Ghosts as you know it... Do they exist?

[Hans-sama]

Nobody has the proof to deny the existence of ghosts and none has come up with solid proof that they do.

If fact is the truth, reports about them should be consistent regardless of where they're sighted. How is it that they come in so many forms when they appear to people who come from different parts of the world yet they're consistent when people from the same community reports them.

Do our religion influence our perception of these apparition or is it a cultural thing? Because two person can both be Buddhists for example but perception of these beings can vary when one is a Japanese and the other is a Chinese. I use Buddhists for the example because I'm a Buddhist.

The different descriptions of ghosts I've heard so far (accounts that have not been proven false have been those by word of mouth) varies from weird floating orbs to wispy mists. A majority being human-like apparition but we seldom get accounts of those that are animal-like even though it's been widely believed that all living things have spirits.

Of course this is not proof that all accounts of ghosts are false. For some, yea... but not all. Can anyone explain why accounts vary like that? And say whether you believe in their existences first. For me, there's a possibility so I guess I'm for their existence. Who's with me?

[phantom_ko]

Ghosts as in souls of things that have lived? (in that case do you count the ant you crushed?)

Rather weird wouldn't you think if the there were only Human ghosts...and so would you say hi when you're dead to the fly you killed when you were 10?

I think that our whole existence depends purely on our biological make-up, otherwords the brain. When you die, your brain dies and so thats the end.

People usually argue there are ghosts are life after death, because it's just too cruel if there wasn't anything afterwards.

Unless I get some proff that is confirmed by myself, I will never believe in ghosts or spirits

[II Xion II]

I am too tired to post a long, drawn out argument for my views, but simply put, I believe in ghosts. I believe that they they are the fading personalities of deceased beings.

I think that the overwhelming number of eyewitness reports and documentation heavily supports the possibilities of such things existing. I find it hard to believe that everything "ghostly" is simply the presence of a large room, mass hysteria, or lies as so many skeptics suggest. I remember a recent National Geographic Channel special called "Is It Real?" that conducted experiments in London with groups of people in a supposedly haunted place. I cannot remember the results exactly, but a majority of the people reported strange things or feelings. At the end of the show, everything was simply dismissed as shadows or a feeling of vacuousness (in reference to the large, dark rooms) without much proper investigation (it was basically an opinion).

I am not one of those people that obsesses over ghost shows (they're a bunch of bullshit that only serves as entertainment), but based on stories I have heard and the extensive documentation and accounts by eyewitnesses, I have very few doubts that they don't exist.

Sure, a good portion of these "accounts" may be lies or simply mistakes in identification (tricks of the mind or whatnot), but when every single account (including quite a lot of extremely famous and well-documented ones) is dismissed as such, I think that there has to be something more to it.

Just my two cents though.

[Hans-sama]

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/vortex_kinesis.html

After reading this, I'm beginning to wonder if particles at different frequencies exists besides our world. Sort of like an alternate dimension when particles passes free through one another between the two worlds because the forces of the particles do not mutually affect. When the electromagnetic energy (light) from the other dimension phases into our world, we see "them" which really are beings from that universe/dimension.

Or it could be us in different progression of time which might explain why we can see people who're already dead. They just got left behind while we continue to progress in time. They can never catch up to our progression in time unless they can accelerate fast enough to catch up to us again.

[II Xion II]

http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/vortex_kinesis.html

After reading this, I'm beginning to wonder if particles at different frequencies exists besides our world. Sort of like an alternate dimension when particles passes free through one another between the two worlds because the forces of the particles do not mutually affect. When the electromagnetic energy (light) from the other dimension phases into our world, we see "them" which really are beings from that universe/dimension.

Or it could be us in different progression of time which might explain why we can see people who're already dead. They just got left behind while we continue to progress in time. They can never catch up to our progression in time unless they can accelerate fast enough to catch up to us again.

I am not too crazy about the Bermuda Triangle, as I believe that there are quite a few natural explanations for the many disappearances and oddities in that area.

As for ghosts and other dimensional planes, I am all for that.

If a one person saw a hamburger floating in the sky (I know, a dumb example), by sheer necessity, I would call that person an utter lunatic or simply a liar since that goes beyond all reason. However, if a thousand people saw the exact same thing, then I might be skeptical, but I would be inclined to believe it. If a hundred thousand people saw it, then I would definitely rethink my position on the issue.

Of course, ghosts are not related to hamburgers in any actual sort of way, but I think that the incredible (at least tens of thousands, AT LEAST) number of "sightings," investigations, and documentation irrefutably supports the existence of something unknown. Especially since the people experiencing such things come from a wide variety of backgrounds and cultures. The fact that "ghost encounters" are recorded deep within the annals of history and persist even in this "modern" era also lends credence to the possibility of their existence in my opinion.

@Hans-sama Based on what I have read and learned, ghosts are likely the personality of a deceased person or animal (close to humanity, like cats and dogs) that reenacts scenes from its life in the same locations and slowly dissolves in time. Based on what I have read, I do not believe that it is in anyway the soul or spirit of an individual, but merely a result of residual energy imprinted by the individual's life. As such, it supposedly can "interact" and "influence" people in the three-dimensional world. Just a few of the neat little tidbits I have picked up ;).

[Olrox]

I remember a recent National Geographic Channel special called "Is It Real?" that conducted experiments in London with groups of people in a supposedly haunted place

Were they told that the place was haunted before the experiment ? If they were told before, then the results are not suprising. Put someone in a scary place and say it's haunted, you can be almost certain that person thinks somethings not right. Put someone in a normal looking "haunted" house, and say nothing about it being haunted and you would most likely get different results.

The fact that "ghost encounters" are recorded deep within the annals of history and persist even in this "modern" era also lends credence to the possibility of their existence in my opinion.


Some things that were considered supernatural in the past, now have scientific reasons (sleep paralysis for example).

Of course, ghosts are not related to hamburgers in any actual sort of way, but I think that the incredible (at least tens of thousands, AT LEAST) number of "sightings," investigations, and documentation irrefutably supports the existence of something unknown.

That's true, but until we get more evidence than jut sightings, im still on the "Ghosts most likely don't exist" side. Sightings alone don't really prove anything, Iv'e personally seen some strange things that most would consider ghosts, but my personal experiences don't really prove anything.

Based on what I have read and learned, ghosts are likely the personality of a deceased person or animal (close to humanity, like cats and dogs) that reenacts scenes from its life in the same locations and slowly dissolves in time.

Interesting theory, though alot of sightings would argue against that. Alot of people have claimed to see ghosts/spirits that don't look like anything on this earth, so if what you belive is true, then shouldn't all ghosts look and act like humans/animals ?

Edit: I know my english sucks, sorry about it

[Guy]

I, for one, am definitely skeptical in ghosts. I find it ironic how so many people today do not believe in God, yet, they believe in ghosts. Neither of them have solid proofs. Ok, maybe it's just my inductive reasoning. Don't mind my ranting.

I am highly skeptical because many of these so call "connection" with the ghosts on the other side have been labled as pseudoscience. There is no connection between ghosts and science as far as I'm concerned. Religion makes more sense to me, since at least religions are not labled as pseudoscience.

And lastly, I believe this thread exists already?

[飛雲]

I could not place my hand on either answers therefore I'm going to sit on my fence until it was proven. However, my father did claimed that when he was young, he found a skull at the side of the road (it is a village), couldn't resist the temptation, my dad kick it like a soccer ball (great moral eh?) and he saw some green colored dust coming out of it. But for some reason my father never believe in ghosts, but he does believes in human "soul".

Another case was from one of my teachers, when one of their relatives (I forgot who, but I believe it was his/her father), pass away middle of the night in the hospital, they, whom were by his side, saw a dust of green color ascended from their father's body.

Both of the story were personal experience but again, they were not experts dealing with these sort of things, thus their conclusion might be wrong.

[Hans-sama]

@Hans-sama Based on what I have read and learned, ghosts are likely the personality of a deceased person or animal (close to humanity, like cats and dogs) that reenacts scenes from its life in the same locations and slowly dissolves in time. Based on what I have read, I do not believe that it is in anyway the soul or spirit of an individual, but merely a result of residual energy imprinted by the individual's life. As such, it supposedly can "interact" and "influence" people in the three-dimensional world. Just a few of the neat little tidbits I have picked up ;).

Interesting, at one point, I used to think that too. But this theory does not explain most other claims. I would say, this only explains certain claims about ghosts, not all.

I have yet to hear any attempts to justify mysterious orbs and mists what are those?They appear in photographs and you'd think the camera is faulty.

I could not place my hand on either answers therefore I'm going to sit on my fence until it was proven. However, my father did claimed that when he was young, he found a skull at the side of the road (it is a village), couldn't resist the temptation, my dad kick it like a soccer ball (great moral eh?) and he saw some green colored dust coming out of it. But for some reason my father never believe in ghosts, but he does believes in human "soul".

Another case was from one of my teachers, when one of their relatives (I forgot who, but I believe it was his/her father), pass away middle of the night in the hospital, they, whom were by his side, saw a dust of green color ascended from their father's body.

Both of the story were personal experience but again, they were not experts dealing with these sort of things, thus their conclusion might be wrong.

This is the first time I've heard about green dust. The fact that two different people can give an account of the same type of sightings must mean something. But no one else in the world could've described it that way. Know what I mean? Maybe we're just playing tricks on ourselves.

[Riw]

I hold the same position in this as in the God issue: the fact that numerous people claim to have personal evidence sure makes me wonder, but is not enough to convert me. I don't believe in ghosts - at least not in daytime. In the middle of the night, though, when old, primitive instincts wake and sound and form twist beyond recognition, it's easier to think that something mysterious might lurk behind this visible world. So: I reason they don't exist, but if put into a classic ghost story situation, I'd be sure to get goosebumps and move just a little bit faster...

Why not to believe in ghosts? First of all, as I have no personal evidence of their existence and no-one has claimed to see any around me - meaning that even if they exist, they most likely won't affect my life. Thus ghosts, whether real or not, are meaningless to me.

I picture the world as a mechanical place. Illusions, hallucinations and perceptual errors are common and can be explained (even if those explanations may not yet be conclusive). Many cases outwardly similar to those of ghost-sightings are well understood and a result of brain damage, dementia or other such things. Also, I do believe that people have inherited from their distant ancestors a tendency to be alert in dark, in fear of beasts, and overly agitated - and agitation in nervous system may lead to false perceptions. Hereby I don't find it strange that people from different corners of earth all tell ghost stories. Death, too, has always been a mystery to mankind, and it's only natural for people to believe that the deceased person isn't just gone for all eternity. Well, yes, I'm aware that these phenomena don't explain all the sightings, but what I'm trying to get at is that, in general, people seeing ghosts weren't that surprising, even if they didn't exist.

Furthermore, ghosts, as entities, seem to me a bit ridiculous. I can't figure out why such creatures would exist. For example, why would a soul have a form of a living person, as many ghosts do? Overall, I just can't believe that the answer to the mind-body problem is that there exists a soul within a person that somehow occupies his whole body, is undetectable - as long as in contact with the said body - but after getting free of it gains or is able to use some previously non-existing or latent traits or abilities. And even if I could accept one type of ghosts, the stories are so varied that almost everything seems to be possible or exist in the spirit world. That's just a bit too far-fetched for me.

Edit: I have to admit that the idea of ghosts as fading personalities makes a bit more sense in this regard, though.

Disclaimer: I'm not trying to prove anything here or convince you not to believe, just stating few of the reasons that prevent me from believing. I'm not even claiming that my reasons are strictly logical, so if you feel I just haven't considered the matter enough, please feel free to point it out. My ghost-lore isn't really that advanced.

[Lex]

I believe but I can't prove. Why should I have to pro ve my beliefs. My grandfather came back to say good bye so I believe!

[II Xion II]

Were they told that the place was haunted before the experiment ? If they were told before, then the results are not suprising. Put someone in a scary place and say it's haunted, you can be almost certain that person thinks somethings not right. Put someone in a normal looking "haunted" house, and say nothing about it being haunted and you would most likely get different results.

I don't remember if they were told if it were haunted or not, but I if they were that would kind of ruin any sort of experiment, would it not?

Some things that were considered supernatural in the past, now have scientific reasons (sleep paralysis for example).

I know what you are saying, but the beliefs are the same since those long ago times, that is what makes it different. People hundreds of years ago believed in things that no one in their right mind would believe today, but yet the belief in ghosts from hundreds of years ago is still widespread, not just believed by a select, but from the looks of things, by a very many people.

That's true, but until we get more evidence than jut sightings, im still on the "Ghosts most likely don't exist" side. Sightings alone don't really prove anything, Iv'e personally seen some strange things that most would consider ghosts, but my personal experiences don't really prove anything.

That's why a lot of people fail to believe in these sorts of things. But based on the stories I have heard (some really scary and disturbing ones as well) and my own investigations into the more infamous and unsolved sightings, I would have to say that I do believe in "ghosts" or whatever one wants to call them.

Interesting theory, though alot of sightings would argue against that. Alot of people have claimed to see ghosts/spirits that don't look like anything on this earth, so if what you belive is true, then shouldn't all ghosts look and act like humans/animals?

Well, ignoring the existence of entities like demons/angels/etc. which may or may not exist, I believe (and have been lead to believe based on various occultists' writings) that ghosts are strictly decaying personalities. The state of decay could be high and the form clouded, but that also depends on the strength of the personality and the personalities' attachments to things of this earth (like houses, loved ones, murderers, etc.) It also could be "energetic" enough to influence physical things or attack people if it is that type of personality or if it is angered by provocation.

Of course that is JUST what I have gathered in a very basic form and I do not put it forth as evidence of their existence. Just my learned opinion on the issue and nothing more. I strictly believe that there are many other things that could be deemed "ghosts" by people, that are not, they could simply be natural phenomena or another type of entity.


Edit: I know my english sucks, sorry about it

I didn't even notice until you brought it up. ;

[Hans-sama]

The ghosts and death have been such mysteries to mortals it's really not that hard to see why they're so closely related. Maybe we're misled by our shallow ways and people don't die to become ghosts. We die and that's the end of story.

Picture this. Ghosts are entirely different beings that we do not yet understand. Some species look like us but we're really unrelated. That might explain why reports can vary so ridiculously. They might even be superior than us and that could be why we can never proof that they exists. They're so advanced that they can disappear without a trace.

Sorry I let my imagination run so wild.

[Guy]

Well, as I've stated before, every method of "contacting" with the ghosts on the other side have been labled as pseudoscience, meaning having no scientific bases whatsoever, so I am extremely skeptical of the presence of ghosts. I rarely practice Feng Shui, and if I do, it's just for a cultural reason. I don't actually believe in those stuff at all. Lastly, even if ghosts do exist, I sure don't give a crap if they do. They've never done anything to me. I am not scared of them if they do exist. I have never met one. Therefore, I don't believe in them, and even if they do exist, it's not like it'll dramatically change my life.

[MrFondu]

i vote yes and i have a creepy story to go with it... i staff a summer camp which is in the middle of the woods and they have a grave yard there (bad idea, i know, o well) so our older leaders thought there were ghosts there and no one believed them so they took a group, (including myself) to the grave yard at night w/ microphone and a video camera to pick up anything... so we were sitting in a circle and waiting for something to happen and something grabs my hand and hold it... my arm, uncontrolably, rises to my side, like im holding hands and i feels like string are going up my arm.... creepy yah.. but it gets worse... we stand there for a while and eventully is starts pulling be to a corner to the grave yard and it makes me grab a barbed wire fence but i grabbed right inbetween 2 barbs.... by now im scared... and i sit there for about 3 minutes until my arm drops and i get pushed into a tree and i start to climb it, but i didnt want to climb it, by now im freaking out and i have no idea whats going on and i yell and fall to the ground... the next night the same thing happend to someone else, very freaky...

[chipp zanuff]

I always believe in spirits (not ghost), actually this is a certain thing in my religion, spirits is a creature like us, god created them before human, but there is nothing called ghost, you can see the souls of dead people and talk to them in dreams only but you can't see them in real world.

[prized.angel]

i actually, do believe that ghost exists. My reasons are three.

1. Reports. Reports of people who can actually talk to them, and can actually see them. We can feel them and that's one type of manifestation of Ghosts. There are also reports that other people is being possessed by some spirits who are very vengeful or maybe who just needs prayers and justice.

2. Documents, Based on true story Films. Why would people die to see one, it only means that Ghosts do exists. Why would people do films about this place when there is no ghosts? Actually, these films are like bridges that helps us understand that ghosts are just entities. They exists but cannot actually hurt us, maybe if they really want someone to be hurt. And it is based on the memory they have. Or the unfinished business here on Earth.

3. Lastly, well i already have my own experiences that will really prove for myself, if not to other people, that ghosts do exists. I'm not actually afraid of them. They don't hurt me, i see them yes they see you but sometimes i don't see them but they still see me. We don't really know that a ghost is with us. But i assure you that you know when there's something paranormal is going on when your hair on your body raises. Like shiver. That's all.

[II Xion II]

See...

The myriads of people who have done things, witnessed things, or experienced things in personal stories and documentation is enormous!!!

Although I doubt some stories and believe others are lying, I have heard personal stories from close friends that I do believe and I have had a few of my own "weird" an scary experiences.

Also, I have read too many "help needed" posts from various occultist and paranormal websites that sound a little too serious to be jokes. I find it hard to believe that every single one of these people actually are making up these truly frightening stories and are asking advice just as a gag.

Maybe the cliche saying is true, maybe the "truth is stranger than fiction."

[Hans-sama]

I get it. It's our choice if we want to believe it. Whether it exists or not is another thing. It's like telling your kid that people in Africa are starving and they still won't get it. Until they see it for themselves before they'll agree that it really affects them and their life. Right now we're like those stubborn children. It's true that there's a chance all these might just be fake. But nobody knows for sure.

[Guy]

See...

The myriads of people who have done things, witnessed things, or experienced things in personal stories and documentation is enormous!!!

Although I doubt some stories and believe others are lying, I have heard personal stories from close friends that I do believe and I have had a few of my own "weird" an scary experiences.

Also, I have read too many "help needed" posts from various occultist and paranormal websites that sound a little too serious to be jokes. I find it hard to believe that every single one of these people actually are making up these truly frightening stories and are asking advice just as a gag.

Maybe the cliche saying is true, maybe the "truth is stranger than fiction."

Wow, nobody here has the guts to refute my arguements. So what if there were a lot of people who "claim" to have seen ghosts? There are a lot of frauds in this world too... then tell me, people who believe in these "alleged" documentations, how come every method of contacting with the ghosts that I have heard of has been labled as pseudoscience? They have no scientific values whatsoever. And I've never known anyone that has been possessed by a spirit. Not me, not my friends, not my family, not even my ancestors. If all that matters is inductive reasoning, then I can say I'm proof that ghosts don't exist, because I have NEVER had any contact with them, nor do anyone that I know of.

[T_Ichigo]

I myself don't believe in ghost, but I've heard laot of creepy stories which I laughed at, or some of them, and I've got tons of evidences that ghosts don't exist too, but ..aah I'll skip it.

[Guy]

I myself don't believe in ghost, but I've heard laot of creepy stories which I laughed at, or some of them, and I've got tons of evidences that ghosts don't exist too, but ..aah I'll skip it.

Wow, finally, somebody who agrees with me. Why are there so many atheists, and yet, so many people who believe in ghosts? That part always baffle me.

But really, the only proof I really need is divinations and all that stuff has been labled as pseudoscience... so unless you don't believe in science, then there is certainly more proof that ghosts don't exist.

[T_Ichigo]

AS many have said here, I've also witnessed wierd events, but I eventually managed to somehow figure it out, or at least convince myself.
I mean science explains everything, it's logical and highly rational to use science as explanation, isn't it ?

[Guy]

Yes, I absolutely agree, T_Ichigo, and if you claim you believe in science, then as of now, you cannot possibly believe in ghosts. Because of all the theories of ghosts that I know of, they have all been labled as pseudoscience. If there's anyone here who disagrees and can counter, please do so, but since I've posted here several times and no one seems to refute my evidence... I'm assuming there's no one here to do so.

[T_Ichigo]

Hehe well I fully understand your situation, and I don't like it myself, just have to bear with :/.

[VinSRedMoon]

I believe in 'Ghost'...My cousin has the third eye as one day we went to a toilet in a newly build shopping mall(remote area)..only two of us in toilet...we start peeing...suddenly a female laughter is heard(female toilet is not on same lvl)...my cousin saw a white shadow of a lady behind us...but i can't see...we dashed out without zipping our pants...

[II Xion II]

Wow, nobody here has the guts to refute my arguements. So what if there were a lot of people who "claim" to have seen ghosts? There are a lot of frauds in this world too... then tell me, people who believe in these "alleged" documentations, how come every method of contacting with the ghosts that I have heard of has been labled as pseudoscience? They have no scientific values whatsoever. And I've never known anyone that has been possessed by a spirit. Not me, not my friends, not my family, not even my ancestors. If all that matters is inductive reasoning, then I can say I'm proof that ghosts don't exist, because I have NEVER had any contact with them, nor do anyone that I know of.

Alright now, don't get angry at me. I never "ignored" your argument or anyone's argument on anything, especially regarding this matter. Sheesh!

Your last "argument" was essentially just a statement on your beliefs regarding sciences' "official" denial of such events. I did not consider there to be enough substance to warrant a lengthy rebuttal, but if you want one, then I will be more than happy to oblige.

So what if there were a lot of people who "claim" to have seen ghosts? There are a lot of frauds in this world too... then tell me, people who believe in these "alleged" documentations, how come every method of contacting with the ghosts that I have heard of has been labled as pseudoscience?

Ummmmm...first of all, who the hell is talking about mediumship or spiritualism, both of which are purported methods of contacting ghosts. I don't think anyone else here was, then why are you? We are talking about people just seeing ghosts or things akin to ghosts. As for everything being labeled a pseudoscience, so what? Anything science cannot physically capture and scrutinize is labeled as such. If I see a ghost, that does not mean that science has also seen a ghost, and even if a scientists had, how is that experience going to be group-verifiable? Group-verifiability and peer review are necessities in science. All experiments and studies that are not accepted by "the community" or that cannot be demonstrably provable to the community are labeled as pseudoscience. I am extremely familiar with the many facets of the sciences and inductive reasoning, yet I believe in ghosts. Hell, many scientists believe in God, and there IS A LOT less evidence for the existence of a God (in the sense of a creative force) than there is for ghosts, and yet I believe in both (see my incredibly long arguments in the Top Debates thread).

Science does not know everything and I could list dozens upon dozens of topics where scientists have no idea what is going on, but I think I beat that horse dead in dozens of other threads. I have also exhaustively listed the facts that science is a constantly evolving process that is constantly undergoing edification and modification of ideas and views. Classical Newtonian mechanics where everything supported determinism seemed to hold no flaws and students in the physics in the late 19th century believed that there was nothing left to learn from physics and they stopped seeking it as a career. But then came quantum physics and the subset of particle physics which redefine the concept of space and time and effectively opened up a whole new door of mystery and possibility.

If you tried talking to a scientist in the beginning of the 20th century about the possibility of separate dimensions or transitioning through forbidden energy-states, they would call you crazy and label everything a pseudoscience. But, then again, things like quantum tunneling and time travel are very real. Time travel has already occurred albeit in very small amounts.

They have no scientific values whatsoever. And I've never known anyone that has been possessed by a spirit. Not me, not my friends, not my family, not even my ancestors.

And I knew several kids in my high school senior year that claimed their house was haunted and some of my friends that sat next to me in AP Chemistry even said that they had been there and knew it was. Yes, while we were doing titrations and precipitation reactions as a group, a couple of some of the smartest kids I knew and who were bona fide scientists (they both were going to college for chemistry and one's dad was a professional organic chemist) believed in ghosts, in at least that case.

If all that matters is inductive reasoning, then I can say I'm proof that ghosts don't exist, because I have NEVER had any contact with them, nor do anyone that I know of.

What else relies on inductive reasoning? Hmmmmmmmmmm. Let me think...oh, wait, I know......SCIENCE!!! Science is almost inductive in nature, not abductive, nor deductive. Mathematics is primarily deductive and hence I give it a lot more credence. Science might make use of mathematics, but the scientific method by nature constrains itself to the five senses, three dimensions, and to things that can be repeated in a laboratory setting with certain constant conditions, oh, and is peer-verifiable and reviewable, thus it is inductive in nature. Not to say that "ghostly" experiences are not inductive, they are, but science is as well.

If you do not know anybody who has had such experiences, that is fine for you, but I remain adamant in my position because of similar "evidence." There is just too much science does not know and so many processes it uses that can be faulty that I tend to believe only what I witness or can truly make sense of. The dating of the Earth, the composition of the Earth's inner portion, the composition of distant stars, what lies below the Antarctic ice sheet, life for ancient civilizations, all of it is among the many things that are guesses at best by science. I am familiar with all of the methods used to determine such things and I know there are inherent flaws. Still, since that is the best we have to go on, everybody buys into it and the preaching that is associated with those theories being infallible and indefatigable. But that is a discussion for another time, I have to leave for class.

And a word of warning, this is my standard argument length. My long arguments make this look small. :)

[Guy]

Alright now, don't get angry at me. I never "ignored" your argument or anyone's argument on anything, especially regarding this matter. Sheesh!

Well, maybe it would've helped if you've answered earlier, then maybe your arguements won't have to be this long...

Your last "argument" was essentially just a statement on your beliefs regarding sciences' "official" denial of such events. I did not consider there to be enough substance to warrant a lengthy rebuttal, but if you want one, then I will be more than happy to oblige.



Ummmmm...first of all, who the hell is talking about mediumship or spiritualism, both of which are purported methods of contacting ghosts. I don't think anyone else here was, then why are you? We are talking about people just seeing ghosts or things akin to ghosts. As for everything being labeled a pseudoscience, so what? Anything science cannot physically capture and scrutinize is labeled as such. If I see a ghost, that does not mean that science has also seen a ghost, and even if a scientists had, how is that experience going to be group-verifiable? Group-verifiability and peer review are necessities in science. All experiments and studies that are not accepted by "the community" or that cannot be demonstrably provable to the community are labeled as pseudoscience. I am extremely familiar with the many facets of the sciences and inductive reasoning, yet I believe in ghosts. Hell, many scientists believe in God, and there IS A LOT less evidence for the existence of a God (in the sense of a creative force) than there is for ghosts, and yet I believe in both (see my incredibly long arguments in the Top Debates thread).

Oh really? So if not for divination, mediumship, etc., then what other ways do you suggest of "proving" ghost's existence? As for religion, at least religion wasn't labled as pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is something that is based on no scientific value whatsoever. And lastly, while it's true that ghosts can still exist even though everyway to contact them is "pseudoscience", it just makes their existence highly unlikely.

Science does not know everything and I could list dozens upon dozens of topics where scientists have no idea what is going on, but I think I beat that horse dead in dozens of other threads. I have also exhaustively listed the facts that science is a constantly evolving process that is constantly undergoing edification and modification of ideas and views. Classical Newtonian mechanics where everything supported determinism seemed to hold no flaws and students in the physics in the late 19th century believed that there was nothing left to learn from physics and they stopped seeking it as a career. But then came quantum physics and the subset of particle physics which redefine the concept of space and time and effectively opened up a whole new door of mystery and possibility.

OK, so science has failed in the past. Alchemy and all that nonsense was later named as pseudoscience as well. So what? Not a single suggestion of the presence of "ghosts" have credible sources. There's simply no proof for their existence, although I find that there is more proof against their existence.

If you tried talking to a scientist in the beginning of the 20th century about the possibility of separate dimensions or transitioning through forbidden energy-states, they would call you crazy and label everything a pseudoscience. But, then again, things like quantum tunneling and time travel are very real. Time travel has already occurred albeit in very small amounts.

Great, just like one day, science will prove ghosts exist, eh? Hell, maybe science one day will prove god exists! Wow, the fun of predicting random thoughts that may most likely NOT happen in the future...

And I knew several kids in my high school senior year that claimed their house was haunted and some of my friends that sat next to me in AP Chemistry even said that they had been there and knew it was. Yes, while we were doing titrations and precipitation reactions as a group, a couple of some of the smartest kids I knew and who were bona fide scientists (they both were going to college for chemistry and one's dad was a professional organic chemist) believed in ghosts, in at least that case.

Now I will hear his scientific evidence and hypothesis. And btw, all the "smart" kids at my school don't believe in ghosts, at least not the ones I know. And trust me, I know quiet a lot of them. Personal experience does not matter as much as actual facts and statistics.



What else relies on inductive reasoning? Hmmmmmmmmmm. Let me think...oh, wait, I know......SCIENCE!!! Science is almost inductive in nature, not abductive, nor deductive. Mathematics is primarily deductive and hence I give it a lot more credence. Science might make use of mathematics, but the scientific method by nature constrains itself to the five senses, three dimensions, and to things that can be repeated in a laboratory setting with certain constant conditions, oh, and is peer-verifiable and reviewable, thus it is inductive in nature. Not to say that "ghostly" experiences are not inductive, they are, but science is as well.

Big difference is that science is actually credible, meaning that they can be PROOVED. Anything that cannot be prooved cannot be considered true science, and if it cannot be prooved, then I am highly suspicious of its credibility. Fine, to make you happy, I won't say I don't believe in ghosts. I'll just say... I'm 99% sure they don't exist.

If you do not know anybody who has had such experiences, that is fine for you, but I remain adamant in my position because of similar "evidence." There is just too much science does not know and so many processes it uses that can be faulty that I tend to believe only what I witness or can truly make sense of. The dating of the Earth, the composition of the Earth's inner portion, the composition of distant stars, what lies below the Antarctic ice sheet, life for ancient civilizations, all of it is among the many things that are guesses at best by science. I am familiar with all of the methods used to determine such things and I know there are inherent flaws. Still, since that is the best we have to go on, everybody buys into it and the preaching that is associated with those theories being infallible and indefatigable. But that is a discussion for another time, I have to leave for class.

OK, if that's what you want, we can drop all personal experiences and relationships, since apparently, we can argue that for days.

And a word of warning, this is my standard argument length. My long arguments make this look small. :)

Meh, better than a short debate. At least debates like these actually make me think.