Are Ghosts Real?

Ah yes, good point, I do apologise.

That's quite alright.

I said it could be our imaginations, or they could be real.

IF by that you mean the chances are 50/50 then you are dead wrong.

My point was simply that science is not always right. For hundreds of years man thought that this planet was flat.

We have known that the earth is a sepher since about 200 B.C. It wasn't science's fault that people thought the earth was flat, when science was aplied we found out it wasn't.

This was based on their scientific knowledge of the world in which they lived

And they used quite diffrent scientfic method then what we have today now thanks to ibn al haytham and Francis Bacon. Geocentrinism is a good example.

I could make a claim , that science hasn't discovered pink glow in the dark unicorns YET but it might later on.. Though thats not a rational statement and it is an argument from ignorance.

Agnostic stand isn't a good stand on ghosts in my opinion.

dx_hbk said:

I said it could be our imaginations, or they could be real.

IF by that you mean the chances are 50/50 then you are dead wrong.

Well, to be honest, I didn't have any particular percentage in mind when stating that. But you're right, it is not a 50/50 chance. To say opposite would seem ludicrous.

dx_hbk said:

My point was simply that science is not always right. For hundreds of years man thought that this planet was flat.

We have known that the earth is a sepher since about 200 B.C. It wasn't science's fault that people thought the earth was flat, when science was aplied we found out it wasn't.

This was based on their scientific knowledge of the world in which they lived

And they used quite diffrent scientfic method then what we have today now thanks to ibn al haytham and Francis Bacon. Geocentrinism is a good example.

And in a hundred years another scientific method will likely be developed. Science isn't exactly known for having permanent characteristics.

dx_hbk said:

I could make a claim , that science hasn't discovered pink glow in the dark unicorns YET but it might later on.. Though thats not a rational statement and it is an argument from ignorance.

Guess what? These dark unicorns of which you speak could one day be discovered. Though, there is far less evidence for such creatures than there is for ghosts. If I said I saw a UFO would you believe me? We know so little about nearly nothing, whose to say that aliens, unicorns, and ghosts don't all exist? Maybe what we think are ghosts are actually nothing more than aliens keeping track of us. Maybe the aliens have pet unicorns.

We can't say for sure, because our knowledge is too limited. Did you know that to date, we have explored less than five percent of the ocean? What strange creatures lay beneath the deep?

Don't rule something out simply because you have not yet found evidence of it.

dx_hbk said:

Agnostic stand isn't a good stand on ghosts in my opinion.

I'm not taking an agnostic stand on this subject at all. I blatantly said,

the dawn of the gamers said:

To conclude, I have had experiences with what people call the paranormal, but that doesn't mean I believe in it. There simply isn't enough evidence, yet...

« Last edited by the dawn of the gamers on Jan 17th 2012 »

Ehh, I'm pretty sure not coming down on either side due to lack of evidence IS agnostisism...

Merriam Webster's exact definition of "agnosticism" is: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something.

I have an opinion on this subject. Shall I quote myself again?

And in a hundred years another scientific method will likely be developed. Science isn't exactly known for having permanent characteristics.

No, You didn't get the point. The "scientific method" originally started with ibn al-haytham and other Arab scientists. The ancient Greeks who were influenced by Plato and Aristotle were more of philosophers then scientist. They were not found of observations and experimentation.

The essence of the scientific method from Ibn al- Haytham to Francis Bacon to now is the same. Though theories change, but like I sad before that does not mean every theory is wrong because science tends to look at everything in a sceptically way and doesn?t claim to have absolute truths. We are sure that the earth orbit?s the sun not the other way around and we are sure that it won?t be proved wrong anytime soon.

So you can can't assume just because theories change, everything that we know can be completely different at a later time.

Guess what? These dark unicorns of which you speak could one day be discovered. Though, there is far less evidence for such creatures than there is for ghosts. If I said I saw a UFO would you believe me? We know so little about nearly nothing, whose to say that aliens, unicorns, and ghosts don't all exist? Maybe what we think are ghosts are actually nothing more than aliens keeping track of us. Maybe the aliens have pet unicorns.

If you look at reality that way then anything can be true. You are committing a popular logical fallacy here known as Argumentum ad ignorantam ( argument from ignorance)

Again, you are pushing forward absurd assertions. Bertrand Russell argued with such reasoning using an analogy of a celestial teapot. He claimed there was a china teapot orbiting between earth and mars. Now when Astronomers scanned the area they didn't fine the teapot and Russell then claimed that the teapot was so small, that it couldn't be even seen under our largest telescopes. That last point made the argument inconsistent in his eyes, because it is an absurd assertion after an other abuse red assertion with out any proof. Unless you provide proof for your claims they won't be taken seriously.

Don't rule something out simply because you have not yet found evidence of it.

"Remarkable claims require remarkable proof" ~ Carl Sagan

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." ~ Christopher Hitchens

I am pretty sure you don?t believe in anything you mentioned above, but you said it could be a possibility but again there is no proof for any of those things.

Regarding Aliens. There might be Intelligent Life in this vast cosmos, but there is no evidence that suggests that Green little man ever visited earth.

Most of the supernatural explanations can easily be refuted by just using Occam's razor.


« Last edited by dx_hbk on Jan 20th 2012 »

dx_hbk said:

And in a hundred years another scientific method will likely be developed. Science isn't exactly known for having permanent characteristics.

The essence of the scientific method from Ibn al- Haytham to Francis Bacon to now is the same. Though theories change, but like I sad before that does not mean every theory is wrong because science tends to look at everything in a sceptically way and doesn?t claim to have absolute truths. We are sure that the earth orbit?s the sun not the other way around and we are sure that it won?t be proved wrong anytime soon.

So you can can't assume just because theories change, everything that we know can be completely different at a later time.

I never once said -or even suggested- that everything we know can be proven to be wrong at a later date. I said that everything we don't know could one day be proven. You don't and can't know that ghosts don't exist because no-one can or does. It's currently just a matter of opinion.

dx_hbk said:

Guess what? These dark unicorns of which you speak could one day be discovered. Though, there is far less evidence for such creatures than there is for ghosts. If I said I saw a UFO would you believe me? We know so little about nearly nothing, whose to say that aliens, unicorns, and ghosts don't all exist? Maybe what we think are ghosts are actually nothing more than aliens keeping track of us. Maybe the aliens have pet unicorns.

If you look at reality that way then anything can be true. You are committing a popular logical fallacy here known as Argumentum ad ignorantam ( argument from ignorance)

Again, you are pushing forward absurd assertions. Bertrand Russell argued with such reasoning using an analogy of a celestial teapot. He claimed there was a china teapot orbiting between earth and mars. Now when Astronomers scanned the area they didn't fine the teapot and Russell then claimed that the teapot was so small, that it couldn't be even seen under our largest telescopes. That last point made the argument inconsistent in his eyes, because it is an absurd assertion after an other abuse red assertion with out any proof. Unless you provide proof for your claims they won't be taken seriously.

I was mostly using the aliens and the unicorns as an analogy. I don't actually believe in such absurd notions, but that's beside the point.

The difference between Bertrand Russell and myself, is that I'm willing to accept it when I am proven wrong. Which has yet to occur.

dx_hbk said:

Don't rule something out simply because you have not yet found evidence of it.

"Remarkable claims require remarkable proof" ~ Carl Sagan

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." ~ Christopher Hitchens

[quoteby=Donald Rumsfeld]...the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence./quote]

I'll also quote Carl Sagan, because remarkably enough, he changed his opinions at one point in his life.

Carl Sagan said:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

I can provide reference if you desire.

Is it me, or is my post blank? Why is it blank?

If you click "Add Quote and Reply" you'll see that I did actually post something...

« Last edited by the dawn of the gamers on Jan 20th 2012 »

the dawn of the gamers said:

Is it me, or is my post blank? Why is it blank?

If you click "Add Quote and Reply" you'll see that I did actually post something...

It is blank because I have decided that, given your excessive use of profanities in the post, it was best to delete its content.




lol j/k I have absolutely no idea why your post is blank yet the content can be quoted. I'll attempt to repost your post but will leave your 'blank' post there, at least for a while, in case anyone needs to check it out.

[quoteby=the dawn of the gamers]

dx_hbk said:

And in a hundred years another scientific method will likely be developed. Science isn't exactly known for having permanent characteristics.

The essence of the scientific method from Ibn al- Haytham to Francis Bacon to now is the same. Though theories change, but like I sad before that does not mean every theory is wrong because science tends to look at everything in a sceptically way and doesn?t claim to have absolute truths. We are sure that the earth orbit?s the sun not the other way around and we are sure that it won?t be proved wrong anytime soon.

So you can can't assume just because theories change, everything that we know can be completely different at a later time.

I never once said -or even suggested- that everything we know can be proven to be wrong at a later date. I said that everything we don't know could one day be proven. You don't and can't know that ghosts don't exist because no-one can or does. It's currently just a matter of opinion.

dx_hbk said:

Guess what? These dark unicorns of which you speak could one day be discovered. Though, there is far less evidence for such creatures than there is for ghosts. If I said I saw a UFO would you believe me? We know so little about nearly nothing, whose to say that aliens, unicorns, and ghosts don't all exist? Maybe what we think are ghosts are actually nothing more than aliens keeping track of us. Maybe the aliens have pet unicorns.

If you look at reality that way then anything can be true. You are committing a popular logical fallacy here known as Argumentum ad ignorantam ( argument from ignorance)

Again, you are pushing forward absurd assertions. Bertrand Russell argued with such reasoning using an analogy of a celestial teapot. He claimed there was a china teapot orbiting between earth and mars. Now when Astronomers scanned the area they didn't fine the teapot and Russell then claimed that the teapot was so small, that it couldn't be even seen under our largest telescopes. That last point made the argument inconsistent in his eyes, because it is an absurd assertion after an other abuse red assertion with out any proof. Unless you provide proof for your claims they won't be taken seriously.

I was mostly using the aliens and the unicorns as an analogy. I don't actually believe in such absurd notions, but that's beside the point.

The difference between Bertrand Russell and myself, is that I'm willing to accept it when I am proven wrong. Which has yet to occur.

dx_hbk said:

Don't rule something out simply because you have not yet found evidence of it.

"Remarkable claims require remarkable proof" ~ Carl Sagan

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." ~ Christopher Hitchens

Donald Rumsfeld said:

...the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence./quote]

I'll also quote Carl Sagan, because remarkably enough, he changed his opinions at one point in his life.

Carl Sagan said:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

I can provide reference if you desire.

Same problem here appearently, just tried responding to your post. I'll bring the matter to attention.

I once caught a ghost with a mouse trap

the dawn of the gamers said:

Merriam Webster's exact definition of "agnosticism" is: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something.

I have an opinion on this subject. Shall I quote myself again?

Test post.

I have absolutely no idea why our previous posts wouldn't show, I have no other problems with the rest of the forum or indeed this topic. I can only assume its some way in which your previous post was set up, ie problems with the quoting mechanism for that post. Could you repost the content of your post in a way that doesn't use the reply option and see if we can continue from there?

« Last edited by super craig on Jan 21st 2012 »

@ the dawn of the gamers

Can you please repost what you posted thanks.

Okay, I'm re-posting what I posted. Here's hoping that it works.

dx_hbk said:

And in a hundred years another scientific method will likely be developed. Science isn't exactly known for having permanent characteristics.

The essence of the scientific method from Ibn al- Haytham to Francis Bacon to now is the same. Though theories change, but like I sad before that does not mean every theory is wrong because science tends to look at everything in a sceptically way and doesn?t claim to have absolute truths. We are sure that the earth orbit?s the sun not the other way around and we are sure that it won?t be proved wrong anytime soon.

So you can can't assume just because theories change, everything that we know can be completely different at a later time.

I never once said -or even suggested- that everything we know can be proven to be wrong at a later date. I said that everything we don't know could one day be proven. You don't and can't know that ghosts don't exist because no-one can or does. It's currently just a matter of opinion.

dx_hbk said:

Guess what? These dark unicorns of which you speak could one day be discovered. Though, there is far less evidence for such creatures than there is for ghosts. If I said I saw a UFO would you believe me? We know so little about nearly nothing, whose to say that aliens, unicorns, and ghosts don't all exist? Maybe what we think are ghosts are actually nothing more than aliens keeping track of us. Maybe the aliens have pet unicorns.

If you look at reality that way then anything can be true. You are committing a popular logical fallacy here known as Argumentum ad ignorantam ( argument from ignorance)

Again, you are pushing forward absurd assertions. Bertrand Russell argued with such reasoning using an analogy of a celestial teapot. He claimed there was a china teapot orbiting between earth and mars. Now when Astronomers scanned the area they didn't fine the teapot and Russell then claimed that the teapot was so small, that it couldn't be even seen under our largest telescopes. That last point made the argument inconsistent in his eyes, because it is an absurd assertion after an other abuse red assertion with out any proof. Unless you provide proof for your claims they won't be taken seriously.

I was mostly using the aliens and the unicorns as an analogy. I don't actually believe in such absurd notions, but that's beside the point.

The difference between Bertrand Russell and myself, is that I'm willing to accept it when I am proven wrong. Which has yet to occur.

dx_hbk said:

Don't rule something out simply because you have not yet found evidence of it.

"Remarkable claims require remarkable proof" ~ Carl Sagan

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." ~ Christopher Hitchens

Donald Rumsfeld said:

...the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence./quote]

I'll also quote Carl Sagan, because remarkably enough, he changed his opinions at one point in his life.

Carl Sagan said:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

I can provide reference if you desire.

Seems that it didn't work. We broke it! Lol.

This is rather frustrating.

Lol. Come on man. It is going to be Pain in the **** to quote your posts from that "add quote and reply" window :P

I just wrote a 3,000 word reply to a friend I was arguing with so i am beat atm.

I'll get back to you in a few days time, or If i am free later on and try to reply.


try posting it with out the "quotes" button. It might work then

dx_hbk said:

And in a hundred years another scientific method will likely be developed. Science isn't exactly known for having permanent characteristics.

The essence of the scientific method from Ibn al- Haytham to Francis Bacon to now is the same. Though theories change, but like I sad before that does not mean every theory is wrong because science tends to look at everything in a sceptically way and doesn?t claim to have absolute truths. We are sure that the earth orbit?s the sun not the other way around and we are sure that it won?t be proved wrong anytime soon.

So you can can't assume just because theories change, everything that we know can be completely different at a later time.

I never once said -or even suggested- that everything we know can be proven to be wrong at a later date. I said that everything we don't know could one day be proven. You don't and can't know that ghosts don't exist because no-one can or does. It's currently just a matter of opinion.

dx_hbk said:

Guess what? These dark unicorns of which you speak could one day be discovered. Though, there is far less evidence for such creatures than there is for ghosts. If I said I saw a UFO would you believe me? We know so little about nearly nothing, whose to say that aliens, unicorns, and ghosts don't all exist? Maybe what we think are ghosts are actually nothing more than aliens keeping track of us. Maybe the aliens have pet unicorns.

If you look at reality that way then anything can be true. You are committing a popular logical fallacy here known as Argumentum ad ignorantam ( argument from ignorance)

Again, you are pushing forward absurd assertions. Bertrand Russell argued with such reasoning using an analogy of a celestial teapot. He claimed there was a china teapot orbiting between earth and mars. Now when Astronomers scanned the area they didn't fine the teapot and Russell then claimed that the teapot was so small, that it couldn't be even seen under our largest telescopes. That last point made the argument inconsistent in his eyes, because it is an absurd assertion after an other abuse red assertion with out any proof. Unless you provide proof for your claims they won't be taken seriously.

I was mostly using the aliens and the unicorns as an analogy. I don't actually believe in such absurd notions, but that's beside the point.

The difference between Bertrand Russell and myself, is that I'm willing to accept it when I am proven wrong. Which has yet to occur.

dx_hbk said:

Don't rule something out simply because you have not yet found evidence of it.

"Remarkable claims require remarkable proof" ~ Carl Sagan

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." ~ Christopher Hitchens

[quoteby=Donald Rumsfeld]...the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence./quote]

I'll also quote Carl Sagan, because remarkably enough, he changed his opinions at one point in his life.

Carl Sagan said:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

I can provide reference if you desire.

Edited because of errors with my bbcode.

LOL. That didn't work either.

Here's an idea - stop quoting & re-quoting numerous amounts of posts and just use the [*line] BBCode tag and the [*i] tag to show a quote, then reply underneath. Then use the line tag to seperate that specific point from the one that follows?

ie;

blah blah blah, something important, with a reference

---

But yadda yadda yah! Something even MORE important! With an ever better reference!

---

Easy?