# people who believe in ghosts **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 1, 2004, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885 "2004-03-01T09:24:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/41 "2004-03-01T12:02:40Z")
> [@Never Have I Because I](#): > > Why is it not, then? Do the ghosties have a special ability to do things like ‘not make any scientific tools work in the slightest when looking for the supernatural’? Science is limited to examining the natural world. Do you mean to say that you did not know this? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/42 "2004-03-01T12:03:56Z")
> [@Never Have I Because I](#): > > My friend tells me of ghosts inside his house. Said ghost turns out to be broken pipes, or any other reasonable explanation for a ‘paranormal’ occurence. This goes on with my friends to the point where I tell them I don’t want to hear it. Well, if you decide to read the link I gave you, let me know what you think. Otherwise, you are behaving just like your friends. ---
**Author:** ![Never\_Have\_I\_Because\_I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@Never\_Have\_I\_Because\_I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Never_Have_I_Because_I)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/43 "2004-03-01T12:08:00Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Science is limited to examining the natural world. Do you mean to say that you did not know this? Doesn’t supernatural mean that which seems to defy the natural world? It seems to defy it, but that does not mean it excludes it from the natural. Since most of our understanding of it is based on myths and legends, we truly don’t know if it is or is not scientifically natural, we just say it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/44 "2004-03-01T12:10:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Doesn’t supernatural mean that which seems to defy the natural world? No. Supernatural merely means “Of or relating to existence outside the natural world”. — American Heritage ---
**Author:** ![Never\_Have\_I\_Because\_I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@Never\_Have\_I\_Because\_I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Never_Have_I_Because_I)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/45 "2004-03-01T12:10:46Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Well, if you decide to read the link I gave you, let me know what you think. Otherwise, you are behaving just like your friends. I’ll review it once I can get it to actually open. ---
**Author:** ![Never\_Have\_I\_Because\_I](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@Never\_Have\_I\_Because\_I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Never_Have_I_Because_I)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/46 "2004-03-01T12:12:37Z")
Nevermind, I’ll do it later. I’m going to bed. Love you forever, Libertarian. \<3 \<3 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/47 "2004-03-01T12:12:44Z")
> [@Never Have I Because I](#): > > I’ll review it once I can get it to actually open. In that case, I retract my statement that you are a dumbass. Anyone willing to learn is okay by me. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/48 "2004-03-01T12:13:56Z")
You know **Lib** , just because you _can_ construct a formal proof doesn’t mean you _should_. In a forum like this, it looks suspiciously like showing off, or worse still attempting to “win” by presenting an argument that you know your opponent won’t understand. Luckily for me I took Logic in school, so I’m not frightened by formal proofs. I can also easily spot the flaw in your argument – you incorrectly translated the premise from conversational English into first-order language. It doesn’t accurately reflect the common usage of the word “possibility”. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/49 "2004-03-01T12:17:52Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Fourth time: if it is possible that God does not exist, then it is impossible that He does. Well, there you go. Since I think it’s possible that God does not exist, then I now know it is impossible that he exists. Since you think it’s possible he exists, you know it is impossible that he doesn’t exist. Logic, gotta love it. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/50 "2004-03-01T12:20:54Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > You know **Lib** , just because you _can_ construct a formal proof doesn’t mean you _should_. In a forum like this, it looks suspiciously like showing off, or worse still attempting to “win” by presenting an argument that you know your opponent won’t understand. Nonsense. I gave my opponent a link to a detailed explanation that is designed for lay persons. > [@](#): > > Luckily for me I took Logic in school, so I’m not frightened by formal proofs. I can also easily spot the flaw in your argument – you incorrectly translated the premise from conversational English into first-order language. It doesn’t accurately reflect the common usage of the word “possibility”. It isn’t first order logic. It’s modal logic — logic that deals with the modal states of possibility, necessity, and actuality. Since you’ve studied logic, I refer you to [this link](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/51 "2004-03-01T12:23:13Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Well, there you go. Since I think it’s possible that God does not exist, then I now know it is impossible that he exists. Since you think it’s possible he exists, you know it is impossible that he doesn’t exist. > > Logic, gotta love it. And that is as it should be. A person places his faith in whatever he finds in agreement with his experience. Reasonable people will accept one another’s opposing views as valid, and not dismiss one another as superstitious idiots. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/52 "2004-03-01T12:40:54Z")
I ain’t your spiritual advisor, or anything like that, **Lib** , but maybe you should slow down with the casting of pearls? I’m thinking that you’re starting to run out of them again. ---
**Author:** ![WILLASS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/54ee81/32.png) [@WILLASS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WILLASS)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/53 "2004-03-01T12:42:22Z")
So basically all you meant to say was that we should agree to disagree without being rude and disrespecting each others beliefs? For something that is based in logic that seems like a highly illogical way to express a simple idea. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/54 "2004-03-01T12:46:14Z")
**Lib** ’s right: if **NHIBI** is denying the existence of anything but the physical, then he cannot be directed towards any entity which causes him to question such a belief. Even a conversation with Caspar the Ghost wouldn’t help, since ghosts would still somehow [supervene on the physical](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/). If one _accepts_ the existence of the metaphysical (which ontology solely relates to), then one must accept that there is something metaphysical which exists in every possible world; some choose to call this “God”. (Note, however, that there are possible worlds in which this thing is an omnipotent idiot, others where it is an omniscient weakling, and others where it is Evil incarnate. Only Necessary Existence is true in all possible worlds.) ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/55 "2004-03-01T12:53:51Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > It isn’t first order logic. It’s modal logic — logic that deals with the modal states of possibility, necessity, and actuality. Since you’ve studied logic, I refer you to [this link](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/). I apologize for using the wrong term (which is very embarassing, my only excuse is that I keep getting distracted by the Oscars!), but I believe my point still stands. Conversational use of the word “possibility” is not the same as the use of the word in logic. In conversation, “it’s possible” may simply mean “I lack the information needed to make the call”. I believe this is what most people mean when they say they accept the “possibility” of the existence of God. “I don’t know if God exists or not” isn’t the same thing as “It is not necessary that God does not exist”. To treat them as if they are the same is a serious translation error, and if your translation is flawed then the elegance of your proof doesn’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![Shade](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Shade](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shade)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/56 "2004-03-01T13:07:33Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Given > > ~N(~g) It is possible that God exists (premise) > > Prove g > > 1. g --\> N(g) If God exists in actuality, then it is necessary that God exists (Law of Necessitation) > […] > g God exists. (Modus Ponens 7,8) I accept your given (“God is possible”) and your agument after step 1. Could you explain to me why the law of necessitation means g–\>N(g)? Does this hold for any g, or is it important that g represents ‘god exists’? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/57 "2004-03-01T13:07:40Z")
What I mean is the metaphysical possibility, not the epistemic possibility. But that’s obvious since I invoked the S5 axiom. Regarding the criticisms about my hostility, I acknowledge they are valid. I therefore apologize to Never Have I Because I for my rudeness. And thanks to Sentient for framing the matter properly. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/58 "2004-03-01T13:08:44Z")
> [@Shade](#): > > I accept your given (“God is possible”) and your agument after step 1. Could you explain to me why the law of necessitation means g–\>N(g)? Does this hold for any g, or is it important that g represents ‘god exists’? It is important that g represent necessary existence. ---
**Author:** ![Martiju](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e8c25b/32.png) [@Martiju](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martiju)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/59 "2004-03-01T13:16:19Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > But that’s obvious since I invoked the S5 axiom. Was I the only one who thought ‘Mornington Crescent’ when I read this. Yes? Ok, carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Daddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Bruce\_Daddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Daddy)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/60 "2004-03-01T13:34:17Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > What’s God got to do with it? What’s god, but a second hand emotion? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885.md?page=4)