# 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:** 7
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/121 "2004-03-01T22:30:44Z")
> [@](#): > > If you play a game of 9-ball, it is a necessity to sink the 9-ball, otherwise, why bother playing ? Yeah, but that’s a deontic necessity — i.e., an obligation, not a metaphysical necessity. It’s what Malley called “das unbedingt Geforderte” (the unconditionally obligatory). To win the game, you must sink the 9-ball, but nothing assures that you can or will win the game. On the other hand, it is metaphysically possible that two players could play forever with neither ever winning. The metaphysical modality does not contradict the deontic modality. ---
**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, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/122 "2004-03-01T22:35:56Z")
Oh, be nice. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/123 "2004-03-01T22:53:57Z")
Seriously, Lib, do you really not see that you can use your logic to prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer? ---
**Author:** ![Loopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loopus/32/15343_2.png) [@Loopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopus)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/124 "2004-03-01T23:19:15Z")
Warning: though I have studied logic, I haven’t quite followed **everything** in this thread. I probably missed something. > [@Libertarian](#): > > A proof is required because you can’t just define things into existence. Effectively, sure you can. If you define God as something which must exist, then you’ve defined him into existence. You can go ahead and formally **prove** it once you have that definition, but it isn’t hard to prove the existence of something which is defined as necessarily existing. Because the proof follows necessarily from the definition, it is the definition, not the proof, that is the point of contention. > [@](#): > > As you know, an appeal to authority is not bogus when the authority is indeed an expert in the field, and I’m sure you’ll grant me that Hartshorne, Kant, Goethe, and other such figures are experts. Experts on **God**? Because what I would take issue with (as far as I follow) is their definition of God. I wouldn’t doubt their expertise in logic and philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/125 "2004-03-01T23:22:29Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Libertarian, you have spouted some choice bullshit on this board before, but with this you’ve outdone yourself. Well, you may find it funny, and you may disagree wholeheartedly with the statements as they model the world in which we live (as do I). However, it happens to be true, albeit within the limited context of the logical system **Lib** is using. The main thing I would take issue with is the use of the emotive terms “presumes” and “forces”, which applies a negative value judgment to the former and a positive one to the latter. In truth, both represent the same thing; simple implication. **Lib** , I don’t quite see what point you’re trying to prove with reference to your philosophers. You repeat that they define a supreme being to be one which necessarily exists, but seem to ignore that they place its existence as an antecedent. They (as far as I can tell) say that _if_ a supreme being exists, it must be necessary, or it would not be supreme. They are therefore asserting that g -\> g. You, however (although you also use that implication), are implicitly using g as an assertion in its own right, when you state that to believe \<\>~g is untenable. This is the cause of the difference between you and the philosophers whom you say acknowledge the soundness but not the validity of your proof. Of course they acknowledge the soundness - this is a fairly trivial proof, given the assumptions. They deny, however, that your assumptions (notably, g), are models for our world. Hence my confusion when you appeal to these same philosophers to convince me that your proof is valid. In short, I’m prepared to accept g-\>g as a definition for a supreme being, at least as a basis for debate. I’m not prepared to accept g as a basic premise, because I don’t believe that this is what Kant and the others are saying. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/126 "2004-03-02T00:02:50Z")
Oh fer feck’s sake **Lib** , do you have to haul in your ontological horse and beat it to death in _every_ tangentially related thread? There was a perfectly good rant here about fools who believe in ghosts (and, by extension, psychic powers, ouija boards, dowsing, astrology, and crap of that ilk) until you came along and derailed it. Witnessing using postgraduate symbology is still witnessing. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/127 "2004-03-02T00:06:39Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Seriously, Lib, do you really not see that you can use your logic to prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer? Amen. I mean Jesus Christ people! The fucking Tooth Fairy can be proven using that kind of ontological bullshit. If something cannot be measured, then any logical system that claims to prove it’s existence is beyond farcical. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/128 "2004-03-02T02:15:43Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Max: > > That makes no sense. Science is empirical, but logic is analytic. They are not co-dependent. Logic is the root of science. And when science can be used to prove things about the actual universe we live in, it’s because of a carefully-built-up and illustrated set of useful correlations between logic and observations of the real world (aka, the scientific method). Logic itself can’t be arbitrarily used , in isolation, to prove facts about any aspect of the real world, much less as unique an aspect as the existence of God. Thus, no matter the inherent beauty or consistency of your argument, I reject your claim. But we’ve been there already. > [@](#): > > Yeah. You’re a physicalist. Sentient has already [dealt with that](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/). Oooh, again that famous “feeble arguments of your sort have already been neatly labelled and dealt with” **Libertarian** condescension. In any case, my brief reading of that page leads me to believe that I am not, in fact, a physicalist. I don’t believe that **everything** has physical reality, or can be measured in a physical sense. The amount of beauty of a painting. Love. Anger. Death. These are all meaningful concepts whose existence and relevance I accept which are not physical things. (Well, death can be measured by science… but you get my drift.) I had actually previously typed out a slightly longer post about ESP, but it got away from me into weird territory, so I deleted it. Anyhow, here was the gist… I can intellectually imagine three, and only three possibilities about ESP: (1) ESP doesn’t exist (2) ESP exist and is a measurable, explicable, human ability (3) ESP-like experiences do in fact happen, but are something which humans will never be able to understand, explain, measure, or in any other way meaningfully categorize and study Convincing me that (3) was the case would be quite similar to convincing me that God exists. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/129 "2004-03-02T02:39:08Z")
I’ll leave arguing with **Lib** to people with more energy than me now, but I want to remind everyone reading this thread that **Lib** ’s arguments, methods, and behavior should not be taken as a reflection on philosophy or philosophers in general. This thread is upsetting to me because I know there are already plenty of negative stereotypes about philosophy/philosophers out there, and he’s just helping to reinforce them. Please, please don’t think that “philosophy sucks” or that it’s impossible to have a reasonable conversation with a philosopher just because of him. I am trying very hard not to be unkind here, even though it is the Pit, but I personally have difficulty regarding **Lib** as anything more than a philosophical poseur and I think he’s been badly abusing the discipline in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![spudzilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@spudzilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spudzilla)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/130 "2004-03-02T03:27:21Z")
> [@Libertarian (many posts ago)](#): > > A person places his faith in whatever he finds in agreement with his experience. Yes, and IMO this entire thread would have been much more pertinent to the OP’s rant if it had explored the above formulation instead of drifting off into a logical proof of the existence of God. A logical proof of the existence of God simply is not dealing with _experience_ in the same way that the OP addressed his friends’ experiencing what they believe to be ghosts. It is instead dealing with God as an abstraction or notion that is “experienced” only in the sense that it is entertained in our minds for the sake of constructing or examining the proof. I suspect that when OP (in his second post) asked for proof of “the existence of anything supernatural,” what he had in mind was a specific, isolable event or entity that people claim to have experienced – ghosts, a weeping statue of the Virgin Mary, spirit possession, etc. What he wanted was a cow, but what you gave him instead was Bovine. Logical reasoning is of course important in how we experience the world because it imposes constraints on how we interpret the events that make up our experiences. However, a logical proof of the existence of God does not, obviously, create specific supernatural events that we can experience, and neither does it offer proof that specific, experienceable supernatural events have ever existed. Insofar as _belief_ in the supernatural is concerned, logic leaves the vast majority of people wondering – in the words of that TV commercial from years ago – “Where’s the beef?” ---
**Author:** ![Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/839c29/32.png) [@Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/131 "2004-03-02T04:43:54Z")
Anyone else up for a rousing sing along of Monty Python’s “Philosophers’ Song” followed by selected readings from the book of Douglas Adams re: the logical proof of the existence of god? Just me? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/132 "2004-03-02T07:22:57Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Hartshorne and Plantinga both believe it is sound, not just valid. Are there any more important 20th century philsophers than they? Who cares? It’s not like philosophy is an exact science. I’ll listen to Stephen Hawking explain blackbody radiation and believe what he says about it, but if I examine the statements of philosophers and find them wrong, I don’t give a shit _how_ important they are. Regarding the proof: I’ve read your links and they make no sense. > [@](#): > > 1. God is that which nothing greater is possible (from Anselm), i.e. the greatest possible being (by definition). > 2. It is at least possible for God to exist in reality (also from Anselm). That is, whether or not God actually exists in the real world, He at least exists in some possible set of circumstances. So, God might have existed in the real world. > 3. If something exists only in the mind (i.e. does not actually exist) but is possible (in the sense that was defined in 2), then that something might have been greater than it is. For example, a majestic mountain that exists only in the mind (i.e. a nonexistent, imaginary mountain) might have been greater: the mountain existing in reality. > 4. Suppose God (the greatest possible being, from 1) exists only in the mind and not in reality (i.e. God does not actually exist; which is the negation of what this argument attempts to prove). > 5. Then there is a possible being (from 2 and 3) that is greater (than the being in 4), namely God existing in reality. > 6. So it is possible for something to have been greater than God (from 5). > 7. Since God is that which nothing greater is possible (from 1), then it is possible for something to be greater than that which nothing greater is possible (from 6). > Conclusion: Statement 7 is absurd. It can’t possibly be true because it is self-contradictory. Therefore, God must exist in reality as well as the mind. What this is taking a long time to say is this: I can imagine God, therefore he must exist. Well bullshit. No matter how you define “great”, it is quite possible for me to imagine a being greater than the greatest being that actually exists. I can imagine a 60 foot human who is the tallest human on Earth, but that doesn’t make him real. ---
**Author:** ![Greymot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ebca7d/32.png) [@Greymot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greymot)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 7:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/133 "2004-03-02T07:53:47Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Yeah, but that’s a deontic necessity — i.e., an obligation, not a metaphysical necessity. It’s what Malley called “das unbedingt Geforderte” (the unconditionally obligatory). To win the game, you must sink the 9-ball, but nothing assures that you can or will win the game. On the other hand, it is metaphysically possible that two players could play forever with neither ever winning. The metaphysical modality does not contradict the deontic modality. And here’s where I say, the ordinary average joe(OAJ) would just stand there looking at you funny. Everything you just said there does not apply to anyone that is not educated in this logic stuff (which I’m going to guess is a massivley huge portion of the population of this planet). You must know that, to the OAJ, the two statements have nothing to do with each other, right ? I’ll have you a game of 9-ball for cash anyday 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Denis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5e9695/32.png) [@Denis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Denis)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/134 "2004-03-02T08:37:31Z")
What’s the deal, **Lib**? Are you gunning for the “Witnessing Through Endless Logical and Philosophical Wanking[sup]tm[/sup]” One Trick Pony position? Really, man, you are way more interesting when you talk about human rights, politics, music, farts, hell _anything_ besides the existance or non-existance of God. You believe. Fine. More power to ya. Now _please_ stop murdering threads with this! ---
**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 2, 2004, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/135 "2004-03-02T11:22:31Z")
Priceguy, I recall the ‘proof’ you just described from my college philosophy classes. I thought it was complete crap, but I don’t think it is Lib’s proof. When I boil his proof down to words I get: God is a phenomenon that has a special property. It exists everywhere, and cannot be limited to certain ‘worlds’. If it is possible that god exists, you’re basically saying that god does exist in at least one possible world. If he exists in one world, he exists in all, because he can’t be limited. I’ve been trying to approach it from the “If he doesn’t exist in one world, then he can’t exist in any” point of view. Lib thinks the idea that god might not be possible “absurd” so he dismisses this idea, which is where I think his mistake is. Apologies, Lib, if I’ve misstated the proof or your opinions on it. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/136 "2004-03-02T11:25:33Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Priceguy, I recall the ‘proof’ you just described from my college philosophy classes. I thought it was complete crap, but I don’t think it is Lib’s proof. I cut-and-pasted it from one of his links. > [@](#): > > When I boil his proof down to words I get: > > God is a phenomenon that has a special property. It exists everywhere, and cannot be limited to certain ‘worlds’. If it is possible that god exists, you’re basically saying that god does exist in at least one possible world. If he exists in one world, he exists in all, because he can’t be limited. Then we’re presupposing that a phenomenon with this property exists. It might not. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/137 "2004-03-02T11:56:21Z")
With respect to the hysteria surrounding my once again invoking the MOP, I’d like to remind anyone who gives a shit about objectivity that it was the OP, Never Have I Because I, who wrote the following: > [@](#): > > i’ll shut up when you prove the existence of anything supernatural. Respond to the challenge, and we have what we have here: two or three genuinely critical posters who are engaged in civil argument with valid concerns that merit respect, a hand-wringing self-appointed matron of philosophy who, like Kant, believes that one must stay within her lines to have credibility, and a gaggle of hellish cackling demons who believe in truth-by-pile-on. On the alternative — don’t respond to the challenge — and the OP is left to ridicule anything and everything supernatural even though, by his own admission, he did not know what supernatural even _means_. With respect to the argument that the MOP proves the existence of any arbitrary thing, despite the opinions of experts (including critics) whom I have quoted and linked to the contrary (Godel is another, by the way, who found the argument valid), the argument is full of shit. Even common sense applied to the ordinary definition of [supreme](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=supreme) compels an intellectually honest person to the conclusion that there can not be more than one. But the MOP is not the only proof of something supernatural. It is simple enough merely to assail the uber-mystical philosophy of materialism itself with its myriad contradictions and paradoxes. But there’s only so much time in a day. **Dead Badger** : > [@](#): > > In short, I’m prepared to accept g-\>g as a definition for a supreme being, at least as a basis for debate. I’m not prepared to accept g as a basic premise, because I don’t believe that this is what Kant and the others are saying. Then you and I are in complete agreement since g is not a premise of the argument. It is in fact an inference. The only premise is ~~g, or \<\>g. **Cheese** : > [@](#): > > Apologies, Lib, if I’ve misstated the proof or your opinions on it. No, I believe you’ve stated it fairly. However, I would not characterize either your or my rejection of one another’s premises as a “mistake”. A person is completely free to reject an axiomatic assertion. We may, if we wish, reject Peano’s Induction Axiom and thereby declare that 1 + 1 = 2 is a valid but unsound proposition. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/138 "2004-03-02T12:19:01Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > No, I believe you’ve stated it fairly. However, I would not characterize either your or my rejection of one another’s premises as a “mistake”. A person is completely free to reject an axiomatic assertion. And what is the axiomatic assertion here? Is it, as **Cheesesteak** says, “God is a phenomenon with a special property”? In that case, your “proof” is pretty pointless since its axiom is what you’re trying to prove. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/139 "2004-03-02T12:21:14Z")
Good lord. It is stated right above your own post. The axiom is ~~g (it is possible that God exists). What is to be proved is g (God exists in actuality). They are not the same. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885/140 "2004-03-02T12:25:31Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > Then you and I are in complete agreement since g is not a premise of the argument. It is in fact an inference. The only premise is ~~g, or \<\>g. I disagree. You deny outright that one might use a different premise to you when you say that \<\>~g is “untenable”. This, to me, is to assert that ~\<\>~g is valid in our model, which is of course to say that g is valid. Certainly, you only ever _explicitly_ use \<\>g, but by denying anyone the opportunity to claim \<\>~g, you are implicitly using g as a premise. I think this is absolutely crucial. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/people-who-believe-in-ghosts/231885.md?page=8)