Frank Goad
Well-Known Member
What do you think poltergeists are?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do you think poltergeists are?
"Poltergeist" is from the mid 19th century: from German Poltergeist, from poltern ‘create a disturbance’ + Geist ‘ghost’. (Google search)
Since these "spirits" (geists) are not former humans, but demon spirits who want to cause fear and trembling among humans, spiritism is not something we want to mess around with. The activity of these "spirits can range from childlike mischief (making unexplained noises) to downright maliciousness, influencing humans to carry out unconscionable acts of cruelty. The activities of these spirits are spoken about in scripture....and we are warned to steer clear of them. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12)
That was a letdown.....What do you think poltergeists are?
Going by this definition... a ghost or other supernatural being supposedly responsible for physical disturbances such as loud noises and objects thrown around.What do you think poltergeists are?
I've just raised my right hand, so that settles that…Just wondering what you or others think. Is it possible to move objects with the mind, do you think?
Then you must not have muscles or nerves. Are you a bot? Then that disqualifies you.I've just raised my right hand, so that settles that…
I have no opinion. Not something Hindus concern themselves with.What do you think poltergeists are?
He gave a valid answer to your question. If you had a more specific mechanism in mind when you asked, you should have specified it.Then you must not have muscles or nerves. Are you a bot? Then that disqualifies you.
What do you think poltergeists are?
Oh..? Looking back at my question, it seems clear, but I should probably have taken into consideration how different we think.He gave a valid answer to your question. If you had a more specific mechanism in mind when you asked, you should have specified it.
I think he was too but he made a valid point all the same. All too often, these kinds of “supernatural” phenomena are talked about in very casual, generic and fuzzy ways and yet there are people making definitive assertions about ideas being real (sometimes with practical consequences). In a lot of cases this seems to be quite deliberate – they know they can’t back up their claims with facts but don’t want to admit that they’d like them accepted on faith.Oh..? Looking back at my question, it seems clear, but I should probably have taken into consideration how different we think.
I really thought David was just playing, but...
I agree, but someone who does understand could investigate your observations and work out the why (and how). Until they do, you only have the observations. In the context of telekinesis, “objects moving without any apparent cause” would be the observation. Telekinesis could be part of the why.I want to submit that not everyone claiming to know how do something genuinely know they can. It's like science. I can mix up something, not knowing why I mixed it, and not knowing why I got the result. I'll leave that there.
What do you think poltergeists are?
Like I said, I thought David was just playing. I do that sometimes myself.I think he was too but he made a valid point all the same. All too often, these kinds of “supernatural” phenomena are talked about in very casual, generic and fuzzy ways and yet there are people making definitive assertions about ideas being real (sometimes with practical consequences). In a lot of cases this seems to be quite deliberate – they know they can’t back up their claims with facts but don’t want to admit that they’d like them accepted on faith.
In any other field, a claim of something entirely new and unusual existing requires a lot more detail and significant direct evidence to support proposing that specific explanation. Essentially it’s the observation and hypothesis steps in the scientific process and while we not talking formal scientific presentation here, there needs to be at least some structure and detail to the claims.
The thing claims for telekinesis always seem to be missing is any kind of hypothesis (let alone any evidence for it) of exactly how whatever energy exists in the brain/mind is converted to the kinetic energy we know causes physical movement. Ironically, David propose such a mechanism – brain signals trigger muscles and muscles turn chemical energy into kinetic energy. A serious claim that telekinesis exists requires at least a proposed alternative explanation for that process. I can’t answer your question of whether telekinesis is possible without at some kind of development of the idea in that direction.
I agree, but someone who does understand could investigate your observations and work out the why (and how). Until they do, you only have the observations. In the context of telekinesis, “objects moving without any apparent cause” would be the observation. Telekinesis could be part of the why.