[Guest]

I think they do exist religiously (not as you think they do)

Edited November 2, 2008 by guest_7314

[Guest]

I dont believe in them either. I have heard some strange things but I think there is probably some kind of explanation. I have never seen anything with my own eyes. If ever I do, I take it all back, but until then...

I also wouldnt like to be a ghost, I think it would be horrible to kind of half-exist, and not be able to be seen by your family and friends.

[andromeda]

Seeing is NOT believing!

[Guest]

Seeing is NOT believing!

I probably didnt explain myself too well. When I said I have never seen anything i meant I have never had any actual proof. For me, the only way I would be convinced would be if I saw a ghost with my own eyes, or I suppose if someone I really trusted saw one.

[Guest]

well duh... but what if i just die while doing one of those fun things? Now if the world suddenly went black and stayed that way...... i'd go crazy

In order to go crazy you'd need a functioning brain (or at least a malfunctioning one). In order for things to go black you need to be able to perceive colours. Dead people don't have these issues. Itachi-San put it very well, lol

[andromeda]

I probably didnt explain myself too well. When I said I have never seen anything i meant I have never had any actual proof. For me, the only way I would be convinced would be if I saw a ghost with my own eyes, or I suppose if someone I really trusted saw one.

Oh... that wasn't addressed to you... since I didn't reply to your message, but now that you did mention it...

I meant a lot of things that are proven to exist and substantiated by scientific evidence we can't really see and a lot of those evidence are circumstantial or they're just extrapolations. At the same time a lot of the things that we do see, actually our perception of those things do not correspond to reality. That's what I meant by - Seeing is not believing.

If you think that ghosts don't exist, seeing one shouldn't change your mind!

[unreality]

So...for all those saying there's no proof ghosts exist,

there's no proof that ghosts DON"T exist

(and no way to prove that they don't exist)

So you can only prove that ghosts exist,

and cannot prove that they don't.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion

is to believe in ghosts.

So...for all those saying there's no proof quamagas exist,

there's no proof that quamagas DON'T exist

(and no way to prove that they don't exist)

So you can only prove that quamagas exist,

and cannot prove that they don't.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion

is to believe in quamagas.

You were okay up until the last two sentences. But just because you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean that it exists, or even that you can prove it does exist, which you really can't in any definitive way. It's like saying "quamagas exist, PROVE ME WRONG! You can't prove me wrong - but i CAN prove that they exist, if I had a quamaga eye or somethign similar to show you. So they exist!"

Just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean it's correct. And just because you THEORETICALLY COULD prove something IF it existed doesn't mean it exists I'm not trying to be mean, but if that's your definition of a "logical conclusion", you need to go back to logic class

[Izzy]

So...for all those saying there's no proof ghosts exist,

there's no proof that ghosts DON"T exist

(and no way to prove that they don't exist)

So you can only prove that ghosts exist,

and cannot prove that they don't.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion

is to believe in ghosts.

Dude, it's the other way around. The only logical conclusion is to assume ghosts aren't there, especially if there's no real proof to suggest that they are there in the first place. It's kind of hard to prove something isn't there, especially if that thing is something we're not supposed to be able to hear/see/taste/smell/feel. For example, I have a banana in my hand. Prove that it is there. You might answer by saying, "I see it with my eyes. I can touch it. Smell/taste/hear/yeah..". But if I take the banana away, and ask you the same question, you'll answer with "But there isn't a banana in your hand!" It's the same thing with ghosts. They are not there, we cannot prove that they are there*, therefor they do not exists.

*This doesn't necessarily prove something doesn't exist. However, as science advances, it undoubtedly will some day.

[Izzy]

How could they not? What about your soul...?

What soul? You mean the one, like ghosts, no-one's ever proven we have?

Wonderfull... so 11 people are telling me that once you die... you die. Thats going to be fun -.-

The only advice I can give you is to live life imagining it's the only chance you get. Be moral, make friends, have a blast. Don't waste your life doing things you'd rather not do because it'll please others or lead you to a good afterlife. The way I see it, I'd rather have an amazing life, break some rules, and die being so happy I know my life was fulfilling, than have a crappy life, think there is heaven, but in fact, just be dead. Live in the present.

[andromeda]

Famous poltergeist infestations

[Izzy]

Hmm.. Just had a random, slightly off-topic thought. How do we know there isn't another sort of invisible force out there? Like magnetism or gravity? It doesn't mean something supernatural is causing these sorts of things, it could be something purely logical that scientists haven't discovered yet?

[andromeda]

Hmm.. Just had a random, slightly off-topic thought. How do we know there isn't another sort of invisible force out there? Like magnetism or gravity? It doesn't mean something supernatural is causing these sorts of things, it could be something purely logical that scientists haven't discovered yet?

Exactly - Nothing happens in contradiction with nature, only in contradiction what we know of it!

But this one smells like ETHER!

Edited November 4, 2008 by andromeda

[Guest]

Wow, you got one to stand still for half an hour! That's wonderful, since it gives you plenty of time to bring in other witnesses, take photos from all angles, experiment on it (you've got to walk through it, it would be a shame not to). And if it's responsive you could ask it all sorts of questions about what it was, was it a dead human, if so who, get its life story, why is it a ghost, why is it visible at the moment, that sort of thing. Just because someone's dead doesn't mean you have to be unsociable with them. Don't tell me you just stared at it...

Oh, just noticed you put "half asleep" in there. Ahh... so much wierd stuff happens when you're half asleep.

My bad, I simply put in "half-asleep" because it was about 2 in the morning. Also, would a imprint of a human being on earth stand still for 1/2 of an hour to be witnessed, have pictures taken, and walked through? I thought it would be easier to simply observe, as I had no recording materials on hand at the time.

Now that I think about it, my brother was in the bed it was next to. We have had a joke about him passing a great amount of gas, creating the "smokey" figure I saw. Could ghosts just be flatulence with intelligence?

Edit:rambling.....

[akaslickster]

Within a topic such as this, you will find the majority of people don't believe in ghosts except for the holy ones.

There is no reason to argue over it. It is one side or another. Left or right. Up or down. This is what is to be expected. One thing is that not alot of den-folk have voted yet.

[Izzy]

Exactly - Nothing happens in contradiction with nature, only in contradiction what we know of it!

But this one smells like ETHER!

Nah, I don't mean ether, something completely different. Just like, an invisible force that moves things.

[andromeda]

Nah, I don't mean ether, something completely different. Just like, an invisible force that moves things.

I should have emphasized the word SMELL, meaning that there might not be such thing.

Scientists go trough some very elaborate and complex explanations to prove that ghosts don't exist. They never assume a priori that ghosts exist and start from there. Like they did with ether. All the evidence they gathered back then proved that it doesn't exist.

So why do scientists start with the proposition that something doesn't exist?? It doesn't make sense...

Edited November 4, 2008 by andromeda

[Guest]

So...for all those saying there's no proof quamagas exist,

there's no proof that quamagas DON'T exist

(and no way to prove that they don't exist)

So you can only prove that quamagas exist,

and cannot prove that they don't.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion

is to believe in quamagas.

You were okay up until the last two sentences. But just because you can't prove something doesn't exist doesn't mean that it exists, or even that you can prove it does exist, which you really can't in any definitive way. It's like saying "quamagas exist, PROVE ME WRONG! You can't prove me wrong - but i CAN prove that they exist, if I had a quamaga eye or somethign similar to show you. So they exist!"

Just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean it's correct. And just because you THEORETICALLY COULD prove something IF it existed doesn't mean it exists I'm not trying to be mean, but if that's your definition of a "logical conclusion", you need to go back to logic class

Well, by your logic, if you've never been to china, and you can't prove it doesn't exist...Why believe in China? Say there's proof...like a rock from China...How do you know that that rock is from China? It could be from anywhere. Say you have someone from China. How do you KNOW they're from China? They could be LYING! They could be KOREAN!

So...for all those saying there's no proof China exists,

there's no proof that China DOESN'T exist

(and no way to prove that it doesn't exist)

So you can only prove that China exists,

and cannot prove that it doesn't.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion

is to believe in China.

You cannot prove that China doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it exists. All those people who claim to have "been to China" were probably just hallunctionating. And just because you THEORETICALLY COULD prove China exists IF it exists doesn't mean it exists

So I am no longer believing in China.

(By the way, are you implying that quamagas don't exist?) <_<

Edited November 4, 2008 by A. Person

[Guest]

So...for all those saying there's no proof ghosts exist,

there's no proof that ghosts DON"T exist

(and no way to prove that they don't exist)

So you can only prove that ghosts exist,

and cannot prove that they don't.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion

is to believe in ghosts.

Just mentioning that all I meant in this was that it is just as illogical (if not MORE SO) not to believe in ghosts as it it to believe in ghosts.

[akaslickster]

China must be real. I eat the food from there all the time. My favorite is the beef lo mein. :-)

Oh and lots of pot stickers with sugar plum sauce and egg rolls.

Edited November 4, 2008 by akaslickster

[Izzy]

So why do scientists start with the proposition that something doesn't exist?? It doesn't make sense...

Innocent until proven guilty? Unreal until proven there? Something along the lines of that.

Okay, let's say, for the sake of my example, ghosts don't exist. You've never heard of them, neither have scientists. Scientists, on their own, have never discovered anything that would lead them to believe that anything supernatural exists. Therefore we continue never hearing the word "ghost". One day, some random person decides to make-up some story, about ghosts. After being passed around, scientists get word of it. They think it's absurd, because if anything is there, surely they would have found it first. Basically, people begin with the idea that nothing is there because nothing but a story says it's there in the first place. I would compare this to proving the existence of Santa Claus. Pretend for a moment you are a child. A young one, who does not yet know Santa isn't real. You can never make contact with him in any way, yet because your parents and others deceive you, you conclude that Santa is real. Is he? I'll leave you to answer that on your own, in case any little ones are reading. If Santa was created the same way ghosts were, as a story, shouldn't a sensible person come to the same conclusion in both cases?

[Izzy]

A. Person, I'm sorry, but you'd have to be pretty daft to even begin to state that we don't have any proof China exists. There's loads and loads and loads (and loads and loads) of evidence to suggest that it is there. World maps, Chinese food, satellite images, etc. etc. etc. There's no proof to prove that China doesn't exist because it does. Not to be rude or anything, but what were you thinking? To not believe in something you've never experienced with any of your senses and to say a country that is quite blatantly existent does not exist are two *way* different thing... <_<

[unreality]

Actually, andromeda, people just didn't "believe" in ether and then try to prove it and end up disproving it (with the famous silvered mirror experiment). Ether was a valid scientific thought, it was known as "luminiferous ether" and had scientific proposition with it: basically that all waves need a medium to propagate through. Ie, water waves need water. Sound waves need air or some other material to propogate through. Thus the belief was that light needed some medium to propagate through - light had been observed within a vacuum, so they knew it was something other and more undetectable than air. They called this the "luminiferous ether", as the medium for light to travel through. Thus as the earth rotated, the "ether wind" would shift directions, so a variety of experiments were done..... which disproved the idea of aether.

So scientists start assuming something DOESN'T exist. If an idea emerges scientifically or even semi-scientifically (like ether), they test it, and some cases it's true, some cases it's not. And all tests of 'ghosts' have been inconclusive and in much favor against them, just like ether

A Person: So you believe in quagamas? By your own logic, it would be more irrational to NOT believe in quagamas than to believe in them. And yet, I'm sure you don't believe in quagamas. See how your assertion is flawed? You need something else that justifies your belief in ghosts other than ridiculously faulty logic, or would you believe everything that everyone tells you

Edited November 4, 2008 by unreality

[andromeda]

Innocent until proven guilty? Unreal until proven there? Something along the lines of that.

Okay, let's say, for the sake of my example, ghosts don't exist. You've never heard of them, neither have scientists. Scientists, on their own, have never discovered anything that would lead them to believe that anything supernatural exists. Therefore we continue never hearing the word "ghost". One day, some random person decides to make-up some story, about ghosts. After being passed around, scientists get word of it. They think it's absurd, because if anything is there, surely they would have found it first. Basically, people begin with the idea that nothing is there because nothing but a story says it's there in the first place. I would compare this to proving the existence of Santa Claus. Pretend for a moment you are a child. A young one, who does not yet know Santa isn't real. You can never make contact with him in any way, yet because your parents and others deceive you, you conclude that Santa is real. Is he? I'll leave you to answer that on your own, in case any little ones are reading. If Santa was created the same way ghosts were, as a story, shouldn't a sensible person come to the same conclusion in both cases?

Never mind... it's futile... <_<

Edited November 4, 2008 by andromeda

[andromeda]

Actually, andromeda, people just didn't "believe" in ether and then try to prove it and end up disproving it (with the famous silvered mirror experiment). Ether was a valid scientific thought, it was known as "luminiferous ether" and had scientific proposition with it: basically that all waves need a medium to propagate through. Ie, water waves need water. Sound waves need air or some other material to propogate through. Thus the belief was that light needed some medium to propagate through - light had been observed within a vacuum, so they knew it was something other and more undetectable than air. They called this the "luminiferous ether", as the medium for light to travel through. Thus as the earth rotated, the "ether wind" would shift directions, so a variety of experiments were done..... which disproved the idea of aether.

I know that!!!!

I've learned physics in high school for 4 years! Izzy suggested something... never mind... it's futile <_<

[unreality]

I know what you were trying to say, that our ideas about nature are only as true as we know them. But that's not as true as it seems - we always test and re-examine what we know (at least scientists do, it's the best way to evaluate old knowledge and ascertain new knowledge). So the idea of aether wasn't held "true" for very long before tests eradicated the concept. It had been brewing in minds for a while, but when it was proposed as a scientific principle, it didn't take too long before a clever test was devised and it was proved false. So we don't "hold on" to our notions about nature. Think about how Einstein completely smashed the old ideas of gravity, just after some thought and some experiments. Well a LOT of thought and a LOT of experiments have gone into ghosts, and returned negative results. Even if you don't accept that ghosts existing defies all constancy, you still have the overwhelming scientific invalidation against the concept

edit: Just to be clear, it IS possible. I have an open mind, and the "einstein of ghosts" could come along and prove that ghosts exist. Until such a radical (and improbable ) event, you should live your life assuming that ghosts do not exist (which you probably do anyway, let's face it, I don't think it pops into your mind much ;D)

Edited November 4, 2008 by unreality

[Guest]

Well, by your logic, if you've never been to china, and you can't prove it doesn't exist...Why believe in China? Say there's proof...like a rock from China...How do you know that that rock is from China? It could be from anywhere. Say you have someone from China. How do you KNOW they're from China? They could be LYING! They could be KOREAN!

So...for all those saying there's no proof China exists,

there's no proof that China DOESN'T exist

(and no way to prove that it doesn't exist)

So you can only prove that China exists,

and cannot prove that it doesn't.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion

is to believe in China.

You cannot prove that China doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it exists. All those people who claim to have "been to China" were probably just hallunctionating. And just because you THEORETICALLY COULD prove China exists IF it exists doesn't mean it exists

So I am no longer believing in China.

Yikes. There are so many things wrong here.

Firstly, proof and evidence are two different things. For example, let's say a bank gets robbed and Bob is the main suspect. At the bank they find Bob's fingerprints, Bob's DNA, and one of Bob's shoes. They have a video recording of a man that looks exactly like Bob and wears clothes that look exactly like Bob's robbing the bank, and there are 40 people who know Bob and know that Bob like to rob banks and that he planned to rob that bank that day. And Bob even confesses to robbing the bank. This is all evidence that Bob robbed the bank, however it is not "proof" that he robbed the bank. Technically you can't really "prove" that he robbed the bank, because there is always some bizzare way to explain how Bob didn't do it. But, when you add all the evidences together, it would be EXTREMELY unlikey that he didn't do it. So it is reasonable to say "Bob robbed the bank."

So... How do I know China exists? Because- there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the fact that it does (pictures, people who have been there, etc.). Sure, maybe the United States is the only place in the universe that exists (because I've never been outside the US) and all other places are made up by the government and are just a big, elaborate hoax and all the people who claim to have been "outside of the United States" are evil people working for the government, and everyone in the US is brainwashed to think that other places exist.. But why would I believe that when I have no evidence or reason to believe it? Just because it might be true or it could be true?

Now, back to the bank robbing- let's say you find some random old lady who lives 9000643 miles away from the bank named Jill. Just because you can find a way to explain how it was actually Jill who robbed the bank, doesn't mean that she did or that you should believe she did. Do you have proof that she didn't do it? No. But why would you say that Jill robbed the bank (no evidence .00000001% chance that it's true) instead of saying that Bob robbed the bank(tons of evidence 99.999999999% chance that it's true)?

I hope that made some sense. It could use some editting, but I'm too tired right now.