Assuming you don't mean blurry photos, old houses going bump in the night, and anecdotes from impressionable people who are scared of the dark, there's pretty much no reason at all...
I despair sometimes
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
All of which can be chalked up to alcohol, drugs and brain damage.
Err, no.
The general accepted premise is that psychics do not exist. It would be your job, as a believer, to prove the actual existence.
There is no need for anyone to actually disprove something which has never actually been proven.
LOL - you don't have to disprove that which has never been proven.
Show me how or prove to me how many if not all of the Oliver Lodge videos and After Life chronicles material fits the criteria of proof you have stated above? By the way the question is rhetorical because I know you can't.
That would depend upon the definitive statements being made...if you are making a definitive statement saying Ghosts/Spirits do not exist, then the obligation is on you to support that statement...equally the opposite is also true. While you do not have to disprove the other, you are obligated to prove the validity of the truth value of such a definitive position.
Just because you cannot prove something is not evidence of existence, no more than just because you cannot prove something is evidence of its non-existence.
It's alright to simply say 'I don't know, but I do not believe' or vice versa.
Thank you for pointing that out, I often find that rhetorical questions are better received when the individual posing them points it out, just to signpost that they have no intention of objectively looking at evidence contrary to their opinion. In a similar vein to clarity you afforded me, I'd just like to point out that yes, I am openly mocking you.
I'm not a believer but when my uncle passed away my cousin saw one randomly who did her thing at no cost as she was just at the same spa. What came back was incredible, none of the vague stuff, specifics about my grandmother and her 7 stillborns which was something I never knew about. A load of other stuff about my uncle emigrating from the particular town in Italy where he was born and many other things that she simply could not have known, things which I didn't even know and don't get spoken about in my family.
I'm still not and won't be a firm believer but what was read out was absolutely incredible and I've buried it as one of those things I'll never understand.
I'm still not and won't be a firm believer but what was read out was absolutely incredible and I've buried it as one of those things I'll never understand.
Last edited:
Its called cold reading, the person is giving information without realising it. Watch the Derren Brown video
The only person you are mocking is yourself. The examples I gave are objective which is more than can be said for the wide sweeping generalisation you gave. Consequentially you should never use the word "all" in your statement. Have a nice day.
Last edited:
I'm not a believer or a disbeliever, I have not seen proof either way, i'm simply open minded on the subject, I would love to hear proof one way or another. The generally accepted premise used to be that the world was flat did it not? Did that not need proving wrong?
Given that only 12% of the world are not religious (according to wikipedia, and I would like to point out i'm not religious in any way) does that mean that the generally accepted premise is that god exists in some form and that therefore you believe in god as we have no need to disprove that theory?.
If we never tried to disprove the generally accepted premise we'd all still be sat in caves.
I do however think that if there was any element of truth in any of this Psychic stuff there would be a scientific explanation for it.
Yeah... Quantum Mechanics would disagree with you there. But, you know, that's just provable physics. So, nothing major really.
While I agree on that level.
Responsibility lies with people willing to part money or change their life in response to these claims to ensure they are valid, the burden of proof does sit with those who make the claims - coupled with the fact that many of the claims have been proven to be false (many are testable).
If any of these supernatural concepts did have value & weight - then there is no reason why they of all things would not stand up to basic experimentation setup to remove bias & error - even if we couldn't understand it, we could see it work - but for the supernatural we don't have this.
God concepts on the other hand, don't assert anything which is testable or can be tested - which makes it more rational (in my view) than other supernatural beliefs.
The statement you took offense to was, somewhat unsurprisingly, a tongue in cheek comment rather than a suggestion that all paranormal experiences are the result of substance abuse or brain damage.
As to this Oliver Lodge thing you're on about, I can't seem to find it in the thread, so I'm given to assume it's the kind of garbage I have to waste time looking for only to be predictably disappointed when I see it.
You what, mate? You'll have to cite your sources methinks
No no no, that's not how it works. "I shan't discuss it if you don't already agree with me" is not going to lend you any credibility at all, I'm afraid.
Why not share some of your experiences and why you've come to the conclusions you have.
I don't believe in ghosts btw. But don't let that stop you from explaining why you *do*.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,659
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Lysander - I'd love to live in his mind for 10 minutes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,290
- Location
- Woking
OK, well for people who want me to disprove the existence of ghosts, you need to define what a ghost is. What I believe it to be is an apparition which gives life to the soul of a dead person.
The human brain operates using blood and chemical and electrical signals. When one dies, the heart stop, blood stops pumping to the brain, the brain can no longer operate and the chemical and electrical signals consequently stop.
At this point, the human body is dead, and the "soul" (when I say this, I mean the personality of the person, which what a define a soul as) also ceases to exist.
A ghost is an apparition of a soul; the soul no longer lives, ergo ghosts do not exist.
Furthermore, because the soul has died, there is no longer a way to contact the person, therefore psychics are full of ****.
The human brain operates using blood and chemical and electrical signals. When one dies, the heart stop, blood stops pumping to the brain, the brain can no longer operate and the chemical and electrical signals consequently stop.
At this point, the human body is dead, and the "soul" (when I say this, I mean the personality of the person, which what a define a soul as) also ceases to exist.
A ghost is an apparition of a soul; the soul no longer lives, ergo ghosts do not exist.
Furthermore, because the soul has died, there is no longer a way to contact the person, therefore psychics are full of ****.
Given that the most common and largely universal definition of the Soul is the incorporeal, immortal essence of an individual, I would say you have significant issues with your logical assumptions there Dirtychinchilla, let alone it being a validated proof that Ghost do not exist in the definitive. .
You cannot determine the existence or non existence of the Human Soul ergo you cannot determine whether the incorporeal Soul is able to survive the death of the corporeal body ergo you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of Ghosts...if we make the assumption that Ghosts are the extant manifestation of human souls.