Has anyone seen or heard a ghost?

polyglide wrote:Anyone who feels that mankind is the most advanced form of life in the universe is 110 pence short of a pound.

The size and all that is involved, that we know about, suggests otherwise and the fact is we do not know the half of it. makes the matter more complex.

Of course there are spirits both good and bad, we were warned to keep away from them.

I see a post replete with assertions and wild fantastic claims, I see no evidence to speak of. Without credible evidence such claims are at best supposition, and at worst wild fantasy.

Dan Fante wrote:Who's saying man is the most advanced form of life in universe, Polly?

No one, it's a straw man argument.

polyglide wrote:Dan, man thinks he is.

I also have the chemist coming round to borrow some of my pills,
Stu, but the reason I do not indulge is because I do not like the taste.

I'm a man and I entertain no such thoughts or assertions. Specifically which men are you tallking about, and can we have some evidence this time please?  

Dan Fante wrote:

polyglide wrote:Dan, man thinks he is.

Well I don't and you don't and many great thinkers have postulated about life existing elsewhere and, in all probability - some of it being very ancient and (possibly) very advanced indeed. I don't deny the arrogance of our species though.

Well some men, and women to, think they know what a being with limitless knowledge thinks and wants. Some think only they and those who agree with them know this. Now that is arrogance.

Heretic,

You do not need me in this debate, you are arguing against yourself:

  Moi.... Are you not describing a delusion or illusion or hallucination?

Vous.......Really? I thought I was trying to structure an explanation or mechanism for explaining what some people claim to of observed at a traumatic time, ie after the death of somebody close to them.  

Vous...I would agree with you in most circumstances and I would like you to try and describe the mechanism that enables the brain to play such tricks, in particular I would like to see how it differed from mine as I am keen to learn about such topics in plain English rather than in the jargon found in most books on the subject.

I think one of you is winning the debate, it is the one that agrees with me, ghosts are illusions, delusions or hallucinations.

Since this part of your post has no real link with the rest of what you said I look forward to your explanation and justification of it.

You are unable to see the real link between physical determinism and metaphysics in a discussion about ghosts versus illusions, sorry I can't help you further, ask the other chap in your mind, he seems to be more on my wavelength, or maybe that too is an illusion.

It is also postulated that the dark matter in the universe may hold the key to a further dimension which may explain the spirit world. Quantum physics certainly opens the door to this strange idea, if we explore what Einstein expounded.

Einstein rejected Quantum Physics, dark matter and other dimensions do not alter the fact our consciousness is physical and finite, space age voodoo is no less an example of death denial than putting a bone through your nose to dance for rain.

Next will be the utter guff about the universe itself being one big consciousness, maybe its ancestors were social primates too, when will people accept the plain reality we are monkeys with big brains, end of story.

Tosh wrote:You are unable to see the real link between physical determinism and metaphysics in a discussion about ghosts versus illusions, sorry I can't help you further, ask the other chap in your mind, he seems to be more on my wavelength, or maybe that too is an illusion.

I'm not sure I understand you at all and I would ask you if you are able to to explain your argument in plain simple English. You obviously feel that I was unable to explain myself in a way that you could understand what I was saying or that I contradicted myself in some way.

Heretic

Heretic,

Firstly I am not arguing with anyone, and neither are you, I believe ghosts are optical illusions produced by our mind and you agree, an optical illusion is a physical explanation of a metaphysical phenomena called " ghosts".

I outlined my position clearly, I believe every effect that exists from the big bang onwards has a physical cause, there are no ghosts in the machine, just cause and effect determinism.

If you do not understand things avoid condescension, it attracts trolls.

I'm afraid I have to side with ghosts do not exist either. I don't believe anything paranormal or metaphysical exists. The universe is a physical place and there just isn't any evidence to suggest that ghosts or spirits exist in any real way.

People like polyglide and Mr Cusick have the bejesus scared out of them because they believe that demons and other minions of Satan are fighting a war somewhere behind the veil with God and his minions. How cartoonish can you get? And these are grown men? And Cusick sounds like he's had some education (polyglide sounds like he plays a banjo so I can understand his ignorance).

Stop believing in stupid stuff. Ghosts are no more real than god is.

Tosh wrote:If you do not understand things avoid condescension, it attracts trolls.

If I do not understand something then I either say so plainly or I say nothing. As for condescension that is a matter for others to judge but it is not a word I recognise of myself.

Heretic

Since this part of your post has no real link with the rest of what you said I look forward to your explanation and justification of it.

Do you recognise this?

Well Heretic if you look it up in the dictionary, it actually means what it sounds like.( Condescending) but with a few more meanings attatched.

The first rule of Condescension Club is far too complicated for you to understand so I won't bother explaining it...............

Tosh

I think that the consensus is that I owe you an apology.

I apologise.

Heretic

Although I personally do not believe in ghosts as such, I do believe that people when they are at a low ebb mentally need a person that has recently passed away. Therefore they can see that person in their imagination with them, or when people get depressed and they need comfort they can almost feel a lost one with them. There is a medical/psychiatric term for this which i'm afraid escapes me, but it was known simply as the "broken heart effect".

Well done Heretic, shake of hands accepted.

snowyflake wrote:The first rule of Condescension Club is far too complicated for you to understand so I won't bother explaining it...............

Very good. Have you ever heard the phrase delusions of grandeur? Well I think you'll find I invented it...  

Heretic, I am stunned, I do believe you are the first poster ever to apologise to me in 5 years, and I accept it unconditionally.

My polemic style can come across as arrogant and egotistical, I am neither. 

Tosh wrote:Heretic, I am stunned, I do believe you are the first poster ever to apologise to me in 5 years, and I accept it unconditionally.

My polemic style can come across as arrogant and egotistical, I am neither. 

That's beautiful, I'm filling up here  I still am highly dubious about the existence of ghosts, indeed anything metaphysical at all. I am not closed minded though, when someone provides enough credible evidence for science to peer review I'll accept the conclusions.

Tosh wrote:Heretic, I am stunned, I do believe you are the first poster ever to apologise to me in 5 years, and I accept it unconditionally.

My polemic style can come across as arrogant and egotistical, I am neither. 

Thankyou.

And now "Once more into the breach dear friends, once more...."

Heretic

That's beautiful, I'm filling up here Crying or Very sad

Careful Doc, compartmentalisation can lead to cynicism, even sociopathy. 

I still am highly dubious about the existence of ghosts, indeed anything metaphysical at all. I am not closed minded though, when someone provides enough credible evidence for science to peer review I'll accept the conclusions.

I concur, there are an infinite number of natural mysteries still to be answered, no need to invent supernatural mysteries.

For example, I want to know why basic philosophy( the nature of our existence) became a human concern in India, China, Greece. Iran and Judea all around the same time ( approx 2500 years ago). Urbanisation and laws had existed for 1500 years in these regions, so why did they all start to wonder about the nature of our existence almost simultaneously?

Very odd...........cue * Twilight Zone *..........enter David Icke.

Tosh wrote:We can prove ghosts are illusions, delusions and hallucinations, we can create them artificially through brain stimulation, hardly a bare assertion just a rational deduction based on evidence and probability.

And there you go ... that's precisely the logic I was talking about, the kind that debunkers use all the time. It's the "because we can reproduce it, then it was a hoax" argument. Though, in your case, you're not claiming a hoax but a delusion, etc.

But you haven't proven anything except that it's possible to make a person see a "ghost" through brain stimulation. That doesn't mean ghosts can't be a real phenomena. Scientists can get people to smell flowers that aren't there, too, but that doesn't disprove the existence of flowers.

What you would have to do is actually monitor a person's brain while they're having a "genuine" ghost encounter ... good luck ever doing that, of course. But that's what you'd have to do. And you'd have to run this test on multiple people multiple times to make sure it's truly a reproduceable result.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Have you got a specific example in mind, i.e. a photograph that you think is genuine despite in being 'debunked'?

No, nothing in particular. Generally, if the debunker comes up with a decent explanation, I'll believe the debunker. Most paranormal stuff IS fake, hoaxed, misidentified, etc.

However, debunkers must be held to the same precise logic that paranormal believers are held. Making hasty generalizations about an event simply because they reproduced it does not debunk that event. Yet many photos, videos, etc. have been labeled as "fake" for this very reason. The photos/videos were not subject to any testing or scrutiny by independent and unbiased agencies. Debunkers are purposefully out to debunk, NOT to actually find the truth. There's a show that airs here in the US called "Fact or Faked?" Generally, they do a decent job of debunking, but they will also acknowledge when something is just completely unexplainable. However, as good as they are, the whole show is about reproducing the encounter, and if they can do it successfully, they announce on the show, "Officially debunked!"

Except it isn't. Simply reproducing a UFO, for instance, does not mean what was actually seen wasn't a UFO.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I'm not really sure what you're getting at re: photoshop as most of the famous ones predate digital photography and were in the public domain, so to speak, before it was widespread.

The older ones are somewhat easier to debunk given that photographers back then didn't have the computer wizardry available to us. They mostly relied on double exposures or very obviously fake "special effects." The most notorious of these are old pictures of seances with supposed "ectoplasm" coming out of people's noses and mouths. Even a quick glance can tell anyone they're fake. At the time, though, when photography was a big mystery to most people -- if it was in the photo, it was real.

I haven't really delved into finding which of the famous old photos have been faked, but usually an thorough examination of the photo will determine that. All I'm saying is that debunking through decree isn't enough

My point about PhotoShop is that any and all videos and photos are now suspect to having been edited or tampered with via digital software. Bottom line is that we simply cannot trust ANY photo or video evidence now. One must assume they are fake, and that makes it easy on the debunkers.

I was debating somewhere else when someone said something like  "we form  opinions first and look for justification second" and it reminded me of something so at first I split it into two:

1. "we form  opinions first"
2.  "and look for justification second"

1. looks like creating a hypothesis
2. looks like seeking evidence to support it

The scientific method was formulated in a sense to follow the natural way we think about things. I suppose what made it different was that it was strict about recording experiments and their results (both positive and negative). Alchemy preceded modern sciences by a long way but there was an overlap, Issac Newton as well as being a physicist and a mathematician was also an alchemist.

When we try and find something new (to us) we must reach out to the very limits of our understanding and once we do that we need to then reign back slightly to seek the evidence for the point where we now stand. I do not fully understand Friedrich Nietzsche (I'm not sure anyone does) but I get the very real sense that his life was a constant battle between reaching out for truth that mankind had not reached and seeking the evidence to justify it, it drove him mad at the end of his life (together with other health problems).

We need to reach out, that is in our nature, we all reach out in different directions and we each have something to teach everyone else but that does not mean we can communicate what we have learned in a manner that others can understand but we also need to be attuned to listen to what others have to say and seek out what they struggle to say.

As I said the initial thought was triggered elsewhere but my response seemed to fit better here (still not a perfect fit but worth saying just the same.[in my opinion])

Heretic

Heretic wrote:I was debating somewhere else when someone said something like  "we form  opinions first and look for justification second" and it reminded me of something so at first I split it into two:

1. "we form  opinions first"
2.  "and look for justification second"

1. looks like creating a hypothesis
2. looks like seeking evidence to support it

I'm in a rush so this post is a reminder to me to finish the post. This is NOT the scientific mehtod but a recipe for 'Cold Fusion'

Morning Shirina,

I am not sure about your analogy, you are using a physical example for a phenomena devoid of physicality, but I do accept brain stimulation on its own is not proof, it is an alternative explanation for a phenomena whose only evidence comes from our brain, there is no physical evidence. The physical evidence should not be too difficult to find, it must be made of matter or else you could not see it, how this mass transforms itself into energy to walk through walls not only defies logic but the laws of Physics.

I think one has to apply some degree of rationality in most things we cannot disprove, and ghosts like flying dragons comes into this category, especially when there is no definitive description of what a ghost is supposed to be.

Like lots of things Tosh,that can neither be proven or disproved that is where we have to use rationality is it not.

stu,

The saying " anything is possible " does not mean " everything is probable ", too many people cling on to the former like philosophical stardust, I believe it all stems from a fear of nihilism.

Bellatori wrote:

Heretic wrote:I was debating somewhere else when someone said something like  "we form  opinions first and look for justification second" and it reminded me of something so at first I split it into two:

1. "we form  opinions first"
2.  "and look for justification second"

1. looks like creating a hypothesis
2. looks like seeking evidence to support it

I'm in a rush so this post is a reminder to me to finish the post. This is NOT the scientific method but a recipe for 'Cold Fusion'

Hi Heretic...

My point is that the scientific method NEVER goes looking for evidence to support the hypothesis. It states a hypothesis and then outlines what it expects the outcome of that hypothesis to be. It can then design experiments to test those outcomes. I still think Feynman's description of the sci. method is the best.  


Cold fusion failed to do this but did exactly what you describe.   They looked for results to fit their theory.    Other believers did the same and found some apparently positive results.   Then the real science started and the whole thing came crashing down.

Shirina wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Have you got a specific example in mind, i.e. a photograph that you think is genuine despite in being 'debunked'?

No, nothing in particular. Generally, if the debunker comes up with a decent explanation, I'll believe the debunker. Most paranormal stuff IS fake, hoaxed, misidentified, etc.

However, debunkers must be held to the same precise logic that paranormal believers are held. Making hasty generalizations about an event simply because they reproduced it does not debunk that event. Yet many photos, videos, etc. have been labeled as "fake" for this very reason. The photos/videos were not subject to any testing or scrutiny by independent and unbiased agencies. Debunkers are purposefully out to debunk, NOT to actually find the truth. There's a show that airs here in the US called "Fact or Faked?" Generally, they do a decent job of debunking, but they will also acknowledge when something is just completely unexplainable. However, as good as they are, the whole show is about reproducing the encounter, and if they can do it successfully, they announce on the show, "Officially debunked!"

Except it isn't. Simply reproducing a UFO, for instance, does not mean what was actually seen wasn't a UFO.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I'm not really sure what you're getting at re: photoshop as most of the famous ones predate digital photography and were in the public domain, so to speak, before it was widespread.

The older ones are somewhat easier to debunk given that photographers back then didn't have the computer wizardry available to us. They mostly relied on double exposures or very obviously fake "special effects." The most notorious of these are old pictures of seances with supposed "ectoplasm" coming out of people's noses and mouths. Even a quick glance can tell anyone they're fake. At the time, though, when photography was a big mystery to most people -- if it was in the photo, it was real.

I haven't really delved into finding which of the famous old photos have been faked, but usually an thorough examination of the photo will determine that. All I'm saying is that debunking through decree isn't enough

My point about PhotoShop is that any and all videos and photos are now suspect to having been edited or tampered with via digital software. Bottom line is that we simply cannot trust ANY photo or video evidence now. One must assume they are fake, and that makes it easy on the debunkers.

Not sure what happened with my name change there Anyway, I wouldn't disagree much with what you say. Perhaps "shown to be a possible/probable fraud" would be a better way of putting it than "debunked". Here's quite a good example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279329/Wem-ghost-picture-mystery-resolved-eagled-eyed-pensioner.html
Apologies about the source and it doesn't of course show anything about other celebrated cases, it just shows that one is almost certainly faked.

You have obviously not had a go on the old board yet Dan, or you would not be so sure.

polyglide wrote:You have obviously not had a go on the old board yet Dan, or you would not be so sure.

Not sure about what?

Hi Dan, I believe what polyglide is trying to imply, is that if you had been on the ouija board then you will be inundated with evil spirits. not the ones that come in a bottle either.  

Tosh wrote:I concur, there are an infinite number of natural mysteries still to be answered, no need to invent supernatural mysteries.

There was a time when eclipses were thought to be supernatural ... and lightning ... and comets ... etc.

The point is that by instantly labeling something we don't understand (yet) as "supernatural," you're basically doing exactly what our primitive ancestors did. By calling ghosts "supernatural" instead of classifying ghosts as simply a natural mystery we haven't solved yet, you are placing ghosts on a shelf so high that we can never reach it. In other words, you are admitting that the ghost mystery will never be understood. Of course, our ancestors said the same thing about eclipses ....

As I said a few posts ago, I don't necessarily believe that ghosts are supernatural. Nor am I one to believe that ghosts are teary-eyed reunions between living and dead family members (and most ghost sightings are not about family members). I simply believe that, if ghosts are a real phenomenon, they can and will be explained scientifically one day.

I also believe there is enough evidence to begin accepting the possibility that ghosts exist. I'm certainly not asking you to believe it all wholesale. I do think this is one of the biggest weaknesses of the atheist position, a weakness that gives justification for theists to accuse atheists of being just as dogmatic as they are. Atheists can be accused of binary thinking: 0=no and 1=yes. There is no "maybe." There is no "possibly."

In addition, it's one thing to disbelieve in something for lack of evidence; it's quite another to disbelieve in something that does have evidence, but it is still considered false simply because the scientific community hasn't given you the go-ahead to believe in it. The subject of ghosts is one such example. There is some evidence that goes beyond anecdotal personal accounts, unlike God, which has no real evidence to speak of. In fact, ghost phenomenon has more physical evidence then many things scientists would have you believe - such as string theory or Hawking radiation. It's all "theoretical" or even "hypothetical." Yet I doubt you would slam the door on those models since science is pursuing them.

Dan Fante wrote:Not sure what happened with my name change there

Heh, sorry, that's the second time I've done that in two days. Unfortunately, this forum only lets you go back 3 or 4 posts when you have the big white typing box activated. Sometimes if the post I'm replying to is too far back, I just guess who the author was.

Dan Fante wrote:Here's quite a good example:

Yep, I agree. That particular photo is almost certainly a hoax. How unfortunate. Hoaxers out for fame and money make it nearly impossible for any real investigation - and any real data - to be taken seriously. However, I noted this in the article:

Photographic experts have suggested that the 'ghost' image was a trick of the light caused by the fire.

This is the kind of garbage that debunkers often spew. A trick of the light? If you look at that photo, it is obviously a little girl. Period. A "trick of the light" doesn't produce that kind of clarity. Yet debunkers will insult our intelligence by asking us to believe in such stupidity -- we should believe in just about ANYTHING as long as it isn't a ghost ... or a UFO. (Debunkers do this with UFO sightings, as well).

In my opinion, too many debunkers play to the "I want to be convinced it's not real" crowd. I've always likened it to someone home alone in an old house on a stormy night. The person is already spooked just from the atmosphere - and suddenly there's a loud thump! The first thing the person does is try to rationally determine what could have made the thump, and that's good. Almost always there is a rational explanation. But what if there isn't? I've seen people literally make up rational explanations just to keep their beliefs grounded upon the perception of the world they are most comfortable with. Thus this person might breathe a sigh of relief by saying, "Yeah, it was just the cat jumping down to the floor."

And not another thing is said about it. The person doesn't even get up out of his chair to go investigate the thump.

Nor is the fact that this person doesn't own a cat a nuisance or impediment to believing in ANYTHING but a ghost.

Very true actually Shirina, even though I do not own a cat I have a dog and many times the strange noises I go to blame on the dog but look where the dog is and she is laid at my feet. So what did make the noise I usually say to myself, and I look at my fathers cross that he use to wear around his neck (rip) and tell him to stop playing silly beggars.

Shirina,

You are using the same fallacious arguments used by theists to defend your position on ghosts, there is a scientific explanation for the ghost phenomena and you don't accept it and there is no scientific evidence of any ghosts, but you don't accept this either. Sorry where is the maybe for me to have some doubt, please tell me it is not your analogies and your belief in what is considered evidence?

Question: Why do you not accept the opinion of the scientific community?

Answer: Because you saw a ghost.( god)

Question: Why do you not accept it was an illusion?

Answer: Because you want to believe in ghosts?( god)

As for this utter guff:

In addition, it's one thing to disbelieve in something for lack of evidence; it's quite another to disbelieve in something that does have evidence, but it is still considered false simply because the scientific community hasn't given you the go-ahead to believe in it. The subject of ghosts is one such example. There is some evidence that goes beyond anecdotal personal accounts, unlike God, which has no real evidence to speak of.

I disbelieve because there is NO evidence, and your response is to attack science and invent evidence, is that you polyglide?

You are the one who is dogmatic, according to you, seeing is believing.

It is the same with psychics, as soon as you try and test their claims, the bubble bursts and they scream foul on science, its all science's fault because they cannot find any evidence to test their claim.

We have technology that observes,measures and records the bleeding sub atomic but we cannot find a freakin ghost....give me peace, somebody get me a glass of water before my head explodes.

Can you imagine any scientist giving up the chance to win a Nobel prize and eternal fame for discovering ghosts?

The answer is no, so why do they not bother..............hmmmmmmmm...........try lack of evidence, there is no evidence that contradicts the natural explanation.

Tosh wrote:My polemic style can come across as arrogant and egotistical, I am neither. 

Tosh wrote:We have technology that observes,measures and records the bleeding sub atomic but we cannot find a freakin ghost....give me peace, somebody get me a glass of water before my head explodes.

I see what you mean.

Heretic

Tosh wrote:You are using the same fallacious arguments used by theists to defend your position on ghosts

I was really hoping you wouldn't go there ... only because it's a cop-out argument. The only thing fallacious here is your hasty generalization.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Your generalizing that ghosts and God are essentially the same belief is in error. Here are a few examples of the variables you fail to consider. For one thing, the "evidence" for God is always indirect and therefore can never be proven to be the result of God. This is why the old "just look at the trees!" argument doesn't work. Nor does perceived miracles like surviving a bad car accident or cancer going into remission; the hand of God is not evident in these events.

Ghosts, on the other hand, are often directly seen, felt, or heard. Some evidence of ghosts, such as things moving on their own, is also indirect. The difference here, however, is that the ghost is clearly interacting with the physical world in ways that leave very little in the way of "rational" explanations. Now, I suppose if you want to get stupidly picky, one could argue that God knocked the salt shaker from the middle of the table onto the floor ... and thereby compare ghosts with God, but like I said, doing so would be just plain stupid and would also make your argument sound rather desperate.

Another example is that religious experiences are completely personal and individual. Even when it appears that a whole group of people are having the same experience - in a church, let's say - their experiences are still individual. Two people next to each other having religious experiences doesn't mean they're having the same experience. However, there are multitudes of ghost incidents where entire groups of people have experienced the same exact thing - saw the same things, heard the same things, etc. That doesn't happen with religious experiences. Nor do ghost incidents all occur inside a person's head. The entire reason why ghosts are even considered at all is because they were making themselves manifest in the real world - not within someone's brain. Ghost incidents are not just some beauteous "feeling" or "sensation" the way people describe religious experiences, and to think this is so means you haven't really looked into the ghost phenomenon.

And that's one of the BIGGEST frustrations of dealing with a lot of debunkers and adamant skeptics:  Most of them know nothing about the subject aside from what snippets they managed to catch on the mainstream media. A very good example of this is a quote from the great Stephen Hawking who said, "I am discounting reports of UFOs. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?"

Now here's a man, despite his brilliance, who obviously never bothered to learn anything about the UFO phenomenon and simply fell back on a very old stereotype. Unfortunately, because of Hawking's stature, a lot of people will now believe without question that UFOs appear only to "cranks and weirdos." In fact, they have appeared to presidents, admirals, nobles, hundreds of WWII bomber pilots, astronauts and cosmonauts, police officers - both civilian and military, medical doctors, on and on. It just goes to show you that even scientists can spew a lot of ignorance if they don't do their homework, and many of them haven't. Even being caught with a book on ghosts could jeopardize their careers. Academia is more political than the government.

So I find it excrutiatingly difficult to engage in a meaningful debate with people who simply haven't bothered to actually research the subject before slapping down an uninformed opinion on the matter. All too often, the debunkers and skeptics (especially atheists) arbitrarily lump ghosts and UFOs into the same category as God merely out of intellectual laziness. That way, they don't have to formulate new arguments; they can just trot out the old anti-theism arguments.

Tosh wrote:Question: Why do you not accept the opinion of the scientific community?

Answer: Because you saw a ghost.( god)

Question: Why do you not accept it was an illusion?

Answer: Because you want to believe in ghosts?( god)

Uhm ... no.

First, I don't WANT to believe in ghosts. Whether they exist or not has no influence on my life. Once again, that is one of the quintessential differences between ghosts and God. I don't get anything out of believing in ghosts (and I only believe in the possibility of ghosts). I don't get a big fat reward for believing. I don't go to an eternal paradise nor do I get an invisible buddy that I can talk to whenever I need an invisible friend. There is simply no reason to believe in ghosts except as an academic exercise in weighing the evidence. Secondly, what exactly IS the opinion of the scientific community? Remember the example I gave with Stephen Hawking. The scientific community hasn't done anything at all to prove or disprove ghosts. Not one thing. All of their claims on this matter are bare assertions. I don't take the word of the scientific community just because they're scientists. They have to back up what they say in ALL matters, not just science. If they're going to say that ghosts don't exist, then show me the studies, the experimentation, the research grants, etc. that shows they even bothered to seriously look into the phenomena before dismissing it.

Tosh wrote:I disbelieve because there is NO evidence

There just isn't any evidence that you'll accept. There is the photographic and video evidence. There are the anomalous instrumentation readings - from spikes in the electromagnetic field to huge fluctuations in temperature. There is the electronic voice phenomenon which not even the debunkers have been able to explain with any degree of logic. There is the testimony of eyewitnesses, and regardless of whether you think there is a massive worldwide pandemic of hallucinations and delusions, that is still evidence - especially when there is more than one witness.

Tosh wrote:and your response is to attack science and invent evidence, is that you polyglide?

I'm not "attacking" science, Tosh, but scientists aren't always right, as I've demonstrated with Stephen Hawking. I don't follow science any more blindly than I would follow a religion, and I'm well aware that science doesn't always get it right; that's especially true when they make pronouncements without actually doing the same amount of research on ghosts as they would on the Higgs-Boson. As for "inventing evidence," that is a flat-out lie. As I said, it is difficult to engage in a debate like this with someone who hasn't done their homework. At least read the first chapter, so to speak.