It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)So... what are peoples thoughts on Ghosts???(176 posts)(176 posts)
(176 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 01, 2014
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: So again, what method do you think should be employed for providing evidence that ghosts exist, and why do you think it's better than the scientific method? I'm not even asking you to provide any such evidence, just an outline of the method you think would be best suited to obtaining such evidence. Or would you like to just make the claim that all you're interested in doing is idly speculating, evidence (or lack thereof) be damned?
So again what?

Prove something, disprove something, or tinker until you can.

I'm not going to argue the inadequacies of current science to prove or disprove anything; they haven't!

They may never, who knows, but science doesn't fit every equation, and it damned sure isn't fitting this one very well.

Prove, disprove, or go back to work.
Posted April 01, 2014
avatar
coxdr: Could you please explain a yawn to me or do they not exist either because last time I checked science could not explain them either.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Seriously? If you want evidence that they exist walk up to the nearest person and ask them to demonstrate a yawn for you. If you want information on why people yawn then hit up Wikipedia for a brief overview, or peruse the large body of scientific literature on the subject matter. Now please stop wasting my time.

avatar
Dischord: Once again you assume that a particular tool is valid, while I do not.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: Then please, first explain why you think that the scientific method is not a suitable tool for the investigation of ghosts. Then please explain what you think would be a better method, why it would be more suited than the scientific method, and what kind of track record your method currently has when it comes to generating predictive theories (or if you aren't trying to generate predictive theories, just what your method is trying to accomplish).

avatar
monkeydelarge: You can't blame someone for thinking science = truth because so many people think science = truth and think if science can't explain something then it's not real. So science = truth has kind of become the 2nd definition of "science".
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: If it was a man-on-the-street type question of what science is I really couldn't care less what people say. However, when someone specifically starts trying to take a dig at the scientific process starting from a false premise then sorry, but I'm going to hold them accountable for their ignorance.
I think you misunderstood my point I was trying to say science can not explain it. There are many things science can not yet explain. I feel it time it will be able to but as of yet it cannot. The process of why the body yawn is unknown to modern science as of last checked. Now as for another of where science could not observe something so they say it could not exist. Early medical science could not observe microrganisms so they were thought to not exist. People treated illness by leeches and other medical techniques. Just because these people could not observe these things did not mean they could not effect them. just because current science doesnt have the means to observe something doesnt mean it doesnt exist and cant exist.
Posted April 01, 2014
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: So again, what method do you think should be employed for providing evidence that ghosts exist, and why do you think it's better than the scientific method? I'm not even asking you to provide any such evidence, just an outline of the method you think would be best suited to obtaining such evidence. Or would you like to just make the claim that all you're interested in doing is idly speculating, evidence (or lack thereof) be damned?
I don't think Dischord ever said, the scientific method is not suitable for the investigation of ghosts. I think he said, there is a possibility we simply lack the tool(hasn't been invented yet, maybe never will, hasn't been discovered) needed to be able to use the scientific method to prove that ghosts or real(or not). Think about it. 1000 years ago, could humans use the scientific method to prove the things we know are real, today? Hopefully, in the future, we will have the right tool to allow us to use the scientific method to prove ghosts are real because then society will start taking action against the ones who troll(haunt). :)
Post edited April 01, 2014 by monkeydelarge
Posted April 01, 2014
as someone living in se asia, mystical' stuff like these are quite common. let just say i have 1-2 share of my experience.been there, see that. not asking everyone to believe the same though :)
Posted April 01, 2014
You have the scientists, you have the believers and u have the people who sit on the fence and say "Prove they exist!".....similar to extraterrestials ....
Posted April 01, 2014
avatar
monkeydelarge: I don't think Dischord ever said, the scientific method is not suitable for the investigation of ghosts. I think he said, there is a possibility we simply lack the tool(hasn't been invented yet, maybe never will) needed to be able to use the scientific method to prove that ghosts or real(or not). Think about it. 1000 years ago, could humans use the scientific method to prove the things we know are real, today? Hopefully, in the future, we will have the right tool to allow us to use the scientific method to prove ghosts are real because then society will start taking action against the ones who troll. :)
In a way, that is it.

Everyone is so ready to make Science a god, when it is but a useful tool created by man.

It doesn't answer everything, it is fine that it wants to, but it is limited in its scope and range; just as we are.
Posted April 01, 2014
avatar
monkeydelarge: I don't think Dischord ever said, the scientific method is not suitable for the investigation of ghosts. I think he said, there is a possibility we simply lack the tool(hasn't been invented yet, maybe never will) needed to be able to use the scientific method to prove that ghosts or real(or not). Think about it. 1000 years ago, could humans use the scientific method to prove the things we know are real, today? Hopefully, in the future, we will have the right tool to allow us to use the scientific method to prove ghosts are real because then society will start taking action against the ones who troll. :)
avatar
Dischord: In a way, that is it.

Everyone is so ready to make Science a god, when it is but a useful tool created by man.

It doesn't answer everything, it is fine that it wants to, but it is limited in its scope and range; just as we are.
I agree. If something is man made, we shouldn't put so much faith in it to a point, it is a god. When humanity has space ships exploring every corner of the galaxy, a million colonies on a million different worlds and has conquered death then maybe I will start to see science as a god.
Posted April 01, 2014
Is it like Thief? You sneak around, walk through walls?
Posted April 01, 2014
avatar
monkeydelarge: I don't think Dischord ever said, the scientific method is not suitable for the investigation of ghosts. I think he said, there is a possibility we simply lack the tool(hasn't been invented yet, maybe never will) needed to be able to use the scientific method to prove that ghosts or real(or not). Think about it. 1000 years ago, could humans use the scientific method to prove the things we know are real, today? Hopefully, in the future, we will have the right tool to allow us to use the scientific method to prove ghosts are real because then society will start taking action against the ones who troll. :)
avatar
Dischord: In a way, that is it.

Everyone is so ready to make Science a god, when it is but a useful tool created by man.

It doesn't answer everything, it is fine that it wants to, but it is limited in its scope and range; just as we are.
You still refuse to answer the question. If not the scientific method, then what? If nothing else then that applies to any outlandish claim, we could make precisely the same excuse for investigating the flying spaghetti monster.
Posted April 01, 2014
avatar
Dischord: In a way, that is it.

Everyone is so ready to make Science a god, when it is but a useful tool created by man.

It doesn't answer everything, it is fine that it wants to, but it is limited in its scope and range; just as we are.
avatar
Cormoran: You still refuse to answer the question. If not the scientific method, then what? If nothing else then that applies to any outlandish claim, we could make precisely the same excuse for investigating the flying spaghetti monster.
Didn't know you were talking to me, sorry.

Use it all you want, just don't be surprised if the results yield nothing (at least at this time.)
Posted April 01, 2014
avatar
Dischord: Everyone is so ready to make Science a god, when it is but a useful tool created by man.
avatar
monkeydelarge: I agree. If something is man made, we shouldn't put so much faith in it to a point, it is a god. When humanity has space ships exploring every corner of the galaxy, a million colonies on a million different worlds and has conquered death then maybe I will start to see science as a god.
You guys do realize scientific method is not an object that people can approach in any way they want, right? It's clearly defined, and the reason why people are looking up to it is quite simply because, so far, it's the only approach to life which has actually ever led to progress.
Posted April 01, 2014
avatar
nadenitza: Here's some flamebait for you - can atheists believe in ghosts? :D
avatar
coxdr: Many occultist, including myself, are athiestic. you dont have to believe in a god or gods to believe in the paranormal.
But aren't the gods paranormal? Is there any difference between believing in a god or believing in a "ghost god/figure", apart from preference in choice?
Posted April 01, 2014
avatar
monkeydelarge: I agree. If something is man made, we shouldn't put so much faith in it to a point, it is a god. When humanity has space ships exploring every corner of the galaxy, a million colonies on a million different worlds and has conquered death then maybe I will start to see science as a god.
avatar
Fenixp: You guys do realize scientific method is not an object that people can approach in any way they want, right? It's clearly defined, and the reason why people are looking up to it is quite simply because, so far, it's the only approach to life which has actually ever led to progress.
I know. None of my posts are against the scientific method.
Post edited April 01, 2014 by monkeydelarge
Posted April 01, 2014
avatar
coxdr: Many occultist, including myself, are athiestic. you dont have to believe in a god or gods to believe in the paranormal.
avatar
nadenitza: But aren't the gods paranormal? Is there any difference between believing in a god or believing in a "ghost god/figure", apart from preference in choice?
The term god usually denotes a being of tremendous power and influence which a spirit would not have. When I say athiestic I mean a belief there is no creator. I do not believe the earth was a created by powerful paranormal beings thus I do not believe in creator gods. so I guess it just comes down to your definition of a god.
Posted April 01, 2014
avatar
nadenitza: But aren't the gods paranormal? Is there any difference between believing in a god or believing in a "ghost god/figure", apart from preference in choice?
Being theist means believing in a god, not believing in supernatural in general. If you're arguing definition of a 'god' here, it's very simple - when somebody calls whathever he believes in a god, he's a theist, when he doesn't, well... He's not.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)So... what are peoples thoughts on Ghosts???(176 posts)(176 posts)
(176 posts)