Do you believe in ghosts ?

[Spirit of Light]

Thank you.
It's fairly short, and can be read in less than fifteen to twenty minutes, but I would prefer if you took your time, and incorporate the scriptural texts.... and take longer.
Also, try to remember the experience you get before, during, and after reading it. I would like to hear.
Here it is.
Hopefully I will hear from you tomorrow. .

To answer all that i found in the link you gave me, i will need more time. I have to say there is a lot i see differently then what this articles are saying

I hope i can get back to you as soon as possible, but wow i know i have some work in front of me to answer here

 

[Tiberius]

Well, I see it like this:

You seemed to call stories here as anecdote and superstition.

But if we listen to no anecdote and superstition, how can we avoid dismissing your post as anecdote and superstition?

It's not superstition or anecdote to point out that a particular argument is based on superstition or anecdote.

I'm pointing out that if there was a person who had reasonable evidence for ghosts, they would have presented it. This can be answered by showing that such evidence has been presented (in which case I will re-evaluate my position on the existence of ghosts), or by explaining why such a person would not present the evidence (although I can't think of a reason that could possibly be given that would still demonstrate that such evidence exists, even if it hasn't been presented. Of course, I am always open to being shown wrong, so if there is such a reason, I'd certainly like to know what it is).

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It's not anecdote. I'm pointing out that if there was a person who had reasonable evidence for ghosts, they would have presented it. This can be answered by showing that such evidence has been presented (in which case I will re-evaluate my position on the existence of ghosts), or by explaining why such a person would not present the evidence (although I can't think of a reason that could possibly be given that would still demonstrate that such evidence exists, even if it hasn't been presented. Of course, I am always open to being shown wrong, so if there is such a reason, I'd certainly like to know what it is).

The evidence is the number of stories. There are lots of stories out there. I realize abductive reasoning is a weak form of argument, but it's better than nothing. A more plausible post from the other side might be to say "I reject the overwhelming number of stories because..." and then explain, as well as if they can, actually post negative proofs.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It's not superstition or anecdote to point out that a particular argument is based on superstition or anecdote.

I'm pointing out that if there was a person who had reasonable evidence for ghosts, they would have presented it. This can be answered by showing that such evidence has been presented (in which case I will re-evaluate my position on the existence of ghosts), or by explaining why such a person would not present the evidence (although I can't think of a reason that could possibly be given that would still demonstrate that such evidence exists, even if it hasn't been presented. Of course, I am always open to being shown wrong, so if there is such a reason, I'd certainly like to know what it is).

What kind of evidence is needed for you to maybe investigate a ghost story deeper?
I know many sceptics who want to understand and feel for them self the experience that can happen when someone come in contact with what we call ghosts

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm pointing out that if there was a person who had reasonable evidence for ghosts, they would have presented it.

Also:

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

 

[Mock Turtle]

The evidence is the number of stories. There are lots of stories out there. I realize abductive reasoning is a weak form of argument, but it's better than nothing. A more plausible post from the other side might be to say "I reject the overwhelming number of stories because..." and then explain, as well as if they can, actually post negative proofs.

You must know that this is just as much a fallacy as many others.

The notion often presented as being true is that because there are so many examples of any particular phenomena therefore it/they must exist, even if so many (perhaps the majority) are falsely identified as such or are fabrications. This applies to such things as sightings of ghosts, UFO sightings (tied to the existence of aliens), after-death experiences, and many others. But this is a fallacy. All can be untrue just as much as the majority can be untrue, and what people believe is irrelevant. Much like a religious belief supposedly being true because so many believe in such - and all the other religious beliefs are untrue. And much like religious beliefs, many will interpret their experiences differently (and often wrongly), given that there are so many different religious beliefs, and that we are all human with the problems that come with such - being prone to making errors in all sorts of ways. Apart from this of course, and which contributes to the issue, is the belief that one's own experiences are reliable, that how one interprets them is so also, and that such reinforces what others have to say concerning any experiences.

And all of the phenomena mentioned, and no doubt others, do have people who have interests in promoting their existence, and will do whatever is necessary to do so, but where those requiring proper evidence usually will not be so biased or have any particular agenda. For example, there may be aliens and they may visit but the evidence for such is not so as to make this obviously true, despite the amount of 'evidence' - it not being good enough. And a bit like the existence of God, for many.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You must know that this is just as much a fallacy as many others.

The notion often presented as being true is that because there are so many examples of any particular phenomena therefore it/they must exist, even if so many (perhaps the majority) are falsely identified as such or are fabrications. This applies to such things as sightings of ghosts, UFO sightings (tied to the existence of aliens), after-death experiences, and many others. But this is a fallacy. All can be untrue just as much as the majority can be untrue, and what people believe is irrelevant. Much like a religious belief supposedly being true because so many believe in such - and all the other religious beliefs are untrue. And much like religious beliefs, many will interpret their experiences differently (and often wrongly), given that there are so many different religious beliefs, and that we are all human with the problems that come with such - being prone to making errors in all sorts of ways. Apart from this of course, and which contributes to the issue, is the belief that one's own experiences are reliable, that how one interprets them is so also, and that such reinforces what others have to say concerning any experiences.

And all of the phenomena mentioned, and no doubt others, do have people who have interests in promoting their existence, and will do whatever is necessary to do so, but where those requiring proper evidence usually will not be so biased or have any particular agenda. For example, there may be aliens and they may visit but the evidence for such is not so as to make this obviously true, despite the amount of 'evidence' - it not being good enough. And a bit like the existence of God, for many.

I just want someone like you, who seems so sure about what is and what isn't going by your post, to tell me what counts as evidence and the exceptions. And you also have to be careful because if for example you say that you shouldn't blindly trust opinion, when I apply this advice to my life it means I also can't trust your opinion saying things are X or Y, unless you post outstanding evidence.

But as it is, I don't see your post as any more extraordinary than someone telling us about a ghost story. Neither does it have a whole lot of proof.

And you talked at lengths about how all religious things can't be true, but how each thing does or doesn't fit into a puzzle, is your own worldview - while in other's worldviews, it might all pretty much fit.

 

[stvdv]

Do you believe in ghosts ?

No. There's no reasonable evidence for them. Only anecdote and superstition.

That is not correct. Correct would be "You don't have reasonable evidence"

Well, if we assume that anybody who actually possessed such reasonable evidence would present it, and also given that nobody has ever actually presented such reasonable evidence, I think it's safe to say that such evidence doesn't exist.

Yes, I think that's a good way to go, to phrase it as your opinion starting with "I think"

 

[Mock Turtle]

I just want someone like you, who seems so sure about what is and what isn't going by your post, to tell me what counts as evidence and the exceptions. And you also have to be careful because if for example you say that you shouldn't blindly trust opinion, when I apply this advice to my life it means I also can't trust your opinion saying things are X or Y, unless you post outstanding evidence.

But as it is, I don't see your post as any more extraordinary than someone telling us about a ghost story. Neither does it have a whole lot of proof.

And you talked at lengths about how all religious things can't be true, but how each thing does or doesn't fit into a puzzle, is your own worldview - while in other's worldviews, it might all pretty much fit.

I know you don't. I don't expect it. And I'm not sure, but I am sure that many will deceive for all sorts of reasons, and I expect anything that tends to go outside the bounds of science to have a good basis - which unfortunately is not the case for those I cited. Hence, my mind is likely to remain open rather than grabbing on to that which I might want to believe. The fact is that there are plenty of explanations for much that we don't understand and perhaps some more that we haven't determined yet, but this hardly means we have to accept individual accounts or even mass accounts where the same phenomena is going on in their minds.

Regards any religious belief, I think I am a lot more open-minded than those who have fixated on one particular one - as being their 'truth'.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I know you don't. I don't expect it. And I'm not sure, but I am sure that many will deceive for all sorts of reasons, and I expect anything that tends to go outside the bounds of science to have a good basis - which unfortunately is not the case for those I cited. Hence, my mind is likely to remain open rather than grabbing on to that which I might want to believe. The fact is that there are plenty of explanations for much that we don't understand and perhaps some more that we haven't determined yet, but this hardly means we have to accept individual accounts or even mass accounts where the same phenomena is going on in their minds.

Regards any religious belief, I think I am a lot more open-minded than those who have fixated on one particular one - as being their 'truth'.

Really I just see it like this:

Side A, who believes in ghosts, went first. They presented a weak argument (I'm using debate terminology) but it was an argument. That they've experienced it themselves. The bulk of these arguments forms an abductive reasoning argument that does or does not compel the reader.

Side B, who doesn't believe in ghosts, wants to claim there's no evidence, when the burden of proof is now on them to present a stronger argument. Now I really don't think this should be done by attacking people's personal experiences here. But surely there would be some logic, critical thinking, etc material that can be presented to build an equal or stronger case for your side. But saying "there is no evidence" is showing a total lack of response, which isn't very persuasive or compelling.

 

[Tiberius]

The evidence is the number of stories. There are lots of stories out there. I realize abductive reasoning is a weak form of argument, but it's better than nothing. A more plausible post from the other side might be to say "I reject the overwhelming number of stories because..." and then explain, as well as if they can, actually post negative proofs.

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

What kind of evidence is needed for you to maybe investigate a ghost story deeper?

Something testable and verifiable. So something more than someone who got a funny feeling like they were being watched, or someone who thought they saw something out of the corner of their eye.

I know many sceptics who want to understand and feel for them self the experience that can happen when someone come in contact with what we call ghosts

What kind of phenomena do ghost believers claim is impossible to explain except by invoking ghosts?

 

[Tiberius]

Also:

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

So you say that I'm not qualified because I haven't examined all the evidence? Very well. If you feel like there is some evidence I have not examined that would change my mind about the existence of ghosts, please provide it, and I shall examine it.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Really I just see it like this:

Side A, who believes in ghosts, went first. They presented a weak argument (I'm using debate terminology) but it was an argument. That they've experienced it themselves. The bulk of these arguments forms an abductive reasoning argument that does or does not compel the reader.

Side B, who doesn't believe in ghosts, wants to claim there's no evidence, when the burden of proof is now on them to present a stronger argument. Now I really don't think this should be done by attacking people's personal experiences here. But surely there would be some logic, critical thinking, etc material that can be presented to build an equal or stronger case for your side. But saying "there is no evidence" is showing a total lack of response, which isn't very persuasive or compelling.

Well I'm sure a lot of us see - 'well I saw a ghost' - as, meh, that is just anecdotal, present some real evidence, as happens for most claims. Why is this any different than many others - like UFO sightings (where apparently sightings are going down despite the abundance of cameras on mobiles), but where many do believe in such. I'm indifferent to this but the physics doesn't enthuse me as to likely making me a believer, and such is the same with ghosts - show me a mechanism whereby this happens.

Lack of evidence is always a good reason to remain sceptical - even to the point of not understanding what one has experienced rather than assuming it was one particular thing. And as I mentioned, numbers alone just doesn't cut it when the same deception or delusion can occur in us all - because we are all human.

 

[Tiberius]

Do you believe in ghosts ?





Yes, I think that's a good way to go, to phrase it as your opinion starting with "I think"

As I have already asked, is there any good reason why someone with such evidence would not provide it?

 

[Tiberius]

Really I just see it like this:

Side A, who believes in ghosts, went first. They presented a weak argument (I'm using debate terminology) but it was an argument. That they've experienced it themselves. The bulk of these arguments forms an abductive reasoning argument that does or does not compel the reader.

Side B, who doesn't believe in ghosts, wants to claim there's no evidence, when the burden of proof is now on them to present a stronger argument. Now I really don't think this should be done by attacking people's personal experiences here. But surely there would be some logic, critical thinking, etc material that can be presented to build an equal or stronger case for your side. But saying "there is no evidence" is showing a total lack of response, which isn't very persuasive or compelling.

Yet Side A has not been able to provide any actual evidence. They've presented their own stories based upon their own subjective interpretation of what they believe they experienced. That's not evidence at all.

If Side A wants their evidence to be taken seriously, then that evidence needs to be something that can be checked and verified by others.

All Side B is doing is pointing out that Side A has only presented anecdote and subjective interpretation when they should be presenting objective facts.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Yet Side A has not been able to provide any actual evidence. They've presented their own stories based upon their own subjective interpretation of what they believe they experienced. That's not evidence at all.

If Side A wants their evidence to be taken seriously, then that evidence needs to be something that can be checked and verified by others.

All Side B is doing is pointing out that Side A has only presented anecdote and subjective interpretation when they should be presenting objective facts.

You know, I do agree with you and @Mock Turtle in some respects. I'd like to have an actual real debate of this subject some time. Formal debate. Unfortunately, this thread is a bit confusing - it's in the debate forum but looking back, is more like a thread in the Paranormal forum. It is confusing.

I'm also willing to kind of temporarily drop my whole "it's abductive reasoning" argument in pursuit of the truth going either direction.

 

[stvdv]

As I have already asked, is there any good reason why someone with such evidence would not provide it?

Yes, according to the Sages and Saints:
1) Science is below the mind; Spirituality is above the mind
2) In Silence the Voice of God can be heard

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

You know, I do agree with you and @Mock Turtle in some respects. I'd like to have an actual real debate of this subject some time. Formal debate. Unfortunately, this thread is a bit confusing - it's in the debate forum but looking back, is more like a thread in the Paranormal forum. It is confusing.

I think I did figure out the confusion. The thread is called:

"Do you believe in ghosts?"

Not:

"Are ghosts real?"

And at some point, maybe it's my fault, maybe it's not, we got into:

"Are ghosts real?"

 

[stvdv]

"Are ghosts real?"

Solve this one

Will

Solve this one

"Do you believe in ghosts?"