Can Science Prove There Are No Ghosts

[james bond]

Why so? A disproof of the existence of ghosts would not be a disproof of the existence of all supernatural beings. Plenty of people believe that God exists but that ghosts don't. (And some believe the opposite, for that matter.)

They have to start somewhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All wrong. You are so badly misinformed.

Nope, you are projecting your flaws upon others.

You would be hard pressed to find a creation "scientist" that has not openly removed himself from the ranks of scientists. You probably do not realize this, but to honestly call oneself a scientist one must follow the scientific method. Creationists all to often foolishly state that they will not follow the scientific method removing themselves from the ranks of scientists.

 

[james bond]

Nope, you are projecting your flaws upon others.

You would be hard pressed to find a creation "scientist" that has not openly removed himself from the ranks of scientists. You probably do not realize this, but to honestly call oneself a scientist one must follow the scientific method. Creationists all to often foolishly state that they will not follow the scientific method removing themselves from the ranks of scientists.

My flaws? I was talking about the Stanley Ghost and you're turning this into creation vs atheism. Aren't you the one messed up? Stay on the topic or get out. If someone debunks the ghost, then it's more of an argument for the atheists as disproof. (Read Joe Nickell's blog. He's a paranormal investigator who used to leave religion alone, but he sold out). Already, I'm getting, well, it's not disproof of God and other supernatural beings from the believers, which is true.

Why would a creation scientist want to lose his/her job? There are plenty of anecdotal evidence of them being in the closet, so to speak.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My flaws? I was talking about the Stanley Ghost and you're turning this into creation vs atheism. Aren't you the one messed up? Stay on the topic or get out. If someone debunks the ghost, then it's more of an argument for the atheists as disproof. (Read Joe Nickell's blog. He's a paranormal investigator who used to leave religion alone, but he sold out). Already, I'm getting, well, it's not disproof of God and other supernatural beings from the believers, which is true.

Why would a creation scientist want to lose his/her job? There are plenty of anecdotal evidence of them being in the closet, so to speak.

You brought up "creation scientists" not me. I merely corrected you on that point. Earlier you made this claim:

"Ah, but getting to the root involves a fight because the creation scientists are disregarded as not being scientific. "

When you make an error and someone corrects you that is staying on topic. And you do not seem to understand how science works. No one needs to debunk the claims of a believer. The burden of proof is always upon the person making a positive assertion. The correct response when someone makes an unsubstantiated claim is to point out the lack of substantiation and then perhaps to state there is no more reason to believe the claim of ghosts (as in this example) than there is reason to believe in fairies.

So do you have anything besides pseudoscience to support your beliefs in ghosts?

 

[oldbadger]

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.............

I'm guessing that you do believe in spirits, unclean spirits, demons etc because Jesus spoke of them.

Also the gospels reported that a spirit decended after his baptism, and another thrust him out into the wilderness afterwards.

Without spirits, the word 'spiritual' can't have much meaning. And by the way, some atheists are superstitious, some believe in ghosts etc, so just about anybody can believe in them.

 

[james bond]

You brought up "creation scientists" not me. I merely corrected you on that point. Earlier you made this claim:

"Ah, but getting to the root involves a fight because the creation scientists are disregarded as not being scientific. "

When you make an error and someone corrects you that is staying on topic. And you do not seem to understand how science works. No one needs to debunk the claims of a believer. The burden of proof is always upon the person making a positive assertion. The correct response when someone makes an unsubstantiated claim is to point out the lack of substantiation and then perhaps to state there is no more reason to believe the claim of ghosts (as in this example) than there is reason to believe in fairies.

So do you have anything besides pseudoscience to support your beliefs in ghosts?

I've met the burden here while you've been opining. You have no evidence to contradict the Stanley Ghost in several posts, so I'll assume that it's 1 point for the supernatural believers.

Again, I've stated that I do not believe in human ghosts, but supernatural entities such as angels and demons may be construed as ghosts.

I won't get into pseudoscience because the eternal universe which favored atheists greatly has been rendered as such for several decades now. Since you brought it up, isn't atheist science the one that is usually rendered as pseudoscience? I won't claim that creation scientists have always been right. They've made some mistakes, too, but not the big one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've met the burden here while you've been opining. You have no evidence to contradict the Stanley Ghost in several posts, so I'll assume that it's 1 point for the supernatural believers.

Again, I've stated that I do not believe in human ghosts, but supernatural entities such as angels and demons may be construed as ghosts.

I won't get into pseudoscience because the eternal universe which favored atheists greatly has been rendered as such for several decades now. Since you brought it up, isn't atheist science the one that is usually rendered as pseudoscience? I won't claim that creation scientists have always been right. They've made some mistakes, too, but not the big one.

No, you haven't. There is no need to refute that which has not been supported properly.

There is no "atheist science". That is a rather strange term. Though all science is atheistic. There are no theories that involve a god or gods in any way at all. Once again you appear to be projecting your flaws upon others.

Just for kicks I will take a look at your supposed evidence. I doubt if you have any.

 

[james bond]

I'm guessing that you do believe in spirits, unclean spirits, demons etc because Jesus spoke of them.

Also the gospels reported that a spirit decended after his baptism, and another thrust him out into the wilderness afterwards.

Without spirits, the word 'spiritual' can't have much meaning. And by the way, some atheists are superstitious, some believe in ghosts etc, so just about anybody can believe in them.

I believe in demons, angels and humans possessing a spirit. My angel is Raphael . They can be considered supernatural. Is the mind a spirit? In the US, we only consider the brain to be real. However, when one dies, the spirit is taken away.

As for superstition, isn't that what believing in human ghosts means?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, I scanned this entire thread and did not see one iota of evidence submitted for the supposed ghosts. Anecdotes are not evidence.

 

[james bond]

No, you haven't. There is no need to refute that which has not been supported properly.

There is no "atheist science". That is a rather strange term. Though all science is atheistic. There are no theories that involve a god or gods in any way at all. Once again you appear to be projecting your flaws upon others.

Just for kicks I will take a look at your supposed evidence. I doubt if you have any.

Ho hum. Not all science is atheistic. There is creation science or real science while atheist science is wrong or fake science.

Not only that, you just shown you're a liar to everyone here. Of course, there are atheist scientists and atheist science, but they do not want to admit that. They do not want to admit their atheism is a religion and that they're biased. They do not want to show others that being funded is of utmost importance to them, but I can't fault them for that.

 

[james bond]

Okay, I scanned this entire thread and did not see one iota of evidence submitted for the supposed ghosts. Anecdotes are not evidence.

Anecdotes by witnesses are evidence. Not only that, the photographer has photos that were shown to be undoctored. That's enough to get you expelled from office by your enemies in practically every country in the world.

 

[oldbadger]

Here we go......... I am offering some evidence for spiritual presences. My Mother died many years ago. (11/2003).
When she visited us she would sit in our lounge and play with our persian cat, which she was absolutely crazy about, and as soon as she arrived the cat would be straight up to her for affection and play time.
She also loved her grandson to distraction, whom she saw less often.
After my Mother died a strange thing started to occur. If I photographed either our cat or our grandson in the lounge, orbs would be floating around the cat, and absolutely whizzing around the grandchild.
On the 4th February 2005 at 17.53hrs I took the picture of our cat as shown.
On the 27th March 2005 at 16.32 hrs I took the other photo, a poor picture, but I kept it because my grandson was standing just to the left of the cat (and the photo) when taken. I could show you photos of my grandson with the same orbs racing everywhere but don't want to show his features, OK?
Now, if either pic was photo-edited, the thumbnail info would be stripped away to only three lines of info, but these photos tell me the camera I used and other info, which I could not give if I had messed with the pics.

Ready? Oh! It popped up above.
Here comes the one where my grandson is just off pic...... that is now the first picture in my post.
I can give you any more info if you ask for it.

 

[oldbadger]

I believe in demons, angels and humans possessing a spirit. My angel is Raphael . They can be considered supernatural. Is the mind a spirit? In the US, we only consider the brain to be real. However, when one dies, the spirit is taken away.

As for superstition, isn't that what believing in human ghosts means?

Also it can be about healing, fortune telling, mediums etc.
Please see my pics of orbs below.
If you want more, I got more, none of them tampered with at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ho hum. Not all science is atheistic. There is creation science or real science while atheist science is wrong or fake science.

Not only that, you just shown you're a liar to everyone here. Of course, there are atheist scientists and atheist science, but they do not want to admit that. They do not want to admit their atheism is a religion and that they're biased. They do not want to show others that being funded is of utmost importance to them, but I can't fault them for that.

Nope, creation science is not "science". I can demonstrate that fact. And there is no "atheist science". There is just science. It appears that you do not understand what science is.

You also are not reasoning logically. Just because a concept is discovered by an atheist does not make it "atheist science". It is merely science since most atheists follow the scientific method.


Please note, I do not lie. I do not have to. The evidence is on my side. Creationists have to lie sooner or later to keep their beliefs alive.

You may not be lying. The odds are that you do not know enough to be guilty of that sin. But the so called "creation scientists" that you may eventually name would have to be liars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anecdotes by witnesses are evidence. Not only that, the photographer has photos that were shown to be undoctored. That's enough to get you expelled from office by your enemies in practically every country in the world.

Sorry but they are not reliable witnesses. And since anecdotes are quite often contradictory that makes them not evidence. If you want to claim that a picture is evidence you need to shown that the various mundane explanations are wrong or do not apply. Since you are far from being an expert in the filed I doubt if you can do that.

Observations must be repeatable to be "science". If you have a one time event that is the weakest evidence possible.

 

[David T]

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

They are mathematical echoes in the laws of physics driven by a quantum fluxuations in the multiverse. Where you don't die in all alternate realities!!!! I love cosmology its a playground for science fiction?!!!!!!

 

[David T]

The problem with the question is two fold: First, science cannot falsify the negative. Second, science does not "prove" a hypothesis such as the claim that ghosts exist.

nicely put.

 

[David T]

Nope, creation science is not "science". I can demonstrate that fact. And there is no "atheist science". There is just science. It appears that you do not understand what science is.

You also are not reasoning logically. Just because a concept is discovered by an atheist does not make it "atheist science". It is merely science since most atheists follow the scientific method.


Please note, I do not lie. I do not have to. The evidence is on my side. Creationists have to lie sooner or later to keep their beliefs alive.

You may not be lying. The odds are that you do not know enough to be guilty of that sin. But the so called "creation scientists" that you may eventually name would have to be liars.

Atheism and science have no relationship at all. Atheist Is not science or nor is it remotely scientific at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

Atheism and science have no relationship at all. Atheist Is not science or nor is it remotely scientific at all.

Correct atheism requires a philosophical assumption Ontological Naturalism that no other worlds, including the worlds of God(s), exist beyond our physical existence. Methodological Naturalism, which requires falsifiable objective verifiable evidence, and will not, nor cannot falsify the existence nor non-existence of God.

 

[David T]

Correct atheism requires a philosophical assumption Ontological Naturalism that no other worlds, including the worlds of God(s), exist beyond our physical existence. Methodological Naturalism, which requires falsifiable objective verifiable evidence, and will not, nor cannot falsify the existence nor non-existence of God.

Thank you, once again, very well put as usual. Shunydragon. Does anyone even pay attention to these very clear statements of yours? I read and go "yea, right on anyone else reading Shunydragon here AT ALL"
I know I am difficult to understand but we are not talking, car engines, sports, politics money, here either. I am for an accedemic label, as a kind compass, Kierkegaardian, and Jungian. I am not sure many here are even are aware who kierkegaard or Jung are. That sucks, because that's like talking about quantum mechanics and not even knowing Hiesenberg, Pauli, Derac, and Bohrs.