Can Science Prove There Are No Ghosts

[Subduction Zone]

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

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Close but not quite right., At least for most atheists. Most atheists do not believe in a god simply because there is no reliable evidence for a god. Do you believe in fairies? I don't. No reliable evidence has been found to date that supports the existence of fairies.

Do you see where I am going with that argument?

 

[Altfish]

"Can Science Prove There Are No Ghosts?"

No, it is the same as proving no gods, it can say that they are highly unlikely but conclusively prove...NO

 

[oldbadger]

View attachment 19682 View attachment 19681 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.

Yesterday I offered a simple statement account about 'orbs' around a the loved ones of a dear departed.
I offered photographic evidence, with dates and timres of events. I held back several other pictures, some because they show a grandchild's features and others because I didn't want to overload the post.

If any would like to question the pics or the account, here I am........... go for it.....

You see, when a simple statement with some scientific evidence is offered, it's not so easy to debunk as some 'scientists' might think.

 

[shunyadragon]

Close but not quite right., At least for most atheists. Most atheists do not believe in a god simply because there is no reliable evidence for a god. Do you believe in fairies? I don't. No reliable evidence has been found to date that supports the existence of fairies.

Do you see where I am going with that argument?

Well I do not see that there is much difference, except I define the evidence required, objective verifiable evidence, by atheists. I also differentiated Ontological Naturalism, materialism, from Methodological Naturalism. This is very important, because many theists conflate the two in arguments against science, and equate atheism with science, particularly the science of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I do not see that there is much difference, except I define the evidence required, objective verifiable evidence, by atheists. I also differentiated Ontological Naturalism, materialism, from Methodological Naturalism. This is very important, because many theists conflate the two in arguments against science, and equate atheism with science, particularly the science of evolution.

You are correct about many theists conflating evolution with atheism.. The other points are somewhat debatable. For example atheists would accept supernatural evidence, if it was reliable. I do not know of any reliable supernatural evidence at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yesterday I offered a simple statement account about 'orbs' around a the loved ones of a dear departed.
I offered photographic evidence, with dates and timres of events. I held back several other pictures, some because they show a grandchild's features and others because I didn't want to overload the post.

If any would like to question the pics or the account, here I am........... go for it.....

You see, when a simple statement with some scientific evidence is offered, it's not so easy to debunk as some 'scientists' might think.

'Simple statements of some scientific evidence?' is insufficient. Photos in and of themselves does not qualify as scientific evidence, because they can be, highly interpretive (what is the actual nature of the image), altered, and do not offer the repeatable predictability of objective observations required by science.

Note: The increased sophistication of photo technology makes photos questionable unless taken under controlled and monitored scientific procedures.

 

[David T]

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.

Thank you for exposing the underlying nonsense of atheism, both inadvertently, and totally unaware of it, all at the same time. That's some cool magic right there. I can't point to it, because you have no developmental capacity to see it , so it doesn't exist for you. I see what you don't see and it has nothing to do with belief. what I have said is old, just shadow on the cave walls is all you see. Evolution moves extremely slowly as the hermit crabs change shells generation after generation staring at each others shells.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for exposing the underlying nonsense of atheism, both inadvertently, and totally unaware of it, all at the same time. That's some cool magic right there. I can't point to it, because you have no developmental capacity to see it , so it doesn't exist for you. I see what you don't see and it has nothing to do with belief. what I have said is old, just shadow on the cave walls is all you see. Evolution moves extremely slowly as the hermit crabs change shells generation after generation staring at each others shells.

Th
There was no nonsense there. There was no magic. You keep forgetting that you are the one that believes in magic. And please, don't try to claim that others are of diminished mental capacity.

The reason that you can't point to any flaw in that reasoning is because there is not any. We actually have evidence that supports what we accept. You have no evidence. You, in all odds, probably do not even understand the simple concept of evidence.

 

[oldbadger]

'Simple statements of some scientific evidence?' is insufficient.

..... which is why exhibits have been offered, and more to follow.... You do understand what an exhibit is?

Photos in and of themselves does not qualify as scientific evidence,

.....which is why Courts accepot them as evidence all the time...

because they can be, highly interpretive (what is the actual nature of the image),

................ which is why an explanation has been offered for each image, with time and date of exposure and more info offered...

altered,

Which is why thumbnail information is stripped from alktered JPEGs...... you just don't know this stuff, do you?

and do not offer the repeatable predictability of objective observations required by science.

If you think you are a scientist, then use your knowledge, apply your knowledge, to explain away the offered images, and you can have one more here, and more to follow.

Note: The increased sophistication of photo technology makes photos questionable unless taken under controlled and monitored scientific procedures.

Nah nah....... if you are a scientist, then close examination of the photos offered as evidence will show, can show, that it would have been impossible to alter the images.
JPEG information is stripped from edited images.

I used to take photographic images for court cases. From what you have said I know that you have no forensic experience with photos.

Sony UB-30. JPEG DSC0467 21.34 hrs, Jan 26th 2005
two orbs visible either side of same cat.

Now use some science to support or challenge the evidence exhibited.

 

[Apologes]

No. Their existence is left to philosophical inquiry.

 

[oldbadger]

No. Their existence is left to philosophical inquiry.

Just so........ Forensic Science can disprove bad evidence, but it cannot disprove strong evidence.

Here, again, yet one picture of the cat that my mother loved dearly, taken after her death. The orb can be clearly seen, and the JPEG information which shows when the cursor is placed over the thumbnail shows that not one single pixel has been edited.

DSC00553 12.45hrs GMT 5th Feb 2005. 333KB
Res: 1632 x 1224 Sony UB-30 2mp camera.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Sorry for late reply. Ghosts seem to not want to be made public so until they do I would say no.

 

[ajarntham]

They have to start somewhere.

If "they" are "atheists who are out to prove the non-existence of the supernatural by tackling one case at a time, starting with ghosts and working their way through vampires, zombies, etc., until they ultimately get to God," then I'm quite certain "they" don't exist.

 

[shunyadragon]

All wrong. You are so badly misinformed.

Actually he is right on!!! You are the one pursuing an extreme religious agenda that includes a corruption of science for selfish purposes.

 

[james bond]

If "they" are "atheists who are out to prove the non-existence of the supernatural by tackling one case at a time, starting with ghosts and working their way through vampires, zombies, etc., until they ultimately get to God," then I'm quite certain "they" don't exist.

It's not like a hierarchy where one has to work their way up from lesser supernatural beings. To disprove Jesus Christ and Christianity, one just has to show the Resurrection never took place on Earth. We know vampires, zombies and other undead do not exist because of the case-by-case basis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not like a hierarchy where one has to work their way up from lesser supernatural beings. To disprove Jesus Christ and Christianity, one just has to show the Resurrection never took place on Earth. We know vampires, zombies and other undead do not exist because of the case-by-case basis.

Actually that is a shifting of the burden of proof. Those that do not believe in the resurrection do not have to disprove it. Christians need to find valid evidence for it. And that is totally lacking when one looks at the story seriously.

 

[james bond]

Actually he is right on!!! You are the one pursuing an extreme religious agenda that includes a corruption of science for selfish purposes.

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.

 

[james bond]

Actually that is a shifting of the burden of proof. Those that do not believe in the resurrection do not have to disprove it. Christians need to find valid evidence for it. And that is totally lacking when one looks at the story seriously.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Not evidence for your myth. What makes you think that is of any value at all? Just because you found an empty tomb does not mean that it was the tomb of Jesus. In fact there is no reason that that tomb could not have been used again. Even if the Jesus story was true one might find an empty tomb that was not Jesus's and an occupied tomb that actually belonged to him.

All you are doing is clutching at straws because you have nothing.