Are these Ghosts or Just my Imagination?

[final fight cd]

I'm very disappointed in the amount of superstitious belief in this thread. *sigh*

What's so disappointing?

I don't really believe that ghosts walk the earth, but, particularly if someone believes he has had direct experience with them, I don't really see how such a belief is unreasonable.

Because of all the people claiming to have had ghost encounters over the years there is still no scientific evidence of ghosts, which is what I would need to go on in order to believe a claim of something like this.

So while I can believe someone thinks that they saw something supernatural and can recognize that this thinking has genuinely affected them in some way, their ghost story does nothing to convince me of the facticity of a paranormal being itself.

back in the early to mid 90s my bro had surgery. unfortunately, the surgeons had piss poor hygiene and he ended getting a systemic infection. shit hit the fan. it was a very scary time for my family and i. one day, our phone rings. my mom picks up the phone and on the other line is my grandpa; my mom didn't call my grandpa and my grandpa didn't call my mom. they are going back and forth asking each other why they called. all while the discussion of who called who is happening, "heavenly" music in the background is playing; yes, pun intended. shortly after that, my brother fully recovered.

fast forward to last year. my grandpa is dying of cancer. our home phone rings. the caller ID says my dad's name and our home phone number. for those of you who don't know, it is impossible, at least on our phone, to call your own house phone without getting a busy signal. my mom, very confused, picks up the phone and "heavenly" music is playing in the background. a few days later my grandpa passed away.

these are true stories. i am sure there probably is a logical explanation behind these too and it is all coincidence.

i think if you haven't experienced anything "weird" it is easy to say paranormal isn't real. so go ahead and ask, "why would a ghost/angel call a phone." i am not a ghost nor an angel so i can't tell you that.

[Limewater]

They are different. With the axiom of choice, you are dealing with a theoretical math concept, something that can't be verified due to physical limits. With something like ghosts or UFOs you have a phenomenon that people claim to have supposedly had a physical, first hand experience with. They could see/feel/hear ghosts. Nonetheless, there is no physical evidence in existence that verifies these claims. We have people trained in documenting phenomenon that can be seen/heard/felt, yet they have not been able to corroborate these claims.

UFOs are different. As far as I know, they are generally claimed to be physical phenomena that should be within the realm of science-- though I do remember a guy once telling me that flying saucers were how angels got to and from earth. Maybe he just got the idea from Styx.

But your discussion of ghosts still sounds goofy. I have seen former President George W. Bush, but I cannot provide any evidence that I have seen him. I have felt chafing on my nipples, but I can't provide you with any physical evidence to verify that. I can't provide you with any physical evidence for most things I have heard in my life, either. And these are all relatively mundane, physical things. You probably even believe me when I tell you about my nipple chafing.

There's not even any real reason to believe that an observer's perception of some supernatural stimulus should have any real physical component. There don't have to be measurable, external stimulus for me to hear voices in my head, or to see or feel things.

You claim that the Axiom of Choice is different because it can't be verified due to physical limits. I still don't see how we can conclude that the presence of ghosts should be verifiable within physical limits.

[darthmunky]

Ghosts DO exist. Not believing in ghosts is like not believing in aliens which is outrageously stupid, lol.

Stupid? Why?

Science tells us there are good odds that life exists on other planets. It does not tell us there are good odds ghosts are real.

Well, I guess I shouldn't have said STUPID but you catch my drift. Just because something has not been proven or explained, doesn't mean that it does not exist, it just means we have not truly found a scientific explanation for it yet.There are countless photos, audio, and video records of "ghosts" and sure they can be proven to be false, but when they are not proven false, why are they not proven to be real? Because science has no explanation for how it could be possible. Maybe some day, there will be an explanation. This is why I dislike it when people just straight up say ghosts do not exist. Have they been proven to be real? No. But they have not been proven to be fake either.

How do you explain when random people see the same "ghost" in the same place at different times with no knowledge of the other person's encounter nor any knowledge of any supposed paranormal activity going on in said location? You can't.

[yomomma1]

darthmunky, are you arguing because there isn't evidence that it doesn't exist, that it exists? Or that because you cannot explain it, it exists?

[dsheinem]

I still don't see how we can conclude that the presence of ghosts should be verifiable within physical limits.

All the phenomenon you mentioned are observable and verifiable phenomena. If someone doubts Bush's existence we can point to medical records, a birth certificate, actions he did, etc. to prove he exists. If someone doubts nipple chaffing occurs, we can point to medical documentation of the phenomenon or monitor your nipples over time for changes in the skin. These are scientifically provable things. They hold up to testing, research, observation, and so on. I believe your claims because I know that these things exist and have been documented by those with the authority and skills to do so.

None of this is true for the myriad of ghost stories and supernatural phenomena that people experience. They can't be verified or tested and can mostly be explained away through coincidence, overactive imagination, and so on. As much as I might wish Bush was a product of my imagination, we have good evidence to the contrary.

Just because something has not been proven or explained, doesn't mean that it does not exist, it just means we have not truly found a scientific explanation for it yet.

I'll grant you this to a certain extent, but until we have good scientific documentation that it exists in the first place I can't go the whole way. Documentation and proof are the first step, explanation is something else. We haven't reached the first step.

There are countless photos, audio, and video records of "ghosts" and sure they can be proven to be false, but when they are not proven false, why are they not proven to be real? Because science has no explanation for how it could be possible.

I know of no instances of pictures, audio, or video, of ghosts that can't be proven to be false or explained as easily as we explained the picture at the top of this thread. Feel free to provide counter evidence. I also find it very odd that ghosts never visit those people who could demonstrate their existence with proper scientific tools.

How do you explain when random people see the same "ghost" in the same place at different times with no knowledge of the other person's encounter nor any knowledge of any supposed paranormal activity going on in said location? You can't.

Sure you can. Whatever is causing the false impression of "paranormal activity" recurs in that place.

[Niode]

I am astounded at the amount of well reasoned smart people who believe in ghosts. Ghosts do not exist. They are a product of an over active imagination and a combination of electronic interference and acute carbon monoxide poisoning. Also, lack of evidence to the contrary does not mean that something exists. That's just idiocy. You can't say 'there's no evidence that proves that ghosts don't exist, therefore they exist' that's just retarded. As far as life on other planets, based on how obscenely vast the universe is it's extremely unlikely that we are alone. Whether it will be discovered in our life time, probably not.

[Limewater]

All the phenomenon you mentioned are observable and verifiable phenomena. If someone doubts Bush's existence we can point to medical records, a birth certificate, actions he did, etc. to prove he exists.

I'm not asking you to believe Bush exists. I'm asking you to believe that I have seen him.

If someone doubts nipple chaffing occurs, we can point to medical documentation of the phenomenon or monitor your nipples over time for changes in the skin.

Again, sorry, I"m not asking you to believe that nipple chafing occurs. I'm asking you to believe that I eperienced it. This hasn't happened for a couple of years. I still remember the last time it happened. No medical records exist. My ability to experience nipple chafing in the future does not mean that I did indeed experience it a couple of years ago.

These are scientifically provable things.

Nothing in science is provable.

They hold up to testing, research, observation, and so on.

You can't test, research, or observe the things I mentioned. They happened in the past and left no physical evidence. That's why I selected them. I selected things that we generally agree exist, yet about which I can provide no scientific evidence at all of my own experience.

I believe your claims because I know that these things exist and have been documented by those with the authority and skills to do so.

Existence is irrelevant. I could have made up any of those examples. In fact, maybe I did! You'll never know! Spooky!

None of this is true for the myriad of ghost stories and supernatural phenomena that people experience. They can't be verified or tested and can mostly be explained away through coincidence, overactive imagination, and so on. As much as I might wish Bush was a product of my imagination, we have good evidence to the contrary.

Ah, but you're still falling into the same trap. Sure, plenty of ghost sightings are probably easily explained away as an overactive imagination. As I mentioned before, I don't really believe that spirits of the dead wander the earth. You're still claiming that supernatural beings should leave behind scientific evidence of their presence. There's no real reason to conclude that. You stated that the Axiom of Choice is a different situation, because it is an abstract concept which cannot be verified due to physical limitations. It leaves no evidence at all, yet most folks are comfortable believing in it. I still don't see how you can make the claim that ghosts should leave behind evidence, or should allow for repeatable observation. For what it's worth, most mathematicians who believe in the Axiom of Choice tend to believe in it because it would kind of suck and be really inconvenient if it were not true. That's pretty much the reason.

But who the heck am I to tell someone what he has or has not seen, heard, or felt?

[Opa Opa]

Man... Can't we all just get along?! There's nothing we can do to prove the existence of anything supernatural. That's why it's called "supernatural". It exceeds the realms of reality and is left up to one's own personal beliefs.

If you believe in ghosts; fine. If you don't; fine. Just don't spend too much time arguing over their existence that you become one yourself.

[Thierry Henry]

I seriously don't know where I sit with this one.

Whilst I don't necessarily believe in ghosts or the paranormal, weird, bizarre type things have have happened on occasion to me in my life and therefore I can kind of relate when others describe really strange occurrences that they themselves have also experienced.

But on the other hand I tell myself that I'm probably just being ignorant.
I mean my nephew Luke asked me a while back, as we happened to be passing our local graveyard if I was afraid of ghosts....I gently suggested I didn't believe in ghosts but even if I did, why would I be afraid? Because the ghost might want to hurt you, he replied - well, as unlikely as that is, he'd still have a hard time hurting me if he's just a ghost, right? Luke shook his head wisely and tutted at me....uncle Mike....everyone knows ghosts can kill you by scaring you to death.

lol!!!! i thought that was very funny!!!!


I used to always think that ignorance was the thing that terrified me most....it isn't tho...it's stubborn ignorance....this desire to believe the fantastic rather than observe and accept the, inevitably more mundane reality. Am I too guilty of this? Too willing to accept something as bizarre or fantastical when it probably is not? Yeah, I think I am.

[dsheinem]

I'm not asking you to believe Bush exists. I'm asking you to believe that I have seen him.

Again, sorry, I"m not asking you to believe that nipple chafing occurs. I'm asking you to believe that I eperienced it.

Ok, well I believe your stories because A) I find you to be credible and trust you and B) I know of the provable existence of those things you claim to have experienced. If you told me you saw a flying fire-breathing dildo monster I would not believe you because it doesn't meet condition B.

Nothing in science is provable.

Now we are dealing in semantics. The scientific method is essentially a method of proving a hypothesis (e.g. genetic mutation occurs, nipple chafing is a phenomena of damaged skin, George Bush lives, dildos dont fly and breathe fire, etc.). This is what I mean by proof.

I still don't see how you can make the claim that ghosts should leave behind evidence, or should allow for repeatable observation.

Because for a being to "exist" - which is what we are debating - it requires these conditions should be met. There are instances of things which were once thought to be "supernatural" which have since been proven to actually exist through the use of science. There are also instances where supernatural phenomena have been proven to be non-existent through the use of science. I tend to believe that things don't exist until proven otherwise.

Man... Can't we all just get along?! There's nothing we can do to prove the existence of anything supernatural. That's why it's called "supernatural". It exceeds the realms of reality and is left up to one's own personal beliefs.

If you believe in ghosts; fine. If you don't; fine.

I thought we had been getting along just fine?

This next bit is not directed at Limewater or anyone in particular, it is just a general observation that I'll use to clarify why I am engaging in this debate:

The problem, for me, is that the people who believe in ghosts, angels, etc. are often (not always) the same people advocating that my kid needs to be taught intelligent design along with evolution, advocating for more religious influence in government, and advocating that we ignore "bogus" scientific warnings about things like climate change or food safety research. Ignorance may be bliss for them, but their insistence of ignorance for all causes real material problems. So believing in ghosts is not "fine" - our "personal beliefs" often carry with them political consequences that we can't just choose to ignore in the name of "let's all get along."