Can Science Prove There Are No Ghosts

[Subduction Zone]

Not for selfish purposes, but to serve God. And I do not corrupt science. Science ends up backing the Bible, but it does not so for evolution and what the atheist scientists like to hypothesize. That's why I say atheists are usually wrong.

So you do not understand what science is and how it is done.

That would be a bit of a detour, but I could help you with your lack of education.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not for selfish purposes, but to serve God. And I do not corrupt science. Science ends up backing the Bible, but it does not so for evolution and what the atheist scientists like to hypothesize. That's why I say atheists are usually wrong.

The selfish reasons are 'reasons' other than science. Your's is a religious agenda to justify what you believe You conflate atheists with science, and there is no relationship. Science does not support any scripture of any religion including the Bible. Archaeology does document 'some' events and people of the Bible, because the Bible is written in history, but it fails as history.

Again science does not 'prove' anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ha ha. The Christians already have. I posted one thread on it here.

Jesus' Tomb Opened for First Time in Centuries

And the atheists have failed to disprove it.

This is simply an article describing the restoration of the traditional site of the tomb of Jesus Christ.

In fact the same source 'National Geographic' dated this tomb to ~325 AD more than 300 years after Jesus Christ lived.

From: Source: Exclusive: Age of Jesus Christ’s Purported Tomb Revealed

Exclusive: Age of Jesus Christ’s Purported Tomb Revealed

Construction materials date to Roman times, suggesting the original holy site's legacy has survived despite its destruction 1,000 years ago.

Over the centuries, Jerusalem’s Church of the Holy Sepulchre has suffered violent attacks, fires, and earthquakes. It was totally destroyed in 1009 and subsequently rebuilt, leading modern scholars to question whether it could possibly be the site identified as the burial place of Christ by a delegation sent from Rome some 17 centuries ago.

Now the results of scientific tests provided to National Geographic appear to confirm that the remains of a limestone cave enshrined within the church are remnants of the tomb located by the ancient Romans.

Mortar sampled from between the original limestone surface of the tomb and a marble slab that covers it has been dated to around A.D. 345. According to historical accounts, the tomb was discovered by the Romans and enshrined around 326.

© Copyright Original Source

 

[shunyadragon]

You are somewhat right. Atheism is the logical choice when it comes to the belief in a god. You seem to be rather confused. Belief in a god is far from scientific. Atheists no that the existence or nonexistence of a god in general cannot be proven, though specific "gods" can be refuted. For example if your "god" cannot lie and you believe the Genesis myths that "god" can be refuted.

Still I was one hundred percent right when I stated that all science is atheistic. At least to date. That may change in the future, but I doubt it.

There is a problem with this response. Science cannot refute the existence of God(s), ghosts, the soul, nor the existence of the supernatural. It can refute claims of evidence, which often stretch the concept of evidence and scientific methods to justify these beliefs.

Science is not atheistic. Science is totally neutral to the existence of God(s) which cannot be falsified nor demonstrated or refuted to exist nor not exist.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Even if ghosts were proven to exist beyond a shadow of a doubt, the case for theism would not be strengthened at all.

These are categorically different ideas.

 

[shunyadragon]

Even if ghosts were proven to exist beyond a shadow of a doubt, the case for theism would not be strengthened at all.

These are categorically different ideas.

The falsification of the existence of ghosts (souls), would justify the existence of other spiritual worlds. God(s) are often described as ghosts. It would not demonstrate the existence of the existence of God(s) but it would demonstrate the existence of spiritual worlds that may include God(s).

I consider this line of reasoning very hypothetical, and it is unlikely that science can falsify the existence of ghosts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a problem with this response. Science cannot refute the existence of God(s), ghosts, the soul, nor the existence of the supernatural. It can refute claims of evidence, which often stretch the concept of evidence and scientific methods to justify these beliefs.

Science is not atheistic. Science is totally neutral to the existence of God(s) which cannot be falsified nor demonstrated or refuted to exist nor not exist.

A couple of corrections. If one believes in a god that cannot lie and your god made a worldwide flood then that god can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt not to exist. Please note that I am using the word "prove" in the same sense that creationists are, though they do not seem to realize which definition that they are relying on themselves. If one's version of God is logically self contradicting then that version of "God" can be proven not to exist. But there are countless possible "God"s out there and not all of them can be refuted. Specific ones, yes, all no.

And science is atheistic. You might be using an improper definition of atheism. Gods are never invoked in the sciences, at least not that I am aware of. The theory of gravity is just as atheistic as the theory of evolution, but only the theory of evolution seems to give certain theists fits.

 

[shunyadragon]

A couple of corrections. If one believes in a god that cannot lie and your god made a worldwide flood then that god can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt not to exist. Please note that I am using the word "prove" in the same sense that creationists are, though they do not seem to realize which definition that they are relying on themselves. If one's version of God is logically self contradicting then that version of "God" can be proven not to exist. But there are countless possible "God"s out there and not all of them can be refuted. Specific ones, yes, all no.

What you are describing is events and things attributed to God(s), and I all ready addressed this:

"It can refute claims of evidence, which often stretch the concept of evidence and scientific methods to justify these beliefs [in God's and acts claimed to be performed by God(s)]."
.
[/quote]
And science is atheistic. You might be using an improper definition of atheism. Gods are never invoked in the sciences, at least not that I am aware of. The theory of gravity is just as atheistic as the theory of evolution, but only the theory of evolution seems to give certain theists fits.[/QUOTE]

I believe you are misusing the term atheism, and conflating it with science.

Atheism is the philosophical 'belief' that 'God(s)' do not exist, and nothing more. Science is independent of philosophical beliefs beyond our physical existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you are describing is events and things attributed to God(s), and I all ready addressed this:

"It can refute claims of evidence, which often stretch the concept of evidence and scientific methods to justify these beliefs [in God's and acts claimed to be performed by God(s)]."
.

"And science is atheistic. You might be using an improper definition of atheism. Gods are never invoked in the sciences, at least not that I am aware of. The theory of gravity is just as atheistic as the theory of evolution, but only the theory of evolution seems to give certain theists fits."

I believe you are misusing the term atheism, and conflating it with science.

Atheism is the philosophical 'belief' that 'God(s)' do not exist, and nothing more. Science is independent of philosophical beliefs beyond our physical existence.

Nope, atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. It is not a statement that they do not exist. That is antitheism. Now all anti-theists are atheists, just as all Christians are theists. But all theists are not Christians nor are all atheists anti-theists. Atheism is a broad overarching category. And since the sciences never invoke a god they are atheistic. They are not antitheistic, they do not state that all gods do not exist.

As to the earlier part of your post you do not seem to understand that there are countless gods out there. One will see this quite often in the claims of various theists. They will categorically state "That is not my god" when referring to other religions. So in that sense particular gods may be refuted. Your error may be based in the belief that a god exists, that is not necessarily the case. I find it best to humor theists and explain how their version of god is refuted. Again, not all, just specific subsets.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nope, atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. It is not a statement that they do not exist. That is antitheism. Now all anti-theists are atheists, just as all Christians are theists. But all theists are not Christians nor are all atheists anti-theists. Atheism is a broad overarching category. And since the sciences never invoke a god they are atheistic. They are not antitheistic, they do not state that all gods do not exist.

Your simply flopping words no change in meaning.

As to the earlier part of your post you do not seem to understand that there are countless gods out there. One will see this quite often in the claims of various theists. They will categorically state "That is not my god" when referring to other religions. So in that sense particular gods may be refuted. Your error may be based in the belief that a god exists, that is not necessarily the case. I find it best to humor theists and explain how their version of god is refuted. Again, not all, just specific subsets.

No error, my belief is a separate issue. It is a belief, I do not consider it necessarily so.

The problem is that science is not atheist regardless of how you define atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your simply flopping words no change in meaning.

No, you made an error. I tried to explain your error to you.

No error, my belief is a separate issue. It is a belief, I do not consider it necessarily so.

The problem is that science is not atheist regardless of how you define atheism.

Of course you made an error. Not owning up to it does not make it go away. And I was merely stating that your particular belief may be the underlying cause of your error. I could be wrong on that. And I did not say that science is "atheist" I said that it is atheistic. Is English your first language? Your sentence made no sense in English.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, you made an error. I tried to explain your error to you.



Of course you made an error. Not owning up to it does not make it go away. And I was merely stating that your particular belief may be the underlying cause of your error. I could be wrong on that. And I did not say that science is "atheist" I said that it is atheistic. Is English your first language? Your sentence made no sense in English.

No difference between atheist and atheistic. Atheistic is simply an adjective for atheism. It is your problem with the English language.

From: atheistic definition - Google Search
atheistic - adjective

1. disbelieving or lackinɡ belief in the existence of God.
   "the leaders of scientific thought are overwhelmingly atheistic in their beliefs"

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

The falsification of the existence of ghosts (souls), would justify the existence of other spiritual worlds. God(s) are often described as ghosts. It would not demonstrate the existence of the existence of God(s) but it would demonstrate the existence of spiritual worlds that may include God(s).

I consider this line of reasoning very hypothetical, and it is unlikely that science can falsify the existence of ghosts.

You used the word falsification wrong, it is not a synonym for proven or confirmed. Quite the opposite really.

With that said, were the phenomenon to be proven or confirmed, it still would not prove that they were disembodied "souls", nor would that suggest "spiritual worlds". That is a giant leap. It would be more reasonable to assume there is just more to the world than we can detect with our senses, other forms of life.

And even, hypothetically, were one to accept that leap, this would not be evidence of any deities.

 

[shunyadragon]

You used the word falsification wrong, it is not a synonym for proven or confirmed. Quite the opposite really.

If science was to confirm the existence of ghosts, it would through falsification by scientific methods. Scientific methods are not capable of proving anything.

With that said, were the phenomenon to be proven or confirmed, it still would not prove that they were disembodied "souls", nor would that suggest "spiritual worlds". That is a giant leap. It would be more reasonable to assume there is just more to the world than we can detect with our senses, other forms of life.

I would consider the existence of disembodied "souls" would evidence of a "spiritual world" beyond our physical world.

And even, hypothetically, were one to accept that leap, this would not be evidence of any deities.

I did not describe it as leap.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No difference between atheist and atheistic. Atheistic is simply an adjective for atheism. It is your problem with the English language.

From: atheistic definition - Google Search
atheistic - adjective

1. disbelieving or lackinɡ belief in the existence of God.
   "the leaders of scientific thought are overwhelmingly atheistic in their beliefs"

There is no problem at all in my English. The fault lies with you. Or you could demonstrate that I am wrong. What science invokes the existence of a god or gods for its work? Physics never does, it is atheistic in practice. So is chemistry, biology, geology ... What sciences are theistic in any way at all?

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no problem at all in my English. The fault lies with you. Or you could demonstrate that I am wrong. What science invokes the existence of a god or gods for its work? Physics never does, it is atheistic in practice. So is chemistry, biology, geology ... What sciences are theistic in any way at all?

Your wrong by the definition of atheistic as provided, and you have failed to respond to this definition constructively.

My description of the relationship of science with the many diverse religious beliefs as neutral, and firmly based on methodological naturalism, which cannot falsify one way or another, therefore it is not atheistic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your wrong by the definition of atheistic as provided, and you have failed to respond to this definition constructively.

My description of the relationship of science with the many diverse religious beliefs as neutral, and firmly based on methodological naturalism, which cannot falsify one way or another, therefore it is not atheistic.

No, you gave the definition of "atheist". Atheistic is an adjective. I responded constructively, I corrected your error. It is rather obvious that you have a problem with a word that you do not like.

Here this may help:

adjective: a word belonging to one of the major form classes in any of numerous languages and typically serving as a modifier of a noun to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else

• The word red in "the red car" is an adjective.

The noun being modified is "science". By calling it atheistic one is pointing out that no gods are appealed to or referred to in the sciences. You could have responded positively by finding a science where gods are referred to or appealed to. You could not. You confirmed by claim by your inaction.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

If science was to confirm the existence of ghosts, it would through falsification by scientific methods. Scientific methods are not capable of proving anything.

No...just no. That's not how science works at all, and that isn't what the word falsification even means. Let me explain how it does work.

Let's assume the phenomenon people describe as 'ghosts' are real for a second, hypothetically speaking.

The phenomenon(that people have described as ghost or demons or otherworldly beings) could be confirmed through experimentation used to build a body of testable and repeatable evidence, as well as other sorts of evidence. (Such as photographic or circumstantial)

Now you interpret the evidence as best you can, and try to build a narrative. (The phenomenon we are witnessing is actually dead people)You narrative is your hypothesis; If you can honestly fit all the evidence together in a way that fits your narrative(through rigorous experimentation), you can begin to build a theory. A good theory can make predictions(if what we know so far is true ghosts should be more likely to appear under X set of circumstances, or should be receptive to X type of light or spectrum of sound or whatever) and if these predictions come true the theory is strengthened.

And this is where falsification comes in. Say someone else discovers one day that these are not dead people or ghosts, but something else entirely. Say a type of alien or some sort of creature that exists in a physical sense but is really hard to detect. He builds a device that allows communication with them, and we know for sure they aren't dead people. Now your ghost theory has been falsified.

Falsifiable means that it can be refuted or disproven. All science must be falsifiable, or it's useless. The longer a theory goes WITHOUT being falsified, the stronger it gets. Take evolution theory for instance. All it would take to throw it out the window would be one crocoduck, or to find human fossils in a lower strata of the same area than a Trex.

I would consider the existence of disembodied "souls" would evidence of a "spiritual world" beyond our physical world.

You would first have to establish a phenomenon before you could hypothesize that said phenomenon was "souls", let alone further conclude a "spiritual world"

I did not describe it as leap.

Not intentionally, perhaps.

 

[shunyadragon]

No...just no. That's not how science works at all, and that isn't what the word falsification even means. Let me explain how it does work.

Let's assume the phenomenon people describe as 'ghosts' are real for a second, hypothetically speaking.

The phenomenon(that people have described as ghost or demons or otherworldly beings) could be confirmed through experimentation used to build a body of testable and repeatable evidence, as well as other sorts of evidence. (Such as photographic or circumstantial)

Now you interpret the evidence as best you can, and try to build a narrative. (The phenomenon we are witnessing is actually dead people)You narrative is your hypothesis; If you can honestly fit all the evidence together in a way that fits your narrative(through rigorous experimentation), you can begin to build a theory. A good theory can make predictions(if what we know so far is true ghosts should be more likely to appear under X set of circumstances, or should be receptive to X type of light or spectrum of sound or whatever) and if these predictions come true the theory is strengthened.

And this is where falsification comes in. Say someone else discovers one day that these are not dead people or ghosts, but something else entirely. Say a type of alien or some sort of creature that exists in a physical sense but is really hard to detect. He builds a device that allows communication with them, and we know for sure they aren't dead people. Now your ghost theory has been falsified.

Falsifiable means that it can be refuted or disproven. All science must be falsifiable, or it's useless. The longer a theory goes WITHOUT being falsified, the stronger it gets. Take evolution theory for instance. All it would take to throw it out the window would be one crocoduck, or to find human fossils in a lower strata of the same area than a Trex.

From: https://explorable.com/falsifiability
First: Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle. Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.

Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.

Second: Propose the hypothesis is that ghosts, disembodied souls. exist.

Third: Research and test the evidence that 'ghosts,' 'souls,' or disembodied spirits exist.

You would first have to establish a phenomenon before you could hypothesize that said phenomenon was "souls", let alone further conclude a "spiritual world"

I never said that the hypothesis the existence of 'ghosts' disembodied souls was testable. We disagree on the implications of being able to falsify a hypothesis the 'ghosts' disembodied souls' exist, and we will have to leave it at that. I do believe that IF the existence of 'ghosts' or 'disembodied souls or spirits' has been determined to exist by scientific methods it represents a 'spiritual world' beyond our world, which would be possible evidence for the existence of spiritual worlds where God or Gods are.

I do not believe that the hypothesis is likely falsifiable, nor any for the existence of anything spiritual beyond our physical world.

 

[viole]

Ghosts or spirits remain in the realm of the supernatural. I didn't believe in them except for the Holy Ghost, even though I believe in the supernatural, but now I'm not so sure. If science can prove there are no ghosts, then I suppose the atheists and their scientists have some disproof of God and the supernatural.

The weirdest one I've encountered is the ghost at Stanley Hotel. It was the hotel made famous by The Shining.

Stanley Hotel where The Shining was shot

I do not have an explanation for this. Of course, the atheists won't believe because it's the supernatural. Christians believe in angels and demons, but there's argument over ghosts. One can clearly see a figure of a woman and child once they blow up the embedded photo. I'm beginning to think the photographer wasn't out just to make money for himself. We have unrelated expert people and companies who have examined the photos. Any altered or Photoshopped images would have been discovered.

'Ghosts' Caught On Camera At Famed Stanley Hotel In Colorado | HuffPost

From earlier this year
Paranormal investigator sees something else in Stanley Hotel picture

Wow. Ghosts seem to absorb or reflect photons. And they seem to be subject to the laws of gravitation. And look at that ghost walking the stairs. It does not just go through the floor, so they also seem to sensitive to electronic repulsion. They are just fuzzy enough to be identified as ghosts, so they must be ghosts.

A miracle!

Ciao

- viole