Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I never shared my story. I just said I saw one. Whole family did.
How can I demonstrate it online?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Science of Ghosts
- Thread starter Mycroft
- Start date
I never shared my story. I just said I saw one. Whole family did.
How can I demonstrate it online?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I have no idea. I just wanted you to not label something you have no real explanation for a "ghost". If you are saying you know it was, then I wanted you to share the evidence you found that convinced you. If it is solid evidence, then others will be convinced as well. f you only labeled it as such because you can't explain it, then "I don't know what it was" is the correct response.
I don't have any evidence you could accept because you have brain cancer. But, for the people who are open-minded and can work with an account of experiences and investigate on their own there is plenty of data to share. It's not ad hominem if it's true based on my opinion or that I can make a reasonable case. Just like when you guys think every single person with one of these experiences is a nutter. However, it's OK for one-side to make these arguments as long as it's your side I suppose.
Let's see...
One person inferred that I need mental help.
One person inferred that I am gullible or stupid or something else.
One person inferred that I am making attacks by pointing out someones deficiency in the same way.
You know, the only difference between me and them as I am not a passive-aggressive type.
Tough up, eh?Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Interesting come back.Of course. Deception wouldn't be deception unless someone was deceived.
Do the deceived know that they are? If an evil spirit masqueraded as a good spirit...someone you know, and can tell you things that only that deceased person would know....can it not be deception? The demons have been around as long as we have...they know everything about everyone. They have an agenda and they are masters of propaganda.
There are spirits....but they are not spirits of the dead.....there are no souls who survive death. Can you prove otherwise? Can you state categorically that these spirits are who they claim to be? Aren't you just taking their word for it? The Bible says that they are out to deceive.....they have been very successful.
I know ghost exist. I experience them. I have seen one. Its nothing special.How can we be decieved if it is only from your point of view (not a psychologial point of view) that we are? How does your saying we are decieved have any foundation to which All people can base their experiences on to know what is true? Who is the objective observer that All humans can agree to compare others "dellusions" to what the objective book defines normal?
It cant be the Bible. Santeros believe in spirits just as I do. My mother's real estate lady saw the same ghost that I did so the relations of family bias didnt influence our experience. Hmm I could go down the line.
We need a common foundation of truth that All people agree on so if one is delluted we can compare if it is true or if it our bias or beliefs affecting what this person actually experience-fake or not.
We all depend on trust when it comes to knowledge. But God has his reasons for not allowing his people to "consult spirit mediums or to inquire of the dead" because he lists those things as "detestable" to him. (Deut 18:9-12)
That goes right past hatred into downright abhorrence! Why? If they were merely the spirits of departed loved ones, why would he do that?
Why would believers consult spirit mediums?That goes right past hatred into downright abhorrence! Why? If they were merely the spirits of departed loved ones, why would he do that?
I dont see how this relates to my post.
The fact remains that despite you claim "ghost" is not the only logical explanation. No, I am not serious about time travel, but if you are going to consider disembodied spirits of dead people, why not consider time travelers?
In reality there are several explanations for your experience. You could have simply been mistaken in your assessment that there was nowhere for this person to go. You could have had a hallucination. Human neurology is much less dependable than most people are willing to admit, it can be affected by toxins in our food, invisible gas, electromagnetic emissions, and infra frequency sound waves.
Now you could consider some of these options and give an intelligent response, or you could concede that you were wrong to claim that "ghost" was the only logical explanation, or you could just ignore me, or you could insult me again.
(btw, suggesting the possibility that you had a hallucination is not an insult or an attack. All human beings are susceptible to this. Don't take it personally.)
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Yep. And adventurers. Albiet entertaining at times.
Well, since he didn't have a Tardis, I think we can rule that one out.
I guess there is truth to the fact that sometimes you just have to "be there." Most of these types of experiences are that way, so read all you want. Really, you will continue to know less than nothing.
I'd take a thousand witnesses over a forum full of pseudo-intellectuals any day.
Maybe he was wearing a vortex manipulator.Well, since he didn't have a Tardis, I think we can rule that one out.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Its not objective evidence. It would be if more people say ghosts on a regular basis. Then thered be more serious study on it. For now, science only knows but so much. Those who know spirits (I rather say) exist wont tell you experience from a scientific perspective.
That is One Big Thing "evidence askers" have to accept. There is no objective evidence. Why ask?
--
The word ghost makes me think of halloween.
I saw a spirit, tall male, white shirt, blue jeans walk from our top stars to the bedroom and back. It was interesting. No one knew the guy. He never talked. He just walked as you and I do. Nothing special.
My mother talked more about him. It was the house he used to live in, she explained. Her mother bought the house over a cementary. The civil war had been faught where I lived. People are killed daily in the city I had lived. Spirits being in certain homes in my city wasnt a big deal. They were old homes.
Then my father comes in and walks up the stairs. "Whose that guy upstairs" he starts fussing at my mother, thinking she just slept with the guy.
"Oh him. Thats just the ghost upstairs" she said.
Afterawhile of moved beds and cabnets, he finally believes her.
Then the real estate lady comes by. My grandmother wanted to sell the house. The RE lady asked, "is there another resident living with you?"
My mother says "oh. Him Thats the ghost upstairs." (This was awhile ago. Cant remember exact wording.
The RE woman ran from the house and never came back.
My grandmother always had upside down horse shoes over the top door frame. She has the house excercised as well.
We moved to VA from DC. More spirit-stories. I was held down by a spirit. Mother had been to as she says. Rocks thrown at my window where no neighbors and ways of entry under large trees were seen there. Think they were pebbles. Dont know. We used to collect them. It was always the same timing.
What else? Those were my experiences. My mother and aunt tell me theirs. I have no reason to disbelieve them even though I wasnt there for most of the events they relayed. I have no reason to question what I seen. Its like questioning if I have an samsaung phone in my hand Im typing on.
This was years ago, in another state, in another town. What type of evidence do you accept and how would I share objective evidence online?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Too bad it's incourragibly bad to adequately document things like that. It would make your position easier to establish than a personal testimony alone with little or nothing else to go with.Study?
With that information in hand... I have no doubt ghosts are walking around all the time and we haven't a damn clue. I couldn't have told you the difference between this ghost and any other Joe walking down the street. How's that for interesting?
Our minds are terrible imo concerning strange phenomina and experiences. . Its just too unreliable givin that hallucinations and cases of pareidolia are very commonplace and can lead to thinking something is there when it's not the case.
It might of been a real kid. They can dissapear quick with a cranky codger yellin. "0)
It's evidence if 18% of people say that they've seen one. (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/30/18-of-americans-say-theyve-seen-a-ghost/) Sure, we maybe have to correlate that and study it for clues but that nearly one-in-five. Ok, there are just not that many crazy people on the earth or weird happenings going on (infrasound, other rubbish) to explain this much. People who are atheists or don't attend church are apparently even more likely to see them... I find humor in that...
Never, even got to the yelling point. But, anyway...
We can blame such experiences on a lot of things, or we can just take them as they are provided all other systems appeared normal. I was right as rain at the time that it occurred. If a persons experience matters less to you than someone else's third-party rationalizations you aren't using intellect you are playing a pseudo-intellectual. Someone explaining that they had this weird type of experience doesn't indicate any of the tack-on's anyone here has espoused. Sure, they are a possibility but that possibility is even lower than the 18% of everyone that sees a ghost. People with severe hallucinations of this sort are statistically rare in the population and cannot account for such a great number of cases. Likewise, any temporal effects couldn't count for a great deal of cases either. Please take a moment and realize what you are trying to believe.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Youre going by a study?
Most people I know who seen spirits dont go by studies just like if I were married, I wouldnt look to the studies to proove if we love each other or not.
The last part, I admit, its interesting. Most I know are religious in one way or another. Then again, my mother isnt religious and I wouldnt consider her crazy.
What type of qualifications do you need for our evidences to passgo?
I think you are confusing my point. If 18% of the population sees a ghost is statistically improbable for them to be hallucinating, experiencing sound issues, or having some other sort of local glitch. Those things could only account for small amounts of cases. I think people's experiences matter and also that pseudo-intellectualism is a worthless past-time. For me experience is the only criteria that matters, and whether or not those experiences fit the mold of conventional thought is largely irrelevant if we are not seeking them out directly and attempting to understand. Would you like to know or suppose you know?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Being there would have been interesting. I don't think she had thousand witnesses to her ghost, but in any case, eyewitnesses have been shown to be one of the worst kinds of evidence. Bias takes over, as well as peer pressure.Well, since he didn't have a Tardis, I think we can rule that one out.
I guess there is truth to the fact that sometimes you just have to "be there." Most of these types of experiences are that way, so read all you want. Really, you will continue to know less than nothing.
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
I use to believe in ghosts, and I have had experiences that, at the time, I thought were ghosts.
The thing is, people make the mistake of seeing a spooky phenomenon and making the assumption that it's a ghost. "Ghost" has a very specific definition. You can't confirm something is a ghost just by sight alone, no matter how spooky or stereotypically ghostly it looks or behaves. For example, if you see a transparent little girl with a bloody dress levitating in the air, the most neutral stance you can take without adding any assumptions is to simply say "it was a transparent little girl with a bloody dress levitating in the air". The moment you say it's a ghost is when you start adding assumptions, and the only reason many people would say it's a ghost is because they already had a preconceived notion of what a ghost is like. If you went through life with no concept or idea of ghosts, you wouldn't think the little girl I just described was a ghost. You would take the neutral stance that I described above, or.... or.... you would assume it's some other type of thing due to some other preconceived notion you learned about throughout life.
Example: Say you have no concept of ghosts, but you live in a village or something where there's a mythological legend of a child blood witch that can turn invisible (but totally not a ghost). The moment you see the sight of the girl described above, you'll likely automatically assume this legend is true. Which is more likely? This legend, or ghost? Many of you will have the tendency to say that "ghost" is more likely, but the truth is, both are equally likely, or unlikely I should say.
Truth is, you don't know what you saw, outside of what you can visually describe.
The thing is, people make the mistake of seeing a spooky phenomenon and making the assumption that it's a ghost. "Ghost" has a very specific definition. You can't confirm something is a ghost just by sight alone, no matter how spooky or stereotypically ghostly it looks or behaves. For example, if you see a transparent little girl with a bloody dress levitating in the air, the most neutral stance you can take without adding any assumptions is to simply say "it was a transparent little girl with a bloody dress levitating in the air". The moment you say it's a ghost is when you start adding assumptions, and the only reason many people would say it's a ghost is because they already had a preconceived notion of what a ghost is like. If you went through life with no concept or idea of ghosts, you wouldn't think the little girl I just described was a ghost. You would take the neutral stance that I described above, or.... or.... you would assume it's some other type of thing due to some other preconceived notion you learned about throughout life.
Example: Say you have no concept of ghosts, but you live in a village or something where there's a mythological legend of a child blood witch that can turn invisible (but totally not a ghost). The moment you see the sight of the girl described above, you'll likely automatically assume this legend is true. Which is more likely? This legend, or ghost? Many of you will have the tendency to say that "ghost" is more likely, but the truth is, both are equally likely, or unlikely I should say.
Truth is, you don't know what you saw, outside of what you can visually describe.
Last edited:
Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
Have you ever removed your head from your bunghole?
Can you please not insult me for being concerned about you?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Finally....someone said it. Actually I know of no scientific discipline that studies ghosts. "The science of ghosts" is oxymoronic.