It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To all who believe in ghosts.. Let me put this myth to rest!

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
this is a joke. there can be 100 people who come in here with legitimate ghost encounters and it won't make any difference to this guy. and his "but, it's impossible" "theory" isn't going to convince the people out there like myself and all the others here who have had legitimate experiences. he took a physics course and to him it proved the existence of ghosts are impossible. when instead he should be questioning whether or not the scientific knowledge he has attained is actually the most current and whether or not it's really that infallible. to me he's just like the people screaming about how the earth is the center of the universe, not knowing they'll be eventually proved wrong. the method of thought he uses is very archaic.

some times people won't entertain the possibility of something until it looks them right in the eye and that's just sad. not to mention extremely close minded.... oh well



edit on 12-3-2014 by CallmeRaskolnikov because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
We just love grinding stupid threads down into the dust don't we.

The premise of this thread has no scientific basis whatsoever.

There could be up to 12 or more dimensions, multiple universes, unknown subatomic particles. Theoretical physics has possible explanations for ghosts. They could be energy escaping or leaking from another dimension. Science does not say it is all impossible. In fact it says it is possible.

How many other dimensions are there? How many other universes are there? How do they interact with each other? Is it possible to shift matter and energy into different dimensions or universes? Can different forms of matter and energy exist in other dimensions?

To assume we know everything which is possible is an incorrect and illogical assumption.
edit on 12-3-2014 by JimTSpock because: spelling



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by KonstantinaValentina
 



Paranormal, Supernatural, Magic; these things cannot be argued with because they exist outside any framework of reason and are only limited by the imagination of whomever is telling a story about their encounter with anything such.


Couldnt have said it better.The word Paranornal is defined as NOT SCIENTIFICALLY EXPLAINABLE. And he is looking for a scientiic explaination. You cant win a fight that you already lost.
edit on CDT10America/Chicagoth2014Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:32:22 -05002014-03-12T10:32:22-05:00America/ChicagoWed, 12 Mar 2014 10:32:22 -0500America/Chicago by golden23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

br0ker
If a ghost should be able to move things, manifest itself to be viewed, or make sounds then it HAS to be a physical entity. A non-physical entity can not, in ANY way MOVE physical things.

Um ... no. Energy can move things. Spooks are energy.
I've seen a few. I've experienced a few. Spooks. Dead people. Entities.
They are real. You are wrong.

br0ker
Ok then, explain to me how a ghost can move a door...

Energy.

You sound like the people 1000 years ago who said germs didn't exist because they couldn't see them.

edit on 3/12/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by br0ker
 


FlyersFan is correct t'is nought but energy ... the body may die and rot away but the spirit is energy and energy is infinite.

As someone trying to put themselves across as a scientific thinking sceptic in your OP surely you must know this ? You seem to be missing the difference between physical things and energetic things ... it's an easy mistake to make.

But I would be really interested to hear your absolute proof that 'ghosts' absolutely DO NOT exist ... after all to make such unwavering claims as those made by yourself in your OP you must have something of substance to back your points up ... mustn't you ?

If you can't back-up and/or prove the points you claimed then said points are no more than a 'personal opinion' ... and one without any validity.

I look forward to your reply and the links you can provide to substantiate what you have claimed ... should be a good read.

Woody )O(



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


Well, sure.. There could be some unexplainable barely physical being that you might wrongly define as a ghost. But I'm writing about the general dead people staying in houses, terrorising newcomers, touching them/things and communicating.

I see how you're wandering off the subject of traditional ghosts. Which is what this thread is actually about.

edit on 12-3-2014 by br0ker because: Def



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
To everyone that is COMPLETELY an utterly wandering from the OP to explain their experiences.... I give you... The definition of a GHOST:

1. the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   

br0ker
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


Well, sure.. There could be some unexplainable barely physical being that is a ghost.


This sounds like someone back-peddling at speed lol



But I'm writing about the general dead people staying in houses, terrorising newcomers, touching them/things and communicating.


No ! This is not what you said in your OP (maybe you should re-read your own words) ... you actually made your OP sound like a clear sweep of the board as far as any kind of ghost/spirit activity was concerned.



I see how you're wandering off the subject of traditional ghosts. Which is what this thread is actually about.


The only person 'wandering of the subject' of your OP sweetie ... is you !



Woody )O(



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   

golden23
reply to post by KonstantinaValentina
 



Paranormal, Supernatural, Magic; these things cannot be argued with because they exist outside any framework of reason and are only limited by the imagination of whomever is telling a story about their encounter with anything such.


Couldnt have said it better.The word Paranornal is defined as NOT SCIENTIFICALLY EXPLAINABLE. And he is looking for a scientiic explaination. You cant win a fight that you already lost.
edit on CDT10America/Chicagoth2014Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:32:22 -05002014-03-12T10:32:22-05:00America/ChicagoWed, 12 Mar 2014 10:32:22 -0500America/Chicago by golden23 because: (no reason given)


No, this thread is about ghosts specific..

Definition: 1. the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.

As for energy: how is it bound? if not it would escape and maybe take a different form. Spirit is energy one guy says, omg, nobody even knows if you have a spirit. Let alone what it is if you actually had one.
Energy is created by what you eat, stop eating and you will die because of LACK of energy!



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Its up to the individuals.

If you seen one, then you believe in it then you are a boooliever in ghost.

If you have not seen it then the ghost does not exist.


The word "fact" should not be used in either sides.


I for one have not seen any ghost since i was 7. I guess the ghost are scared of my older self.
edit on 3/12/2014 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

br0ker
To everyone that is COMPLETELY an utterly wandering from the OP to explain their experiences.... I give you... The definition of a GHOST:

1. the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.


That definition is a bit misleading - not all "traditional" (What defines a traditional ghost - the kind in horror films?) ghosts meet that criteria.

Here's a couple different definitions, for those interested (with sources)

1. merriam-webster

the soul of a dead person thought of as living in an unseen world or as appearing to living people

2. Britannica
ghost, soul or spectre of a dead person, usually believed to inhabit the netherworld and to be capable of returning in some form to the world of the living. According to descriptions or depictions provided by believers, a ghost may appear as a living being or as a nebulous likeness of the deceased or, occasionally, in other forms. Belief in ghosts is based on the ancient notion that a human spirit is separable from the body and may maintain its existence after the body’s death. In many societies, funeral rituals are believed to prevent the ghost from haunting the living.


By the definitions I've posted, all of the stories in your thread meet the requirements. I've only copied the basic snippets, click on the URLs for the full read. Where's the part about terrorizing people and trying to communicate with them? Now I'm confused.

-fossilera



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
If I saw or experienced a 'ghost', I'd like to hold a conversation with it. I'd like to know why it was here, what it thinks it's doing, where it goes, who it was, what memories it has, etc etc etc. I don't understand why these reported ghost experiences have ended up with people fleeing and not trying to establish a form of communication. If ghosts are dead people, why would they not communicate the same way as they did when they were alive?

Maybe it's the word 'ghost' that I have difficulty with. I'm open minded to a lot of things, I don't know what consciousness is, whether it resides in the brain or whether the brain is somehow a receiver of consciousness. But the whole 'ghost' thing does my head in. It's been packaged up, commercialised and compartmentalised and become synonymous with Hollywood films, reported personal experiences and allsorts. I have no time for those assumptions. The experiences may be valid but those experiences end up in a book with other like-minded experiences and are summarised with stupid explanations that end up becoming the norm.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by br0ker
 



No, this thread is about ghosts specific..



Yea i know. ghosts can be said to be "paranormal" or "supernatural". As the person replied to in my last post said:

They go outide the laws of reason
edit on CDT01America/Chicagoth2014Wed, 12 Mar 2014 13:38:30 -05002014-03-12T13:38:30-05:00America/ChicagoWed, 12 Mar 2014 13:38:30 -0500America/Chicago by golden23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

br0ker
As for energy: how is it bound? if not it would escape and maybe take a different form.

What are you talking about? Energy ... all energy ... has it's own boundary point.
It doesn't have to be contained in something mundane or earthy. It can be free moving.

Spirit is energy one guy says,

I"m that 'one guy' ... and I'm not a guy, I"m a woman.

omg, nobody even knows if you have a spirit.

Um .. yes we do. I know for a fact. Ask anyone who has had a near death experience or who has encountered ghosts or spirits of the dead. (hint - that'd be ME). Yes .. I have a soul. So do you.

Energy is created by what you eat, stop eating and you will die because of LACK of energy!

The body runs on organic energy. The soul does not. It has it's own energy/own energy source.

Sorry dude, but you are flailing here ...



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


He seems to have little to no experience with the Paranormal/Supernatural



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Audiokat
If I saw or experienced a 'ghost', I'd like to hold a conversation with it.

I actually did once. When I lived in Japan. We had a conversation with a person who pretty much disappeared in front of us. It wasn't until that point that we realized we had spoken to a ghost. It was in the middle of an old Japanese cemetery in Kamakura. And it was an old Japanese fella who we heard speaking to us in perfect English. I heard a New England accent (where I"m from), my one friend heard a Georgia accent (where she's from), and my other friend heard him speaking in a Mid-West accent (where she's from). It wasn't until he disappeared that we started comparing what had happened that we figured it all out.



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Cathcart

br0ker
My proof is math. Energy, time, mass and movement. Remove mass, and you have none of the others.


And what makes you think ghosts have no mass?


And why does time need mass?



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

CallmeRaskolnikov
this is a joke. there can be 100 people who come in here with legitimate ghost encounters and it won't make any difference to this guy. and his "but, it's impossible" "theory" isn't going to convince the people out there like myself and all the others here


No, it's not a joke. The problem with 100 people who come on here with "legitimate ghost encounters" is that they are anecdotal and don't prove much. All they can say is that they have had an experience that they interpret to have been a ghost. It could just as well have come from their own mind and be a part of subjective reality, not objective reality.

I'll give you an example. My mother was somewhat "psychic" and related to me a number of experiences she had had over the years. When my aunt (her sister) died I had this feeling she may have seen something, so I asked her . She told me that "Sister" had come to her in a dream and said, "I just thought I would say goodbye." Now to my mother and me at the time this was clear "evidence for survival," but unfortunately it was full of holes.

First, you may have noticed my leading question to my mother. I prompted her to "remember" a specific event, or at least one that was close enough. Secondly, we both knew "Sister" was ill and probably close to death. Is it any wonder that my mother dreamed of her? I've often had dreams that reflected my thoughts during the day. In retrospect this event was NOT evidence of survival at all, any more than someone seeing "a ghost" has any grounding in reality either. It may be evidence that's "good enough" for you, but it really isn't good enough to form a general theory. It's too anecdotal.

Now I hope my overall attitude is sufficiently apparent with my opening and subsequent posts. I'm not against the idea at all. OP is a strict materialist. Nothing else in his world view CAN exist, therefore EVERYTHING must, in his world, manifest as some sort of material object. The idea that it might not is IMPOSSIBLE, therefore it CANNOT possibly exist. Frankly, I think his materialist stance is superficial and that he shows no evidence of even understanding the nuances of the issues. He's more or less like the proverbial believer that you must accept Jesus as your Savior or face eternity in hell. It's really the same sort of fundamentalist belief structure that "accepts no substitutes" and is blindly adherent to a religious belief. Now OP would claim he isn't religious, but scientific. In that he errs. If he had a greater breadth of experience, he would know that a whole lot of scientists who believe in the Scientific Method are VERY open to the possibilities we're discussing, especially those conversant in Quantum Mechanics. Psychologists? Not so much, but there's some question as to whether psychologists are very good scientists. After all, an M.A. in psychology is a Master of ARTS, and it is largely psychologists who are in the forefront of this debate on the materialist side. They've got a lot to prove and they can't be caught dead being "unscientific" when many traditional scientists think they aren't anyway.

But "WE" (and I mean you and me) have a very big problem, and that is that we lack a systematic theory that shows how all this can happen. How is the Universe structured that would allow an "Other Side" to exist and our consciousness to survive THIS side to get there? We're pretty good at explaining the mechanistic side of our reality, but when we try to explain the survival of consciousness we kind of fall apart. We need not only to formulate a workable theory. It must be mathematically sound, even unassailable. It must explain the observations we have. We must be able to conduct reproducible experiments based on it. It must be completely consistent with the rest of scientific observation and theory. Ideally, we need to construct and demonstrate an infallible communications device that can "tune in" those who have gone before us who, for those interested, must have additional information for us.

And so far, at least, our attempts have been met with abject failure. Yes, we can show how the materialists have really not adequately covered their positions. The Chris Carter books I detailed above are good examples of that. NDEs have NOT been explained by chemical reactions. Scientists have NOT located the location of memories in the brain. Scientists have NOT adequately explained ghosts, despite the OPs insistence that in the absence of a brain, they are impossible, which is really his only argument, which is entirely faulty. But showing the flaws in the materialists' arguments is not the same as floating a comprehensive theory of why the opposite is true. Proclaiming that this or that does or does not have "mass," which a lot of people have done in this thread, is entirely beside the point and proves nothing. That's not the issue anyway.

Now I do not pretend to know how to proceed. I can tell you that I know where it is we need to go, but I cannot tell you how to get there. My attempts, so far, have been met with failure. But this needs to be done if we are to get anywhere at all. It needs to be done from a SCIENTIFIC point of view and FOR science, or we're not going to get much further in our understanding of reality. THIS is the next big step for us to take.

edit on 3/12/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

schuyler

No, it's not a joke. The problem with 100 people who come on here with "legitimate ghost encounters" is that they are anecdotal and don't prove much. All they can say is that they have had an experience that they interpret to have been a ghost. It could just as well have come from their own mind and be a part of subjective reality, not objective reality.

I'll give you an example. My mother was somewhat "psychic" and related to me a number of experiences she had had over the years. When my aunt (her sister) died I had this feeling she may have seen something, so I asked her . She told me that "Sister" had come to her in a dream and said, "I just thought I would say goodbye." Now to my mother and me at the time this was clear "evidence for survival," but unfortunately it was full of holes.

First, you may have noticed my leading question to my mother. I prompted her to "remember" a specific event, or at least one that was close enough. Secondly, we both knew "Sister" was ill and probably close to death. Is it any wonder that my mother dreamed of her? I've often had dreams that reflected my thoughts during the day. In retrospect this event was NOT evidence of survival at all, any more than someone seeing "a ghost" has any grounding in reality either. It may be evidence that's "good enough" for you, but it really isn't good enough to form a general theory. It's too anecdotal.

Now I do not pretend to know how to proceed. I can tell you that I know where it is we need to go, but I cannot tell you how to get there. My attempts, so far, have been met with failure. But this needs to be done if we are to get anywhere at all. It needs to be done from a SCIENTIFIC point of view and FOR science, or we're not going to get much further in our understanding of reality. THIS is the next big step for us to take.
edit on 3/12/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


in my opinion it is not my responsibility nor the responsibility of anyone else who is an experiencer to figure out how the non-physical universe interacts and folds into the physical universe. after all that is not my field. i have a bs in audio/video engineering and have done years of study in chemistry and biology(more specifically pharmacology). as someone else previously mentioned we do not currently have the proper framework to make an equation for this=that. the physical universe doesn't seem subject to the same rules as the non-physical so it could very well be that we may never be able to define everything in concrete terms.

also not everyone's experiences are subject to "interpretation" as you said there are plenty of experiences that have only one interpretation. at that point you either admit to yourself that the world of the spirit is real or you put your head in the sand and come up with an explanation that does not accurately explain said events but uses physical science so that somehow makes it more plausible because it's more convenient and more "realistic".

plus there are plenty of cases that in my opinion provide overwhelming evidence of the existence of this spiritual world interacting with us. but, this evidence is not re-creatable in a lab environment by scientists so then "that isn't evidence" either. they are not all "subjective experiences" or "in peoples minds"

again ill use an analogy. a sailor back in the day could know from experience that the earth was not flat before that was common knowledge. is it his responsibility to then be able to scientifically prove to the world that the earth isn't flat? does the sailor have the proper scientific training and knowledge to be able to prove that without doubt to the scientific community back then? no. but, if he took an individual on a ship and sailed him around the globe, then that person would know from experience that the earth wasn't flat. and though that fact wasn't proved on paper with equations and in a lab setting using the scientific method it makes it no less of a fact, no less of a truth.

i don't have all the answers but, i know what i've seen and i know what i've experienced. not what i've "interpreted" and not what i've inferred but, what i "know" from multiple different experiences
edit on 12-3-2014 by CallmeRaskolnikov because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2014 by CallmeRaskolnikov because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2014 by CallmeRaskolnikov because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2014 by CallmeRaskolnikov because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2014 by CallmeRaskolnikov because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-3-2014 by CallmeRaskolnikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

KonstantinaValentina
reply to post by br0ker
 


Hello.

The thing you are missing is that it's Supernatural.
Supernatural can do anything.
You can't argue with Supernatural because Supernatural is outside the laws of reason.
It's the same thing with religion.
It's also near the same thing with people that believe in Alien visitation.

Paranormal, Supernatural, Magic; these things cannot be argued with because they exist outside any framework of reason and are only limited by the imagination of whomever is telling a story about their encounter with anything such.



There is no such thing as supernatural. There is only the known and the unknown. Just because we may not be able to explain something adequately doesn't mean it is "supernatural", it just currently eludes our current understanding of physics.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join