|
Post by lowtacks86 on May 17, 2017 21:51:06 GMT
I ain't afraid of no ghosts
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 17, 2017 23:04:33 GMT
I ain't afraid of no ghosts I've never seen one before, nor have I seen any credible evidence of their existence, nor am I aware of scientific theory that might explain the nature of ghosts. Therefore, NO. They make good fantasy stories though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 23:42:36 GMT
I ain't afraid of no ghosts I've never seen one before, nor have I seen any credible evidence of their existence, nor am I aware of scientific theory that might explain the nature of ghosts. Therefore, NO. They make good fantasy stories though. I agree with this, and would also apply that to the existence of any gods.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 18, 2017 1:35:33 GMT
I've never seen one before, nor have I seen any credible evidence of their existence, nor am I aware of scientific theory that might explain the nature of ghosts. Therefore, NO. They make good fantasy stories though. I agree with this, and would also apply that to the existence of any gods. But since the question didn't ask about gods, I tried to keep on topic.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 18, 2017 8:27:15 GMT
I ain't afraid of no ghosts I've never seen one before, nor have I seen any credible evidence of their existence, nor am I aware of scientific theory that might explain the nature of ghosts. Therefore, NO. They make good fantasy stories though. First of all you need to understand that the assumption that things don't exist because you haven't seen them is not science at all. It is not logical at all. It is not even fun at parties. In fact it is a social problem. You should not use expressions like "credible evidence" since you are not any special authority. Perhaps if your job is investigating some particular phenomen and you had special access to volumes of data that other people don't have then you could quantify and say in these 400 cases or these other 500 cases you found whatever you found or didn't find whatever else. Otherwise you only seem like one of those people with a blind faith in science that is far worse than blind faith in religion. Now if you want to say that the appearance of ghosts does seem to the general public to be extremely rare you are on solid ground as a "certified" member of the general public. I myself have not seen any ghosts. There you go, another data point for your theory that there are none. I believe you could easily find more people here to add more data points supporting your idea. However that only shows that the appearance of ghosts is rare, and only in your particular purview. I am not saying that you are wrong to say "nor have I seen any credible evidence." It is of course one data point and each data point counts for something. I don't want to take that away from you. Another extremely rare phenomenon is the remembrance of past lives. I believe that a scientific study of that would show that such memories are quite rare indeed. I however have no such scientific study, nor do I pretend to have any such scientific study. I only have the same data most of you have. I believe that it is probably best in most cases to proceed with life in the assumption that ghosts are either extremely rare or do not exist all, however that is not science, not logic, and pretending otherwise would be no fun at parties. It does seem to me that the Bible discourages communications with ghosts. That also is not science, but probably good advice nevertheless having centuries of tradition to support it. When I say I haven't seen any "credible evidence" I explain that means first hand.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 18, 2017 8:32:00 GMT
You should not use expressions like "credible evidence" since you are not any special authority. Which would be rather like Arlon asserting that there is "credible evidence" for Creationism, er, intelligent design without special authority. It is logical to assume something, especially something extraordinary and supernatural, probably does not exist until evidenced, Arlon. We all know where the alternative, endless credulity, takes one. On one's knees, talking to the air.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 18, 2017 8:46:09 GMT
It is logical to assume something, ... There are people who make very good assumptions often enough. You are not one of us. When you make assumptions you forget that they are only assumptions. That gives science the very bad name it has today. Please realize your science card is canceled.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 18, 2017 8:48:56 GMT
It is logical to assume something, ... There are people who make very good assumptions often enough. You are not one of us. When you make assumptions you forget that they are only assumptions. That gives science the very bad name it has today. Please realize your science card is canceled. Only you are talking about 'science' in such a dismissive way Arlon. I am merely noting the logical difference between what is possible and that which is likely. Something which you cannot see evidenced is less likely to be than something which is. In this same way for instance, someone who still claims to have a chance of overturning the Dover trial verdict through a 'copyrighted defence' is possible. But not likely. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 18, 2017 8:56:26 GMT
There are people who make very good assumptions often enough. You are not one of us. When you make assumptions you forget that they are only assumptions. That gives science the very bad name it has today. Please realize your science card is canceled. Only you are talking about 'science' in such a dismissive way Arlon. I'm not the only one who should, but how would you know either way?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 18, 2017 8:59:20 GMT
Only you are talking about 'science' in such a dismissive way Arlon. I'm not the only one who should, but how would you know either way? Because you are special, and I do know that.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 18, 2017 12:49:49 GMT
I've never seen one before, nor have I seen any credible evidence of their existence, nor am I aware of scientific theory that might explain the nature of ghosts. Therefore, NO. They make good fantasy stories though. First of all you need to understand that the assumption that things don't exist because you haven't seen them is not science at all. It is not logical at all. It is not even fun at parties. In fact it is a social problem. First of all, YOU need to understand what a straw man argument is since you use them frequently. Here, let me help you: A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. As a matter of record, I didn't say that "because I haven't seen them" is the ONLY reason I don't believe in them NOR did I claim that this in itself was "scientific". So you either misunderstood my actual response, OR you are intentionally distorting my position and attacking a straw man. You should not presume that one need be a "special authority" in order to determine what is/is not credible to the satisfaction of scientists who've documented the results on paranormal studies when it's on record, nor what is credible to one's own beliefs (which the question pertains to). People have already done that! So what you really seem to be saying is that I cannot quote their findings IF it disagrees with your presumption of belief in the supernatural, OR that you simply disagree with any findings that are contrary to your beliefs. How things "seem" to you is of no more concern to me as your opinion regarding which type of faith is worse. I'm frankly not interested in your opinion because you are not in full possession of the facts. You don't know what the basis of my beliefs are (as you've already distorted my actual position in favor of one that you'd rather speak to). There is no reason for me to believe that you even understand the scientific method at all with an assumption like the one you just made about faith. Therefore there is no reason for me to take your appraisal seriously. That's not necessary. I already have enough "data points" to formulate an opinion about whether ghosts exist or not. Because the question is do I believe in ghosts, not is the appearance of ghosts a common or rare phenomenon. You've conflated two completely separate questions. Uh...yes you are. You literally JUST said that! QUOTE: "You should not use expressions like "credible evidence" since you are not any special authority" The question my narrow minded friend was do I believe in the existence of ghosts, not whether or not appearances of ghosts is common or rare! Okay. But that implied in the statement itself making the explanation unnecessary and redundant.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 18, 2017 12:54:18 GMT
I'd love to believe in them. I love the idea of them. I love literature/films etc. about them--fiction and non. I regularly visit places that are supposedly haunted. I'm more than willing to be convinced. But no, I don't believe in them at all, and I actually think that the ontology of them is pretty incoherent.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on May 18, 2017 12:57:23 GMT
I ain't afraid of no ghosts I've never seen one before, nor have I seen any credible evidence of their existence, nor am I aware of scientific theory that might explain the nature of ghosts. Therefore, NO. They make good fantasy stories though. While I agree with this.... actually, for me, this pretty much also sums up the belief in aliens, too... But.. I did read about a "scientific" theory that attempts to explain ghosts involving brain waves and gravitational fields around objects.... Also seemed to be more in the realm of fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 18, 2017 12:59:03 GMT
First of all you need to understand that the assumption that things don't exist because you haven't seen them is not science at all. It is not logical at all. Actually, if we extend that to observation in the scientific sense, the fact that there are no credible observations of them is a quite scientific and logical reason to dismiss them (in lieu of credible evidence). And re the ontology of such things, I am considered an expert as much as anyone would be, if socially recognized expertise matters to you.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 18, 2017 13:03:29 GMT
I've never seen one before, nor have I seen any credible evidence of their existence, nor am I aware of scientific theory that might explain the nature of ghosts. Therefore, NO. They make good fantasy stories though. While I agree with this.... actually, for me, this pretty much also sums up the belief in aliens, too... But.. I did read about a "scientific" theory that attempts to explain ghosts involving brain waves and gravitational fields around objects.... Also seemed to be more in the realm of fantasy. Yeah, a big problem with that is that brainwaves are neuronal electrical impulses. It's kind of hard to have that if there's not a functioning brain around, and it otherwise goes against what we know about brainwaves and electricity, etc. to assume that brainwaves somehow linger as a "field" or something for any length of time once a functioning brain is not in the vicinity. (Not to mention that on my view, a lot of "field" theory is incoherent as anything aside from an instrumental tool that works to make practical predictions.)
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 18, 2017 16:30:45 GMT
First of all you need to understand that the assumption that things don't exist because you haven't seen them is not science at all. It is not logical at all. Actually, if we extend that to observation in the scientific sense, the fact that there are no credible observations of them is a quite scientific and logical reason to dismiss them (in lieu of credible evidence). And re the ontology of such things, I am considered an expert as much as anyone would be, if socially recognized expertise matters to you. Of course you may say that there are "no credible observations" if you want to be the kid with the discipline problem on the internet. What you mean is that there are "no" instances of publicly verifiable sightings. That could be because "proofs" of the spirit are not suited to the general public. A recognized "proof" of the spirit by actual scientists is knowledge of details that are not available to the ordinary senses. For example if an entity knows where your lost ring is without having access to any of the areas involved, that can be very convincing to someone who is close enough to the story, but not to the general public at all. The general public is just going to assume the entity was provided the information on the sly.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 18, 2017 17:31:37 GMT
Actually, if we extend that to observation in the scientific sense, the fact that there are no credible observations of them is a quite scientific and logical reason to dismiss them (in lieu of credible evidence). And re the ontology of such things, I am considered an expert as much as anyone would be, if socially recognized expertise matters to you. Of course you may say that there are "no credible observations" if you want to be the kid with the discipline problem on the internet. What you mean is that there are "no" instances of publicly verifiable sightings. That could be because "proofs" of the spirit are not suited to the general public. A recognized "proof" of the spirit by actual scientists is knowledge of details that are not available to the ordinary senses. For example if an entity knows where your lost ring is without having access to any of the areas involved, that can be very convincing to someone who is close enough to the story, but not to the general public at all. The general public is just going to assume the entity was provided the information on the sly. What would be credible evidence of an "entity" even speaking or communicating?
|
|
|
Post by Jillian on May 18, 2017 17:32:36 GMT
No. I like supernatural themed art, but I do not believe in ghosts/demons for real. I may believe in spirits, but in my opinion, that is a different subject.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 18, 2017 21:48:46 GMT
What would be credible evidence of an "entity" even speaking or communicating? The reason I had put "no" in quotes is that there are several stories of extraordinary communications available to the general public, it's just that you don't recognize them as I explained. Do you believe that Akiane Kramirik could paint at an extraordinarily young age? Do you believe that others painted the pictures and lied that she painted them? If you were close to the story as I explained, if you were her near relative for example, you would have enough control over the nearby area to know whether she actually painted the pictures. In that case you would have "proof" of a very scientific kind that extraordinary communication happened. It would be like the "proof" that someone must have committed a crime since our control over the area ensures no one else was there. If we didn't have control over the area we could not be certain that someone else did not enter and commit the crime.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 18, 2017 22:03:51 GMT
What would be credible evidence of an "entity" even speaking or communicating? The reason I had put "no" in quotes is that there are several stories of extraordinary communications available to the general public, it's just that you don't recognize them as I explained. Do you believe that Akiane Kramirik could paint at an extraordinarily young age? Do you believe that others painted the pictures and lied that she painted them? If you were close to the story as I explained, if you were her near relative for example, you would have enough control over the nearby area to know whether she actually painted the pictures. In that case you would have "proof" of a very scientific kind that extraordinary communication happened. It would be like the "proof" that someone must have committed a crime since our control over the area ensures no one else was there. If we didn't have control over the area we could not be certain that someone else did not enter and commit the crime. Wait, are you saying that she painted the work credited to her or not?
|
|