Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
lestatdelioncourt

Response to "no scientific evidence" of ghost

357 posts in this topic

My real problem is theoretical. A "ghost" is the spirit of someone who has died and left their body, so what are they? They would be disembodied. That means no body -- nothing physical.

If they are aware of their surroundings at all, it would have to be via senses we don't notice, as they would be sans eyes, sans ears, sans fingers. So asserting they are able to see or to make noise or move objects just doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it's a meaningless and misleading statement.

Just because today's science cannot (or more accurately has not been used to) show the existence of such phenomena, does not mean it will not happen in the future.

People have been trying to prove ghosts using modern science since modern science first existed.

Try again.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have been trying to prove ghosts using modern science since modern science first existed.

Try again.

"People" have tried to prove the existence of ghosts with methods they may consider swcientific, but show me where actual scientists have used their resources for so doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect "actual scientists" have looked into it many times, seen that there was nothing there, and so gone on to other topics where there is real science to be done.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on people "actual scientists? they are more rare than ghosts and bigfoot

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you say to those who say there is no scientific proof of paranormal (ghosts)?

I would say: "...yet."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say you were hoping for a ghost fest of a thread by including only your cohorts in ghost believing. Not gonna happen here. :)

Sorry buddy ghosts are for kids.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"People" have tried to prove the existence of ghosts with methods they may consider swcientific, but show me where actual scientists have used their resources for so doing.

Professor Richard Wiseman for starters.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists would dispute the possibility of spirit. There is no proof of it. We refer to it as an energy and surely if that is the case we should be able to produce a scientific experiment to actually prove it. An atheist friend of mine would always ridicule me we I talked to him about my investigating and what we perceive ghosts/spirits to be. He poo-pooed the possibility that we have a life-force within us, a kind of energy, which never dies. The truth is we do not know actually the nature of spirit. We use EMF readers in our investigations and we try to be as scientific as possible by using at least three. If you get a reaction from all three surely this is more credible than just one machine malfunctioning. Even them, we are assuming some kind of electrical activity. This seems to be a general consensus of opinion but in reality we don't really know. The most convincing evidence I have heard is from EVPs, by far the most frequent. There are sceptics who would attribute the sounds or voices to every day phenomena and in most cases this is true but there are definitely more than a few cases which are clearly spoken words in reaction to a question posed in a silent room. At the time, you could hear a pin drop in the room. I personally believe the method to scientifically prove the existence of the afterlife has not yet been discovered and until that day we have to make do with our primitive attempts.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say you were hoping for a ghost fest of a thread by including only your cohorts in ghost believing. Not gonna happen here. :)

Sorry buddy ghosts are for kids.

I think ghosts (spirits of the dead) might in some case hang around a little while out of the desire to hold onto what has been lost, but soon reality sets in and they go away. As I have said before, I don't think they would be detectable because they are disembodied, so I discredit the claims on logical grounds. Such a thing of course is unscientific and there will never be any sort of credible evidence one way or the other. The default therefore would normally be disbelief -- not rejection but just not "believing."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry buddy ghosts are for kids.

I feel I must disagree. I would be curious as to what exactly you have to offer, besides your personal opinion that support your claim. As far as I know, many an adult writte books sharing their experiences of the phenomenon and others are out there investigating, involved in an organisation or a local group with all the ressources they can get.

In a Huffington/YouGov poll on the 6th 7th september 2013, on the statement: ''I believe some people have experiences ghosts'', 16% slightly agree, 24% agree, 20% strongly agree and 12% are not sure. If we rule out the ''not sure'' that still amount to 60% of American we are either open minded or accept the possibilites that this phenomenon is legetimate.

It's Worth what it's Worth but at least it is some data.

We are far from Casper The friendly ghost or Scooby-Doo here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in ghosts. I think I saw a ghost. But I know that we have no scientific evidence for them whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Richard Wiseman for starters.
You cannot be serious. All he does is write books trying to convince the reader that there are other interpretations for what they see. I see no evidence of any scientific research by him.

All his books can be bought on ebay for little more than it costs to post them, a fact that speaks volumes in itself.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atheists would dispute the possibility of spirit. There is no proof of it.

Atheists like myself dispute the existence of God due to the total lack of evidence. In the light of an infinity of anecdotal evidence, the concept of ghosts cannot be treated in the same way simply because it is not properly understood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are better off saying we don't know what we saw than jumping to conclusions of something paranormal, since mundane explanations are so much more likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are better off saying we don't know what we saw than jumping to conclusions of something paranormal, since mundane explanations are so much more likely.

Everyday occurences which can be explained are classed as 'normal', anything which cannot be explained is classed as paranormal. Just like UFOs. Just because they are unidentified flying objects doesn't necessarily make them extra-terrestial. In the same way, just because something is 'paranormal' doesn't automatically mean it's a ghost.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well technically anything that exists in normal space-time is "normal," even if we are unaware of its presence or don't understand it.

"Paranormal" nevertheless is a useful word to convey the idea of really unexpected and outside the bounds of our usual existence. Many things "paranormal" may in fact be normal, just not to us. I repeat my view that when we don't know something's cause, we should not think paranormal but look for more mundane causes and assume them as they really are far more likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, many supposed paranormal occurences can be put down to normal events. If we do not have an explanation, I guess it will remain a mystery or unexplained event. The word 'paranormal' is used far too frequently.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, many supposed paranormal occurences can be put down to normal events. If we do not have an explanation, I guess it will remain a mystery or unexplained event. The word 'paranormal' is used far too frequently.

Let us remeber what the term ''paranormal'' means: A range of phenomenon of established existence or not, which the mechanisimes and causes, unexplainable in the actual state of knowledge and current scientific laws would be attributable to unkown forces, psychic origin (PK, psychokenesis ect.) The prefix ''Para'' pointing to something beside the norm, the scientific consensus.

While I agree with you that some people are quick to jump to a paranormal conclusion, I think this definition make sens in many cases. Disembodied voices, apparitions, movements of objects, shadows ect experienced by more than one person in the same place and sometimes even caught on video and recorders are indeed unexplained events which find no logical scientific explanation. I can't blame people who try to understand and find answers to phenomenon and events that have been experienced and which are not supposed to take place and exist in the field of science.

Edited by sam_comm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with you that some people are quick to jump to a paranormal conclusion, I think this definition make sens in many cases. Disembodied voices, apparitions, movements of objects, shadows ect experienced by more than one person in the same place and sometimes even caught on video and recorders are indeed unexplained events which find no logical scientific explanation. I can't blame people who try to understand and find answers to phenomenon and events which are not supposed to take place and exist in the field of science.

I agree with you. I have worked with several different groups of investigators, each having very different approaches. Some treating the investigation as research and recording and noting everything and another just dominated by psychic expression and glass divination. My preferred approach is the research one. The psychic approach may be more enjoyable for some of the group but in reality it has absolutely no relevance and more often than not, information obtained cannot be verified. My point is that 'some' people just jump to the conclusion that it is paranormal without really investigating all the possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with them. I don't believe in anything, meaning, I need proof to consider something real. Except the Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with them. I don't believe in anything, meaning, I need proof to consider something real. Except the Flying Spaghetti Monster, of course.

Well i think it's not always about having a belief or to be personally convinced of something but to accept a possiblity that it may be real or true and wait if that possiblity can be confirmed by a certain methodology fitting with our beliefs system.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it's a meaningless and misleading statement.

Just because today's science cannot (or more accurately has not been used to) show the existence of such phenomena, does not mean it will not happen in the future.

Ah yes, the "science is not yet advanced enough to understand <insert belief here> " null hypothesis. I would ask anyone who would attempt to make this case to cite just one instance when an extraordinary belief was later verified by science.

Edited by sinewave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the "science is not yet advanced enough to understand <insert belief here> " null hypothesis. I would ask anyone who would attempt to make this case to cite just one instance when an extraordinary belief was later verified by science.

What's considered "extraordinary" changes with time.

In the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century, the idea that stones could fall from space was considered an extraordinary belief.

Prior to Pasteur's confirmation of the germ theory, the idea that puerperal fever could be prevented by a doctor washing his hands was considered an extraordinary belief.

Prior to the discovery of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the idea that continents moved relative to each other was considered an extraordinary belief.

All have been confirmed by science.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's considered "extraordinary" changes with time.

In the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century, the idea that stones could fall from space was considered an extraordinary belief.

Prior to Pasteur's confirmation of the germ theory, the idea that puerperal fever could be prevented by a doctor washing his hands was considered an extraordinary belief.

Prior to the discovery of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the idea that continents moved relative to each other was considered an extraordinary belief.

All have been confirmed by science.

An extraordinary belief is one for which there is no ready or consistent evidence. The thing, for the most part must be taken on faith. In all of your examples there was reproducible empirical evidence.

The fact remains, after many centuries of belief, the only evidence for ghosts is anecdotal.

BTW Ancient civilizations were aware of objects falling from the sky and even collected them. The Egyptians during the Pharaonic period made jewelry and other decorative items from them. Of course they did not understand exactly how they came to fall to the ground but they were certainly aware of the phenomenon. The same holds true for cultures from other places and times. Perhaps what you are referring to is the phenomenon of cataclysmic meteor strikes that changed global climates and left huge craters.

Edited by sinewave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.