*What's the different from a ghost or spirit?
*Can't you call a ghost a spirit?
*But you wouldn't want to call a spirit a ghost because spirits' can leave the earth plane level but a ghost is considered earth bound right?
More imaginary concepts, Kimberly. You can't define what doesn't exist.
But they do exist. At least I'm certain of it.
Apparitions and other ghostly phenomena have been reported by some very reputable people, yet still people choose to say that the mere idea is fanciful.
I'm not saying that all reports are to be believed, but there are a few that defy logic or rational explanation, which to me, shows that their existence is possible and should not be dismissed.
You're certain? How is it that you can be certain?
That would be the argument from authority fallacy. As well, people "reporting" they see this and they see that has no validity or credibility without some hard evidence.
No, it doesn't show their existence to be possible, it only shows that people make wacky claims to things that can't possibly exist.
You said it yourself, but you failed to distinguish what you might consider what is logical or rational in regards to those claims. Is it okay to violate one physical law but not another? How is that logical or rational?
You have to be pretty closed minded to continue on denying things that have been documented and reported for centuries. Not everything can be explained. It is as simple as that.
It is safer to 'pretend' that everybody is illogical, naive, or ignorant to believe certain things that science can't explain away.
It is silly to continue to want to stay popular with people in general by being safe minded and staying in a square box of mentality. By continually denying thousands upon thousands of documented cases.
If your dead aunt comes to you and tells you something in a dream state. Maybe that she loves you etc.. Are you safer to believe that it was just a silly dream?
Would you rather believe when you die you are no longer going to exist? If you don't believe in the human soul I feel sorry for you because I seen mine when I was five years old. And I have had countless psychic experiences. Big deal huh?! But it made me more spiritual and aware. Along with able to help loved ones and many others lift the veil to see the future in some cases to put lightly. That is no joke even if you may think so.
How about intuition, premonition, second site, mediumistic abilities, psychic detectives. Something is going on there. Even if some of it can be explained not all of it can be. That is proven fact.
Some people prefer to deny what they can't see because fear creeps in at the mere possibility of 'what if' scenario.
You are entitled to remain closed off but at least do some serious research on it before you make a diffident conclusion. At least for your own self. You have intuition, dreams that come true too, gut feelings that produce results, etc..
How could you deny it all when the proof is before you in countless ways! By your own experiences alone! You know things before they happen sometimes don't you?! You get that feeling and it happens. Open up your mind and have faith in a higher power and your own spiritual self/ spirit body that will exist after your death.
Exactly, but the problem arises when the gullible begin attaching fairy tale conclusions to the unexplained. This is the essence of the closed mind.
It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with being gullible pretending those things exist.
No, there are no documented cases, there are thousands of empty claims. Do you believe because you want to be popular?
Uh, my aunt would be dead, so it would have to be a dream. Again, this has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the gullible believing in these things.
And there we have it, the need to believe in those things as opposed to what is real and what isn't. You want to believe in them and that is the bottom line.
Yeah, sure you have.
I wouldn't call it a joke. It isn't funny when the gullible are so entrenched in their fantasies that they are unable to think.
Uh no, it's all hogwash.
There is no fear attached to this, no matter how much you want to come with excuses and strawmen arguments that do not support your argument.
I seriously doubt I'm going to waste my time looking into that nonsense at any great length. I understand they violate physical laws and haven't a shred of evidence for support. They are just empty claims of the gullible.
Of course not, no one does. What the gullible refuse to acknowledge or even realize is that there are hits and misses to "predicting" the future. They focus entirely on the hits and ignore the misses.
Sorry, but the reality of the world with it's mountains of sustainable and consistent evidence of the physical laws supersedes anything I want to believe and what you want to believe. That kind of faith is blind to reality.
They're just names for the same thing. Some people prefer 'astral beings.' What ever you call them, the idea of them is a bit like marmite.
Thank you. I believe so, but that they are only different by means one has set self limitations by remaining earth bound. The other is able to go to the spirit world. Some spirit beings are able to come back and forth from the earth plane level to the spirit world freely. Ghosts don't do that.
I agree. Ghost and spirits are one in the same.
Ghost come in very different forms with different names.
Spirit, spectre, ghost, phantom etc.
Spirit is a word used to describe the soul of a person. If someone is mean-spirited, it means that that meanness goes right to the core.
A ghost is usually regarded as the visual manifestation of the spirit of someone who has died.
A spectre is usually a ghost, but one that can be frightening.
A phantom is something that has no physical reality, but is seen, heard or simply sensed.
The differences may seem minor, but are quite substantial when defining ghosts.
I thought a ghost was a spirit of the dead person that has not gone to the light. So it is a specific kind of spirit.
They are both terms that have been assigned to phenomena that has not yet been explained. Any definition is imaginary.
an apparition of a dead person that is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image : the building is haunted by the ghost of a monk | figurative the ghosts of communism returned to haunt the living.
• [as adj. ] appearing or manifesting but not actually existing : the Flying Dutchman is the most famous ghost ship.
• a faint trace of something : she gave the ghost of a smile.
• archaic a spirit or soul.
• a faint secondary image produced by a fault in an optical system or on a cathode-ray screen, e.g., by faulty television reception or internal reflection in a mirror or camera.
1 the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of emotions and character; the soul : we seek a harmony between body and spirit.
• such a part regarded as a person's true self and as capable of surviving physical death or separation : a year after he left, his spirit is still present.
• such a part manifested as an apparition after their death; a ghost.
• a supernatural being : shrines to nature spirits.
I'm sorry Beelzedad, but the more you blather, the less I can see any strength in your arguments.
I am assuming that you feel the same about God and His or Her existence as you do about ghosts. I personally don't believe in the 'one supreme being' thing, but that's my choice. I would never try to tell someone who does that they're wrong.
I have had enough personal experiences that convenience of coincidence no longer cuts it and I have been required to change my thoughts on the subject. I don't outrightly believe that every claim of ghostly phenomena has to be the truth, but I am prepared to believe that there are what we can only define as paranormal forces out there.
Whilst I and others on this thread evidently feel the same; that we have proof of these forces, it is apparently not enough for you--which is fair enough.
What is not welcomed, is the fact that your only defence appears to be to belittle the beliefs of the rest of us by the simple expedient of being contrary and rude.
Oh yeah, I really enjoyed my experience of being pinned to my bed, barely able to breath while the apparition in my room stood before me and I went through all that to gain a little popularity--but with whom?
No Beelzedad, it is my opinion that you've said enough and I for one would prefer that unless you have something that is not defamatory or directed as a personal attack on another user on this thread, you should perhaps just simply view us as a lost cause and go annoy someone else.
That is true that the gullible consider any rational discussion, blather. That's one of the reasons they believe what they believe.
I understand anything that violates physical laws without a shred of evidence is bunkum.
Yes, I understand that you are prepared to believe in one thing and not another, despite the fact that both violate physical laws.
No, you have no proof. No one does.
That isn't true and you know it.
Who knows? Here maybe?
I'm sorry that you feel the need to fabricate those things in an attempt to support your argument. And, if you can't point out exactly where I've personally attacked someone, I think you should provide an apology.
Why don't you two call a truce??? Neither will convince the other, you are both wasting your time and getting each other angry to no purpose.
This happens all the time with religious or spiritual topics. People just can't have a sane, amicable discussion or agree to disagree. Maybe both sides feel too strongly to have an adult perspective on these topics.
I'm not angry at all.
But, it does seem like Nick B is upset about something, is trying to censor me and claims I'm personally attacking others.
Did I call someone fat, or stupid or some other personal insult? Show me where I did that and I'd be happy to retract it and apologize. No problem.
I think, getting back to the original question, that a ghost may be a psychic imprint of a person who has passed on in distressing or unfinished circumstances...they haven't left the earth completely, though their human, mortal bodies are now gone...
I think maybe a spirit might never have had a human, mortal body to begin with.
Scientifically speaking, some apparitions seem to be recordings of emotional energy long since passed. In theory, they can fade in time.
Else, there's also spirits who interact with the living as if they are a conscious being. So..I think it depends on whether or not such entity responds.
Sorry, but that is not "scientifically speaking" considering scientists have never found evidence for "emotional energy long since passed"
Ahh, you fail.
It's okay, it'll be explained to you in the future. Look around, my friend.
It has been scientifically explained.
Yet, another one who makes claims and then tells you to go off and confirm them yourself without offering any explanations.
No, I'm not going off without explanation.
Here's a question: Why do police sometimes hire psychics?
Why did/do military around the world train psychic spies?
And since this is obviously successful in certain situations, more than just a matter of coincidence, what is it if it's not scientifically proven, then?
Unfortunately, science is still a product of man. So some men have imagination that leads them to understand the whole nature of the omniverse better.
Others are stuck down in three dimensions.
That's not an explanation, that's a strawman argument. Military training psychic spies? LOL! Good one.
Sorry, it has not been shown to be successful. You'll find ample statistics and studies revealing psychics were either useless, a detriment or not used at all.
"The purpose of this study was to examine the use of psychics by criminal justice agencies in the state of Oklahoma. Not surprisingly, responses from 49 agencies suggest that vast majority of respondents had never used a psychic in any investigation. Among those agencies that HAD used a psychic, most had found the information unhelpful and less accurate than other sources. "
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_a … index.html
Will those be your closing statements to your argument? I still see no explanation.
"Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science, but that the bar of evidence needs to be much higher for outlandish claims that will revolutionize the world, and thus he remains unconvinced:
"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (...) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence." Richard Wiseman Daily Mail, January 28, 2008, pp 28–29 "
See, we're going to run into a loop here. And this is okay.
Thank you for polite discourse.
While many refer to these subjects as psuedoscience, the research has been carried throughout the years by Germans, Soviets, Americans, and beyond. It's also doing well being trained to others in a private-ran business sort-of-way.
While you state psychics are often fraudulent or of no use, the fact remains psychics have been used numerous times by police and the information contained therein did indeed help the case, often in a profound way.
In relation to the CRV manual, and the military debunking the practice as piffle.....think of it this way: if you were China and knew that we could walk through your walls with pretty decent accuracy over time, what would you think?
While I can't say I've positive proof, there are some Drug War arrests, for example, I need to find again....they have been cited as being the product of remote viewed intelligence.
At any rate, I s'pose this is a topic that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on; I'm a bit biased for I dabble in this sort of stuff as a hobby.
So I guess I'll save my best evidence for the day when I e-mail and ask permission to remote view a location of your choosing.
Everything in this world is collapsible waves of probability.
The cat is neither dead nor alive, until you decide how you wish to understand reality.
But enough of my psuedophilosophical mutterings.
I'm working on a rather large YT upload, so I need to conserve bandwidth. Hopefully we'll discuss this in depth more later.
I don't agree that remote viewing has been proven at all, by him or anyone else. In fact, his Twitter remote viewing experiment was not an experiment conducted using the scientific method and led to erroneous conclusions. He claimed his experiment harnessed "the wisdom of crowds" when there wasn't any information to process and aggregate. I think this guy is somewhat of a fraud based on this rather clueless experiment.
Research that has led to nothing. Whatever training is being provided in private run businesses is pure bunkum, fleecing the gullible.
Yet, the statistics and reports from police departments say otherwise. Those are the facts.
Walking through walls? You can't be serious.
Not likely. But, you're free to produce them here.
Sure, have a look in my house and tell me what you see? If I've already posted something here, that wouldn't count. Feel free to remote view.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the claims of the paranormal, but perhaps you'll help me understand.
Hi lxxy, have you "remote viewed" into my house yet? What did you see exactly?
Beelzedad, I promise the day I die to go find you and spook the ---- out of you!!! We'll make a BELIEVA outta ya! Hahaha... I'm just playing with you...
Listen, everyone is entitled to have their opinion and be heard. The world would be a very boring place if everyone would agree on everything. Good luck, brother!
I couldn't agree with you more, that everyone is entitled to their opinions, despite the fact their opinions may very well change the universe from what it is to what they want it to be.
Well, that's part of human nature. We' ve been "changing the universe from what it is to what we want it to be" forever. That's just the way it is. And thank goodness we've had people in the past who have envisioned the world differently. Otherwise, we would still be living in caves, making fire using rocks and sticks. Just imagine... a world without hubpages! lol
give me links!!! I will not believe anything unless you provide a reliable internet source for your beliefs.
The CRV training manual, developed by the US Military
Ever seen the movie the Men who Stare at Goats?
...like it says, while it's a bit silly, there's more fact than people are willing to understand in the film.
There's also a bunch of books. I've wrote a hub on this subject, just to put that out there--"Where Few Minds Have Gone Before"
Sorry, I was soo joking and was actually going to mention men who stare at goats. I loevd that movie. My husband was in the army and actually met people who did remote viewing.
I just find it odd that people are so quick to dismiss something simply becuase they have never seen it, yet as long as you put a link...it must be true.
The same goes with any media, my dear.
Pictures, video, news, radio...in this day and age, where all it takes is a few mouse clicks to dramatically alter any captured reality, the truth is getting grayer everyday.
yet people will believe the news over me, saying I saw something. Oh well.
Did you read the fine print at the bottom:
"This web site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Defense Intelligence Agency"
Youtube videos and Hollywood movies are not evidence. Sorry.
I'm still waiting for some evidence and an explanation.
My apologies to all for upsetting anyone and will attempt in future not to let someone who obviously has little respect for the views of others upset me.
Beelzedad called those with any interest in this particular field 'gullible', which insinuates that we have been led by the opinions of others and yet, my opinions come from my own experiences, not from second hand information provided by others.
He also goes on to say that the only reason that we believe in this is to make ourselves more popular. I have not found that my experience or admission to believing in the possibility that yes, certain things in this world do stand outside of the laws of physics as we know them, has made me more popular.
It certainly hasn't done me any favours here, has it?
I meant no disrespect, but felt that if the only argument that this person could use was to continually describe me and others as 'gullible'; that we are merely attention seeking, deserved to be asked to desist.
Once again, I apologise.
I too thoroughly enjoyed Men Who Stare at Goats and agree, there is far more truth in that film then would first meet the eye.
you forgot crazy.
You know what you have lived, and its frustrating to have people who haven't seen anything unexplainable, say that since they didn't see it..it isn't real.
Remember how the world used to be flat?
Ohh! I remember when the earth was flat. Damn, I lost so many balls....they rolled off into oblivion.
Anyway, I did get a bit curt with Beelzedad, but it's best to deflect an onslaught of accusation.
Or try to prove your point.
He may be back, or maybe he gave up.
And besides, what do I know anyway?
I'm just a time traveling alien.
The fact that people jump to conclusions when they can't readily explain something is far more frustrating.
Gullible is not a personal insult. It means easily deceived or tricked which is the correct term used for those who believe in such things.
No, I didn't, that is what I asked of Kimberley for clarification when she mentioned it. Please read the posts above to see that.
Some do use their irrational beliefs for seeking attention, I have no idea if you do or not. It is irrelevant to this argument. Your personal experiences could be explained with any one of many alternative terrestrial explanations that you don't seem to have included but instead jumped to conclusion of the paranormal, just like a gullible person would do.
by AKA Winston5 years ago
The Scottish philosopher David Hume turned religion on its head with this reasoned and well-expressed thought on the miraculous:"That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of...
by Elena4 years ago
Not everybody believes in ghosts, but most everybody has had an experience with a ghost.What's your ghost experience?
by Danny R Hand6 years ago
Does any body besides me see the connection to physical laws and God.
by manofmystery243 years ago
Believer or Skeptic, please write why.
by Beelzedad6 years ago
I can't and I don't think anyone else can, yet many believe they can. Why is it that they believe they can fly, when it's quite impossible?In other words, many claim things that violate the physical laws of the...
by dogluver16 years ago
I do believe, but do not worship. what about you guys? ~dogluver1
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.