Ghosts

[Desolater66]

Yea children do have wiide imaginations so lets say a kid is telling someone that there aunt is hitting him or her and lets say theres no scare theres no way to differ if its real becouse either way its in the childs own words so are you saying a child cant make that up but can make up a ghost?

 

[Time Psyduck]

Yea children do have wiide imaginations so lets say a kid is telling someone that there aunt is hitting him or her and lets say theres no scare theres no way to differ if its real becouse either way its in the childs own words so are you saying a child cant make that up but can make up a ghost?

A child could make up that they're being beaten by an aunt (or whoever). It's just they're not exactly very likley to do this.

A child may well not 'invent' a ghost. They'll see a curtain moving or a shadow on a wall or something similar and for whatever reason think it's a ghost.


Me I don't know about ghosts. Most of them can be explained logically but there may be something in some of them. These ones I suspect to be deamons but I have no supporting evidence. It's just a hypothesis.

 

[GameFreakerZero]

Yea children do have wiide imaginations so lets say a kid is telling someone that there aunt is hitting him or her and lets say theres no scare theres no way to differ if its real becouse either way its in the childs own words so are you saying a child cant make that up but can make up a ghost?

The difference being that someone can probably tell a little easier if a child has been hit, as this leaves recordable evidence (bruises), meanwhile a ghost up and disappears without a trace of evidence left.
And sometimes there isn't a way to tell if a kid is being abused by their aunt or something :/

The word I really forgot to grasp in my last post was 'subjective'.

 

[Desolater66]

[QUOTE sometimes there isn't a way to tell if a kid is being abused by their aunt or something :/

The word I really forgot to grasp in my last post was 'subjective'.[/QUOTE]

That was my point also so lets say a child's being abused and there's no evidence so how can you say, a ghost cant torment your kid but someone can possibly be abusing your kid.

 

[GameFreakerZero]

That was my point also so lets say a childs being abused and theres no evidence so how can you say, a ghost cant torment your kid but someone can possibly be abusing your kid

Because there's credible evidence of children being abused by family members, meanwhile there is absolutely no evidence that ghosts are real, nor that they are tormenting anyone.

 

[Desolater66]

Because there's credible evidence of children being abused by family members, meanwhile there is absolutely no evidence that ghosts are real, nor that they are tormenting anyone.

OK so how do you think a ghost would look like if you saw it and what if you did maybe see one but you took it up as something else?

I'm not saying anything that moves is a ghost but I'm mean you making the case about evidence and can it be possible the evidence keeps getting overlooked and then determined as a natural event.

Anyone can make anything logical its creative thinking.

 

[GameFreakerZero]

Anyone can make anything logical its creative thinking.

Actually that's called bull shitting and wordplay, especially since you seem to be relying on subjective opinions and claims rather than objective evidence, and seem to be trying to say that the lack of evidence is just proof of incompetence, without backing up your claims in any way, shape, or form.

If the evidence is out there, go find it and come back with it, I'm sure a lot of scientists would be interested in proof for the existence of ghosts, and would be interested in testing it.

Creative thinking would be linking facts and observations together into something that makes sense and is logical, like what Charles Darwin did with his observations for evolution*; not just making it sound logical.

* This is completely unrelated and is just an example, do not get annoyed over the fact I've got evolution on the brain considering other debates on this forum.

 

[Desolater66]

Actually that's called bull shitting and wordplay, especially since you seem to be relying on subjective opinions and claims rather than objective evidence, and seem to be trying to say that the lack of evidence is just proof of incompetence, without backing up your claims in any way, shape, or form.

If the evidence is out there, go find it and come back with it, I'm sure a lot of scientists would be interested in proof for the existence of ghosts, and would be interested in testing it.

Creative thinking would be linking facts and observations together into something that makes sense and is logical, like what Charles Darwin did with his observations for evolution*; not just making it sound logical.

* This is completely unrelated and is just an example, do not get annoyed over the fact I've got evolution on the brain considering other debates on this forum.

There was lack of evidence the world was round for some reason as well as scientist thinking the planet Pluto was a planet.


( im not annoyed your pretty good at thisxD}

 

[Valerunner]

Ghosts don't exist, there's no scientific evidence.

All of this is just the human mind at work. Take those photos with "ghosts" in them. For one, it could possibly be a residue from the last photo taken, leaving an imprint on the lens. Hence why they only occur with cameras with film.

The feeling that we're not alone? Simple instinct working. We think that there's something behind us because something that we trust says it's there, and our hair is standing up on end because that is one of our defensive traits back in our neanderthal days. Unfortunately it never really left our system even if the thick fur did. That followed by a heightened sense of our surroundings and some stroke of luck(a severely weak wind current in the room, for example), and it all adds up to an experience with the deceased. That's why it only happens when someone you know died recently; your mind is trying to hold on to the memory of that person and it's trying to calm itself by miscalculating the information it receives, like a subconscious override.

Then there's the messages left. These could either be the same circumstances where the brain miscalculates to calm itself down, or it drives to the point where it creates information based on its experiences.

"Why do people experience the same thing then without one telling the other what happened to them?" Simple. The brain calculates things according to the information it receives, and these two people could as well have been to the funeral or been as close to the deceased in question as the other. The brain will react the same for them save for the specific details, which makes the spiritual connection seem real.

However, I'd love to believe that ghosts exists but there's just too much information that I know to disprove them.

And as for the vampires/magic, the latter is from a lack of explanation while the former is a fascinating tale that has blurred with reality.

Back in the Middle Ages where magic was prominent, we had no religion or science to find out how anything worked, so we relied on magic. That became a basis of belief and so magical things like turning a fish into a sword or making a rabbit come out of a hat seemed plausible.

The vampire theory came from a story of Vlad Dracul, the Impaler. He drank the blood of his enemies after beheading them, and people thought that was too cruel and sick to be done by a human being. So there was the story of Count Dracul, which was bastardized due to language barriers into Count Dracula, the Transylvanian Nightmare. Once again, it was impossible for just one monster to exist in a vast, undiscovered world. Hence the vampire race came into mind.

...I should be doing my Media Studies homework.

 

[GameFreakerZero]

There was lack of evidence the world was round for some reason as well as scientist thinking the planet Pluto was a planet.

And that lack of evidence was a combination of religion and a lack of exploration. And even before exploration of world roundedness started, the ancient Greeks figured it out themselves by maths iirc.

Lack of evidence due to cultural ignorance is one thing, lack of evidence in an age where science is researched and is something that is recognised as holding the facts, when objective thought is one of the most important factors of that, is something else.

In other words, claiming something with a lack of evidence in an ignorant age is excusable, claiming something with a lack of evidence in a rational age is inexcusable.

... Oh, and Grimdour, you didn't deal with the axe wielding psychopath analogy that went with the magic and vampire analogies D:

EDIT: And the 'Pluto isn't a planet any more' thing is stupid because that had more to do with the classifications of planets, and the fact Pluto was tiny and there were asteroids about the same size as it or something.

 

[Desolater66]

OK so what if the technology to determine if there is evidence of a ghost or demon existed then would you believe?

 

[GameFreakerZero]

Godammit, I just made a huge post about what you said and then you went and radically edited your post.
You meanie ;-;

OK so what if the technology to determine if there is evidence of a ghost or demon then would you believe?

If there was enough evidence to show they existed, and it could be repeated again and again, yes. I'd believe in ghosts. But thus far there isn't any proof for them.

So can you say the same thing about god?

If irrefutable proof came along, I'm sure pretty much everyone would. But like the ghosts, there is currently no evidence that I see fit to change my mind either way.

EDIT: I'm not making my post any smaller >:l

 

[Valerunner]

OK so what if the technology to determine if there is evidence of a ghost or demon existed then would you believe?

YES.

I want to believe that ghosts exist, but science hasn't proven it yet.