• Ghosts and the paranormal
    608 replies, posted
[QUOTE=dass;35346069]Hmmm. What if something without explanation were to happen in a place said to be haunted? [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] I'm not one of "those". I just find some crap to be really weird. The whole "God did it" seems like an excuse to not find an answer and to be further stuck to a backwards shackling belief.[/QUOTE] the only reason something without explaination would be a big deal in a place that is said to be haunted is because people think that the place is haunted in the first place. just because people think and say it is haunted doesn't mean it is
[QUOTE=David29;35344684]And Einstein explained his theory, which was proved wrong at a later date. My point is that the exact same thing could happen with ghosts.[/QUOTE] Fantastic, you're all well and good, but entirely out the window in terms of saying ghosts exist. Once you go out and prove ghosts exist, we'll all believe you [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] And once you prove the existence of the matter these ghosts are made of, you can prove ghosts exist [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] (Science is based on continual refinement and adding additional knowledge to the pile. If you want to prove something exists, you need to prove every facet that allows its existence. Sadly, nobody has been able to satisfy the conditions for proof on ghosts, nor any of the supposed hypotheses on how they are able to exist.)
[QUOTE=TurbisV2;35346192]the only reason something without explaination would be a big deal in a place that is said to be haunted is because people think that the place is haunted in the first place. just because people think and say it is haunted doesn't mean it is[/QUOTE] Well heres to hoping the ghosts of whatever don't come to scream at me tonight. I know my "Amnesia style sanity" will start working but oh well...
There would need to be a ghost corpse or ghost poop at least, with so many of them existing.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35345136]No, it's more of a case that the compiled evidence at this present moment in time shows that it is highly highly improbable they do not exist, bloody hell.[/QUOTE] Since "highly highly improbable" does not translate to "impossible", you either agree with me or re-assess what you just said. Besides, you are completely ignoring what I am saying. I am saying that just because at this moment in time it seems improbable by current scientific reasoning, that does not mean this will not change in the future. Man spent hundreds of years trying to achieve flight - by your logic we shouldn't be able to fly at the moment because it couldn't be achieved back in Da Vinci's time. Read my lips: [b]our understanding of the world around us changes constantly. This has happened throughout history[/b]. Just because something seems improbable/impossible now does not mean that a discovery in the future won't change things and make it all seem a lot more rational. I have already provided examples of this happening previously. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;35345136]No you cabbage. The reason that many rational minded people out there think that ghosts do not exist is because:[/QUOTE] Except what your argument is flawed by the following: "Any scientific theory is closely tied to empirical findings, and always remains subject to falsification if new experimental observation incompatible with it is found. [b]That is, no theory can ever be seriously considered certain as new evidence falsifying it can be discovered.[/b]" Which sums up exactly the exactly the point I am making. Ironically, I pulled that quote from the scientific method page. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;35345136]You simply have to find a logical explanation for it. You can only really start thinking a ghost is involved once you have eradicated every single other possibility that could have happened. Photos who capture people not there, ranges from imperfections in the lens to bad photo developing or lighting or the such. Anything that seems out of place will be thought as by a human as creating a pattern.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, unless you have conclusive proof that [i]every[/i] picture [i]ever[/i] taken that is claimed to be of a ghost is a fake/illusion/lighting anomaly, this hold little weight. Don't get me wrong - on the flip side I can't prove that every picture (or even [i]any[/i] picture, for that matter) is real, but I don't need to: you're trying to prove ghosts can't exist, I'm merely saying that you can't rule them out entirely. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;35345136][img]http://domaincurry.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/cloud.jpg[/img] This is a example. This cloud was formed from water vapour. The shapes made are more or less random. However its been well documented for centuries that humans can pick out patterns from them. All of these views are more or less subjective and often conflict with each other on the nature of these clouds. However we can explain much about clouds, we know how they form, why they form, what happens to them, etc. Lightning, rain and snow once were unexplainable things coming from these clouds that can now be easily explained. Ghosts are the same. We thought that instead of a poorly insulated wall or odd sounds a ghost was present. We can now explain this. Ghosts are what the superstitious fall back to when they cannot be arsed to work out a real explanation or as a result of wishful thinking.[/QUOTE] I don't know where you are going with this. You are comparing something perfectly ordinary (a pattern in a cloud) to something extra-ordinary (someone seeing a ghost) - something you can explain to something you can't explain. [QUOTE=Greenen73;35346794]Fantastic, you're all well and good, but entirely out the window in terms of saying ghosts exist. Once you go out and prove ghosts exist, we'll all believe you [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] And once you prove the existence of the matter these ghosts are made of, you can prove ghosts exist [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] (Science is based on continual refinement and adding additional knowledge to the pile. If you want to prove something exists, you need to prove every facet that allows its existence. Sadly, nobody has been able to satisfy the conditions for proof on ghosts, nor any of the supposed hypotheses on how they are able to exist.)[/QUOTE] You seem to have some sort of vendetta against me - and it's annoying not because you disagree with me (I couldn't care less), but because you dive in at the deep end without reading anything I have previously posted. This is the second time you have done this. [b]I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GHOSTS[/b]
Let me start my argument by saying that I see no rational explanation for "ghosts". WITH THAT SAID, I think there are just way too many events, sightings, and occurrences to ignore or attribute to crazy people. We're talking about millions of reports from every corner of the earth since the dawn of civilization. I have made peace with the rationale that there are some things that our current level of scientific understanding can just not explain. That's it. Maybe in the future we will make an amazing discovery and find out why these things happen, or maybe we will make an amazing discovery to explain how so many people hallucinate such similar things. It's kind of like bigfoot. Think about this: You can ask; "How could such a creature exist without any good evidence being collected?" and "How could such an animal survive with such a clandestine pattern of living?". But if you ask those questions, you also have to ask: "How could tens of thousands of people across thousands of miles all come forward and make reports of witnessing strikingly similar events?" On an opposing note, I can personally attest to experiencing hallucinations during times of extreme fear.
[QUOTE=rivershark;35348661] WITH THAT SAID, I think there are just way too many events, sightings, and occurrences to ignore or attribute to crazy people. We're talking about millions of reports from every corner of the earth since the dawn of civilization. I have made peace with the rationale that there are some things that our current level of scientific understanding can just not explain. That's it. Maybe in the future we will make an amazing discovery and find out why these things happen, or maybe we will make an amazing discovery to explain how so many people hallucinate such similar things.[/QUOTE] But at the moment we already have a pretty good idea of what causes these things. The evolutionary leftover of being fearful of things in the dark for example. Various mental illnesses have been identified since then. Various substances can cause hallucinations. Wishful thinking. The first religions to come about were based around the idea of everything having a soul of some kind. It is not a huge leap to say that these souls can influence events after expiration of the human. (Which doesn't happen, cognitive thought dies as readily as brain tissue.) When you have these religions all form around the world, and people who WANT to believe in ghosts you get situations like that. The world is full of cranks, nutjobs and the such will still perpetuate the myth of ghosts despite the fact that we have more or less found rational and logical explanations for all these events. Out of control body experiences have been proven time and time again to never work any better than guessing in double blind tests. This runs along the same idea that ghosts do. Simply put is that these people are simply pretending or mentally ill. [QUOTE=rivershark;35348661]It's kind of like bigfoot. Think about this: You can ask; "How could such a creature exist without any good evidence being collected?" and "How could such an animal survive with such a clandestine pattern of living?". But if you ask those questions, you also have to ask: "How could tens of thousands of people across thousands of miles all come forward and make reports of witnessing strikingly similar events?"[/QUOTE] You also have to consider that the very first bigfoot tracks were proven to be a hoax, the infamous film was a fake, and that the legend only spread like wildfire after people heard of the first story. Empirical evidence in the field has yield aprox: nothing. Scientific studies over the past 50 years have yielded nothing. Saying that bigfoot exists is like saying that evolution is false. [QUOTE=David29;35348419] I don't know where you are going with this. You are comparing something perfectly ordinary (a pattern in a cloud) to something extra-ordinary (someone seeing a ghost) - something you can explain to something you can't explain. [/QUOTE] Today the cloud is perfectly ordinary. But back a few thousand years and nobody had a clue of anything about them. Ghosts were also seen as extra-ordinary then. What has changed is our understanding of them. Those things in the sky are clouds, we know a lot about them. Those things called ghosts are down to a whole plethora of fascinating articles of interest such as diseases, mental disorders, or just plain bullshitting. The evidence collected is not completely there. We can find out something tomorrow that will overturn everything we know about clouds, but clouds aren't treated as supernatural are they? That is what we should do for ghosts. We treat it like we do with clouds, with a rational and logical mind. Until we find something that overturns our understanding of ghosts or clouds, we can safely rely on the existing knowledge as being generally true. And until then, we know that ghost hunters, mediums, psychics, fortune tellers, curses, exorcists, etc are all just full of shit.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35348789]Today the cloud is perfectly ordinary. But back a few thousand years and nobody had a clue of anything about them. Ghosts were also seen as extra-ordinary then. What has changed is our understanding of them. Those things in the sky are clouds, we know a lot about them. Those things called ghosts are down to a whole plethora of fascinating articles of interest such as diseases, mental disorders, or just plain bullshitting. The evidence collected is not completely there. We can find out something tomorrow that will overturn everything we know about clouds, but clouds aren't treated as supernatural are they? That is what we should do for ghosts. We treat it like we do with clouds, with a rational and logical mind. Until we find something that overturns our understanding of ghosts or clouds, we can safely rely on the existing knowledge as being generally true. And until then, we know that ghost hunters, mediums, psychics, fortune tellers, curses, exorcists, etc are all just full of shit.[/QUOTE] No. Because we can explain what a cloud is - with evidence to back it up. All we have for ghosts is theories with no conclusive proof that it is a 'disease', 'mental disorder' or 'bullshitting'. Unless you would like to provide said proof for [i]every[/i] ghost sighting? You're applying a hypothesis to explain something without using the scientific method to back it up. There is nothing to conclusively prove ghosts exist. There is nothing to conclusively prove ghosts don't exist. It is as simple as that.
[QUOTE=David29;35348419]You seem to have some sort of vendetta against me - and it's annoying not because you disagree with me (I couldn't care less), but because you dive in at the deep end without reading anything I have previously posted. This is the second time you have done this. [b]I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GHOSTS[/b][/QUOTE] You're saying that ghosts can exist. Fine, you've won, your point is undebatable, as it can never be falsified. Why the fuck are you debating [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] As it stands, the scientific community agrees that the null hypothesis is "Ghosts don't exist", as the scientific data is heaped against ghosts, and every ghost 'sighting' ever examined. It is now in the hands of the paranormal investigators to disprove the null hypothesis.
[QUOTE=Greenen73;35349058]You're saying that ghosts can exist. Fine, you've won, your point is undebatable, as it can never be falsified. Why the fuck are you debating [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] As it stands, the scientific community agrees that the null hypothesis is "Ghosts don't exist", as the scientific data is heaped against ghosts, and every ghost 'sighting' ever examined. It is now in the hands of the paranormal investigators to disprove the null hypothesis.[/QUOTE] a. Why do you care what I debate? b. It's not undebatable, as I just held a debate with Sobotnik about it. c. In a thread about ghosts, are you seriously berating me for putting a case forward which explains why they can't be written off entirely? d. It can be falsified, since there are both arguments for and against ghosts (read up on falsification).
[QUOTE=David29;35349280]a. Why do you care what I debate? b. It's not undebatable, as I just held a debate with Sobotnik about it. c. In a thread about ghosts, are you seriously berating me for putting a case forward which explains why they can't be written off entirely? d. It can be falsified, since there are both arguments for and against ghosts (read up on falsification).[/QUOTE] I'd like to hear an argument for ghosts. [editline]29th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sir Drone;35341734]No it was recorded on footage and [B]most of the guards saw it before hi-tailing out of there.[/B] Don't believe it one bit but I found it interesting that something must of happened to trigger those camera's to be faulty[/QUOTE] Those are some pretty shitty guards.
[QUOTE=David29;35349280]a. Why do you care what I debate? b. It's not undebatable, as I just held a debate with Sobotnik about it. c. In a thread about ghosts, are you seriously berating me for putting a case forward which explains why they can't be written off entirely? d. It can be falsified, since there are both arguments for and against ghosts (read up on falsification).[/QUOTE] a. "Mass Debate" b. Not a debate, you're just providing counterpoints to him. It's a bit one-sided. c. Yes. On the otherhand, if you want to put the case forward on why they exist, I'd be perfectly happy to hear that. d. Could you please give a few examples of what may falsify "ghosts might exist"?
[QUOTE=Greenen73;35349371]a. "Mass Debate"[/QUOTE] And yet you have come along and started a debate on how I am debating - unrelated to the orginal topic. [QUOTE=Greenen73;35349371]b. Not a debate, you're just providing counterpoints to him. It's a bit one-sided.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I'll be sure to just agree with the other person next time. That will make for a great debate. [QUOTE=Greenen73;35349371]c. Yes. On the otherhand, if you want to put the case forward on why they exist, I'd be perfectly happy to hear that.[/QUOTE] In other words: "you can only debate what I agree with". [QUOTE=Greenen73;35349371]d. Could you please give a few examples of what may falsify "ghosts might exist"?[/QUOTE] My own debate with Sobotnik. He insisted ghosts can't exist. I insisted ghosts might exist. Thus it is falsifiable and will continue to be as long as at least one person insists ghosts can't exist. "The assertion that "all swans are white" is falsifiable, because it is empirically verifiable that there are swans that are not white."
[QUOTE=David29;35349670]Sorry, I'll be sure to just agree with the other person next time. That will make for a great debate.[/quote] Now you're just being silly :) (You and sobotnik are arguing the same point i.e. in agreement- "Ghosts probably don't exist" vs "Ghosts might exist") [quote]In other words: "you can only debate what I agree with".[/quote] Not I, the scientific community [quote]My own debate with Sobotnik. He insisted ghosts can't exist. I insisted ghosts might exist. Thus it is falsifiable and will continue to be as long as at least one person insists ghosts can't exist.[/quote] Lmao, arguing with someone about something doesn't make it falsifiable. You can falsify evolution by presenting the preserved remains of a human found from the dinosaur age. If you want to make the claim that ghosts might exist, there needs to be a way to falsify it other than "I can argue with someone about it".
Oh my god David29, you're beating a dead horse. Sobotnik says that it is highly probable that Ghosts do not exist given modern knowledge. You keep giving bullshit philosophical excuses such as that science keeps changing therefore we can never truly know. You also have the burden of proof in this argument and arguing about it's validity is just as pointless as arguing about religion, or the existence of the Easter bunny. Also, ghosts existence is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE by it's own definition. Just look at the definitions of phenomenon and noumenon laid out by Kant. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon[/url] Let us also note the probability of the existence of ghosts is so extremely small that we can essentially state that "ghosts do not exist" as a fact, where as your argument would be valid for being a skeptic of something more complicated like string theory etc.
[QUOTE=newbz;35350104]Oh my god David29, you're beating a dead horse. Sobotnik says that it is highly probable that Ghosts do not exist given modern knowledge. You keep giving bullshit philosophical excuses such as that science keeps changing therefore we can never truly know. [/QUOTE] How is that bullshit when throughout history things that have seemed impossible in the past have been made possible by new discoveries? [QUOTE=newbz;35350104]Also, ghosts existence is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE by it's own definition. Just look at the definitions of phenomenon and noumenon laid out by Kant. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenon[/url][/QUOTE] That hasn't told me anything, except that ghosts are something that can be observed. [QUOTE=Greenen73;35350074]Now you're just being silly :) (You and sobotnik are arguing the same point i.e. in agreement- "Ghosts probably don't exist" vs "Ghosts might exist")[/QUOTE] Clearly we aren't, or we wouldn't be arguing. [QUOTE=Greenen73;35350074]Not I, the scientific community[/QUOTE] Then why does this thread exist? Fuckit. I don't care any more.
[QUOTE=David29;35350361]Clearly we aren't, or we wouldn't be arguing. Then why does this thread exist?[/QUOTE] Debate threads exist because guys like you and sobotnik like arguing points that don't even add up, or just turn into a jumbled mess of huge quote pyramids. It doesn't matter what your points are, because as long as either of you identify as "the other side", you're still going to sling shit at each other. [QUOTE=David29;35350361]How is that bullshit when throughout history things that have seemed impossible in the past have been made possible by new discoveries?[/quote] As it stands, until the point where someone can say "this is how ghosts exist", there is zero point in debating, since your point sums up as "there might be something in the future that shows ghosts can exist". Next post is probably going to be something along the lines of [QUOTE=Sobotnik;35345136]No, it's more of a case that the compiled evidence at this present moment in time shows that it is highly highly improbable they do not exist, bloody hell.[/quote] ad infinitum
[QUOTE=Greenen73;35350424]Debate threads exist because guys like you and sobotnik like arguing points that don't even add up, or just turn into a jumbled mess of huge quote pyramids. It doesn't matter what your points are, because as long as either of you identify as "the other side", you're still going to sling shit at each other. As it stands, until the point where someone can say "this is how ghosts exist", there is zero point in debating, since your point sums up as "there might be something in the future that shows ghosts can exist". Next post is probably going to be something along the lines of ad infinitum[/QUOTE] I suppose I grateful that at last you have finally taken some of what I have said on board and actually understand my point. I feel I can finish relatively happy on that note.
[QUOTE=David29;35350523]I suppose I grateful that at last you have finally taken some of what I have said on board and actually understand my point. I feel I can finish relatively happy on that note.[/QUOTE] What you're stating can be said for [I][B]every single argument in the universe[/B][/I], in other words it is a [I]trivial solution[/I]. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triviality_(mathematics)[/url] Us thinkers like to ignore trivial solutions in arguments while talking about what is real and what is not. There is an infinite set of trivial solutions for an infinite number of arguments. Have you begun to see where the logic starts breaking down into infinity?
[QUOTE=Isuzu;35342893]Once I farted so loud it woke my dog and then he was scared because he probably must've thought it was a ghost or somethtng. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating - Read the rules sticky." - Megafan))[/highlight][/QUOTE] That was a debate?
They cannot exist. When you die, you cease to be. You decompose and that is it. Anyone have conclusive evidence against this?
I don't know, I haven't had an experience or anything like that but my stepfathers family has supposedly had some experience, everyone of them, for example my little brother (Half brother), when he was about 8-10 he saw his grandfather, who drowned at sea a loooong time ago, before I was born and I am 19 and was able to describe his fisherman outfit perfectly, how he looked (the beard, the face, etc) and said he just saw him 5 minutes ago. And the only pictures of him are old black and white pictures, none of them of him in a fishing boat or anything. Makes you wonder. An 8 year old boy wouldn't randomly lie about this, and he did not know how he was dressed, how he looked like and stuff like that. So yeah.
[QUOTE=Sickle;35364440]They cannot exist. When you die, you cease to be. You decompose and that is it. Anyone have conclusive evidence against this?[/QUOTE] Do you have any conclusive evidence against ghosts? Same can be said either way around when it comes to the unknown. The fact is you do not know...yet.
I really think its all fiction and years of people telling scare stories and fairy tales. You'd think scientists would look into it more if there were supernatural beings walking the earth. How does it work anyway, every person and animal who's ever lived is now strolling around the earth? Its just really ridiculous.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;35366407]Do you have any conclusive evidence against ghosts? Same can be said either way around when it comes to the unknown. The fact is you do not know...yet.[/QUOTE] Actually we have a hell of a lot more evidence disproving ghosts than we do proving them. That's why most scientists these days think that looking into the matter of ghosts is a waste of time because they know they do not exist.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;35366407]Do you have any conclusive evidence against ghosts? Same can be said either way around when it comes to the unknown. The fact is you do not know...yet.[/QUOTE] That's not how evidence works. If you claim that ghosts do exist, then you must provide evidence. If no evidence is or can be brought forth, then we can assume that your claim is false. I don't need to prove that Ghosts do not exist if there is no proof that they do exist in the first place.
I used to watch ghost hunting shows and those documentaries on ghost experiences all the time when I was younger and all they ever got were 'orbs' or some fake, crudely manufactured cloud or smog in the videos. One book I read claimed that ghosts of animals and even non-livng objects appeared in some places which is just ridiculous. I thought about it and realised that throughout history billions of people have came and gone and there should be ghosts everywhere. Of course you can't disprove their existence but that's not a good argument for believing in them.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;35366407]Do you have any conclusive evidence against ghosts? Same can be said either way around when it comes to the unknown. The fact is you do not know...yet.[/QUOTE] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unfalsifialbe hypothesis, just because they can't be proven true or false, does not mean that either side holds equal probability and reasonability.
[QUOTE=Patriarch;35369349]That's not how evidence works. If you claim that ghosts do exist, then you must provide evidence. If no evidence is or can be brought forth, then we can assume that your claim is false. I don't need to prove that Ghosts do not exist if there is no proof that they do exist in the first place.[/QUOTE] Oh, it does? So you can not use evidence to prove against something, only for something? Huh. By the way. I am not for or against ghosts. I am inconclusive. But I just find it humorous when people are smug and so sure of themselves against something that is purely unknown. ;)
[QUOTE=HkSniper;35371234]Oh, it does? So you can not use evidence to prove against something, only for something? Huh. By the way. I am not for or against ghosts. I am inconclusive. But I just find it humorous when people are smug and so sure of themselves against something that is purely unknown. ;)[/QUOTE] No, the point he's making if that if you make a claim that disputes what is currently proven then you have to provide evidence. You have to provide evidence if you are going to say ghosts [i]do[/i] exist in the same way that you must provide evidence if you say that the moon or atoms or whatever else we know is around us [i]doesn't[/i] exist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.