Say, whatever happend to Doc Cathode? Seems to me he was the definitive authority on spirits and ghosts and the like, having built machines that could detect their energy…
What’s missing here is a theory. No one has proposed a coherent theory of ghosts.
For instance: what are they made of? We only know of two kinds of things in this cosmos: things that don’t go as fast as light (matter) and things that go as fast as light (some kinds of energy.) Are ghosts gaseous in nature? If so, what keeps them from dispersing? Where do they come from? Everyone seems to feel they have something to do with humans (or, occasionally, dogs and cats and so on) that have died: is this explicit? LeKatt cites his experiences to suggest that living people have spirits; is it possible for the spirit to leave a person, and yet that person continue to live?
I’ve seen lots of weird things, and I just shrug it off as non-repeatable (Fortean!) data. It makes me curious about my world, but it doesn’t tell me anything, and it isn’t coherent enough for me to base a theory on.
Well I’ve never seen one, but maybe I’m just not sensitive enough? Apparently poltergeists can pass through walls and doors as well as being able to throw furniture around. The whole palaver seems to have a remarkably flexible set of rules, a make-it-up-as-you-go-along interpretation of Thermodynamics, and childlike credulity.
Perhaps one of our pro-ghost contingent will have a rational explanation. Or perhaps not.
Blake: The camera is unencumbered by scepticism, and hence can record anything the energy beings (or hoaxers cough) want to be recorded. And my niece has got Caspar on video, so the cameras had no trouble capturing him.
Well, I for one am fascinated by handsomeharold’s claim that he has interacted with beings of pure energy. Naturally, I have a few questions for him:
1)What exactly did you talk about? What were the topics of conversation?
2)Did you ask them any questions? As the ambassador of the human race to the energy beings, surely you realized that it was your duty to collect as much information as you could.
3)What was the mode of communication? I’m assuming energy beings don’t have mouths. I’m guessing telepathy?
You’re missing the point. Since you have no evidence, you can’t assert as fact that ghosts exists. It’s really quite simple. You can’t prove it even to yourself.
No, Dio you missed the point. I can’t offer evidence because none exists. No evidence exists EITHER WAY. If such evidence did exist, there would be no debate. Blake deliberately left off that part of the quote because he wanted to make me look like an idiot.
Although, in fairness, that is a default position not by truth value, but by the virtue of the need to have a default stance. And traditionally, the default stance is the negative.
Of course, in absence of evidence, the default remains.
In this case it’s the default position because chicksdigscars stated as fact that ghosts do exist. She has to support that statement. Since she is unable to do so the statement can be ignored. Or to put it another way, she was talking out of her proverbial.
This is an argument from ignorance, pure and simple. The fact that no evidence exists against ghosts does not support chicksdigscars’ extraordinary assertion that they do exist.
Others have brought issue with the evidence portion of your posts, but I was wondering-seeing as you are a believer-why is there no positive evidence? If ghosts do exist, do you have any speculations as to why they aren’t able to be studied?
I guess Blake likes beating a dead horse because this horse is dead. He said “The fact that no evidence exists against ghosts does not support chicksdigscars’ extraordinary assertion that they do exist.” I never said it did, honey.
As for the lack of positive evidence, I have some thoughts but I choose not to share them with you because I do not have the time to find references for them. In case anyone hadn’t noticed, Christmas is a few days away. Oh, I forgot, you all here must be athiests since you insist on concrete proof of the existence of spiritual beings.
You know what, I’m perfectly okay with you believing whatever you like. It’s when you expect others to believe or when you make extraordinary assertions that others are ment to just buy that I start to have problems.
In my last post I was asking your opinion, I wasn’t asking for a cite.
Further to make a blanket statement that we all must be atheists because we are skeptical is just plain niave or are you suggesting that theists are gullible?
*Would you rather us just leave our minds so open that our brains fall out? Seriously, do you think questioning things is a bad thing?
*I wish I could either take credit for this or remember where I got this line from :).
It’s not a question of truth value it’s a about who’s making the assertion. “Ghosts exist” is the assertion. That is what must be supported. The default position is not that “ghosts do not exist,” but that there is no evidence that ghosts exist.
Hell, we don’t even have a decent definition for ghosts.
In any case cdc’s argument that “there is no evidence either way” is completely fallacious. We do not have competing assertions which both lack evidence. We have a single assertion which is not only unsupported but which is not even articulated in such a way as to permit falsification.
There is no evidence that leprechauns do not exist.
Ther is no evidence that I don’t have X-ray vision.
There is no evidence that the universe was not created by the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Saying that “you can’t prove that X does not exist” is a bullshit argument.
If cdc or anyone wants to take a serious stab at defining what a “ghost” is and what it’s made of, I’ll be happy to rip any such theory to shreds. If no one is going to define a theory, though, it’s impossible to formulate a rebuttal. You can’t falsify what is not defined.
Well, I would have given you an opinion and that may have satisfied you, Meatros, but you know if I didn’t have references to back everything up, certain individuals would have jumped all over me. I don’t expect you to believe what I believe.
If you are not an athiest and you believe in God, how do you explain the Holy Spirit? If you are not willing to believe that ghosts exists, how do you explain your belief in God? These are also valid questions, which is why I said that you must be athiests if you continue to question the existence of ghosts. Sure you find tons of “evidence” in the Bible for the existence of God. Is that enough for you to believe in God?