Photograph Location - Help Needed.
How it Works0 min ago
Do you believe in ghosts?
142 Answers
This question is to everyone? If you have seen one, i'd love to hear about it??
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gamergirl80. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Octavius, yes Naomi, some people do say they have seen God
Since God said "no one may see me and live", and they obiously lived to tell the tale, I can only assume they really were deluded.
I never thought much about ghosts before I saw one, Octavius. I was only 14 at the time.
Why you don't believe we can see them? According to the bible, Jesus saw Moses and spoke to him - and Moses had been long dead. (Can't say whether or not Elijah, Moses companion on that occasion, was a ghost, since there's no record of his death - apparently he was simply taken up into heaven by a whirlwind).
Since God said "no one may see me and live", and they obiously lived to tell the tale, I can only assume they really were deluded.
I never thought much about ghosts before I saw one, Octavius. I was only 14 at the time.
Why you don't believe we can see them? According to the bible, Jesus saw Moses and spoke to him - and Moses had been long dead. (Can't say whether or not Elijah, Moses companion on that occasion, was a ghost, since there's no record of his death - apparently he was simply taken up into heaven by a whirlwind).
Oct, you didn't answer my question. Why do you believe ghosts can't be seen?
It can't be because no-ones claiming to have seen them, because plenty of people are. Is it because you personally haven't seen one, or perhaps because there's no decent photogrpah or film in existence, or some other reason?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to follow the logic to see where it goes.
Personally I think there's so many people claiming to have had these experiences that it would be irrational to dismiss them. The concept that so many people are independently having the same hallucinations strikes me as a more unlikely proposition than some kind of 'supernatural' explanation.
It can't be because no-ones claiming to have seen them, because plenty of people are. Is it because you personally haven't seen one, or perhaps because there's no decent photogrpah or film in existence, or some other reason?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm trying to follow the logic to see where it goes.
Personally I think there's so many people claiming to have had these experiences that it would be irrational to dismiss them. The concept that so many people are independently having the same hallucinations strikes me as a more unlikely proposition than some kind of 'supernatural' explanation.
Ludwig, I think the assumption is that I am the argumentative one.
I am not really dismissing them, I am suggesting that saying something was a ghost may not always be the right answer, or the only answer. It could be possible, just not the only possibility. People will either convince themselves they have seen a ghost, or not. And once they have decided, it would appear to become unquestionable, undeniable fact.
As with dreams, I think our minds and subconscious are subjected to zillions of subliminal messages every day through things we see, hear and experience. These occurrences are stored and jumbled about in our minds. Occasionally they resurface in a dream, or sudden sense of d�j� vu, sometimes things just happen by pure coincidence and it perks up our senses as we try to explain it. Pareidolia, the human mind tends to see patterns or visions where none exist. My house is built on a Roman burial site (as are many others of course). Once I explained this to my wife - about 6 months after moving in � she began to imagine all kinds of things going on. Prior to that, she wouldn�t have even batted an eyelid at a pipe contracting after the heating went off, or the wind blowing a door closed. The other evening she even saw a strange and spooky light at one of our windows. It is fortunate for me in many ways, that my wife is quite suggestible :o)
I cannot really go with the �numbers� argument. Because as I said before, by the same token we would have to accept that all those people really did see little green men in UFOs or were abducted and experimented on by aliens, or that all those people who claimed God spoke to them and told �em to do something were also telling the truth. It might be true, but is it something you could accept without challenge or question or personal consideration/doubt?
I am not really dismissing them, I am suggesting that saying something was a ghost may not always be the right answer, or the only answer. It could be possible, just not the only possibility. People will either convince themselves they have seen a ghost, or not. And once they have decided, it would appear to become unquestionable, undeniable fact.
As with dreams, I think our minds and subconscious are subjected to zillions of subliminal messages every day through things we see, hear and experience. These occurrences are stored and jumbled about in our minds. Occasionally they resurface in a dream, or sudden sense of d�j� vu, sometimes things just happen by pure coincidence and it perks up our senses as we try to explain it. Pareidolia, the human mind tends to see patterns or visions where none exist. My house is built on a Roman burial site (as are many others of course). Once I explained this to my wife - about 6 months after moving in � she began to imagine all kinds of things going on. Prior to that, she wouldn�t have even batted an eyelid at a pipe contracting after the heating went off, or the wind blowing a door closed. The other evening she even saw a strange and spooky light at one of our windows. It is fortunate for me in many ways, that my wife is quite suggestible :o)
I cannot really go with the �numbers� argument. Because as I said before, by the same token we would have to accept that all those people really did see little green men in UFOs or were abducted and experimented on by aliens, or that all those people who claimed God spoke to them and told �em to do something were also telling the truth. It might be true, but is it something you could accept without challenge or question or personal consideration/doubt?
Ps, I was reading ghost books and hearing ghost stories since I was in the cubs (about aged 7 � 10) at scout camp so ghosts were very much part of my contemplation long before my teens. I probably went to a few fancy dress parties with a sheet over my head as well.
I am surprised Naomi, that you hadn�t encountered or considered it before the age of 14.
About half of the boys would scream and cry themselves to a quivering sleep (I wonder if Akela would be allowed to tell such stories now!) in their tents with their torches firmly left on, and about half would laugh about the stories. I guess I was in the �no camp� from an early age.
I am surprised Naomi, that you hadn�t encountered or considered it before the age of 14.
About half of the boys would scream and cry themselves to a quivering sleep (I wonder if Akela would be allowed to tell such stories now!) in their tents with their torches firmly left on, and about half would laugh about the stories. I guess I was in the �no camp� from an early age.
Ludwig, No, it seems they�re on the ball with that one. They've noticed that the clocks only ever went one way. :o)
Octavius, I didn�t suggest you said God could be seen, and I didn�t say I hadn�t encountered or considered ghosts before the age of 14. I said I never thought much about them. Maybe that�s because I wasn�t in the cubs.
Of course all reported sightings of ghosts aren�t accurate - we know that - but Ludwig is right when he says that with so many reported sightings, it would be irrational to dismiss them.
I haven�t turned to religion to substantiate my claim - although if I believed in religion, obviously I could. I�ve mentioned it because it�s the only thing I can think of that you may be able to relate to. You believe in God, whom by his own admission, nobody could possibly have ever seen and lived to tell the tale, and you say that ghosts can�t be seen, even though Jesus, in whom you believe, saw at least one. That makes no sense whatsoever to me.
Octavius, I didn�t suggest you said God could be seen, and I didn�t say I hadn�t encountered or considered ghosts before the age of 14. I said I never thought much about them. Maybe that�s because I wasn�t in the cubs.
Of course all reported sightings of ghosts aren�t accurate - we know that - but Ludwig is right when he says that with so many reported sightings, it would be irrational to dismiss them.
I haven�t turned to religion to substantiate my claim - although if I believed in religion, obviously I could. I�ve mentioned it because it�s the only thing I can think of that you may be able to relate to. You believe in God, whom by his own admission, nobody could possibly have ever seen and lived to tell the tale, and you say that ghosts can�t be seen, even though Jesus, in whom you believe, saw at least one. That makes no sense whatsoever to me.
Because I believe in Jesus, it does not mean I have to believe he saw what we would call a ghost.
I am not dismissing the reported sightings I am dismissing the point you are trying to make that because lots of people say they see them, that this is evidence and proof. Conversely lots of people haven�t seen them and don�t believe they exist, by virtue of quantum alone that would negate your claim.
I am not dismissing the reported sightings I am dismissing the point you are trying to make that because lots of people say they see them, that this is evidence and proof. Conversely lots of people haven�t seen them and don�t believe they exist, by virtue of quantum alone that would negate your claim.
To believe in ghosts is equally irrational as belief in God.
To have personal experience of a ghost and deduce because of that, that ghosts exist is as equally irrational and ilogical as to experience God.
If the number of witnesses is to equate to a legitimate phenoma then again one has to say that the number people who have felt or even seen God's work on earth has to be accepted also (bus versus child?) does it not.
As Octavius said if you believe in ghosts then that prejudice allows you to accept that a ghost is what you saw, equally if you believe in God that prejudice allows you to believe in miracles.
If I can accept this, why can't others?
To have personal experience of a ghost and deduce because of that, that ghosts exist is as equally irrational and ilogical as to experience God.
If the number of witnesses is to equate to a legitimate phenoma then again one has to say that the number people who have felt or even seen God's work on earth has to be accepted also (bus versus child?) does it not.
As Octavius said if you believe in ghosts then that prejudice allows you to accept that a ghost is what you saw, equally if you believe in God that prejudice allows you to believe in miracles.
If I can accept this, why can't others?
But to go back to the point I watched a show on Channel 4 several years ago about mediums in Vietnam.
Firstly I have to say I don't believe in mediums as a rule, but this woman did possess remarkable insight.
She claimed she could converse with spirits and would often go into the jungle and find long dead soldiers from the war, now this could just be down an abilty to spot defensive positions, eroded earthworks and bunkers.
But she was introduced to a woman from the other side of the country who along with her son was "spoken" to by their dead husband/father.
Firstly I have to say I don't believe in mediums as a rule, but this woman did possess remarkable insight.
She claimed she could converse with spirits and would often go into the jungle and find long dead soldiers from the war, now this could just be down an abilty to spot defensive positions, eroded earthworks and bunkers.
But she was introduced to a woman from the other side of the country who along with her son was "spoken" to by their dead husband/father.
The medium started out by talking about the lake by the family home (to contradict private lakes and ponds are common in rural southern Asian homesteads) she then asked why did you chop down the tree (she said the type) I planted before I left to fight?
The widow began to cry and said that nobody was taking care of it, now again this practice of tree planting may have been common and the type of tree planted may also be very common, and it's possible that many farms underwent renovation and expansion meaning the loss of such trees.
But she continued, she said to the son (a young man with his wife) you have a child on the other side and outside your house is a tree (again she said the type) she then went on to say do not destroy this tree as my spirit lives in there and each night I climb up it and use it to enter the house to and visit you. Again this housing format with that type of tree may be common in Vietnam.
But the couple had never told the mother that they'd suffered a miscarriage and the three had never met before and would not have met if the show had'nt paid for them to go.
Now one could ask why does a spirit need to climb a tree to enter a house, one could suggest that the show tipped the medium off (I'm sure the producer would deny it) but dependant on your own personal prejudices (for that is what they are) the validity of each observation and it's contradiction hold their own water.
The widow began to cry and said that nobody was taking care of it, now again this practice of tree planting may have been common and the type of tree planted may also be very common, and it's possible that many farms underwent renovation and expansion meaning the loss of such trees.
But she continued, she said to the son (a young man with his wife) you have a child on the other side and outside your house is a tree (again she said the type) she then went on to say do not destroy this tree as my spirit lives in there and each night I climb up it and use it to enter the house to and visit you. Again this housing format with that type of tree may be common in Vietnam.
But the couple had never told the mother that they'd suffered a miscarriage and the three had never met before and would not have met if the show had'nt paid for them to go.
Now one could ask why does a spirit need to climb a tree to enter a house, one could suggest that the show tipped the medium off (I'm sure the producer would deny it) but dependant on your own personal prejudices (for that is what they are) the validity of each observation and it's contradiction hold their own water.
There's not much more to say really. It comes down to people making a judgement and arriving at different conclusions. I do think there's a tendency among sceptics to form an opinion up front and then dismiss any evidence on the grounds that it doesn't fit their opinion (or 'the facts' as they would prefer to call their opinion).
i.e - 'We know that ghosts don't exist, therefore the only logical conclusion we can arrive at is that any evidence which suggests that they do, must be flawed'. For fans of the X files, Scully used to do this in every episode. Each week, a UFO would come down in front of her and a load of little green men would jump out and and do a dance before taking her up for a ride in their spaceship to the planet Zog. Afterwards she'd say 'Well Mulder, we know there's no such thing as little green men, so there has to be a rational explanation for what just happened'.
Regarding Jake-the-peg's definition of the supernatural...
"Supernatural events are things which would require major revisions of established Science and for which there is no or poor evidence"
That would include just about everything we now accept as scientific fact then. Atoms, Radio Waves, Black holes, you name it, it was all 'supernatural' at some point.
..and if you're thinking 'but there is evidence for those things', you're missing the point entirely - At some point there was no evidence, but it didn't make them any less of a reality.
i.e - 'We know that ghosts don't exist, therefore the only logical conclusion we can arrive at is that any evidence which suggests that they do, must be flawed'. For fans of the X files, Scully used to do this in every episode. Each week, a UFO would come down in front of her and a load of little green men would jump out and and do a dance before taking her up for a ride in their spaceship to the planet Zog. Afterwards she'd say 'Well Mulder, we know there's no such thing as little green men, so there has to be a rational explanation for what just happened'.
Regarding Jake-the-peg's definition of the supernatural...
"Supernatural events are things which would require major revisions of established Science and for which there is no or poor evidence"
That would include just about everything we now accept as scientific fact then. Atoms, Radio Waves, Black holes, you name it, it was all 'supernatural' at some point.
..and if you're thinking 'but there is evidence for those things', you're missing the point entirely - At some point there was no evidence, but it didn't make them any less of a reality.
If I, and millions before and after me stated that God had spoken to them, and He said various things which determined to us that he was indeed God......
Would it be ok and acceptable to the multitude for me to say, �God exists because He has spoken to me. I can�t prove it, but I know what I heard�?
Would it be ok and acceptable to the multitude for me to say, �God exists because He has spoken to me. I can�t prove it, but I know what I heard�?
No, it wouldn't be acceptable. The voice might give you the impression that it comes from God, but how could you possibly know it does? You think you've determined the source of that experience, but as far as I can see, no one here who has not just heard, but seen ghosts, claims to know what they are or where they come from. There's a big difference.
Latest Posts
Technology6 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
