So do you believe in ghosts? Why?

[AdeptaSororitas]

Yeah of course I do. Weirder shit has been scientifically proven. Take a look at quantum physics for 5 seconds ^^

Your weak link is that the weird stuff that's been scientifically proven has actually been scientifically proven. That's why they're considered true and ghosts aren't.

You misunderstand. I'm saying science is currently unable to prove their existence. Much like how they used to be unable to prove quantum physics, which is equally absurd.

The two concepts are considered absurd for different, unrelated reasons, you can't seriously suggest that the acceptance of Quantum physics means everything as absurd or less than that can and will be proven. I shouldn't have to explain that the strangeness or counter-intuitiveness of a phenomenon is irrelevant with regards to whether it's true or not.

Besides, it doesn't compare - think of how long it took for Quantum physics to be proved. Now think of how long it's taken for Ghosts not to be proved.

If whats to say the existence of ghosts isn't linked to quantum physics? Now one takes it seriously so it never WILL be proven, at least not any time soon. I mean, scientist believe that antimatter moves backwards through time, that could very well mean the apparitions are simple glimpses into the past before it arrives there. I'm not saying that something "as absurd or less than that can and will be proven", I'm saying that its possible, and likely, that things such as ghosts could, and logically should, exist. Ones that are evil and can move things? Likely not, replaying incidents frozen in time? Highly likely.

I'm not forcing my opinion on you, and yes, until it is decidedly proven to be false it IS an opinion. You however, are. I'm just asking that you see both sides of the issue before jumping the gun, as a logical person should.

 

[AmaterasuGrim]

Without solid proof it's fiction like gods,ghost,spirits,monster,aliens,evolution none have 100% proof so until they do i won't believe in these fairy tales.

 

[Grospoliner]

The supernatural is not scientific. If there is no scientific evidence, then it is not real.

 

[TheRookie8]

What is a "ghost"? How do you define a "ghost"? A spirit from a deceased corpse? Memories of past events? The remnant of a once living being reborn into something new? If that's the case, then everything around us is a ghost of that what preceded it. I speak in generalizations, surely, but this is not a topic which can be classified specifically.

If you want my opinion, then yes, I believe in ghosts. I have seen little to argue that there is not and mockeries which claim there are, but I spend long amounts of time wondering about this decide that there is "something" in some form that will manifest long after I am gone, which may or may not resemble me.

That, and the fact that a rather morbid spirit persists in following me around, messing with my stuff and setting off my electric toothbrush.

The power of Crest compells thee.

 

[TheRookie8]

The supernatural is not scientific. If there is no scientific evidence, then it is not real.

I agree that the supernatural is not scientific, but I do not agree that scientific evidence defines reality.

If anything, the supernatural represents reality, and all the wonders and unknowns which come with it. Science takes up the task of understanding it all. The nature of science implies that we answer every question the universe provides in hopes of gaining insight. What we decide, however, is inconsequential. "What is real" is already real, despite what rules or judgements we decide or have yet to understand.

Not that I misunderstood your message. Certainty through cause-and-effect brings stability. It is a very practical attitude, and very comforting.

 

[Grospoliner]

The supernatural is not scientific. If there is no scientific evidence, then it is not real.

I agree that the supernatural is not scientific, but I do not agree that scientific evidence defines reality.

If anything, the supernatural represents reality, and all the wonders and unknowns which come with it. Science takes up the task of understanding it all. The nature of science implies that we answer every question the universe provides in hopes of gaining insight. What we decide, however, is inconsequential. "What is real" is already real, despite what rules or judgements we decide or have yet to understand.

Not that I misunderstood your message. Certainty through cause-and-effect brings stability. It is a very practical attitude, and very comforting.

On the contrary, reality is defined solely by the physical phenomena that sciences describe. It is comprised of strict, immutable relationships that are entirely uncompromising. It is our understanding of those relationships that are poor, leading us to mistakenly fill the gaps in our knowledge with fanciful imagination. It is not the nature of science which makes us question, to seek knowledge and understanding, it is human nature and science is the reflection of what we have learned so far. The subjectivity of human nature poses the greatest obstacle to our understanding and it is only though the scientific method that we can possibly hope to understand the phenomena that comprises reality.

All of the emotions we "feel" are defined by physical values. Our brains produce complex chemicals and respond to stimuli for specific purposes. As part of our evolutionary make up, these functions were vital to keep our ancestors alive, to keep them active, and to keep them breeding. With mans conquering of nature most of these functions become redundant and we are left with vast amounts of time to ponder on them. The awe we feel when looking upon some magnificent landscape, work of art, or wondrous thing are no more magical than the electric signals required to type this message out. Of course being so unremarkable does not make it any less impressive, important, or amazing but credit is due where it belongs.

As for stability? I would beg to differ that the universe is anything but stable. The very laws that comprise its mechanics illustrate that it is every bit as chaotic as our everyday lives. As it is there is little comfort it knowing just how lethal and uncaring the universe really is. Even in the relative safety of Earth's atmosphere there are a million things that can kill us outright and it is but luck and skill that keeps us alive.

No, I'm sorry to say there is no comfort in science. Only cold hard truth.

 

[DestinyDriven]

Yes I seriously do. I have had so many weird things happen ever since I was a kid, I can't help but believe. I am also a witch (although, I class myself as a novice). Some people don't believe in witches, but they exist. It just means you practice witchcraft. So, yes I am into lots of things like crystals, divination etc. Actually, my forte is probably to do with spirits and entities, since I am clairsentient. I can feel energy.

I wouldn't be surprised if people thought I was stark raving mad right now lol.

 

[Stikibunn]

I'm more akin to the theory of a psionic imprint over spirits of the deceased.

Please do elaborate. I'd be pretty interested in exactly what you mean by this.

Residual energy left by heightened bio-electrolytic pulses. Causes resonance when exposed to an energy source.

You're missing one crucial piece here too. These residual traces of bio-electricity are not merely recordings but a kind of copy of the neurological pattern at the time of death.

The thing about ghosts is they are a thing that by it's nature cannot be fully proved. Ghosts leave little or no concrete evidence. One can only just barely record or measure one.

I am talking here as probably the closest thing this thread has to an expert as I actually AM a "Ghost Hunter" (although this term is crude and not exactly accurate) affiliated with a society which does regular ghost hunts in various sites.
I myself am partially sceptical as to the actual existence of ghosts. I simply hunt to try and convince myself that my "Imaginary Friend" as a child was the real person she claimed to be.
I could simply be mad but I loved her dearly and miss her even if she was all in my imagination.... but there is a possibility that she might've been a factual person (Which considering as I've found her obituary is very creepy)

There are a few "Facts" that I will now point out. These are not facts in the complete 100% scientific sense. I'm not gonna spout any science I know nothing about.

1: Ghosts are almost universal and bear the same traits almost everywhere.
2: 99% of ghost sightings and investigations do find no evidence at all or find stuff that can be thrown away as nonsense.
3: Ghost sightings seem to decrease as time goes by. Neolithic sites for example have very little to offer a paranormal investigatory team. Some sites that we've investgated have seen a decrease in activity as the site becomes abandoned for longer. It seems that ghosts fade away after a period of time.....

And here's where the main question I've seen in the thread is answered. The question being "With all the people that have died even if only 1% of people become ghosts then why are there still so few?" the reason is of course because whatever residual energy that allows a spirit to manifest must degrade over time. Being a ghost doesn't mean the afterlife, if you're aware at all (And the parapsychological community is split on that subject) then you'd just become less and less "alive"

And Sorry if you decide to call shenanigans. It's just what I have seen and experienced myself. I am biased of course but I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

 

[Strazdas]

Yes. I do believe there is some spiritual phenomena that is not being able to be explained by science. if we would have though science can explain everything we would still think earth is flat.

However i also believe that 99,9% of all claims are actually either attention seeking or lack of knowledge. I have seen places rigged to make sounds that appear to be from nowhere and mechanisms to make lamps move at certain hours.

1: Ghosts are almost universal and bear the same traits almost everywhere.

Not true. While ghost as a person after death concept is universal (so is UFO so there you go) the actualy ghosts are different. for example in japan ALL ghosts are that of a woman, due to fact that the fear of woman ghost originated form their mythos, while in western its more often man than woman. also the "shadow people" are a western phenomenon. middle east and africa cannot be much looked at due to their belief in magic and other stuff their witchdoctor tells them about or isolationism.

 

[kouriichi]

xD being a biochemist doesnt give you any knowledge of spacetime though.
You have a firm understanding of the biology.
But in contrast, you try to base everything in my belief as false, because the human aur.... Bioelectricmagnetic fields die out with the human.

But what if they dont just end in spacetime? What if they continue on? What if their sheer presence in the spacetime continuum causes them to extend indefinitely?
As of this moment, we dont know half as much as we would like to about it. ((Scientific community as a whole))
Right now, most of the information about it is made up of theories! We dont even know how many dimensions our universe is actually made up of! xD We know at least 4, but we dont know how many past that! They could be areas where fields and energy resonate.

Its a belief. Based on theories. And as i said, it would have to be a traumatic event that causes the field to change. Yes, there have been many traumatic events in history, but isnt it possible not all would have the proper L-field to create a ripple? Like a radio frequency needed to be heard on a radio. Only the proper frequency come through loud and clear.

This is what science is! xD questioning what we dont know, in hopes that some day we will have an answer. I know im not RIGHT. And im glad. It gives people to strive for something that is.

No, what you're doing isn't science, it's just making shit up to justify your preexisting beliefs. Science is a rigorous process where every single claim must be supported. Your claims are based on no evidence whatsoever, you just pull them out of your arse.

"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
This is a testable explanation, and a prediction. This IS by definition, Science.
If i had billions of dollars, the greatest minds on the planet, and a lab with equiptment, i would happily test it. But i have none of those.

All its a belief. A theory at best. ((though i dont like to call it a theory, because ive never had the will to have it investigated.))

Whats your explanation for ghosts then? xD Lets see you give a better reason for all the spiritual sightings ever. And it cant be, "everyone was fooled, insane, or had a defect that causes them to imagine things." Because thats 100% more unlikely then them being something we cant explain.

 

[kouriichi]

"Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
This is a testable explanation, and a prediction. This IS by definition, Science.

So, how do we realibly test it? And what predictions can be made that invariably turn out to be accurate?

If i had billions of dollars, the greatest minds on the planet, and a lab with equiptment, i would happily test it. But i have none of those.

Luckily, for you, there are people who do, and not a single shred of evidence of anything supernatural has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Not one. Coincidence? Bad luck?

Or how about the around 25 major monetary prices offered to anyone who can prove the existence of any such phenomenon in the entire world? Guess what, not a single one has been claimed so far.

Whats your explanation for ghosts then?

Which phenomenon do you want an explanation for? It's typical for silly people who believe in ghosts to assume that all phenomena that are attributed to them are in fact the exact same thing. What makes you blindly assume that someone seeing a weird shadow is caused by the exact same thing as someone hearing a creak in an old wooden house?

If you want those things treated as being caused by the same phenomenon, you better damn well be ready to prove that they, in fact, are, which you haven't.

Lets see you give a better reason for all the spiritual sightings ever.

What, a better explanation than "a wiz...I mean, a ghost did it!"? Oh yes, that'll be a real ball-buster for sure!

And it cant be, "everyone was fooled, insane, or had a defect that causes them to imagine things."

What, so you believe in ghosts but you don't believe in hallucinations? There are seven billion people on earth, is it that fucking odd that a few measly percent of those see or hear weird shit in a lifetime of some 70-80 years? Are you seriously trying to claim that people don't imagine things, make shit up or simply find patterns in random occurrences, something that the human brain has been proven to do?

You are grasping for straws, now.

Because thats 100% more unlikely then them being something we cant explain.

So now it's something we can't explain? Well, if we can't explain it, how the hell do you know it has anything to do with anything supernatural? You are, in essence, saying "We can't explain it, therefore we can explain it!".

If we can't explain it, then you are in no position whatsoever to make up an explanation, because we don't have an explanation! Just because there is something we don't know, it doesn't mean you can fill in the blanks with whatever fairytale most appeals to you (to paraphrase Dara O'Briain).

xD
Wait wait wait.
Where did i ever say my explanation was the right one?

And people have been, "Filling in the blanks" since man walked the earth.
Im allowed to fill in the blanks however i like! Just like anyone else.

Your filling in the blank. "Everyone whos seen something weird is just imagining things."
Ive never seen ghosts. I dont know anyone who has. Ive never personally had a paranormal event. But that doesnt mean i cant believe there isnt an explanation.
(And sighting a Comedian doesnt exact make me any less credible xD) If you want to quote people, how about, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they dont refer to reality" (To paraphrase Einstein.)

 

[Tentickles]

Wow a lot of people quoted me and took my 3 sentences + a word and shoved, no bulldozed words into my mouth...

I have no idea how most of you took what I said and well... yeah...

I literally meant what I said: Some things can not be explained by science.
I wasnt exclusively talking about ghosts. Notice that 's' in there after thing.

and I am not ashamed to say I am superstitious. I err on the side of caution. If believing there are monsters in the dark that can kill me; will save me from harm, then I shall.

For there are monsters in the dark...

(Bad people, to specify those who are gonna take that sentence LITERALLY.)

Which is why I carry a very sharp pocket knife wherever I go.

 

[Voidrunner]

I guess I do believe a spirit can hang around for a short period at least, my grandfather never got to see my sister born before he died and I'm told right after he died he appeared to see her before disappearing for good. I'm not sure about long term ghosts though, my mother claims a young boy once appeared in the kitchen looking for his mother before vanishing and once my father tried to get help from a policeman who also just disappeared plus the time he claimed he saw the ghost a soldier wandering around the old army barracks.

I've never seen anything myself though so I've got no idea what to believe.

 

[martin's a madman]

I don't just believe, they are just another fact of life for me. I consider them as another person would consider spiders.

A fact can't just be 'for you'.


OT: I treat ghosts like gods, there's no evidence that even remotely suggests their existence, and as such, I won't believe in them until (and unless) the believers can adequately prove that they exist.

I doubt that will happen, ghosts seem to just be another off-shoot of dualism which has encountered pretty much damning issues.

 

[martin's a madman]

I don't just believe, they are just another fact of life for me. I consider them as another person would consider spiders.

A fact can't just be 'for you'.

Thats nitpicking, you know what I mean.

It's not nitpicking, you do 'just believe' no matter how strongly you believe it to be true, it's just a belief of yours.