There are more logical arguments against supernatural than any kind of argument for it’s existence. Is there any real proof of the supernatural (ghosts, haunted houses, etc.)?
A possible explanation of Ghosts is that some sort of electro magnetic energy is left behind when you die, causing a image of you(the portion of energy from you when you died) to be seen as a “ghost”.
What? Ghostbusters wasn’t enough proof for you?
This is one of those topics that everyone will debate until their blue in the face. How can you prove it? Some say you can detect electromagnetic energy (a la Aslan2), others say you can detect them psychically. Other people want to see stuff thrown around the house.
I guess there is no logical basis. It’s kinda like religion. How can you have proof?
Tripler
Then again, how in hell can you say no to a 150’ Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man?
Depends. Do I have an unlicensed particle accelerator strapped to my back?
Another possible explanation, and one for which there is just as much proof as Aslan2’s, is that some sort of quackian-dontophibial vipler effect is left behind when you die, causing an image of you (the portion of the dontus quadrant from when you died) to be seen as a “ghost”.
I have vipler accelerometers and dontal disturbance detectors available for sale if you’re interested, although frankly I have to admit that Doc Cathode’s gear uses a meta-dontal defribrillizer in the primary stage, and he’s been getting good results. My equipment’s cheaper, however, and has (IMHO) a better manual.
No, no, no. You can’t just make up words. You have to (mis)use phrases that already exist within the scientific community, but that average people don’t fully comprehend. Otherwise, you lose all credibility.
It seems to me that if a supernatural event could be proven to have been real, it would cease to be “supernatural.”
I laugh at conventional notions of both the scientific community and credibility. Particularly the latter.
:rolleyes:
It’s a theory. Einstein had a theory of relativity, which makes a lot of sense logically, but it’s still a theory, unproven. So is what I said, a theory that has yet to be proven. The theory I stated makes a lot more scientific sense than “You go to some great invisible kingdom in the sky, along with a whole bunch of other dead people, and theirs this giant person who’s will dictates’s everything in the universe. Also, you can vist the people who haven’t died on earth and possibly come back again as another human being”, doesn’t it?
As soon as someone recreates that electro-magnetic energy, in the form of a deceased human being, and it doesn’t involve dousing, there’s your proof of the supernatural.
Until then, all you’ve got is belief. And a whole stack of debate threads about it on the MBs of this world.
First we need a community of investigators who withold judgement. If conflicts of interest are present, then it’s not science.
As far as I know, no such community exists. Instead we have a large group who knows that ghosts (etc.) are balderdash, and another group (larger?) who knows that ghosts exist and therefore needs no proof.
If someone seriously asks the question “do ghosts exist?” that person will be the hated enemy of both groups! In other words, as far as ghosts are involved, prejudice drives out science.
Also, there is the problem of “experimenter’s regress.” Suppose I go out and investigate a so-called Haunted House, and suppose I actually obtain evidence that something weird is happening… is this evidence in support of ghosts? Or does it simply demonstrate incompetence on the part of the experimenter? Our interpretation of the results depends on whether we have prior belief in ghosts! 
“Experimenter’s regress” involves the problem of demonstrating new phenomena when we aren’t certain that the phenomena exist and we aren’t certain that the experimenters aren’t being biased by prior belief. How can we ever know if experimental results aren’t just persistant measurement errors? Wide scale replication is the usual way to achive concensus. But if we can’t bring ghosts into the lab, and if ghost-research is a “taboo” topic to begin with, then no replication will occur and “ghost research” is forced into a fuzzy half-alive and half-dead existence on the fringes of science.
I don’t think it’s exactly electro magnetic(it’s something similar, I think. I read it in a book, which I unfortunately don’t have handy).
In that same book I read that it’s been recorded that the second you die, you lose weight, immediately, in the amount of pounds. That energy could be what Cristians consider the soul of the body, and also that enrgy I was talking about.
The difference is that we can check Einstein’s theory. We can make predictions based on the theory, and so far those predictions have checked out.
Also, Einstein had something to work with when he came up with relativity. The model of the universe that was current then didn’t quite work to his mind, so he modified it until it did work, tested his theory, and lo and behold, it held water.
Your theory has none of these things. It tries to explain a phenomenon that may not even exist. Besides, the original poster didn’t want theories but evidence that the phenomena exist in the first place. A theory isn’t evidence.
I think I’ve read similar stuff to that, Aslan2. In one, they theorised that nearby water amplified the electro-magnetic … signature, I suppose you could call it.
While I do have a belief in my ancestors, I tend to be sceptical about ghosts. Even though my own mother claimed she’d seen one, once.
If their was real evidence, it would be on the front page of every newspaper and be talked about on every single major TV station. Even if we did have solid proof, there’d always be dissenters telling us that “Their is a certain probabality that such an occurence would happen under those conditions every 10 000 years blah blah.”
Point?
It’s like this: energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Your life force is energy; therefore it goes on after your physical body dies. These invisible fields linger in the present moment, this remanance can be detected by people with psychic abilities, such as John Edward.
Of course, every person that dies adds his energy field to the overall psychic momentum, and at some indeterminable time in the future, critical field strength will be reached - and the result will be another “Big Bang”…so repent, sinners, the end is near.
I wonder if I’ll win the JREF million dollar prize?
I too am skeptical of Ghosts, at least in the christian sense. The theory I said cements my belief that we do live after death, even if it’s only as energy residue.
I take it this way: Were the few hundred million(or more) people in the last 10 000 years of written and spoken language, all exagarating, hallucinating, dreaming or expreincing optical illusions?
Sorry, but unless you can come up with a cite for this, I’m going to have to call “bullshit.” I believe I can safely say that this is simply nonsense.
Also, whenever you hear the phrase, “It’s just a theory,” you should start being very careful. “Theory” is a loaded word, as it means different things in different contexts.
If you’re talking about Einstein and relativity, or about Darwin and evolution, the first definition of “theory” applies: “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” [emphasis mine]
What Aslan2 is calling a “theory” more properly falls into the sixth definition: “An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.”
(Definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary)