Which optical illusions were those ones, Aslan2?
What about all the people who’s seen elves, leprechauns and pixies? I assume you believe in elves, leprechauns and pixies too, not to mention dragons and sorcerers. They’re all well documented, just like ghosts.
The point is, their’s always going to be people who say “That’s wrong and heres some proof that shows it’s wrong.” If things such as Vampires were proven really, their would always be some sort of explanation that could rule it out as false. Just like how someone could develop another theory that would disagree with einstein, and yet both of them would work.
My point is, you can never, ever be completely be certain of something, even if a theory lasts a hundred years without being ruled as completely false.
If there’s proof that something’s wrong, then it is wrong. Simple as that. If a theory disagrees with Einstein’s theory, then one of them (possibly both) is wrong. We’ll have to test them and see which one comes out on top.
Correct. That’s why we see as true only that which has been proven or amassed more actual evidence than its competitors. Ghosts, no matter how they might be explained, is currently not one of those things.
I don’t quite understand your question. Can you elaborate?
What I was saying was that people who are die hard about ghosts being false always seek out another posibility.
You say “The pipes were always creaking and making strange noises, for no reason.”
They say “Something was wrong with the pipes.”
You say “Nope, the pipes were checked out and are fine.”
They say “Something’s wrong with your hearing.”
You say “My hearing is perfect.”
Their is always some sort of “normal” explanation for those people, they refuse to believe it could be paranormal, or something that doesn’t make sense under the current laws of nature.
Uh, Priceguy and Ice Wolf, I’ve got a few brick walls here that you might want to come beat your heads against. It would be at least as productive as trying to explain rational scientific thought to some folks.
While we’re at it, maybe we could get lekatt to join in on this one. No reason for Aslan2 to be alone.
Even then, if we had enough evidence, would cause some people to continue to argue with it. They’d say the photos and videos were photoshopped or had effects added with the magic of hollywood level special effects. You’d have live coverage of paranormal events and people would still say “nope, it’s been edited or pre planned.”
At the current level of human development, their’d always be doubt of proof being real or not, unfortunately.
Because there’s no reason to believe in ghosts. Creaking pipes certainly don’t qualify. A rational person would say, upon checking the pipes, “that’s odd”, not “Aaaaah! I’ve got a poltergoost!”.
Ghosts may very well exist. But until we have some actual, credible evidence that they do, why bother theorising about them? My half-sister theorised that Jesus was a UFO at a recent family dinner, and I couldn’t stifle a laugh. Not only is an alien and a UFO completely different things, and if Jesus was either it was the former, but this theory is totally useless. It’s an interesting mind game, but it has absolutely no supporting evidence of any kind, and the best thing you can do with it is write a book and make some money. It has no value. Just like theories about ghosts being electromagnetic residual radiation.
Yup, I’d say don’t trust that book.
So what? People doubt that the Earth is round. People doubt evolution. People doubt that we even exist. What does this have to do with anything?
Do you have evidence of the supernatural, as the original poster requested?
What we’re coming down to, here, with regard to the OP, is that there is vastly more belief in this particular field than there is proof (if any of the latter at all).
I do think that this is heading into debate territory, though. You guys know that’s a no-no around here.
Well, Priceguy, I could most defintely find quite a few pictures pictures, but of course you would tell me it’s “obviously not real, photoshopped.” or something like that.
Aslan2: First of all, Ice Wolf is correct, this is not the place for a debate. Feel free to open a Great Debates thread if you wish; I’ll be there.
Second of all, I resent you making assumptions about my personality. Just because I’m a rational human being doesn’t mean you can predict my behaviour.
Given the topic, that was unavoidable - I can’t imagine a factual answer that would resolve the issue, beyond saying, “No, there isn’t any real proof of the supernatural.” Anything offered to the contrary would just be the start of a debate topic.
The mods can move the thread, if they feel this isn’t the right forum for it. Or just lock it, and put us all out of our misery!
Wow, I surely must be a evil, trolling person if I don’t agree with you. If you have some problem with me, take it to the pit.
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to make assumptions about you. However, If I were to provide pictures would you take that as solid proof then?
I never said you were evil, or a troll. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Are you seriously saying that I, if confronted with a picture that may and may not show a ghost or other supernatural activity, must, without researching the picture’s background or find out anything about the circumstances in which it was taken, choose to either accept it as solid proof, thus changing my entire world view in one fell blow, or claim that the picture has been digitally edited?
Get a life. Or open that Great Debate thread. I will not respond to you in this thread any more.
One photograph is never considered a solid proof of anything. A set of documented photos would go a long way though. A truly “solid proof” needs to be verifiable and repeatable - e.g. if you were to say “go to this address at 3am and take a photo of this wall with such-and-such camera setting, you will sometimes see a white shadow”, and if an independent observer were to confirm it, then that would be solid proof that there is an unexplained phenomenon.