What exactly happened?

I believe that when soemeone leaves there physical body, there mental projection can sometimes get stuck between the other universe (AKA the spirit world) and ours, thus creating a ghost. However these aren't to be confused with residual energy which is created by the memory of a person or thing taking form. like if your pet died and you never forgot it and the memory and love was strong that memory would take shape. This becoming a conquesness capable of thought and emotion.

I am obviously into this type of thing, thats why the user name.

I believe in ghosts..

dude dude dude dude............. What is up with your sig?.......It's demented....... in a creepy way.
And yes, yes you ARE scaring me.

First, Zed, I would like to thank you for providing my daily dose of unbridled laughter. Your views are so ridiculously closed-minded and devoid of any iota of emotion or sense that I can't help but laugh at you. I don't know how you make it through life with that kind of outlook, but apparently, you're making it just fine, so by all means, keep going. You provide people like me no end of amusement, which is something the world really needs.


Secondly, I believe in ghosts. Just because I don't know how or why they exist doesn't mean they aren't there and aren't possible. Just look at anyone who has had a disease or cancer spontaneously vanish. No one can explain it, yet it happened. We don't know so much about our universe, both outside and inside ourselves. So why not? I have yet to see anyone give me one good reason why ghosts can't exist.

On the flip side, no one has ever presented a good reason why they can, either. With that in mind, it's entirely a matter of opinion at this point. No one has any evidence for or against it. No one can prove there is no soul, no one can prove there is.

That said. Continue your debate. It amuses me greatly.


tl;dr: Yes.

You have made no point, Jexsam. Your entire argument is that there is no concrete evidence either way. I accept this, but you must admit it is so much simpler and therefore more likely that ghosts do not exist, than that the whole of reality is an illusion.

i walked into this place once, and there was achill down my spine it must have ben a ghost becaus some1 died their once!!!

Zed, your argument is flawed.

It can swing both ways.

I can say that if someone's mind is playing tricks on them then this infinite complex, as it requires their entire perception of reality to be flawed by some sort of structural deformation in the brain caused by faulty genetic. That several people can experience similar, or even the same things requires an even more complicated explanation. Either relating to social psychology or genetics and archetypal human truths.

To assume that since you have never seen a ghost and that there is no scientific reason for them to exist is much more complicated. First we must assume that for something to exist that it must happen to everyone. We must assume, then, that everyone's perception of reality is different since nobody has experienced all of the same things as everyone else. Therefore we must accept that there are an infinite amount of realities occuring simultaneously.

Also, we must assume that science has uncovered the breadth and depth of all natural understanding. By saying this we are assuming that science is finished and we know all that is true and everything that we know is absolute truth. To assume that we have reached a state of perfect understanding of the universe, and that no further inventions will further our understanding of the universe is inane.

By your reasoning if you have never experienced a hurricane, a house fire, or been struck by lightning it must never occur. As only a small percentage of people on earth have actually experienced these things. By your reasoning Copernicus had no reason to deduce that the world was not the center of the universe because science is infalliable and true, like religion, therefore no further discoveries could have been made. Cavemen could never have advanced as science was perfect.

By claiming that no evidence exist for it therefore it doesn't exist bastardizes the aims of science which is to question everything and come up with logical answers for everything. Not to disprove things.

----

By Occams razor it is far simpler to believe thus; that spirits and ghosts exist in a physical sense. Their existence is manifest in something that science has yet to understand and for a person to experience such a thing requires a similar amount of specific circumstances, just like experiencing a natural disaster (Being an idiot, living in new orleans, not evacuating, being an idiot). Or it requires specific circumstances to manifest itself. Even if they are not vastly different in complexity, which I can see the two views (not existing, or existing) it holds that one may not be more or less complex than the other.

Therefore basing your decision on Occam's razor for this circumstance is a terrible idea.

Disregard this. Schwa did a way better job.

Quote from Jexsam

First, Zed, I would like to thank you for providing my daily dose of unbridled laughter. Your views are so ridiculously closed-minded and devoid of any iota of emotion or sense that I can't help but laugh at you. I don't know how you make it through life with that kind of outlook, but apparently, you're making it just fine, so by all means, keep going. You provide people like me no end of amusement, which is something the world really needs.


Secondly, I believe in ghosts. Just because I don't know how or why they exist doesn't mean they aren't there and aren't possible. Just look at anyone who has had a disease or cancer spontaneously vanish. No one can explain it, yet it happened. We don't know so much about our universe, both outside and inside ourselves. So why not? I have yet to see anyone give me one good reason why ghosts can't exist.

On the flip side, no one has ever presented a good reason why they can, either. With that in mind, it's entirely a matter of opinion at this point. No one has any evidence for or against it. No one can prove there is no soul, no one can prove there is.

That said. Continue your debate. It amuses me greatly.


tl;dr: Yes.

If there is no evidence either way, why believe in it? Base your beliefs on what we know, not what we don't. It's much simpler to think "We live, we die", than to think "We live, We die, this magical 'thing' (which has no physical existance yet to be seen) departs our body, enters the afterlife for an eternity of dwelling around our past'". My point is, WHY believe this? The only reason I would consider taking ghosts seriously were if there were some pretty convincing evidence that could not have ONE remote scientific alternative as to why that evidence is false.

Also, to put my argument into context: If there's no evidence, why believe? There is no evidence a massive scarecrow is orbiting the sun, drinking some coffee, just as there is no evidence that Ghosts exist. Tell me - what is the difference between the 2 apart from the fact that people have become so addicted to paranomaly that they WANT to believe in it and thus do? And you know the only reasons why people believe in this? :

a) They believe they've had an experience with Ghosts.
b) They want to believe in Ghosts because they don't like the idea of not having an afterlife.

Quote from Schwa

Zed, your argument is flawed.

It can swing both ways.

I can say that if someone's mind is playing tricks on them then this infinite complex, as it requires their entire perception of reality to be flawed by some sort of structural deformation in the brain caused by faulty genetic. That several people can experience similar, or even the same things requires an even more complicated explanation. Either relating to social psychology or genetics and archetypal human truths.

To assume that since you have never seen a ghost and that there is no scientific reason for them to exist is much more complicated. First we must assume that for something to exist that it must happen to everyone. We must assume, then, that everyone's perception of reality is different since nobody has experienced all of the same things as everyone else. Therefore we must accept that there are an infinite amount of realities occuring simultaneously.

Also, we must assume that science has uncovered the breadth and depth of all natural understanding. By saying this we are assuming that science is finished and we know all that is true and everything that we know is absolute truth. To assume that we have reached a state of perfect understanding of the universe, and that no further inventions will further our understanding of the universe is inane.

By your reasoning if you have never experienced a hurricane, a house fire, or been struck by lightning it must never occur. As only a small percentage of people on earth have actually experienced these things. By your reasoning Copernicus had no reason to deduce that the world was not the center of the universe because science is infalliable and true, like religion, therefore no further discoveries could have been made. Cavemen could never have advanced as science was perfect.

By claiming that no evidence exist for it therefore it doesn't exist bastardizes the aims of science which is to question everything and come up with logical answers for everything. Not to disprove things.

----

By Occams razor it is far simpler to believe thus; that spirits and ghosts exist in a physical sense. Their existence is manifest in something that science has yet to understand and for a person to experience such a thing requires a similar amount of specific circumstances, just like experiencing a natural disaster (Being an idiot, living in new orleans, not evacuating, being an idiot). Or it requires specific circumstances to manifest itself. Even if they are not vastly different in complexity, which I can see the two views (not existing, or existing) it holds that one may not be more or less complex than the other.

Therefore basing your decision on Occam's razor for this circumstance is a terrible idea.

how are hurricane experiences comparable to Ghostly experiences? You seem to be saying that Zed's saying "if you've never experienced a hurricane it's not true." in roundabout terms. The difference is, there is DEFINITIVE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF HURRICANES, AND NOT OF GHOSTS.

Quote from Automaton

how are hurricane experiences comparable to Ghostly experiences? You seem to be saying that Zed's saying "if you've never experienced a hurricane it's not true." in roundabout terms. The difference is, there is DEFINITIVE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF HURRICANES, AND NOT OF GHOSTS.

Please carefully reread all of Schwa's elegant statements and alter your response with every point he made in mind.

Schwa, you've done it again. That's my opinion, of course.

Quote from Schwa

Zed, your argument is flawed.

It can swing both ways.

I can say that if someone's mind is playing tricks on them then this is infinitely complex, as it requires their entire perception of reality to be flawed by some sort of structural deformation in the brain caused by faulty genetic. That several people can experience similar, or even the same things requires an even more complicated explanation. Either relating to social psychology or genetics and archetypal human truths.

Nice try, but it must be agreed that someone's mind is playing tricks on them here. That was part of the basis for my argument. Ghosts are inconsistant with what we can observe about the world. Either we are all deceived most of the time, or some of us are deceived some of the time. Which of those looks less complex to you?

Quote from Schwa

To assume that since you have never seen a ghost and that there is no scientific reason for them to exist is much more complicated. First we must assume that for something to exist that it must happen to everyone. We must assume, then, that everyone's perception of reality is different since nobody has experienced all of the same things as everyone else. Therefore we must accept that there are an infinite amount of realities occuring simultaneously.

That, sir, is a masterful aplication of corkscrew logic. It is, nevertheless, wrong, however. The fact that I have never seen a ghost has no bearing on their existence. I've never seen the Statue of Liberty either, but I'm fully prepared to believe it exists for the sole reason that it is simpler for everyone who tells me it does to be telling the truth than for there to be an elaborate conspiracy. The Statue of Liberty breaches no laws of physics as I can observe. Ghosts do.

If you look I did not draw any argument from my non-observation of ghosts. I simply pointed out that I would obviously not have observed them to soulless and that no one else would have either because they don't exist. It was really just a resatement of my viewpoint.

Quote from Schwa

Also, we must assume that science has uncovered the breadth and depth of all natural understanding. By saying this we are assuming that science is finished and we know all that is true and everything that we know is absolute truth. To assume that we have reached a state of perfect understanding of the universe, and that no further inventions will further our understanding of the universe is inane.

I'm relying on one rule and one rule only - cause and effect. It can be demonstrated over and over again. Even if the basis for cause and effect is something currently unknown, the result is the same. A computer can predict with 100% accuracy the way a snooker ball will bounce around the table if it is hit in a certain way. This is not a coincidence. If something can be predicted with 100% acuracy the laws that govern it are as near as makes no odds an established fact.

The alternative is an unbelievably huge coincidence. We're talking 1:googleplex against. I envoke Occam's razor again.

Quote from Schwa

By your reasoning if you have never experienced a hurricane, a house fire, or been struck by lightning it must never occur. As only a small percentage of people on earth have actually experienced these things. By your reasoning Copernicus had no reason to deduce that the world was not the center of the universe because science is infalliable and true, like religion, therefore no further discoveries could have been made. Cavemen could never have advanced as science was perfect.

Answered above.

Quote from Schwa

By claiming that no evidence exist for it therefore it doesn't exist bastardizes the aims of science which is to question everything and come up with logical answers for everything. Not to disprove things.

No evidence for it exists, therefore it almost certainly doesn't exist. Imagine a young universe - let's say five hundred years old. If you're standing on a planet in that universe you will only be able to see stars five hundred lightyears away or less. There could easily be more stars out there - in fact there probably are - but to say that you can pinpoint the location of one of them in an infinite phase space of possibilities where only a finite number are filled is a step too far.

Quote from Schwa

By Occams razor it is far simpler to believe thus; that spirits and ghosts exist in a physical sense. Their existence is manifest in something that science has yet to understand and for a person to experience such a thing requires a similar amount of specific circumstances, just like experiencing a natural disaster (Being an idiot, living in new orleans, not evacuating, being an idiot). Or it requires specific circumstances to manifest itself. Even if they are not vastly different in complexity, which I can see the two views (not existing, or existing) it holds that one may not be more or less complex than the other.

Therefore basing your decision on Occam's razor for this circumstance is a terrible idea.

The difference between hurricane Katrina and a ghost is that the chain of causality to get to Katrina is there. You can see it and point it out. If the chinese butterfly flaps its wings in this way, Katrina happens. No chain of causality leads to ghosts. There are billions of different causes in the world, billions of different starting conditions that can be met, billions of different actions, and for each one of them there is an effect, a result, or a reaction, but none of those is the manifestation of a ghost.

Quote from Zed

No evidence for it exists, therefore it almost certainly doesn't exist. Imagine a young universe - let's say five hundred years old. If you're standing on a planet in that universe you will only be able to see stars five hundred lightyears away or less. There could easily be more stars out there - in fact there probably are - but to say that you can pinpoint the location of one of them in an infinite phase space of possibilities where only a finite number are filled is a step too far.



The difference between hurricane Katrina and a ghost is that the chain of causality to get to Katrina is there. You can see it and point it out. If the chinese butterfly flaps its wings in this way, Katrina happens. No chain of causality leads to ghosts. There are billions of different causes in the world, billions of different starting conditions that can be met, billions of different actions, and for each one of them there is an effect, a result, or a reaction, but none of those is the manifestation of a ghost.

Sorry to disappoint everyone by not coming up with an excellent rebuttal but I am tired and do not even want to post here right now. However I feel as if Zed deserves some sort of acknowledgment for reading my post all the way through.

With this in mind I will comment on the parts of your post that I find to be most obviously incorrect. I may get to the rest later.

Firstly, the first paragraph quoted above seems to support my argument and I cannot see why you think otherwise.

The reasoning you use shows an inherent close mindedness. Let me elaborate. You state that because the universe has only been alive for 500 years (hypothetically) observers on a planet could only see stars that were 500 light years away. This is true, as nothing moves faster than light. However you then say that there probably are stars out there that are farther away than 500 light years. This is impossible. But this is not central my argument, so I digress. You say that there probably are stars outside of the 500 light year observable range, however they cannot be pinpointed. This shows an obvious bias. If you cannot prove they exist they do not exist, which is your reasoning for ghosts, there is no way to prove the stars exist if they cannot be observed (your logical fallacy aside). Furthermore you state that that since they cannot be observed their positions cannot be determined. This is true.

What you have done is allowed for the broad and indeterminate and not allowed for the specific. You allow these planets may exist but admit you cannot find their positions. Let's apply this to ghosts; we can allow that ghosts exist and we can also allow that we cannot determine how or why. The only reason you have allowed this for planets is because it is something you have been taught exists, but ghosts are you something you are convinced do not. Therefore you are inherently biased and your claim swings neither way and proves nothing.

-----

This all comes down to the extent of human knowledge. First we must allow that humans are imperfect and limited in their abilities. We must also allow that understanding of the universe perfectly is essentially infinite as the range of our knoweledge continues to explode in leaps and bounds with no signs of slowing.

We must allow that what we know limits what we can know. If I was a pharaohs in some time a long time ago (I'd be getting lots of tail) and I saw the sun, nothing in my experience would allow me to say why it happens, what the cause is that creates such an effect. The sun to me is something that defies explanation by simple cause and effect because of the shallowness of my knoweledge.

Does this mean the sun does not exist because what we know cannot provide a cause for it?

Obviously not.

Spontaneous human combustion may (or may not be) a well documented occurrence. The cause for it is unknown and any guess as to why is as valid as a guess for why ghosts exist. We know spontaneous human combustion occurs, but do not know the cause, does this mean that it does not occur?

Obviously not.

Back to natural disasters and such. There are many documented accounts of people being struck by lightning and surviving, however everyone you know who has been struck by lightning has died. Dieing by being struck by lightning is one of your core beliefs, so you refute that anyone has survived and call these people liars. Are you correct simply because it does not match with your experience? No.

And another example. If I am a white man in portugal and I send men down the African coast, they return with tales of black men and women prancing around. I have no reason to believe them, they have no proof, and everything in my range of experience states that black people to do not exist and there is no reason for them to exist. I see that white people are the only people in the world, white people have sex and out pops a white baby. Does this mean black people do not exist? No.

I think that your core problem is that you assume that all that we know is all we can know or will be learned. Which is an insult to science.

Like I said before science is the art of explaining what has yet to be explained. Science is not the art of disproving stuff. Science is the idea that we can advance and discover new things with new technology and that are range of knowledge is finite.

Science is not religion, it does not say "We see no cause for this and therefore it must not exist, only that which we see cause for exist". Science is about expanding human knowledge, not about hindering it by saying what does or does not exist.

My question is: if there is no definitive evidence for it, why believe in it?
And before you say "There are plenty of people who say they've experienced it", I'll just say that if there is ONE thing that can disprove a theory and is much more simple, I'm going to disbelieve.

[edit]
And yes I read all of your post, and I agree with all of it, however it does not answer that question. I often ask the same question about God and other supernatural/paranormal ideas.