proving something does not exist, you're correct.  But, when someone says something DOES exist, the burden of proof is on THEM, not on the skeptic.  This is the rule of debate in all things.  And, there is no proof when it comes to the paranormal.  Having said that, it seems foolish to me, and many others, to believe in something in the absence of tangible evidence.  You might disagree, but that's my philosophy and always has been.

2-As for James Randi, he started out as a magician and illusionist.  This is why he is skeptical.  He saw many people claiming super powers when they were simply using tricks that he knew all about.  Knowing this, it makes sense.  Perhaps you were not aware of his background.  He has made fools of so many illusionists that you can't count them.  Uri Geller was one of his victims.  He claimed he could bend forks, etc., with mental power.  Randi did it and showed how it was done.  Geller got rich by being a fraud.  He was on TV often in the 1970's here in the states.  I've been aware of Randi for over 40 years and I've seen him expose frauds on TV many times.  He has never come across a paranormal claim that he couldn't explain or figure out. 

3-Lastly, you did not comment on the other videos.  If you don't accept Randi's position, fine.  What say you about the other videos?  I think those have stronger arguments against the paranormal than anything I've ever seen or read from the believers in such things.

I can do this for months, but I've made my point(s) and have no interest in belaboring it any further.  🙂

Did you even read my link about James Randi?

As for your videos, I do not find them at all conclusive. Certainly some seemingly paranormal events will have so-called "rational" explanations, but this idea that sensitives who can sense or see things - psychics - are all either fraudsters or mentally deranged is offensive. One of my best friends who is the most rational and intelligent person I know is also a sensitive. 

As for needing incontrovertible proof for the existence of something, science would never get anywhere if anything not already proven was dismissed as baloney in advance. And the idea that some spirit would reveal itself to you in a laboratory test - or that you'd accept is as real even if it did - is hokum, frankly.

A lot of paranormal is actually normal but as yet scientifically unexplained. And I don't necessarily mean "rational" as you'd define it. There is more to existence than what you can pin down in a test tube.

[steve25805 126,021]

9 hours ago, WantonLee said:

who claims something EXTRAORDINARY has to prove it.

Not actually so.

Whoever believes in anything merely needs to have logically consistent reasoning behind what he believes, backed by facts or phenomena he can cite, even if not something that has manifested under laboratory conditions. What he believes merely needs to be logically consistent to be plausible.

Anyone who does mot share those beliefs is equally valid to do so. But if they wish to actively debunk them - rather than merely leaving people at peace with their beliefs - because they for whatever psychological reason have a problem with some beliefs of others, then the onus becomes on them to back that up.

Personally, I feel no desire to undermine the beliefs of others. I might say why I disagree with them and then simply move on, but essentially I believe in freedom of thought. If somebody else believes in the tooth fairy, why should I get all uppity about it?

[steve25805 126,021]

12 hours ago, WantonLee said:

who claims something EXTRAORDINARY has to prove it

To put it more succinctly.

For ME to convince YOU that ghosts exist would require extraordinary evidence. But why would I want to do that? Why should I care what you believe? Whether or not you believe in ghosts is no concern of mine.

I believe what I know inside and feel to be right, and what the balance of evidence combined with meditation and investigation and what my inner senses tell me. If YOU want to convince ME that I am wrong, as is so clearly the goal of sceptics here, it is up to you to demonstrate that to me. The onus is on you. But why would you feel the need? What difference does it make to you guys what I believe? If I choose to believe that some ghosts are real, surely it makes the sum total difference of fuck all to yours or anyone else's lives?

You sceptics so obviously want to convince me - and others like me - that I'm wrong. I have no interest in convincing you of anything. This means the onus of proof is on you as the ones wishing to persuade. Unless you too decide that you don't care what others think.

[2prnot2p 1,066]

4 hours ago, steve25805 said:

Did you even read my link about James Randi?

Yes and it was a smear article by someone with an agenda and who is probably envious of Mr. Randi's intelligence and success.  I've followed Randi for many years and he's great at exposing frauds.  End of story.  LOL!

[steve25805 126,021]

10 hours ago, 2prnot2p said:

Yes and it was a smear article by someone with an agenda and who is probably envious of Mr. Randi's intelligence and success.  I've followed Randi for many years and he's great at exposing frauds.  End of story.  LOL!

I think you share with him the same psychologically driven need to debunk at all costs.

This naturally makes him a hero figure for you.

[steve25805 126,021]

11 hours ago, 2prnot2p said:

I've followed Randi for many years and he's great at exposing frauds

Not quite so good at debunking the real thing though, which is when his inherent dishonesty -his need to twist the "facts" to fit the desired and (for him) psychologically necessary conclusion - often comes in

[spywareonya 37,961]

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 10:26 PM, steve25805 said:

Not quite so good at debunking the real thing though, which is when his inherent dishonesty -his need to twist the "facts" to fit the desired and (for him) psychologically necessary conclusion - often comes in

When you hate moron-believers, you end up hating all they believe in without even trying to understand if there is something cool among those ranks

I see it also in black metal subculture to which I belong, some headlong individuals hate the Church so much that they put Jesus in the same category as God and the Vatican itself, failing to explore enough to understand that Jesus was a Witchcraft Initiate and was murdered for the political unrest he was creating, not because he was the son of an unexistent moralistic God

[speedy3471 10,655]

Some people can't see the forest for the trees

They are some passionate about what they believe in, which is great but forget to open their minds to other peoples opinions 

[spywareonya 37,961]

23 minutes ago, speedy3471 said:

Some people can't see the forest for the trees

They are some passionate about what they believe in, which is great but forget to open their minds to other peoples opinions 

It's the true problem with believing in something

That's why I tend to refrain from believing in anything unless I got scientifical proofs

Then the problem is with those that still won't believe