Post your ghost stories here, and I will debunk them

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Hampshire

God is never a ‘best’ explanation. God is a cop-out default explanation for those too lazy to use their brains or too stubborn to admit “Huh, I guess we just don’t know.”
How people make this jump from the unknown to “don’t know? Whelp, it must be god then” I’ll never understand.
It makes as much sense as saying “What, you can’t identify what that thing up in the sky is? Well then the best explanation is space aliens.”

You are approaching this from the assumption that God does not exist. Try doing it the other way.

[Czarcasm]

@Damuri_Ajashi

OK then prove for a fact that God doesn’t exist based on the available information. When 90% of the world disagrees with you why is the 90% to prove that God exists to the 10%? Why shouldn’t the 10% have to prove their beliefs to the 90%?

1. When did we start voting on facts?
2. Again, how could you be convinced that your deity doesn’t exist?

[Hampshire]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You are approaching this from the assumption that God does not exist. Try doing it the other way.

Will you do the same for space aliens being the default explanation for unidentifiable flying objects?

[Freudian_Slit]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You are approaching this from the assumption that God does not exist. Try doing it the other way.

You shouldn’t approach any problem with any assumption/biases. That’s going to affect your outcome.

[Czarcasm]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You are approaching this from the assumption that God does not exist. Try doing it the other way.

There is nothing to be gained evidence-wise, so why bother?

[Lobohan]

@Damuri_Ajashi

OK then prove for a fact that God doesn’t exist based on the available information. When 90% of the world disagrees with you why is the 90% to prove that God exists to the 10%? Why shouldn’t the 10% have to prove their beliefs to the 90%?

This isn’t a popularity contest. If 90% of people thought raping infants cured AIDS they would still be wrong.

God is a factual question, does he exist or not. There is no evidence that he does exist. Without any evidence, why do you believe in him?

Do you believe in Zombies? There is no evidence for their existence either.

[Bosstone]

The problem is that “God did it” is a complete non-starter. It explains nothing. We’ve gained so much more when we look for non-supernatural causes and explanations. Even if there is a god, it’s painfully obvious that there is little to be gained by looking to it first.

[Pleonast]

@Cisco

What about concepts? “Running.” You know exactly what I mean when I say it. You can describe it. It’s a noun. You can’t deny its existence. But where is the physical essence of running located?

Concepts, ideas, thoughts, memories are all types of encodings stored in the brain.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I guess what I was trying to say was that noone disproves God, they just dismiss the notion he exists because his existence cannot be proven. There are subatomic particles that we cannot prove exist (yet) but there are scientists that believe they exist because their existence would explain a few things.

I screwed up with teh quotes. heres sorta what it should look like:

“Because I cannot explain his existence he must not exist?” What does that mean?

Too often teh retort of athiests is that God must not exist because i cannot prove his existence.

The default assumption is that sky gods don’t exist until you can show some kind of reason to believe they do.

Sky god? Did I say that he lived in the sky? Perhaps on a cloud? Why not just come out and say you think that believing in God is like believing in Thor or Zeus (sometimes I wonder if 2000 years from now, people will be worshipping Tom Cruise as a prophet of scientology and the Avengers will include Capt. America, The Hulk, Spider Man and Jesus Christ).

Why is the onus on me and the other 90% of humanity to prove to the small percentage of athiests that God or the soul exists? Why shouldn’t those with the minority view have to prove their beliefs?

If you want to posit "God"as an explanation for something, it is incumbent on you to show why it’s a better answer and to do so with scientific methodology. Just saying “a wizard did it” is not anything that it is rational to consider without evidence.

I don’t know if you would call them scientific placekeepers or what but there are things we do not know exist but scientists believe exist because it would proviide an explanation consistent with their beliefs. Some subatomic particles, the missing link (which I heard we recently found, I was kinda rooting for genetic manipulation by aliens a la the uplift wars but oh well)

[Bricker]

@Lobohan

This isn’t a popularity contest. If 90% of people thought raping infants cured AIDS they would still be wrong.

God is a factual question, does he exist or not. There is no evidence that he does exist. Without any evidence, why do you believe in him?

Do you believe in Zombies? There is no evidence for their existence either.

But there is evidence that God exists. This is why I believe.

Unfortunately, the evidence is of a personal, experiential nature, and is not susceptible to external independent verification. Therefore, you cannot weigh it and it cannot sway your thinking.

So it makes perfect sense to me to believe in God, and also makes perfect sense for you not to. We are working from different sets of evidence. Since you cannot see my evidence, I absolutely acknowledge that the correct conclusion, for you, is to not believe.

Since I have no evidence for zombies, except for Strom Thurmond, I share your disbelief in them.

[Bosstone]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I don’t know if you would call them scientific placekeepers or what but there are things we do not know exist but scientists believe exist because it would proviide an explanation consistent with their beliefs. Some subatomic particles, the missing link (which I heard we recently found, I was kinda rooting for genetic manipulation by aliens a la the uplift wars but oh well)

The difference is nobody goes “Eh, that’s good enough.” Those are theoretical placeholders until genuine evidence can be found one way or another. Nobody will be satisfied with the vague concept of “dark matter” until you can put some in a jar.

[Marley23]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You’re chalking a lot up to coincidence. He was either set up or this is a case of the monkey typing shakespeare.

This is the reason I broke the prediction down point by point: by doing that, I showed the psychic was wrong about a bunch of specifics. If showing the psychic was wrong about a bunch of stuff does not debunk the idea that he predicted exactly where the dog would be found, including getting the location of the dog wrong, then I don’t know what could possibly debunk the story.

The psychic got some things correct, but those points were mostly generic or just plain obvious. The points that were wrong were significant, to the point that Darth_Hamsandwich would not have found his dog if he had followed them more closely. Basically all the psychic did was point them to a house in a field. They started with what the psychic said by looking for a house in the field near the church - nevermind that he was wrong about where the field was - and then ignored his directions about which road to take because he was wrong about the road no matter how you slice it. And when they didn’t find the house on the road the psychic told them to try, they looked on another road and found the dog there.

That’s not monkeys typing Shakespeare. It’s elaborating on a suggestion and giving the credit to the psychic.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@UncleMoose

OK, I’ll repeat my own experience from the original thread (and I’m sorry if I should have quoted this in a different manner):
I have a reverse banjo clock from 1916 that belonged to my maternal grandparents. It has two keyholes for winding, one for the clock itself and the other for the chimes. I was in the habit of only winding the clock itself, as the chimes were rather loud. At the time in question, the chimes had not been wound or rung for weeks if not months.
The mechanism of the chimes is that it would chime once on the half-hour, and chime the time on the hour. It would only chime on the hour or half-hour, not at any other time. The last piece of info is that if the chimes spring had mostly unwound, the chiming would be very slow and “draggy”.
As I returned to the house from my father’s wake, the clock started chiming. It chimed very clearly, not dragged out at all, and it chimed 10-12 times (I was so stunned I didn’t start counting), and was heard by my wife and daughter. It was 10:43. I’ve had enough math where I understand the power of coincidence, but the clock should not have been capable of chiming at that time. I have tried to partially wind the chimes, let them run down, move the clock to between the hour and half-hour, move the clock, shake the clock, etc. I’ve never been able to get the clock to chime at a time it shouldn’t.
My father was the type who lothed religion, but always felt that there might be something past death. I feel the same way, especially now.

A few more facts, for whatever they are worth -
I have a BS in Physics and Astronomy (back in '78, but still…)
I’m not convinced of the existence of ghosts, even with the above occurrence, but I am more than a little weirded out by it, and am more inclined that there may be some part of us that survives.
I tried like hell to reproduce this by varying the amount of winding on the chime spring, playing around with the position of the clock, banging on the wall, etc. My last try was to move the hands of the clock past the half hour mark, fully wind the chime spring, then move the clock around, bang on the wall, open and close doors, etc. The clock would not chime except on the hour and half hour.
It baffles me, but I felt it fit the original OP’s question.

I don’t know anything about clock mechanics, so I’m a little handicapped here, but off he top of my head:

Something just got sprung inside the clock at a weird time that set off the chiming mechanism.

Someone else had been in the house and messed with the clock. Did you have anyone visiting at the time? Relatives from out of town for the fineral? Any kids? is it possible one of your own kids might have monkeyed with the clock?

You heard something else and mistook it for the clock chimes.

Something else besides the regular mechanism cause the chimes to sound, like maybe a mouse got into the clock or something.

I also found this page for why clocks may chime at the wrong time (and apparently can be self-correcting after they do it).

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

No, it’s a logical default assumption. I think you also have to realize that a presumption of non-existence is not the same thing as an assertion of non-existence. Science doesn’t do the latter. The presumptions are always conditional and changable.

Why is the non-existence of God the default presumptiom. Why can’t it be the other way around?

[TurboNuke]

A wizard did it.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Czarcasm

I think I see the problem here.
Can God be proven not to exist to your satisfaction?
If so, how?

That’s the thing about faith and religion, you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist and all your assertions that “GOD DOESN"T EXIST, THATS A FACT” kind of sound like an opinion.

[TriPolar]

We can set a few things straight definitionally:

There are detaills about the operation of human brains that are not yet understood, or explained in detail by science. All of the things currently understood and explained show no evidence of anything other than known chemical reactions. So we can say that consciousness is 100% an emergent bio-physical property of the physical brain, save for the discovery of new information about an unknown property, for which there is no evidence to indicate would exist. That last part can be added to anything thought to be proven by science. It is one of those things that goes without saying in all science. Imagine if we always had to say a water molecule is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, save for the discovery of new information about an unknown property, for which there is no evidence to indicate would exist.

The existence of God is not addressed by science except by categorizing it with all concepts which cannot be demonstrated by physical evidence. The definition of God is unspecific that there is no way to address it in a scientific manner either. Science may find that the creation story is untrue, but some believe in God, and don’t believe the creation story. Differences between individual beliefs in science don’t address the overall concept. That’s the problem things which cannot be examined physically. Blanket statements about the existence or non-existence of God are not scientific. If you say that science not found any physical evidence to show the existence of God, and consistently disproven the explanations of physical phenomena dependent on the existence of God, someone who believes in the existence of God will just say that is not proof that God does not exist.

So stop it.

[Hampshire]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Why is the non-existence of God the default presumptiom. Why can’t it be the other way around?

Cause it would pretty much stunt the advancement of any civilization.
“Why did that man’s heart stop?”
“God did it. Period.”
No need to do any research into medicine or heart disease when you’ve already concluded god was the cause.

[Czarcasm]

@Damuri_Ajashi

That’s the thing about faith and religion, you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist and all your assertions that “GOD DOESN"T EXIST, THATS A FACT” kind of sound like an opinion.

That is total avoidance of the questions.
Can God be proven not to exist to your satisfaction?
If so, how?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Marley23

Then all you have to do is explain God. Which is by definition going to be more complicated than explaining anything else.

People devote tehir life to that and msot will admit that they fall woefully short.

We may never know what happened in the first instants after the Big Bang, for example.

What about the instant before? Where did the seed of the universe come from? What was there before God said, let there be light?

It’s a big freaking hint as far as I’m concerned: the problem with “The God of the Gaps” is that the gaps keep getting smaller.

Yes I agree and I allow for the possibility that God may not in fact exist, everyone struggles with their faith as they examine it (see me comment about issue 1,000,000 of the mighty Avengers with Spider Man, Capt. America, The Hulk and their newest member Jesus Christ; also see comment about the prophet Tom Cruise when Scientology is the dominant religion on the planet).